Loading...
2020-10-22 Special WE IDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, October 22, 2020 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Chairperson Ryan Fitzgerald Commissioner Bill Cassinelli Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Steven Yearsley ABSENT Commissioner Lisa Holland Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel ADOPTION OF AGENDA-Adopted CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] -Approved 1. Approve the Minutes of the October 15, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) by Riley Planning Services, Located at 710 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 4.71 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district (Medium- Low Density Residential) to the R-8 zoning district (Medium-Density Residential). B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 4.71 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Date Scheduled for November 24, 2020 3. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Prescott Ridge (H- 2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 126.53 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (18.17 acres), zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 buildable lots [316 single- family residential (94 attached &222 detached), 63 townhomes, 14 multi- family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school], 32 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.26 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Date Scheduled for December 1, 2020 4. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck&Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Date Scheduled for December 1, 2020 ADJOURNMENT - 10:41 p.m. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting October 22, 2020. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of October 22, 2020, was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald. Members Present: Chairman Ryan Fitzgerald, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Members Absent: Commissioner Lisa Holland and Commissioner McCarvel. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Lisa Holland Rhonda McCarvel X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli X Ryan Fitzgerald - Chairman Fitzgerald: So, at this time I would like to call to order the specially scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning meeting for the date of October 22nd and let's start with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Fitzgerald: Perfect. Thank you, Madam Clerk. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I do not have any changes. Can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as presented? Cassinelli: So moved. Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: Second. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 4 Page 2 of 82 CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve the Minutes of the October 15, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Fitzgerald: Next on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on the agenda, which is the minutes for the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on October 15th. Is there any reason to pull that Consent Agenda apart for further consideration or are we good to move forward with a motion on approval? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Seal: So moved. Cassinelli: So moved. Yearsley: Second. Fitzgerald: Have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: So, at this time I will explain the public hearing process for this evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with the staff recommendations. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have 15 minutes to make their presentation. After the applicant has finished with their opening testimony -- or we will open the floor to public testimony. There is an opportunity to sign up if you are in person. There is an iPad in the back of the room. If you are on Zoom hopefully you have signed up via electronic means on the -- on the website. If there is any individual here that is speaking on behalf of a larger group or an HOA, we will ask you to represent -- or to let us know who you are representing and we will give you additional time. We will give you ten minutes to speak on behalf of that HOA. If there is anyone that has that position let us know when you step up to the mic or online. We do have that virtual and in-person situation while we are managing through that pandemic, so we appreciate your patience as we work with any technical difficulties that come up. So, we will both take our information or our public testimony both via Zoom or in person and, Commissioner Seal, thanks for being there again this evening to give us guidance on who might be testifying in the room. After all testimony has been heard we will give the applicant an opportunity to come back and close and answer any questions that may have come up from the public. I will say if there is public testimony that is given you have one opportunity to give your testimony, you have got three minutes to do, so unless you are speaking on behalf of an HOA. Please use that time wisely. Give -- try not to reiterate things that have already been heard from -- or you have already heard from your -- maybe your Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 5 Page 3 of 82 neighbors. Please take that -- that three minutes time, because we will not have an opportunity to hear a second round of testimony from a single person. So, please, use that wisely and, again, after all testimony is heard we will let the applicant close and, then, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have a chance to deliberate. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) by Riley Planning Services, Located at 710 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 4.71 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district (Medium Low Density Residential) to the R-8 zoning district (Medium-Density Residential). B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 4.71 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Fitzgerald: So, with that we move to the first item on our agenda, which is the continued hearing for Horse Meadows, which is H-2020-0060, continued from September 17th, and I will turn it over to Joe and we will start with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. Good evening. All right. Here we go. So, as stated, this application was continued from the September 17th Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. The site consists of 4.71 acres of land, currently zoned R-4 and is located at the southeast corner of Black Cat and Pine. There is existing City of Meridian zoning directly to the west and north, with lower density residential to the west and, then, there is RUT county residential to the east and south as seen in the center picture. There is -- or there was, I should say, an annexation, a preliminary plat, final plat and a variance in 2006 regarding this parcel. The plat has since expired and, therefore, this applicant is proposing a preliminary plat with this rezone. So, the applications before you are a rezone to rezone the existing R-4 to R-8 and a preliminary plat consisting of 26 single family residential lots and four common lots on 4.71 acres. The gross density of the project is 5.52 acres -- or dwelling units per acre, which is in the middle of the allowed density for the future land use designation of medium density residential, which is three to eight dwelling units per acre. The average lot size within the development is around 4,100 square feet and the minimum lot size in the R-8 zone -- the requested R-8 zone is 4,000 square feet. Because the lots are so close to the minimum lot size and the look -- and with the look of this submitted elevations, staff was concerned with the proposed homes being able to fit on the lots. So, staff requested that the applicant provide an exhibit showing how these will fit on the lots. The applicant has provided that exhibit and it should be incorporated into the staff report following this meeting, meaning that I received this after I did my staff report and, therefore, they are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 6 Page 4 of 82 not in the staff report currently. As noted, the submitted elevations, combined with the proposed lot sizes, gave staff some pause. The sample elevations of the detached single family homes for this project show a combination of single and two story single family homes. The elevations also show different architectural elements and finish materials. Because the lot sizes and the submitted elevations, staff understands that these are conceptual, but the applicant will be tied to the overall design and look at these elevations, even if they are eventually smaller sizes. Because the subject site is less than five acres in size, the UDC minimum requirement of ten percent qualified open space and at least one site amenity is not required to be met. However, the applicant is requesting to rezone to a zoning district that allows higher density than the existing R-4. Therefore, staff finds it appropriate that usable open space and an amenity be provided. In response the applicant has proposed approximately 35,000 square feet of open space, which amounts to approximately 17 percent of the site. This open space consists mostly of the street buffers along the west and north boundaries of the site and also includes the common lot that holds the micro path and tot lot, which is the proposed amenity in the northeast corner of the site. However, it is staff's opinion that more usable open space should be made available within the site to accommodate those who cannot so easily walk to Fuller Park -- walk or bike to Fuller Park, which is almost a mile away by foot. In order to meet the purpose statement in the UDC 11-3-G and the subdivision regulations, the applicant should lose a buildable lot and convert it to open space. That is staff's recommendation to lose the center lot here and instead be a common open space lot, instead of a buildable lot. Access into this development is proposed via a new local street connection to Pine Avenue. All internal local streets within the proposed development are shown as 33 foot wide street sections with five foot attached sidewalks. The street section accommodates on-street parking where no driveways exist. Originally access was proposed to Black Cat by way of converting West Quarter Horse Lane, which is the ingress-egress -- existing ingress-egress easement along the southern boundary. However, ACHD denied that access, because the adjacent Pine Avenue is a lesser classified street and, therefore, access must be taken from Pine. The UDC also supports this requirement. West Quarter Horse Lane is currently an ingress-egress private access easement with four servient sites, including this site. Without the consent of all easement holders, the access must remain until the remainder of the property is annexed or redeveloped. Therefore, the easement will remain as a nonbuildable lot until such time that it can be included as part of a future development. As noted, staff has received an exhibit from the applicant for the Commission that demonstrates how this area of the property could redevelop with the required street frontage improvements and be incorporated into a future plat when the properties to the southeast redeveloped in the future. The applicant should relinquish their right of the use of said easement as part of the rezone request. Likely the remaining easement area is best suited for future right of way once properties to the southeast redevelop and direct vehicular access to Black Cat can be -- and direct vehicular access to Black Cat can be removed. In this exhibit it is showing the existing gravel road that will have to be maintained because of the easement and, then, the remaining area is slated to be natural vegetation and grass in order to accommodate green space and make this lot nonbuildable. The applicant is proposing to continue the frontage improvements to the edge of the gravel road, as they cannot cross the easement at this time. The two stub streets to the easement area are less than 150 feet, so no temporary turnarounds are Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission ❑ Item 1. October 22,2020 Page 5 of 82 required and there will be signage at the east end noting that these roads will be extended in the future. After submittal of this application the city did receive 20 pieces of testimony all in opposition of the application. The three main points -- or I guess three main points of opposition are regarding the increase of traffic on Black Cat and stating that at the time 27 lots were proposed, so 26 lots would add more traffic and only make it worse. Their issues with the proposed density in comparison to the R-4 lots nearby and I guess the county lots and, then, for some reason there is a number of them that had discussed that this was -- that they were against apartments and townhomes, which, frankly, I don't -- I don't know where that came up, because this was never proposed of that, so I just for the record want to say that these are all detached single family and there are no apartments or, quote, unquote, high density being proposed here. Staff does recommend approval of the rezoning and preliminary plat request, with the conditions noted in the staff report and I will stand for questions after that. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Joe. Appreciate that. Are there questions for staff? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Seal: Quick question on the gravel road there as far as the maintenance and care of that. Is that something that will land on the HOA to help maintain? Do they have to maintain their part of it or is that something that the -- the other residents that use that road will have to maintain in the future? Dodson: Commissioner Seal, Members of the Commission, because it's an existing private easement it will be on the -- all the servient sites will be taking care of that, not this site. Seal: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Joe at this time? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Joe, how -- in the -- in the previous approval on this how many lots were -- do you know? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, I meant to look at that today and I did not. It was R- 4, which is minimum lot sizes of 8,000 square feet, so it's going to be approximately half. So, I would assume ten to 12 lots. I apologize for not knowing that directly. Cassinelli: Okay. And maybe when the applicant gets up if they are aware of that they could share that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 8 Page 6 of 82 Fitzgerald: Any follow-up, Commissioner Cassinelli? Cassinelli: Pardon? No. Fitzgerald: Do you have follow up? Okay. Anyone else at this point? Okay. Is the applicant in the chambers -- Penelope with us online or in chambers? Dodson: The applicant is here, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Perfect. Penelope, please, state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours, ma'am. We can't hear you. Constantikes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record Penelope Constantikes representing the applicant. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. 1 would like to start by thanking the Planning and Zoning Commission for continuing our application. We did go through five different iterations of the plat and I think we are ready for you now. So, thank you for helping us with that. So, just a little bit of backstory and discussion about the easement history. We have read the staff report and we are generally in concurrence with it. There are a couple items that we differ with staff and I will get to those. So, it is an unusual site with lots of constraints. We had the historic easement area that we had to deal with. ACHD requirements for connectivity for future development in the vicinity and the fire department all were items that we had to work through. As I said, this is the fifth iteration of the plat. If you would put that up that would be great. Thanks, Joe. So, the easement was established for this -- for the parcel to the east and the two parcels to the southeast in 1999. One of those parcels has no option for connectivity to the public road, other than the easement that they use to get out to Black Cat. The easternmost parcel does have a stub street that touches shared property line with Chesterfield, but until their parcel redevelops they can't use that. The site was, as Joe mentioned, approved in -- around 2006. They were within shouting distance of recording their plat when the economy turned down and so that was not completed. So, we started originally with showing our access to Black Cat with -- with Quarter Horse Lane, which was originally approved as a public street, but staff -- both Meridian and ACHD directed us over to Pine Avenue, which is fine. A little bit of history. I worked on Creekstone, which is at the northwest corner of the Ten Mile Creek and at this time there are two developments that have trusted bridge money for crossing across the Ten Mile and so when those other two pieces on the other side develop a bridge will go in and I don't imagine that it will be a long time, but that's up ahead of us not too far in the distance. So, we are surrounded on three sides with well developed subdivisions, both on the north, east, and the west side of the site. All these homes are generally in the 20 year old range, so they have been around for a while. The land use designation for the site is medium density residential, which is three to eight units per acre. Horse Meadows, of course, their density falls right exactly in the middle of that at 5.5 units per acre. The subdivision does meet the UDC code for lot area and frontage. We have 4,000 minimum square foot lots and the frontage standard is 40 feet. If you would show it, there is a file called vicinity map and lot sizes. Thanks. You are fine. So, what Joe is bringing up is an exhibit that I put together and if you can size that down a little bit. There we go. And just the top page Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 191 Page 7 of 82 there is great. Thank you. So, I just wanted to provide some context. I looked at the original plats and the original approvals for both Chesterfield and Castlebrook. Castlebrook was approved with a minimum lot size of 6,500 square feet. Chesterfield has two lot sizes. They have got lots that are in the 5,500 square foot and greater size and they also have some patio homes that have lots in -- at about 3,100 square feet. So, what we have got with Horse Meadows is something that falls right in between that range. Our largest lot is 5,700 and our smallest lot is 4,000. So, it provides some diversity in lot size for the -- for the vicinity, which the comp plan does call for and so I just -- the site's fronted with an arterial and a collector roadway, which keeps new traffic off -- off local streets and out of established neighborhoods. As a former transportation planner I think that's a good thing. So, the next exhibit is just that final --the -- our preliminary plat again. Joe covered this to some extent. The green area that's shown on the preliminary plat is literally green area, but I did some tinkering today and I will be able to show you some exhibits. We actually can meet the UDC code for ten -- a minimum ten percent square footage of open space without losing our Lot 6. So, the first thing is this -- is the one that says interim and permanent open space. So, what we would like to do is we would like to convert the area of the easement that's not being used for driving into an interim open space area. We will sod it and we will plumb it with pressurized irrigation, so that it's usable as open space. After the parcel to the south and east of us develops -- and I know there has been a lot of activity over there. The bottom exhibit shows you what kind of open space we will be able to provide as permanent open space once the road goes in and that's the lower one. Thank you, Joe. So, what we have is a slight change to common Lot 10, which the name of that file is common lot expansion. Very good. So, this afternoon I started looking at our common lot up in the northeast corner and realized that we could add some more square footage. So, I found another 900 square feet by squaring off those -- those corner lots a little bit and so according to UDC we can take this area, which ends up being a little larger than the 10,590 square feet, we can claim one hundred percent of the Pine Avenue buffer. We can claim one half of the Black Cat buffer. And the permanent open space that's southwest corner after Quarter Horse Lane is closed will give us 21,030 square feet of -- of qualified open space per UDC code and that doesn't -- that doesn't include discounting the easement area, that's the full 4.71 acres. So, I was really pleased that we could -- we could meet that ten percent without losing a lot and so that's what we are asking for is for that lot to remain a buildable lot, instead of becoming open space. The site is less than five acres and so we are excited about that. I did want to mention the neighborhood complaints about traffic and density. Black Cat Road is nowhere near capacity for an arterial roadway and -- and Pine Avenue is also under capacity. So, while I appreciate traffic -- and if you are a farmer and you live out in the middle of nowhere, 150 vehicle trips in a 24 hour period seems like a crowded road, but it's really not. So, I understand, but those -- both of those classified roadways are under capacity at this time and Black Cat is substantially under capacity. So, I would like to talk to you about why Horse Meadows is a great idea for Meridian. First of all, we are in close proximity to schools and parks. If you would show the park and pathway exhibit. I did some -- a little bit of mapping and discovered that it's actually half a mile to the Fuller Park when you travel through Creek -- Creek Brook -- Brook -- whatever it is. The -- the top illustration shows you the path to the park and it's 2,667 feet, which is .51 percent of a mile. I also want -- I was interested to know what the distance Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 Flo] Page 8 of 82 was to the Ten Mile pathway and it's just a pinch under six tenths of a mile. So, we are within close proximity and not too far away from both of those amenities in the City of Meridian. So, the site has two schools. There is a traditional school and a charter school to the south of us. There is great proximity to shopping and services, such as groceries, gas, pharmacy, banks and dining. A short trip on classified roads is always good. Because there is a Albertsons and a pharmacy and a bank not too far away, just at the corner of Ten Mile and Cherry. There is a lot of jobs in the south end of the -- or the west end of the valley. Amazon, as most people know, is looking for 2,000 new employees. So, this is a great location. It's easy access to the interstate. Employees can go down to Franklin and hang a right and be in Nampa in no time. There is jobs at Ten Mile at the office and commercial area. Excuse me. And that area is not even close to being filled out in terms of office and commercial development. So, the site is also great, because sewer and water and pressurized -- pressurized irrigation pump station are all in place. We are not dragging any utilities to the site. Everything is -- is there now. It provides public road access and utilities to the two larger parcels that are undeveloped to our southeast. It provides housing diversity in the neighborhood and you saw the exhibit that I did with the lot sizes, so we can bring that back up if you need it. Finally, it sets the stage for connectivity between subdivisions on the south side of Pine and east of Black Cat Road, as well as providing local network -- road network between this subdivision and Chesterfield to the east and probably the most important thing is that it provides a workforce housing. It's not affordable housing, but it's for modest income working families and -- and the other side of that is there is a lot of empty nesters now and retired people who don't want a big yard, so this subdivision fills the bill for an up growing -- or an upcoming demographic that is happening now all over the country, but in Meridian as well. So, in conclusion, just real quickly I want to go through the conditions. The developer is fine with doing a development agreement. We will be consistent with the submitted plans. Direct lot access, of course, to Black Cat is prohibited. The Lot 10, which is the easement area, will be a nonbuildable lot and it will be owned and maintained by the HOA until something occurs as to the southeast. We will show the plat with a detached sidewalk. We will revise the plat note as requested. We would ask that the Planning and Zoning Commission delete condition of approval 2-D, which indicates eliminating Lot 6 as a buildable lot, primarily because we have provided a ten percent open space with our development, even though we are not required to do so. The landscape plan will be updated. I did submit the setback compliance illustration that you have seen. There is not a lot of other things. We will construct all the proposed fencing as required. There aren't any trees on the site, so there is no mitigation, but I will talk to the tree arborist for the city and make sure that that happens. The abandonment of the existing water vein is shown on the plat up in the top right -- or left-hand corner. It's just a little hard to see. The MTI report was submitted and we provided updated water monitoring information in the last couple of weeks. So, with that I would also like to mention that Joe has -- has been really persistent and consistent and -- and stayed with us and helped us work through all this and we really appreciate it. With that I would be happy to answer questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, ma'am. We appreciate it. Are there any questions for Penelope? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 Fill Page 9 of 82 Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: Just on the open space, if you take away the -- that nonbuildable lot, the southwest corner, you take that out of the open space calculations you did, what does that leave you with? Constantikes: We would probably be slightly under ten percent. That -- the piece in the southwest corner -- so, sewer and water are coming in through there and so it can't be developed. It's going to have a sewer main and a water main in it. So, it's a great location for open space and it meets the 50 by 100 grassy space UDC requirement -- or one of the open space amenities that can be offered. So, it's going to drop us -- I don't know. Without the -- of course you would ask me a question about it. Without that we would lose 3,120 square feet I think, which probably puts us slightly below ten percent. Seal: A follow-up question? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go right ahead. Seal: Just -- how would access be provided to that? I mean since the streets are going to be marked at the very end, how -- how are people going to get in and out of this? Constantikes: How would they access that corner open space? Seal: Correct. Constantikes: Well, the sidewalk that will run along Black Cat will be -- will run along the western side of that open space. That sidewalk will be extended all the way down to the -- to the southern property line once the easement area ceases to provide access. Seal: There is no way for them to access it from within the subdivision? Constantikes: And then -- well, there will be sidewalk along -- the -- the section of the easement that runs from our east property line all the way to the west side of our western stub street is going to be public road and so there will be sidewalk along it. So, anyone can walk south to the new right of way area and be able to use a sidewalk to get to that open space. And maybe I haven't been clear enough. With the exception of the area that's west of our western stub street, that will be converted to public road when either of the parcels to the southwest -- or southeast of us develop, because they will need to be able to get public road access to the network of public roads that we are constructing with our subdivision. So, there will be sidewalk that leads to the open space. Seal: But only when the others develop; correct? Constantikes: I beg your pardon? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F12 Page 10 of 82 Seal: Only when the other is developed. I guess what I'm getting at is it seems -- that chunk of land down there for open space -- I mean there is going to be a sign at the end of the road and the -- the sidewalk will end where that road ends, so there won't be a sidewalk that actually goes out into that lot; correct? Constantikes: That is correct. Seal: Okay. Constantikes: Mr. Chairman -- I apologize, Commissioner. But that area, as I explained in my presentation, we are actually going to upgrade that -- that strip that says plant fescue. That's all going to get sodded and irrigated. So, anyone who lives in Horse Meadows will be able to walk down south -- all the way south to the end of the public street and be in open space and, then, when the road goes in there will be sidewalk along both sides of that road and they will be able to use a sidewalk to get to the open space that's in between our western stub street and Black Cat Road. So, in both instances there will be access that's available. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Constantikes: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Follow-up questions or additional questions? Commissioner Cassinelli, I saw you come off mute. Did you have something? Cassinelli: Yeah. The -- Penelope, the -- the lots along Black Cat, are all those going to be single story? I notice they are single story depictions in the elevations. Can you address that for me, please? Constantikes: I can. So, I don't know specifically -- I did ask the architect for elevations of the models that are referenced in the -- on this exhibit, but I did not receive them. Some of them appear to be based on their square footage that they will be two story and the City of Meridian likes to have some wall plain modulation whenever there are houses that back up to public streets. So, we will incorporate that modulation into the rear elevations. There is probably going to be a mixture of single and two story houses along Black Cat. Cassinelli: Okay. And a follow up and Joe may have mentioned this, but is there -- is there a requirement for a berm at all along Black Cat? Constantikes: Not that I'm aware of. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead, sir. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F13] Page 11 of 82 Yearsley: So, I'm really concerned. You know, the pictures that they give you for the houses don't even reflect what they are going to be able to build there, which really kind of makes me a little upset that they are trying to show that bait and switch, because if you look at those lots they are 45 feet wide. By the time you get your offsets and a garage you have got just barely enough room for a door and that's what your photos aren't showing. I -- I would actually like to see what these actually look like before City Council for their -- their -- their homes, so they can get a better feel of what the style of home will be -- actually be on the site, just -- I don't know if it was a question, but just that's my concern. Constantikes: Mr. Chairman? Fitzgerald: Yeah, Penelope, go right ahead. Constantikes: Thank you. Commissioner, these -- let's take, for example, the house that's on the right-hand side, the illustration top right-hand corner. A garage is going to be 20 feet wide, which means that the other side of it is hypothetically going to be 25 -- 20 feet wide. I understand that the visuals that we provided initially with our application are -- are not specifically dialed in directly to meet the width of the lots. With the exhibit that we provided that shows the footprints, which came from the architect, it wasn't something that I generated, there -- they will be able to meet those setbacks and five yards setbacks -- side yard setbacks are required. So, I don't -- there was no intent to bait and switch, we just needed some conceptual elevations that showed what kind of roof lines and wall plains were expected with -- with these houses. So, that's what we have provided. I can certainly try to get some specific model images between now and City Council. I would be happy to take a good run at that. Yearsley: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Penelope, question on the open space. I had a similar concern that Commissioner Seal does. I know that staff is talking about an interior lot, turning that into open space. Was there a consideration of the orange lots that are kind of showing up right now, like moving your open space, combining it? I have a tough time thinking kids are going to be playing along the frontage of -- of Black Cat Road or using that, as Commissioner Seal said, accessing that -- that additional open space down at the southwest corner. So, will there be a desire to -- I know you said to carve off the corners of those two bigger lots, but I almost feel like we need to carve one of those lots up and make it all -- make it open space. We are talking about 25 homes without any open space and -- I mean in all actuality Fuller Park is a long ways away. It's a mile walking. I know you could cut through the neighborhood, but that's not an easy access. So, I'm -- we went from an R-4 to an R-8 and now we are -- we are really not wanting to give open space or a usable functioning amenity that in my mind -- I know the tot lot is there, which is great. But somebody's got to have somewhere to go to have some open space to play on. Do you have a thought around that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F14 Page 12 of 82 Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, could I share -- the route that I show for access to Fuller Park through the neighboring subdivision to the north, there is a bridge that's right at the north boundary of that open space, so that is a legitimate pathway to the park. I mean most people don't enter a park at the main building, they enter the park at the closest access point. So, that's what I -- what I mapped out. We are trying to -- to develop a subdivision that is intended for people of modest income, because right now it's 200 dollars a square foot for a house in Meridian and there are a lot of families that would like to have homes, but they can't afford giant lots, big lots, and access to the -- the common space that we are proposing at--where Quarter Horse Lane currently is adjacent to Black Cat Road, that will be fenced and so children won't be running out into the street I don't believe and there will be access. There will be sidewalk access now down to a common area that's going to be on the north side of that easement area. That will all be sodded, just-- it will be grassy open space, plumbed for irrigation, so it will be irrigated, kept green, and when the public road goes in there is going to be sidewalk along the north boundary of that new public road, which will lead directly to the new open space adjacent to Black Cat Road. So, I guess I don't understand the concern about access to that. A lot of stub -- Fitzgerald: For me it's -- literally it's on a -- it's on a major arterial road, that -- and we need to design open space so it's functional for the families in there and I'm all about workforce housing. I totally agree that we need more of it and -- and so I'm not -- I'm with you on that, but it feels like we are shoehorning more lots into -- and somewhat it is not designed around having the space for this to be a functional neighborhood for the people living in it, not having to leave to go to Fuller Park. That's not -- in my mind you cannot use that as your open space. It has to be inside the neighborhood and it has to be functional and open space along arterials is not my favorite thing. So, I just -- I think we are going to have -- and I don't want to speak for my fellow Commissioners, but there is going to be some -- some concerns here where we are packing too many lots in there without giving people a space to move around. Additional questions for -- Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yeah. Go right ahead. Yearsley: So, on the -- that -- that open space where the tot lot is, is there going to be a fence along there for access, so you can limit access to Pine? Or is that just going to be open up to Pine? Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, with that path there the whole point was to -- to provide a pedestrian route up to Pine Avenue from the center of the subdivision. So, we would be happy to fence it in any way you would like. Obviously, the path shouldn't be fenced off, but -- Yearsley: Right. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F15] Page 13 of 82 Constantikes: -- like an open vision four foot fence is usually what is along parcels that are next to open space and that seems to be an appropriate kind of fence that keeps crowd control down or it keeps people in the open space, if that's where you want them to stay. But it's -- it's still -- you can see through it and it's not an impediment division. Yearsley: And I think that's good, because if I had a -- you know, if I had a young child playing on the tot lot I would always be concerned that they would run out into the street, you know, being that close to Pine. So, I -- I like the idea of the fence. Constantikes: Mr. Chairman. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am. Constantikes: I think that there was a plan to put a couple of benches in there, too. My daughter is 36 now, but I -- I didn't let her wander off and go play someplace that I couldn't see her, especially when she was younger. So, some benches for parents to come and sit on while their children are playing is always a good idea. Yearsley: Okay. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead, sir. Cassinelli: Yes. Penelope, you mentioned -- you used the word interim for the open space to the south. That's until that road goes through to the south, Quarter Horse Lane. Constantikes: That is correct. Cassinelli: Okay. So, I mean your-- your competition for open space that you have right now, you're using that lot number ten I think is -- well, you are going to lose part of that eventually permanently, so you are -- what is that future number is my question? Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, that open space number that I gave you in terms of the square footage does not include the entire interim. It doesn't include the interim open space. It's just -- it's weeds right now and puncture vines. Originally -- we --we have been trying to navigate everyone's concerns from staff and the district, making sure that we are getting everyone's requirements met and so, obviously, we can't block access. The interim open space is just a way to put that area to work and provide an amenity that's temporary. We understand that until a public road is constructed in at least two-thirds of that area that number -- that total area is not included in my open space calculation, just the 3,290 square feet that would be that final piece of open space that would be between Black Cat Road and our western stub street. I didn't include the entire area. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Penelope at this time? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F16] Page 14 of 82 Constantikes: Thank you. Fitzgerald: We will have -- let you come back and close once we have public testimony. Constantikes: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, do we have public testimony on this? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have no one signed up. Fitzgerald: Okay. Is there anyone on Zoom or in the audience in chambers that would like to testify? Please raise your hand and Commissioner Seal will look for me in the chambers and you raise your hand via Zoom by clicking in your name and the raise your hand button at the bottom of the screen. Seal: There is no one in chambers. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Seal, you said there were none in chambers? Seal: They are none in chambers. Is there anybody online? Fitzgerald: Not that I see. Seal: You can come on up. If you would, please. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Please state your name and address for there record and the floor is yours. Morgan: Okay. My name is Drew Morgan. My address is 4600 West Quarter Horse Lane and I own the piece of property just east of this. I don't really have necessarily objections. I was a little confused with the description along Quarter Horse. That is our access to our property and I heard it -- I thought I heard her say when Quarter Horse is closed once. Okay. Is this -- does this work? Okay. I thought I heard her say when Quarter Horse is closed. What -- what was that a reference to? Fitzgerald: And, sir, I think we will have her answer that question when she comes back up. Morgan: I would just -- I would like a description of what the plan for Quarter Horse is to the future. That's our only access to our property and, you know, I'm not against-- I mean I have seven and a half acres immediately east of this lot. It's a weed patch. It's been that way ever since I have lived there and I'm not against the development. I actually think that it's a good idea. I think it's a little bit too dense, but that's my personal preference and I have a lot of faith in all of you that you will get it right. So, I'm just going to leave that there. I was just a little concerned about my access. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F17 Page 15 of 82 Fitzgerald: And we will make sure she answers that. I don't think it's -- we would be changing it just -- if you decide to develop in the future. But I will have her answer that before she closes. Morgan: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Is there anyone -- anyone else in chambers? Please raise your hand if you would like to testify on this application or online. Please raise your hand, either virtually or in person. Seal: Nobody else in chambers. Fitzgerald: Okay. Going once. Going twice. Penelope, would you like to come back and join us and close and hopefully answer a couple questions? Constantikes: Would you like me to state my name again? Fitzgerald: I think we are good, ma'am. Go right ahead. Constantikes: Okay. Very good. So, we had a -- I sent out a postcard, it was hot pink, and invited all the easement holders to come. Mr. Morgan's son came to that meeting and -- and we understand very clearly that we can't just close off Quarter Horse Lane. The Morgan property does have access to Pine Avenue also. There is an access point on Pine for the Morgan parcel. But having said that, I don't -- I'm not an attorney and haven't worked at the highway district for 20 years, but -- but I know that they are -- they are pretty set on getting Quarter Horse closed. So, it will happen and it won't be something that we decide, it will be something that the district decides. It's -- we don't have a lot of control over that, so -- and the key is when the parcels -- when all three parcels have access to a public roadway, then, the -- my understanding -- and I'm just -- this is based on conversations I have had with Stacey Yarrington that at some point in time in the not too distant future, whenever that might be, Quarter Horse Lane will cease to connect to Black Cat Road. But while we are developing our parcel nothing is going to change with regard to access for the Casey parcel, the Alexander parcel, or the Morgan parcel. We are not --we are not going to do anything to impede that and we -- of course, the developer in this instance will have to relinquish their corresponding right to use the easement and they will. So, who knows when development will occur. For the time being nothing is going to change with regard to Quarter Horse Lane and its access to Black Cat Road. So, I don't know how else to answer that, other than it's there and it doesn't have a sunset. It's a very clean document. It just says these people have access via this easement to Black Cat Road. So, until the district mandates otherwise, we won't be changing that. Fitzgerald: And, then, Penelope, did you have any other closing comments? I think we understand that your application is not impacting that lane, so that's good. Do you have any other closing comments for us? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F18 Page 16 of 82 Constantikes: Just one if I might. I will visit with Mr. Morgan on the way out and -- Fitzgerald: Okay. Constantikes: -- and the reason we had that meeting was specifically for the three easement holders is so that we could have a one-on-one conversation with them separate from a neighborhood meeting and -- and just chat with them about it and Mr. Casey came and Mr. Morgan's son came. No one came from the Alexander household, so -- but we did make an effort to have a one-on-one conversation with them about that and thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Are there any further questions for Penelope at this time? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: Just trying to understand a little what -- what's on the screen right is plant fescue and how that becomes common area and some things like that. Is that -- and access to it. I mean I'm in the same boat here. I don't-- don't really like that being, you know, butted right up to Black Cat Road, but there is -- it seems like there is a significant area there that can be made into a common space that's usable. Is that something that the applicant would be willing to fence, maybe put in a gravel path, something along those lines to make it more accessible from the subdivision, but also safe from the -- you know, from kids coming out onto the gravel road or out onto Black Cat or anything like that? Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I think that would be fine. I have asked Joe to put up that replacement exhibit. The one with the plant fescue was -- was part of an earlier iteration while we were trying to figure out what can we do with that area that didn't violate easement rights, but cleaned it up and made it more attractive and fescue, of course, is -- is a native grass and it's drought resistant. So, if I understand correctly what you are asking is if this area that's shown in the top illustration -- you are asking if it would be fenced as an interim and there is a fence along the south boundary now. There is a fence that runs along the north side of the gravel road and -- and so it's partially fenced now and if you would like to have a fence -- we were going to extend the sidewalk down to the north side of the gravel road, so that that pedestrian access is continued down as far as we can run it. There is no sense in putting a sidewalk across that gravel road, because the gravel will just beat it to death and it will have to be pulled out. So, if understand what you are asking for is if the applicant would be willing to fence the -- this section that's at the end closest to Black Cat Road to keep the children from being able to get out onto the roadway; is that correct? Seal: It -- it would be -- fence it along Black Cat, but also fence that entire southern boundary there. The graphic here where it says 10,140 square feet -- Constantikes- Yes. That's already fenced. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 Fig] Page 17 of 82 Seal: Is that privacy fence? Constantikes: No. It's a -- it's a clear -- it's like a farm fence. It's -- it's a -- it's got -- it's a three wire fence, I believe. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Yeah. I just want to clarify. So, Mr. Seal, you are -- you are talking about along the green line in this instance? Seal: Right. Dodson: And separate it from the gravel roadway. Seal: Correct. Dodson: My understanding with this easement there really isn't a way to do that because of the way the easement is written, that they -- all the easement -- the serving sites have access and use of this whole area. The applicant is trying to have a compromise with us and with the use of that easement to allow the existing gravel roadway, which, again, anybody can drive on grass, too, obviously. But try and keep the gravel driveway and, then, have the other area be vegetated somewhat to where it could be usable. That's -- I don't see how we could -- unless they can clarify for me if we could fence that separate of the gravel. Seal: Okay. Understood. Thank you. Constantikes: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, there actually is a fence there now that runs basically along the -- the southern line of that top exhibit. Seal: Right. But it would mean for-- I mean to enclose a public area or a public use area it would have to be a privacy fence and meet UDC standards and all that, so -- I mean a barbed wire fence isn't going to do that. Constantikes: Right. Well, unfortunately, it's barbed wire, it's just a wire fence. What we are trying to do is just make this look better and -- and it's -- it's big enough that kids could play soccer out there-- informal soccer, something like that. We are happy to do whatever you want with that. We can't do anything -- we can't put any permanent structures in. In the meeting I did have with the easement holders we asked about whether or not there was any issue with making that a little bit more attractive. Mr. Casey asked me specifically if I would get rid of the puncture vines. So -- or just -- and like Joe said, we are just trying to find some middle ground that makes it attractive and potentially usable until something happens in the neighborhood, in which case it will become public roadway. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F20 Page 18 of 82 Seal: Understood. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any follow up? Any additional questions for Penelope at this time before we close the public hearing? Penelope, thank you very much. With that 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 file number H-2020-0060. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-0060. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Thanks, crew. Anybody want to lead off? Grove: Mr. Chair, I will jump in real quick. Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: I like this better. I don't -- I don't have strong opinions yet on this I guess. In-fill of this size is difficult I think. My general opinion of it is that it looks -- it looks to be okay and I would be mostly favorable, but kind of like to hear what -- some of the concerns of the Commissioners are on this one. Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: So, personally I like the total 12 better, but understanding that that's not on the table. I am concerned even -- even with the fence on that -- that tot lot, you know, kids can run really quickly and -- and I'm not a big fan of that park being on the street. So, would be very in favor of losing one lot, if not two, to open space for a tot lot in that area. I'm just -- personally I'm not a big fan of the R-8 zoning. I think it's really really dense and I think we need to make more of an effort to provide open space for those areas, because you don't have a lot of lots for the kids to play on. So, for that I think I would be fine. I think that that fence to the south -- or to the -- that she's talking about that's wire, I think that should be a privacy fence as well to -- to make it a little bit better for their residents within that. I think the people that already have homes there I think would appreciate privacy fence around the site as well, so -- but those are my -- my concerns and my recommendations. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F21 Page 19 of 82 Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, you came off mute. Do you want to weigh in? Cassinelli: The -- I guess I will throw it out -- all out good and bad. It is difficult. These in-fills are not easy. Every time we go through one of them I would prefer -- I mean it fits within the -- the medium density definition on the comp plan, but at the same time, you know, we don't deal with it anymore, but in the old days, you know, we used to deal with a step-up issue and this is -- you know, this has that step up feeling going from a -- the four to the eight. Again, Commissioner Yearsley said that -- and I like the idea of four better. It fits with what's around there. But all that said, it is difficult to do something with -- with these in-fills. I would prefer to see -- at minimum I'm going with staff's recommendation on -- on carving out that one lot, but I would even like to see maybe a couple lots -- maybe a lot along Black Cat, increase the width of those lots a little bit. I -- I still think that the developer will do well if they come in at 24 lots in this thing. I think they will be -- I think they can still do this project and I echo your-- your earlier comments on the open space along the arterials and, frankly, even along Pine, I don't -- even though it qualifies -- it's qualified, I don't see it as qualified. So, those are my -- I want to see more internal open space is the long and the short of it. Fitzgerald: Yeah. I -- I agree with you. I -- and I -- if you have -- if you are including the qualified open space where your-- the pieces of the -- along the arterials as a component of your open space, but the only piece of it being the open space, it doesn't work for me. So, I -- I am in agreement with staff. You can do a -- kind of a modest workforce housing type level project that still gives the folks that are living there places where they can recreate and not have to walk a mile to get there and I still -- you -- we have, you know, zoning and requirements within our comp plan for a reason and that's why we want to have minimum open space and I just don't think it meets it. So, I'm -- in the base I agree that -- with what Joe has layed out, that there needs to be open space in the center and I don't think the -- utilize that easement down to the south gets it done. I mean I think -- like Commissioner Yearsley said, I think having a -- if it cleans that -- that area up it would be great, but I don't think they are -- putting the open space down southwest does anything to help this community have a -- somewhere to play soccer or baseball or something -- throw a football around. And I think the -- you know, whether it's workforce housing or not, they need space to -- to roam and stretch out and I don't want to deviate from what our code says in that requirement, so -- so, I'm with you on -- on several of those comments. Seal: Mr. Chair? Cassinelli: Can I make a comment on that, not to -- not to go the other way, but I -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but from a code standpoint, this being under five acres, they don't -- they are not required to have that, but we are -- Fitzgerald: You are correct, sir. I think that's the hard part with the in-fill is when you -- in my mind this all goes both sides right here, because I -- you are correct, on the in-fill side they don't have to have something, but if you are going to pack the -- you are going Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F22 Page 20 of 82 to step up in density from R-4 and that's where I -- my mind changes. We went from 12 lots to 26 lots or 24 lots and I think there has got to be a balance there somewhere. Cassinelli Yeah. Fitzgerald: I'm with -- you are totally correct. Cassinelli: No. And I -- and not to -- not to get -- not to argue with you on that, I just want to bring that up, but I -- but I agree wholeheartedly. They are asking for a --for a big favor here going from the four to the eight, taking these lots down, cutting them in half and going to the absolute -- almost the bare minimum. You look at lots, there is -- there is three -- there is a couple of lots in there that are -- that are at the 5,000. There is one at 5,700, but everything else is right at four--4,100. So, they are -- you know, for all intents and purposes they are all at that minimum lot size, so, yeah, I think if they are going to -- if they are asking for that, we have -- you know, I think we can ask for some space and nice, usable open space that kids can play. Fitzgerald: Having the houses -- what we are putting in those lots, what they are getting, we need to give them something that isn't -- that's sized properly, so they are not being, you know, led astray and there is a -- that we understand what -- what housing is going on there -- the product they are going to put up. But we have a DA and there are design requirements. Council needs to know what's going to go on there, so we need to see those before Council, if that's the direction we go. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Yearsley: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Following up with that, you know, he's got those -- those squares named as a home that he's got signed, so, you know, it wouldn't have been that hard for him to show those homes, so it has me a concern, why didn't he want to show those homes on that -- that figure. So, not -- not to say they are trying to pull anything, but, you know, let's be full disclosure and show what -- what they are proposing on those style of homes. Cassinelli: Agreed. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Dodson: Joe, actually. Yeah. We keep getting -- Fitzgerald: No, Joe, you can't talk. Sorry. We are talking. You can't talk. No. Go right ahead, Joe. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F23 Page 21 of 82 Dodson: Just for the record I wanted to clarify the previous plat from 2006 had 14 lots on it, courtesy of Mr. Bill Parsons. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go ahead. Seal: A couple things on the -- the traffic portion of it. I mean I can attest that Black Cat is -- I will just say not healthy as far as traffic is concerned at peak hours of the day for sure. So, that said, Black Cat is on from 2021 to 2025 for improvement. I'm hoping that the city is working diligently to get it moved up on that list, because it is definitely one of the -- the pinch points that I feel in watching the meeting last night with the Mayor -- I mean they identified some other pinpoints within the city that I actually live close to and to -- I don't -- I live further away from this and, honestly, I would like to see this moved up on the list, because I think the traffic that's -- that's coming and going there, the number of kids that we have, the number of parks that are nearby, the schools that are there, it's -- it's just going to -- in my mind that's just going to end up being a really bad scenario at some point in time until that's all improved, because the -- the more congested the traffic gets, the more you are going to see people take wild chances to dart out into -- into traffic. So, I do have concerns about that. That said, it is on the -- it is on the plan to go somewhere between 2021 and 2026, so hopefully that's sooner other than later. As far as the -- I do agree with the elevations I mean they got to show something that's going to actually -- what it's going to look like when it sits on that lot. I am a little torn between the R-4 and R-8 designation. I understand, you know, the ask -- the ask that they have, understand it. I understand the need for workforce housing. So, I understand it helps balance the area. That said, the -- the amount of usable space in here -- usable open space doesn't seem to warrant, you know, the annexation that -- that needs to happen here in order to make sure that this property comes into the city. So, you know, I mean there has got to be a little bit more give and take on that. Fitzgerald: Just to clarify, we are not annexing. This is already annexed property. It was annexed and zoned R-4. Seal: Got you. Okay. So, still it's -- I mean it's -- the density is stepping up and, you know, the -- the lot sizes are at the minimum and there is some contention over the open space pieces in there. I tend to agree with staff that more is needed. I think that a different approach could be taken overall in order to consolidate that open space into more of the center of the -- the subdivision. I don't know -- I mean I'm not in favor necessarily of eliminating that pathway that goes out, that actually does provide, you know, easier access to Pine for, you know, activity like biking, for instance. So, I am torn on that. I can see that -- you know, I mean it does provide value, but at the same time it seems like there is a -- there is a little bit of shoehorning going on here in order to make that fit. So, I'm -- I'm a little bit torn on where to go with this at this point. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F24 Page 22 of 82 Fitzgerald: I don't want to start redesigning the project, but I -- and I do agree that the path going to the northeast is a good thing. So, there is another access out for, you know, kids walking to school or -- or the park or whatever they are going to do. But I -- I do agree with Joe that there has got to be at least a pocket park internal to this. So, I'm not sure if the applicant wants a chance to revise it with the inclusion of the -- of something to the north or give them flexibility to work with staff before Council. I think that's feasible. I don't think we need to see this thing again. We can outline what we -- what we are desiring and having them work with staff before Council to come up with a -- a plan that -- fits where Joe was going I think, whether that's take out two internal lots, take the tot lot and put it in the middle and make that just a micro path over and maybe maneuver the lots a little bit. But I don't want to redesign their thoughts, but I do agree with Joe's assessment that there needs to be something internal, but I'm not sure if we need to see it again. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't want to redesign this, but I do want to kind of comment that I -- I like the path and you said that if it meant that there was a more usable open space elsewhere I wouldn't be opposed to losing it, just based on how big this development is. I mean it wouldn't be the end of the world on a project this size to lose that pathway if a much more usable open space was achieved. I'm not a huge fan of losing that Lot 6 necessarily. If -- if that were the case it would preferably be, you know, one of the -- in that section to the south of that a little bit, but I'm not sure exactly what's doable and what's not, but consolidating it into one location would definitely be preferred. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead, sir. Cassinelli: I didn't see this until just now. I was able to enlarge the plat. We know that we discussed this at all -- at all. We have got this public alley coming off of the cul-de- sac over to the -- over to that -- the main road through there. Are those -- and maybe Joe can answer this, so we don't have to open it back up and the applicant back up here. Are those homes along Pine with that public alley, are those -- are those rear load? Do those homes take their front entrance off of Pine? Joe, do you know? It's lots -- looks like lots one, two and three or perhaps just one and two, depending on how you do it. Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, Members of the Commission, so just to clarify -- I'm trying to show -- okay. We are just going to go back here. This is the latest plat. Cassinelli: Okay. So, am I looking -- am I looking at the -- at the preliminary -- excuse me. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F25] Page 23 of 82 Dodson: So, the --the plat that you are looking at was the one that we had for the previous Commission meeting and, then, it had to get changed, which is why we were continued to tonight. Cassinelli: Okay. Dodson: So, the plat that's on the screen now is the one that is trying to go forward. That does not have an alley. Cassinelli: All right. No wonder why I didn't see that on that -- on the end. Dodson: Yes, sir. Fitzgerald: I think I was losing my mind, because I didn't see that at all. Cassinelli: I was opening up at a different place on that -- what said revised, because I want a bigger picture of it, so -- okay. Dodson: Yes, sir. I can't -- I can't count how many revisions we have gone through and worked together on, but this is probably five or six. Cassinelli: Okay. But that was -- the one I was referring to there was a -- was a preliminary one. Thank you. Sorry. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley or Commissioner Cassinelli, do you guys have thoughts about additional comments? Or Commissioner Seal? Commissioner Grove? Anyone want to -- where do we go from here? Do you want to step through it? Yearsley: So, Commissioner Cassinelli talked about losing a lot along Black Cat to make those a little bit bigger. I didn't know what other individuals thought about that. I actually personally think it's a great idea to make those a little bit bigger. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't disagree making the lots larger, but if we are going to suggest losing any, I would prefer that they be internal to -- to go towards the open -- I guess consolidated open space personally. Yearsley: Commissioner, Chair, I think he was actually talking about losing two lots, one for open space and one for making the lot bigger. Cassinelli: That's what I had and that was a compromise to --to this --to this -- you know, going from the four to the eight and taking lots to the -- almost the bare minimum. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F26 Page 24 of 82 Fitzgerald: And Joe already has a stipulation that -- that Lot 6 becomes an open space. So, that's in the -- in the staff report now. So, that's internal. If there was additional thoughts -- you know, I -- I think there is a balance to be struck. I'm kind of -- with lots along the road I would want those to be more dense and maybe give them an opportunity to use a product that might be better for that roadside and less expensive maybe and, then, have an internal -- I kind of agree with Commissioner Grove as well. The open space in the middle and that's -- I'm not sure that's one or two lots, but I'm up for a discussion around that. Again, I don't know if we need to be redesigning, folks. I think we need to kind of give them a direction and either let them work it out before Council or we need to continue this thing to have them bring it back, but I know Joe's done a yeoman's work trying to get them where we are. So, I know -- I mean I think we have got consensus on the fact that we would like to see elevations that meet the lot sizes. We would like to see some additional open space internally. Do we have a thought on the fence to the south? Is everybody in agreement we need to redo that wire fence and give them a privacy fence? Seal: Mr. Chair, I think that it -- it's established that that really can't happen, because of the easements that are on it. Fitzgerald: There is a fence there now. There is a fence there now. It's just a three wire fence for cattle or for livestock. So, I think you could have it come up and put something else in there. But we -- Joe, just comment on that? Dodson: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, so, again, just to clarify. This fence right here, that can be easily replaced. That -- yes, that's this -- what we would say is the subdivision boundary fence, but what I think Commissioner Seal is referencing is having another fence along this center line, so to speak, and, you know, walling off -- you know, fencing off is actually more correct. Fencing off is actually more correct. Fencing off the gravel road this plant fescue. I -- if you guys want to make that recommendation I recommend you have verbiage in there that -- that the applicant work with staff on that just to ensure that with the way the easement is written that we can do that. But there is no -- at this point I can't guarantee that that's allowed or not allowed. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. So, I think we -- we can talk about the piece. But I think the last piece is whether we are talking about one or two lots. If we are going to move this thing forward or -- and -- or if we need to come back -- have it come back and we need to look at it again. Do you guys have a preference? Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: My preference would be to recommend losing two lots and moving it forward. Fitzgerald: Let the staff work with the applicant to figure it out? Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F27 Page 25 of 82 Cassinelli: I was -- I was saying that-- I think that sounds like a motion that Commissioner Grove was making. Yearsley: I agree with that motion. Seal: Mr. Chair, I -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, do you have a thought? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Seal: I will -- I can take a stab at the motion here, so I have been taking a lot of notes. Fitzgerald: Okay. Seal: After considering all staff and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council a file number H-2020-0060 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 22nd, 2020, with the following modifications: First that the applicant submit elevations that show how houses will look on the actual lot sizes. That they provide fencing along the north and east sides of the common area with the tot lot in the northeast corner. That they consider losing a lot along Black Cat to provide for larger lots along Black Cat. That they trim Lots 9 and 11, as the applicant proposed, to increase the open space in the northeast corner. And they work with staff to provide fencing along the southern grassed boundary. Yearsley: I will second that. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval with modifications of H-2020-0060. Are there additional comments or thoughts before we -- before we vote? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Can I get clarification on that motion? Was it --were we --we were also losing that -- I mean were we losing that lot that staff recommended as well? Is that what that motion was? Seal: Correct. Fitzgerald: That's already in the staff report. Cassinelli: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F28 Page 26 of 82 Fitzgerald: I don't think we had to state that in the motion. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Everybody clear on where we are headed? Sounds like it. So, with that I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 126.53 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (18.17 acres), zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 buildable lots [316 single family residential (94 attached & 222 detached), 63 townhomes, 14 multifamily residential, 1 commercial and 1 school], 32 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.26 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Fitzgerald: Appreciate all the work. Joe, thank you very much for your efforts. Penelope, good luck moving forward and we will move on to our next item on our agenda, which is File No. H-2020-0047, Prescott Ridge, and I will turn it over to Sonya for the staff report. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This project was continued from the Commission hearing on September 17th in order for the applicant to revise the concept development plan for the medical campus and commercial portion of the site and the townhome portion of the site. I am -- clerk, do I have rights to forward the presentation? Weatherly: Sorry, Sonya, what was that? Allen: I'm sorry, I'm not able to advance the slides. Weatherly: Oh. One moment. Allen: Thank you. Might be user error. Weatherly: Do you want to have control or do you want Bill to help you? Allen: Either way. Weatherly: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F29 Page 27 of 82 Allen: So, if you will go to the concept plan, Bill, if you are driving, for the commercial portion. Thank you. A revised concept plan was submitted for the commercial portion of the development as shown on the right that includes the following changes: Reconfigured frontage road between Levi Lane and Serenity Lane and Chinden Boulevard. Relocation of medical office building from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the site. Addition of restaurant and retail uses at the northeast corner of the site on the outparcel to contribute to the mix of uses desired in a mixed use regional designated area. Just a note that the applicant states the hospital and landowner of this property -- property have signed a letter of intent and a final purchase and sale agreement is being drafted. However, this parcel is not part of the subject development application, so future development cannot be held to this plan. That that is what the applicant plans to develop the property with once they -- if they -- and once they do obtain the property. Reduction in the number of stories for the hospital and the medical office buildings from four to three stories. Addition of many more trees within the 30 foot wide landscape buffers along the west and south boundaries as an added buffer to adjacent residential properties. Addition of pathway connections to the main building entrances from perimeter sidewalks and from the single family residential to the commercial portion of the development for pedestrian interconnectivity and addition of a shaded seating area in front of the medical office building and a large plaza greenspace in front of the hospital. And, then, Bill, if you will go to the revised site plan for the townhome portion, please. There we go. Thank you. The revised site plan submitted for the townhome portion depicts the following changes. The reconfiguration of the site layout with homes fronting on private streets and a MEW. Reduction in the number of dwelling units from 54 to 46. And inclusion of attached units, in addition to the townhome units. The attached units will front on the MEW and be accessed from the public street. And increase in the amount of common open space area. And, finally, addition of amenities consisting of a pavilion, barbecues, seating area and a fire pit. And there is an amenities exhibit in there, too, I believe, Bill, if you want to go to it. A revised preliminary plat and landscape plan were also submitted that depict the revised layout of the townhome portion of the development and replacement of a buildable lot with a common lot adjacent to the east boundary of Peregrine Heights. And, yeah, if you see that little green area there, that's the common area that replaced the buildable lot. And staff will stand for any questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Sonya. I appreciate it. Are there any questions for staff? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, with the exception of that lot that's still not part of the -- of this plat here, did they pretty much do everything that we had requested? Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, Commissioners, I believe so, yes. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, follow up question. On that buildable lot -- so, everything -- I mean what -- can you explain to me exactly where we are at? I mean what the -- what Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F30] Page 28 of 82 this plan depicts is using that lot. What happens if-- you know, it's -- it's still not a -- it's a letter of intent drafting a purchase and sale agreement. That -- you know, it's not a done deal yet. So, what happens if that does fall through? What's the -- what's Plan B? Allen: Well, you can't -- Commissioners, you cannot -- that property is not part of this development application, like I said, so it won't be part of the development agreement. So, if it falls through it -- there simply will not be a commercial, retail, restaurant component to this project at this time. Cassinelli: Will they be able to do everything else on the revised plat if that-- if that parcel doesn't come through? I mean are we just -- I mean will they be able to still enter the ambulatory -- come off of Levi Lane like -- like it's depicting the -- the hospital medical facility will all remain as the -- as they are in the revised plat if that parcel does not come through? Allen: I believe it's in the same location. The applicant can respond to that, though, and he will have a -- a much more detailed presentation than mine on the changes. It almost looks like there is a little bit-- looking back and forth between the two plans it almost looks like there is a little bit of an offset, but I think it's still on this property. So, I think they should be fine. But they can confirm that. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Sonya? At least at this time? Okay. Seeing none, would the applicant like to come forward or join us on Zoom. Seal: Go ahead and state your name and address for the record. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Commissioner Seal. Connor: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Patrick Connor. My address is 701 South Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. Pulling up the presentation now. Great. I will go ahead and start. Like I said, my name is Patrick Connor. I'm with Providence Properties and we build communities. I'm happy to be here again. I am presenting solo tonight. Stephanie Leonard, who presented with me last month, recently got married and she's on her honeymoon, so we are very happy for her. Prescott Ridge is a masterplanned community located in northwest Meridian. Tonight representing the annexation, zoning, preliminary plat application. Like Sonya had said, we made some important changes to the townhome and medical campus layouts. Most of what I'm presenting tonight is the same as from before, but as I present I will call attention to any changes that have occurred since last hearing. So, the total project size is 123 and a half acres. Twenty-three of these acres is the school parcel on the far east side. Fifteen acres is proposed commercial, medical campus, and about 80 acres is part of the residential and open space. The location is south of Chinden, east of McDermott. Everything you see on this map that is colored is either platted, built, or under construction. So, I can -- as you can see Prescott Ridge is one of the final large parcels Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F31 Page 29 of 82 left in this area of town to develop. This zoning map shows majority yellow, which is medium density residential. Or sorry. Future land use map of medium density residential and mixed use residential adjacent to Chinden. This zoning map here shows north of the property across Chinden as commercial general and R-4 and R-8 to the south and R-4 to the east. We are submitting our application for three different zoning categories, C-G zoning for the north portion, R-15 for the multi-family and the townhome area and R-8 for the balance of the property. Here is the preliminary plat. So, one thing that's changed is the count of single family detached lots went down one to 315 units. We have 38 townhome lots, eight single family attached lots, which are part of that townhome parcel, 14 multi-family lots with proposed four plexes on each of those lots, 39 common and the proposed medical campus of about 14 acres and, then, 12 acres of qualified open space. Here is a qualified open space exhibit. Everything in green. As Sonya pointed out, we did modify in the southeast corner of the Peregrine Heights community have an open space lot in that corner. So, talk more about open space and site amenities. We will have a central park in the middle of the project with a pool and a clubhouse, which is private to members of the HOA with a large tot lot. We will have two areas of smaller tot lots and, then, one area of a dog park. Also -- and I will get into more detail. There is another pocket park in the townhome project, which will have some amenities there as well. Here is some renderings of these amenities within the project. This is of the clubhouse and the pool. The tot lots within the community scattered around. This exhibit shows the pedestrian connectivity throughout the project of all the pathways through the common area and this line shows where the ten foot parks pathway goes through the property through the north end by the hospital down through the cul-de-sac, estate lots, through the large central park and, then, to the future school site on the far east side of the property. This is an image of the phasing plan. I will get into how we will phase the project, but we will start from the south phase one and in phase one we will build all of the Rustic Oak or Levi Lane, all the way to Chinden to the south boundary. So, this map shows the extent of phase one. Part of the discussions with the Fire Department was to ensure that we always have two points of access for their accessibility and so we are showing that there with an access point onto Chinden and an access -- access point onto McDermott. This is very important for them to have the reliability of serving the property. On a regional level on this full build out of Levi will also eventually connect to Rustic Oak in The Oaks North project, which will extend all the way to McMillan. In talking with the Fire Department and the Police Department this will improve their response times to not just our projects, but also to all of the properties shown in this entire area. In addition, it was important to us to build the full extent of Levi Lane, because it offers utilities and -- and road infrastructure to the parcels along Chinden and extending them utilities. As discussed before Serenity Lane --once the stoplight at Levi Lane and Chinden is installed, which is expected to be in 2021 , the access for Serenity Lane onto Chinden will change from full access to a right-in, right-out only. At that point their primary access or emergency access will be constrained and so we are providing them a full access point through -- through Prescott Ridge. In discussions with the Fire Department this access will remain completely open without any sort of hindrance, so -- as discussed previously we were considering bollards or a gate. That is no longer an option as we want to ensure that the Fire Department can serve the 15 homes within Peregrine Heights. Talking now about the housing types within Prescott Ridge. As you can see we have an assortment Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F32 Page 30 of 82 and a diverse types of housing that was encouraged both by the comp plan and by staff. The majority of the property of the -- of the homes will be a mix between 45, 50 and 60 feet wide as shown in yellow. We will have segments of the -- what we call cluster housing, which are smaller lots. These also in code have the option to become single family detached homes. This will help kind of break up the monotonous of -- monotony of the streetscape a little bit and providing these attached units. Those will be decided at final plat and during each -- each plat as we move through the project. In green you will see we have the townhome or the single family attached area. The large purple lots that border the Peregrine Heights community. And, finally, the multi-family four-plex portion in the northeast corner. Here is some typical home elevations for our smaller lots that we build throughout the valley. Attached single family lots and typical home elevations for our-- for our mixed properties and we are currently developing our estate product for the larger lots that will be adjacent to Peregrine Heights. So, talking more specifically about something that's changed since we last presented is the townhome area with the attached single family. So, the revised layout, as previously said, changed from 54 units to 46 units. We have three different prototypes within this first -- the majority of the project in the middle and in the north are 29 rear load townhomes. Looking at this plan, the front doors and the front yards face the common MEW area in the central part and, then, the four unit--four buildings on the north the front doors face the north side and their common area behind them. They are rear load in that they have two car garages facing the private street. On the far west side of the property we have front load attached townhomes. So, the front door and the garages front the private street and, then, they have their backyards there and on the south side we have the attached single family units, which will front the public street of Wildfire Drive and, then, their backyards will face the common MEW area. Each unit here, which is very important to us, have the opportunity to have private front yards or private backyards, depending on how they are oriented. This is an opportunity for people to have their own green space within a community that a lot of the property -- a lot of the homes are already adjacent to common areas, but they have their own space to have a small garden or let their dog out in the middle of the night. One big modification and improvement here was the private street now accesses two different public streets, both Levi Lane or Rustic Oak and Wildfire Drive on two points. This was well received by the Fire Department. Also the MEW in the central part of the property will not have any sort of installations or amenities. We intend for this to be open, enable for the people who live adjacent to the MEW to use this as they please. The top northwest corner we do have a small pocket park. We are suggesting a pergola, barbecue, opportunity seating and a fire pit. This is more of an area for the people to gather and entertain in that space. For -- for -- which is part of the overall Prescott Ridge project, but specifically it's located here for the townhome portion of it. The MEW is a little over half of an acre and the northwest pocket park is also a little over half an acre. Here is some renderings of the rear load townhomes. Here is some renderings of the front load townhomes and the attached single family that are on the south side of the townhome project. Here is just some examples of inspirations that we had for MEW examples that we shared with the city. These are from -- both in Idaho, Colorado, and in Texas where they are very popular and allowing people to have their private small front yard, but also a large shared open space. Here is some example of that pocket park within the northwest corner of the townhome area. Next the four-- multi-family four-plex flats. Given the -- the use here we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F33 Page 31 of 82 will be submitting a conditional use permit for this project, but there are 14 lots with proposed four -- four unit buildings on each of these lots. This will be a rental product in this -- in this part of the community. Just real quick about our home quality. We are top in the valley, along with Brighton, in providing energy -- Energy Star efficient homes, surveyed by a third party. Last year we actually led the valley in the amount of Energy Star certified homes. We have a design center here in Meridian that every homebuyer can visit and gets to pick all the selections for all their home --for each part of their home. We were recently featured in the front of the Parade of Homes Magazine and here is some select photos from that Parade of Home house. And, lastly, the medical campus. So, we did make a lot of improvements and modifications to the medical campus that we think will be well received by the existing neighbors and by the medical market overall. The biggest change was the adjustment from four story buildings to three story buildings for both the hospital and the medical office building. A big change also was the rotation of the building to orient north and have the loading zone and majority of the staff parking on the south side, rather than on the west side adjacent to the Peregrine Heights community. And, third, the outparcel is shown on this plan. Like was said before, the parcel is not part of this application, but we are showing this in the northeast corner at the city's request to not leave out any enclave parcels and show how it could be developed within that whole campus. As said before, the hospital corporation and the landowner have signed a letter of intent terms, so they do have agreed upon terms, which is the biggest hump to get over and currently the hospital's legal team is drafting the contract or the purchase and sale agreement for the parties to sign. So, all of the major issues as far as price and terms and earnest money have been decided, but they will not close on the property until they feel like they have suitable entitlements to be part of this project. As said before, the large medical plaza by the hospital building was significantly enlarged with some outdoor dining opportunities, as well as some green space with seating within that green space with the pathway going through. All this is interconnected to the 30 foot greenway buffer around the west and the south part of the property adjacent to the residential. We are showing more dense trees to show that there will be a green buffer alongside the adjacent properties, as well as the eight foot masonry wall, and there are three pathway connection points to the properties to the south. The ten foot parks pathway through the cul-de-sac, another smaller pathway through the townhomes and, then, one pathway along Rustic Oak Drive. As shown as well are the large plaza and, then, the smaller -- what we are calling areas of respite -- shaded areas of respite where -- the medical office building and the restaurant area -- or the retail area, park benches, cover park -- cover seating and areas for relaxation. Here is just some inspirational photos of what the area could look like once -- once built out to maturity. So, as I said before, the medical campus in Meridian adjacent -- across the street from Central Valley Plaza does create a regional medical destination that can offer a wide variety of medical services and offer a better product for the community of Meridian and driving more investment and more high paying jobs to the area. The intended user of the property is a private corporation, which pays a lot in taxes and has a long track record of successful hospitals across the country and is very excited to be part of Meridian. Fitzgerald: Patrick, if you could wrap it up, sir. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F34] Page 32 of 82 Connor: Yeah. I just want to wrap up real quick. Thank you for the opportunity to present again. I mean it when I say thank you for your feedback at the last hearing. We have made a lot of changes that I think made this project better and thank you for feedback and -- and thank you, Sonya, for working with us through the past month and getting this project to where I think it needs to be. We believe that we have a really great project here that provides a diverse housing variety, the density that's needed, and we are complying with all standards in the UDC, as well as staff's recommendations. Stand for questions. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Are there questions for the applicant? Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Saw that mute button come off. Patrick, I have a couple here. First of all, you mentioned that the traffic -- can you get into the traffic down Serenity Lane a little bit, because I think last time it was going to be bollard and -- and restricted; is that correct? Connor: We -- we were completely open to what the Fire Department wants. It -- it's different throughout the valley what fire departments ask for. We suggested the bollards as a potential thing to put there, but in speaking to the fire chief recently he does not want to have any sort of hindrance for his ability to serve those residents. So, we are completely fine in having it open and free for them to come. Cassinelli: So--and I understand the Fire Department's concern. That's a --that's always the top priority with me. But now that opens up a lot of -- a lot of traffic going -- it's not being forced to go Serenity Lane, but people are going to -- people are probably going to take Serenity Lane, those that want to take a right on Chinden instead of going up to Levi Lane. I can -- I can see that and that's -- that's a county road with no curb and gutter there -- are there. Is there any talk to do some sort of mitigation on that, some traffic calming, to maybe hopefully force everybody out Levi Lane? Connor: So, I think we could -- one suggestion is maybe having signs. Whether people follow it or not I don't know. Eventually down the road Serenity Lane, to my knowledge, will actually--their access to Chinden will be completely shut off. At that point there won't be any traffic going to Chinden, because they won't have that access. I don't know the timing of that. Again, we are trying to provide this -- this access for -- for fire safety. I'm open to any sort of traffic calming or-- or markings to prevent people from using Serenity Lane as a shortcut. With -- with Levi Lane opening and -- and the access to McDermott, I don't-- I couldn't say exactly how many homes -- how many people are going to be using Serenity Lane as an access point to Chinden, but I'm open to suggestions. Cassinelli: Okay. I have more, but-- questions, but I would like to turn it over to my fellow Commissioners and come back around for my turn again. Fitzgerald: Well, I think I have your -- I have one of your questions in my pocket as well. Patrick, are you going to -- the flow of traffic from Chinden to the cutover from Serenity, without that property you guys have under contract right now, are you guys having any Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F35 Page 33 of 82 -- is it going to impact your current setup right now? Is the flow of traffic on the Levi Lane, your emergency access, anything that's being impacted without that property being a part of this project? Connor: Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing that up. I had in my notes to address that and I'm sorry I did not. It will -- having that outparcel not part of this project will not affect the access to Levi Lane. The way that it is shown the full access to Levi Lane is outside of that outparcel. There is a -- there is an additional access point with that outparcel, a right-in, right-out only access to Levi Lane, but it can still function as -- as needed without that outparcel. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead, sir. Yearsley: Thank you. So, I really appreciate how you have made the larger lots to the subdivision to the north, but it doesn't look like you have made provisions to kind of match up lot sizes to the development to the south side. Are those lots -- it's hard to tell from what we can see what size those lots are. Are they similar to the R-4 lots through that area? Connor: So, I'm glad you brought that up, because we have actually made those lots larger. I think they are -- I don't have it right in front of me -- or the -- or the dimensions. But I think they are 50 and 60 foot lots. So, there is no smaller 40 or 45 foot lots along that boundary line. So, we did enlarge them in some conversations that we have had with that development to accommodate some of their concerns. So, they are -- they are definitely not our smallest lot size, they are -- they are between 55 and 60 feet, to my knowledge. Fitzgerald: Okay. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Cassinelli: Patrick, is the -- with the configuration of the hospital as it now -- it doesn't sound like we even have a representative from them here again tonight, but is the ambulance -- I think before it was coming off of Chinden, then, touching Serenity Lane and coming across the front. Is it for certain that the ambulance traffic will be coming off of Levi Lane at this point? Connor: Yeah. So, that was another modification that -- in shifting the building that direction, the now -- the emergency service area is closest to Levi Lane and so that is where they want to drive the ambulance traffic and I do want to touch on the -- the way this hospital is going to be set up. It's -- it's not a trauma hospital. The ambulance aspect and the emergency room is really only required there by code, because of the level of potential surgeries or work that they can do within the hospital. So, that's -- so, truly the reason why they have to have an ambulance entry and emergency room. Also as stated Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F36 Page 34 of 82 at the last meeting that they do have a policy of no lights and no sirens in residential areas or as you get close to residential areas in order to alleviate any sort of nuisance that they can provide. But it is an improvement having that ambulance entry come off Levi and not have to come through the frontage roads access to the far west side of the property. Fitzgerald: And, Patrick, along that line for the trash enclosure -- that was something that the neighbors had discussed last time -- for both the -- the property to the north and to the main hospital, where do we have trash enclosures, so we can ensure that -- that they are not up against the folks along Serenity Lane? Connor: So, I don't know if you can see, but the -- on the bottom side of the major hospital building there is an arrow that comes in and points directly into it. That's the location of the loading zone and the trash enclosure area. Fitzgerald: Okay. And to the north is there one -- is that phase two, three story -- Connor: On the medical office building? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Connor: It's not -- it's not shown on here. I can check with the architect on how they -- how they plan to do that. With that being a medical office building it's a pretty -- it's going to be a smaller kind of trash area. Be similar to having a small office complex trash enclosure. So, it's not as -- I guess invasive as maybe the larger hospital -- hospital's trash enclosure with a larger -- larger square footage there. I would imagine that it's probably on the south side of that building as well, just given that they have the drop off area, the entry point and ADA on that east side. The south side of that building seems like the most logical place for the trash enclosure. Fitzgerald: Appreciate that. Thank you. Additional questions for Patrick? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Again, I still have more, but this one is a follow up on your question regarding that building. Patrick, did -- and I don't know if you can speak to this, because this is -- this is -- is really not your piece, but did they look at -- and, first of all, I do like the fact that they really made some changes, dropping the whole story off of there, and shifting that to -- to work with those neighbors to the -- to the west there. Did they look at that medical office building and try to get the -- notice it -- it looks like it's only a hundred feet from the -- from the property line there where -- the pathway maybe. Did they look at trying to get that even -- can they get that a little further to the -- to the east? Connor: We did look at a number of iterations of how to move that medical office building around. The way that they have configured it is they said the best and the furthest way Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F37 Page 35 of 82 that they can do, given their requirements for ADA access and how they have to have ample parking in -- on a certain side of it. This group has designed hospitals across the country and looked at this thing very hard for a couple of weeks and coming up with many different iterations. This is what I think the best most -- most friendly design that we could do here. In orienting in a different direction it changes the flow of traffic and changes their ability to -- to serve the community best. Again, this -- this particular portion of the project will have to go through a conditional use permit process and go through this same design review and concept review. So, in no way is this plan one hundred percent final, this just is a concept plan that shows how it could plan to develop and how they can use the existing code on the existing property to make it happen within the code of the city. Fitzgerald: Additional questions or follow up? Cassinelli: I got another one. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Cassinelli: Sorry. It's -- I mean this is a big project, so -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Absolutely. Cassinelli: If you can jump -- Patrick, if you can jump to the -- to the townhome slide. Not the rentals, but the -- like the -- I believe those are -- would be privately owned. The -- really like the MEWs. I like that setup. I like what you have done. The lone exception are the -- the pieces to the north of that private lane. I don't see anybody accessing the front door or seeing front doors on those. In a MEW there is common areas and people are going to come out their front, they got the neighbors across the MEW that are fronting it, but those ones to the north -- and I don't know if anybody else -- if that strikes a chord with anybody else, but I just -- it just feels like -- the only thing that's ever going to be seen. They are -- the people -- everybody's going to enter from the back. I would like to see something maybe different there. That's a --whether this is a question or a comment. Connor: Mr. Cassinelli -- Fitzgerald: Something that -- that was something that I wanted to ask if -- if you had looked at other options on those. Connor: So, with --with that-- I don't know if you can tell on here --the end of the pathway is the end of that -- that parcel and so there is probably about -- I want to say it's about eight feet between there and, then, the edge of the line. So, there is that pathway that kind of meanders through and, then, there is some green space on that far east side of that area. I agree that it doesn't have the same effect as -- as the MEW down here and we did look at every possible way that we could fit homes on here based on the constraints and for those eight or so units out of -- out of all these, you know, maybe potentially not everybody wants to have their front yard back into a common area, that's a MEW. Maybe they do want to have something that functions more like a small Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F38 Page 36 of 82 backyard, which is how these kind of function. The same thing with the houses on the -- on the west side, their backyards are more private, whereas the homes that face the central MEW it's more of kind of a public-private kind of nebulous area and so I don't think it's necessarily a downside. I know many people, myself included, that may not want my -- my front yard or my backyard directly visible from everybody in the neighborhood. So, we are trying to offer a diverse kind of selection of options for people. Some people may want to be right on that MEW. Some people may want to have a little bit more privacy. I will say that the eight homes that you are calling out on the north part are closest to that larger amenity pocket park, so that is an advantage for them having access to that with some of those amenities. So, not -- not every house on here is equal and I think we are showing three different product types on here and we are trying to show a diversity of options for folks. So, not everything is going to be exactly the same. Hopefully that clarifies kind of our thought process there. Cassinelli: Yeah. Still a little bit of a -- I just -- and I know it -- obviously it's difficult, because you got the -- you got the medical complex to the north there. But I wanted to -- I wanted to bring that up and -- and ask you about it and maybe just my fellow Commissioners be thinking about that. Connor: I actually forgot one more thing, Commissioner Cassinelli, if I can. Along that north boundary is going to be -- required to have the masonry wall. It's not shown here, but our intent is to really landscape that wall to kind of soften it to provide another kind of planting area and more landscaping to create kind of more of a -- a garden effect back there. Again, it's not going to be like a big, large open space, it's going to be more kind of like a patio garden home, but it will be a space that is owned and maintained by the HOA outside of their private front yard. Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Weatherly: I was recently notified that there is a representative for the hospital that is on the Zoom call and I'm happy to bring them into the meeting if you would like to hear from them. Fitzgerald: Sure if there is questions. Commissioner Cassinelli, will that help you? Cassinelli: Given the fact that we still got to deal with the CUP on that, I mean we have got -- you know, there is -- there is -- we are going to have another opportunity to talk about the layout of this. Fitzgerald: Yeah. They definitely have to come back in. Cassinelli: Yeah. I still had a couple more questions. But, again, I want to pass over to my fellow Commissioners first if they -- if they have any. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F39 Page 37 of 82 Fitzgerald: Additional questions before Commissioner Cassinelli continues? Commissioner Seal or Commissioner Yearsley, Commissioner Grove, anything? Grove: I do. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go ahead, sir. Grove: I just had one question. With -- in regards to those townhomes that we were just looking at, it's a private yard, is that just -- is that fenced, nonfenced? And, then, I'm assuming with it being private that it's -- it's not--the landscaping is not done by the HOA; is that correct? Connor: Commissioner Grove, thank you for asking that question. I want to clarify. So, the way that we are kind of planning it right now is we are thinking just a three foot wrought iron fencing. So, something that's more kind of neighborly friendly, but also gives that sense of privacy there. Everything within that front yard that's in the private property is part of the homeowner's responsibility to maintain, but everything outside of that within the common area is -- is owned and maintained by the HOA. So, it's a chance for folks to put, you know, some patio chairs, a couple tomato plants in that space, or just have grass or -- or rocks, it doesn't really matter, but it will be all owned and -- and maintained by the homeowner. Grove: Thanks. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, did you have a question? Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Seal: Bill, go ahead and get it out. Cassinelli: Patrick, did you have conversations with the folks in -- on Serenity Lane there after this revision? I don't know if we are going to hear from any of them here tonight, but the one -- I -- the one that I really had a concern with -- and you did address it a little bit. I would have liked to have seen more. There is that one property on the -- I guess it would be the southeast lot there on -- off Serenity Lane. You took out one lot and put in a common lot. I guess I was hoping to see a little bit more -- they still have four lots to -- it's still four to one there. They have got two on the south side, two on their east side. They are still impacted pretty heavily by -- by the layout. Connor: Yes. So -- thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner Cassinelli. That particular homeowner and that property is one of the sellers of Prescott Ridge. He is in favor of the development plan. He is aware that we have made that accommodation to him. He didn't care one way or the other. But I think it works better and it creates kind of more green space in that area. So, we -- we acknowledged the suggestion and we put it in there. So, that particular homeowner is fine with the four units that back to his home -- or the two that back to the rear and, then, the two that are adjacent to the side of -- of his lot. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F40] Page 38 of 82 Cassinelli: Because while you took out one, it really didn't touch any of the -- I mean it would have been kind of-- I don't know if that's a reverse pie shape or what, but he really didn't have any -- that one lot that's now a common lot doesn't have any impact per se on that lot, it only touches it on a point and it's not a flat side, if you will. So, that's that one I would have liked to have seen more. Connor: Commissioner Cassinelli -- Commissioner Cassinelli, just one clarification. When we did the reconfiguration we made some of those lots wider. So, there was actually -- that lot that's now green was -- was larger at one point. So, it did have more of an impact on that corner. Whenever we -- Cassinelli: Okay. Connor: -- whenever we did make the adjustment we went ahead and cleaned up that corner to make them connect kind of like you said, a pie shape. So, as you see it now it is slightly different than what it previously was. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Is that all the questions? Cassinelli: I think Commissioner Seal had one. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal, go right ahead. Seal: No, I'm good at this point. Fitzgerald: You are good? Okay. Cassinelli: I -- one more and, Patrick, maybe if you could just kind of give me an idea with your -- with your cursor how close at -- at this -- how close is Highway 16 to McDermott at -- where it touches -- you know, on the eastern portion of your -- of your development over there -- or western. Excuse me. On the west side of the development, how it -- where will 16 run? Connor: So, I -- I don't have the ability to point, unfortunately. Maybe I can. Okay. Okay, So, I don't know if you can see right here, but McDermott will go here and, then, it will actually terminate into a cul-de-sac and, then, you continue on. Sixteen will follow this line here and we weren't -- Cassinelli: I'm not seeing anything. Connor: You're not seeing any -- okay. Cassinelli: I'm not seeing your -- I'm not seeing what you are doing there, if you are -- if you are moving the cursor or not. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F41 Page 39 of 82 Connor: Okay. I'm drawing -- I'm trying to -- I'm drawing on the screen. I don't know if it's showing or not. Cassinelli: Yeah. Maybe if staff has an idea to -- if they can kind of draw that out. Where does -- where will McDermott terminate? Connor: McDermott terminates just north of our parcel -- north of us. So, you can see half of the road section in that -- in that far west corner and it will terminate in the cul-de- sac in a turnaround point. It will stub out to that large parcel west of Serenity Lane and then -- I don't know the exact measurement, but, then, Highway 16 is just west of that. We have worked with ITD and we have worked with Jacobs Engineering to make sure that we have the appropriate right of way shown and showing exactly where McDermott is planned to be terminated and located. Cassinelli: Okay. And there is--and is there -- maybe this is for staff. Is there appropriate noise abatement measures there be it -- be it a berm or -- or fencing on that -- on that side along McDermott? Allen: Mr. Chair, I'm not sure if there is. I'm trying to remember. I'm sorry. Give me a minute to look. I know there it is along Chinden. Fitzgerald: And, Bill, I think there is a pretty significant separation between -- like between where their property ends and where the highway goes. Cassinelli: That would be my -- that's my only concern thought there and hopefully -- hopefully there will be -- you know, whether it's ITD when they -- when they put that in they will -- you know, if they are going to put in a sound barrier, a wall, something. Allen: And, Mr. Chair, noise abatement is currently not required in the staff report along McDermott, but if it's something that you wish to add, certainly do so. And if I may also clarify something while -- while I'm here. There was talk about the conditional use permit that will come back in for the hospital. Just, please, be aware that that is only for the hospital. It is not for the medical office building. So, if there is anything on the concept plan that you are not in favor of, please, make a recommendation as such at this time. Fitzgerald: Thank you for that clarification, Sonya. Cassinelli: -- that office building? Allen: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. Cassinelli: I'm just clear -- I'm just asking for clarification that the CUP will not include the office building? Allen: That is correct. It's only for the hospital use. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F42 Page 40 of 82 Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Sonya, do you know the -- how far to the west 16 is? I thought it was 150 -- or more than a hundred feet to the west of current alignment of McDermott. But can you clarify that? Or, Bill, can you clarify that? Allen: Yes. Just a moment. So, it's approximately 630 feet to Serenity Lane from where the interchange is planned. Fitzgerald: But do we know the alignment to like were 16 will go north-south, how far away from the current alignment of McDermott. I thought it was offset pretty far to the west. Allen: I believe it's 300 feet -- Fitzgerald: Three hundred feet. Okay. Allen: -- west of McDermott. Cassinelli: So, it really -- it really moves to the -- to the west. Fitzgerald: They went way -- yeah. It kind of angles off and it goes way -- goes way far to the west. Allen: Yeah. I'm not absolutely positive, Mr. Chair, in this section. Fitzgerald: Okay. Allen: Give me -- give me just a moment, though, and I can look at that a little bit further here. Fitzgerald: While you are looking, is there -- Bill, do you have additional questions for Patrick? Cassinelli: Well, I think that kind of wrapped it up, but now finding out that that medical office building is not -- won't be a part of the CUP -- I don't know if we can bring the representative in who is on Zoom and talk to them. I would just like to find out if there was -- you know, it -- it seems to me with all that -- with all the -- all the pavement there, you know, something could have been shifted -- that building could be turned around. The entrance could face to the west to where you get -- where you can get more parking on the west side of that building and move it over to the east a little bit. Just -- I'm -- my thought is just that they did a lot to move it -- the hospital away from and reorient that so it -- you know, it's a little bit more friendly to the neighbors behind. I would want to see if we could do the same with that building. Fitzgerald: Madam Clerk, is the hospital representative with us? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F43 Page 41 of 82 Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I moved Betsy over to a panelist. Betsy, you should be able to unmute yourself now and use your camera if you choose. Hunsiker: Yes. Hi. Can you all hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Hunsiker: Great. This is Betsy Hunsiker from HC Healthcare. My address is 1717 Arlington Avenue, Caldwell, Idaho. You know, I am sorry, I kind of cut out there when I was -- when she was moving me over -- the connecting cut out. So, are you asking if the MOB could be moved further away from the neighbors? Cassinelli: That's correct. Hunsiker: I think I -- Fitzgerald: It looks -- it looks like that parking lot to the -- to the east -- it looks like you could pick it up and literally drop it and swap the two and so I think we are confused on why you couldn't make it on the -- on the east side, instead of where it is. Hunsiker: Well, I think -- I think there is a few reasons. I think probably one of the main reasons is because, then, the hospital is kind of hidden behind it and not very visible from the street. So, that's a concern I would have. I think that it's very tight up against -- mean I think we are being asked to do a lot on this. We are -- you know, we are asked to put retail on the corner, put the office building, you know, have the -- you know, we have flipped the -- we flipped the -- the hospital to accommodate the trash and -- and, then, we reduced a story, all of which are pretty significant adjustments to our--you know, our project. So, I -- I guess from my perspective I would prefer to move it down and actually connect it to hospital versus move it over so it's blocking the hospital view from the street, but -- so, that's -- that's probably the main rationale and -- and just the accessibility and traffic going around it from behind. I mean I'm not a -- a traffic planner, but that's probably the main concern I would have. I mean I think part of being accessible is for the public -- you know, knowing that it's there. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have a follow up for Ms. Hunsiker? Cassinelli: Well, I just -- I mean my -- in my personal opinion I would like to see it -- I would like to see something else. That -- that's going to be a significant berm at -- off of Chinden with a -- with a fence and you have got trees. So, if you are -- if you are wanting your-- you know, if you are wanting the visibility from Chinden with that berm you are not going to get a ton of visibility from -- from Chinden. It's not -- you know, it's not like -- and people are going to see an office building, too. Office building. Hospital. And so they are going to -- they are going to see the complex. They are going to know how to get in there. They are going to -- you know, I don't -- I don't see that as being critical as much as -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F44 Page 42 of 82 Hunsiker: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- orient this to fit in better with the neighbors, because we are backing up right to -- we got to -- we got to keep in mind we are backing up right to -- to residential that's been there for a significant amount of time. Hunsiker: Yeah. Well -- and, like I said, I'm -- I don't do hospital layouts and that's not my area of expertise. So, there may be other more, you know, reasons around the parking and the traffic and the code that I'm just not as familiar with. So, we can certainly take that back and, again, you know, this -- I guess this has to come back for a conditional use permit. I think -- you know, I think we have tried to be pretty accommodating for the neighbors' concerns by reducing the stories and by reorienting the layout. So, I certainly think that those concerns didn't go on -- you know, weren't dismissed by any stretch. So, I -- you know, I think we can try to figure out some -- we could do more research on the viability of that. I don't know -- I -- that's -- there may be other reasons. I'm -- I'm not a hospital layout designer -- or a campus layout designer. Cassinelli: And I would -- I would -- you know, I -- I agree and I -- I congratulate you for making those -- especially on the hospital, which -- which is significant. So, I'm pleased you did that. I just -- I just think without having to sacrifice anything else and if -- you know, changing the size, the overall square footage of that office building, you know, is there something -- can it be pushed a little bit more, because as it stands now it's only about a hundred feet from the --from the property line there, give or take, from what I can see. You know, if there is something else that can be done I would love to see it. I know that they have already done quite a bit, you know, but is there -- can they tweak it a little bit more to -- to really make it -- to really make it shine, so to speak, and really fit in with the --with those --with the neighbors to the back and I -- and I do -- you know, I recognize the fact that you guys made significant changes on that to work with those neighbors. I just -- I was just looking at that, that's what sticks out in my -- when I see it as can -- can a little bit more be done without having to sacrifice anything -- not sacrificing parking -- that's the biggest thing. Not sacrificing square footage on that building. So, those are some comments if you could take them back to -- to the ones that do the layout and see if there is something that they can do a little bit more just to get that building a little further to the east would be -- would be probably much appreciated by the neighbors. Hunsiker: Okay. Cassinelli: Thank you. Hunsiker: Yeah. I mean I think -- I'm -- we want it to be a project that they are proud of. I mean I have to say I think that this -- I'm really pleased with sort of where we are as far as the amount of green space and the -- the walking path. I think it's very attractive and it will be I think a real gem for this area. So -- so, you know, I want them to be proud of it as well. So, that's -- I'm happy to do that. Cassinelli: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F45] Page 43 of 82 Fitzgerald: Thank you, Ms. Hunsiker, we appreciate it greatly. Are there any other questions for Patrick or for Ms. Hunsiker? Okay. We appreciate you both being here. Thank you so much for the input. I know, Patrick, we kept you standing up there for a long time. We appreciate it. And we will give you a chance to -- to close as -- after we have finished public testimony. I know we have several people online that would like to testify. Madam Clerk, do you want to start there and, then, we will -- and go back and forth between in-person and online. Weatherly: Absolutely. Mr. Chair, I don't have anybody else in person that has signed up to testify. Fitzgerald: Okay. Weatherly: I'm going to transfer Cary Pitman over. Cary, one moment, please. Fitzgerald: Mr. Pitman, I think you are with us. You can unmute yourself and I think we will -- ready for your testimony. Pitman: Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes. Pitman: Okay. I am the -- this is Cary Pitman. I am at 6302 North Serenity Lane. The first one on the east side as you are looking at the map. I'm more concerned -- I see some of the possible ambulance access coming on the north side of my property -- or north side of my house going into the hospital. Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. Go right ahead. Pitman: Okay. So, I'm just wondering that -- from the corner of my property that -- there is only 21 feet from the edge of that -- my property to the easement and I don't know -- my concern is, obviously, noise, but I'm concerned about is --what kind of an access road is planned there with -- where is it coming off of Chinden, 20-26, and where does it -- the way it shows going into the hospital area there is -- there is not a lot of room that's up there and I'm more concerned about how people are going to come off of Chinden -- or an ambulance, excuse me, or a fire truck that's come off a Chinden and, then, across -- and cross Serenity Lane and, then, have that access in there, because -- well, according -- you were saying that we -- we probably won't have access to Chinden in the future, but if someone is coming out of that access lane and makes a mistake and turns left and goes towards Serenity and runs into an ambulance coming into the hospital or a fire truck, how does that look to you guys? Fitzgerald: I think we will -- we will have the applicant answer your question about the width of that access. I think they had -- said that the ambulances will take access off of Levi Lane and not off of Serenity. I will have the applicant answer that question when they come back up. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F46 Page 44 of 82 Pitman: Okay. Yes. I see the access frontage road going all the way to Serenity, so -- Fitzgerald: And it's there. I think the ambulance entry is on the -- on the east side now. It's the red line, instead of the pink line. So, they would take access off of Levi and not off of Serenity. But we will have the --- the applicant clarify that when they come back up. Pitman: Okay. And the other one was -- you know, that -- that was basically on -- and, then, there was the -- you addressed this earlier on the people wanting to come out of that subdivision going --from the south of us thinking they could come up through Serenity going -- and accessing 20-26. So, I would request that, you know, the applicant either put up a -- well, maybe help us out with a security gate or something in there -- a privacy gate letting people know that they can't get through there, so that we don't have people turn around at the end of the road. Fitzgerald: And I think the -- we will have them address that, too, sir. I think there is a question on the Fire Department's emergency access. So, when you guys have limited access to Chinden ensure they can get fire trucks or ambulances to Serenity Lane. But I will have the applicant make sure that they address that. Pitman: Okay. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead. Cassinelli: If I could ask a question of Mr. Pitman. I -- your -- your house is the one kind of impacted when I was -- I was asking about that office building in the distance there -- Pitman: Yeah. Cassinelli: -- and making our request known. Can I get your feedback on -- on the layout of that, because you are -- you are the one that would be most impacted. You and your next door neighbor by that building. Pitman: Yes. Yes. Me and -- me and the Ropskis that would be right behind our homes and, yeah, that's not exactly the view we have right now, so anything that would be -- give us the space that we are proud of right now would be much appreciated as far as, you know, maintaining somewhat of a view. I'm very appreciative of the -- going from four stories to three, so -- but a little more space back there where we are proud of our -- the properties we have had would be much appreciated. Cassinelli: Okay. I just didn't want to make sure I was asking something of the property owner there that -- that you didn't really care about. So, thank you. Pitman: No. Absolutely. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F47 Page 45 of 82 Fitzgerald: We appreciate it, Mr. Pitman. Thank you. Pitman: One more thing. Fitzgerald: Oh, yeah, go right ahead. Pitman: So, that pie piece that's on the north of my property, what -- what's the planning on that? And I guess we can ask the -- because that's going to be just a piece of property that's up there north of me that really is not a buildable lot, but it's -- are they going to maintain that as far as landscaping and mowing and all that good stuff or-- I got a question about how that property is going to be taken care of. Fitzgerald: I will have them address that as well. Pitman: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Weatherly: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, ma'am. Weatherly: Next up we have Sue Ropski. Sue, one moment, please. Sue, you should have the ability to unmute yourself. Please state your name and address for the record. Ropski: Hi. My name is Sue Ropski and I live at 6262 North Serenity Lane. I'm Cary's neighbor. I want to thank you for the changes you have made so far. I really appreciate you listening to our feedback. One question I have is if you could flip the parking lot to the east of the medical building with the medical building, then, behind our homes we would have a parking lot, but it would give us a little breather from everyone in a three story building looking into our backyards and I don't know if that's possible or not. I really appreciate you moving the garbage to the south side out of our backyards. Thank you for doing that. I am concerned about the traffic on Serenity. We are a quiet street with children. We have no sidewalks for children to be on, so they ride their bikes on the street. They walk their dogs on the street. They get pushed in their buggies on the street. So, I am concerned with no sidewalks on Serenity where the safe place will be for those children to play and, then, the other part that the fire commissioner brought up last time was with that right-in, right-out out only. It will reduce his response time to emergencies on our road. We do have some elderly people on our road and, sadly, one of our neighbors just passed away, so we -- we do want quick emergency response time, as well as limiting traffic. So, it's kind of a double edged sword there and I'm -- I'm a registered nurse, I am not a traffic manager, but anything you can do to help us with that traffic piece would be greatly appreciated. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F48 Page 46 of 82 Fitzgerald: Thank you, Ms. Ropski. We will have the staff and the applicant talk about their-- that -- that access, because we want to make sure the fire and ambulance can get to you all as well. That's very important. Ropski: Well, you know, we have been so fortunate -- many of us have lived here for over 20 years and we have a beautiful neighborhood and -- and we -- that's why we have lived here for 20 years. So, anything we can do to be good neighbors to the hospital, as well as maintain our quality of life, is just really, really appreciated. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you very much, ma'am. We appreciate you being here tonight. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next up we have V. Stack. One moment while I transfer you over. Stack: Hi. My name is Val Stack and I'm at 6072 North Serenity Lane and I would just like to make a comment that -- it was either Monday or Tuesday I spoke extensively to Deputy Chief Joe Bongiorno, fire chief, and talked to him about the emergency access issues that we have been talking about and I wanted to clarify one thing for Patrick. I don't know what day you spoke to him on, but he had told me that he just really hates bollards and gates and things of that nature and he just wants it open for simplicity and I said, well, wait a minute, doesn't pretty much every gated community in the county have a digital access whereby the fire and ambulance have the ability to open the gate remotely on their way to the property and he said, well, yeah, but you have to be a private lane. I said, well, sir, we are a private lane. We have been a private lane since day one. We have a very narrow lane. It's been mentioned before that there are no curbs or anything and so I asked him for some data here, some metrics, and he said that the emergency vehicle access has to have a minimum of 20 feet. Serenity Lane is 19 feet wide and in order for it to be classified as a Meridian city street you have to have 24 feet and on the northern end of the property, as Cary was mentioning, there is only 21 feet between the corner hip, his fence, and the right of way. So, what we would propose is using -- you know, get a -- a vertical gate for -- instead of a bollard or anything for our south access to be able to get to Levi Lane and to be able to have it maintained as a private lane and -- for the safety of our kids and our pets and our people. We would still have access for residents and we would be able to have access for mail like every other gated community and that would give us -- that -- we could be doing something like that now, maybe with the help of Hubble Homes on that one and -- you know. So, that was really one of our really big issues. Another question I had was also about -- you know, they were talking about a front berm and that it would need to be -- or a wall that would need to be ten feet -- as high as ten feet from the center of Highway 20-26 and so my question is -- so, how far west does -- would that berm extend? Are you going to have a berm or a wall from Levi Lane that stops at the -- behind the hospital? Is it going to stop at Serenity Lane? Is it going to stop at Highway 16? Where does that go? And on that same note, we also talked a little bit last time about -- if somebody was coming into Serenity Lane there was some -- some comments that they could turn right and go west, continuing down that frontage road and that -- that would have access to that western property over by McDermott on the western side of Serenity. So, I'm curious as to what the real plan is there, because laying out the rest of this picture -- I think Bill had mentioned that, you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F49 Page 47 of 82 know, let's get a picture of what the -- the interchange is going to look like, what's -- what are the other surrounding things that are going to be happening on the rest of this, because this is really a pretty limited view and I probably would also make a comment about that the two story office or the three story office building -- medical office building and it just -- just doesn't seem to be a legitimate argument that you couldn't just flop the -- flip flop the parking lot and the building, because, you know, for 20 years we have been -- the value of our homes has really been based on our million dollar view to the east of the -- of the Boise foothills and moving that over to the other side would be a substantial -- substantial change for us. I think it's an illegitimate argument to think nobody's going to be able to figure out where the office building is that's closer to Levi Lane, that's closer to the light, as opposed to farther away. So, I would just kind of maybe throw that out there. Fitzgerald: Could I have you wrap it up, please, ma'am. Stack: I think that's pretty much the big things. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you so much for bringing your thoughts tonight. We appreciate it greatly. Stack: Thank you. Fitzgerald: And we will try to get some of those questions answered for you. Stack: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, ma'am. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next is Doug Haneborg. One moment, Doug. Fitzgerald: Sir, you are with us. If you would like to unmute and, then, we will -- we are ready for you whenever -- or whenever you are ready. There you go. Haneborg: Can you hear me okay? Fitzgerald: Yep. Doug, just give us your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours, sir. Haneborg: Okay. Doug Haneborg. 6002 North Serenity Lane. I just want to piggyback a little bit and add to Cary and Val's questions and concerns. So, with the access -- frontage access road, I guess I'm a little confused, because if I understand correctly, the long-term goal is to close down Serenity off of Chinden, because it's too close to Highway 16 and what's going to go on there. It seems pointless to me to even have that frontage access road, because if their goal is -- I think originally from the start of this was for fire access or things like that, that won't even be a possibility from that location in the future if -- if that has to be shut down, because it's too close to Highway 16. So, I guess that's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F50] Page 48 of 82 my first concern there is the -- the access road just seems pointless to me at this point. The other thing is we do have elderly people in our neighborhood, but we also have younger couples as well, myself, we just had a newborn, there are several other neighbors with young, small children and we don't have sidewalks in our neighborhood and as was mentioned before, this is a private lane that is owned by the HOA and it's not that wide of a road. I mean even currently when we have two-way traffic coming through it's a tight squeeze and you got to slow down and go slowly across your neighbors, you know, when they are driving. That's with only 15 homes right now and there will be a lot -- a lot of traffic coming through our road if that is connected and opened, as the fire chief wants down below, and these are a lot of homes that are looking to put in here. I mean they are cramming these lots in and there is going to be a ton of traffic and the last thing I would want -- as it is already, even with just the 15 homes, it's a tight road and no sidewalks. So, we don't have sidewalks like this -- like other neighborhoods where you can take your child down the road. So, we have to ride our bikes on the edge of the road and I would hate it if someone --you know, this --this traffic increases tremendously and we are going to see accidents and -- and people going too fast. I mean, luckily, we do have a windy road, which helps it as it is now, but as you are going to increase traffic, this is going to be a big problem. The third thing that I would mention -- and mainly for Patrick, is -- so, I'm one of the lots there, I'm just to the north of that most southern lot where they -- they did make the adjustment on that pie-shaped corner. My question is, they go from the -- you know, the larger estate lot that backs up to us, which is two for each of ours, but, then, once you get across the street they go down to much smaller lots and I would like some consideration there to at least try to keep the larger lots across the street as well for our property values and also visibility as Val was mentioning earlier, because if you start cramming in lots right across the street, that is a big visibility factor for us. We are already going to have that with the two story townhomes and apartments and other things that they are doing there. But I think it would be nice if we could consider having some larger estate lots at least across the street as well when you get closer -- like that back up to the park over there by the pool and it would just make more sense to me, too, because if you are going to try to sell those larger estate lots, they are probably not -- the people that can afford the larger lot aren't going to want to look across the street at three or four lots that are -- that, you know, half the size and it will affect their property value, too. So, just for me, you know, I would think that that street on both sides should have the larger lots just for visibility, too. I mean I think it will -- these -- and I know there is a lot of different lot sizes that you are working with here and it seems like you guys have done a good job at, you know, your different phases of it, but to me in that particular area around that corner of that street you are going from large lots and, then, right across the street they get substantially smaller, so -- Fitzgerald: Could you wrap it -- close up your thoughts real quick, sir. Haneborg: Yeah. That's -- yeah, that's it, basically. So, I would just like them to consider those three things if they could. Fitzgerald: Okay. And I appreciate it and we will get you some answers on a couple of those things, too. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F51 Page 49 of 82 Haneborg: Appreciate that. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. Have a good night. We appreciate you being here tonight. Thank you. Haneborg: Yeah. Thank you. Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next we have Heidi Wilson. Heidi, one moment. Fitzgerald: Heidi, I think you are unmuted whenever you are ready, ma'am, the floor is yours. Are you with us? Wilson: Hello? This is Heidi Wilson. Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Give us your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours. Wilson: My name is Heidi Wilson and I live at 6133 North Serenity Lane. Our lot is on the west side of Serenity Lane and I just wanted to quickly echo the concerns of my neighbors about the residential area having access at the south end of Serenity Lane. I have three young children, we ride our bikes, we walk our dog often up and down the narrow lane and the thought of having that as an access point, which I know would be used by residents in those homes, and just as my neighbors have said there is a lot of homes planned to be built and I know that our road will be used for people to access Chinden and I would just hate for that to happen. So, I just hope that we can come to do a little bit more research, just as my neighbors have said, to figure out a solution to that problem and that's -- I just wanted to voice my concern with that. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Ms. Wilson. We appreciate you being here tonight and thank you for your comments. Wilson: Thank you. Fitzgerald: If there is anyone else who would like to testify in this application -- I think there was one more, Madam Clerk. Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Chair. Chuck and Bobbi, one moment. Fitzgerald: And if you are ready to unmute yourself, I think -- there you go. Oh. Maybe. Try one more time to unmute yourself and -- there you go. Try one more time. I think you guys are getting closer. I see the mute coming off. There we go. No. Hay: I can hold it if that helps. Fitzgerald: There you go. Hi, sir. Please state your name and your address for the record. Oh. If you hold your spacebar down that will work, too. Maybe. You went away. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F52 Page 50 of 82 Madam Clerk, can you click on there and unmute them or that -- offer them the ability to unmute? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I have asked them to unmute. Fitzgerald: There you go. Hay: Okay. Now can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir. We can hear you. Hay: Okay. Fitzgerald: Please state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours. Hay: My name is Charles Hay and my wife Roberta and I live in the Serenity Lane lot, which is in the lower southwest -- the last one right by that cul-de-sac. I would like to agree with what the other people in the subdivision have said about keeping our private lane private if at all possible, because of the property values and because of the danger that the very small road would have with increased traffic. I have one other further concern and that is as the one of the two on the south end of Serenity I would like to see a fence at least four to five feet high on that lower edge to protect our property from the smaller lots that are going to be right next to us. Other than that I have no real concerns about that area of the proposed development, but I just really think that to protect our property rights and kind of have a division there that -- between our lots and the ones that are going to be built right next to us, I think a fence would be the minimum that the subdivision ought to consider. Fitzgerald: Sir, we will have the applicant address that when they come back up and we will take that into account during our discussions as well. Hay: Okay. That's -- that's all I had. But I did -- like to confirm and agree with all the concerns that have been expressed about the roadway. That is the number one thing that concerns us all at this point. Fitzgerald: Okay. We greatly appreciate that and we definitely will have them comment on it and I think -- Hay: Okay. Fitzgerald: -- Ms. Stack talked about the fire discussion, too. We will definitely get to the bottom of that as well. We appreciate you being here tonight and thanks for the comments. Hay: Okay. Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F53 Page 51 of 82 Fitzgerald: Thank you, sir. If there is anyone else would like to testify, either in person or online, please, raise your hand and we will make sure you get heard this evening. Mr. Seal, do we have anybody in chambers? Seal: No, sir. Fitzgerald: Okay. I don't see any additional hands being raised. Patrick, would you like to come up and close and respond to some of the comments. Connor: Yes, I would, Chairman, thank you. While it's fresh in my mind, Charles, surrounding our property boundary we will be putting a six foot vinyl fence, so there will be a buffer between our lots and -- and your side yard. I think there is a kind of common thread from all the comments that I have received from the neighbors. I'm going to defer a couple of them to staff and potentially to Betsy, if she's still on the line, but just to clarify a few. So, the first couple from Cary. The ambulance entry as shown on this Meadow campus map, the primary entry will be to Levi Lane, no longer will be part of that frontage road. I do want to kind of defer some questions to Sonya about the frontage road, because that was a requirement by the City of Meridian to extend it -- the intent of the frontage road is so the parcel west of Serenity Lane has continual access eventually to Levi. So, that was the intent is to have a frontage road by code between parcels to ensure that there is the connectivity of safety there. So, that's the intent and that's -- that's where the location of it is. Sonya, I don't know if you want to go ahead and talk about the frontage road. Allen: Yes, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Patrick's correct, that is a UDC requirement for properties adjacent to state highways to provide frontage or backage roads. In this instance it made more sense to provide a frontage road, since the -- it may not be likely or maybe some time until the properties to the west redevelop and they are designated mixed use regional as well. But it made more sense to have the frontage road meeting closer to Chinden, rather than like midway through the site to the west and the purpose of the frontage road is to provide access from the adjacent collector streets, so that it reduces access points on the state highway. Fitzgerald: And, Patrick, can you talk through the width of that, because I -- I think the conversation about the pie-shaped lot up in the front and the width of that road -- just so everyone understands it. Connor: Yes. I believe the width of the road is 27 feet and the way that pie shape kind of works is that's the property line. How that area will be treated is it will be landscaped, probably just grass and be maintained by the hospital. Potentially as that frontage road is built, depending on when it's required to be built, that may be used as a potential like drainage area for the frontage road. But it will be maintained, it will be landscaped with grass, and so it won't be covered in weeds or anything like that, it will be a consistent treatment, just like in the medical campus. Another question that was posed about the berm along the property line -- as this property develops and as it goes to the CUP it is a requirement to have that noise abatement berm and trees ten feet above the centerline Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F54 Page 52 of 82 of Chinden Road, so that is accurate. My understanding right now is that the full frontage along Chinden will have to have that berm. As properties to the west develop and as properties to the east develop they will also be required to do that berm per code. So, as this -- as this particular parcel develops, as the medical campus is under construction, that will be part of their requirements for noise and noise abatement and site abatement. Again, I think that's going to be clarified more in the CUP process with the hospital. I do want to answer just a couple questions on the access of Serenity Lane and maintain the privacy of that and, then, lastly, I just want to defer the medical office building location to Betsy, if she's still on the line. But to answer your question, Val, I believe the last I talked with Joe was on Monday or Tuesday, he did want it to remain open for access, but I do agree with Sue's sentiment that, you know, it's kind of a double edged sword there in that you are opening -- you are inviting people to come through, but also you are losing your ability to -- to service them with emergency services. So, I am one hundred percent open and we are onboard if we can do some sort of electronic gates, we can definitely look into that. It's something that I think would be a really good win-win for both parties. I think it would give you all the opportunity to maintain the privacy of your road, but if it could also be agreed upon with the fire department it can be -- it can be something we can work with there. So, it's definitely I think something we can look into and something we can work with and we are open to footing the bill for that. So, I think that is most of the comments that were ever brought in. Oh. To address the question from Doug about the bigger lots across the street from the estate lots wrapped around the southeast corner. Those lots across the street are 60 foot -- foot lots already that backup to the park. So, the idea of making those larger estate lots kind of takes away from the point of that park in creating kind of a neighborhood feel and taking away more homes ability to backup to the park. So, that was important to us having homes adjacent to that park. They are already 60 foot lots, meaning they would likely be 50 foot home plans, which are larger home plans in today's definitions of that and they won't be anywhere near the size of the homes on the Serenity Lane, but they will be part of our nicer more estate series, the ones directly across the street from the estate lots. Betsy, if you are still on the line, if you could maybe address some of the questions they had about the medical office building shifting, whether it's a rotation or whether it's moving further east. I know that, as you said, that we are working with actual professional landscape -- or architectural professionals and landscape architects to make sure this thing functions well, but also gives you all the ability to have visibility off Chinden and I think it's something that we can work with. I don't know if you have more comments on that. Hunsiker: No. I think it's the same as Mr. Cassinelli asked before, so I think, you know, we are open to looking at it. I think it's also -- I mean, frankly, I would love to not have to do the frontage road -- road either. It makes things a little bit more complicated. But that's something we have to do. So, since it has to go through the campus, but -- so we will -- we will look at that and see, you know, maybe we can even rotate it 90 degrees, that was one thought I was having just as I was sitting here, because, then, that would narrow the profile and potentially help, you know, limit obstruction. You know, how-- how obstructive it is to the view. So, I think we -- I think we can look at a few options and try to make that work better for the neighbors. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F55] Page 53 of 82 Connor: I also just want to clarify one more thing. The distance of the edge of the medical office building to the property line is more on the par of 130 feet. The hundred feet is the distance to the 30 foot buffer. So, the distance from the medical building to the 30 foot buffer is one hundred feet and, then, an additional 30 feet. So, it's a -- it's already a significant separation there. Again, the lowering of the four stories to three stories was a significant change accommodation that we are trying to give. In addition, there is going to be an eight foot wall, in addition to a number of dense trees along that property edge. So, I think the obstruction in the visibility of the medical office building will be considerably low considering how far away it is from the -- from the property line and all the accommodations they are making with the landscaping and the wall. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Patrick. I appreciate that. Other questions for Patrick at this point? Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Patrick, I have a quick question for you that we haven't touched on yet. On Fireline Court, just kind of northwest of the dog park, is that intended to be a through street in the future when the parcel to the north develops or is that anticipated to stay a cul-de-sac? Connor: Thank you for bringing that up. That was -- we worked with staff to put -- to arrange that there. That eventually will be -- or it could be an access point for that parcel. We were required to do a similar thing that we did with Serenity Lane where we bring the street all the way to the property line. So, yes, that will be probably like a secondary or emergency access for that --for that property. They are going to get their primary access point from McDermott, which will terminate into their property, and, then, in theory, that frontage road, as it continues to their property, that's the intent of the frontage road is to connect all the properties along a major state highway to the mid-mile collectors. Grove: And so would that be signed as such, as that's been built out? Connor: The -- the cul-de-sac connecting to the north parcel? Grove: Correct. Connor: I believe so. My -- my understanding is that the sidewalk will kind of wrap around as we build it, but as that property develops they will have the chance to easily tie into that -- to that road. They can tear the sidewalk out and continue the pavement to get access. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Patrick? Cassinelli: Yes. I'm sorry. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F56] Page 54 of 82 Fitzgerald: Go ahead, Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Patrick -- can you pull up the slide that shows that access road. Connor: The medical -- the frontage road? Cassinelli: The -- I'm sorry. You are correct. The frontage road. Yes. I'm trying to dig it up, too. But you can -- Connor: I think I have it on the screen. Cassinelli: Okay. So -- and this -- this might even be for -- for staff as well. I'm not -- if that's a frontage road and that's not what I was -- I thought it was just kind of a rear access to this. I didn't realize that that was going to be a frontage road. You have got a frontage road that comes through a parking lot for a medical facility. So, you have got that other -- the future development to the west of Serenity Lane. That's going to take half of this access off of a frontage road that goes through a -- through a commercial development. Again, that's -- this is -- I guess this is more towards -- more to staff now that we brought up the -- the frontage road. Sonya, can you kind of address that? Is that a -- was that looked at? Allen: Yes, Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli. It's not ideal. Typically we prefer to have backage roads and for them to be a separate driveway and not through the site. The code also requires that the entrance to the frontage road be 660 feet south of the highway from the intersection. So, with that requirement it -- it necessitates it circulating through the site. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, do you have a follow up? Cassinelli: No, because my brain just got twisted by having a frontage go through a development. Perhaps the frontage road could have ran the -- the bordering edge of this medical facility for -- on the -- see what I'm saying? Coming down this -- where the -- where the 30 foot landscape buffer is. Fitzgerald: I guess I'm confused. What would be -- what would be the purpose? Cassinelli: It's a road that carries significant traffic. Fitzgerald: I don't think it would be significant traffic. I think most access is going to come off of Levi Lane. Cassinelli: But I mean for the -- for the future developments to the west. Fitzgerald: Okay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F57 Page 55 of 82 Cassinelli: Because what are we talking about on that parcel that's going to go in eventually to the west of Serenity Lane, how many -- if it's going to be residential, how many homes in there? Seal: Mr. -- Mr. Chair. I mean the -- Fitzgerald: Yes. Go right ahead. Seal: -- a simple way to address this as the frontage road is required, so it doesn't matter what goes in there, it's going to have to be there. So, it doesn't matter if it's going to be a -- you know, a medical facility, parking lot, or -- or what that might be. There is a road system in there that's going to accommodate and handle that -- that traffic. And I agree with Sonya, it's not ideal, but it is a requirement that it go in there. About the only thing I could see that might make that better is to -- if the property that's still in negotiation is purchased and maybe the frontage road goes all the way across and connects directly into Levi Lane, that might be something that makes it a little more palatable, but as it being a requirement if the whole thing -- I mean it's -- Cassinelli: It has to be further to the south, though, that she indicated. It can't be right up there at the -- at the top of Levi Lane, it has to -- Seal: Got you. Allen: That's correct, Chairman and Commissioners. The other alternative was to run it along the 35 -- or 30 foot wide buffer, but, you know, staff was trying to keep the traffic away from the residential properties. Fitzgerald: Yeah. Cassinelli: I'm just looking -- I'm just thinking down the road, if we -- if whatever goes in to the west of Serenity Lane, if it's residential, then, you have got -- all those people are going to -- to get out to Levi Lane to get on Chinden, they are going to be going through a parking lot. Fitzgerald: I guess I'm confused. That's commercial property or mixed use regional property on the frontage along that whole interchange. So, I don't think you are having residential homes --that's an interchange and it's going to get big right there. So, I'm less concerned about that. I understand what you are saying, but I think that interchange is going to be significantly -- I mean if you look at the -- at what's on the screen, that thing is going to take up the majority of that other property. Cassinelli: Okay. I mean I guess that -- that reduces the amount -- the amount of traffic that will use that, but -- Fitzgerald: And, then, McDermott will have an actual road where Highway 16 will be to the west, McDermott will actually go down into a cul-de-sac or some kind of an access. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F58] Page 56 of 82 So, there will be another access down there. McDermott won't just terminate and go away. There will be a cul-de-sac at the end. There will be another access there. Cassinelli: Okay. Fitzgerald: Additional questions for Patrick? Allen: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, Sonya. Allen: If I may, I don't have a question for Patrick, but in response to your question earlier about how far away State Highway 16 will be from the west boundary from the residential properties and, you know, it slopes -- it kind of curves through there. The closest point at the northwest corner it's about 75 feet and, then, it ranges to about 190 feet from the property, approximately. Staff would be in support of a noise abatement berm-wall combination along that west boundary if the Commission would like to make that recommendation. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Sonya, were they required to work with ITD on that at all? Allen: No, they were not. Cassinelli: Okay. Allen: It's not directly adjacent to this site. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Allen: But it definitely will be affected from the noise of the traffic. Fitzgerald: And, Patrick, are you amenable to that? Connor: Yes, we are amenable to that. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional comments or questions for Patrick? Parsons: Mr. Chair, this is Bill. Fitzgerald: Yes, Bill. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F59 Page 57 of 82 Parsons: I just wanted to go on the record and just let you know that the applicant actually did work with the property owner to the north and ITD to make -- and redesign their plat to make sure that they were in alignment with the State Highway 16 plan. So, I just want to go on the record and give them kudos for doing that, because it's -- it's not always the case where property owners want to work together to make sure that they are each -- they are preserving access. And, then, I wanted to go back to the backage road comment if I could. So, that mixed use interchange as you see there is meant to be office uses and low traffic generating uses and that's why we have specifically put that land use there. So, yes, although there could be some potential of some cut-through traffic through that medical campus, again, anything that develops farther to the west is not going to be primarily residential, it will be low generating traffic commercial uses, unless somebody comes back and changes the comp plan designation. And, again, that's a whole other process before this body and the City Council. So -- and, again, as Sonya alluded to, we don't know how those other properties are going to redevelop. Obviously, if -- if those homeowners are bought out in the future when land gets expensive and low density residential is no longer desirable there, those property owners could work together on a backage road or change their circulation of the site out there and work with the hospital campus in the future. So, again, we were trying to work with the applicant and satisfy a code requirement based on what we have currently, but it doesn't mean we haven't -- we can't plan for something else in the future when other properties develop to the west. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Commissioners, I'm going to let one more person from the public -- Patrick, if you can take a seat just for a second. I will give you another couple seconds to close. We have one more person that hopped up in line. Bonnie Layton. Madam Clerk, can you bring her over and we will let her speak and, then, we will give Patrick a couple minutes to close it up and we will hopefully be done. Layton: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. I'm Bonnie Layton. 690 South Industry Way, Suite 10, in Meridian. I'm actually the planning consultant with WH Pacific and I represent the client -- my client, the property owner, that owns the property to the west that we were just talking about with the mixed use and, then, there is some residential in there. So, I just wanted to let the Commission know that we have been working with staff and have had some preliminary conversations about how that will develop and we are pleased to see that the applicant and the application shows that frontage road along Chinden. And, then, I have had a couple of different conversations with ITD on how we would tie in -- where folks have discussed, the cul-de-sac that would come off of McDermott, you know, in -- in kind of the long-term plan and -- and how we would tie into there. So, I just wanted to bring that forth and also thank the applicant for working to provide access and I think the entire area, once it's developed, will be -- will be a great addition to the -- to the City of Meridian. So, if -- that's all I have. I will stand for any questions if anyone has anything for me. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Ms. Layton, we appreciate you -- your comments tonight. Any questions? Thank you, ma'am. Layton: Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F60] Page 58 of 82 Fitzgerald: Patrick, did you want to come back up and close, sir? Sorry about that. Just wanted to make sure everybody gets a chance to speak. Connor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Fellow Commissioners, thank you for having us tonight. I think we have a lot of good feedback. I think we -- we need to look and work with the Fire Department about the -- the access and the -- having a digital gate there. I think that could be a definite solution to all of our concerns. Again, to reiterate what Sonya had said, the backage road location is not ideal, but I think that it may be something that is not going to have a great traffic impact that we may be fearing. Truly, it's just a way to have access for neighboring parcels to -- to the mid mile collector. Thank you for having us again. I think this is a better project than it was a month ago and it wouldn't be that way if it wasn't for the input of the neighbors and from the Commission. So, thank you. And thank you, staff, for your support to this process. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Patrick. We appreciate it. Last chance for any questions for staff. If not, I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Seal: Mr. Chair? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I move we close the public hearing for file number H-2020-0047, Prescott Ridge. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on H-2020-0047. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Anyone want to lead off? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just looking at the project as a whole and where it was the last time we saw it, I really appreciate what they have done to it. I mean, essentially, they did everything that was asked of them and, then, a few more things to kind of make sure that what they did wasn't just trying to shoehorn in an accommodation to a request. So, I really like the layout, especially the new layout in the townhomes. That makes a lot more sense than it did before. The -- the mix of housing availabilities in here is -- is really good. I mean they have -- you know, as far as the mixed use portion of this, you know, they kind of nailed Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F61 Page 59 of 82 that. So, it would be nice to see -- not that everybody has an expanse like this to -- to develop, but, you know, I think they got that right. It seems to blend in pretty well to the surrounding areas. It kind of sets the pace for -- for where other things will need to blend into it. As far as them making the accommodations with the hospital, that's -- that to me is great. Again, you know, they are -- they are, basically, doing everything that we asked. I mean they are -- they are kind of in a rock and a hard place as far as the -- the access to Serenity Lane. Great to have a gate there, but as soon as access to shut off to Chinden, if it ever is, considering that it's a private lane, then, you know, that opens up a lot of questions as far as how the -- you know, where the secondary access is going to come from. If they want the gate in there at that point in time, considering that that's the fastest route for emergency services to get to them at that time. But as -- as a whole I think they have done a really good job with this project and I would definitely recommend approval of it. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, you're not on mute, so I'm calling on you. Cassinelli: Okay. You know what, I -- I said a lot of it in all the questions that I -- that I addressed. All in all, they -- they have -- they have worked with the neighbors, they have worked -- they have done a lot and I think it's -- I think all in all it's a -- it's a pretty good -- it's a pretty good package, especially for the location. I'm just going to make some comments on some conditions I would like to see to move it to -- to move it to Council and that would be to have them work with ITD on -- on a -- on some sort of a buffer noise abatement if -- if necessary. I mean if -- if they feel that there is plenty of distance there. But I just -- I would like to see a requirement that they work with -- with ITD on that. The lots on the south, that was a concern of mine that Commissioner Yearsley brought up -- brought up and that do they line up to the development on the south that are R-4. Continue to maybe look at some options on that -- on that smaller office building to see if they can't still tweak that a little bit to get it a little further away and, then, continue to work with Meridian Fire Department to see if a -- if a digital gate, as opposed to -- I mean we were all talking bollards and thinking bollards last time, but a gate isn't going to really slow down the department, but -- but five seconds to open a gate -- to open a digital gate. So, if we could do that. Those would be -- other than that I'm -- I think that they have done a lot and I think it looks good. I really--well, that said -- and this just popped up in my mind, because we kind of went away from it. I -- the other part is I wanted to see initially -- and this was a big thing for me -- that other lot to be a part of it and now that I say all that I -- we didn't really -- we talked a little bit about it, but that other lot -- I think that that needs to be a condition, too, to move this forward to get that -- to get that apart, because, otherwise, I think a lot of things -- I don't know if the hospital layout can -- can move forward without that. So, I think that would be a necessary condition as well. But if that lot comes together -- it sounds like it will. As long as that comes together, then, I'm in favor of it with those conditions. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove, go right ahead, sir. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F62 Page 60 of 82 Grove: Thanks, Mr. Chair. I -- I will start off with the --just my overall thoughts. I really like the -- the adjustments that they made. In particular, I -- either didn't notice it or they really did a better job of calling it out and -- or improving the -- the walkability of the development overall, especially in regards to the medical complex, I think that really highlighted the effort to, you know, provide some boundaries for -- for the development and -- but also make it more usable for -- for everybody. I really like that. And not just in the commercial area, just throughout it seems like there has been some true intentionality to how they thought about pathways and walking and mobility. So, appreciated that. I really liked the improvement that they did to that townhome layout. It's functional now compared to what we saw last time. I like the open space and the amenities that they -- they have worked to -- to add in with -- with that product. And, then, to Bill's conditions, I'm less concerned with the ITD piece on the west side in terms of-- I think they could do something there, but to me the noise abatement almost needs to go on the other side of McDermott. So, it would be between Highway 16 and McDermott versus right up on the -- on this development, but I might not be seeing that all the way through. I might be missing a piece there, so -- and, then, I'm good with the other three that -- that were mentioned. So, moving forward seems -- seems like a good thing to me. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Yearsley, do you want to chime in? Yearsley: I actually think -- my hat's off to Bill. You have done a great job identifying the issues. Again, coming in late to this, being my second meeting, you know, I didn't know what the first one looked like. My personal opinion is it's still a little dense. I would have liked to have seen fewer lots. But I will concede if we can add -- maybe reduce some of the lots along the R-4 on the south to provide a buffer between that facility, kind of like we have done to the -- to the north. Fitzgerald: And I -- I'm in agreement with most of the comments. I -- my biggest thing was -- I think the electric -- electronic gate or a digital gate is imperative for maintaining the lifestyle that the folks on Serenity Lane have. I was kind of with Bill, I thought we were going the bollard route, but if we are -- I understand the balance we have and I know Ms. Stack and Ms. Ropski both talked about making sure we can get proper emergency access in there for when they do need fire and ambulance services, whether it's part of, you know, Chinden being open or Chinden being closed, it's definitely going to be important later. So, having that digital gate in there, making sure that's a piece of this. I'm less concerned about the -- the last piece being a part of this. I think that's a separate entity. I don't think we can condition it. I think that's a hard -- you got to take the application the way it is. So, I don't know if we can condition additional land being brought into something that's on here. That puts people in a really tough spot and that could actually make an impact for that sale. I mean if you condition a property being brought into a condition -- or into an application, maybe do a change of requirement of what that thing is going to cost. So, I don't think as a city we can get into dictating to a buyer or to an owner what -- that being a part of the property. You can have a master plan over the top of it, but you can't ask them to be a part of it. But, then, not bringing it into this application, you can't do that. So, I don't think we could have that be a condition. I would be pretty opposed to that. And I don't think it's a piece that needs to be a part of this. I Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F63] Page 61 of 82 think they can -- they have enough room to maneuver in there without making it -- making that a condition. So, that would be my one kind of hard press back. I don't think we can do that. But everything else I think is absolutely -- Bill, I think you hit on the -- nail on the head. I think you -- you outlined all my concerns, except that one piece. I don't think we can condition that -- a property that's not a part of this application. First of all, you can't -- I don't think we can even do it, because it's not part of the surveys that are included in the application first. So, I don't think we have legal precedence to do that. So, anybody's feedback on that. But I think we are setting a really bad precedence by positioning a property that isn't inside the application. So, I would love Andrea's thoughts, but I don't think I would like to see us do that. Pogue: Can you hear me, Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Pogue; Yeah. I'm in agreement with your comments and concerns on that topic. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Cassinelli: Yeah. I think I was hoping for a purchase-sale agreement and I think they -- I think the applicant was, too. And if I could just make a comment to Commissioner Grove on the ITD portion, the only thing I would want to ask -- not that a noise abatement be -- be mandated, but just that they have that conversation with ITD and if ITD decides it can go on the -- you know, we will call for something -- we will have something on the other side of McDermott. It doesn't need to be on the west -- on the east side of McDermott, it will be on the west side of McDermott eventually, then -- then I just want them to have that conversation, so that those homeowners aren't surprised in a couple years when -- when they have got a freeway going through their backyard. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, yeah, you did a great job of outlining all the things that were issues. I think it's a well laid out revision with lots of open space and amenities. So, I think you -- you nailed all the pieces. I said that one piece that I was concerned about. Cassinelli: And, Mr. Chair, if I could -- question for Commissioner Yearsley and get his input. What -- as far as the -- the -- that southern area, if they were to maybe lose a couple lots down there, maybe you can put a -- I don't know if you can necessarily put a pathway in. There is a long block there that almost seems like it needs some walking connectivity, but if it doesn't line up with the development on the south, then, that doesn't work. But what's your thought on -- on that, losing -- losing a lot or two and making those a little wider? Yearsley: That's how I would recommend, making sure that they match the -- the R-4 type zoning with those lots. You know, 60 feet wide is still not a very wide lot for an R-4 zoning, you know. I think if they lost a couple of lots through there, two or three, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F64 Page 62 of 82 depending on how that would lay out, I think it would look a lot better and match up with the homes on the other side. Fitzgerald: So, can we give the staff the capability to work with them on it to match up those and not give them a lot number? Yearsley: Yeah. No, I think that makes sense. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, I see you working on a motion is what I'm thinking. I'm thinking you are -- Cassinelli: I have got nothing. I have got notes here. Parsons: Mr. Chair, before -- this is Bill. Before we get into a motion, I just wanted just --just to remind the Commission that both you and the Council have consistently required noise abatement along properties adjacent to State Highway 16. If you recall, we just had Gander Creek come through, we had Chukar Ridge and all of this body wanted to see actually a 12 foot wall-berm combination and that--those projects were 300 feet from the state highway and this one's even closer. So, that's why staff-- and I'm happy to hear that the applicant's amenable to that sound attenuation, because I think -- I think it is needed here, to be honest with you, on that berm and along that entryway and we have some other pending applications that are to the south of you that more than likely we have pre-app'd with them and asked for the same thing. So, I don't want to go into too many of those details, but that has been a consistent recommendation and approval for this body and the City Council. So, just giving a friendly reminder of what you have done in the past. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Commissioner Cassinelli, I think -- I'm amenable to requiring a noise abatement or -- I mean you could have them talk to ITD, but I think it sounds like the applicant's amenable to it. I think we can incorporate it into it. Cassinelli: Okay. Did we hear from everybody? Fitzgerald: I think so. Cassinelli: I got to find my -- my notes here. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal's always got a motion in his back pocket, too, so -- Cassinelli: Well, if he's ready -- if he's ready I'm -- Seal: Mr. Chair, I can take a stab at this. Fitzgerald: Okay. Go right ahead, sir. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F65] Page 63 of 82 Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council file number H-2020-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 22nd, 2020, with the following modifications: That the applicant provide noise abatement measures along the western boundary closest to Highway 16. We recommend that the three story medical building be moved or swapped with the parking area to its east. That the applicant work with staff to provide an electric gate that is approved by the fire chief for access to Serenity Lane from the south and that they reduce the number of lots to the south to provide better transition to the properties to the south. Cassinelli: I will second that. Fitzgerald: Just for clarification, you are giving the staff the ability to work with them to line that southern property up; right? Seal: That's correct. Fitzgerald: Just so I'm clear. Okay. Commissioner Cassinelli, does that make up with yoursecond? Cassinelli: Yes. Exactly. Fitzgerald: So, I have a motion and a second to recommend approval with modifications for H-2020-0047, Prescott Ridge. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Patrick and Ms. Hunsiker, thank you for being with us tonight. I wish you best of luck working with staff to get everything finalized. And, team, if it's okay we will take a five minute break, so everybody can take a -- get a water or use the restroom and we will be back in a second to continue on and, Sonya, sorry, but we will just pause for five minutes. (Recess: 9:27 p.m. to 9:34 p.m.) 4. Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck & Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres)and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F66 Page 64 of 82 C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Fitzgerald: Okay. So, I think we have all the team back. Moving to the last item on our agenda is the continued application for H-2020-0064, Pura Vida Ridge Ranch and we will turn it over to Sonya for the staff report. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, you are actually going to get me for the rest of the evening. Fitzgerald: Oh, sweet. Okay. Parsons: So, as this Commission is aware, this project was continued from the September 17th hearing for the purpose of making some changes and bringing that back to this body. So, the applicant did work with staff to -- to come up with some landscape solutions for the hillside, some changes to the open space resulting in enlarged usable area and, as you recall, there are some significant slopes on this site and so they were asked to bring back a fire prevention plan as well and that had been presented to the fire chief for review and approval. So, the applicant did submit revised plans and I will go to those quickly. I think the color graphic probably depicts it the best. You can see it more accurately as to the proposed changes that they -- they have here. But you can see here that they have a larger central common open space area where a couple of building lots in a parking area were previously shown and that's in this area central to the development. So, you are looking at the graphic on the left, you can see where there is two buildings and that parking lot and go to the right here, you can see that that's been removed, the unit and the parking for more -- better interconnected open space. So, that resulted in an increase of .36 acres of qualified -- qualified open space overall and, then, additional site amenities consisting of a tot lot, children's play -- with children's play equipment and four fitness workout stations located in different spots along the perimeter. So, along here there is some fitness stations that were included along the pathway, if I recall. The applicant also provided some revised elevations for you to take into consideration. If you recall at the last hearing we did discuss the requirement of them bringing back an architectural design guidelines manual for the proposed development, we wanted to make sure there was a consistent design theme throughout the development. The applicant also provided that. And, then, the applicant also provided an updated parking plan, which, essentially, they lost -- they went from 71 off-street parking spaces to 20 for overflow parking, but they still maintained 88 on-street parking spaces. I think that was probably some of the reason for the continuance is to see if the applicant could get more open space and still maintain -- satisfy the concern of parking and provide better amenities for the development, because of the density that we were proposing. So, as I mentioned to you here, I will go through here and see if I can get to those elevations for you. So, this is kind of what they had at the last hearing. The single story detached. And these are some of the additional town -- townhome elevations that they want you to take under consideration tonight. Again, two story. And, then, this is the three story product that they-- they are thinking that they may want to incorporate into the development and want to get your -- your recommendation on allowing this to occur within the development. I Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F67 Page 65 of 82 think the applicant will probably be best to go over those changes with you this evening. But, really, those were the -- kind of the themes that we heard from that previous hearing. As the previous hearing, staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions for you and, then, we will let the applicant present their changes to you. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Bill. Appreciate it. Can you restate the percentage of open space again, just so I -- because I didn't hear you quite right. Parsons: Well, yeah, let me see. I think -- I believe the applicant gave us some of those changes here. Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: So, you can see here open space is at 19.92 percent now. So, again, it was a 0.36 percent increase in the qualified open space for the development, which is what you guys wanted to see, at least -- Fitzgerald: Yeah. Parsons: -- more central consolidated open space. So, you have gotten that now. Fitzgerald: Okay. Parsons: Which I think, again, from --from our standpoint it is -- it looks like the applicant has done what the Commission has asked. Any other additional questions for me? Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for -- for Bill? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Bill, there was -- there was no three story previously; is that correct? Parsons: That is correct, Commissioner. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Any additional questions for Bill at this time? Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Bill, so with the loss of--you said -- I think it shows, what, 71 parking spots. Does -- what impact does that have for the overall parking of this development? Are we still -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F68 Page 66 of 82 are we getting down to like the minimum of what is required for the number of units that are going in or how are we looking? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, again, I think -- if I recall, you know, this -- as -- as we work with applicants through moving them through the hearing process, we talked with him about providing a parking plan and at least sharing that with you. It's not really a code requirement, but each one of these units have to provide a certain amount of parking based on the bedroom counts and, then, as you recall, at the last hearing we determined that they had plenty of on-street parking. So, in your hearing outline tonight they still have 20 guest parking stalls, but they still have 88 on-street parking spaces. So, again, I think you are allowed to park on both sides of the street, if remember correctly, along some of these -- this ring road and the one that stubs to the south here. So, again, from -- from our perspective I think you guys -- at least from my recollection, you felt there may have been too much surface parking and you wanted to see more open space. So, the applicant did keep some of the guest parking in the appropriate locations, but, then, incorporated more open space. So, I think from our perspective we think there is adequate parking and it meets code, so -- Fitzgerald: I think -- yeah. I recall we -- we thought there was too many parking spots and not enough consolidated open space. At least that was our -- my recollection as well. Grove: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we didn't lose -- Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, did you have other comments or questions, sir? Cassinelli: How do you read my mind? Fitzgerald: I just do. I can see. Or maybe. I don't know. Cassinelli: Bill, you had a -- you kind of flew by a plat map there that sort of had these two -- not that one. It was -- it was the -- the map with the blue line. There. No. It was -- it kind of divided -- it -- it kind of divided the two -- these -- these -- you know, the single family versus the -- the townhomes. Kind of on the -- it kind of split the hill. That's not the one. I don't know where it was and you flew through it. I just wanted to get -- I'm trying to get an idea for the -- there you go. But that -- that does the same thing. But that was the -- that was the better one on the other map, but -- so -- and just to clear this up, this is -- we are looking at this -- this is one large plat that we are looking at. So, when we are looking at the density, we are looking at the total overall density and whatnot and not that of parcel one and parcel two; is that correct? Parsons: Yes. That's correct. We look at the density. This project just has two zoning district boundaries, but it's still one project. Cassinelli: Okay. Oh, is that what-- is that why we have got--there is two zoning districts in there? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F69 Page 67 of 82 Parsons: Yep. That's why you see it. Cassinelli: What -- and what are the -- what are the -- what are they on the -- on the two? Parsons: Are you referring to acreage? Cassinelli: No. As far as what are the two -- what do we have in there? I think that -- that was on the next slide or the previous slide. Parsons: Well, we have a hundred and -- we had -- the -- the housing mix is 30 detached homes or single family homes and, then, six attached and 121 townhomes, which, again, some of that's going to change slightly, because we did lose some units. Some attached units is what we are looking at, with an overall gross density -- Cassinelli: Is that on the land use map? Is that -- Parsons: Well, the land use map --yeah. The land use map has this medium high density residential, which is eight to 12 dwelling units to the acre. So, this one's falling into -- if you look here on -- Cassinelli: Okay. Does that parcel one -- if that were to be looked at by itself does that fit with the future land use map with the zoning? Parsons: I would say, yes, it does. Cassinelli: It definitely does? Parsons: Yes. Fitzgerald: I think we walked through that last time. Cassinelli: It was -- I'm still confused on that. Fitzgerald: Bill, did you have a follow up? Cassinelli: No. No. That's it. Fitzgerald: Okay. Any additional questions for Bill at this point? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward or join us on Zoom. Sir, whenever you are ready and to get your slides up. Make sure you speak directly into that mic and we will -- state your name and your address for the record and the floor is yours when you are ready. Gibbons: I will stand closer. Can you hear me now? Fitzgerald: Can you get that a little bit closer or maybe try the other one? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F70 Page 68 of 82 Gibbons: Okay. No worries. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, this is -- I'm Jay Gibbons. I am with South Beck & Baird Landscape Architecture and Land Planning, 2002 South Vista, Boise, Idaho. I represent the owner and the project. So, I can answer the last question that Commissioner Cassinelli provided as well. This -- this first slide -- this -- I want to reacquaint you with where we are. The Pura Vida Ridge Ranch Sub -- Ridge Ranch Subdivision is -- the property is the four sided triangle there in the middle. We are just off one property away from Boise Ranch. Lake Hazel runs on our north property boundary and you have the South Meridian YMCA to the north. A couple of city parks as well. Recently you approved Poiema -- or the city approved Poiema Subdivision and the proposed development to the south of us, Sky Break, was -- was on a recent -- well, last week's -- two weeks ago Commission hearing. Got tabled until November 19th. So, you will hear more about that as we go forward. Let me address first the density question that Commissioner Cassinelli had. On the -- the lower portion, the R-15, portion the medium high density residential district a -- the city would like to see eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. We have -- because of the way we are doing are -- the reason we are doing the planned unit development is because we have basically -- you have got two and a half acres of the Ten Mile Creek drain that is unbuildable. It's -- it's fully within their property in the east. And, then, our ridge line that bisects the north of the bluff to -- to the lower end, that's about four and a half acres. So, there is seven acres total. That leaves us the bottom area in zone one with about nine -- a little over 19 acres. You take away seven you got 12. We have 127 units -- dwelling units on those 12 acres. That's just a little over ten dwelling units per acre. That's smack dab in the middle of what the city was -- was -- was looking for from a comp plan perspective. So, hopefully, you understand that a little bit better. Lake Hazel itself is a mobility corridor and that's part of the reason the city wanted to see the -- the medium high density residential in this area to support that designation. So, at our last hearing on 17th what I heard from the Commission was, basically, nine issues that -- that you would like -- that you asked us to go back and take a look at our development plan and see what we can do to really --to address these. One of them was a more unique design layout. Reduce the parking for more open space. Create a common area for an open play and a tot lot. A more cohesive open space plan. Fencing along Ten Mile -- Ten Mile Timber Creek drain and the multi-use pathway that's -- that we are proposing along that. More hillside treatment. Provide a -- you wanted to see the firewise -- fire prevention plan before making a recommendation and go to the City Council. Similarly, you wanted to see draft architectural design guidelines for review before making a decision and, then, you asked us to explain the lack of vehicular connection between the R-15 homes and the R-8 homes. And so what I have geared my presentation tonight is around these nine questions and I will cover those in the following slides. Oops. So -- Cassinelli: If we could have Jay speak into the microphone. Gibbons: I will stand still. That helps. So, my first slide -- Bill showed you the -- the overall color landscape plan from last time and -- and so, then, the follow up was we took that one and we -- we took away the two lots. The salmon colored lots that were formerly now the -- the open space, the -- the larger open space that we have created, we took out one ring road was road number four on the plat map. It was troublesome to ACHD, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F71 Page 69 of 82 because it was really short and only served basically a parking lot -- off-street parking lot and -- and two lots. We were able to recoup those lots. Took out some of the -- a parking lot that was over by the future bridge over Ten Mile. The Ten Mile drain. So, we didn't lose any lots. Part of the reason we are providing a new housing type or two new housing types -- one or the other is that originally they -- they all were on -- they didn't have a parking pad behind them. They had to be two bedroom. You didn't have a driveway. So, basically, you had a two car garage in each of those. We are proposing a housing type that is cohesive with the rest of our -- or will be -- more in line with what we originally proposed for the R-8 and the R-15 -- the townhome style. This is a shorter -- a shorter house, wider lots. They are 24 foot wide lots. They are still 65 feet long, but because the houses themselves are 40, 42 feet wide -- or 42 feet deep we can get a 20 by 20 pad behind each of them. That overcomes a loss of -- of any -- we still have 127 lots in the -- in the R-15, but we are able to supply parking on those lots for each individual home, as opposed to having those separated off-street parking lots that we have -- we have taken off and what we did with that -- by losing those 71 spaces is, then, at the ends of those -- the new lots are all the -- the tan color homes. The end caps of each of those are now greenspace, which ties into the MEWs running between the entries -- the front entries to the homes and this other-- other note about the -- one of the new product types is there is a -- there is a man door next to -- there is an entry into the house off the garage -- not in the garage, next to the garage doors. So, you know, a guest comes and parks in your driveway, you can let them in the back door, as opposed to having to go and find -- find your house in -- in the MEW. Another benefit of that is that each of these housing blocks have their own little extra green space -- usable gathering space, in addition to their MEW. And I will say that this -- so, it doesn't sound like -- .36 acres is -- is what the net or the -- the net gain to open space by creating this -- this larger open space with the tot lot and a fitness is -- it also will house -- it's a full size youth -- up to U-10 soccer field or half of a soccer field for -- or U-14 to U-19. It's basically 165 feet by 105 feet open. That's why there aren't trees in the middle of it. So, you got -- you got a lot of -- a lot of space there without -- without really that -- it's a benefit to us. What we have also done is connect the -- the pathway all the way across each of the 24 foot wide loop roads to -- that feed these houses to provide access to these houses. You remember last time there was -- there was a sidewalk between them, but there wasn't one outside -- near the toe of the slope. That allows us to really provide -- as you will see in a few minutes how it really all ties together. And so, like I said, we -- we propose a new two -- two story, two car garage, 24 by 40 foot home. We don't need the extra parking lots and they can be three, four bedroom homes and have a 20 by 20 parking pad. We also want to propose to you a three story product for -- and -- and I'm going to -- I'm going to tell you these -- these products that I'm proposing they only go for those 32 lots that we reconfigured. Those are the ones in the middle. They are not on the perimeter on the east next to the multi-use pathway, they are right at the toe of the hill, which, you know, it's basically per code they can't be more than 40 foot. That's -- that's the height limitation at 40 feet. Well, you got the two story product with the peaked roof, that's about 35 feet anyway. So, they are really -- they really -- but it allows -- you know, you can see -- you can have patios on -- on two different levels or what have you and -- and these are -- these are rear loaded as well and I'm looking for some input from the Commission on these, especially from -- from, you know, a look perspective. Because of our design guidelines all the homes in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F72 Page 70 of 82 this development will -- will -- as we finalize our design guidelines, you know, similar elements will tie all of our homes together, be it color treatment, it could be stone or masonry, it will be, you know, roof colors, there will be paint schemes, windows, decks, what have you. The whole nine yards. That will be in the design guidelines. These will have to comply with that as well. These are, you know, conceptual ideas for -- for three story product. So, one of the things that -- that -- of course, as the Commission pointed out was, you know, what's unique or we need a little more uniqueness to your -- to your layout and what -- we think we are pretty unique the way it is in the beginning, because of our housing type and, you know, how we can manage to get the city's wishes met with the zoning district, but having an opportunity to -- to create more of an active lifestyle in this development, we can create a recreation, a fitness plan that ties the multi-use pathway that runs over a thousand feet along the Ten Mile Creek drain, ties into the sidewalk there along Locust-- or Lake Hazel and, then, comes back into the development along our entry and follows the toe of the slope all the way around. All of those are -- are concrete sidewalks within our plan and it ties all of the open spaces together and that's a point -- .7 mile loop. In addition to that, we have got four fitness stations, two of them directly along the Ten Mile pathway and, then, one in our -- in our new tot lot and open play area and, then, one on the south end and where it turns and goes back towards the creek. Cassinelli: Jay, if you could get into the microphone a little better. I'm having a real hard time hearing. Gibbons: I apologize. I'm going to have to put it on my lapel in a minute, I suppose, but -- so, we have added some amenities. We are way above what the city would otherwise require and we have used the hillside -- we are going to -- we are going to have a -- you know, a cycler -- a bicycle circuit, rest areas, benches with a -- you know, a post to park on. There is -- there is a trash receptacle, a rest area along the way. Viewpoints or what have you. And that's about -- that's about a .6 mile circuit. So, by interconnecting all these greenways it really helps. And there is another reason for those greenways that I will get to in a minute. You were concerned about fencing along Ten Mile drain and there is always an issue with fences along -- on the drain side, the water side, of multi-use pathways. In the first place the city doesn't typically put them in on the creek drains, because they aren't -- they are not -- they are not -- they are not live water per se. They are not like an irrigation lateral that it's running water during the season. This is a drain creek, natural waterway. Five Mile Creek doesn't have -- they will have -- they will have fences on the house side of the pathway, but not on a water side. It's what we are going to do, because our houses are there along the pathway, we are actually going to connect a wrought iron five foot wrought iron fence house to house and, then, at the ends of the MEW where the MEW -- the walkway through the MEW connects with the multi-use pathway, we will have a gate there, that way--that separates the public versus the private space. We got public -- it's a public multi-use pathway. It's going to be a city pathway. The interior in the MEWs, that's -- that's a private space for -- our owners and so we think this is a creative solution and it's a good way to go and this is -- this is the -- the product that -- what we are going to use. So, we -- you asked to see the architectural design guidelines. I submitted a draft of those. Like I say they will be finalized as we go forward. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F73] Page 71 of 82 The condition --the city has conditioned that it be finalized and approved and incorporated into the CC&Rs prior to the first final plat. Similarly, with the -- the draft Wildland Urban Interface Fire Safety Plan, long title, means the same. There are five firewise principles. You got fire resistant homes and that has everything to do with building materials. You have perhaps fiber cement siding, masonry accents of asphalt, composite shingles, all the things that aren't readily flammable from embers or even direct flame in some regard. The second point is fire resistant landscapes. You know, you have three zones -- can I wrap up? I have -- I can do this in a minute. Anyways. So, you have three zones out to 30 feet from the structures. You got the clean -- clean and green, which means that's -- that's basically yard space or manicured lawn and, then, from 30 to 70 is pruned and groomed and that's prune trees up eight feet. You have groomed the -- the deadwood out of the shrubbery. You have --you may have lower grasses. It's still -- it's still irrigated and, then, you have the native vegetation that you are going to address from 70 feet plus that -- it creates that safe zone from the structures along the natural hillside that the Fire Department is concerned with and we are, too. Third is an evacuation plan. Be prepared and plan ahead. Fire prevention. That's all about awareness and education. And, then, fire ecology and management. It's how the fire -- firefighters do theirjobs. And it all goes hand in hand and our -- our plan addresses these and it, too, will be incorporated into the CC&Rs prior to the first final plat. So, I have some overall concepts -- one from above looking into the development from across the north side of -- of Lake Hazel along Ten Mile Creek. To the right of that is the entry into our development, undeveloped land to the west. The bottom left corner is the alley loaded product with the driveways and, then, to the lower right corner is one of the -- one of the MEWs along the creek. It's between some of the -- the three townhomes along Ten Mile Creek itself. You can see it actually looks bigger than -- than just in the plan view. It's not exaggerated. It's a nice -- it's a nice picture. And with that I will stand for questions. Fitzgerald: Thanks, sir. Are there questions for the applicant? Not at this time? Going once, going twice. Jay, thank you very much, sir. I'm sure we will have comments or -- I will I let you close after public testimony. Gibbons: Perfect. Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you. Madam Clerk, do we have individuals who would like to testify in person or online? Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we have two people signed in as if necessary. John Roters, do you want to talk? Okay. John Roters is not speaking tonight. Justin Griffin? Okay. We don't have anybody in house left that is raising their hand on that. Fitzgerald: I see Annette. Weatherly: Yep. Annette, one moment, please. Fitzgerald: Annette, how are you, ma'am? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F74] Page 72 of 82 Alonso: I'm good. Can you hear me? Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Alonso: Okay. Let me state my name. Fitzgerald: Yes, ma'am. Go right ahead. Alonso: Okay. Fitzgerald: You know the drill. Alonso: I know the drill. This is Annette Alonso. 2204 East Hyperdrive, Meridian. And I am representing the Southern Rim Coalition and I just want to start, I just want to say I like the redesign of the open space. I think it's nice. I think it's nice that they put it along the toe of the hill there. I just wanted to kind of discuss a few other things. One is we still haven't talked about any connectivity to that upper part and -- and being that we are in the situation we are with Sky Break, not sure where that's going to go, we still don't have any way for that to access. So, I don't know how this works. Maybe they could have -- maybe they could have a DA later to talk about that part of the development, but I think that's their last phase anyway. I just don't know exactly how to handle that part of it. The other situation I wanted to say is -- they are still talking about having the R-15 -- we are going to have some deviation in the setbacks of those R-15s and we haven't really talked about that. Essentially, that is equivalent to a step up and we are not doing any step ups as I know. So, I don't think that has been addressed. I'm having a little struggle with the three story thing and, then, going much higher than the 35 feet. I don't know how that works out. But I don't think that's supposed to be allowed either. Thirty-five feet is that UDC requirement on the single family, but, like I said, I do like the open space. Little -- still a little worried about the hill and how you are going to address that part that's on the upper side of that R-8 that's on the top. Are we doing any fill? Because I know the Sky Break is talking about a huge bunch of fill up there. We have essentially only one chance to take care of our southern rim, that existing portion, and so I just want to make sure we are not talking about a huge amount of fill. I want to make sure we are protecting that natural geologic hill there and not doing anything crazy. So, those are kind of my questions. What are we doing with that no connectivity. Can we ask for a DA later for that last phase? What are we doing about that setback on the R-15s and the height of those homes that I'm not really excited about. So, just want to make sure we are protecting our geological features that we have naturally. I think those are my last few things that I have. Otherwise, I talked about it all before. Fitzgerald: We appreciate it. Alonso: And that's all I have. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Annette. We appreciate it very much. Appreciate you being here tonight. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F75] Page 73 of 82 Alonso: Thank you, guys. Fitzgerald: Visiting with us. Alonso: No problem. Fitzgerald: I don't see any additional attendees. Is there anyone in the audience that we didn't hear from? There is no one else on line. Okay. Hearing none, currently -- and, Commissioner Seal, no one else has raised their hand and wants to testify? Seal: That is correct. Fitzgerald: Okay. Jay, would you like to come back up and answer a couple of questions and close, sir? Gibbons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I'm back. I'm going to stand close. Try to speak for -- or speak appropriately. So, we -- we recognize that access -- that the vehicular access to the top of the bluff where R-8 zone is has to come from the south. Throughout this whole application process and working with the city, we have had to work with the property owner of Calvary Church with Poiema Subdivision. They needed access, we are building a bridge, so both of us need access. We are sharing that access. The property to the south we have worked with both property owners at one point or another. The one that was -- when that application went --was withdrawn and, then, they got a new owner and now they are back with Sky Break. So, we have worked with them all along, so that our -- our access to that R-8 -- and the reason that it's R-8 and the reason we asked for R-8 zone on the top is because that matches what's going to happen south of us. So, that way there isn't a transition area with -- because, technically, our whole 26 acres is -- is medium high density residential, but we feel that if we are taking access from the south that translation should be better anyways. I brought my own peanut gallery. So, anyway -- so, yes, we -- it's our last phase. We recognize that even -- and you will -- you will have a crack at -- at Sky Break in a few weeks. According to their -- their plan, that piece that abuts our property doesn't happen until phase five and we are fine with that. We are not in a hurry to develop it or anything at this point on top of the hill. It is -- it is what it is. So, we will have to -- of course, we will deal with the -- with the -- the water lines, utilities that the city is going to require to be -- you know, from top to bottom or heavy, that's going to happen regardless. But development on the bluff is -- is down the road. The setbacks in the R-15 -- yes, we asked for some reductions in order that the -- the reductions are for the attached products that don't have parking pads. Basically, we are asking for a reduction because it's -- it's a unique product type and a higher density residential district that we are trying to come up with a -- with a quality product that fits and it's a high, you know, from -- from an aesthetic standpoint the type of homes and materials used in the homes is -- are high quality. We -- it's not really asking for special dispensation, it's -- you know, there are a lot of things that we are -- we are also doing as part of the development plan to justify those -- those asks. So, I don't think there is -- there is really any -- there hasn't -- that's the first time I have heard anybody have -- take issue with the -- the reduced setbacks on -- on some of the lots in an R-15. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F76 Page 74 of 82 It's not every lot, it's only -- it's only -- it's a two story, two bedrooms product that doesn't have parking pads. So, anyways -- and, granted, that's -- that's 64 lots, so -- out of 127. Then the three story product, it's -- you know, in vision what we would like to see is -- the R-15 height limit is 40 feet. So, I'm comfortable saying that. One of the product types has a flat roof. We would like -- actually, whatever we build we would like to have a flat roof. That provides that homeowner -- they have got the roof-- they have got a roof deck for -- for family functions, a personal open space right on top of the roof and that -- that stays under the height limit for the city. It's a creative solution. It's a creative product. And we would like the commission to give us their thoughts. And other than that, I do have my engineer here if you have any questions as far as roadways or -- or traffic or what have you, so -- Fitzgerald: Jay, can you address the fill -- fill issue. I know that that's a pretty significant slope coming off from the -- from the two phases. Can you address the comment about fill and what you --what you -- how much fill you are bringing in, if you are bringing in any. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, so we are not building a road up to the bluff. We are -- and that's the reason we are not building a road is because they have already -- the one home that exists up there has a road cut up from Lake Hazel up the hill and it does have a significant cut gap in order to meet the -- you know, the -- ACHD and the city's guidelines for slope. But all of that fill was pushed to the --to the valley floor in order to provide a ramp. We -- we can't -- that can't remain. So, that home can't remain. So, we have to -- we have to deal --we have to fill it back in. So, you know, we are not cutting more out of that hillside. We have a pathway. So, it's only a five foot pathway. But it's -- it's a balanced cut and fill at that point. Does that answer your question? Fitzgerald: Yes. I just wanted to make sure we are on the record explaining that. I know there is already a -- kind of a road up that side and you guys were cleaning that up and maintaining the hillside. Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, that's correct. We are going to reclaim that road. Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much. Additional questions for Jay? Cassinelli: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I know we talked about parking, Jay, but how many lots did you lose in this redesign? Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, we lost no -- we didn't lose any lots. We -- we took two lots out and put them in a different location. We lost a parking lot in order to put those two lots over there. We reduced the parking, we are -- we are -- still have way more than -- than what's required for -- for the housing types that we have shown, so -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F77 Page 75 of 82 Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, my other question was was this designed as a rental product or -- Gibbons: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Cassinelli, no, these are single family homes. They are single family attached homes in the R-15 and they are single family detached on -- on the R-30. They are not a rental product. Cassinelli: Thank you. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Commissioner. Additional questions for Mr. Gibbons? Anyone? Well, Jay, thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate you and your team being here and we will go from here. Gibbons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Fitzgerald: With that can I get a motion to close public hearing? Grove: So moved. Seal: Mr. Chair? Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing for H-2020-0064, Pura Vida Ridge Ranch. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: I do appreciate, Jay and your team, that you guys took our comments to heart and made some significant improvements to -- especially that open space and that was -- Commissioner Grove and I were kind of on the same page in regards to having something that was centralized. So, we appreciate that. Anyone want to lead off? Grove: Mr. Chair, I will. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead. Commissioner Grove. Grove: So, I think with the -- like you said, the centralized open space is a lot better. was a little concerned with the -- the amount of parking that was lost, but I'm looking at, you know, this view here, you see all of the parallel parking along the street, I'm not as concerned. I would like to say I am a fan of the three story product and the placement of where that three story project is going to be. I think that it works well with where they are going to put it. It's kind of tucked away from, you know, the main road. It's against the hillside. I think that it works where it is. They also, you know, have incorporated more green space in the -- in those areas. I like that. The biggest thing that I kind of didn't notice the first time reading through it, but really paid attention tonight was with the loop Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F78] Page 76 of 82 that they made for recreation. I think that is a very big value add and does a lot better job of tying at least the bottom portion of this project together. I still have concerns similar to the testimony from Ms. Alonso in terms of how the bottom and the top portions connect. I know that can't be necessarily addressed with this single development, because it's relying on neighboring projects -- or neighboring projects to tie them together from a vehicular standpoint and so that -- that portion is a little muddled in my head and, then, just to reiterate my concern in this area,just in terms of the school and looking at the West Ada numbers that came over, I know that doesn't necessarily weigh in as much as I would want it to, but it is something I would at least like to say is mildly concerning. Fitzgerald: Thanks, Commissioner Grove. Additional thoughts? Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I will start with the good. I like the changes that were made. I really do like that -- the athletic loop, the way that that's put in. I have been hanging out at the HP campus for a long time before they sold it and they have the -- a similar loop that's over there with similar equipment. So, it's actually pretty functional and provides for, you know, good -- a good -- good fitness community. I like the changes that have been made as far as where the parking was taken away, where the open space has been added, how it's been added, the continuity to it. Also like the way that the -- I mean, essentially, have a small trail system that's going on between the upper and the lower for connectivity as far as, you know, the ability to bike there, so I can see this. I have a -- you know, I have a young son, who is -- I shouldn't say a young son. I have a young man son that would probably be interested in a product type like this as far as, you know, first -- first time homeownership. You know, it's probably going to be a place where there is not going to be a lot of school aged children that are going to be there. I'm looking at this as more as kind of, you know, first time homebuyers, maybe starting a family, not necessarily raising them here or -- either that are empty nesters that are, you know, trying to find something similar, you know, a little bit less maintenance, a little smaller footprint, but, you know, nice amenities and things like that. The -- the rest of the layout -- I mean I'm -- you know, again, I'm -- I don't dislike the higher densities, but sometimes when you get more out into what has typically been the country it's a little bit harder to swallow sometimes, but I do like the product, I do like the way that it integrates. I -- I also like the idea of the three story houses with a rooftop. I think that's something that's -- to me that's innovative and especially for the people that are going to be looking into something like this, you know, to be able to have, you know, rooftop summertime, springtime celebrations, get togethers and things like that, that's -- you know, it's an innovative -- innovative way to do it without them needing a -- you know, huge backyard in order to do so. The school situation on it. Generally speaking that just the overcrowding of the schools in this area would be enough to basically stop me in my tracks, but for the product type that's here and the fact that the -- you know, where families with children are going to be living is the R-8 part, that's going to, you know, start developing at a far later date, hopefully, by the time schools open in Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F79 Page 77 of 82 this area, kind of negates that for me. So, I think that overall, it's something that I can -- I can support. Fitzgerald: Thank you, Commissioner Seal. Additional comments? Commissioner Yearsley, go right ahead. Yearsley: Personally I don't like it, but -- I don't think it fits that area, but it's already been through the process and I'm coming in late to the game, so I will leave it at that. Fitzgerald: Commissioner Cassinelli, thoughts? Cassinelli: They -- you know, I -- I will compliment the applicant and that they did take our feedback and they did make adjustments. You know, they -- they did it without losing lots. I thought that they were going to give up some lots for a little bit more open space. I'm really torn, I mean I know -- we were just dealing with -- with in-fill earlier tonight -- or maybe that was -- how many hours ago that was. It feels like yesterday. And it's tough. But to me this is just one of those -- it is a -- it is a round peg in a square hole. Because of this--of the attached portion. I like the product. I like the MEWs. I'm not even opposed to three story product like this. But I think that fits in a different area. If this were in -- if this were a neighborhood center or something like that, you know, I would want to see that product all day long. I think it would fit there. I just don't -- when you look at the -- you know, you look at R-8 right up the hill and you look at -- I'm assuming -- I don't recall what the -- you know, what we are looking at where the church is to the property to the east there, but I think the -- the homes are R-8. They might be R-15. But it -- it just doesn't -- it doesn't fit and I'm not saying that I don't like it, just not there. So, I just can't -- I know it's tough. You know, it's -- what works I don't know. But I'm not -- because of the fact that it's just this round peg in a square hole to me, it's just -- it just doesn't work and I don't -- and I -- and, again, the other thing -- and Commissioner Seal addressed it -- that's been bugging me is that this has been such a rural area and, you know, now we are putting -- you know, we are going from -- from nothing to everything in this area and it's -- that's a tough one to swallow. So, that's -- those are my -- I just can't get behind it, though, because of that. Fitzgerald: I'm going to probably come at it from a different angle than you guys it sounds like --or maybe I'm kind of on both sides. You know, we just finished a comp plan process and this is what the comp plan requires or requested and so they are trying to fill in in a really rough and geographic location, too, and you have a drain on one side and you have a giant 35 foot hill on the other side and so I -- I -- and you are trying to put medium high density residential in here and we are asking him to put R-4 it sounds like and I don't think that's what we are --the city comp plan process took us through. So, I -- I like the product, it looks like something that the river district in Eagle built. I think it's got, you know, funky undulation. It's something we don't see every day. It's tucked underneath that hill, so I think you could do some rooftop decks. We don't have --we need some different products in my opinion. I'm tired of looking at the same product that gets built in every one of these major subdivisions. We got to do something different and I'm sorry to say it, but the south is -- this is where it's coming, guys. They have a couple of parks that are going out there. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F80 Page 78 of 82 1 know that we are looking at a major -- some of the major city centers moving out this direction and Kuna is coming right behind us, not very far away, and so there is -- there is employment both directions and so I don't think we can call this a rural area anymore and so I think we got to understand that this is why we went to the comp plan and this is what the city wanted is, you know, a differentiation in housing types and that's why they put this kind of zone over the top of this area and so I think you have a golf course right next door, you may have some mixed -- a mixture of -- like I said, I don't think it's just going to be young families with young kids, I think it's going to be a different kind of product type -- or different kind of group of people that are going to be living here and I do appreciate kind of the different look than the same old thing we see every day. I do like the MEW living. I think they are -- those are cool. It's a different kind of person than I think maybe everybody else is -- is used to looking at purchasing and so I think we need to look at differentiation a little bit. I think it definitely fits into the stuff to the northeast or where the church is. You have a pretty big significant building that's going on right to that northeast corner not very far away from this thing and they are doing a bridge to interconnect that community into Lake Hazel Road. It's funky with that -- that neighborhood on top of the hill -- or that piece of the neighborhood on top of the hill, but I think that comes in very much later. But I do like the way they have connected with the -- the nature trails with the one hard path -- that connection into that big community center type greenspace. So, I guess I'm kind of thinking about it a little bit differently. I think you are -- you are putting a niche product in a niche kind of component of the land and that's kind of where I come from a little bit different angle. I understand that the school age piece -- or the school kids, like Mr. Grove mentioned, I think this wouldn't fit that group very well. It will be a different purchaser. That might be playing golf at the ranch and maybe looking to retire soon. Or maybe empty nesters or somebody that. Maybe that's not the sound, but I think that's something that's a little bit different than your normal growing family. So, just my thoughts. Cassinelli: Mr. Chair, if I could? Fitzgerald: Yeah, go right ahead. Cassinelli: One -- another thought on that is even if this were 500 feet or whatever it is to the west at the intersection, I think this would fit -- to me it's just in between those things. Again, it's a tough one. But if this were -- if this product were right now at -- at the intersection of Eagle and Lake Hazel, it would fit more as a transit, you know, to transition. It's a -- it's a weird transition with this piece. It's this -- it's this attached piece that -- that I can't get my -- get my mind around. And the other thing I want to say is that, you know if this -- what I -- what I do oppose in this, because of where it's at, is the three story. I like the three story. Not -- if this is -- to me if this is going to pass in here, that's -- that would be a -- you know, I might be swayed to approve this, but not with the three story, because to me that just -- that throws it -- that really throws it out of whack. Where it's located. Only because of where it's located. Not that I don't like it. Grove: Mr. Chair? Okay. I think -- I understand what Commissioner Cassinelli is saying. I would take a contrary view of it just to a certain extent and say that the golf course and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F81 Page 79 of 82 Lake Hazel and the hill kind of isolate this property and, then, the subdivision to the -- to the east to a very large extent and I don't see this as being as much of a clash of the -- the surrounding area just due to the geography of how this is laid out. I think if it was a flat map and we were looking at it it would look a little bit different, but the geography of this area kind of makes it so much different than if we were just looking at it as a flat surface and so I -- I struggle with that just from that perspective and, then, to Commissioner Seal, I agree a little bit with, you know, the -- the farmland and how it feels somewhat out of place, but I think if we use the future land use map and the -- and kind of think about it from ten, 15 years from now, does this feel as out of place at that point based on how the area has grown around it and I don't -- I don't have that -- as much concern with it looking at it from a longer viewpoint than -- than today. Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Seal. Seal: And to kind of touch on -- I mean, you -- you -- you touched on it a little bit, but, essentially, I mean I have been out in this area quite a bit this last summer and I mean, personally, it was shocking to me to drive out there after not having been out there for a decade, because to where you are used to seeing hillsides and farmland, you see rooftops, you know, and, essentially, a sea of them out there and it is -- I mean it's -- it's right in this area where -- I mean there is -- there is not many acres out there that aren't going to be covered with rooftops out there, so -- and that-- to me that's hard. I mean it's -- you know, when I see that it makes me a little bit sad. That said, it's where our city's at and it's where our city is growing. I think a diverse product like this, it is something different, which is good. I think it's going to attract younger people and give them, you know, hopefully an affordable housing choice that isn't, you know, something that's just stripped down and bare, you know, to make it fit on, you know -- you know, essentially, make it fit into a -- fit -- fit the square peg into the square hole, I guess. So, I think something like this where it is a little bit more diversified it's going to be something that might be good for that community out there. Again, you have a golf course that's next to it. You have parks that are coming in. You have something that's, you know, kind of built to be more of fitness minded folks living there, you know, with the bike trails, with the -- the fitness loop that's in there and things like that. So, you know, again, personally, I'm not a huge fan of the higher density stuff, but I see this as -- you know, I mean, you have an irregularly shaped hole here, so not much is going to fit in there. My hat's off to them to make -- you know, for making something that's this different fit in there this well at this point. And, again, they-- you know, they took everything that we asked them to do. They did it. I think they have addressed the questions that we originally had. So, you know, again, I'm -- I'm more in favor of this at this point. Fitzgerald: Additional comments, thoughts? Commissioner Grove? Oh, you went back on mute. I caught you having to talk. Anybody -- additional comments or thoughts or motions? I -- you know, Commissioner Seal, I think you and I are on the same page. I think -- and I do think there is a need right now and I think there is -- with some of the folks moving in from out of town there is a --there is a lot of people that would like attached Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F82 Page 80 of 82 products. They sell really fast. I get to live with a realtor and so I -- they try to find more product like this in town and there isn't any and so I think there is a need out there for that kind of product and I know it may not fit everybody's style, but I think there is a desire for -- like I said, an affordable option that is a sense of community, too. And so there are folks that are moving here that aren't necessarily traditionally going to like that big open space, they like having tighter area and more community and, like you said, fitness focused and so I think I'm in agreement with where you are. Grove: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Unless anybody does -- was there any modifications that we were -- that we are mulling about on this one? I don't have any really written down, but if there are none, then, I would move forward with a motion. Fitzgerald: I think the only thing was the -- is fencing -- the way they fenced the -- the drain is everybody okay with that? I think it's a request to vet it or do whatever they need to do with the Council anyways, but I don't have any problem with what they are proposing. Seal: I agree with that. Grove: So, anything with that? Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think -- I don't have any -- any modifications that I'm aware of. Grove: Okay. I'm going to try it, if that's okay, Mr. Chair. Fitzgerald: Go right ahead, sir. Grove: All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0064 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 22nd, 2020. Fitzgerald: And, Commissioner, I guess I'm going to throw a monkey wrench in your comment. We do need to talk about the three story product. Are we going to -- I know Bill had an opinion about that. Commissioner Seal, you had an opinion about that. So, I stopped you in the middle of your motion. I apologize. But that's something I think we do need to address. Does anybody -- I know Commissioner Cassinelli had an opinion. Commissioner Seal, you had an opinion. I tend to think it works there, but I understand that there is a compromise to be made. I understand that there -- this could be the compromise. So, Commissioner Cassinelli, go right ahead, sir. Cassinelli: I --yeah, I'm definitely opposed to the --to the three story product in this place. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F83] Page 81 of 82 Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Seal, do you have follow up thoughts? Seal: I stand by my remarks. Fitzgerald: Okay. Commissioner Grove, what do you -- do you want to incorporate that into a motion, whichever way you want to lean? I -- I'm okay with the three story. I don't know where you are going to come down, but -- Grove: I actually prefer it. I think that it adds some additional qualities to this project, so I'm in favor of it personally. Fitzgerald: I think if we put it in there they need to have elevations finalized and ready to go before City Council, so they understand what they are getting into, because what they presented tonight don't match up with what the original elevations are. That would be my only thought there. Grove: It would be -- I do like the flat top, just as a personal -- Fitzgerald: I do, too. I agree. Grove: All right. So, I will try this again. Fitzgerald: Sorry about that, sir. Grove: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0064 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 22nd, 2020, with the following modification: To add in completed elevations for -- before City Council for review, with recommendations to make the three story product a flat top product. Badly worded. Seal: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval with modifications of File No. H-2020-0064 and, Madam Clerk, I will have you call the roll. Roll call: Grove, yea; Yearsley, nay; Seal, yea; Cassinelli, nay; Fitzgerald, yea; Holland, absent; McCarvel, absent. Fitzgerald: The motion passes on a three-two vote. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT. Fitzgerald: Mr. Gibbons, we appreciate you guys being here tonight and we hope you get all your ducks in a row and elevations ready for City Council and we wish you luck. Team, thank you. It's been fun, literally an evening of three continued projects. Okay. I need one more motion. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. October 22,2020 F84] Page 82 of 82 Seal: Mr. Chair? Fitzgerald: Yes, sir, go right ahead. Seal: I move we adjourn. Cassinelli: Second. Fitzgerald: I have a motion and a second that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Motion passes. Oh, is there anybody opposed? Sorry, I should have asked that. Hopefully, not. We can all go to bed. You guys have an awesome evening. I will see you in November. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:41 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED RYAN FITZGERALD - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve the Minutes of the October 15, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 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 Planning and Zoning Hearing Outline and Presentations Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 22, 2020 FLUM FLUM FLUM Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Horse Meadows (H-2020-0060) Continued from September 17, 2020 Application(s):  Rezone & Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.71 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at the SEC of Black Cat and Pine. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: City of Meridian single-family residential to the north and west, R-4 and R-2 zoning respectively; RUT county residential to the east and south. History: AZ-06-016, PP-06-010, FP-07-034; VAR-06-008 –These plats have expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: Rezone from the existing R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 4.71 acres. The gross density of the project is 5.52 du/ac which is in the middle of the allowed density for the future land use designation of MDR (3-8 du/ac). The average lot size within the development is around 4, 100 square feet. The minimum lot size in the requested R-8 zone is 4000 square feet. Because the lots are so close to the minimum lot size and the look of the submitted elevations, Staff was concerned with the proposed homes being able to fit on the lots so Staff requested the Applicant provide an exhibit showing how these will occur. The Applicant has provided this exhibit and it should be incorporated into the staff report following this meeting. As noted, the submitted elevations combined with the proposed lot sizes gave Staff some pause. The sample elevations of the detached single-family homes for this project and show a combination of single and two-story single-family homes. The elevations also show different architectural elements and finish materials. Because of the proposed lot sizes and the submitted elevations, Staff understands these are conceptual but the Applicant will be tied to the overall design and look of these elevations even if they are smaller versions of them. Because the subject site is less than five (5) acres in size, the UDC minimum requirement of 10% qualified open space and at least one site amenity are not required to be met. However, the Applicant is requesting a rezone to a zoning district that allows higher density. Therefore, Staff finds it appropriate that usable open space and an amenity be provided. In response, the Applicant has proposed approximately 35,000 square feet of open space which amounts to approximately 17% of the site. This open space consists mostly of the street buffers along the outside of the development and also includes the common lot that holds the micro-pathway and the proposed tot-lot in the northeast corner of the site at the end of the cul-de-sac. However, it is Staff’s opinion that more usable open space should be made available within the site to accommodate those who cannot so easily walk or bike to Fuller Park (.9 miles away). In order to meet the purpose statement of UDC 11-3G and the subdivision regulations the Applicant should lose a buildable lot and convert it to open space; Staff is recommending that Lot 6, Block 2 be a common open space lot instead of a buildable lot. Access into this development is proposed via a new local street connection to Pine Avenue. All internal local streets within the proposed development are shown as 33-foot wide street sections with 5-foot attached sidewalks – street section will accommodate on- street parking where no driveways exist. Originally, access was proposed to Black cat by way of converting W. Quarterhorse Lane to a new public street. However, ACHD denied that access because the adjacent Pine Ave. is a lesser classified street and therefore access must be taken from Pine. W. Quarterhorse Lane is currently an ingress/egress access easement with 4 servient sites, including the subject site of this application. Without the consent of all easement holders, the access must remain until the remainder of the properties annex or redevelop. Therefore the easement will remain as a non-buildable lot until such time it can be included as part of a future development. As noted above, staff has received an exhibit for the Commission that demonstrates how this area of the property could redevelop with the required street frontage improvements and be incorporated into a future plat when the properties to the southeast redevelop in the future. The applicant should relinquish their right to use of said easement as part of the rezone request. Likely, the remaining easement area is best suited for future right-of-way once properties to the southeast redevelop and direct vehicular access to Black Cat can be removed. Written Testimony: 20 pieces of testimony were submitted – Major issues are:  Too much traffic on Black Cat and 27 more lots will only make it worse.  Density in comparison to adjacent subdivisions.  Opposition to proposed use (townhomes/apartments). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject Rezone and Prelim Plat requests with the conditions noted in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0060, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 22, 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- 0060, as presented during the hearing on October 22, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0060 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: Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) th At the Commission hearing for this project on September 17, the Commission continued the project to tonight’s hearing in order for the Applicant to revise the conceptual development plan for the medical campus/commercial portion of the site and the townhome portion of the site. A revised concept plan was submitted for the commercial portion of the development that includes the following changes:  Reconfigured frontage road between Levi Ln. and Serenity Ln./Chinden Blvd.;  Relocation of medical office building from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the site;  Addition of restaurant/retail uses at the northeast corner of the site on the out-parcel to contribute to the mix of uses desired in MU-R designated areas; (Note: The Applicant states the hospital and land owner of this parcel have signed a Letter of Intent & a final purchase & sale agreement is being drafted – however, this parcel is not part of the subject development application so future development cannot be held to this plan.)  Reduction in the number of stories for the hospital and medical office buildings from 4- to 3-stories;  Addition of many more trees within the 30-foot wide landscape buffers along the west & south boundaries as an added buffer to adjacent residential properties;  Addition of pathway connections to the main building entrances from perimeter sidewalks and from the single-family residential to the commercial portion of the development for pedestrian interconnectivity; and,  Addition of a shaded seating area in front of the medical office building and a large plaza/green space in front of the hospital. A revised site plan was submitted for the townhome portion of the development that depicts the following changes:  Reconfiguration of the site layout with homes fronting on private streets and a mew;  Reduction in the number of dwelling units from 54 to 46 and inclusion of attached units in addition to the townhome units;  An increase in the amount of common open space area; and,  Addition of amenities consisting of a pavilion, BBQ’s, seating area and fire pit. A revised preliminary plat and landscape plan were also submitted that depict the revised layout of the townhome portion of the development and the replacement of a buildable lot with a common area lot (Lot 4, Block 8) adjacent to the east boundary of Peregrine Heights. Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 122.8 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located on the south side of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 & on the east side of N. McDermott Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 & a future mixed use medical/professional, retail/commercial & residential project, zoned C-G & R-8 West: McDermott Rd. & future SH-16 and vacant/undeveloped agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County South: SFR development (Oaks North), zoned R-4 & R-8 East: SFR development (Oaks North), zoned R-4 and rural residential/agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County History: A portion of this site consists of Lot 18, Block 1, Peregrine Heights Subdivision (formerly deed restricted agricultural lot for open space – non-farm that has since expired). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R (9+/- acres) along Chinden Blvd. & MDR to the south (3-8 units/acre, 113.5+/- acres) Summary of Request: Annexation of a total of 126.53 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (18.17 acres) zoning districts is requested for the development of a mix of residential & medical office uses, including a hospital with emergency care. WASD plans to develop a school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. A Master Plan for the residential portion & concept plan for the medical campus portion of the site was submitted. The residential portion is proposed to include a mix of SFR attached & detached homes, townhomes & MFR apartments; the commercial portion will include (2) 3-story structures – a 181,000 s.f. hospital with 60+/- in-patient beds & a 67,000 s.f. medical office building that will provide medical services geared toward women’s health & pediatrics. To achieve a mix of uses as desired in the Comp Plan for MU & specifically MU-R designated areas, Staff recommends a commercial component (i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) is included in the plan to serve the employment area & adjacent neighborhood. With this addition and other recommended provisions, Staff believes the requested zoning & development plan will be generally consistent with the Comp Plan. The SFR uses are principally permitted in the R-8 & R-15 districts; the school, MFR development & hospital will require CUP approval of the uses prior to development & are subject to specific use standards. One of the standards for hospitals that provide emergency care is that the location has a direct access on an arterial street; however, because the UDC prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway, no other access is available except for N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, along the east boundary of the site which connects to the highway. The City Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement; if so, it should be memorialized in the DA. If not, Council may consider a modification to the standard prohibiting new approaches directly accessing SH 20-26 upon specific recommendation of ITD if strict adherence is not feasible as determined by Council. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 377 buildable lots \[323 SFR (8 attached & 315 detached), 38 townhome, 14 MFR, 1 commercial & 1 school\], 39 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.54 acres of land in the proposed R-8, R-15 & C-G zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed in the SFR portion of the development is 4,000 s.f. with an average lot size of 5,982 s.f.; the average townhome lot size is 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 3.17 units/acre with a net density of 7.95 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 portion is 3.13 units/acre with a net density of 7.2 units/acre & the gross density of the R-15 portion is 7.79 units/acre with a net density of 10.95 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR & MU-R designated areas. The residential portion is proposed to develop in 9 phases as depicted on the phasing plan over a time period of 4 to 5 years. The north/south collector street will be constructed from W. Chinden Blvd. in alignment with Pollard Ln. across Chinden Blvd. to the north & extend to the southern boundary with the 1st phase. The SFR portion of the site will develop first, followed by the townhomes and then the MFR apartments. The commercial portion of the development & the school property are not included in the phasing plan as they are under separate ownership & will develop separately from the residential portion. Access is proposed in the residential portion of the development via (1) collector street (Rustic Oak Way) from Chinden, which extends through the site to the south boundary & will eventually extend to McMillan Rd.; access via McMillan Rd. is proposed at the west boundary. A collector street is proposed from Rustic Oak to the east for access to the school site. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension; an additional stub street is recommended by Staff to be provided to the outparcel at the SWC of the site. Access is proposed to the commercial portion of the development from Rustic Oak with a frontage road running through the site parallel to Chinden connecting to Serenity Ln. to the west for access to Chinden. This is proposed instead of a backage road for consideration by Council since a public street really isn’t desirable in this area. The applicant is requesting approval of private streets in the townhome portion of the development with a mew in accord with UDC standards. A parking plan was submitted for the overall development that depicts a total of 497 on-street parking spaces available for guest parking in the SFR portion of the development. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards – a minimum of 10.51 acres (or 10%) is required, a total of 12.41 acres (or 11.8%) is proposed – consisting of the street buffer along collector streets (McDermott & Rustic Oak), open space areas of at least 50’ x 100’ in area & linear open space. Because the MFR portion of the development is proposed to be subdivided with each 4-plex on its own lot for the option of separate ownership, Staff recommends a provision in the DA that requires one management company to handle the leasing & maintenance of the entire project to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. Site amenities are proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of 5 qualified site amenities are required – a 3,750 s.f. clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office & meeting room with an outdoor patio & a swimming pool, one large tot lot and 2 smaller tot lots with play equipment, an enclosed dog park (although this area may be just a pocket park with no dog facilities depending on what is desired for future residents), segments of the City’s multi-use pathway system, additional qualified open space exceeding 20,000 s.f. a pavilion, BBQ’s and seating area with a fire pit in accord with UDC standards. Sample photo elevations and renderings were submitted for the different home types planned in this development as shown; homes depicted are a mix of 1- & 2-story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stone/brick veneer accents. Staff is recommending articulation & other architectural elements are provided on elevations facing collector streets for 2-story homes. Written Testimony: Josh Femreite, Chief of New Schools for Gem Innovation Schools – in strong support of the project as their future campus is located about 300 yards south of this development & it will bring much needed housing options in this area and the school will be able to provide a K-12 public education choice for future families of this area. 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- 2020-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 22, 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- 0047, as presented during the hearing on October 22, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0047 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) thnd At the Commission hearing for this project on September 17, the Commission continued the project to the October 22 hearing in order for the Applicant to work with Staff on landscape solutions for the hillside, changes to open space resulting in a larger usable area, and fire prevention measures. Revised plans were submitted that reflect a large central common open space area where a couple of building lots and a parking area were previously shown resulting in an increase of 0.36 of an acre of qualified open space for the overall development. Additional site amenities were added consisting of a tot lot with children’s play equipment and (4) fitness workout stations located in different spots along the perimeter pathway. Concept elevations for two other possible housing types for the 24’ wide lots between the hillside & Road 3 were submitted – one is a 2-story and the other is a 3-story structure, both featuring 2-car garages with 20’ x 20’ parking pads. An updated parking plan was submitted that depicts a decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces from 71 to 20 with 88 on- street spaces still available. As recommended by Staff, the Applicant submitted architectural design guidelines for the development to ensure quality of development with the Planned Unit Development. A Fire Protection Plan was submitted that the Applicant states illustrates how the proposed development plan will comply with the current Boise City Fire Prevention Code 7-01-69, Chapter 49. Prior to implementation, this plan will be reviewed by personnel who have the authority and jurisdiction concerning the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC). Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Planned Unit Development Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 26.34 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North: SFR in the development process, zoned R-15 West: SFR rural/agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County South: SFR rural/agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County East: recently approved for the development of a church & SFR attached and townhome units with R-15 zoning History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MHDR (8-12 units/acre) Summary of Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) & R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts is requested for the development of 157 SFR homes consisting of a mix of detached (30), attached (6) & townhome (121) units at a gross density of 8.23 units/acre (excluding undevelopable areas) consistent with the MHDR FLUM designation for the property. The area proposed to be zoned R-8 consists of the upper rim area at the SWC of the site proposed to develop with SFR detached homes which will provide a transition to future MDR development to the south. The area proposed to be zoned R-15 consists of the slope & the lower valley area on the remainder of the site proposed to develop primarily with townhomes and a couple SFR attached units, which should be consistent with future MHDR development to the east & west. A DA is recommended as a provision of annexation. A preliminary plat is proposed to subdivide the property consisting of 157 buildable lots (30 detached, 2 attached & 125 townhome units) & 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 & R-15 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in 4 phases as shown on the phasing plan - the first phase is nearest Lake Hazel Rd. with subsequent phases progressing to the south with the last phase at the SWC of the site which requires a public street access to be provided from the south. The Fire Dept. is requiring secondary access to be provided from the east or south (or other means as agreeable by the Fire Dept.) prior to development of Phases 2 or 3. Access is proposed via one public street & one emergency only access via E. Lake Hazel Rd.; 1 stub street is proposed to the west and 2 stub streets are proposed to the south for future extension and 1 stub street is planned to the east boundary of the site from Poiema Subdivision for interconnectivity – a bridge is required to be constructed across the Ten Mile Creek to the east on the subject property in this location. Alleys & common driveways are proposed off internal public streets for access to the proposed units. Traffic calming is proposed on Road 3, which is over 700’ in length, by narrowing the street down to 24’ between Roads 6 & 7. A PUD is proposed to enable the development of a mix of SFR detached, attached & townhome units on the site at a gross density of 8.23 units/acre (excluding undevelopable areas) while preserving the natural topography of the property and the Ten Mile Creek. This property has significant topography which prevents development of over 25% of the property for buildable lots. The Applicant states there is a 58’ height difference between the valley floor & the rim with an average slope of approximately 40%. As part of the PUD, the Applicant requests deviations from UDC standards pertaining to building setbacks as shown on the PP, sidewalks, landscaping along pathways and cul-de-sac & block face lengths. The details & justification for such is included in the staff report. A 35’ wide street buffer is proposed along Lake Hazel containing a berm and landscaping is proposed within common areas except for the portion of the site that’s on the hillside; no landscaping or sprinklers are proposed as the area is proposed to be left natural & unimproved – the applicant states low growing vegetation currently exists in this area that doesn’t require supplemental moisture & installing an irrigation system would cause unnecessary damage to the hillside – the HOA is proposed to be responsible for reducing fuels on an annual basis at a minimum. A fire safety plan was submitted as requested due to Staff’s concern about the potential danger of wildfires in this area. The Plan illustrates how the proposed development plan will comply with the current Boise City Fire Prevention Code 7-01-69, Chapter 49. Prior to implementation, this plan will be reviewed by personnel who have the authority and jurisdiction concerning the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code. Qualified open space in excess of the minimum standards – a minimum of 2.63 acres (or 10%) is required, a total of 5.25 acres (or 19.92% is proposed consisting of ½ the street buffer along Lake Hazel, linear open space (mews) & open grassy areas of at least 50’ x 100’ in area (this does not include the unimproved hillside area). Site amenities in excess of UDC standards are proposed; a minimum of (1) qualified amenity is required. Proposed amenities consist of a 10’ wide 1,631+/- foot long segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek, a 16’ x 16’ shelter with a picnic table, (2) 8’ x 12’ arbors with benches in separate common areas, and a dirt trail and paved 5’ wide pathway on the hillside, (4) workout stations and a tot lot with children’s play equipment. Pathways are proposed around the perimeter of the development and internally with connections to the multi-use pathway along the creek adjacent to the east boundary of the site. A pathway & trails are also proposed in the unimproved slope area providing pedestrian connections between the upper ridge & lower valley lots. A parking plan was submitted that demonstrates compliance with the off-street parking standards for residential uses. A total of 20 additional off-street spaces are proposed for guests in mini parking lots dispersed throughout the development; and an additional 88 spaces can be accommodated on-street for a total of 108 extra spaces \[down from 157+/- shown on the previous plan (-49)\]. As noted, the Ten Mile Creek is a natural waterway that runs along the eastern boundary of this site. As such, the UDC states that fencing should not prevent access to the waterway; however, in limited circumstances & in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council, Director and/or Public Works Director. Fencing is not proposed or desired by the Applicant. The Applicant states water flows year ‘round in the creek, is shallow and slow flowing at an approximate depth of 18 to 24 inches and is overgrown with cattails. The depth of the waterway in relation to the surrounding land is approximately 6’ from the top of bank to the bottom of the channel and the width is approximately 15’ to 20’. Fencing the creek would likely impede the irrigation district’s ability to maintain the drain. Because this is not a large open water system with deep, fast flowing current, Staff is not overly concerned; however, any waterway may present a hazard to young children. For this reason and because Staff has not received a determination from the Director or the Public Work’s Director on this matter, Staff recommends fencing is installed along the creek to restrict access, unless otherwise waived by City Council. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the SFR detached & townhome units that consist of a variety of vertical & horizontal siding, stucco, brick/stone veneer accents with wood/timber design elements with gable style shingled roofs with metal accent roofing on some elevations. To ensure quality of development within the PUD in accord with the UDC, the Applicant (at Staff’s recommendation) submitted design guidelines for the overall development to be included in the DA that promote innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development. To ensure compliance with these guidelines and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual, Staff recommends all structures, including single-family detached, are subject to design review. Written Testimony: Jennifer Loveday – not in support due to opinion that the existing roadways in this area cannot support additional traffic & the schools can’t support the influx of children this (along with other) developments in this area will bring; not in favor of the density proposed (feels it’s too high); would like to see more open spaces Staff Recommendation: Approval with the requirement of a DA per the provisions in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0064, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 17, 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- 0064, as presented during the hearing on September 17, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0064 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item 2. 64 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) by Riley Planning Services, Located at 710 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 4.71 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district (Medium-Low Density Residential) to the R-8 zoning district (Medium-Density Residential). B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 4.71 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Item 2. F65 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: October 22, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) by Riley Planning Services, Located at 710 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 4.71 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district (Medium- Low Density Residential) to the R-8 zoning district (Medium-Density Residential); and, B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 27 single-family residential lots and 3 common lots on 4.71 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 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: September 22, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 PROJECT NAME: Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) 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 2. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 9/17,120 20 10/22/2020 Legend � DATE: j � �� Pro ect Location ' TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0060 Horse Meadows Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 710 N. Black Cat,in the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 10, ` Township 3N.,Range 1 W. 0 71 n 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 5.33 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 4.71 acres,by Riley Planning Services. NOTE: The ACHD staff report requires the Applicant to take access off of W.Pine Avenue instead of converting the existing private lane easement(Quarterhorse Lane) into a public road access, as originally proposed. The easement will remain as a non-buildable lot until such time as the easement holders relinquish their rights to use said access with future development of their respective properties. In addition, in response to the staff report for the September 17, 2020 Commission meeting, the Applicant requested a continuance to a future meeting date in order to revise the plat and obtain additional information regarding the existing easement as discussed in the staff report. The plat has been revised and has resulted in strikethrough and underline changes throughout the staff report. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 4.71 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Residential Page 1 Item 2. F67 Description Details Page Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 30 31 total lots—26 single-family residential;and 4 5 common lots. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one(1)phase. Number of Residential Units(type 26 total single-family detached units of units) Density(gross&net) Gross— 5.52 du/ac.;Net—unknown Open Space(acres,total 34,912 square feet(approximately 17%)and includes the [%]/buffer/qualified) required landscape buffers and one open space lot containing the proposed amenity;property is less than 5 acres so minimum open space requirement is not applicable. Amenities 1 amenity—Tot Lot Physical Features(waterways, N/A hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 14,2020—5 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-06-016,PP-06-010,FP-07-034;VAR-06-008—These approvals have expired. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District _ • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Originally,access was proposed from W. Quarterhorse Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Lane,an existing private street along the southern property boundary.However,ACHD is requiring the applicant take access from Pine Ave. and does not have the authority to require the applicant to close the private driveway connection to Black Cat. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Stub streets are proposed to the existing private lane Access (Quarterhorse Lane)that are less than 150'in length that will be terminated with some kind of barrier and signs that state the streets will be extended in the future.The Applicant is still required to allow the other easement holders to use their access rights of Quarterhorse Lane. Existing Road Network W. Quarterhorse Lane—a two-lane private street Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No Buffers Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is proposing additional ROW dedication and construction of detached sidewalks along both Black Cat and Pine. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.1 miles from Fire Station#2 • Fire Response Time The proposed development falls within the 5 minute response time goal. • Resource Reliability 76%(below the target goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 1 —Residential;current resources would be adequate to supply service to this project. • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths, and turnarounds. Page 2 Item 2. 68 Description Details Page The project will be limited to 30 homes due to a singular access point. Police Service • Distance to Police Station 4.5 miles • Response Time Approximately 3.5 minutes • Accessibility MPD has no concerns with access into this development; the MPD can service this development if approved. • Additional Comments • Between June 2019 and June 2020,MPD responded to 1,281 calls for service within one mile of this proposed development.The crime count on those calls was 126. • Between June 2019 and June 2020,MPD responded to 29 crashes within 1 miles of this proposed development. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) Peregrine Elementary—3.2 miles Meridian Middle—3.1 miles Meridian High—2.8 miles • Capacity of Schools Peregrine—650 students Meridian Middle— 1250 students Meridian High—2400 students • #of Students Enrolled Peregrine—517 students Meridian Middle— 1273 students Meridian High—2101 students Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly Adjacent • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.95 • Project Consistent with WW YES Master Plan/Facility Plan • Additional Comments Additional 918 gpd flow has been committed. Water • Distance to Water Services Directly Adjacent • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns Yes,see below • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns The water main should be looped through the site whenever possible;if any stub is not used it will be required to be abandoned dead end..t the etil de s s4 the northwest via the common lot p atl.wa and tied into the existing 8" ,.,tor,v..,i stub i Black Cat This stub is not etffently shovm on the plans but is stubbed at the neAhwest corner of the property. Page 3 1 1 1 _ —CHERR CHERRY= ■:' 11 :1■ ■In1= ' I � � I4nn■on■ �� OmiM xN 1j c�s �/,,,.� to o mI■ �� ._ _ ... - ,� � y , 1�11■�1 I III�A■■■■:::i��r rr. ... � J _�j �� ■u■q Pnlnm minn �, , _�■■■■anlllllnll 111111111►� ��"� a � " .' 11111= =i c 111111=0 77■�■11 F ■mu�an-clxrunnlm � �- a a u u � �-FR!ANKLiN - - FRANKLIN y 11NOW �11111111111111117 -f,ll■In9111g11 `=l11111 Inlllll e - _ "�'�l1llillll a Imm C 1111 1111111=_ ��:�jV,llllll e 1.... -- ,n■ ' - . - �CHEiR:RY;;,;- ,Z.�n ■ ■1111■ ■' ■ ■1111■■ �: • - • • • !1■■■u!plln= loss , • - • • • ■1■■■u!plln=�1■rm nu■ n n 1. ■ nu■ ■■ p 4W.N 11 ■II.■ i ��j11�■NON ssl ilI■■■■■1■Ii .r■ III■■.■■Iq■■: .�■ � n■uun■ 1 _ ■�I � ■nu■u■■L �* 1 ' ■�����■�1��:..■iii■:'°s°!n■ " • -• •• . ��I: ■iii■:'S'•+•■ •• :: : i-i: ■�: �,���• -ii . iii: ■�i�,al ■..'..1111 m nnn►.'�n ■..':.1111■.■■ nnn►.'�n ' ■u.:ullnm ! 1 ' ■u.:ulonm n11nn . � m :ILnmullll I�' � ■■■■:I�nnlun 1 nnmll 11t■ u nnllnn m In N■ �'`_ i. ■1 nn■ml■Im In • ' � Intl_�==°° �N� '�!=� � _==°° 'e■ mna ■ iiiii e_"'■ - nluh�n__ul�lnmu„ F-�Inx�a■eew�rnmm IIIIII II- - � G�9Q �aJ �i ■1. 1111 IIIIIIIIIII�IN L IIIIOI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •lnnnu= nnuu i111 ♦ • muss= -iiiil' wuu II ■ � II Item 2. 70 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/26/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 6/23/2020 Site Posting 90 10/2/2020 Nextdoor posting 6/23/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan) Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 and the Applicant is requesting a rezone to R-8; both zoning designations comply with the future land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR). The proposed development is proposed as 26 single-family residential lots at a gross density of approximately 5.5 du/ac meeting the required gross density in the MDR. Single-family homes are a desired residential use in the MDR as and the proposed development will match much of what is nearby but with smaller lots and more density, therefore offering homes at different price points than the surround R-4 sites to the north of the subject site. but with the within thisfuture land use designation. F-Hrther site design ana4wis-is.belew in sHbseqHen fanii4,hemes. These additional heusing designs meet the intent ef-previding housing ept �s Staff finds the proposed development and use to be generally consistent with the future land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation and/or rezone 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 rezoning with the provisions included in Section HII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the rezone for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancioy.o- Icompplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "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"(2.02.01 A). The Applicant is proposing to construct detached sidewalks along both Black Cat and Pine and add a micro pathway into the development in the northeast corner of the site. The Applicant is proposing these buffers and micro pathway as their open space;the micro pathway is also shown with a tot-lot which is intended to be a site amenity. This pedestrian connection is a nice addition, especially with it being shown within a larger common lot than originally proposed.Because of the redesign that occurred, this pedestrian connection and the new street connection to Pine Ave allows for more pedestrian and bicycle connection through the site. The proposed plat is smaller than 5 acres Page 5 Item 2. 71 and therefore is not required to meet the minimum 10% open space standard and the open space that is proposed within this development is lamely landscape buffers that offer pedestrian connectivity but is not active in its use. The Applicant is proposing a tot lot, as mentioned, which should help activate the common lot that it is within.Despite the type of open space proposed, Fuller Park(the closest public park to the site) is approximately I mile away by foot and the proposed pedestrian connectivity should make it more efficient to reach it. Staff finds that despite the proximity of the public park, it does not alleviate the need for usable open space within this development as desired in the purpose statement of UDC 11-3G, the Common Open Space code section. Therefore,Staff finds that the Applicant should lose an internal buildinje lot and make it a common open space lot instead This chanize would help this project meet both the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. "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). The existing access to this site is via W. Quarterhorse Lane—a private road that other parcels located to the south and east also use as an access to Black Cat Road, an arterial street.According to the originally submitted plat, the Applicant proposed to convert the private road to a public road. The Applicant proposed the main access for this development to be from Black Cat rather than the adjacent Pine Avenue, a collector street.However,ACHD policy does not support the Quarterhorse access to Black Cat, an arterial street.As such, they have required the applicant to take access from the lesser classified street,Pine Avenue, which necessitated a redesign of the project. City code, UDC 11- 3A-3, also requires access to be taken from Pine Ave. To complicate the matter further, Quarterhorse Lane will remain as a private lane and ACHD does not have the authority to require the closure of this access. The new layout does in fact show access to Pine, a lesser classified street but the private lane access to Black Cat cannot be closed without the consent of all easement holders. Further, access prevents the extension of the 25 foot wide landscape buffer and the 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along N. Black Cat Rd. Staff is of the opinion this area should be depicted on the plat as a non-buildable lot until the easement holders consent to vacate the access—the Applicant has revised the plat to show this and will extend the landscapiniz and sidewalk as far south along Black Cat as possible. To ensure this lot can re-develop in the future, staff recommends the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates how the 25 foot wide landscape buffer and two stub streets are going to be extended in the future and how the remaining portion of the easement area can be redeveloped with the adjacentproperties. See additional discussion below in the Access section of the staff report(TEE). "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).Public services are readily available to the subject site because of the existing nearby developments to the north and west. Applicable service departments have granted their approval of the development and its impact to the system with one modification; the Water Department would like to see the water system looped through and connected to the water main in Black Cat Road to ensure better water quality is achieved. It should be noted that the Public Works Department generally does not want public infrastructure placed in Me private road easements. However, the Applicant has limited options to loop the water main in this development and must utilize the existing private access easement. Public Works has signed off on this location and has offered their comments re ag rding this (see Section VIII.B). Page 6 Item 2. 72 "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 subject site is near the edge of the City's limits but has City of Meridian development to its north and west. In addition, this site is currently vacant and underutilized because it is already annexed but not yet developed. The proposed development is an opportunity to develop the site adequately and remove a vacant parcel from the City. This development is also allowing the City to plan for the future use of the private road easement and for how the future road network will work in this area should it redevelop from county land and be annexed into the C "Encourage the assembly of parcels for master planning,design and entitlement purposes; discourage piecemeal annexation and development"(3.03.03J). The subjectparcel is already annexed into the City of Meridian and cannot be made part of a larger assembly of parcels at this time. The public road layout should lay the infrastructure for future connectivity of the immediate area as all parcels to the south and east that are not currently annexed into the City should have a lower classified street to access in the future. With Quarterhorse Lane being the only access for these parcels, master planning the public road network becomes even more imperative as City code and ACHD cannot support maintaining this access to Black Cat. This requires that ultimately all easement holders agree to vacate their rights to the easement and take access through this development and other local street networks to the east. With the revised plat, the Applicant has provided two stub streets to the existing Quarterhorse Lane for future connectivity. , . The Applicant agrees that at least a portion of the existinz easement should be come public right-of-way in the future so that the parcels to the southeast have local street access to Pine and the accesses to Black Cat are continued to be limited in line with ACHD and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives if Staffs recommendations are adhered to and despite the W. Quarterhorse Lane access remaining. C. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential homes;this use is listed as a principally permitted use in the requested R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant's revised plat shows front loaded single-family homes within the R-8 zone, seemingly the industry standard in the requested zone. The proposed development and use meet both the zoning and comprehensive plan policies despite the development not providing a new housinz type.However, the proposed lot sizes are smaller than those closest to the subject site and therefore cannot accommodate as lame of a home which should dictate a lower price point for these homes:the comprehensive plan also calls for housing variety in the way ofprice point but this is merely coniecture at this point in the development process. The proposed use is allowed in the requested zone but does not offer an "excitiniz"or "premier"housinz type outside of what already exists in the immediate area. as a majority of the proposed tise but also showsfour hontes that are agey loaded and i4vo homes that are proposed;vkh side 10 garages; This is a ehaffgeftom anyptw4ous plat submitted to Staff and would allojp d6Teren prVosal and is reeommending a A4 provision to ensure these homes are eonshweted as prVosed and not as aliftont loaded-. Page 7 Item 2. ■ D. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed preliminary plat appears to meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested R-8 zoning district and use of detached single-family homes. This includes property sizes, required street frontages,and road widths of the local streets and alleyway.All local streets are proposed as 33-foot wide street sections within 47 feet of right-of-way. Staff notes that the Applicant's request to rezone the property from the existing R-4 district to the R-8 zoning district, increases the number of lots that are able to be developed on this parcel. This is due to the minimum lot size in the R-8 district being half of that in the R-4 district. The Applicant has not proposed all lots at the minimum 4,000 square feet but the average lot size in the development is just below 4,100 square feet. Because the Applicant is proposing such small lots uuits)-, Staff is recommending that prior to the City Council hearing the Applicant provide exhibits showing how the different homes sus will physically fit on the proposed lots. E. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access into this development is now proposed via a new street connection to Pine Avenue instead of converting W. Quarterhorse Lane to a new public street. The Applicant has chosen to take access from Pine Avenue after receiving the draft staff report from ACHD which required a completely new plat layout following the initial submittal; subsequent revisions have maintained this access point to Pine.W. Quarterhorse Lane is currently an ingress/egress access easement with 4 servient sites,including the subject site of this application.Without the consent of all easement holders,the access must remain until the remainder of the properties annex or redevelop. Therefore the easement will remain as a non-buildable lot until such time it can be included as part of a future development. As noted above, staff has received,-eeeffi efids .,....he *t..,.,,.,:ao an exhibit for the Commission that demonstrates how this area of the property could redevelop with the required street frontage improvements and be incorporated into a future plat when the properties to the southeast redevelop in the future. The applicant should relinquish their right to use of said easement as part of the rezone request. All internal local streets within the proposed development are shown as 33-foot wide street sections that will accommodate on- street parking where no driveway, sue. The new layout proposes access off of Pine Avenue in line with N. Traquair Place on the north side of Pine. The internal streets provide two north-south stub streets to the existing private lane (Quarterhorse Lane) that will be extended in the future and a cul-de-sac that serves six(6) homes A„p':. Ht i -the alley leaded and side loaded ed hanies Staff can support this revised layout more than previously submitted plats as it places the easement within a lot of its own, shown as Lot 910 Block 1. PAgwever-, this let is net Veeifiea!4,addressed an the 191at e,-wit read netwar-k? These are questions.the Gemmission and Geuned should ask ef MeApplieant. Staff understands that there maybe no precise way to know what will happen with this easement but it is often up to the developer/Applicant to show Staff that all aspects of a property have been vetted;Staff is not-now comfortable in stating that this due diligence has occurred with the future of this access easement because the Applicant has provided an exhibit showing this lot as common open space to be landscaped with grass and still accommodate the existing gravel access road for the servient sites. In addition, the area of the access easement that is between the new local north-south street and Black Cat will hold both a sewer and water main line in order to loop the systems. These utilities require a 30-foot wide easement which will overlay the lot and Page 8 Item 2. 74 make this area non buildable in perpetuity. The Applicant has stated to Staff that the remaining easement area is best suited for future ri h�t-of-way for future redevelopment to the southeast and Staff agrees. The exhibit provided by the Applicant does not specifically show this because it is unknown where future access to the south could be taken from but the story has been told in both discussion and in the response to the previous staff report. Despite the unknowns, Staff is more comfortable supporting this revised plat with the requirement of an additional DA provision to ensure this easement area is used appropriately in the future. This recommended provision is to restrict Lot 110-Block I as a non-buildable lot for either common open space or future right-of-way dedication as other easement holders redevelop their own properties and relinquish their rights to this private lane access in the future. Note:Staff has received a revised staff report from ACHD and they have approved the revised plat with specific conditions of approval(see Section VIII.G). F. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 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. The street sections(33 feet wide) of the proposed local streets within the development, as shown on the submitted plat, accommodate parking on both sides of the street where no driveways exist. The cul-de-sac is proposed with a radius of 48 feet and cannot accommodate any parking along its perimeter. G. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): No multi-use pathways are proposed or required with this development because the master pathways plan does not show any multi-use pathway adjacent to the subject site. This Applicant is proposing attached sidewalks along all local streets that will connect to the detached sidewalks proposed along the arterial and collector streets via the micro-pathway proposed in the northeast corner of the site and the new road connection out to Pine. These sidewalks and micro-pathway should help improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity from this development. Originally, the Applicant proposed their micro pathway and amenity in the northwest corner of the site but Staff was concerned with the amenity being on an intersection that is only going to get busier over time. During the project review meeting between department staff some additional comments from Public Works regarding the location of the proposed micro pathway have come to Staffs attention. Public Works noted that this development should loop their water line to the water main that lays in Black Cat Road to help with water quality for the development. The revised plat still proposes the micro path and amenity in the northeast corner which does not help Public Works with achieving a looped water system on this property. In lieu of this, Public Works has recommended that the water main connect to the main within Black Cat via a new water main easement in the existing Quarterhorse Lane access easement, generally paralleling the sewer main proposed in the easement area as well. This will require the Applicant to abandon the existing main line stub located in the intersection of Black Cat and Pine since it will no longer be needed. The Applicant has taken these comments into account with their most recent revisions to the plat and has made the appropriate accommodations for a looped system via the existing access easement. Public Works has reviewed the latest plat and utility layout and offers their support of the new layout of the looped systems. Page 9 Item 2. 75 H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal local streets. The Applicant is also proposing 5-foot detached sidewalks within the required landscape street buffers on Pine Avenue and Black Cat Road. There are no existing sidewalks adjacent to the site and along the arterial streets. These additional sidewalks will add to the pedestrian connectivity throughout the immediate area and offer safer routes for pedestrians and cyclists alike. Black Cat Road is expected to be widened adjacent to this site within the next five (S)years and the proposed sidewalk is shown outside of that ultimate ROW. However, the sidewalks appear to be right at the edge of the ultimate ROW which does not meet code. UDC 11-3B-7C.]a states that detached sidewalks shall have an average minimum separation ofgreater than four(4)feet to back of curb and the back of curb shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Therefore,Staff is recommending a condition of approval to move the detached sidewalks further into the landscape buffers to meet this requirement. I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to N. Black Cat Road, an arterial, and a 20-foot buffer is required adjacent to Pine,a collector street. This buffer should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and placed into a common lot that is at least as wide as the required buffer width;this common lot should also contain the detached sidewalk required along both roadways. Pathways,including micro-paths are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12. The original landscape plans appear to show compliance with those requirements but no updated landscape plans have been provided that match the revised plat layout. The submitted plat depicts a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Black Cat and a 20 foot wide buffer along Pine, both within common lots. The correct number of trees appeared to be shown on the original landscape plans as well(see Section VII.Q. To ensure these buffers are installed and vegetated appropriately, the improvements required outside of the ultimate ROW should be constructed prior to receiving building permit approvals. Code also dictates that street landscape buffers are to be vegetated with shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover in addition to trees; the submitted landscape plans do not appear to show this vegetation. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to revise the landscape plans to correct this as well as revise the landscape plan to match the revised plat layout and be submitted to Staff no later than ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing. J. Open Space and Amenity(UDC 11-3U): Because the subject site is less than five(5) acres in size, the minimum requirement of 10% qualified open space and at least one site amenity are not required to be met by UDC 11-3G. However, the Applicant is requesting a rezone to a zoning district that allows higher density. Staff finds it appropriate that usable open space and an amenity be provided. In response, the Applicant has proposed approximately 35,000 square feet of open space which amounts to approximately 17%of the site. This open space consists mostly of the street buffers along the outside of the development and also includes the common lot that holds the micro pathway and the proposed tot-lot in the northeast corner of the site at the end of the cul-de-sac. Even though the regulations in UDC 11-3G do not apply to this development because of its size,Staff believes that the purpose statement of providing open space that improves the Page 10 Item 2. 76 livability of neighborhoods should still be adhered to.In addition, the purpose statement for subdivision regulations in UDC 11-"-1 discusses promotion of developments that provide for adequate sunlight,fresh air, and usable open space. Staff ean better supper4 the new open spaee layout but is sdH unsure how it jviY work with Pubue ' .Due to the existence of a large public park being within a mile of the development,Staff can understand why the Applicant has not proposed more usable open space within the development.However, it is Staffs opinion that more usable open space should be made available within the site to accommodate those who cannot so easily walk or bike to Fuller Parr In order to meet the purpose statement of UDC 11-3G and the subdivision regulations the Applicant should lose a buildable lot and convert it to open space. Therefore.Staff is recommending that Lot 6,Block 2 be a common open space lot instead of a buildable lot. K. 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 shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC requirements in regards to height,type, and location. The Applicant should ensure fencing still meets the required UDC standards once providing a revised landscape plan that matches the revised plat. L. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the detached single-family homes for this project(see Section VII.D). The submitted elevations show a combination of single and two-story single-family homes. The elevations also show different architectural elements,finish materials, and overall design options including some RV size garage spaces. However, with such small lot sizes proposed. Staff is concerned the submitted elevations may not depict homes that can actually fit within the building envelope of the R-8 zoning district. To help staffsee this, Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the Applicant provide an exhibit showinghproposed home will fit on these lots. Design review is not required for single-family detached structures but Staff finds the submitted elevations meet the requirements in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because a number of the homes abut streets that are heavily traveled, Staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires those homes abutting both Black Cat and Pine are constructed with modulation and variations in materials to mitigate any potential of a monotonous wall plane along these streets. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone and the requested preliminary plat per the analysis in Section V and 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 11 Item 2. F77 VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map wo DAVID EVANS P•Na ASSOC IATES INC DESCRIPTION FOR HORSE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION REZONE The following describes a parcel of real property,situated within a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter(NW l/4 SW 1/4)and within a of portion of the Northwest Quarter(N W 1/4)of Section 10,Township 3 North,Rangel West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the centerline of North Black Cat Road,which is also the northwest corner of said NW 1/4 SW 1/4,also being the southwest corner of said NW 1/4;Thence,along the extension of said centerline,along the west boundary line of said NW IA,North 00o25'10"East,21.95 feet to the intersection and centerline of West Pine Avenue; Thence,along the centerline of said West Pine Avenue,South 89°13'30"East,525.16 feet; Thence,departing said centerline,South 00°25'10"West,20.12 feet to the northeast corner of the land described in Warranty Instrument,Number 2020-034862,which is also shown in Record of Survey, Instrument Number,95043060 as the northwest corner of Parcel 2; Thence,along the east boundary line of said Warranty Deed,Instrument Number 2020-034862,South 00°25'10"West,420.45 feet to the southeast corner of said Warranty Deed; Thence,along the south boundary line of said Warranty Deed,North 89'34'50"West,487.09 feet to the cast right of way of North Black Cat Road; Thence,continuing along the extension of said south boundary line,departing said east right of way, North 89°34'50"West,38.00 feet to the west boundary line of said NW 1/4 SW 1/4; Thence,along said west boundary line,North 00'25'10"East,421.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGIINNING,containing 5.33 acres more or less. �0 O i 13 4 sT 5 0 0 of P.Sl1Lt�P Page 12 Item 2. F78 EXHIBIT MAP FOR REZONE HORSE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 AND A PORTION OF i HE N W1/4 OF SECTION 10 T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 W C'0VTEk[JNF W. PINE AVE. a tr, S891 TWE 525.16' 3 in CV N r N _ _ Ir] 0 FOUND BRASS CAP — — — FOUND I/2"RE9AR "Np N Z NW CDR N%4 SWI/4 2' EBB8 WESTIQ1i,10 NE COR WARRANTY DEED SECIINST. NO. 2020-034862 I q I 4' 4) }ww 0 00 S G r N �d i 00 CJ LO W I TOTAL REZONE = I AREA 5.33 Aft L C ❑z a I a a CV LN L) W�Z V~1 .040 N 2 V I N_ FOUND 1/2'REBAR S- INGRESEGRESS _ I ABLE CAP / EASEMENT WARRANTY DEED NST NO, 2020-34W2 L N89'34'50'W N 89'34'50" W 487.09' 38.00' 1"=100' OIL N yea E 5 DAVID EVANS a 4 7° ANoASSOCIATES ime. 4401 �D TM 9179 W Black Eagle Dr O Boise Idaho P.SUL��P� Phone: 208-585-5558 Page 13 Item 2. F 9 525.1G — s89°23'30"e � 0 3 oh Q O N ry C O < 0 e n89°34150"w 487.09 Title: Date:05-20-2020 Scale: 1 inch= 100 feet File:RSCV16 HORSE MEADOWS SUB REZONE.des Tract 1: 5.331 Acres: 232208 Sq Feet:Closure=s89.2310w 0.06 Feet: Precision—1132299: Perimeter=1935 Feet 001=00.2510e 21.85 004=s00.251Ow 420.45 007=00.251 Oe 421.98 002=s89.1330e 525.16 005=n89.345Ow487.09 003=s00.25IOw 20.12 006=n89.3450w 38.00 Page 14 Item 2. F8-o B. Preliminary Plat(date: 94A2020 9/16/2020) N A. P I- I R _ R A � I II tli I o� !L1� I I — V�I i W, . L I+ I 11II IS i _ � I 1 E I'. 33 a � tl I — � b^ fi I ` I 1 z I s e - z I i _ �IS Ir TI Q:fl `F BSI Qy, m o VV d p r � � - I y R. z Q WI '� _ o d 7 Fr — I is SF.g LL HORSE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION Revisions s I aocK soup axe uc ROCK SOLID CIVIL r V PRELIMINARVPLAT -A� r r r ., .. �-soar-soarsuo c I i�r Page 15 Item 2. 81 220 �Q # u •1FT• • __ A � k01d 514. T F L F Ir 'IrH _ I to cwusy L:T ,.me . � a zi ' I RiftC � �, I I � �.. .� '` •6I — I: 'F�'�'� gar �..,..—. I I s �n I I 13 .. I >9n FS x l r®'�r�ru sat.sa� i i �...L..J �vi09i I ------- I ... to caloQll u,T I IX— a Page 16 Item 2. 82 C. Landscape Plan(date: 4/20/2020)(NOT APPROVED) m—s.kop am.m D o.....m .aE,... c ..m Go,.s...a, H�nu.�,. o it I I - �. IL---------- -------- --- r I f L--- J L----------- ---------- --------— —1 i _ � I ———————— -I .. III �---------- —H----------ti— III I• =: • r °, �, u r I I I 4 i '- I — 1 li I i I Ili HIS I r I - - •� ram- - - - ' 7 1 � I I i1 I I I I I I I � i � �Oo � i e�*•....f .. - j',, I' ^ F x N �� o Q' Pn s ga o- q t9n � o P s I! � e K �• IJ 7 i s 9 2 D�^ HORSE MEADOWS SUBDIVISIONF ➢_ iZ ] Page 17 Item 2. ■ �t--a--- --- --- ---°---�-- ---� -- -- ---�-- — Na—.a,ROAD —a---« I'° I - • I I IL ---i _----- —7 i �F •fir \J v I a- — 1� i 1 �` � I � -- � I P N�, — —\ 3m ------ i' W , ---------- -- ------ 71 I I I I .• L---- ---J L----- ----� L-——— JA A9 P • y r � � 1 SUBDIVISION HORSEMEADOWS y / \ I _ a _ . '9e g: pDEl 71C A—C—AT RD MERIDIAN.IDZ— E, P 3 ,4 S f2A ge Page 18 Item 2. F84 LAN—APERE-IREFOENTS. PLANT SCHEDULE l� ERviEw. IRS�• �P �Ea Ervo rE�v �9 — C p I .,.»....,.-,•.»�.,.. O .,.�� /,'�� I End — A YC Q n:wexxwrw�nmvu:ur,u:,u,ra - n,. F- — `L 5 I � _ II® K .�,M—BURLAP TREE—TING,o (2,��.o �.a.°.e 14 TUBULAR ...L1.00 Page 19 El D. Conceptual Building Elevations Page A ;.f s�', aria_ �`�.:�" _,�•, � — — 20 0 � m a . ;r. - s r I� Page 22 � m 'y c --: Page 23 a` I w ►" � m hy-" 1C k .a r_ 4 � i4y Page 24 Item 2. 90 E. Proposed use of existing access easement MR �i rl II ! I 1 ar ,ar A — .n 95 T�L �f ,46`9[L N,A 49Z66 � � na .I A I w Aft * - 7'�A ..I^ to r'� VCC 29 tit __1 F I Y11DYN1'N Ill A I I �, 'I r 4 4 l .l I I1H3 1_ Ngf I:. 1tl19'K �. �i1 Page 25 Item 2. F-91 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of rezone of this property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of rezone 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 rezone. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the submitted and revised plans and conceptual building elevations for the detached single- family dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. c. Direct lot access to N. Black Cat Road is prohibited. d. Upon approval of the preliminary plat and rezone,the Applicant shall relinquish their rights to use the ingress-egress easement along the south boundary known as W. Quarterhorse Lane. e. Lot 910,Block 1 (the lot containing W. Quarterhorse Lane) shall be a non- buildable lot owned and maintained by the HOA until such time that it is redeveloped in the future as either common open space or as public right-of- way. that aom east-a4es toe ex4ors: n of t4e 25 feet wide!a-nds,ape buff the two sttib stfeets and integration with the adjaeeat pr-epeAies to ensiffe this area is "4 2. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 09/01/2020, shall be revised as follows: a. Add a note prohibiting dir-eet lot aeeess via N. Blaek Gm Read, b. Revise the plat to show the detached sidewalks along N. Black Cat Road and W.Pine Avenue with at least 4 feet of separation between it and the ultimate ACHD right-of-way. c. Add Revise plat note number 18 regarding statiag4ha4 Lot 910,Block Ito state: Lot 10, Block 1 is a non-buildable lot and is to be owned and maintained by the HOA until such time that it redevelops as either common open space or as public right-of-waj on1X. d. Show Lot 6, Block 2 as a common open space lot instead of a building lot. 3. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated 04/20/2020 shall be revised as follows: a. Revise the landscape plan to show the required shrubs and other vegetative ground cover within the street landscape buffers along N. Black Cat Road and W. Pine Avenue. b. Revise the landscape plan to show the layout of the revised preliminary plat; make any adjustments to the calculations table if needed. Page 26 Item 2. ■ c. Revise the landscape plans to show the detached sidewalks along N. Black Cat Road and W. Pine Avenue with at least 4 feet of separation between it and the ultimate ACHD right-of-way. d. Show Lot 6,Block 2 as a common open space lot instead of a building lot with the correct vegetation as set forth in UDC 11-3G and 11-3B. e. Revise the landscape plans to show Lot 10,Block 1 with vegetative ground cover. £ Add a detail of the proposed tot-lot to the landscape plans to ensure quality of structures. 4. Prior to the Commission hearing,the Applicant shall provide the following to Planning Staff: !)bttildiag elevations depieting these homes that afe alley leaded and side leaded,and; 2) exhibits showing setback compliance with the proposed building lot sizes and different style homes. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the R-8 dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for all buildable lots. 6. All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 9. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 10. The fagade of structures that face N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Pine Ave. shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials,color,modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical)to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Meridian Design Manual. 11. The Applicant shall adhere to all ACHD conditions of approval. 12. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing_required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 13. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 14. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the he Applicant shall ensure that no tree mitigation is required with this development and provide proof to the Planning Department. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. Page 27 Item 2. 93 1.2 The water-main dead end at the eul de sae ffmst be ex4eaded to the net4l+west via the eemm watef main sttib in Blaek GM. This sttib is not 1.3 Due to service crossing issues,please relocate the storm drainage beds on the south end of the project to the east-west roadway. 1.4 Relocate the east-west sewer alignment at the southwest corner of the development to connect to the existing manhole that is closer to the south property boundary in N. Black Cat Road. 1.5 Applicant to abandon the existing water main stub,per Meridian Public Works standards, near the northwest corner of the development in N. Black Cat Road. Blaek Cat Read. The aligamefA of this eenneetion should follow established Ut4it� 1.7 The applicants design engineer has indicated that a geotechnical site investigation was conducted by MTI(Materials Testing&Inspection)dated December 4,2019, indicating that groundwater was encountered at 14-feet below ground surface. It was also stated that the MTI report concluded that groundwater would remain greater than 4-feet below ground surface. The actual MTI report was not submitted with the application, and typically they highlight any specific soils concerns, and specific construction considerations and recommendations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these considerations and recommendations to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils, and that shallow groundwater does not become a problem with home construction. Prior to this application being considered by the Meridian City Council, the applicant shall be required to submit the MTI report and any up to date ground water monitoring data based upon current adopted building codes, as well as any other updated geotechnical information or recommendations since the initial work. 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 I I"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. Page 28 Item 2. ■ 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals,laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. Page 29 Item 2. 95 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(MFD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190297&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.0Yg/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190779&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=191217&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv Page 30 Item 2. 96 F. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190615&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=194266&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8 and proposed use are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all provisions of the Development Agreement and conditions of approval are complied with. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and use of detached single-family dwellings complies with the regulations outlined for the requested upzone to the R-8 zoning district, specifically the purpose statement. 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. The property is already annexed into the City of Meridian. Therefore, Staff finds that this finding is not applicable. 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 substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and Page 31 Item 2. ■ pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan analysis and other analysis 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 VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and approves of the 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 32 Item 3. 98 E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 126.53 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (18.17 acres), zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 buildable lots [316 single-family residential (94 attached & 222 detached), 63 townhomes, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school], 32 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.26 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Item 3. F99 (:�WE IDIAN:--- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: October 22, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Prescott Ridge (H- 2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Request:Annexation of 126.53 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (18.17 acres), zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 buildable lots [316 single- family residential (94 attached& 222 detached), 63 townhomes, 14 multi- family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school], 32 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.26 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing I i J PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET 1 I DATE: September 22, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 t PROJECT NAME: Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 �do 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 3. Mayor Robert E Slmison 100 E 1IANC]ty Ceu #I Members,_--�� Trek Sefnt fired�iaaglun Joe @anon Jessica Perreault 1 H Luke Cavener Liz Streaer October 21, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner RE: Prescott Ridge—H-2020-0047 At the Commission hearing for this project on September 17th, the Commission continued the project to the October 22nd hearing in order for the Applicant to revise the conceptual development plan for the medical campus/commercial portion of the site and the townhome portion of the site. A revised concept plan was submitted for the commercial portion of the development that includes the following changes (see attached): • Reconfigured frontage road between Levi Ln. and Serenity Ln./Chinden Blvd.; • Relocation of medical office building from the southeast corner to the northwest corner of the site; • Addition of restaurant/retail uses at the northeast corner of the site on the out-parcel to contribute to the mix of uses desired in MU-R designated areas; (Note: The Applicant states the hospital and land owner of this parcel have signed a Letter of Intent&a final purchase &sale agreement is being drafted—however, this parcel is not part of the subject development application so future development cannot be held to this plan) • Reduction in the number of stories for the hospital and medical office buildings from 4- 3-st6nes; • Addition of many more trees within the 30-foot wide landscape buffers along the west& south boundaries as an added buffer to adjacent residential properties; • Addition of pathway connections to the main building entrances from perimeter sidewalks and-from.the single-family residential to the commercial portion of the 'development for pedesirian interconnectivity; and, ...-Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Item 3. 1o1 1 • Addition of a shaded seating area in front of the medical office building and a large plaza/green space in front of the hospital. A revised site plan was submitted for the townhome portion of the development that depicts the following changes (see attached): • Reconfiguration of the site layout with homes fronting on private streets and a mew; • Reduction in the number of dwelling units from 54 to 46 and inclusion of attached units in addition to the townhome units; • An increase in the amount of common open space area; and, • Addition of amenities consisting of a pavilion, BBQ's, seating area and fire pit. A revised preliminary plat and landscape plan were also submitted that depict the revised layout of the townhome portion of the development and the replacement of a buildable lot with a common area lot(Lot 4, Block 8) adjacent to the east boundary of Peregrine Heights (see attached). 2 Item 3. 102 STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING October 22,2020 Legend DATE: Continuedfrom July 16, August 20, September 17, 2020 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ------ FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0047 - Prescott Ridge—AZ,PP,PS,ALT - --- - or _ LOCATION: South of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. McDermott Rd., in the North'/2 of Section 28,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. (Parcels: 50428233640, R6991222210, 0 50428120950, SO428131315, 50428131200, SO428211102) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of a total of 126.53 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres),R-15 (8.82 acres)and C-G(18.17 acres) zoning districts; and,Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 buildable lots [316 single-family residential (94 attached& 222 detached), 63 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school], 32 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.26 acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Private streets are proposed within the townhome portion of the development for internal access and circulation. Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.4,which requires a limited gated development when townhomes are proposed,is also requested. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 122.8 Existing/Proposed Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County(existing)/R-8,R-15 and C-G (proposed) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)(3-8 units/acre)(113.5+/-acres)with Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)(9+/-acres)along W. Chinden Blvd. Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural with 1 existing single-family home Proposed Land Use(s) Residential(single-family attached/detached,townhomes&multi-family) &commercial(hospital and medical campus) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 395 buildable lots(316 single-family residential,63 townhome, 14 multi- family, 1 commercial and 1 school)/32 common lots/6 other(common driveway)lots Page 1 Item 3. F103 Description Details Page Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases Number of Residential Units(type 316 single-family(94 attached/222 detached),(63)townhome and(56) of units) multi-family units Density(gross&net) Overall-3.63 units/acre(gross); 7.86 units/acre(net) R-8 area:4.87 units/acre(gross); 7.19 units/acre(net) R-15 area: 12.87 units/acre(gross);21.39 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 11.56 acres(or 11%) [%]/buffer/qualified) (10.51 acres required based on 105.08 acres of residential area) Amenities Swimming pool,clubhouse,large and small children's play structures,a dog park,multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space beyond the minimum standards Physical Features(waterways, Two(2)segments of the West Tap Sublateral cross this site hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/18/19- 11 attendees;and 4/l/20- 13 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) A portion of the site is Lot 18,Block 1,Peregrine Heights Subdivision (formerly deed restricted agricultural lot for open space—non-farm that has since expired). B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not yet • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Access A collector street access(W.Rustic Oak Way)is proposed via W. Chinden (Arterial/Collectors/State Blvd./SH 2O-26 at the half mile which runs through the site and connects to a Hwy/Local)(Existing and future collector street(N.Rustic Way)in the Oaks North development from Proposed) McMillan Rd.An access is proposed via N.McDermott Rd.,a collector street. Traffic Level of Service McDermott Rd.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service) W.Rustic Oak Way/Levi Ln.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service) Stub Two local stub streets are planned to be constructed with the Oaks North Street/Interconnectivity/Cross development at the southern boundary of the site and extended with this Access development.Two stub streets(N. Serenity Ave. &W.Fireline Ct.)are proposed to the north for future extension.A cross-access easement is required to be provided to the MU-R designated property to the west. Existing Road Network No public streets exist within the site;N. Levi Ln.,a private lane,exists on the northern portion of the site via W.Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing buffers or sidewalks along N.McDermott Rd. or W. Buffers Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 Proposed Road Capital improvvmona Plan CIP)r Integrated Five'rear WOFk Plan 1'IFYVWPM: Improvements + Black Cat Road i&IWO in the OP to he mdened to 3-lanes from Chinden Bculevnrd to McMillan Ruao bewean 2026 and 2030 + The intersection of Black Cal Road and Ch4ndan Boulevard is listed in the CIP 1a be widened to 5-lanes on the nori+r leg.5- nos aoa 1hs sout+r lag.6-Mn"a6 iho vast lag and 6-tanes on Vho wurh aog bulwuoti 2026 armJ.2030. The inrersecl�on of hi; M.Pan Road and Black Cal Road rs Ilsted r5 the CIP tarecnnstrucbed art a mulli-lane roundabout with 2 lanes an the northbound ano southbound legs and 1 lane on ins wesibound and saabound;egs. The Intersection ed mcmaan Road and UkeDennaH Rosa is Ilsted in ir.a C1P is tre Undened la 3-lanes or-the north leg,+uses an the south teg_3-lanes on the ease leg and 3-canes on 1he west leg between 201 and 2035. Page 2 Item 3. 104 Description Details Page Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3 miles from Station#5 to Serenity Ln.on Chinden&4.4 miles to the McDermott side of the project(Station#7 once constructed,will serve this development) • Fire Response Time Some of this development falls within the 5 minute response time area as shown on the priority growth map;the McDermott side is 8 minutes away and does not meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 80%from Station#5—meets response time goal • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service(open waterway) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds as long as phasing plan is followed. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device for the multi-family development—cannot meet this need in the required timeframe.Eagle Station#1 is the closest truck company at approximately 8.4 miles away. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour for the single-family homes;the multi-family areas will require additional water(may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered) • Other Resources NA Police Service No comments submitted • Distance to Police 9 miles Station • Police Response Time No emergency response data can be provided because this development is near the edge of City limits • Calls for Service 56(within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Accessibility No concerns • Specialty/resource needs None • Crimes 5 (within a mile of site between 4/1/19-3/31/20) • Crashes 4(within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits, service can be provided if this development is approved. West Ada School District CAPA • Distance(elem,ins,hs) E"r°N"1°"k � Pileasant View Rementarw C"P-gx9p 650 Z.a ki-Wr"I star middre School 7U4 low 5.9 f47firidisn High School Im 240p 6.1 Due b3 Ito abundant amount of aro'w'th in the area,West Ada is actively bulldin new Kha-Dls,and boundaries are always Mang".Their future students eoutd potentially auewn"hee Nigh School • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer This proposed development is not currently serviceable by Meridian Sanitary Services Sewer service. The sewer trunk line designed to service this development is within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.92 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 4,662 gpd has been committed Page 3 Item 3. Fo5l •Sewer mains are not allowed in common driveways.Please remove. •The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way •Sewer line in N.Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd •This development is subject to paying sanitary sewer reimbursement fees(see Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval for detail).Reimbursement fees for the entire subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. Water • Distance to Water This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian City Services water system. Water mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend LoD L end I aidential 0 u-r-I 1 J - - IA a 71 ens [Lid MEE f Page 4 Item 3. 106 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 tff R1 ff f Pra"ec- Loca=or I0%*-ct Lucafian + iCity Lines - - r,y — Planned Parcels _ EEE RUT + Lys -4— R-4 8t R�1 r III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Providence Properties,LLC—701 South Allen Street, Ste. 104,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Joseph Hon— 16790 Rose Park Dr.,Nampa, ID 83687 Raymond Roark—5952 N. Serenity Ln.,Meridian, ID 83646 Lonnie Kuenzli—6210 N. Levi Ln.,Meridian, ID 83646 West Ada School District— 1303 E. Central Dr.,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering—9233 W. State St.,Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 6/26/2020, 8/28/2020 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 6/23/2020, 8/26/2020 Applicant posted public hearing 7/2/2020, 8/27/2020 notice on site Nextdoor posting 6/23/2020, 8/27/2020 Page 5 Item 3. F107 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates 9+/-acres along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R); and the 113.5+/-acres to the south as Medium Density Residential(MDR). The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail, and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D(pg. 3-17). 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 MU-R designated area is located adjacent to a major intersection,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd. (future SH-16). The MU-R area is proposed to develop with a medical campus, including a regional hospital, and multi-family apartments. A larger MU-R area than currently designated on the FLUM is proposed which incorporates an additional 9.5+/-acres to the south and east of the current designated area. Because FLUM designations are not parcel specific and the proposed development provides needed services, employment opportunities and housing consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas, Staff is supportive of the expanded MU-R area provided that a retail component is also included and integrated as part of the development. The MDR designated area is proposed to develop with a mix of single-family attached, detached and townhome units at a gross density of 3.46 units/acre,which although at the low end of the desired density range, is consistent with that of the MDR designation. 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 single-family attached, detached, townhomes and multi family apartments will provide a variety of housing types for future residents in the northwest portion of the City in close proximity to the proposed employment uses on this site and across Chinden Blvd. to the 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 services are not currently available to the subject development, however the main/trunk lines intended to provide service are currently being developed in The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. This development is dependent on the development timing of the phase(s) within The Oaks North for services to be readily available for extension. This developer is attempting to work with The Oaks developer to hasten the timing of utility expansion. • "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) Four(4)different housing types are proposed in this development(i.e. single-family attached/detached, townhomes and multi family apartments) along with a wide range of lot sizes for diversity in housing types in this area. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."(3.07.00) The proposed single-family residential development should be compatible with existing single-family homes to the west in Peregrine Heights and in the development process to the south in The Oaks North and Page 6 Item 3. ■ the future school to the east. Larger lot sizes are proposed as a transition to the 1-acre lots in Peregrine Heights. Higher density residential uses are planned adjacent to the proposed medical campus at the north boundary and the future school site at the east boundary.A 30 foot wide landscaped buffer with a pedestrian pathway and 8'tall CMU wall is also proposed adjacent to residential uses along the southern and western boundaries of the proposed medical campus to reduce conflicts. • "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) A 10'wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and the north/south collector street(Levi Ln./Rustic Oak), and to the east to the future school site for safe pedestrian access to the school. A large central common area is proposed along the collector street with quality amenities. • "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 when available;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers."(2.01.01H) The proposed townhomes and multi family apartments in close proximity to the regional hospital and medical campus will provide higher density housing options in close proximity to the employment center and major transportation corridor(i.e. Chinden Blvd/SH 20-26&future SH 16). • "Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed use areas near in and around Downtown,near employment, large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map."(2.02.01E) Townhomes and a multi family development are proposed in close proximity to the mixed use area along Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, a major transportation corridor, where employment uses are proposed. • "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 northwest corner of the City. However, because the land to the north and south has been annexed into the City as well as land located a half mile to the east, services will be extended in this area. Therefore,public services will be maximized by the development of this property. • "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, when available, and curb, gutter and sidewalks is proposed to be provided as required. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's vision in that a mix of uses are proposed including a regional hospital and medical offices in the MU-R designated area adjacent to a major transportation corridor. Residential uses are proposed at densities consistent with the Comprehensive Page 7 Item 3. Flog] Plan for this area. Public services can be provided and public infrastructure will be extended when available to this site. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.0313) The MSM depicts a collector street at the half mile between Black Cat and McDermott Roads in the current location off. Levi Ln. at the northeast corner of the site from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 to the south to McMillan Rd. A collector street is proposed in accord with the MSM which will connect to N. Rustic Oak Way to the south in The Oaks North subdivision. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan (pg.3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." The proposed development includes two (2) different land use types—residential and office. Staff recommends commercial(i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) uses are also provided as desired in Mixed Use and specifically MU-R designated areas to serve the employment area and adjacent neighborhood.A public school(i.e. civic use) is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area; however, it's outside the mixed use designated area and not a part of the proposed development. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69." Multi family apartments and townhomes are proposed adjacent to the Mixed Use designated area to provide a higher density in close proximity to the employment center located adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd.ISH 2O-26. • "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request,a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed Use designation." A Master Plan is proposed with the annexation request which will be incorporated into a Development Agreement to ensure future development is consistent with the Mixed Use designation. Staff recommends changes to the Master Plan as noted in Section IX consistent with the development guidelines for Mixed Use designated areas in the Comprehensive Plan. • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space." The Master Plan depicts an outdoor yard area at the south end of the hospital and a pedestrian pathway within a 30'wide landscaped common area along the southern and western boundaries of the commercial portion of the development abutting residential uses. Staff recommends the conceptplan is revisedprior to the City Council hearing to reflect common usable area such as a plaza or green space more central to the development with buildings arranged around the common area in accord with this provision. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." There are existing low density homes on 1-acre lots along the west boundary of this site in Peregrine Heights Subdivision adjacent to the area proposed to be zoned C-G and developed with a medical campus. A 30'wide densely landscaped buffer is proposed along the west and south boundaries of the C-G zoned property adjacent to existing and proposed abutting residential uses along with an 8'tall CMU wall as a buffer to future commercial uses. Parking is proposed along these boundaries except for a 4-story medical office building proposed at the southeast corner of the commercial development, which Staff Page 8 Item 3. E recommends is shifted to the north to front on the main entry drive aisle off W.Rustic Oak Way as a better transition to the residences to the south. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares,civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." A future school site is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area but it is outside the Mixed Use designated area and not apart of this development.A hospital is proposed in the medical campus on the northern portion of the site adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 which will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City. • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas,outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count." A school is planned to develop on the eastern portion of the annexation area but it outside the Mixed Use designated area and not being developed with this project. To ensure such spaces and places are included in the mixed-use portion of the development as desired,Staff recommends the concept plan is revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. • "Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi-public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered." No such spaces or design elements/amenities are proposed. To ensure future development in the MU-R designated area is consistent with this guideline,Staff recommends the concept plan is revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed mixed use development is directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by a collector street(W.. Rustic Oak Way) that runs along the project's east boundary at the half mile between McDermott and Black Cat Roads; a multi-use pathway is planned along the collector street for pedestrian connectivity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." There are no roadways separating the commercial/mixed use area from the single-family detached homes and townhomes proposed at the south boundary of the area proposed to be zoned C-G. Staff recommends as a provision of the DA that a street is constructed paralleling W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 to distribute traffic in this area in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4B.3 and also as a transition between land uses. • "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed Use standards listed herein." The subject property is not located in Old Town, therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. Because a development plan isn't proposed at this time for the Mixed Use designated area, Staff has included Page 9 Item 3. F-1111 recommended provisions in the DA to ensure future development is consistent with these guidelines. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. Multi family uses are proposed at a density of 16.6 units/acre for approximately 27%of the mixed use development area. Non-retail medical office/hospital uses are proposed on the remainder of the mixed use development. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. No retail commercial uses are proposed. Because this site is proposed to develop with a medical campus including a regional hospital, retail uses will be minimal but should be provided as a third land use type as desired in mixed use designated areas as discussed above to serve patrons and residents. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%),based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. This guideline is not applicable as no public/quasi-public uses are proposed in the MU-R designated area. Staff believes the proposed developmentplan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan if a commercial(i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) component is included in the mixed use designated portion of the development as discussed above. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (UDC) A. Annexation & Zoning: The proposed annexation area consists of six(6)parcels of land totaling 122.8 acres designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as Medium Density Residential(MDR) and Mixed Use— Regional(MU-R). Per the proposed conceptual Master Plans included in Section VIII.A, single-family residential attached and detached homes,townhomes,multi-family apartments and a medical campus featuring a regional hospital is proposed to develop on this site. As discussed above, Staff recommends commercial (i.e.retail,restaurant, etc.)uses are also provided in the C-G zoned area as desired in Mixed Use and specifically MU-R designated areas to serve the employment area and adjacent neighborhood. The medical campus is proposed to include"boutique"medical services geared toward women's health and pediatrics. Two buildings are proposed—a 4-story 220,000+/-square foot(s.f.)hospital with approximately 90 in-patient beds and a 4-story 90,000+/-s.f. medical office building. Most services anticipated to be performed in the hospital will be out-patient procedures. Areas not used for inpatient beds will be used for surgery, radiology, an emergency department, labor rooms,physical plant and a cafeteria. The hospital is proposed to be similar in scope and size to the St. Luke's and St. Al's campuses in Nampa. Page 10 Item 3. F112 West Ada School District plans to develop a public school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. The parcel was included in the subject AZ and PP applications because it was created outside of the process required by Ada County to create a buildable parcel. Including it in the proposed plat will allow building permits to be obtained for future development. The single-family attached/detached portion of the development is proposed to be annexed with R-8 zoning (99.53 acres),the townhome and multi-family portions are proposed to be zoned R-15 (8.82 acres)and the medical campus is proposed to be zoned C-G(18.17 acres, including adjacent right-of-way to the section line of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26),which is generally consistent with the associated MDR and MU-R FLUM designations for the site as discussed above in Section V(see zoning exhibit in Section VIII.B). Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached homes and townhouse dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts;multi-family developments are listed as a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; and public education institutions are listed as a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district per the Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts table in UDC Table 11-2A-2, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4- 3-14.A hospital is listed as a conditional use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-22; and healthcare and social services is listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district per the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts table in UDC 11-2B-2. Evaluation of the multi-family development for consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-27 and the hospital's consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-22 will occur with the conditional use permit applications for such uses. One of the standards for hospitals that provide emergency care requires that the location shall have direct access on an arterial street; the proposed hospital is planned to provide emergency care.Because UDC 11-3H-4B.2 prohibits new approaches directly accessing a State Highway, access is proposed via N.Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, at the project's east boundary located at the half mile mark between section line roads. The City Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement,if so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If not, City Council may consider a modification to the standard prohibiting new approaches directly accessing SH 2O-26(UDC 11-3H-4B.2a) upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible as determined by City Council.Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. The property is within the Area of City Impact Boundary(AOCI). A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.B. 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 and future development meets the Mixed Use and specifically the MU-R guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends a DA as a requirement of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The Applicant requests three(3)separate DA's are required—one for the R-8 and R-15 residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district's parcel. Staff is amenable to this request as there are three(3) distinct components of the project. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 433 lots—395 buildable lots [316 single-family residential(94 attached&222 detached), 63 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school], 32 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway)lots on 123.26 acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts. A portion of the proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 18,Block 1,Peregrine Heights Subdivision, Page 11 Item 3. [113] a formerly deed restricted agricultural lot that was only to be used for open space (i.e. non-farm)—this restriction has since expired. The minimum lot size proposed in the single-family residential portion of the development is 4,000 square feet (s.f.)with an average lot size of 6,060 s.f.;the average townhome lot size is 2,037 s.f. The overall gross density is 3.63 units/acre with a net density of 7.86 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 zoned portion is 4.87 units/acre with a net density of 7.19 units/acre and the gross density of the R-15 zoned portion is 12.87 units/acre with a net density of 21.39 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR& MU-R FLUM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this site. Phasing: The residential portion of the subdivision is proposed to develop in nine(9)phases as depicted on the phasing exhibit in Section VIII.0 over a time period of 4 to 5 years.The north/south collector street will be constructed from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 in alignment with Pollard Ln. across Chinden Blvd. to the north and extend to the southern boundary with the first phase of development. The single family portion of the site will develop first, followed by the townhomes and then the multi-family apartments. The commercial portion of the development(Lot 80,Block 8) and the school property(Lot 84,Block 12)are not included in the phasing plan as they are under separate ownership and will develop separately from the residential portion of the development. The Applicant estimates development of the hospital and medical campus will commence in 2021 at the earliest; and the school in 2023 at the earliest, assuming services are available. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home on the Kuenzli property and some old accessory structures on the Roark property 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 for the phase in which they are located. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the subject property is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district, 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and 11-2B-3 for the C-G district as applicable. Lot Layout: The lot layout/development plan for the townhome portion of the development on Lots 16-79,Block 8 is not consistent with UDC standards as it depicts common driveways for access to homes off the private street,which is prohibited per UDC 11-3F-4A.6; additionally,each common driveway may only serve a maximum of(6) dwelling units per UDC 11-6C-3D—8 units are proposed off each driveway.Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those than create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated development—neither mews nor gates are proposed(alternative compliance is requested to this standard—see analysis below in Section VI.C,D). Alternative Compliance may be requested to these standards and approved upon recommendation of the City Engineer,Fire Marshal and the Director when the Applicant can demonstrate than the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards and shall not be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare and where private streets are determined to enhance the safety of the development by establishing a clear emergency vehicle travel lane.However,the Fire Dept. and Staff would not be in support of such a request as Staff is of the opinion approving such at the number of units and density proposed would result in a neighborhood that is severely under parked, which could be detrimental to the public health,safety and welfare if emergency services were not able to access homes within the development due to parking issues on the private street. Staff recommends this portion of the development is redesigned with public streets(alleys and/or common driveways may be incorporated), or if private streets are proposed,each unit should front on and be accessed via the private street(s) and the design should include a mew or gated entry in accord with UDC 11-3F-1—however,public streets are preferred.Alternatively, a multi-family development Page 12 Item 3. 114 (i.e.one structure on one property with 3 or more dwelling units)with townhome style units might be a development option for this area.A revised parking plan should be submitted for this area as well that provides for adequate guest parking above the minimum UDC standards (Table 11-3C-6)to serve this portion of the development.A revised concept plan and parking plan should be submitted prior to or at the Commission hearing for review and a revised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing that reflects this modification. The lot layout/development plan for the multi-family development on Lots 70-83,Block 12 depicts parking and access driveways on buildable lots—the number of parking spaces varies with each lot and are not commensurate with the parking required for each building. Therefore, Staff recommends the access driveways and parking are placed in a common lot with an ingress-egress/parking easement for each buildable lot.A revised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. 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 face of Block 7 on the south side of W. Smokejumper St. exceeds 750' at approximately 900'+/-; because the preliminary plat for the abutting property to the south did not include a pathway to this site in this location, Staff does not recommend a pathway is required for connectivity as it would dead-end at the subdivision boundary. Other block faces comply with the standard. Common driveways are required to 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 wayflnding purposes. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed via one(1)collector street(N. Rustic Oak Way) from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26,which extends through the site to the south boundary and will eventually extend to McMillan Rd. with development of The Oaks North subdivision to the south. A local street access (W. Sturgill Peak St.) is proposed via N. McDermott Rd., a collector street, at the project's west boundary. A stub street(N. Jumpspot Ave.) is proposed to the out-parcel at the southwest corner of the site—Staff recommends W. Smokejumber St. is also stubbed to this property from the east;two(2)stub streets(N. Trident Ave. and N. Rustic Oak Way) are proposed to the south for future extension with The Oaks North subdivision; and two(2) stub streets(N. Serenity Ave. &W. Fireline Ct.)are proposed to the north for future extension—the stub street to Serenity Ln. will serve as an emergency access only to Peregrine Heights Subdivision and will have bollards preventing public access. A collector street(W. Ramblin St.)is proposed for access to the school site. A stub street(Sunfield Way)was approved with The Oaks North preliminary plat to Lot 37,Block 12,proposed as a common lot;this street is not proposed to be extended. The ACHD report states Sunfield Way cannot be extended into the site at this time as the stub street is aligned with the parcel line between this site and the school parcel.ACHD has required a permanent right-of-way easement to be provided and a road trust for the future extension of Sunfield Way with development of the school parcel. Page 13 Item 3. 115 Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west(Parcels#R6991221700&R6991221600) and east(Parcel#R6991222101)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. As discussed above,a private street loop(N.Highfire Loop)is proposed for access to the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development(see analysis below under Private Streets). Staff is not supportive of the proposed design and recommends revisions to the plan as stated above and in Section IX.A. The Applicant's proposal to curve McDermott Rd. north of Sturgill Peak St. to the east at the project's west boundary does not meet ACHD policy and is not approved; the ACHD report states construction of this portion of McDermott will be completed in conjunction with ITD's SH-16 extension. Developments along SH 2O-26 are required to construct a street generally paralleling the state highway that is no closer than 660 linear feet(measured from centerline to centerline)from the intersection(i.e.Rustic Oak)with the state highway.The purpose of which is to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the subject property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road.The street shall be designed in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3H-4B.3 and shall collect and distribute traffic.Frontage streets or private streets may be considered by the council at the time of property annexation or through the conditional use process.Frontage streets and private streets shall be limited to areas where there is sufficient access to surrounding properties and a public street is not desirable in that location. A frontage road is proposed along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Chinden Blvd. with an access on Rustic Oak approximately 660' south of Chinden as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A.Because residential homes exist to the west that are not likely to redevelop in the near future, a future interchange for SH-16 is planned east of the McDermott/Chinden intersection,and a north/south collector street(Rustic Oak) exists along the east boundary of this site, Staff believes there is sufficient access to surrounding properties as proposed without the provision of a public street. Emergency access:In response to the Fire Department's estimated response time to the development, which are below the target goal on the McDermott side of the subdivision, the Applicant plans to include an AED (Automated External Defibrillator)device in the clubhouse and provide education related to the use of the device to ensure residents are aware of the benefits and function if the device is needed.Additionally, a connection is proposed from Chinden through the project to the southern boundary of the subdivision with the firstphase of development to aid in emergency response times to the site; this should also benefit response times to The Oaks North to the south. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6; and for non-residential uses in accord with the standards listed in 11-3C-613.1. Future development should comply with these standards. A parking exhibit(and details in the narrative)was submitted with this application,included in Section VIII.F that depicts 46 extra off-street parking spaces in the townhome portion of the development and a total of 505 on-street parking spaces available for guest parking. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces are proposed for the 3,750+/-square foot clubhouse and swimming pool facility. Staff is of the opinion the proposed parking in the single-family and townhomes portions of the development should meet the parking needs. Off-street parking in the multi-family portion of the development will be evaluated with the conditional use permit application. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts segments of the City's multi-use pathway system across this site. In accord with the Plan,the Park's Dept. recommends detached 10' wide multi-use pathways are provided within the Page 14 Item 3. F116 street buffers in the following locations: along N. McDermott Rd.,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26,the east side of N. Rustic Oak Way from Chinden to the southern boundary of the site, and along W. Ramblin St. from Rustic Oak to the school site. These pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement. Other pathways and micro-paths through common areas are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access within the development. Two(2)micro-path connections to the school site are proposed in addition to the multi-use pathway connection from Rustic Oak that extends along the northern boundary of the multi- family development. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaping shall be provided on either side of the pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Detached sidewalks are required to be provided along all arterial and collector streets; attached(or detached) sidewalks may be provided along internal local streets. Sidewalks are proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17, except for along the east side of Rustic Oak,north of W.Lost Rapids St.,where an attached 7' wide sidewalk is proposed. This sidewalk should be detached from the curb in accord with UDC 11-3A-17. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed adjacent to the north/south collector street(N. Rustic Oak Way) and are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.Note: The Master Plan included in Section VIII.A appears to include landscaped parkways throughout the development; however, they are only proposed along N. Rustic Oak Way. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffers are required to be provided within the development as follows: a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, an entryway corridor; and a 20' wide buffer is required along N. Rustic Oak Way,N. McDermott Rd. and W.Ramblin St., collector streets,landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. A 25' wide buffer is required on the C-G zoned property to residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-213-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The buffer area should be comprised of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover that results in a barrier that allowed trees to touch at the time of maturity. Parkways where provided are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The total linear feet of parkways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the required standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the UDC standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C. Page 15 Item 3. F117 If any existing trees on the site are proposed to be removed,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements if any existing trees are not proposed to be retained on site. Noise abatement is required to be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1I- 3H-4D. A detail/cross-section of the proposed noise abatement should be submitted with the final plat application for the commercial portion of the development that demonstrates compliance with the required standards. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the residential portion of the development. Based on 105.08 acres,a minimum of 10.51 acres of qualified open space should be provided. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted,included in Section VIII.E,that depicts 11.56 acres(or 11%)of open space consisting of the entire buffer along collector streets(McDermott&Rustic Oak), open space areas of at least 50' x 100' in area and linear open space in accord with UDC standards.Note:Although a couple of the lots (i.e. Lot 30, Block 1 and Lot 29, Block 9) counted toward qualified open space don't meet the minimum dimensional standards of 50'x 100', the rest of the area does qualify which still exceeds the minimum standards. Because the multi-family portion of the development is proposed to be subdivided with each 4-plex on its own individual lot for the option of separate ownership of the 4-plex buildings,Staff recommends a provision is included in the DA that requires one management company handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire project to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3 A minimum of(1)site amenity is required for every 20 acres of development area. Based on the residential area of the proposed plat(105.08 acres), a minimum of five(5)qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. A site amenity exhibit and renderings are included in Section VIII.E. A 3,750+/- square foot clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office and meeting room with an outdoor patio and a 54' x 30'+/-swimming pool, one large tot lot on Lot 1,Block 9 and(2) smaller tot lots on Lot 1, Block 13 and Lot 12,Block 6 with children's play equipment, an enclosed 5,500+/-s.f. dog park(although this area may be just a pocket park with no dog facilities depending on what is desired by future residents), segments of the City's multi-use regional pathway system, and additional qualified open space exceeding 20,000 square feet are proposed as amenities in excess of UDC standards. Amenities are proposed from the following categories listed in UDC 11-3G-3C: quality of life,recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system, in accord with UDC standards. Details of these amenities should be submitted with the final plat applications for the phases in which they are located. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-IS): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. Sub-surface drainage is proposed but swales could be incorporated if needed. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-157: Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. This property is within the Settler's Irrigation District and the Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District's boundaries. Page 16 Item 3. F-1181 Waterways(UDC 11-3A-�: The West Tap Sublateral runs east/west across the southern portion of this site within a 20' wide drainage district easement; and a 15' wide irrigation easement runs east/west across the northern portion of the site as depicted on the Peregrine Heights subdivision plat. This waterway is planned to be relocated and piped. If the easement(s)for the waterway is greater than 10' in width,it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20' in width and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-6E. All waterways are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity of linear open space as defined in UDC 11-IA-1 in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. Fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. Fences abutting pathways and common open space lots not entirely visible from a public street is required to be an open vision or semi-private fence up to 6' in height as it provides visibility from adjacent homes or buildings per UDC 11-3A-7A.7. Staff is concerned there is not enough visibility from the street of the common area on Lot 1,Block 2 located behind building lots and around Lot 37,Block 12 and recommends the fencing type is revised on the perimeter of these lots to comply with this standard. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations and renderings of the different home types planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.G. Homes depicted are a mix of 1-and 2- story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stone/brick veneer accents. Because the side and/or rear of 2-story homes that face collector streets (i.e.N.McDermott Rd.,N. Rustic Oak Way and W.Ramblin St.)will be highly visible,these elevations,should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the clubhouse, swimming pool facility, single-family attached,townhome and multi-family structures. The design of such is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.Design review is not required for single-family detached homes. C. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F1 A private street loop(N. Highfire Loop)is proposed for access within the portion of the development where townhomes are proposed on Lots 17-70,Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development. The Applicant believes a private street in this area will enhance safety and vehicular circulation by creating a clear path of travel for emergency vehicles and residential traffic. Mews nor a gated development are proposed as the Applicant believes a gate would detract from site circulation and would physically and figuratively disjoint the townhomes from the rest of the community. Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development per UDC 11-3F-1. The applicability may be extended where the Director or Fire Marshall determines that private streets will enhance the safety of the development. The Applicant requests alternative compliance to UDC 11-3F-1 to allow the development as proposed,without a mew(s)or a gated entry. Page 17 Item 3. 119 1 As noted above in Section VI.B,Lot Layout, Staff recommends changes to the layout of the portion of the plat where the private street is proposed. Staff and the Fire Dept. does not believe safety is enhanced by the provision of a private street in this area with the density and lot layout proposed and in fact, believes it creates a safety/emergency access issue due to the likelihood of vehicles parking in fire lanes due to inadequacy of parking for guests and overflow parking.Therefore, Staff does not recommend approval of the private street as proposed; a subsequent request for private streets may be considered if warranted by the redesign. D. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-5B_5) Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-317-1,which requires a mew or limited gated development to be provided when townhomes are proposed, is also requested. The Applicant's request is based on their belief that the townhome portion of the development will better integrate with the rest of the Prescott Ridge community and will be easily accessible and usable without a gated entry and will provide a safer path of travel for emergency vehicles. Because Staff is not supportive of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development with the private street, Staff is in turn not supportive of the request for alternative compliance.As noted above in Section VI.B,Lot Layout, Staff recommends changes to the layout of this portion of the plat.A subsequent request may be considered if warranted by the redesign. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX.A and denial of the request for a private street and alternative compliance per the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on(continued from Jul, and August ) September 17, 2020. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to continue the subject AZ and PP requests to a subsequent Commission hearing in order for the Applicant to revise the concept plan for the commercial/medical campus and plat for the townhome portion of the development. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering&Patrick Connor(Applicant's Representative); Betsy Huntsin eg r,representing the proposed hospital; Randall Peterman(adjacent property owner); Mitch Armuth,Providence Properties b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Val Stack and Paul Hoyer; Sue Ropski; Cory Coltrin; Randall Peterman d. Written testimony: Josh Femreite, Chief of New Schools for Gem Innovation Schools e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Joe Bon ig orno 2. Key issue(s) testimon. a. Gem Innovation School is in strong support of the project as their future campus lies approximately 300 yards to the south and will be able to provide K-12 public education options for future residents; b. Would like 30' buffer extended along entire east and south boundaries of Peregrine Heights Subdivision for a buffer to higher density residential uses;would like more of a transition to the lots at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights Subdivision either with larger lots or common area instead of 5 building lots; not in favor of proposed access via Serenity Ln.; concern pertaining to future access for Serenity Ln. residents via Page 18 Item 3. F120] Chinden; concern pertaining to obstruction of view sheds with proposed 4-story structures on commercial portion of development. c. Ms. Ropski's concern with location of trash dumpsters and parking adjacent to their ro e d. Preference for the hospital to be located closer to the Chinden/Rustic Oak intersection away from low density residential lots at west boundaryl e. Mr. Peterman is in favor of the proposed development as it will bring services to his property for development. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Preference for owner-occupied townhomes rather than rental or more multi-family units in the portion currently_proposed for townhomes; b. Preference for the Applicant to obtain the out-parcel at northeast corner of site in order to develop commercial(retail,restaurant, etc.)uses on the site, c. In favor of the variety in housing types and lot sizes proposed; d. Not in favor of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development and the private streets—needs to be redesigned; e. The Fire Dept.'s preference for a direct unhindered access to the site via Serenity Ln. (i.e.not obstructed by a gate,bollards or a chain)—opposed to right-in/right-out at Serenity Ln./Chinden Blvd. as a fire engine will not be able to access the site from the east via Chinden. f. Conceptual development plan for the commercial/medical campus portion of the site needs to be revised as discussed. 4. Commission changes)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 19 Item 3. 121 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Master Plan Conceptual Rendering&Medical Campus Conceptual Development Plan—NOT APPROVED �. Rx` MOIGL EMrAl} PRESCOT -- RIDGE MFRIDTAN.MAWf FUL UNE E SE7LQ4L ItiiEF ~ - I # - I * • U. .W i iNk1RE Mk3 iIOFlTH 5LgtC141510N Note:Although tree-lined trees are depicted,parkways with detached sidewalks are not proposed except for along the collector streets (i.e. N. Rustic Oak Way&McDermott Rd.) and on common lot end-caps; an east/west oriented mew with landscaping is depicted within the townhome portion of the development which is also not proposed. Page 20 Item 3. 122 _ ee�lFnlnonMrl�n �r.e�va — a u rrnx r o wT 4ni fM%Lt f L. .dmwn' F I Raa.x nq.-—rt IN � wmno. �• �'..,,,,a — r hurr. " rAU d 4T kT,t Yn- a!:' --_ I - +��R!O• it 1 _ 7 I�iep T • •r+s m.n�i 1 I I III I'' � �. -1 _ � :!1��'Il7 - •a.•s[al WELL�'Ei]� J I1.���I_� I` I�,II �,a~ids ph - i �II-UI111�' Page 21 Item 3. F123] B. Annexation&Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps 52 ILp] i R1.' i 1 Ian4 I L of 1 l L ...� I1 Page 22 Item 3. 124 km E N G I N E E R I N G April 6,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Descriptlon for Annexation Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion o=the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of Section 28,Township 4 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89"27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 28,thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28,S89'27'17"E a distance of 1,484.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said northerly fine,589'27'17"E a distance of 982,15 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,Sfl0'32'43"W a distance of 125.00 feet to a point; Thence 501127'47"E a distance of 6.95 feet to a point; Thence 511"01'47"E a distance of 80.41 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence SO4'02'47"E a distance of 96.02 feet to a S/8-inch rebar; Thence 500'27'47"E a distance of 104.59 feet to a 5/9-inch rebar; Thence N89'27'17"W a distance of 12.18 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence Sot'32'13"W a distance of 139.52 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 573'36'44"E a distance of 131.95 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar on the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 29; Thence following said easterly line,N0O"43'55"E a distance of 586.55 feet to a aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 29; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the northerly line of the Northeast 114 of said Section 28, 589'25'25"E a distance of 60.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,500'43'55"W a distance of 658.89 feet to a point; Thence 589'24'23"E a distance of 1,243.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line,500'36'13"W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said easterly line, N77"58'17"W a distance of 1,339.12 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly line of the Narthwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line, S00'43'55"W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch pipe marking the Center 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence leaving said easterly line,S00"43'51"W a distance of 24.35 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 553'05'53"W a distance of 16.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N78'07'38"W a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 589"18'46"W a distance of 45.49 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86"14'49"W a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 1\1188'50'04"W a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; The nce N80'59'54"W a distance of 36.69 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N70"27'41"W a distance of 25.64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 9233 West State Street • Boise,Idaho 39714 & 208.639.6939 * kmengllp-mm Page 23 Item 3. 125 Thence S89"15'00"W a distance of 20.04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86°53'39"W a distance of 189.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 564°04'03"W a distance of 27.64 feet to a S/8-inch rebar; Thence N89°14'25"W a distance of 789.53 feet to a point; Thence N00"52'21"E a distance of 16.96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 28; Thence following the southerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89°21'12"W a distance of 686.03 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly line, N01°00'37"E a distance of 400.00feet to a}point; Thence N89°21'12"W a distance of 625.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said westerly line, N01'00'37"E a distance of 690.74 feet to a point; Thence leaving said westerly line,571`33'16"E a distance of 483.50 feet to a point; Thence 578°08'16"E a distance of589.77 feet to a point; Thence S46'56'01"E a distance of299.29 feet to a point; Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of48.41 feet to a point; Thence NOO'52'17"E a distance of 215.98 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75°32'13"E a distance of 272.40 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 30.59 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet,a delta angle of 38°56'33",a chord hearing of N75°32'13"£and a chard distance of 30.00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar,- Thence N75°32'13"E a distance of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence NDO'32'13"E a distance of 1,497.29 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 569'18'13"W a distance of 270.56 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N31"55'35"W a distance of 81.73 feet to a point; Thence 53.14 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve hawing a radius of 115.0 feet, a delta angle of 26"28'39",a chord bearing of N18"41'1.3"W and a chord distance of 52.67 feet to a 5/8- inch rebar; Thence NOO*32'43"E a distance of 125.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 126.527 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. �4�¢.L BIND 12459 M OF x I.. 'W�' .6•Zo.2,0 Client Project Narne PAGE 12 Page 24 Item 3. Fl 26 I►JAIMum IJY Q O PMr 9F WW"M N 114 rW4E71 �P �1 W"S ur E3Jma W.� ry�+tilH�}7gf161 �N 7� f 2EM-40' Le R Q POND Gf GLMYEF CENEnT C2t_i T c MT oM WFI 5 0 L3—* x �WIM SW32'1-7M i1a 131-W C fic w ' 250 soo o mac' yy1� d W RI b SCALE; 1"-500r Annexation Area:126.53±AC_ . 2$#33640r Ii6`J'9132Z313,SA428120950, n S}'�e Sd42�#3]915,SCls2$1312GQ&50URzi1101 5 Current ZDWw1g'RUT 3ar a E SI�'J6'b11: mm r ..Qa d}Jr7' •r4mn aua ILQF27'E2'N �7�'S4'i k�F' NUT .2. 1 OF 2 fo ECW 2 � CERM OF SECTKM 16 ERMS CAP H84'-•'2AYr 7Ea.5.}' - — — — ,w " t:08rgft :3cZ5 L�7 1E L17 *�YR1tl.9.R1L1W5.•.,w� . vu»x mwE:ir- Eld wee.¢uruvi+ � L16 L7# Lij +�Vffi lYi L1F/FM1 LrL1--�'L� 14 fu�1111�wy�e i= a a ONIWAF AS TAN LI � p'p q L, LINE alem I Owramc HHE AeuuG PIFUNM L+ WIW4" r1?,E Lim IHtl"s"49M mm O a L3 Mr8,'O i BG.*l LIT sWiVjgti Son+ Cc 13 L+ stw* ! OGLUL LID 4Ea-&m% 1Bks1 X pp L' S477cm rR'tiro 6+4 97+'B4M-w 27M 52 VF T. i L4 mwa7'sr W 1118 LAM WIM'Sil rala r L7 r"TWE. dl CM L11 mrs}1'tn 4 4k `q N Li iBY86'mE OLM M mv�al+Ye HA!d w EPN'il�l Aas y} kw irkn Fi2+} .Ln LIM ry ,IS3 L7+ w7lrm'.34 2141} u LLi kTVY!!'de'k AM LZI aw II'lXw 27mm y I17 31LlM1F4E/W 40.W L96 L,j h�Y�Y#T"M esm kAT 11P]YITT I 170-M L+q I mrlbew 8&w u CUFNE TAULF �rar� CJM I PrCdL4 LElaTH DELTA 04Oq}BUG. 610EL.1 jEyl [+ IB00' ]6.64' SHEET C +14W I Lik14' BRlEI',W I MII41'`TN SLOT 2 : 2 w/wrle•x,nve. xm rya,swrcn� IIR'�b,Otlll+ r+aauanatxol w im�Lr-0Ir Page 25 Item 3. 127 km E N G I N E E R I N G April 7,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-8 Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of Section 28,Township 4 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 28, thence fallowing the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, 589'27'17"E a distance of 2,609.40 Feet to the POINT Of BEGINNING. Thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28, S89"25'25"E a distance of 60.00 feet to a paint; Thence leaving said northerly line,SOO'43'55"W a distance of 658.89 feet to a point; Thence 589'24'23"E a distance of 1,248.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line,SO0'36'13"W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said easterly line, N77`58'17"W a distance of 1,338.12 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar on the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, Thence following said easterly litre, SO)'43'55"W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch pipe marking the Center 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence leaving said easterly line,50Q°43'51"W a distance of 24.35 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S53"05'53"W a distance of 16.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N78"07'38"W a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 589"18'46"W a distance of 45.49 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'14'49"W a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/8--inch rebar; Thence N88'50'04"W a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N80'59'54"W a distance of 36.69 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N70'27'41"W a distance of 25.64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 589'15'00"W a distance of 20.04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'53'39"W a distance of 189.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 564'04'03"W a distance of 27.64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N89'14'25"W a distance of 789.53 feet to a point; Thence N00'52'21"E a distance of 16.96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 28; Thence following the southerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89'21'12"W a distance of 686.03 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly line,N01'00'37"E a distance of 400.00 feet to a point; Thence N89'21'12"W a distance of 625.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said westerly line,N01"00'37E a distance of 690.74 feet to a point; 9233 West State street • Boise,Idaho 83714 • 208.639.69313 • kmengllp.corn Page 26 Item 3. F128] Thence leaving said westerly line,571"33'16"E a distance of 463.50 feet to a point; Thence S78"08'16"E a distance of 589.77 feet to a point; Thence S46"56'01"E a distance of 299.29 feet to a point; Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 48.41 feet to a point; Thence NDD°52'17"E a distance of 21598 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75°32`13"E a distance of 272AD feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 30.59 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet, a delta angle of 38"56'33", a chard bearing of N75°32'13"E and a chard distance of 30,00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75°32'13"E a distance of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence NOD°32'13"E a distance of 659.67 feet to a paint; Thence S89°25'31"E a distance of 279.95 feet to a point; Thence S00°34'29"W a distance of 420.05 feet to a point; Thence 589°25'31"E a distance of 275.60 feet to a point; Thence 82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet, a delta angle of 31"36'09",a chard bearing of S73"37'27"E and a chord distance of 81.69 feet to a point; Thence S57°49'22"E a distance of 138.82 feet to a point; Thence 275.78 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet; a delta angle of 31"36'09",a chord bearing of N16°22'33"E and a chard distance of 272.30 feet to a point; Thence NOD"34'29"E a distance of 233.13 feet to a point; Thence 589"25'31"E a distance of496.43 feet to a point; Thence N00°36'19"E a distance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence N89'24'23"W a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence N00°34'29"E a distance of 122.33 feet to a paint; Thence N89'25'31"W a distance of 17.44 feet to a point on the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line, NOD"43'55"E a distance of 586.55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINN04G. Said parcel contains a total of 99.532 acres, more or Iess. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. C,XST 1 459 OF Client Project Name PAGE 2 Page 27 Item 3. Fl 29 FUM OF 21CIXXIHO ❑ N�1 f+1*MWR , RAM GF DEAING iEGI15H 26 ]� ]t a119'3a+47 EC" w.[Nr-den UW IH.y AM 1 rL n — f 3 P411fal'CriWEiK`dIE711 — — - e n ALUNNJfi UP 4 MW r-SUThfst 29 906'23'S5 I . .i ymy 1 i C0 v: LtA 3#2�'!3'E i9we 6' LA Z 2 m I a N W LZI iEhY}'312' WNW T a4T5iit_ m IX h + Tt r La 28D 500 # 00 g� xq "BAY SCALE- 1 =140 iF o yy� yw _ LPN zr * o S)rj3 7a U Rezone Area:99.53t AC- ass.. t v ' L.l Sfl12R2336S0,R6991Z22 IDiPortlon},SOUS12moiPoLtbo, i fi/' ie CI SOA2613L313L434M2813i.21F�(Porliq��� � a d CurrentZaniog:RLff g SVP66�p1� Pro Po4o-o$9nmE:R- NQ +nr.nd #i4.Y0' L narn W. f+L6'21'12'7r "'na`17k SHEET 'IM t1- 1 OF 2 etrlrfl11F MD-1" a/,s PLeltl! f} — CEMER 4F SEL�F7X 2B 21'1YY Eha.ga' � cv Liy — sE rou 20 L1U�L — AwHWVA iI4,K'+ III.Lm dua aria in 2: 11hETA➢LE L111f TBEL£ � n LL WV25M-E •GJM LIS X794'l71E ri5l8 {fl # L! -v4-sl w JIA m L16 uaS#SLn l72ia it L] MM U.% khm 1.11 MR3VrYE ttR19 4-1 LR.m LIM SaC"25 J1 r73Rn Nwlr46,F 4mo L74 ffiTOMT 13912 N] La bmwli'Wx 67A& L20 R&WIVE L1a.57 w 40 ~ LT Xfd EiGL"rw 1047 L71 N&.W,i'E f'-M '$ rs w cm W 11aD'EIS'SiF'R 36.aP 17? �Lvna' Yr BSu �_ � Y1 Li 477.2?'+e7L lD+64 U-5 hir3*.79%r zzm L10 pwm%MAm 28j54 1L1 HEPFSzq'w m" I.I.I KQ15i 214 I Ina } L7A1 67Y51'IY'E f MAI T 4 CUWVE TABLE asc wiiaa nind LWLIS LENCIIn pE4101 dM411L w n4Irel Ftli[I. I4W b +9W apt I 7!Era3'I 1fM IVE 107 9L1@ET- c4 45MW RL-ff 31'3"V I errarn'E 61.e}I- 2 OF 2 C3 ri#-1n' �IML.v.rti nor. Loa.er suns -W�,r-44— P+174I m4z-mPA w 16lrIgFhA Page 28 Item 3. 130 km E N G I N E E R I N G April 7,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-15 Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion cf Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89"27'17"W a distance of 2,609,40 feet from an aEurninum cap marking the North 1/4 Lrner of said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, 589°27'17"E a distance of 2,078.14 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,500°43'55"W a distance of 983.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S89°25'31"E a distance of 546.59 feet to a point; Thence N00°3429"E a distance of 275.11 feet to a point; Thence S89°24'23"E a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence 500036'19"W a distance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence N89025'31"W a distance of 496.43 feet to a point; Thence 500'34'29"W a distance of 233.13 feet to a point; Thence 275.78 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet, a delta angle of 31°36'09",a chord bearing of 516°22'33"W and a chord distance of 272.34 feet to a point; Thence N57°49'22"W a distance of 139.82 feet to a point; Thence 82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet,a delta angle of 31'36'a9",a chord bearing of N73°37'27"W and a chord distance of 81.69 feet to a point; Thence N89"25'31"W a distance of 275.60 feet to a point; Thence N00'34'29"E a distance of 420.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 8.822 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit 3 and bythis reference is hereby made a part of. �❑tom' �0 4 � , 12459a tv A L. 1310 9233 West State street - Boise,Idaho 83714 * 208.639.6939 + Rmengllp.com Page 29 Item 3. F 31 Z ,+LLIMNLIM CAP $ �; N 1f+ GORNEIR m ErAsls OF 43WINCo W_CJ-dmd ekxl�xl+w 201m1 SEC}1CIR 2S 3 to 21 _ 39B'27'171r y.�zs[�.+o' o s rw O 'e POW Or COMMENCEWENT � � '} m CAP x I _ _ E 1 W C41L3JER I SECTION 26 y '� Z I Iaq CW no I r'' N L% hn vP-OINT OF 13EGNNING s+ ° *+ n .* SBB''�Ei'31'E b 10 I W w •• m H6ff2S'34 Yr A96.41 Rezane Area:&92±AC. c a R6991222210 Portion)& 0 n 9D42A1ZN5G�pGwmn) o Curreut 2gning:RUT CL d Proposed 2orEing:R-15 �' no�er 141us I CAM AFRILMN SHEET, OF I I L CURVE TABLE N5714D'22"W 0 100 200 400 WSW WIVS LENGT- OELTA '010" 9RG CH931P MAT Cl 5 QXV 275.70' 'Ji'Sfi'9C' S1$'22'3371' 27230' - 1��2 � ErbNens.wmrtrou,ux C2 I94,40' 02.73' 3i'}5'90' #a7S37'2774 91.G9' 013 MET STArE Sr�cr w inhM Uri+ PHWE IUQP Ef{&33 to p(My p1FM7� Page 30 Item 3. 132 km ENGINEERING April 7,2d20 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal description for Rezone to C-G Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marring the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89°27'17"E a distance of 1,484.55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S89°27'17"E a distance of 982.15 feet to a point; Thence 500'32'43"W a distance of 125.00 feet to a point; Thence 501'27'47"E a distance of 6.95 feet to a point; Thence 511°01'47"E a distance of 80..41 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 504°02'47"E a distance of 96.02 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 500"27'47"E a distance of 104.59 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N89"27'17"W a distance of 12.18 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 500"32'13"W a distance of 139.52 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence S73"36'44"E a distance of 13L95 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar on the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence leaving said easterly line,589°25'31"E a distance of 17.44 feet to a point; Thence 500"34'29"W a distance of 397.44 feet to a point; Thence N89'25'31"W a distance of 826.54 feet to a point; Thence N00'32'13"E a distance of 837.52 feet to a 1/2-inrh rebar; Thence S69°18'13"W a distance of 270.56 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N31'55'35"W a distance of 81.73 feet to a point; Thence 53,14 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 115.00 feet, a delta angle of 26"28'39 a chord bearing of N18°41'13"W and a chord distance of 52.67 feet to a 518- inch rebar; Thence N00'32'43"E a distance of 125.29feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 18.172 acres,more or less. t Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. ,14 � 12459 � W 9293 West State Street • Boise,Idaho 83714 • Z08.639.6939 • kmengllp.com Page 31 Item 3. Fl 33 f�T A N M � G q�q poe'7 CF 9F';INHOG W.Chlnjer eolo{Hwy 20nq Al.UM"M C* lJ N 1/4 LOtba'R 2EGMN 2B it _ _ s672717"E 2AQY,1� C +�+ - #S'E F26.88' ;y xS� L z rot'•7"E w•55'�c�r R�' aDA,' GJ t a ro wl ?\• I tr � IY 5 4'ff47'E ! "' c Remnia Area:1<8.17#AC. nor m � � +-+ 50428213ifl2,Rfi94122221DIPor(Wa), C1 r +° 50429IM950(krMn).30428120WAO Portiona °J � u a � &50A2AI33.200(PorUonf x Li z $ Cantle[Zoning:RUT � � m .� Proposed zoning:C•G .. � satrsr,a'+r I � of LINE TAB EE 139.52' _ kINE 9EAIRIt4G DISTANCE p rs L1 S1' '1'47�E &:M S7736'aa7E 4 y 137-95' 12 5723'47T 104.52 Q flgl[[f !}url SHEET! C4tE nil f + g, I OF 1 I Cuar1€ nanrus I ltWTH I NLrn tHOfIG any I cHaav Cl ,15DW I EW dV I 21VW3V +119r*1'1 J-W 52.67' I N B4'25'Sl�f1 p7R}y G4GILl 116.SLw Jr�ek, FlaFfiVS W13 tiF7 5TATE3rAW o W.1phADIPJA Fhi 7.id+639i99p Page 32 Item 3. ■ C. Preliminary Plat(date: 8/28/2020), Phasing Plan&Lot Layout Exhibit PA[SCOTT PRELIMINARY PLAT 5HDVVING - APARCfLVkLkKb 5ftA3MIN A PDFITIDE14f THE NORTMEAfT __—__ _. _ ■����� 1M OF1KWATHWISTIMOfKCryONM,TOWNS NIPaWORN. ■ANUIWFSI.MIA PYLEPMSN,■(AC040 ',IW,Hp J� —�— -- —————-- I rEE MUM o w • - I p ' .� ` I' I ■ $G 0M0 O 2 , Xf y # AA[ � � �,• 'I _" a 3� .. Q,� _.■ ����ma's°ti a .r' �• � ��� i:�I� ,' glti r. � � � � 7 * ' I"� � •DEiL fy1X lkl.".1 �. ,}'fi .. I �*f¢.$�n II iF'.1F ii Iq *w �■ ,— u,' � '� �T I...�_ 4 � y •'o Iy^: o. OI\�F��OI�a ' � q���.. � F ���,-�,',ui� ■ T�I fl r . 1- — - :■� ._ ..1r _. i�:l—.I _.- -- � - -- _ .ice.., wan Page 33 Item 3. Fl 35 dF I ,� riy{ -Lf rf{f # • #a I mil - ■ IN I { F: — � � - _ R � �� ■ 4�; GI � ' F�q ♦ 'Q � ...'':'ice: ..5-_ .� ■ I _ Y ■� �1 �J _ fff �1+ e � � 4 ti I •.w 11 IY 0 OD dt RS hI M � 51 �� 4� I q Y try a .. 91 INA 4 ib 1 IP 49 ------------ IF 10 13 In 4 _■M7[N LHII-iii AiLi?A9i kk ■ `1 I - IF 1 ■ i �Gf'f'_ -P � I 1 I J i4 Y �' —•" tam 1n sw , }C 8#7 Y 6 Y 4 Y 1 U� F 'J 8 Ilk m f 9 Y • SS r wt.a+.t au[, LAY I Page 34 Item 3. Fl 36 m J - i,,� � l �;SP ello■ Pay ■ � . fib x f 4a T r a i i 4 1 it 4 m K �� P II�4__�R i I*Rb P'• 4 Y •P� 'i 4 R 4 I.4` E k 4 w 4 R -.ate ............. PLAN �.•�`'�'� ��._ P [p o rim a J it pM..qr ri�pv� - - S m� ■ ■ E i E 1 1 -'—'--- r■�fr..■■.■■■■.■ E � IAATM UN.MU SHE U MU ■ 4 8 i Ik 6 ` 1"J srr.nyir w+on',.: — 1�� n'ena■n ro� * 4 i Lia�¢ �a� 'nw _�__—i��..�■■1��_irr3`�_�.ti:N'�fyy■:Pir���*Tii��:tif■�'`II MAStli urt-ilE 41lE'C►Pi! �r�lr}��lr� y�:��.i�i■� Page 35 Item 3. Fl 37 + I+ + + + t + + + � o i� 11 1 � I 1 J 1 { WATCKUW all St4 142iy 11 J T^ 1 � 1 'loa�.rgr 1 rra�i.o.ra -- PHA!w PAWk@Lf -.OWWGN TOTAL .3 L315 LA35 LM �T 3 e} 7 44 I + r + +S 6 Ail 5 W2 1 43 1 639 41 4t r 7 36 S +} �! x _ p ea 1 sa w 1 c W . I wwSE L -0 it _ W k3m l _ ■ It T'7 H.'� +u xJr .,IXY Page 36 Item 3. ■ aR z IT rr r — Am c r } iL s JL za oo}IP ��g�C�a - rL7 lL- it �, T- ,�- •. ••-� � / � '-+r/� J � �_}_ _ry;h L 911 �'3 !� S ��r;r��yY R ;a ♦a dL 1_'_ .� T /1 Si 1 �t } :4Y+ter L� 11 � �L.�Lr k•-• '- -Ji' L 7 i -ice .—_—_—_—.�.��—••—_ - � � —__�- ��RiF� _ rrra�—! •Tx�xS aisa ,m S P f LLh ■ i a Y Page 37 Item 3. Fl 39 F it AL M. S. .�L�a�r k L + i -AL_ F f �r.' .'. -• ' ~ xF 'JL{ti:(.-. _ M a L{.�"' ++I- �.'4• ,}}t Y� : �. 'fY l S+' '`' �L M. AL I :i _: :'c::::_: IS4 4a i II yIr r1,a:a:t;; ML 4a t74 Y} � rL,a 1 I i q r •'i L , 1 s i'T Page 38 Item 3. F140] D. Landscape Plan(date: 8/26/2020) =.%MAExr drex.r*u.ar+� T,-.��.�. ..-..�..�..,• s ICI �1.� ....^� - ��Jf 1101M.. ��---J • t�{ice' TurLTMOrEuuq - - .- - - , , . , - ,aar5wr wino IAwWY SPk Sii PLAN := . Page 39 Item 3. Fl 41] ell- MW di s t It Z wrrf m �F k • 1 1 1 • s :I km IL Ir o a i � �RL;'.��+m� �.'17�C�01RGI�A0.SY7RP�4 �rwuow J-1d, -- f��J,NOSUP OJ,n —F —_•—_ -- Page 40 Item 3. F142] ---- --71 1� I I J•�Y.f i i *fir' ram' ! 1 11� __" �.,..iJC1C� _ - ,.fA_w+[lWrwll�x p� F _ J 'J iI yrs• _Ui a I � IA - �i % v .s.P� Page 41 Item 3. ■ LZ .A F � 1 w _ I O �- — — Tr 11111111 III 111�111111 � i; . ....... .�.1 i 1111. l l ll 111 I N 1111111111111€ IJIRJ]LFVL F`J4+1 L_ +_�_.— —.. rgsr Page 42 Item 3. F144] E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenities(dated: 8/26/20) PRESCGTFfUDGE SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT 'W.,�- Mrt -. .......Wq r + '.f T, - ��rr. INS � �: „ _ . . . . . y xrFrr nexesueornm Ian Zrl- Page 43 Item 3. F145] 111AEHI! u m'RONt c4wwpEm 17 RARW+ Lc*M #-OPEN Fh{E gym- C, ,x RI1�5{ AF INK & ! ' # aAt D F 1 # #T7T! 5CHEMAI7-CLUBHOUSE LAKA TOT LOB 1 SMALL TM LOT QPARK Page 44 Item 3. ■ F. Parking Plan(dated: 4/8/20)—NOT APPROVED (Parking for townhome portion needs to be revised) O ' � 1' iC`Y I a kin i �. t y sorrnus��y PAfilSltl6 F3W16ET — `�� Er�.11 Page 45 Item 3. F147] G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TKESCOTT .� RIDGE �■ ,�� ��nuan oaxrr # I E TO NHOMES y FOUR-PLEX FLATS 4 ' - pmw FAA61.1 ppp- ill ■T I !6 Page 46 Item 3. F148] i MAIN MEDICAL SUIidING- DRAFT RENDEVING, VIEW LOOKING WEST Page 47 Item 3. F149] H. Parcel Status Exhibit landproDATA Parcel Status Exhibit R6997222101 -Wheaton — L"gal parcel as a platipt!lot - SO429211102- Roark within Peregrine Heights Legal parcel per e-mail Subdivision and e-mail from From Drvnt DaTllelson Brent Daniolsan dal d dated 8.26.19. V.26.19. * 2a IN chtod&4 Illvd '• x, r r S0428120640-Nuvlcbenua 111ppl parcel, but will ba.,cdrnie ACH13 dghl-or-way per Chrlsly Little a-t"au dated 11.6.19. R69912Z2210- Roark Legal parcel as a plaltd 54428 1 31 200. 5chaol lot uwllh n Peregrine Illegal parcel,bin inclvded Heights Subdivision, Wath Ih{5 appllraCban Co 50428233640- Hon rectify illegal SRatus. Legal parcel per e-mail trout Omits Danielson datr.rl 9.5.19. I. y 544ZB120950 a $042a131315-Kwng House parcel Is legal. Rf:!rwlrrder t�illegal, but wltl heract[flrrtl Y. b this a location. 504 292 3 3fi20-�hoirnson �2rr. Legal parcel per a-meal ' a from&ent Danielson ' dated 9,5,19, 43'39'13,7 1�54 k-6t:-Vs 4 V't Aug 26.2919-LM0prQQATA•1V1m The MKO016 avOaOle$t thig wee) a 9m rpr litrorinatlWW1 Seek:1 inch eppraa 6M rear purposes only and do not consbtute a legal document. Page 48 Item 3. 150 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION The conceptual development plan for the commercial,C-G zoned portion of the site,shall be revised and submitted to the City Clerk at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing to reflect conformance with the following guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for Mixed Use developments: • The buildings in the commercial C-G zoned portion of the development shall be arranged to create some form of common,usable area,such as a plaza or green space in accord with the mixed use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13). • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas,outdoor gathering areas,open space,libraries,and schools shall be provided in the Mixed Use designated portion of the site; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count(pg.3- 13). The school planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area does not satisfy this requirement as it is not part of the Mixed Use designated area. • Development of the Mixed Use designated area shall be centered around spaces that are well- designed public and quasi-public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered. • The 4-story medical office building proposed at the southeast corner of the commercial development shall be shifted to the north to front on the main entry drive aisle off N.Rustic Oak Way as a better transition to the residences to the south. • A commercial land use type shall be included on the plan in the MU-R designated area(includes retail,restaurants,etc.). 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. At the Applicant's request,three(3) separate DA's shall be required for each component of the project—one for the R-8 and R-15 zoned residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district's parcel. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, Development Agreements shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer(s). Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicants to the Planning Division for each DA prior to commencement of the DA's. The DA's shall be signed by the property owner(s)and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA's shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the development: 1. Future development of the R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the site shall be generally consistent with the master plan,preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, qualified open space& site amenity exhibit,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. Administrative design review shall be required for all single-family attached,townhome and multi-family structures. Compliance with the design standards for such listed in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 3. The rear and/or side of structures on Lots 2-6,Block 4; Lots 2-7,Block 1;Lots 8 and 9-15,Block 9; Lot 16,Block 7; Lot 2,Block 12; Lots 2-14,Block 10; Lots 2-16 and 29,Block 14;Lot 68, 70, 81-83, and 77-78,Block 12; and Lots 43-44, 75 and 79,Block 8 that face collector streets (i.e.N. Page 49 Item 3. 551 McDermott Rd.,N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.), shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop- outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 4. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for a multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development. 5. One management company shall handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire multi-family development to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. b. Medical campus/hospital: 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the master plan, preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevation included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. 3. Noise abatement shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-41). 4. A minimum 30-foot wide buffer with an 8-foot tall CMU wall shall be provided along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as proposed on the landscape plan in Section VIII.D. Dense landscaping consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at maturity is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.The block wall shall be decorative and have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures—plain CMU block is not allowed. 5. A frontage road parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 shall be constructed as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A in accord with UDC 11-3H-4B.3e. The City Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital which provides emergency care from Chinden Blvd.ISH 2O-26 via W. Rustic Oak Way meets the intent of the requirement in UDC 11-4-3-22A, which requires hospitals that provides emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. If so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If not, City Council may consider a modification to the standard in UDC 11-3H- 4B.2a upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible as determined by City Council.Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. c. School Site: 1. The subject property shall develop with an education institution; any other uses shall require modification of this agreement. 2. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for an education institution in the R-8 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14: Education Institution. 3. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. Page 50 Item 3. N 2. The final plat(s) submitted for this development shall incorporate the following changes: a. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 unless otherwise approved by the City and the Idaho Transportation Department. b. Remove Lot 1,Block 15 as it's ACHD right-of-way and cannot be platted as a common lot. c. Depict cross-access/ingress-egress easements to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west (Parcels#R6991221700&R6991221600) and east(Parcel#R6991222101)in accord with UDC 1I- 3A-3A.2. d. Depict lot numbers for common areas in the townhome portion of the development in Block 8. e. Depict the easement(s)for the West Tap sub-lateral; if the easement(s)is greater than 10-feet in width, it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20-feet in width and outside of a fenced area, unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6E. £ Re-design the townhome portion of the development(i.e. Lots 16-79,Block 8)with public streets (alleys and/or common driveways may be incorporated); or, if private streets are proposed, each unit should front on and be accessed via the private street(s). Alternatively, a multi-family development (i.e. one structure on one property with 3 or more dwelling units)with townhome style units might be a development option for this area.A revised concept plan shall be presented prior to or at the Commission hearing for review and a revised plat reflecting this change shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing.If private streets are proposed with a townhome development,a mew or gated private streets should be provided in accord with UDC 11-3F-1. Also,provide updated density calculations. g. Lots 70-83,Block 12 in the multi-family portion of the development shall be revised to depict parking and access driveways on a common lot with an ingress-egress/parking easement for each buildable lot. A revised plat shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing depicting this change. h. Extend W. Smokejumper St. as a stub street to the out-parcel(Parcel#S0428233620) at the southwest corner of the site. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a detail/cross-section of the berm or berm and wall combination required as noise abatement within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26; also address how the wall will be constructed to avoid a monotonous wall,that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. b. Remove Lot 1,Block 15 as it's ACHD right-of-way and cannot be platted as a common lot. c. Depict a detached sidewalk/pathway(as applicable) along all collector streets(i.e.N. McDermott Rd., N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.) and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 in accord with UDC 11-3A- 17.A detached 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along N. McDermott Rd., W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, the east side of N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St. d. Landscaping shall be depicted on either side of all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. e. If existing trees are proposed to be removed from the site,the Applicant shall coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC I I- 3B-10C.5. Mitigation information shall be included on the plan. If existing trees are proposed to be retained on site,they shall be depicted on the plan. f. A calculations table shall be included on the plan that demonstrates compliance with the landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E (common open space), 11-3B-12C(pathways), 11-3A-17 Page 51 Item 3. F153 (parkways) and 11-3B-7C (street buffers); calculations should include the linear feet of pathways, parkways and street buffers and square footage of common open space as applicable, along with the required vs.provided number of trees. g. Revise the fencing type around the perimeter of Lot 1,Block 2 and Lot 37,Block 12 to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7 to provide more visibility of the common areas in accord with CPTED design strategies. h. Include a detail of the amenities proposed with each phase of development. i. The CMU wall proposed along the south and west boundaries of the commercial portion of the development shall have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures—plain CMU block is not allowed;revise the detail(i.e.reference photo) accordingly. j. Depict lot numbers and landscaping for common areas in the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. k. If a dog park is proposed on Lot 1,Block 2, demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.1h. 1. Depict a small tot lot on Lot 12,Block 6 rather than a large tot lot, consistent with that shown on the site amenities plan. in. Modify the landscape plan consistent with changes required to the plat above under condition IX.A.2 above. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 1I- 2A-6, 11-2A-7 and I1-2B-3 for the R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts respectively. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and for commercial uses in accord with the standards listed in 11-3C-6B;bicycle parking is required in commercial districts as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A revised parking plan shall be submitted prior to or at the Commission hearing for the townhome portion of the development that reflects the changes noted above in condition#A.2f and that provides for adequate guest parking to serve this portion of the development. 6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application(s)that depicts the setbacks,fencing,building envelope,and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via common driveways; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street, the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. 7. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 8. Common driveways shall 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 for the common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. This information may be included in a note on the face of the plat rather than in a separate easement. 9. The private street and common driveways off the private street as proposed on the preliminary plat in the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 are not approved. Consequently,the alternative compliance request to UDC 11-317-1 is not approved as the private street isn't approved. 10. All existing structures shall be removed from the site prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Page 52 Item 3. E 11. Pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. 12. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the 10-foot wide multi-use pathways proposed within the site as required by the Park's Department,prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 13. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility, single-family attached,townhome, multi-family and commercial structures. All structures except for single-family detached structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian City water and sanitary sewer systems. Mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. Until utilities are available to the south boundary of the proposed development,the City of Meridian will not accept an application for final plat. 1.1.2 Sewer mainline/manholes are not allowed in common driveways or under sidewalks. Run service lines down common drive but make sure required separation can be met. 1.1.3 The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.4 The sewer line in N. Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd. 1.1.5 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$265.25 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.6 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$185.43 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.7 As noted in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by GeoTek Inc., all artificial fill materials on site must be removed. 1.1.8 New 12-inch water main will need to be installed in parts of W Sturgill Peak St,N Jumpspot Ave,W Parachute Dr,N Streamer Way,W Smokejumper St and N Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.9 Construct water main in N Streamer Way between W.Parachute Drive and W. Fireline Drive. 1.1.10 Water connections to the north need to be facilitated either by extension of a mainline or and easement in common area Lot 19,Block 1,or off the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line. This is dependent on how road connections to the north are designed and developed in the future. 1.1.11 Remove the water main proposed in N Serenity Avenue.At the intersection of N Serenity Ave and W Tanker Dr,Install a tee at the branch off point with an isolation valve directly attached to it and then cap off the outlet side of the valve. This allows the tap to be installed and pressure tested so if the existing County Subdivision wants to connect in the future they can easily do so. 1.1.12 Water& sewer need to flip locations in N Backfire Way. Currently these lines are not in the proper corridor. Water should be located on the east side of the road&sewer on the west. 1.1.13 Eliminate stub/dead-end water main at each corner of the townhome section off of W Wildfire Dr of the development. Services are only allowed in these areas just like common drives. Page 53 Item 3. Fl-551 1.1.14 A water connection to the east(near N Static Line Ave and/or townhome section off of N Rustic Oak Way)needs to be enabled by either an extension of water mains to the property line or an easement. This is dependent on road connections to the east. 1.1.15 Water modeling was completed both as an entire development and at each phase per the phasing plan included in this record. This development was modeled with the 12"mains through the subdivision as required above, and the rest of the mains were modeled as 8". Per this plan there are no pressure issues,but each phase will need to be modeled at Final Plat to verify there aren't any pressure issues. 1.1.16 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub- grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 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 Page 54 Item 3. F156 as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C- 3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 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. Page 55 Item 3. F157 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.meridianciV.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiV D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciN.oLP WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=188188&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT hggs://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=191860&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiy F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciU.oLy WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=189738&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) httWs:11weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=192646&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiy H. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT(SID) https://weblink.meridiancit E.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188429&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiy I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciLy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188183&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity 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; Page 56 Item 3. Fl-581 Staff ,finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8, R-15 and C-G and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and MU-R FLUM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this property if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IX. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Stafffinds the mix of lot sizes and housing types proposed in the residential portion of the development will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. Stafffinds the proposed medical offices and hospital along with recommended retail uses will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City in accord with the purpose statement of the commercial districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Comments submitted by WASD indicate that existing enrollment numbers are below capacity in area schools that will serve this development. 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 if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IX. B. Preliminary Plat Findings(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, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. Page 57 Item 3. Fl-591 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. 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. C. Private Street Findings (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 that the proposed design of the private street does not meet the requirements in UDC 11-3F-4A.6 as common driveways are proposed off the private street which are prohibited. Further, private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development, of which neither are proposed. 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 private street with the lot layout, density andparking proposed couldpresent a nuisance for area residents without adequate parking for guests and overflow parking and a safety concern for emergency vehicles accessing the site iffire lanes are blocked due to parking in unauthorized areas. 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 street do not necessarily directly conflict with the comprehensive plan or the regional transportation plan; however, vehicle and pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods is desired which is decreased with private streets. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3- 2010, eff. 11-8-2010) The Director finds the proposed residential development does not incorporate a mew or gated development in the design. D. Alternative Compliance Findings (UDC 11-5B-5): In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or The Director finds strict adherence to the requirement in UDC 11-3F-1, which require mews or gates to be provided where private streets are proposed in townhome developments, is feasible. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Page 58 Item 3. F160] The Director finds an alternative to the UDC requirement is not proposed, a waiver is simply requested without an alternative means for complying with the intent of the code requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The Director finds an alternative means of compliance is not proposed. Page 59 L1.S-HIGHWAY a PROPOSED MEDICAL CAMPUS ;s PRESCOTT a i RIDGE __ f FL MERIDL` IDAHO }��a IiIF IIII I� COW-EFTUAI-SUBJECT TO CHANGE � i FUTURE SCHOOL SrrE !f 1 Prescott Ridge Annexation, Zoning and Preliminary Plat City of Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission October 22, 2020 Project • • iInformation =,&M oil dl #; K{k• �:1#�1�,,. -- •. };�+�I�I�IIII.:�IIIy�s11�111�� ;�� ioaxa• 1 � i r t \��, �, o R 4R11 dR4�Rpm RRit ANY' r ° i u ! W !!1•b,r1 11111I859�1t*I IN Ir , �� w #11A1111f 111111401,— as G r IS 11 .` AI ra �AEj 11, ��, i aw'(t1A lRIr1 i rt ..air. �r aia � � � R•. OINK ■ -RR'RR y w r �td1rf VIOL _Ail ,r; 0k1 IN Ills �IMR► - a4. , �lpi �*1,lil1i111� �� - ■1�11111�t* �!_'lell! fJfl11' rpm �: 1i111111111 11 I 1 ��1,�• � = `� ���RlAr� L 111114111111 � IIII _ .+�,� �I�il1A; A 11111111111111 111111 � _ ,�, .g 2. '. � y�IlllFlll III111111i1 ��AI� � � '•�;E�1 �� _ �- •4#IG1111��111p1a111F,1R1fe1uR' 1IRflAR � - - �� � *� 1111 = I>111111111if ~+ C.5 l 111111� ¢ �4illi Mill�#�!R11MlNI 1i11151�nw1 J •- � + f! = RIn �i11�4 l4llglAl,1111Mif11# IIFIl1^Tl llfllill �;.- �#r llfif. • ,. 11111ff Ilf!!1 f ffltA' 6 s1+ a 11tti1lEltl11I ., Illl:rl 'I'°' If1�1" MR% lip*4it�f1ti0M i � � /ffill.1!111��Elli�' +IIIIIE+t Future Land Use Map r --F' i I • C-HI NAM } FUTURE LAND USES 16 f � f 6 Fire Station * Police Station ' � J i School m Parks .. ; � I, C� - MCMILLAN { Medium Density Residential Mixed Use Regional Zoning Map - _ R-9 rr r 1 - f # * " 0 # 1 C unu umuq * IIIIIWIIIIIII�I dim min 1 �. � W� 1■ C �_g 11111■1 � Ins �Ilk ■II■ NMI 11115-04 ' ■ IN ■ - � Y '- i _._ �-1$ 1111�1111 IIIIII - ` '��"":�_ ■►' 11111111 111 1 IIIIII .._ ., v ,�,' - I R=H 11111111111 Requested Zoning Boundaries Zoning Details • C-G Zone, 15.12 acres ; • R-15 Zone, 7.83 acres y • R-8 Zone, 100.58 acres I + sue' �• 3 r'MM nrsimin�'�• 11111!l1111 tl Will k =1111 lttt { "t• • 11111 � <-� NO Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat Details: 315 single family detached lots � I _ ! ,POP.VA :l 38 Townhome Lots (+3 unit buildings) • 8 Single Family Attached Lots (2 unit buildings) �I • 14 Multifamily Lots with proposed 4-plex ,� cmmcc=z=:�� buildings on each lot oo®®® • 39 common lots • 1 lot, (15.12 ac) Proposed Medical Campus • 12.41 acres of qualified open space (11.8%) e!"` , o0®®m III ra �fiii c. oo�*-moo© rrr ru, . � I Rol 000®® NM MTM NM MM s ov®oo 0 om®® A �� Qualified Open S Qualified Open Space: 12.41 Acres I � wK vXtl�a SOX Ew,�cm 1 � 1 N OPFN WACE I I L I � -- + I � 1 e.anee k ® aLOCxa � C."RE LC0I �f ell]CRS OIOCR 1. Goo ®® - 'l�.WIVIHIXL VR. 8 4 O W.SfVRGILL PFAk�i. a 0° �°®�© } W'fF1iNE(•t I ®IV dab® �y' w.FlRE°iNF QR Q � o . ® WOQ ® 6 .—MUTEM. N MOl MNCi ® ® ® CL BLOCK 11 s ® Z p W 516�E1�4RER ST I BLOCK 5 Open Space and Site Amenities ATIC CLUBHOUSE 1 � _ • i � k� .i& - W W AMENITIES ? � fIClubhouse 45� e, Pool and Seating area Large • • 2 Smaller Tot Lots Dog_ Park Pocket Park vp �0 1 �' Open Space Open Space and Site Amenities la; k I . . F.y \ i.s'�a.�-�`�� �r ���- _1 �\`\mod•_.a � � .�� ��` _ _ �� Oro- �\ �X ,le �, , Open Space and Site Amenities Jl LI I lit lllktllll 111 Y�= :■i* -.�_ ,. � 1 ,.9�, ���IIIIIII���I�IIIII�I�I��ul��gil��lillli�ll!!l1�I����I�R����w�i� --mom At Aw— ,.n„r�, - Ir liNllll■1 •1� -- - � r■,ra...�1 - —- _. ,i. . <<.: y.� � '.. :::. ..^_u.� , r ',III � ,'�llN Il■IN Ii����i1iiBBBinIR11{4���,_- I-i a.r i�n I I I �,�...���i�l�l�� I f�lrl,�11I111 1�111■■I .. _.. :..... ..:..... 1 I I '1`1f�M�1�1���u1W�1 II�I<�I �AIIH juj� ■r �� � � - � � ����111h����11{;;����F���{��i±;,llll' ,{Il,fll� ����I I��I��I �I I III M _, �"" �� ■ Open Space and Site Amenities dL .. AOL 1 t ��- ,�t � us"ay �� �i,�� rjb mot,,� �¢ en�b� yid •r a, Pedestrian Connectivity E� �=1 °I PROPOSED MEDICAL CAMPUS PRESCOTT Ar RIDGE IDAHO - - - i iew m FL �.f.c ., {; ��ill! �{ �• �I a # 11 j f ti — AL gill NOW IM1 �� � Parks Dept 10' Pathway t!PRESCO T RIDGE4r�rI�� L 4 IIII IIII lil .. 3rai ra■r oil Wr d VIP Phasing Plan PHASE BUILDABLE �► OTS o 6 o43 a �9 o46 F-ME 9 4 HASE 9- TOTAL ;'�mnmimmmrmnn � BUILDABLE• TS uulu�' !••iiii �� ���11�� PHASE �`�I� rr® a nu iii...•�9� a -� �� ice. __ •n •�•R#p ffII - PHASE II - . PHASE s f1N - • 1�111'i ,1a ., Serviceability Chinc-en Blvd . r Lan�is¢api Fire Department Staff Report IF "This project can be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department. The phasing plan shall be _ -A-. ` • dug strictly adhered to ensure there is always 2 access points � . � bevelaprneni Co LLC available for fire, police and EMS." +P ! kl "The project does meet theJW targeted goal of 80% or greater reliability." --�~�- F�i� •a �o0p, p =� PHASE 1 REGIONAL Access and Emergency Response Time Improvement On Levi Ln (Rustic Oak) Extension: I Meridian Fire Department: off . � l - ""Pushing Levi lane through will ;' f+� help with fire response times. As i 4" Prescott Ridge 04 .. • it sits we cannot turn left from i -'' _ Vic. UK 4`1 • Chinden onto McDermott. This will give station 5 an avenue to make that run to McDermott {o pp�coaflac without having to go all the way o � around. It would benefit all construction areas in the ma _ ��da�d�`fid -1 section." ONE - � NAlII11®.� 1 Ip�11111dE�1 i1E==! . Meridian Police Department �• .•r.. ` "Given your application and the - Oaks to the south I believe constructing the collector road all the way through as soon as possible would improve police .. response times because we • would have two points of access instead of just one partial access." • Serenity Lane ( Peregrine Heights) Access ITD: Upon installation of the traffic signal, it will be unsafe for vehicles to make left turn movements into and out of Serenity Lane. As part of the signal plans, ITD is requiring "'""" "'• median curbing be placed on US 20/26 which ' will limit access to and from Serenity Lane to right-in, right-out. 'I'!I Fire Department: "With the right in/out 'Nil r j`lfu1 1 1 ±'l it it will be our only access to Serenity.ri rCe. ;rp This access to and from Serenity Lane is to be open and unhindered. AEV ii rya _.pro. ����Cflp�� �► :0 ; ; `��` `, :�14�p� �, AN F, © odddQ 3w, INO o 0 NCp # Goo Housing Types Large estate lots 70' to +100' Mixed . .0 Cluster 40' lots w/option . Single family attached or detached Townhome, '• I �: • wH�.P i1i • 0 0 00 o Il�far =i�ii ili�� t�R 4 OOQ0 Li. wo a 0 llre,_¢c I cc> housing types that meet ��c000 a r �' � i0 / ■ice i���� r 4 55 i • � ° � � r � �' ' � � ��r����� ��� s�''�r-� � :etc - �� o • °�� � �°.�� !fir• ° - ; �� the needs, preferences, Y.f.4� J/ Oraand future residents." 0 ILL Typical Home Elevations rr �� i�■ u bw ML 1-4 t,w1w, 20 L n , Attached Single Family h w wk Y_; y rr r. .... rrr■ r ■ 14 ILI Li Lid Typical Home Elevations 15133 k r-- -77 �- i Attached Style and Townhome Elevations U.S—HIGHWAY , . D - I PROPOSED CAMPUS PRESCOTT 1 RIDGE 1AHO Il li�llll lil CONCIPTUAk-SUBJECT TO CIAANGE i ' I II yE�fII Ills � FUTURE SCHOOL !. i I Townhome and Single Family Attached 1 414 4,4 f '+9• Townhome Single Family Attached Rear-Load Renderings i ' RIGHT ELEVATION WO, IN L �#!l a M' MA I LEFT ELEVATION w".. �►fw SIR 1.� -Rf f - f Z i.f - fw Y�Y �\!w - 'M -��wR 4f -ar r I Townhome Single Family Attached Front Load Renderings , i ' Townhome Single Family Attached Front Load Duplex Renderings - �n■ nrr �_ r ■ e �� ,r uu rm�; � r ■ 3 'IFS K Townhome Mew Examples Fw r i AMU AhI y. f ,IFS 01. _ - � •�.� _ 111 i , �������,�^ Townhome Gathering Park - �t• r -21 ado I ' •., �c ��ir� ••°arm � -- - ��' � . • Multifamily Four- Plex Flats U.S-HIGHWAY E. 261CHINDEN PROPOSED PRESCOTT RIDGE MERIDIAN, IDAHO lill IIII lil -.. FOTURC SCHOOL In Ld FUTURE OAKS NORTFrSUBDIVISF N - - - - ' Multifamily Four- Plex Flats CIA LN ~ 4 _ __ _ _ -- _ 'ram. _ iL :.7i�riar2_ Z7C ----T.R-S�LS� gym■ �I•I •i I� - quill -• n gin ■ INFORM- M I�2111 '■- i � Home Quality Builders in Idaho a Rack to Stale View Program kndiratars in Idaho Bast-U on na4on.W ayerages,ENE%Y STAR certified homes ' 16121E ENERGY STAR cerbrim homes built to-date built III M9 are the equivalent OE 1131 a ENERGY STAR CerbW n0rM bui1203p 10 Gab ptdueing COS emiss.am ty 2 merit darts • 11809 ENEMY STAR cara ied norrws wh in 20% C-W 4 43,Tfb free 9004k5 RX 10 years • 87 EgERGY STAR Builder P-�rtmus Avcrrjrrp are eanmrnptlon of 6,161 barrels of od ■ Rvmev v 572 passenger%,ebi esfrorntheraald Filter this list by the type of homes built: All Site-Built Manufactured Muni-Faroily Affordable 0 Indoor airPLUS aJ'Il_Y, _L lal_I I_z K-711 l_a Y• _I l.i_Il_z ]11 Il.Y• I Bnpbtm Horrid 20" 2S16 1.5w Qdy Huhbis Homc!v ill 20N 331 U9 959 SOM C* Home Quality — Design Center la io,2 ■WWI I W. r 4AL r" 2020 FALL PARADE OF HOMES FRI DAYS - SU N DAY'S 1 11 A.M. - 5 P.M. OCTOBER 2 - 4, 9 - 11 & 16 -- 18 BJdmq Cailra 1—Ass mli—d 5—tk—t—Idaho,All Rights Reserved !�!lam IAN ti 9) BolEEPARADEOFHomF-s.cOM NUBBLE 208.433.8800 1 HubbleHomes.com HOMES Home Quality u ` y Mai L - i� All - Ir✓ _ Home Quality - Int - • E. ;if - 41 A-in ..- .h E%] ki �'O4 e� ,... w I---�_ — Medical Campus WESTCHIRDFN BLVD- 016— PATHWAY CONNEC IION ' x FRONTAGE NC19E ABATF,MFNT J ——_— TO CHINaI3MY^— ACCESS ROAD BERM AN.6 TREES 1w PROPPR UNE 12A' V. 'k r FIGH s - T- SHADED CMU WAL $- '�• f' - S OUTDOOR AREA _ _ I I ESTA NT 0 RESPITE \ _ 1 fAAEP QUTDOOR 4 y : AREA�OF R.SPkTE sEeC 5,Od05F . s - PHME2 OB — - - SSTORY E IRY — i 8 � - - 7A @ r7 ADA. — 1T- MONUMENT � 11 III II --- I I AdA I� -- _ LAN6SCAP ESUFFER --- _- - I AND WALKING PATH ' --- - � _ I O °UTDOOR PLAZA — • i earI "���;«r• ~,� / E6 WALKWALK AJYD GREEN SPACE ." �d °' .. •,g� .h 4M1„:c '.' _ IN ENTRY i iop - �:-__ - PHASE t IihS f — FSED N RY -f BIKE PARKING MAIN mmy `—I Kr — .UECORATIME - -- w — SCREENING FOR .. f, PHAGE3 :`� 'II +''I PATIENT PRIVACY + S STORYHOSPITAL I EXISTING _ 1 STORY SINGLE FAMILY 0 F—i CUP 1 STDRY . T—_. i I STAFF _q ENTRY I II f T T K9 SHADED OIIYDDOq — AREA OF RESPITE - MULT1•U 5E PATHWAY 8 F�GH a - _k. r:•:_,4' �� CONNECTION CM.0 WALL - -_- PRINT SITE PLAN 4{JJll� firm' .11 Medical Campus ��. ellt. Rn 'ini�' ' may; � .r �, � t � �� • �,�.. i '- l a iD .r `� w- r I I ��r � _ � •T -Via_'!, ie � _ JQ 02 - !fi 1 — SL LUkcs St � � Sl+�8ke5�u kes ;• f ,f �' 1 � - i*g St Luc"s Meridia M'e. s Mentlia'n`N1 t41 'z. inn MUrVe ' L I US�k.Fa:-m 9e -.aGency �Iroage�U.S.Geological Survey Lnagery. � ®, Conclusion O.S-HIGHWAY 261CHiNDIFIN PROPOSED MEDICAL CAMPUS PRESCOTT RIDGE FUTURE SCHOOL SIT FUTURE M �I k - - 1 1141 IIII lil . i � i Iklkll ry �■ I r _ OAKS NORTH SUBDIV15ION Supplementary Slides Parking Plan L IL IL IL 4 4. - ;;ij Q -- I all, LOWAIMMIM LK IV'A I MEM Lai W'A Ldlimi URA F-Iff-JR-910A, am STREET PARKING AVAILABILITY loojP75 PARKIRG ALOr4G COMMON AREAS: 172 PARKING IN FROW OF FIDHE LOTS� 325 ILI TOTAL FARKINGr 497 ort TH/SF ATTAC H ED PARKI N G AVA I LA 3 1 LITY GARkGE PAJRK14G (2 PER L;Nlrl 92 i it , ORNEWAY PARKINO (2 PER U141�. 92 H11 VA CNERFLCW PARKING SPACIFS: 15 70TAL PAPKIN(�- 199 MEN win REOUIRED PARKING; 76 STACKED FLAT PARKING AVAILABILITY HIM 4m_..Now. C E NTRAL AM E N ITY PAR KI ING AVAI LAS I LITY I..SM --owe ire ow mmg TOTAL PARKI NG AVAI LA B I LITY �TRIEET PARKIK: 497 ME IGAPA6E PARKING: 92 : DRIVYWAY PARKING, 92 TOTAL SURFACE PARKING: 149 TOW PARKINO: MIN HOUR) Medical Campus MAIN MEDICAL BUILDING DRAFT RENDERING, LOOKING � , �[I�li�llalllil Milll�_��+���• -- _� �son i ---_ICI a ��I� � �I� .... •• ���_.� III �■�11 !nf __ __ � � I�I���il i�llll I ■ 1�'� J stream FHVVA Guidance) Functional Area m 850' "71r,1,r -.7. Pfopul," Rail-ad d f I*- �ue --= Median ------------ F nleITflGX ftai n Gas S .1 a•r ltvijr"Apptwcr, i=,.t t,l a? - 20iN I By Othep S .. �� Functional Arta ISSID) d95' 1ELkPA Down&Uva - 1 drive:way Restriction 500' #., :4 hr r F2qR out 9�wcrr+a�cr nop�axn +� • = 1 t End Idaho 16 Project ' US 20+261mprovements j f . SITE DATA I PARKING: DRIVEWAY 108 SPACES J OFF-STREET Sl SPACES C-ARA,E 108 SPACES PARKING _— i_ I LEGEND m PRIVATE STREET WFM CITY DF W � I - L__J MERIpLIaJ SEWER►rID WATER, 0 0 '_�• _ PUBLIC U1ILITY AND CROSS ~ -ARKING _ ACCESS EASEMENT O N.HIGH FIRE LOOP(PRIVATE STIR E ETI P 177G UNIT DRNEWAYS AND WALKWAYS 2 PARI[IHO I ❑Q _ 110E4 MANJTAINED LAHDSCABE AREA Lu • �— BUILDING KEY a� 2 O FRONT PATIO d II r FRONT ~ S 28' LMNG SPACE I^ COMMON LOT 20'MIK N N — FROM 8ACK Or WALK TO LIVING 20.0' v H + cO�R PARKING INL O PMKING p BVFFER II #1EPSi1RE I FHCM� OF CURB — cdW,AjE oRrvCwAY _ = PARKING E N OI N E E R I N R S 2 � �BdY.itu a�11� WATE R,ROSEWER, snwa AND CSS PRIVATE STREET ACCESS EASEMENT 11°0 2 OF 2 W-WILDFIRE DR- �EOFjb4y I � `I D 6[1 shi 180 �� 912 0 Plan Stale:1"=60' '�+VUSCA QWo0:0o.o o 000j®Ip0 a- 0 }i ��oe,o o_ r a _ i m�r o a ovp In O !8 m Q- O I Item 4. Ll 61 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck&Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Item 4. 162 (:�N-WE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: October 22, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from September 17, 2020 for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck&Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 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 SHEET3 3 DATE: September 22, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO Ape i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 4. Mayor Robert E Slmison 163 IDIAN C]ty Council Members, .�� 1`r+zg�efnt Brad I�aaglun Joe @anon Jessica Perreault AHO Luke Cavener Liz$trader October 21, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: City Clerk FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner RE: Pura Vida Ridge Ranch—H-2020-0064 At the Commission hearing for this project on September 17th, the Commission continued the project to the October 22nd hearing in order for the Applicant to work with Staff on landscape solutions for the hillside, changes to open space resulting in a larger usable area, and fire prevention measures. Revised plans were submitted that reflect a large central common open space area where a couple of building lots and a parking area were previously shown resulting in an increase of 0.36 of an acre of qualified open space for the overall development. Additional site amenities were added consisting of a tot lot with children's play equipment and(4) fitness workout stations located in different spots along the perimeter pathway. Another townhome product type featuring a 20' x 20' parking pad in front of the units was added for the 24' wide lots between the hillside and Road 3. An updated parking plan was submitted that depicts a decrease in the number of off-street parking spaces from 71 to 20 with 88 on-street spaces still available. As recommended by Staff, the Applicant submitted architectural design guidelines for the development to ensure quality of development with the Planned Unit Development. r? A Fire Protection Plan was submitted that the Applicant states illustrates how the proposed development plan-will comply with the current Boise/City Fire Prevention Code 7-01-69, haptor 49. Prior to implementation, thj�_plan will be reviewed by personnel who have the authority and jurisdiction concerning the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC). Z Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Item 4. 164 STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING October 22,2020 Legend DATE: Continued from:August 6, September 3 � P Praject Lacfltan 0 and 17, 2020 TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0064 Pura Vida Ridge Ranch LOCATION: 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd.,in the NW 1/4 of Section 4,T.2N.,R.1E Parcels: S 1404212550& S 1404212750 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests approval of the following applications: • Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres)zoning districts; • Preliminary plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts; and, • Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 26.34 Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT(Rural Urban Transition)in Ada County(existing)/R- 15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(proposed) Future Land Use Designation MHDR(Medium High Density Residential) Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 157 buildable lots/35 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 4 phases Number of Residential Units(type 157 single-family units [30 standard detached,6 attached of units) and 121 townhomes(68 alley-loaded&53 standard)] Density(gross&net) 5.96 units/acre(gross)and 15.77 units/acre(net)with undevelopable areas—8.23 units/acre(gross)and 16.48 Page 1 Item 4. F165] Description Details Page units/acre(net)without undevelopable areas(i.e.hillside, creek and right-of-way of Lake Hazel Rd.) Open Space(acres,total 4.89 acres(or 18.57%)- 'h Lake Hazel Rd.buffer,linear [%]/buffer/qualified) open space(mews), 50'x 100' common open space areas. (10.87 acres or 41.35%with unqualified open space) Amenities A minimum of(1)amenity is required.A 16'x 16' shelter with a picnic table on Lot 10,Block 3;an 8'x 12' arbor with 2 benches on Lot 1,Block 10;an arbor with 2 benches on Lot 8,Block 5; a dirt trail and paved 5'wide pathway on the hillside;and a segment of the City's 10' wide multi-use pathway system along the Ten Mile Creek are proposed. Physical Features(waterways, Ten Mile Creek runs along east boundary; significant hazards,flood plain,hillside) slope/hillside on southwest portion of site Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 11,2020;3 attendees(see sign-in sheet included in attendees: application) History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(a Traffic Impact Study was required) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Access One full access&one emergency only access is proposed via Lake (Arterial/Collectors/State Hazel Rd.,an arterial street Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Lake Hazel&Eagle Roads:Better than"E"(Acceptable level of service for a 2-lane principal arterial is"B") Stub Stub streets are proposed to the west and to the south for extension with Street/Interconnectivity/ future development;a stub street is planned to this site from the east Cross Access which will require construction of a bridge over the Ten Mile Creek on this site. Existing Road Network Lake Hazel Rd.;no internal streets Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road * Lakq H4Qml Rpgiid is ijul-R dulril In Elm IFY'NP Ip 4a widened 74 S-LPW from EVgIG K-,"l Io Cloverdale RcW in 2024. Improvements . Eagle Road is scheduled in 1he LFY%YP Io be viderred to 5-lanes from Laks Hazel Road Io Amily Road in 2023 • the Inte�ac9on of Lake Hazel Bead and Eagle Road is scheduled in awm IVYVYP Ta he wksonud Iv&tm¢s on ft rKath lug 5-lams on 1ho"h.7-Ian(lE earl.dnd Vanes on fna west leg.and recanstruetedrsignaliaed in=D . • Laka Hazel Road rs Iisled in the CIP So he widened To 54anes ilmm Locust Grove Road la Eagle RrAd hetween 70M kind 21330 • the inlem'w<Mn of Laxv kazel Road and Lecusi r2ny.T ROed,s iia6ad-1hv ClPiabe widened Io Nanes on the north",2-lanes on The 6oulh 2-lane=-east,end Nanes on The west fag, and signalized mrwean 2026 and 2030. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.8 miles from Station#4(will be 1 mile from future Station#8) • Fire Response Time Part of this project(northern 1/3+/-)is within 5 minute response time goal,the rest is not Page 2 Item 4. F166] Description Details Page • Resource Reliability 78%-does not meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to the proposed project(risk factors include an open waterway&steep hillside with the potential for wildfire if not maintained) • Accessibility Meets all required access,road widths&turnarounds • Special/resource needs Aerial device not required • Water Supply 1,000 gallons/minute for one hour Police Service • Distance to Police 5.5 miles Station • Police Response Time 3:42 minutes • Calls for Service 13 (in RD `M789/A119')(between 6/1/19—5/31/20) • %of calls for service Pr,4re�3 IMPP{.ad i.�au,1 ro muna 1 5:41 split by priority PeAnotyz(Wnccare rulem ero 1o=0 7:1 ►'riorYtyl rhl?ncewlswxnml3roZomxxvee� 10A2 • Crimes 1 (in RD `M789/A119') • Crashes 12(in RD `M789/Al 19') West Ada School District E.N1W.n1 ANY MUM • Distance(elem,ms,hs) r„ SdW • Capacity of Schools "AA&# er #'*teary" J1U nx5 ,.smv� Ui.E"middik sc-huil an t"D S.-O nOn • #of Students Enrolled wunr.m Ylew HIS.Sdhml U19 2175 4,E macs "E.—ollmrnt at 11II57alr Elemensrry is[urrtnuy comas 5ivaaru i7 OIL acyp"mant wll 6o i[ttrding$i1,W Seer Fbillimm ry unil.;MW iehniA is hill to alrninlrrr—rrn"hir..l nlllxlrls Lkr"Bry " Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent to site Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.96 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impact/Concerns None Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent to site Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None Page 3 Item 4. F167] C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 4 Legend ff s. Project Laca�iar �U Project LacuScm :} �,,, roriur� tuts 'F NT�rlil EEED� S�• 1� �iwv�a Y} - hw_Frt ti BHM Y h Low Density Wsidenial Zoning Map Planned Development Map (fLegend POMI Legend FA ( Project Lacai�ar R- 11 i++++++Pr€�ject Luca-Mon � City Lines -4 w J — Planned Parcels 'S COMM MHE) FEE mmrrrm R-8 I , R- RUT Fm� III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jay Gibbons, South Beck&Baird—2002 S. Vista Ave., Boise,ID 83705 B. Owner: Justin Griffin, Sunrise Rim,LLC—4450 W. Saddle Ridge Dr.,Nampa, ID 83687 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 4 Item 4. 168 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 7/17/2020 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 7/14/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 7/23/2020 Nextdoor posting 7/14/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Medium High Density Residential(MHDR). The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The subject property is proposed to develop with a mix of residential housing types consisting of single- family detached(30), single-family attached(6)and townhome(121)units at a gross density of 5.96 units per acre. The density calculation includes land area(approximately 7.26 acres)that is undevelopable due to the slope/hillside on the southwest portion of the development(approximately 4.27 acres),the Ten Mile Creek which lies entirely on this property along the east boundary(approximately 2.61 acres), and the right-of-way to the centerline of Lake Hazel Rd. (0.38 of an acre).Without this undevelopable area,the gross density is estimated to be 8.23+/-units per acre,which is consistent with the MHDR FLUM designation;the net density is 16.48+/-units/acre. For the purposes of determining consistency with the density desired in this area, Staff is of the opinion excluding the undevelopable areas of the site from the density calculation is appropriate and the resulting density meets the intent of the Plan. Further,because this site is not located near mixed use commercial or employment areas, Staff believes the proposed density, at the lower end of the desired range, is appropriate for this property. All of the proposed structures except for the single-family detached homes are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual to ensure a high quality architectural design and materials for quality of place. Pedestrian connectivity is proposed throughout the development through sidewalks,pathways,micro-pathways and trails and to adjacent properties for future interconnectivity consistent with the MHDR FLUM designation. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and applies to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Provide for a wide diversity of housing types(single-family, modular,mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development."(3.07.03B) The proposed mix of single family attached and detached homes and townhomes will contribute to the variety of housing types available in the City for ownership and rental choices. Page 5 Item 4. F169] • "Require open space areas within all development."(6.01.O1A) An open space exhibit is included in Section VIII.D that depicts qualified open space in excess of the minimum UDC standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. Proposed qualified open space consists of half of the Lake Hazel Rd. street buffer, linear open space (mews) and 50'x 100'common open space areas. Additional open space is proposed consisting of unimproved hillside with walking paths and trails that doesn't count toward qualified open space. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.0117) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and can be provided with City water and sewer service. Police and Fire can also provide emergency services to this development. • "Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets."(3.06.02D) One(1)public street access (Road 1) and one (1) emergency only access is proposed via E. Lake Hazel Rd. • "Coordinate with developers, irrigation districts, and drainage entities to implement the proposed pathway network along canals, ditches, creeks, laterals and sloughs." (3.08.02B) A 10'wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the Ten Mile Creek which runs along the east boundary of the site. • "Encourage new development to include buffered sidewalks, a sidewalk separated from the motor vehicle land by a planter strip, especially on collector and arterial roadways."(6.01.01J) A 35'wide landscaped street buffer with a detached sidewalk is required along E.Lake Hazel Rd., an entryway corridor, as proposed. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The proposed plat provides usable common open space areas and a segment of the City's multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek as an amenity for the site that will provide connectivity to adjacent developments and safe pedestrian access to the Hillsdale elementary school and the YMCA to the north. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided."(3.03.03) The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's vision in terms that a mix of residential housing types at a density consistent with the MHDR designation is proposed. Public services and infrastructure are proposed to be provided. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."(3.07.00) The proposed residential single-family and townhouse dwellings and site design should be compatible with future development on adjacent properties to the east and west that are also designated for MHDR uses. Medium density residential uses are designated on the FLUMfor future development 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) Three(3) different housing types (i.e. single-family attached, detached and townhomes) on various lot sizes are proposed in this development which will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area. • "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system."(3.03.03B) A segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed along the project's east boundary along the Ten Mile Creek which will provide connectivity with adjacent developments. Several micro path connections are proposed to the multi-use pathway from adjacent mews and several pathways are proposed through internal common areas. Page 6 Item 4. F170] VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (UDC) A. ANNEXATION&ZONING(AZ) Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres)zoning districts is proposed. The area proposed to be zoned R-8 consists of the upper rim area at the southwest corner of the site proposed to develop with single-family detached homes which will provide a transition to future medium density residential development to the south. The area proposed to be zoned R-15 consists of the slope and the lower valley area on the remainder of the site proposed to develop primarily with townhomes with a few single-family attached structures,which should be consistent with future medium high-density residential development to the east and west. The proposed zoning,uses and density are consistent with the MHDR FLUM designation in the Comprehensive Plan for this property as discussed above in Section V. A preliminary plat,landscape plan and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is planned to develop with 157 single-family detached(30), attached(6)and townhome (121) units(see Section VIII). The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north across E. Lake Hazel Rd. 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 along with separate legal descriptions and exhibit maps for each zoning district proposed. The City may require a Development Agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation and zoning request 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 IX. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of a total of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts(see Section VIII.B). The proposed dwelling units consist of 30 standard detached, 6 attached and 121 townhome units(68 alley-loaded&53 standard). The minimum lot size proposed is 1,400 square feet(s.£)with an overall average lot size of 2,763 s.f. The average lot size in the R-8 district is 5,991 s.f. and the average lot size in the R-15 district is 2,000 s.f. Phasing: A phasing plan was submitted that depicts four(4)phases of development(see Section VIII.B). The first phase is nearest Lake Hazel Rd. with subsequent phases progressing to the south with the last phase at the southwest corner of the site which requires a public street access to be provided from the south. The Fire Dept. is requiring secondary access to be provided from the east or south(or other means as agreeable by the Fire Dept.)prior to development of Phases 2 or 3. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home at the southwest corner of the site that is proposed to be removed with development;this structure should be removed prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for the phase in which it is located(i.e.Phase 4). Dimensional Standards (UDClL-2): All development should comply with the dimensional standards for the applicable district as follows: UDC Tables 11-2A-6(R-8 district) and 11-2A-7(R-15 district). Page 7 Item 4. N Design: All subdivisions are required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 (i.e. streets, alleys, common driveways,block face,etc.). Traffic calming is proposed on Road 3,which is greater than 700' in length,by narrowing the street down to 24' between Roads 6 and 7 as approved by ACHD. As additional traffic calming and an alternative design to parking lots for guests,the Applicant should consider providing on-street parking with bulb-outs on 33' wide street sections for more of a traditional neighborhood design. The stub street(Road 3)proposed to the south will result in a block face and cul-de-sac length in excess of UDC standards at approximately 1,050'when extended in the future with redevelopment of the property to the south.Due to the topography and significant slope in this area along with the location of the Ten Mile Creek,the design options are limited for this area.Therefore, Staff recommends it's approved with the PUD as an exception to the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 (see PUD analysis section below). Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed on the plat via one public street and one emergency only access via E. Lake Hazel Rd., a residential mobility arterial street; direct access via E. Lake Hazel Rd. is prohibited. One(1) stub street is proposed to the west and two(2) stub streets are proposed to the south for future extension; and one stub street is planned to the east boundary of the site from Poiema Subdivision for interconnectivity as shown below—a bridge is required to be constructed across the Ten Mile Creek to the east on the subject property in this location.Access to the R-8 zoned portion of the site will be from the south via Eagle Rd.when the adjacent property redevelops—access via Eagle Rd. is not available to this site at this time. Am ui E_LAPI NAZE _iPClAU v eeeatE L a � rrrrVE h �` pV�EOP� f O xl C"I R T8 AD39LCEN Jim PROPERTY y Ai[i7a 4 f TO AMI:G h. ay � rRi}PEE�T i FwruR� a€VElOPIM€l4T `, � t AM" iGGEJfi rQ ANAC OPT ,p ADJACEX T kRQY*tT1r :PROPERTY FG�1lR� liar i s a€VEGOPIMENT Two(2)alleys(i.e. Roads 9 and 10) and(11) common/shared driveways are proposed off internal public streets for access to proposed attached and townhome units. All alleys are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B and all common/shared driveways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. The alley and common/shared driveway sections depicted on the plat comply with UDC standards. Emergency access should be provided in accord with the phasing plan approved by the Fire Dept. included in Section VIII.B. The Applicant should coordinate with Terri Ricks and Fire Dept.for Page 8 Item 4. F172] addressing lots accessed by alleys without frontage on a public street.Address signage for wayfinding purposes should be provided in these areas as well as at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A pedestrian connectivity plan was submitted that depicts sidewalks along streets,pathways through internal common open space areas and micro-pathways through mews providing connections to the multi- use pathway along the creek. A 10' wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan, a 5' wide concrete pathway is proposed from Road 4 to Road 8 and at the top of the slope in Lot 40,Block 5, and dirt trails are proposed within the unimproved slope area providing connections between the upper ridge and the lower valley lots (see Section IX.G). These walkways provide pedestrian connections to the shelters with picnic tables and benches proposed as amenities within the development. The pathway along the creek is required to be located within a 14'wide public use easement; the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 Sidewalks are required to be provided on both sides of all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17D. A 7-foot wide detached sidewalk is proposed within the street buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd. Internal sidewalks are proposed in accord with UDC standards except for adjacent to the 24'wide street sections(i.e.Roads 4,6 and 7)where sidewalks are only proposed in certain areas as shown on the pedestrian connectivity exhibit in Section VIII.G. The Applicant requests an exception to this standard through the PUD to only provide sidewalks in the areas shown and as required by ACHD (see PUD section below). Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : As all internal sidewalks are attached to the curb,no parkways are proposed or required. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street and entryway corridor, per UDC Table 11-2A-7, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C as proposed. A berm and an additional 10 trees are proposed above the minimum requirement. Bushes should be added within the buffer in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.3,which requires a combination of trees and shrubs along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Qualified/required open space areas should be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E as proposed. An additional 40 trees are proposed above the minimum requirement. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards(an additional 27 trees are proposed) except for along the concrete walkway in the unimproved hillside/slope area. The Applicant requests an exception to this standard with the PUD(see analysis below under PUD section). There are two(2)existing trees on the site that are less than 4"caliper in size that are proposed to be removed;because they are below 4"caliper,no mitigation is required per UDC 11-3B-1OC.5a. Landscaping is proposed in off-street parking areas within the development. The Applicant is not proposing to landscape or provide irrigation sprinklers on the hillside and proposes to leave the area natural and unimproved.The Applicant states that low growing vegetation currently exists that doesn't require supplemental moisture and installing an irrigation system would cause unnecessary damage to the hillside and that the Homeowner's Association (HOA)will be responsible for reducing fuels on an annual basis at a minimum. Page 9 Item 4. F173] Staff and the Fire Dept.is very concerned about the potential danger of wildfires in this area. Therefore,the Fire Dept.is requiring defensible space to be provided—a minimum of 30' (and possibly more for steep topography)from all structures to the undeveloped,natural open space— plantings within this area should be fire-resistant(see Section IX.0 for more information).A wildfire safety plan is required to be approved by the Fire Dept.prior to approval of the first final plat.A copy of the approved plan should be included in the CC&R's for the subdivision. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3 : A minimum of 10%of the land area of the development is required to be provided in qualified open space as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B. Based on the 26.34 acre site,a minimum of 2.63 acres is required to be provided; a total of 4.9 acres(or 18.57%)is proposed,which exceeds the minimum standards. Qualified open space consists of half of the street buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street; linear open space(i.e. mews); and open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area. This calculation does not include the hillside where pathways/trails are located as that area is proposed to remain natural and not be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E.2. With this area there is approximately 10.87 acres(or 41.3501o) open space. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 A minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required for each 20 acres of development area. Based on the 26.34 acre site, a minimum of one (1)qualified site amenity is required. A 10-foot wide 1,631+/-foot long segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek. Additional amenities,in excess of UDC standards,are proposed as follows: a 16' x 16' shelter with a picnic table on Lot 10,Block 3; an 8' x 12' arbor with 2 benches on Lot 1,Block 10; an arbor with 2 benches on Lot 8,Block 5; and a dirt trail and paved 5' wide pathway on the hillside on Lot 8,Block 5. 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 residential uses,which requires parking pads to be provided in addition to garage parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms per unit(i.e. 1-2 bedroom units require 2 spaces per unit with at least one of those being in an enclosed garage,the other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad; 3-4 bedroom units require 4 spaces per unit with at least two of those being in an enclosed garage,the other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20'parking pad). A total of(96)2-bedroom units and a total of(31)3-to 4-bedroom units are proposed in the single-family attached&townhome portion of the development which requires a total of 316 off-street parking spaces (158 covered spaces& 158 uncovered spaces).A parking exhibit was submitted for the proposed development that depicts a total of 254 garage spaces and 62 driveway parking spaces for a total of 316 spaces in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 (see Section IX.F). A total of 71 off- street parking spaces are proposed for guests in mini parking lots dispersed throughout the development; and an additional 88+/-parking spaces can be accommodated on-street for a total of 157+/-extra spaces for guests. These calculations exclude the single-family detached portion of the site which will provide off-street parking in accord with UDC standards; on-street parking will also be available for guests. The Applicant is proposing 20' long x 18'wide parking pads,which are 2' less in width than required. The parking pads should be revised to be 20' x 20' in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is allowed with 33' wide street sections but not with 24' street sections (i.e.Roads 4,6 and 7); therefore, "No Parking" signs shall be erected along these streets. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Ten Mile Creek runs along the east boundary of this site. As a natural waterway, it's required to remain open as a natural amenity and not be piped or covered and should be improved and protected with development of the subdivision. Page 10 Item 4. F174] Per UDC 11-3A-6C, fencing along natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway;no fencing is proposed or desired by the Applicant adjacent to the creek. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director. The Applicant states water flows year `round in the creek and is shallow and slow flowing at an approximate depth of 18 to 24 inches.The depth of the waterway in relation to the surrounding land is approximately 6' from the top of bank to the bottom of the channel and the width is approximately 15' to 20'.Fencing the creek would likely impede the irrigation district's ability to maintain the drain.Because this is not a large open water system with deep,fast flowing current, Staff is not overly concerned; however, any waterway may present a hazard to young children.For this reason and because Staff has not received a determination from the Director or the Public Work's Director on this matter,Staff recommends fencing is installed along the creek to restrict access,unless otherwise waived by City Council. All irrigation ditches crossing the site are required to be piped with development unless used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. Floodplain: A portion of this site is currently located within the floodplain. The Applicant's narrative states that once the improvements on Lake Hazel Rd. are complete which will include a larger culvert,the projected floodplain will be within the banks of the creek. A floodplain development permit is required to be obtained for any development within the floodplain prior to construction. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6,11-3A- • All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.No fencing is proposed on the landscape plan. The Developer is required to construct fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7A.7.Fencing in accord with this standard should be depicted on a revised landscape plan. As discussed above under"waterways", Staff recommends fencing is installed along the Ten Mile creek in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C,unless otherwise waived by City Council. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities shall be installed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-21. Building Elevations/Perspectives: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the 2-story single- family detached units and townhome(3+attached) structures as shown in Section VIII.H; concept elevations were not submitted for the 2-attached units. Building materials for the single-family detached homes and townhomes consist of a variety of vertical and horizontal siding, stucco,brick/stone veneer accents with wood/timber design elements with gable style shingled roofs with metal accent roofing on some elevations. The 2-attached units will be the two end units of the 3+unit townhomes put together back to back—the end units have a kick out on the front corner as shown on Elevation 4. To ensure quality of development within the PUD,Staff recommends design guidelines are submitted for the overall development to be included in the Development Agreement that promote innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development in accord with UDC 11-7-1.To ensure compliance with these guidelines and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual, Staff recommends all structures,including single-family detached,are subject to design review. A Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for these structures. Page 11 Item 4. 175 Perspectives of the built-out development and of the entry of the development are included in Section VIII.H. C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD) A PUD is proposed to enable the development of a mix of single-family detached, attached and townhome units on the site at a gross density of 8.23 units/acre(excluding undevelopable areas)while preserving the natural topography of the property and the Ten Mile Creek. This property has significant topography which prevents development of over 25%of the property for buildable lots. The Applicant states there is a 28' height difference between the valley floor and the rim with an average slope of approximately 40%. Analysis of Compliance with PUD Standards(UDC 11-7-4): A phasing plan and site amenity plan were submitted as required and are included in Section VIII.B &E. Concurrent review of the preliminary plat is requested in accord with UDC 11-7-3C. All of attached and townhome units are subject to the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)to ensure quality of design. Staff also recommends design guidelines are submitted for the overall development to ensure consistency and that promote innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns on development in the PUD in accord with UDC 11- 7-1. The uses within the PUD area are interconnected through a system of roadways and pathways. Buildings are clustered to preserve scenic and environmentally sensitive areas in the natural state (i.e. hillside and creek). Eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space is proposed to be provided for each unit in the form of a front stoop or porch. A variety of housing types is proposed consisting of single-family detached and attached,and townhome units. The proposed gross density is 8.23 units/acre,excluding undevelopable areas(i.e. hillside, creek and ROW of Lake Hazel Rd. to centerline). Deviations from UDC Standards: As part of the PUD,the Applicant requests deviations from the following standards: • UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district-certain dimensional standards as follows (see exhibit in Section VIII.I): R-1 5 SETBACKS LOTTYPE 'A LOTS HAVE CAR GIAAGES IN REAR FROM— y.ARAGE SIDE TREETSIDE REAR R $IM[LE FAMILY ATTACHED 2"-0' V-0- INT GARAGE ACCESS CN T-41 �'-D' W-01 r-0' 24'SIREET (YEW) EMD BLDG SINGLE FAMILY ATTAOHEp U-U' INT CAME ACCESS OM 3'-D' 10'-0' 2w-cr ALLEY + 2 00'PAO END BLDG SMILE FAMLY ATTAGHEO 2'-o" ❑'-Y, IN COGARAGE -4" 9'-U' 10' ' S' ' SHARED C Y (MEW) END -0 E71D BLDG R-0 LOPS - STANDARD R-8 FZT0AW$APPLY Page 12 Item 4. F176] No deviations to the setbacks are requested or approved to the setbacks along the periphery of the planned development in accord with UDC 11-7-4A.1. The Applicant's justification for the reduced setbacks is that the front of the homes face a mew and the common lots provide pedestrian access to the front of each residence. The rear setback varies by the type of access to the garage—33' street,24' street,20' alley or 20' common/shared driveway.No reductions are requested to side setback(zero side setbacks are allowed for attached units)or to living area from the street. The reduced rear setback for attached units accessed by 24' wide streets and common/shared driveways provides for a utility easement and precludes parking across the garage access on each residence [parking pads are not required for these units as the two(2)required spaces for each unit will be provided in the garage]. The proposed utility easements effectively become setbacks(see note#7 on the plat).The minimum home size will be in excess of 2,000 s.f., including the 2-car garage. Staff is amendable to this request. Note:All lots in the R-8 district comply with the required dimensional standards as proposed. • UDC 11-3A-17D -Sidewalks are required to be provided on both sides of all public streets. Sidewalks are only proposed to be provided along the east sides of the 24' wide street sections (i.e. Roads 4, 6 and 7) adjacent to the parking areas as depicted on the Pedestrian Connectivity Plan in Section VIII.G. ACHD is requiring the sidewalks be extended on the east sides of Roads 4 and 6 along the entire common lot/parking area. The Applicant's justification for the request is that their housing product type is not a street facing design and the narrow streets are not intended to be pedestrian zones and will create a safety hazard to pedestrians with vehicles backing out of garages. Pathways are provided through mews for pedestrian access to the front doors. Staff is amendable to this request and believes it preserves public safety. • UDC 11-3B-12C -Landscaping is required along both sides of all pathways. Landscaping is not proposed along the concrete pathway in the unimproved hillside/slope area. The Applicant's justification for not providing landscaping along the pathway in this area is that the hillside is not proposed to have irrigation due to plant material requirements and erosion concerns. Many trees(27 extra along pathways alone)are proposed in excess of UDC standards in common areas within this development. Staff is amendable to this request. • UDC 11-6C-3B.4(cul-de-sacs)and 11-6C-3F (block face)—No streets that end in a cul-de-sac or a dead-end shall be longer than 500' unless approved by Council in the case where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope,railroad tracks or a large waterway that prevents extension; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. The cul-de-sac measured from Road 7 exceeds 500' at approximately 510'. In residential districts,no block face shall be more than 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided in which case it can extend to 1,000'. Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by site conditions such as an abutting arterial street or highway, a limited access street,railroad tracks, steep slopes in excess of 10%, an abutting urban project with no adjoining alley or street connections, a public or private education facility or park, a large waterway and/or a large irrigation facility. The face of Block 8 on the east side Road 3,when extended in the future with redevelopment of the property to the south will measure approximately 1,050' in length without a pedestrian connection. Due to the topography and significant slope in this area along with the location of the Ten Mile Creek,the design options are limited for this area. Therefore, Staff recommends the proposed design is approved with the PUD as an exception to the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. Page 13 Item 4. F177] In approving the planned development,the Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, additional conditions,bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this title that: 1. Minimize adverse impact of the use on other property. 2. Control the sequence and timing of the use. 3. Control the duration of the use. 4. Assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly. 5. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development. 6. Require the provision for on site or off site public facilities or services. 7. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this title. 8. Require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts,which provides services within the city. VII. DECISION A. Staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation,Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development applications with the provisions in Section IX per the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoniniz Commission heard these items on(continued from August and September 3rd) September 17,2020.At the public hearing on September 17',the Commission moved to continue the project to October 22'in order for the Applicant to make revisions to the plans and address several concerns/questions noted by the Commission listed below in#VII.B.3. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing; a. In favor: Jay Gibbons,Applicant's Representative b. In opposition: Annette Alonso c. Commenting:None d. Written testimony: Jennifer Lovedgy e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Opinion that existing roadway in this area cannot support additional traffic without improvements&the schools can't support the influx of children this (along with other) developments approved in this area will bring; b. Concern pertaining to the density proposed(i.e.too high) and lack of a buffer to adjacent rural property where a horse facility is located. c. Preference for more/larger open spaces to be provided. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The plan for wildfire prevention on the unimproved hillside area; b. Timing for development of the R-8 portion at the southwest corner of the site; C. The desire for fencingtprovided along the creek for public safety; d. The capacity of existing area schools to handle additional children and the new schools planned in this area; e The desire for more/larger usable common open spaces to be provided,the upper& lower portions of the development to better integrated,and would like to see a better plan for the hillside. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstanding. issue(s) for City Council: Page 14 Item 4. 178 a. None VIII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation S LAND SUl YVnNO PLLC 1 ' Pare Vida Rench Subdivision Rate:0411012020 Jab No.:6619 PURE VILLA RANCH SUBDIVISION ANNEKATION DESCRIPTION The following Describes a Parcel of Land being a portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 4, Towrishig 2 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ads County Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a found Aluminum Cap Marking the Northwest Corner of said Section 4;From which, thte North i14 Comer of said Seetlon 4 hears, North 89°43'34' East, 2661.67 feet which is being MonurnWed with a found "Illegible" Aluminum Cap; Thence slong the Northerly Boundary Line of tha NVV 114 of said Section 4, North 88.43'34" East, 1325.81 beet to the Northwest Corner of said Government Lot 3, the FOf NT OF BEGINNING: Thence continuing along sold Northerly Boundary Line, North 80°43'W East, 382.86 feet to a found 1(2"Iron Pine w!"Illegible Cap"; Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Line, South 34'1626"East, 1548.37 feet to a found 518' lrron Pin"PLS 780",, Thence, South 29"0570" East, 83.15 feet 10 a paint an the Southerly Boundary Line of said Government Let 3; Thence along the Southerly Boundary Ure 0f Said Government Lot 3, South 89`43'59" West, 1300.136 feet to the Southwest Comer of said Government Lot 3 which is heing Monumented with a found Sig"Iron Pin'PLS 645"as Shawn on Record of Survey No-1485, Records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence leaving sold Southerly Boundary, and along the Westerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3,North W'12'11"East, 1356.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGWN11 G The above Described Parcel of Land contains 26.34 Acres,more or less. 8251 623 11tb Avc.South,Nampa,JID 83651•T_(208)44U115-C.(208)608-2514•r9My.c1s@grri2il.cam Page 15 Item 4. F179] ANNEXATION EXhIBI'T I`B'I A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTION 4, TOWN5hlf' 2 NORTH, RANGE I IrA5T, 15015E MERIDIAN, A❑A COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 6ASIS OF BMING: N 89°43'34'E 2651,67' 32 33 E.Lake Mnal Road °43'34'F_ T_3N Ft1E. 33 Ff114Camer 5 4 1325.81' NWGvmer "IllegiLXs" — sa3.00' T.2N. R1E. Illeglae" 4431' 13 L03 PGINTorN,,4 b 'RS 64T F3EGINNIHG D V Tex Parcel Na.S14Q4212550 do `V1 Ct Ten �17 G r M:Ve Greek � � 4 N 4 Tax Parcel No.S1404212750 sesmrt cola SW Coma 'PLS 13550" QGnvtLot3� — ` 21A1 0 "PLS 645' � N 89"54'S5'E 1321.OZ �3 89°'M-P W 1300.06' SE Corner $25 S 89'43'59'W 1321.09' r�Lot COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC TLS4347' ~'y F of 623 11th Avenue South Nampa,ID 83651 ���Mc JN 6619 Df b---'(208)442-0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 16 Item 4. 180 PA LAKD SUPVFY NG PLLC Pare Vida Ranch Subdivision Eats:041101'2020 Job No.-6619 R-8 ANNEXATION AREA DESCRIPTION The following Describes a Parcel of Land being 8 portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 4. Township 2 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ads County Idaho, and being Tax Paul No.8 1 4042 1 2750,more particularly descrl bed as follows: COMMENCING at a found Aluminum Cap Marking the Montt st Corner of said Section 4; Frorn which, the Norlh 114 Corner of said Section 4 beers, Nora: 89043'34' East, 2C81,67 feet which is being Monurnented with a found 'Illegible" Aluminum Cap; Thence along the Northerly Boundary Line of the NlV 114 of said Section 4, North 89'43'34' East, 1325.81 feet to lt7e Northwest Comer of said Government Lot 3; Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Une, and along the Westerly Boundary Line of said Govemment Lot 3, South OD-12'11"West, 803.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,- Thence leaving saki Wastedy Boundary Line,North 900DD'00"East,227.21 feet to a point. Thence,South 60°35'33'East,280.04 feet to a paint; Thence,South 32010'11"East,299.15 feet to a point; Thence, South 00'11'513° East, 159.31 feet tv a point on the Southerly Boundary Line of said Govemrgnt Lot 3; Thence along the Southerly Boundary Line of said Government Lel 3, South 89'43'59" West, 633,61 feet to the Southwest Corner of sald Government Lot 3 which is being Munumented with a hmirid 5f8'Iron Pin"PLS 645"as Showrk on Record of Survey Ni?.1485, Records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence leaving said Southerly Boundary Line, and along the Westerfy Boundary Llne of said Govemment Lot 3,North 00'12'11" East,552.57feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: The above Described Parcel of Lend Contains 6.84Acres,more or less. 623 11 th Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 -T_(W8)442-0115 •C.(208)603-2510•rgray.cls; gmail.cran Page 17 Item 4. 181 Rff24NE * ANNEXATION EXHIBIT IIBII A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTiON 4, TOWN5F11P 2 NORTH, RANGE I EA5T, 5015E MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 BASIS OF BEARING: N 88°43'34'E 2651.67' 32 33,E.Lake Hazel Road '432"E Lam. RI,E, 33 N 114 Comer § 4 TLS 1325A1 NWCarne 'Illegible' ~94Tk T.W. RIK 4 "111"IbW 4431" Coot La13 POINT OF V "1.8645' BEGINNING m ryR LINE TABLE I Seale 1"=250' Gil LINE BEARING DISTANCE An+e J Tax Parcel ' L1 N 90°0OW E 2277-21 uy s No.51404,2I2550 ' L2 s 60136'38"E 2&P.41 Ed LS S 32"19'11-E 2%.15 L4 500111'5VE 1993f � 14-15 Total Parcel Area I9.B9Ac. '1 + 0 957.696 Sq. Ft. LLJ a F+� MAe Crack o I o Lt y s�POkJYPF SEGINN04G R—B r-7 Tote) Parcel Area Tao Parcel KL lAN40 Na.SI40d2I276O � '$ `� 5� cP Gant tot 5W Comer I 78Q" 1& 1& kc' ��\s � �3�� Gmt Lot 3 21.01` 0 q o $�IW 20 p 'c �StY� o'LSd45' 633.$1' _ 66�8'45 _ 8257 Q 1 N BU°54'55'E 1321-2 S 89°43 3DU N SECamer � COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC ses'43'59°w 1321.09' can,Lola� � � � 4347" ��. r OF 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 �FNCE �y YIP JN OffLe:(208)4-42.0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 18 Item 4. 182 i LAND SURVEYING FLL f ' Pure Ufda Ranch SuWivislan Datfa: Q4I1=020 Jab hto-;5619 R-15 ANNEXATION AREA DESCRIPTION The fottowing Describes a Parcel of Land being a portion of Govemment Lot 3 of 5ectlan 4, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County Idaho, and being Tax Parcel No.5140421 550,and a portion of Tax Parcel No. 51404212750, more particularly described as foflows= COMMENCING at a found Aluminum Gap Marking the Northwest Corner of said Section 4; From which. the North 114 Corner of said Section 4 bears, North 8904TU� Fast, 2661-67 feet which is tieing Monumented with a found "Illegible" Aluminum Cap; Thence slong the Northerly Boundary Line of the NW 114 of said Section 4, North 89°43'34' East, 1325.81 feet to the N arthwest Comer of said Government Lot 3, the POINT OF BEGINNING, Vence oontinuing along said Northerly Baundory Line, North 89'43'34' Eastr 382.86 feet to a found 1J2" Iran Pine w)"Il leg ible Gap', Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Line, South 34°15'26' East. 1548.37 feet to a faun 518' Iron Pin"PLS 780"; Thence, South 29'05'1X East, 83.15 feet to a paint on the Soultherly Boundary Une of said Government Lot 3.- Thence along the Southerly Boundary Line of said Gcwe! merit Lot 3, South 89°43'59" West, 666.45 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Governrent Lot 3 which is being Mon umented with a found 518" Iron Pin "PLS 645`as Shown on Record of Survey No.1485, Records of Ada Cauchy, Idaho.- Thence leaving said Southerly Boundary, North 0011150"West, 159.32 feet to a point; Thence,North 3 '19'11"West.299.15 feet to a point; Theneer North 813°35'33'West,280-44 feet to a point; Thence, South 90'00'00" West. 227.21 feet to a point on the Westerly Boundary Lire of said Government Lot 3; Thence along the Westerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3, North OW12'11" East, 803.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, The above Descrlbed Parcel of Laced contains 19.69 Apes.more or less, 41) 82 623 111h Ave-South,Nampa,H)83661 -T_(208)442-0115• C.(208)609-2510•rgray.clsf g il,corn Page 19 Item 4. 183 REZONE * ANNffXATION EXHIBIT IIBII A PORTION Of GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTION 4, TOWN5HIP 2 NORTH, RANGE I EAST, B015E MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 BAW OF 6EARRQG: N W43'34"E 2651.67' 32 33 F Iake Hazel Road "43; " TON. A IE. 33 N U4 Comer 5 4 "PLS 1325.A1' NNIGomer "Illeglb3e" 943.1)0' T.2N. R.IZ 4 '91001 w 4431" GoH.Lola POW OF by 11k5TANCE BEARING LINE'PL9 645' BEGINNING LINE TA13LE Scale:1"=259' w , Li !90'00 a"E 22t21 I Ter Parcel C� No.SI404212550 , L2 SW35'3TE 26.04 L3 53?19'11'E F99.15 L4 S 00'17'56'E 159.31 w m C R-15 Total Parcel Area 19,88Aa. 0 957,898 Sq,Ft v \ W crL Tee`�� o MIR Creek � z�POINT OF BEGINNING Total Parcel Area ci S.64Ac. 289,236 Sq.Ft- Tax Parcel \ J) fl�A` [ANC No.S1404212750 comw I " 5 0 ��\ 1 5 r IPLS d' SQL a 780- Gawt ❑ � a� �(` _ OPLSS45' 633.61' _ ,,� _ _ �ss.45' — — 825'1 I N 89"54'55'E 13n u —5 89.43'5 4 1309.0A' SE Gomar o COMPASS LAND SURVEYING,PLLC S89"43'59"W 1321,99' TS'�71 rq ��of 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 �ENC KflE� F H. JN 6619 Office:(208)442-0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 20 Item 4. 184 B. Preliminary Plat(date: 8/24/2020) & Phasing Plan - L LIC-M ti . Imo.. ya�rrs'-=_44L[Lt44�♦r' -_ _-_---ti r FAJT .. hur i Y=Yniw OEM a 4FlFL Page 21 Item 4. Fl 85 T 1714A E LIJM#l4-M-1i6AD VAEU f3 1 W47 ErrMDMM LCQkL 2-V20 R&"urMN LmY L 87FM W wkLK) E+yn umm LOCAL sTF73ET(auBNAL.K oNE wE) ALLEY SHAPED EFF&MAY E l7p- ;2 Page 22 Item 4. Fl 86 EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS TO E.LAKE-HA &RD. x BUILDING PERMITS WILL NOT BE ISSUED FOR PHASES 2 OR 3 UNTIL A STREET CONNECTION, MEETING MERIDIAN FIRE DEPT.REQUIREMENTS. IS CONSTRUCTED EITHER THROUGH THE ADJACENT CHURCH PROPERTY TO E. LAKE HAZEL RD.,OR THROUGH THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH TO S.EAGLE RD,OR BY SOME OTHER PHASE 7 SECONDARY ACC ES S AGREEA13 LE TO TH E MERIDIAN FIRE DEPT. BRIDGE TO GN URCH PROPERTY WITH FUTURE CONNECTION TO E,LAKE HAZEL 110, PHASE 2r* 13UI LE)ING • PERMf S YVILL NOT + DE IS SUED FOR PHASE d UNTIL PUBLIC STREET CONN ECTION IS PROVIDED PHASE 4** PHASE * THROUGH THE , ADJACENT THE PROPERTY TO THE S OUTFL STUB STREET TO THE SOUTH WITH FUTURE CON NECTION TG S.E.AGL E R0, N Phasing Plan 0 300 Bm Page 23 f - r� �� � 1 I •� Page 24 Item 4. Fl 88 x- ---_-_ -ram ---- - -- . 1 1 _ � r 1 i----_----- I 1 %I rvnr�ykf uEiX�E�EuFS ----- ------- -------- — •_ l— _1— � ..—a—.i i.. _. .w _"—.. j" MJW SME IXILE. �TYATrj aar 7lr w - WS,GILK'LYLSLI.O Page 25 Item 4. Fl 89 err � _ - - -- • —— — 1*k 1�•� � ��— Fwl M. ' H'ff91��"R RTII �• i. - 4FLFYi] _A- �f +1 •••ram r� � L'1fw.'K slHy ..�r r LLI I T AMY ;'. th = 4 l S PL//(T A3ilY1 F h�ti trt. -- • I ���� ...� 1➢R .19 Ltl Page 26 Item 4. Fl-9o y� . .� �? w_—=[=�eY.1 s--, � � �~ � � � PLIW rSi}IE ItiuF — Y - a. Lus — PI,W►SOIEIXU -E oil .. L30 'IPIO Ya L1I.�H Page 27 Item 4. Fl 9-1 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . P,"E4KIII c PI.l-- t PLAWSCHElLn.E C) PIC I f �„r Page 28 Item 4. Fl 92 ..��W�3L!!SIlLTl7 H `•�•�•` � ��•` Ab�T4L1!30!ErLl R IMM ZZ UECEW WiKwVf F.rll T= 1 nT i �* t �',`it"•. _ T�. 1CLf'�LTI YY Aa _ ED 7 MA0UN' .r,.. LLIM — WR �:a ul � a �-- u T Page 29 Item 4. 193 D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE(11-3G-3-B-1 A) QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE(11-3G-3-B-1-E) NON QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE NON QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE RIDGE FACE ` COMMON-SHARED DRIVEWAY BUILDING LOT RIGHT OF WAY r 'k OPEN SPACE CA LCULATiONS COMMON LOTS&BUFFERS QLIALIFJED QLIALIFIEb OPEN OPEN ACTUAL SPACE SPACE AREA(SF) CREDIT AREAL I5F1 HALF OF 35-FOOT E.LAKE HAZEL RR-BUFFER�21-3G-3-D.4] 6486 1(]C% 60$5 20-FOOT LINEAR MEWS{11-3G-3.B.1.EM 50A98 100% 56,273 OPEN SPACE(SO-X 1W MIN.)111-3G,16.1.A) 150,323 100% 154),323 OPEN SPACE RIDGE FACE-NONQUALIFIED 170.510 0% - OPEN SPACE-OTHER NON allALIFrED 65AS0 096 SHARED DR[VtWAY5 2"(-,7 096 - TOTAL OPEN SPACE 471,734 5F 212,982 5F QUALMED OPEN SPACE PROVIp*p: z12F982 SF 18.57% 70TAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED, 47X734 SF 43.22% !V Opera Space & Site Coverage Plan o 3m aim Feet Page 30 Item 4. F194 E. Planned Unit Development Site Amenities Plan(date: 4/30/2020) ILL-n TE as crass T'1 �e nays LANDSCA%REOUMEMENTS_ �L PL r am PlAi1 fir`% _`�' i. _ -•,•••"•••� ,»•'~'� y�/� Page 31 Item 4. Fl 95 all lirr TT I I l ' \ ll1TG Ali'll Y— ——— SMIM Mon .He, r �3���� � rsa.Fi SIllTihil�• T � T TT YF�ff. ������i' —� f { .4 *III • -- .- � ,,4 ' �' �- _ � � �� eta so � k J, I LIE bDPW _ I kioil r- --j rv,+iv1: per sr n '#• A.12 Page 32 #m+ Fl« - - J = 2------------------------------- _ ■ ■ - . , � �| » � ; { . xs■ & _ ■ z 2 .� �., / �. . . . ■ � ||: \ � x ] • � � . � ` � �, ■� y � . . # A7 �« .. . e . . � - __ -------------- ,\ {§--- •-j . � � � . � \ - � - ---- --d- . $ . .J 41 � y �ƒ 3-3--- -. —, . ----------�--—�� ._=�-� ---���--4 |� __ | . || �■ - . SAM Page 33 Item 4. 197 � .}I � ua144wR aClr _ �- ss�. __. — � Sri• � I �j 34 i i r^t�� i YYY YiYYYY YYY 3eA J L i ■r� LIME 1 I F Fkf �rtr 191 'nl 5 Y�i ------r--- Lr ro • 4}. Page 34 Item 4. Fl 98 F. Parking Exhibit li R-15 � : � .._. .. .... ._.._.._.._.._.._..............ems._._..__ .. _ .. ._.._._.._._.._.... ...... .._.._.._.._.._.._.... RLrr FMT =-: -.r,-r=.- : �TTT'r�Yrrr-_�� �T-:�--�-•_=-��—:-tom:-",_,_- �- -��--,� _ - - a r ' _ Attached Housing Parking Summary CARAGE PAMUNB mSTALLS L_JL—J = tl I)MVEWArPAMCNG 623TA11A OFF3WEETPARI9IB 71 STALLS _- _ _ • t+�H `I V` `� - TOTALPA7ROH6PROR]ED 9673TALLE - "�• - ,• , `• ,.,• TOTAL ATTACHED WITS=1Z7 ATTACHED LOSS \.L REQUIHEDPARKN6{2OR3B®@xsTALL'LliafF=25i STALLS OVER PARKED STALLS=967-251=19S STALL.S(faft EVER PAMU3]q AN&DDrigM4L 96.1-ON STAEFr PARWNG STALLS MILS AYP]LABLE.4W ARE NOT NCLUDEDN THE AE OYE PARI®1f � RUT I �Nui RUT I � y•�� [ i10813� .�, � � � �'` " � `°sue , n \ ,• � RUT a I TT ' ■PAR* ■E% fT � +�,'h�3� ! ! IPil I 3 P.t Page 35 Item 4. 199 1 G. Pedestrian Connectivity Plan I � i RUTi ----- --------- ----- i :-- — f l _ . RUT SIDMALX 'r R9gi0-PAl3-IWAY 10FOOT MJLTPJSE PATPWAY RLrr ' •r' "r:}' 1 I Mar If Rur Ais � 1 •^} .n '� RUT Farr w RVr EXHIEFF �wfuwum�sr. y � -••-P.2. Page 36 Aw ._ ; AIM r - .44 is F• -` 12 ` - Item 4. F201] Single-family detached units: Mr 111 NO,l ; �� a. prA 4 �m k fill I J11 NO Page 38 Item 4. F202] Townhome units: h r�� 3 e al �Ff qw F �ilk _ - ;rim � j€ o € a - a 4rim3 RMull Page 39 Item 4. F 03 EiC #i tti i3i I ` j i [ } ilia $ i Ziff A Note: No elevations were submitted for the single-family 2-attached units—the Applicant states they will look like two end units of the 3+unit attached buildings put together back to back. The end units have a kick out on the front corner as shown on townhome elevation#4. Page 40 Item 4. F204] I. Reductions to Dimensional Standards in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 District E.LAKE HAZEL ROAD E PURA VIDA RIDGE RANCH L SUBDIVISION � k a ti R-15 SETBACKS LOT TYPE WALL+M INANEW cu! FRONT GARAi'E SIDE STRfEFS]DE REAR NFOLE FnWU NTROIED 0-UP NT END Bl4C JIF4aE FAMLY ATfNdlm d-o' j{ GMAIEAfE ALSS CH r4'-0' ffi'-0' 3'-0` ..�` PLIEY+h%21Y RP& END BILL ANGLE F74WLr nTfNCHED xd d-6'EIi r+f f ti� aiARn!]ARElpr E}!D BWC ti `y1 i rya!n�-snuArae a-e sM—a -ILr 1 1 % � y ROAD LEGEND t 33'ROAD ® 24'ROAD 0 SHARED DRIVEWAY ti PARKING i OTHER Page 41 Item 4. F 05 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION To ensure quality of development within the PUD, Staff recommends design guidelines are submitted for the overall development to be included in the Development Agreement that promote innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patters on development in accord with UDC 11-7-1; these guidelines shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Annexation & Zoning: 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, site plan, qualified open space exhibit, site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The design of all structures in the subdivision shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM).An application for Design Review shall be submitted and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. The Ten Mile Creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and shall be improved and protected with development of the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-6. d. A wildfire safety plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. A copy of the approved plan shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the subdivision. Preliminary Plat: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VIII.B, dated August 24,2020,is approved as submitted. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VIII.C, dated April 30,2020, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict bushes within the buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.3. b. Depict fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7; include a detail of the proposed fence. c. Depict a minimum 30-foot wide (may be increased to account for steep topography)defensible space extending out from any part of adjacent structures to the hillside in accord with Fire Dept. comments in Section IX.C. Hazardous and fire-prone vegetation shall be prohibited in this area and only fire resistant plants should be utilized for landscaping in this area. d. Depict fencing along the Ten Mile creek to prevent access and preserve public safety in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C,unless otherwise waived by City Council. 4. The existing home shall be removed prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for the phase in which it is located(i.e.Phase 4). Page 42 Item 4. F 06 5. Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along the east boundary of the site ad j acent to the Ten Mile Creek to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature as required by the Park's Department. 6. For lots accessed via common/shared driveways, an exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren't taking access from the common driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 7. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s)is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment.A copy of the easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. This easement(s) may be depicted on the final plat with a note rather than as a separate recorded easement. 8. All common driveways shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. 9. All alleys shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. 10. The Applicant shall coordinate with Terri Ricks,Land Development, and Joe Bongiorno,Fire Dept., for addressing lots accessed by alleys and common driveways without frontage on a public street. Address signage for wayfinding purposes shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed by alleys and common driveways. 11. A floodplain development permit shall be obtained prior to construction for any development within the floodplain. 12. "No Parking" signs shall be erected on both sides of the 24-foot wide street sections(i.e. Roads 4, 6 and 7) and at the alley/street intersections(i.e. Roads 9 and 10). 13. A recorded copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that includes a copy of the wildfire safety plan approved by the Fire Dept. shall be submitted with the first final plat application; a note referencing such shall be included on each final plat. Planned Unit Development(PUD): 14. The dimensional standards in the R-15 zoned portion of the development shall be consistent with the exhibit in Section VIII.I. 15. A minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each dwelling unit; this requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks and enclosed yards as set forth in UDC 11-7-4B. 16. The parking pads for individual lots shall be revised to be 20' x 20' in accord with UDC Table 11-3C- 6. 17. An exception was approved to UDC 11-3A-17D,which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of all public streets,to only require sidewalks along the east sides of the 24' wide street sections (i.e. Roads 4, 6 and 7)adjacent to the parking areas as depicted on the Pedestrian Connectivity Plan in Section VIII.G and as required by ACHD(i.e. extend the sidewalks on the east sides of Roads 4 and 6 along the entire common lot/parking area). 18. An exception was approved to UDC 11-3B-12C,which requires landscaping to be provided along both sides of all pathways,to not require landscaping along the concrete pathway in the unimproved hillside/slope area on Lot 8,Block 5. Page 43 Item 4. F207] 19. An exception was approved to UDC 11-6C-3B.4(cul-de-sacs)and 11-6C-3F (block face),to allow the face of Block 8 and the cul-de-sac (Road 3)to exceed the maximum length standards as proposed. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Sanitary sewer and water mainlines are not allowed in the common driveways serving three or fewer lots. In these cases, service lines shall be extended from the mainlines in the adjacent public roadway. If the common driveway serves four or more lots, a sewer mainline will be allowed in the driveway,however it shall be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain. A manhole will be required at the common drive property boundary with the word "Private"on the lid. 1.2 Remove services located along"Road 7" and add sewer main. 1.3 Do not extend the sewer main to the west property boundary, as parcel S 1404223251 is in a different sewer service area. 1.4 The water mainline at the southwest corner must be connected at the bottom of the hill to the rest of the subdivision. 1.5 The secondary water connection must be completed in phase two, either through the adjacent church property to E. Lake Hazel Rd, OR through the property to the south to S Eagle Rd. This condition reflects MFD's requirement stated on the phasing plan submitted with this record 1.6 Manholes cannot be located in landscaped areas unless they are located within an access road per City standards are provided. 1.7 A Floodplain Development Permit is required to be in place for this development. A flood study has previously been completed. Culvert at Lake Hazel must be replaced as designed before building on lots in floodplain. Structures will require floodplain permits until LOMR is effective. 1.8 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. 1.9 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by MTI(Materials Testing&Inspection) dated July 16,2019,and updated April 1,2020, indicates some fairly shallow groundwater and soils concerns, and specific construction considerations and recommendations. Groundwater monitoring of the Northeastern(lower)portion of the site indicates that the groundwater levels fluctuate due to influence of Ten Mile Creek. For these reasons,homes constructed in the northeastern(lower)portion of the site shall be slab on grade construction. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of the MTI considerations and recommendations to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils,and that groundwater does not become a problem for the new homes. 1.10 Due to the elevation differentials in this development,the applicant shall be required to submit an engineered master grading and drainage plan for approval by the Community Development Department prior to development plan approval. This plan shall establish, at a minimum; the finish floor elevation for each building lot,the finish grade elevations of the rear lot corners,the drainage patterns away from each building pad,the drainage patterns of the overall blocks, and any special swales or subsurface drainage features necessary to control and maintain storm water drainage. Applicant's engineer shall consult the 2012 International Residential Code when establishing the finish floor elevations and drainage patterns away from the building pads. 2. General Conditions of Approval Page 44 Item 4. E 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 I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals,laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. Page 45 Item 4. F209] 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 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 Page 46 Item 4. E https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=194384&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT hllps://weblink.meridianci , .org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191277&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=194261&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=l92101&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT hllps://weblink.meridianci, .org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192042&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=1913 32&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. NEW YORK IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190971&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianci. .org,/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191387&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianci , .org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191392&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity L. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=194214&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity M. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=194048&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Annexation & Zoning(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 proposed annexation with R-8 and R-1 S zoning and proposed development is generally consistent with the MHDR FL UM designation in the Comprehensive Plan. (See section V above for more information) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Page 47 Item 4. M Stafffinds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute toward the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Stafffinds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed medium density residential uses should be compatible with adjacent existing rural residential and future medium and medium-high density residential uses. 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 City services are available to be provided to this development. The school district submitted comments stating that the enrollment capacity at the middle and high schools is currently at and over capacity respectively; elementary school students can be accommodated at Silver Sage until a new school is built to eliminate overcrowding at Hillsdale. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Stafffinds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Stafffinds that the proposed plat with Staff's recommendations is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the 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; Stafffinds there is public financial capability ofsupporting 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, Page 48 Item 4. E 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. Stafffinds the proposed development preserves the natural topography (i.e. hillside)and Ten Mile Creek on this property. C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(UDC 11-7-5): 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 a planned development request,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The planned unit development demonstrates exceptional high quality in site design through the provision of cohesive, continuous,visually related and functionally linked patterns of development, street and pathway layout,and building design. Stafffinds the proposed PUD demonstrates a high quality of design through cohesive design elements and design guidelines for the development and the many pathways and roadways link the development together. 2. The planned unit development preserves the significant natural, scenic and/or historic features. Stafffinds the proposed PUD preserves the natural topography(i.e. hillside) and the Ten Mile Creek on this property. 3. The arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. Stafffinds the proposed use and development of this property will not cause damage, hazard or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. 4. The internal street,bike and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities and functions contained within the development,nor place an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area. Stafffinds the internal local streets should provide for safe internal access to homes within the development and proposed pathway network will provide a safe bicycle and pedestrian route to adjacent residential developments and the Hillsdale elementary school and YMCA to the north. 5. Community facilities, such as a park,recreational, and dedicated open space areas are functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways. Stafffinds the proposed common areas and multi-use pathway amenity along the creek are functionally related to the site design and accessible to all residents through the many pathways and sidewalks provided within the development. 6. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations",of this title. Stafffinds the proposed residential uses and density complies with the guidelines for PUD's and the MHDR FL UM designation for this site. 7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. Stafffinds the proposed pedestrian amenities as well as the shade structures, tables and benches are appropriate for this development and will facilitate an active lifestyle for area residents. Page 49 Item 4. F213] 8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Stafffinds the proposed PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 50 HILLS LE _ ID 1 t FC NOVA ;-,• YOUTH f -P U R A VIDA SOCCER 'L RY `1 ' _ PDIEMA -� RIDGE . RANCH SUS BORE � RANCID _ �R S U B D 1 [S �F, 'OURGOLS �(7iJRSR-- _ � f ATJ ik _ A!•p r f Google-Ear- #i 02020 Qoogle � a.. 0 4 1604 fC ❖ MORE UNIQUE DESIGN LAYOUT ❖ REDUCE PARKING FOR MORE OPEN SPACE ❖ CREATE AN COMMON AREA FOR OPEN PLAY AND TOT LOT ❖ MORE COHESIVE OPEN SPACE COMMISSION ❖ FENCING ALONG TEN MILE CREEK/DRAIN ❖ MORE HILLSIDE TREATMENT CONCERNS ❖ PROVIDE A FIRE-WISE PLAN FOR COMMISSION REVIEW P&Z COMMISSION HEARING ❖ PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR COMMISSION REVIEW ❖ LACK OF VEHICULAR CONNECTION BETWEEN R-15 HOMES AND R-8 HOMES NINE ■®■■E -11 Ilk ORIGINAL J*. so k ` " i PLAT �z - i E_ Lake H zel Read la UPDATED �f u xz LAT ►w m a, w n n ae j —INCREASED CONNECTED OPEN SPACE ®, —REDUCED PARKING LOTS at —REMOVED ONE ROAD —ADDED HOUSING TYPE ' N .� -'1� � I!IIIIINIIIIII1= ��I �11■1 _����-_ -11■ __ IL ft-- ICI_ I�IMill 1; �I. �I.=���! R 1111=-IIIw==I1-1111�=11=1111=�11= I1 '= � oil � ��------L�_�■�■_®_�■�■=®_a��i�i�ii�i��u�i��=_ � - �__"� _ i FRONT ELEVATION t . Lb ce LI j REAR ELEVATION ° �. - • I I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 I isle Rdu LE - RECREATION & FITNESS v� PLAN : CONNECTED MULTI-USE PATHWAY & SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS ILLUSTRATE AKIM .75 MILE LOOP �►� �� FITNESS STATIONS & BIKE REPAIR STATION '� 0 � �• PED/BIKE CIRCUITS - .60 MILE CIRCUIT BIKE TRAIL TRANSVERSING SLOPE W/ REST AREAS, BENCHES, BIKE POST, TRASH RECEPTACLES ■ Tf� B} OF rt TIFF • • • 5.191111110 'r air .r +�• I L l a�T T. F ' wA i ARCHITECTURAL I) ESIGN \\ao GUIDELINES INTEGRATION INTO CC&R'S AND ENFORCED BY HOA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COHESIVE DESIGN ELEMENTS _, �.. . FIRE-WISE PRINCIPLES ❖ FIRE RESISTANT HOMES DRAFT ❖ FIRE RESISTANT BUILDING MATERIALS & METHODS ❖ FIRE RESISTANT LANDSCAPES WILDLAND� ❖ CLEAN & GREEN — Out to 30' from structure ❖ PRUNED & GROOMED — 30' — 70' URBAN ❖ NATIVE VEGETATION MAINTENANCE — 70'+ INTERFACEFIRE ❖ EVACUATION ❖ BE PREPARED & PLAN AHEAD SAFETY PLAN ❖ FIRE PREVENTION INTEGRATIONINTO ❖ AWARENESS & EDUCATION MAINTAINED BY •A ❖ FIRE ECOLOGY & MANAGEMENT r - _ice ---- j '—�.z � �„. i- ..s: rid:• - - - �, t r. 7 i ti i Y a ] I!! T ar rk 10-11 jr 44 IP.. 14 k Av ke Me Owl CF I.d A • I YTa Li ADD4N OPEN ® 6 16 . I Sam.. m PLAY .� » -ADDITIONAL .35 ACRES �. m -ACCOMMODATES FULL YOUTH SIZE ` = SOCCER FIELD (150' X 300') . - TOTAL OPEN PLAY ACREAGE _ .78 AC j