Loading...
2020-12-01 Regular WE IDIAN City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, December 01, 2020 at 6:00 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86133943545 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 8613394 3545 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Mayor Robert E. Simison Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Treg Bernt Councilman Luke Cavener PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion to adopt the agenda as published made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener PUBLIC FORUM - Future Meeting Topics The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at meridiancit .00rg or um to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. RESOLUTIONS [Action Item] 1. Resolution No. 20-2245: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, Establishing the Appointment of Scott Walters to Seat 1, Randy Spiwak to Seat 3, Taryn Richmond to Seat 6 and Shawn Keating to Seat 7 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15 minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a Homeowner's Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented homeowners who have consented to yielding their time.After all public testimony, the applicant is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote. 2. Public Hearing for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck& Baird, Located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Continued to January 5, 2021 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. Motion to continue hearing to January 5, 2021 made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing 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. Remanded to Planning and Zoning Commission 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 377 buildable lots (323 single- family residential, 38 townhomes, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school), 39 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.53 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Motion to remand project to Planning and Zoning Commission made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES [Action Item] 4. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 20-1905: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-1, Regarding Adoption of 2018 International Building Code, 2018 International Residential Code, 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, 2018 International Energy Conservation Code, 2018 International Existing Building Code,and Respective Local Amendments; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10- 1-2, Regarding Amendments to International Building Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-3, Regarding Amendments to International Residential Code; Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 10-1-4, Regarding Amendments to International Energy Conservation Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-2-3(B),Regarding Plumbing Permit and Inspection Fees;Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-3-3(E), Regarding Electrical Permit and Inspection Fees; Repealing and Replacing Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, Regarding Adoption of the 2018 International Fire Code and Local Amendments Thereto; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-1, Regarding Adoption of 2018 International Mechanical Code, 2018 International Fuel Gas Code, 2018 International Residential Code Parts V And VI, and Respective Local Amendments,- Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-2, Regarding Amendments to 2018 International Mechanical Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-3, Regarding Amendments to the International Fuel Gas Code;Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-4(H-M), Regarding Amendments to Part V(Mechanical) and Part VI (Fuel Gas) of the 2018 International Residential Code;Adopting a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Adopted Motion to adopt the ordinance made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION S. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer. Vacated from the agenda Motion made to vacate item from the agenda by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener ADJOURNMENT 11:00 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council December 1, 2020. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, December 1, 2020, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Also present: Adrienne Weatherly, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Clint Dolsby, Scott Colaianni, Joe Bongiorno, Steve Siddoway and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader X Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will go ahead and call this meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, December 1st, 2020, at 6:00 p.m. and we will begin tonight's City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item on the agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item on the agenda is the community invocation, which this evening will be delivered by Pastor Jordan with Real Life Ministries. If you all would take this as a moment to join us in the invocation or take this as a moment of silence. Mr. Jordan. Jordan: Thank you, Mayor. Let's pray. Lord, just come before you and first just want to say thank you for this Council -- City Council and Mayor, the leadership of our city. In the midst of the time that we find ourselves in their leadership has been incredible and thankful to be in a community because of their leadership. I pray, God, that you would bless them tonight in the midst of their meeting. Help them to make wise decisions for the best of our city. In addition I pray you bless them as we get closer to Christmas season, Lord, may this be an amazing time in the midst of a hard time with our family and friends. Just bless their life and bless their service to our community. We pray this all in your son's name, amen. Page 14 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 2 of 81 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you, Justin. Next item up is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as presented. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. The agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Madam Clerk, did anyone sign up under Public Forum? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, my apologies. They did not. RESOLUTIONS [Action Item] 1. Resolution No. 20-2245: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, Establishing the Appointment of Scott Walters to Seat 1, Randy Spiwak to Seat 3, Taryn Richmond to Seat 6 and Shawn Keating to Seat 7 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Okay. Then the next item up -- we will move on to our agenda items. Resolutions. First item is Resolution No. 20-2245 and this is a Resolution to appoint four members to our Solid Waste Advisory Commission. Had the opportunity to sit down with the Commission President Steve Cory and do interviews for these positions. It really is putting half the people -- you know, half the commission up -- I don't know how we got off, Mr. Nary, on this one where we are just slightly off in terms of having a lot of our Commission being appointed at this one term, compared to normal. You try to have them a little bit more spaced out. But we do have reappointments to the commission, as well as a new reappointment from a former individual who moved to Boise and is serving as the -- someone who is a professional in the area --from his years on the commission prior to that in Scott Walters and I don't -- I think many of you probably are familiar with Randy Spiwak, his involvement with HOAs in our community is legendary and he was looking for a way to get involved and very knowledgeable, very interested in, you know, how this impacts our -- our local homeowner associations and, then, Taryn Richmond definitely Page 15 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 3of81 brings a marketing aspect and as SWAC is looking at ways to continue its great public involvement in education and their new innovative programs that we just saw, such as Trash to Treasure, having that -- that interest and expertise I think will serve them very well as they look to build on those successes as we move forward. So, I would be happy to answer any comments or questions. I do see we have Mr. Trash Talk Tom on here as well if you have any questions about where SWAC is headed, but -- or take a motion. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe a comment and a motion. Some fantastic appointments and reappointments and excited to see SWAC continue their work. With that I would move that we approve Resolution No. 20-2245. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I second that motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion is great to. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Simison: I do see we have Taryn on the call. I don't know she would like to make any comments, but if she would be happy to have her unmute herself and make any -- any comments. Well, I don't see her unmuting -- or unmuting herself, so we will just go ahead and move on at this point in time and say thank you, Council, for your confirmation of those appointments. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck & Baird, Located at 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. Page 16 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 4 of 81 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. Simison: So, with that we will move on to our Action Items this evening. First up is the public hearing for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, H-2020-0064. I will open this public hearing with staff comments and turn this over to Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Can you see the presentation and hear me okay? Simison: Yes, we can. Allen: Thank -- thank you. The applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a planned unit development. This site consists of 26.34 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 3727 East Lake Hazel Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium high density residential, which calls for eight to 12 residential units per acre. Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 zoning, which consists of 6.64 acres and R-15 zoning, which consists of 19.69 acres, is requested for the development of 157 single family residential homes consisting of a mix of detached, attached, and townhome units at a gross density of 8.23 units per acre, excluding undevelopable areas consistent with the medium high density residential future land use designation for this property. 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 residential 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 this site proposed to develop primarily with townhomes and a couple single family residential attached units, which should be consistent with the future medium high density residential development to the east and west. A development agreement is recommended as a provision of annexation. A preliminary plat is proposed to subdivide the property consisting of 157 buildable lots, consisting of 30 detached, two attached, and 125 townhome units and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in four phases as shown on the phasing plan on the right. The first phase is nearest Lake Hazel Road, 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. Access is proposed via one public street and one emergency only access via East Lake Hazel Road. One stub street is proposed to the west and two 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. A bridge is required to be constructed across the Ten Mile Creek to the east on the subject property in this location. Alleys and common driveways are proposed off internal public streets for access to the proposed units. Traffic calming is proposed on road three, which is over 750 -- excuse me -- over 700 feet in length by narrowing the street down to 24 feet between road six and seven. Roads three, if you can see my cursor here, is right here. That long stretch. The ACHD five year work plan shows Eagle Road Page 17 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 5 of 81 north of Lake Hazel widened in 2023 and Lake Hazel east of Eagle Road being widened in 2024. Preliminary plat lines are shown in red that are either in process or have been approved. And just to note, the -- the prelim lines depicted to the south are outdated and reflect a subdivision, Sky Break, that was recently withdrawn. A planned unit development is proposed to enable the development of a mix of single family residential detached, attached, and townhome units on the site at a gross density of 8.23 units per acre and that, as I previously stated, excludes the undevelopable slope 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 percent of the property for buildable lots. The applicant states there is a 58 feet height difference between the valley floor and the rim, with an average slope of approximately 40 percent. As part of the planned unit development the applicant requests deviations from UDC standards pertaining to building setbacks as shown on the preliminary plat, sidewalks, landscaping along pathways and cul-de-sac and block lengths. The details and justification for such is included in the staff report. A 35 foot 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 and unimproved. The applicant states low growing vegetation currently exists in this area that doesn't require supplemental moisture and installing an irrigation system would cause unnecessary damage to the hillside. The homeowners association is proposed to be responsible for reducing fuels on an annual basis at a minimum. Afire 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. This plan has been approved by the Fire Department subject to some minor modifications. Qualified open space in excess of the minimum standards. A minimum of 2.63 acres or ten percent is required. A total of 5.25 acres or 19.92 percent is proposed, consisting of half the street buffer along Lake Hazel, linear open space, MEWs and open grassy areas of at least 50 feet by 100 feet in area. This does not include the unimproved hillside area. Site amenities in excess of UDC standards are proposed. A minimum of one qualified site amenity is required. Proposed amenities consist of a ten foot 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 foot by 16 foot shelter with a picnic table, two eight foot by 12 foot arbors with benches for common areas and a dirt trail and a paved five foot wide pathway -- pathway on the hillside. Four 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 and trails are also proposed in -- in the unimproved slope area providing pedestrian connections between the upper ridge and lower valley lots. A parking plan was submitted as shown that demonstrates compliance with the off-street parking standards for residential uses. A total of 20 additional off-street parking spaces are proposed for guests and many parking lots dispersed throughout the development and an additional 88 spaces can be accommodated off street, for a total of 108 extra spaces. This is down from 157 spaces shown on the previous plan, due to recommendation by the Commission for revisions to those areas. As noted the Ten Mile Creek is a natural waterway that runs along the Page 18 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 6 of 81 eastern boundary of this site. As such the UDC states that fencing should not prevent access to the waterway. However, 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 the Public Works director. Fencing is not proposed or desired by the applicant. The applicant states water flows year around in the creek, is shallow and slow flowing, at an approximate depth of 18 to 24 inches and is overgrown with cattails as shown on the pictures here. The depth of the waterway in relation to the surrounding land is approximately six feet from the top of the bank to the bottom of the channel and the width is approximately 15 to 20 feet. 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 staff is recommending fencing is installed along the creek to restrict access, unless otherwise waived by City Council. The applicant is requesting a waiver to this requirement from you tonight. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the single family residential detached and townhome units that consist of a variety of one, two, and three stories, with a variety of vertical and horizontal siding, stucco, brick, stone veneer accents with wood and timber design elements, with gable style shingle roofs with metal accent roofing on some elevations. Updated concept elevations were submitted for the three story units as shown that more closely align with the style of the other units in the development. These units incorporate a combination of flat and single pitch roofs at a height of less than 40 feet, with each having a rooftop deck. Two story elevations in the same style shown on the right were also submitted as another option. The final design will be enhanced with additional materials and design elements to be cohesive with the other units in the development 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 development agreement 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. The Commission recommended approval of this project. Jay Gibbons, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. Annette Alonso, representing the Southern Rim Coalition, testified in opposition. Written testimony was received from Jennifer Loveday. Key issues were the opinion that existing roadways in this area cannot support additional traffic without improvements and schools can't support the influx of children this, along with other developments approved in this area, will bring. Concern pertaining to the density proposed. She felt it was too high. And lack of a buffer to adjacent rural property where a horse facility is located. Preference for more and larger open spaces to be provided. And this was addressed with the revised plan. Connectivity between the upper and lower portions of the development and protection of the southern rim area and preservation of the natural hillside. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: The plan for wildfire --wildfire prevention on the unimproved hillside area. Timing for development of the R-8 portion at the southwest corner of the site. The desire for fencing to be provided along the creek for public safety. The capacity of existing area schools to handle additional children and the new schools planned in this area. The desire for more and larger usable common open spaces to be provided. As I mentioned Page 19 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 7of81 this was addressed with the revised plan. The upper and lower portions of the development to be better integrated and would like to see a better plan for the hillside. They were in favor of the three story product and usable roof area and location of the units against the hillside. They were in favor of the fitness loop amenity and trail system between the upper and lower portions of the development. The Commission made the following change to the staff recommendation. They were in favor of the three story product type with the flat roof, but wanted the design to tie in better with the other units and those were the updated elevations that I shown previously -- had shown here on the screen. So, they did update those since the Commission hearing. There are a couple outstanding issues for Council tonight. The applicant requests Council approval, as I mentioned earlier, to not construct fencing along the Ten Mile Creek. If Council doesn't feel fencing is necessary to preserve public safety, condition number 3-D should be deleted. And the applicant requests approval to submit final design guidelines for the development after the hearing for inclusion in the development agreement. Those were required in the staff report to be submitted prior to the Council hearing tonight. There has been no written testimony since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you very much, Sonya. And I don't know if we have other folks on that have looked at the schools. Just looking at Mountain View High School, over 2,500 enrolled, capacity for just shy of 2,200. That's pretty far over capacity. I guess we have got COVID. Maybe that's an element. But I heard there is an expansion project at Rocky Mountain. Could you give us a flavor for their ability to take on additional students? Allen: I cannot. Council Woman Strader, I'm not sure if comments were submitted from Miranda on that or not. I'm -- I would have to look. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I had copied the clerk on some questions about that to Miranda earlier today. It was a little later in the day. I'm not sure if she's had time. I just was hoping for an update on that topic. Allen: Yeah. She must not have. I haven't been copied on anything. Strader: Okay. Mr. Mayor, one more. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 20 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 8of81 Strader: I guess a general question for staff. Maybe not necessarily for Sonya. But I'm curious what -- exactly what part of the property is within the five minute response time and what part is not. We could save that for later if we are going to speak to them. Allen: I believe -- is Joe on tonight? Simison: Yes, he is. Allen: Bongiorno. Bongiorno: Yes. Give me just a second. I was just about to pull up the map when you asked about it. Allen: Yeah. It is included in his comments in the -- in the agency comments on the public file. Bongiorno: Yeah. I believe the -- all along the bottom edge of the -- I'm just getting in there right now. Apologize. Okay. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes. Weatherly: I'm happy to add the comments that Miranda e-mailed out, if Liz was unable to see them earlier. Regarding the schools. Simison: You did see a response from Miranda? Weatherly: We do have a response from Miranda talking about the capacity at Rocky Mountain and how they are handling it and what Miranda's take was on it. Simison: Yeah. If you would like to share that with all Council. Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Miranda's e-mail says: From seeing how Rocky Mountain operated pre-COVID and overcapacity and hearing how Mountain View is operating now, I feel safe saying just about over --just about 450 overcapacity is a good enrollment for our high school to sit at. This due to the fact that students travel, change rooms, co-op, et cetera, high schools have more opportunities to get creative with placement than the other two levels. Rocky Mountain, for example, with 1,800 capacity, was above 2,200 before they started having real issues, aside from student parking. Strader: Thank you. Bongiorno: Madam Clerk, if you can allow me to share my screen, I can show the map. Page 21 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 9of81 Weatherly: Mr. Bongiorno, you should have ability now. At the bottom of your screen you should have a green button that says share screen. Bongiorno: Got it. Can you guys see that map now? Okay. So, you can see the -- the -- the slime green is our five minute response time. So, we are just cutting off the bottom edge of the -- the map. Strader: Mr. Mayor, a quick follow up. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And so -- but -- thank you very much. What I was curious about was also -- because of the topography, does it make it so that getting to these other areas is a real challenge or not? Like I don't have a flavor for what this hill looks like, not living in that area, and so does that mean that's like 30 seconds over the five minute fire response or does having this big hill make a huge difference? Just wanted to get your take on it. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, this -- this particular area -- because they did give us good access all along the hillside, the response to the hillside may be, you know, an extra minute, 30 seconds, depending on traffic and weather, but they gave us -- they ran the road along that hillside, as I'm sure Jay will talk about, and that -- that also gives us a buffer as part of the fire plan that we made them submit to the city. So, getting to the hillside shouldn't be an issue for us, it's just that extra time turning the corner, getting around and actually getting to the hillside would be the -- the issue. Obviously, we have -- you know, station eight potentially, is less than a mile away, which would make this whole area green solid once that is up and running. Simison: Council, any further questions for staff? Okay. I see that the applicant has joined us. Mr. Gibbons, if you would like to state your name and address for the record, you will be recognized for ten minutes. Fifteen minutes. Sorry. Gibbons: Can everybody hear me? Okay. First of all I will identify myself. I'm Jay Gibbons. I'm the owner's representative. My address is 2002 South Vista, Boise, Idaho. If you will allow me to share my screen, I will -- I have a presentation. Can you see my presentation okay? Simison: Not yet, Jay. Gibbons: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, pleasure to be before you tonight. Simison: Jay, we don't see it yet. Gibbons: Oh. Simison: Now we see it. Page 22 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 10 of 81 Gibbons: Okay. Are we there now? Simison: Yes. Gibbons: Can you see it okay? Simison: Yes. Gibbons: Okay. So, Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, as staff presented, it's on the south side of Lake Hazel Road. Abuts Boise Ranch on one side, a new subdivision with the Calvary Church, Poiema Subdivision. You have got Hillsdale Park -- Park and South Meridian YMCA half a mile to the -- to the north. So, we are here to ask for annexation into the City of Meridian with R-8 and R-15 zoning classifications. We have got a proposed development of 157 building lots and 35 common lots and a whole lot of amenities, connections, and a whole lot of open space. A total of, you know, almost 41 percent of our 26.34 acres is -- is open space, natural and otherwise. We are proposing a bridge connection over Ten Mile Creek, which provides a secondary access to all future phases after phase one. We also stub to four adjacent properties -- or three adjacent properties and four stubs and we did have a traffic study approved by ACHD, which will require improvements to Lake Hazel, depending on -- you know, what level of improvements depends on how quickly, you know, our development progresses and the timing of that, you know, if it's in conjunction with ACHD's proposed project or if it's in -- it starts before ACHD's project. So, I have laid out here basically the Commission's concerns that we addressed at the September 17th and October 22nd hearing. We did secure a recommendation of approval and with -- with the recommendation that we explore a three -- a three story flat roof product on 32 lots and I will show you where those are in a moment. We tried to come up with a -- with a unique design in order to meet the Comprehensive Plan medium high residential. It calls for a whole lot of density. We had an attached product for the most part. All the R-15 is -- is an attached single family residential lot project. Each -- each home is on a lot and most of the buildings are connected four to five -- three, four or five units -- or lots to a -- to a building. It's phased. We -- we are required to provide a firewise plan, as suggested by the Fire Department. P&Z wanted to see it before they would entertain any kind of motion or a recommendation and so prior to October 22nd we --we prepared a firewise plan. We prepared architectural design guidelines and as staff said, I'm asking for-- the reason I don't have them finalized at the moment is I need Council's input on the three story. We have to come up with a -- with a three story treatment -- a plan that works for the city, so that I can finalize those. They have to be finalized and, you know, codified in the -- in the development agreement. So, we need to figure out where --which direction to go on that. So, that's one outstanding issue. So, this is -- this is our original plan. We did have three public 24 foot streets that abutted the hillside through the P&Z process. They wanted to see more cohesive connected open space and they wanted specifically some open play area. So, like I said, this is -- this is the particular connection points that we were required to -- to put in and -- and we did coordinate with all the owners to the appropriate locations. They line up with the adjacent development plans and it took some time to do that, but it's all been copacetic, which is good. So, our updated site plan -- in the center you will see there Page 23 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 11 of 81 used to be two residential homes in between -- or road four went around it. We took road four out. Took those two units out. We actually moved them -- took a parking lot out, last 14 spaces, and put them over next to the -- the drain on the south side of the bridge access road and that created -- we have open play areas, a passive soccer field, plus we have a tot lot, plus there is the exercise equip -- fitness equipment station in that space and there will be a bike -- bicycle repair station at the same location, because the trail system you see up the natural hillside will be a dirt trail. It will have rest stations on it as well. It will -- as staff said, it is a 58 foot plus high rim to the upper left. We don't have vehicular connection to that and that is our very last phase and we recognize that this will not be developed until the property to the south comes up with a development plan and gets to a phase that provides that connection. There are 30 lots in it. Pedestrian bicycle wise it does connect to and through the rest of the development. Our pedestrian circulation plan, as you can see, all the red is the sidewalks along the roads. They are on both sides of the now 27 foot wide roads that have the three story product, which is between the hill and road three on the southeast portion of the hill, basically, and that is only -- or we are not proposing three story units anyplace else in order to provide a good transition to, you know, neighboring properties. But we have -- we have a whole lot of pedestrian connections, including the multi-use pathway that runs along Ten Mile Creek. So, our two story product, we -- conceptually these are a townhouse project like the River District in Eagle that I was involved in. Very nice variation of colors, textures, materials, timbers and what have you. Roof plains. A lot of windows. It's a very popular product. It's very -- you know, they -- they fill them up just as soon as they could -- they could build them and these ones have -- these ones backup -- they are all reloaded. They backup on a -- on a shared driveway. All the utility connections come in through the -- through the driveway. The front door is on a MEW -- common MEW between the -- between the two buildings and it's a -- it's a very nice product. We also have a two story that's more in the center of the development that is a two car garage. They have 20 by 20 concrete pad driveways and, again, they have multiple colors. They have multiple roof plains and textures and -- and, you know, that we are trying to come up with a really cohesive way to tie all of our product together. Our proposed three story product -- it's 24 -- around 24 foot wide, but they are actually 64 foot lots, but we have a 40 foot depth, which includes a two car garage and the -- the 20-20 parking pads on 27 foot wide roads meets the fire code and these have a combination of flat and single pitch roofs and each unit has a private deck. It's on the top. It's on -- it's on the third floor of the front. It's on the second floor in the back -- back ones. So, you have -- you have decks that look out on a MEW and you also have decks on the -- on the backside on the -- on the roadway side itself and it provides a lot of choice for future residents. Our R-8 product is consistent with the R-15 product type that have, you know, similar colors, textures, roof planes, lots of variety. And all of our -- so, we ask for exceptions to the R-15 setbacks as staff showed you, but R-8 product will conform with the -- with the current city -- the city standard of R-8 setbacks. This is our recreation and fitness plan. It illustrates a three-quarter mile loop, using the multi-use pathway connections around the perimeter along the base of the hill, all the way across. It connects to open space -- usable open space all along the way and the yellow dots are the different fitness stations. We have four of those scattered equidistant, basically, around the development -- or throughout the development. We think it's a -- it's a very -- we are marketing to, you know, a new generation fitness based Page 24 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 12 of 81 and recreation based and -- and we have got a lot of opportunity on this -- this unique site, this unique layout for development. So, to get back to the fencing question, condition 3-D speaks to fencing along the -- along the creek. City standard, as the former pathway manager didn't require fences along the creeks themselves, we ran into issues with irrigation districts tearing them up when they were trying to clean out their ditches on occasion and the city's responsible for -- for, you know, repairs at that point. Want to avoid that. So, as a creative solution we believe we still need a fence between public and private space, so we are providing -- we are proposing a five foot wrought iron style fence that goes between every building and, you know, that-- so, that the driveway--the shared driveway has a -- has a fence setback in -- from the end of the driveway, so you have the landscape buffer between fence and the driveway itself and, then, there is -- there is still a five foot strip at least to the -- that will be landscaped along the pathway itself and, then, there are gates across the MEWs -- there are fences with gates across the MEWs that will allow our -- our residents, future homeowners, to access the multi-use pathway, but still limit public access into their private space and -- and so I'm going to ask for Council's dispensation to say, okay, you don't have to put a fence along the canal side of the pathway itself, because we are going to fence the entire length of the pathway on the private side anyways. So, as I have spoke, we were talking about the architectural design guidelines. Those will be integrated in the CC&Rs, enforced by the HOA, reviewed by the development's future architectural review board. Those haven't been finalized, like I said, because we don't have an agreed upon -- with the city anyways -- as far as what the three story form of that building is going to be. So, those -- I have some modifications to make to that before I can actually submit those and incorporate them into the development agreement. We did provide a draft wildland urban interface fire safety plan. It's a draft, because, again, we need a development plan to be finalized, so that I can augment what I have proposed as a draft and include specific plant materials, building materials, and what have you that will be on the buildings to -- to -- to create that defensible space and setback between the hillside -- the base of the hillside and the homes themselves, plus how -- to set the terms for long term maintenance by the HOA annually, semi-annually it could be -- you know, it could be monthly. But we don't want to -- if we irrigate the hillside, you end up with increased, you know, vegetation. That's -- that's more fuel load -- fire fuel load. So, you know, we are -- we want to -- we want to be safe all the way around and so it will -- it needs to be approved by Meridian Fire, the final iteration, and it, too, will be integrated into the CC&RS and the design review or the design guidelines themselves. So, here are some perspectives that I prepared. They are real scale. The buildings don't show color, because we -- we -- we want the feel of the community more so than -- than just trying to sell the current colors of that -- of the homes and the textures and the materials themselves. So, what it shows that, you know, we do have the Ten Mile Creek that runs the entire east border of the property. We have looked at these pathways and you can see that they are --just in the distance is the 58 foot rim. There are some -- some homes proposed up there for scale. Back here in the corner these are the only 32 -- these are the only three stories. There are 32 three story lots. Everything else is a two story product. This is our entrance. Future right of way -- right of way improvements that will be landscaped and augmented and we will have a -- you know, we will have a sign. We will have to come back for a sign permit for a sign. So, this -- in the lower left corner -- yeah, lower left corner is our shared driveways, basically. Page 25 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 13 of 81 Well, actually, this is the alley itself. So, you can see you got the alley and you have the parking pads, two car garages, and -- and, you know, it's -- we want to have landscape between the driveways as well. So, it's not just a sea of asphalt or concrete for that matter. And, then, this is looking down a MEW in the -- in the lower right corner. Looking at the MEW and you can see it's actually larger than -- than you think it is and it will be very nicely landscaped. And, then, in the upper left corner we show the new three story product and this is the -- the two story product. You have just on the right side of that two story product is where the new open space that we put in with the tot lot and the open play area. You can see that the three story -- even three story is still really commiserate with the -- with the top of-- the roof on a two story is. So, it's not like a big scale issue. It blends and will work out pretty good and in the -- in the upper right corner you can see the open play area. We will leave the trees on the perimeter. We have a tot lot and, then, we have some different views from different aspects that -- down from the bridge looking at the hill, that's -- that's -- you can see the three story houses are still way below what the elevation of the top of the ridge is. They are kind of hidden. It's a great place to have a different product. With that, you know, we feel our proposal complies with the comp plan, it complies with the development code. It's compatible with existing and planned future developments in the vicinity. We have Lake Hazel is a mobility corridor. That's why on the Comprehensive Plan, the future land use map, it's -- it's projected to be medium high residential because of the mobility corridor and we are trying to meet that standard and provide a development that isn't multi-family, it's single family. That's what we -- what we want to hang our hat on. We have neighborhood -- we have street connection to the neighboring -- neighboring properties. We provide exceptional recreational opportunities and open space and we provide a unique housing type that gets to the next generation. So, with that I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you, Jay. Council, any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you for being here this evening, Jay. That was a -- a well -- excuse me -- a very well done presentation. Thank you. Appreciate that. I have three -- three questions for you if I may and you can -- or you can respond to them -- I'm sorry, I have a frog in my throat tonight. Excuse me. You can respond to them in whatever order you prefer. The first one is -- is just curious about why this -- this level of density in this location. I have seen a few of these types of properties in south Boise that are not -- not close to services and this one as well. It's not really going to be within walking distance of services. We have a really good idea of what's going in surrounding this property and I'm just curious why this -- this level of density somewhere where there is -- it's walkable within the development itself, but it's really not walkable, you know, outside of it, with the exception of maybe going up to the YMCA and just --just want to know your thoughts on that, what--was it just the geography and the challenges of the property itself that caused this amount of density to go in? I guess I'm just trying to -- there is something about it that -- that makes me feel like it doesn't quite fit in this location. So, I'm trying to reconcile Page 26 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 14 of 81 that. And, secondly, also curious about concerns regarding parking. So, I noticed on the maps that some of these units are going to be over 2,000 square feet and in the -- in the application present -- the application letter, the summary that was sent, it says that this is well suited for young professionals and empty nesters. So, I guess I'm trying to just understand a four bedroom, 2,200 square foot home, that fits that type of demographic and if -- you know, if it's the young professional and they have two or three roommates that also have vehicles, where do we put four vehicles and that kind of thing, especially on -- in the units that don't even have a 20 by 20 driveway. And, then, my third question is who is regulating the parking concerns on private roads? So, I would anticipate that the homeowners association is doing so, but what -- you know, what is going to be established, what's going to be put in place if, you know, a neighbor with a three-quarter ton parks in front of my house and I'm getting ready to leave for work kind of thing. I think that question is probably -- probably pretty clear. So, if you wouldn't mind answering those, I appreciate it. Gibbons: You bet. Mr. Mayor, Council Person Perreault, so first question as far as density is concerned and why -- why we have this much density is -- is, like I said, Lake Hazel is a mobility corridor. It's the only road on the south side of the freeway that connects from Gowen Road all the way to Robinson Road in Nampa and so also, you know, it's -- the city's Comprehensive Plan drove this -- this density at this point and it's been asked as to why, but -- but it's because it's a mobility corridor and so that you could get more density if you went to multi-family homes or multi-family apartments, but we want to bring families here. We want to bring, you know, young -- young people that don't have families that come -- I'm over 55, 1 would like one of these potentially. I'm tired mowing two acres of lawn at this point in my life, but -- so, the density was -- was driven by the city's wishes to have a higher density in -- in this particular location, as between, you know, basically, the three properties, you have got the church property that has a plan, our property, and the property to the -- to the west of us, those properties are all in the medium high density district according to the comp plan and if we proposed single family eight or ten thousand square foot residences, we can -- we couldn't comply with the -- with the comp plan. It would be same ol, same ol, basically. But we wanted to provide a unique style for a different lifestyle and, you know, the site is quite challenged typography, as well as -- you know, you have got the Ten Mile drain and it's 50 plus easement, it's entirely--our property line is on the east side of the ditch. It's all across our property. Can't develop in the floodplain. It does have a floodplain. And so it's just challenging. But this is -- this is where -- where we found a happy medium to work within the city's comp plan and with staff in order to make this development work within code. As -- as far as your question parking wise, yes, that -- that original -- my original narrative was based on the plan that we had. We had a ton of parking lots all along the base of the hill there. There was parking where the -- the three roads were, four or five and six, that now there is two that are around the three stories. We -- Planning and Zoning Commission wanted to see more green space and we didn't need that level of parking per se, plus we added a new product type that had -- that had, you know, driveways and they actually -- you know, they have doors to enter off the product type -- you can get in -- you know, guests can come in through the -- the door off the driveway, as well as the front door off the MEW. So, I think we have a happy medium. We do have -- we have parking all along the -- the 33 foot Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 15 of 81 road, which is the major road that runs kind of southeast or northwest. But also to that -- there are no private roads. They are all public roads. We do have alleys and we do have shared driveways. But all the roadways are public roads. So, the HOA isn't -- isn't who is going to drive the parking requirements. ACHD has also required that we -- we have no parking signs in particular locations to ensure that shared driveways don't get blocked or that people don't park on the 27 foot roads. There is no parking on the roads around the -- around the three story units themself. So, we really -- when we first developed this concept we -- we -- because of what we saw in Eagle, didn't require a lot of parking, we wanted to add a lot of parking, so we purposely made wider roads and have parking less to do that. We -- we changed the plan, because the Planning and Zoning Commission asked us to. And, actually, you know, it was an improvement. So, did I answer all your questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Yes, I believe so. Thank you so much. I know I threw a lot at you. So, I -- yeah. Just, you know, we -- as you know, federal requirements don't allow -- don't allow property -- real estate to be marketed to a particular demographic and so you have to just kind of be prepared for whatever type of individual or family wants to purchase in an area. So, I always want to make sure that we have covered all of the possible issues. So, thank you very much. Gibbons: That's why we added the tot lot as well, because you don't know who your future market will be. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: A couple questions for Mr. Gibbons. Jay, are there any 20-by-18 driveways that -- that remain? I know that was an issue. Are they all 20-by-20, which I think is the required size? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, yes, all -- all -- all the driveway parking pads are 20- by-20. Hoaglun: Great. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And the other question -- Gibbons: Originally -- originally some of them were drawn at 18-by-20 and staff pointed that out. So, when we updated the plan there was -- everything's 20-by-20. Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 16 of 81 Hoaglun: Great. Thank you. And follow up, if you might, Jay. On the single family site on top of the hill, I think I heard Sonya mention that that hillside is, you know, a 40 percent slope, which is -- which is quite steep and, of course, with homes up against that there is that out of sight, out of mind mentality. Is -- is the homeowners association going to be in charge of preventing dumping or having homeowners clean up if they want to dump grass and leaves and trash over the back fence going down the hill, which also represents a fire hazard, but how will that be enforced? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, that -- yes, that is -- that is part of the CC&Rs, as well as the firewise plan, which will be part of the CC&Rs. There won't be any dumping and the HOA is certainly responsible to enforce those. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Jay. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Jay, great seeing you. Appreciate you being here tonight. Interesting presentation. Interesting product. I'm hoping you can talk a little bit about kind of the phasing plan, recognizing phase four is -- is somewhat required on the connection piece, but in terms of phases one, two, and three, how quickly do you or your -- your employer plan to start building? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, so, yes, the R-8, the fourth phase, that is entirely dependent on others. We are -- we are not in a hurry for that. We can -- we can only develop phase one, which is basically from Lake Hazel down around the loop -- the first loop there, that's our phase one. Can't go beyond that until we have secondary access, which -- which means building a bridge across the creek and so initially, you know, we are going to turn around and get a final plat together and -- and -- and move on -- on phase one as -- as fast as we can. Also one other challenge with Ten Mile Creek in the floodplain is that until the development to the north -- Brighton replaces that culvert across the road and -- and that culvert is intended to reduce the flood potential, that's -- that's the -- that's what backs up at the moment and drains like so many other culverts throughout the city on Five Mile Creek and Ten Mile Creek and others. Until a LOMAR is adopted, you know, that -- that's a -- that's a process, it's -- it's underway, but it's going to take some time before we can build anything, even in phase one, along the creek itself. So, we are limited by a lot of neighboring development at the same time and so, you know, as much as I would like to say, yeah, we would like to build it out in the next five years, is that feasible given all the pieces falling into place. Maybe not. We might have to stop a little bit, but, you know, we are prepared for it. My -- my owner and developer are very interested in specifically the product type and the potential for what it brings to the area and so that's -- you know, they would love to build it as fast as they could, but we will see -- we will see how it shakes out. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 17 of 81 Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jay, being real frank, if you guys are slower on this it makes me feel better. I think the product type is really unique. I do have just some concerns about firestorms to the slope. Without a doubt the impact on the schools. Obviously, we know we have got some roadway improvements that are coming down the pipe, but to be able to get a good sense about what this looks like calendar wise for you is helpful. Gibbons: Councilman Cavener, one thing about the schools, too, is that they came out in -- in the first hearing is that technically there are two schools, one on Lake Hazel to the west and one someplace -- and I'm not sure that it's the high school on Amity, but there are two -- two schools in the pipeline to be built already. I don't know the exact locations, but that -- that takes some of the heat off as far as schools are concerned. The road improvements -- as you know road improvements only come with development anyways, but there are -- there are a number of improvements that we have because of the traffic study that we -- that we conducted and had approved by ACHD. There is a number of improvements that we are going to have to do as part of the development plan anyway. Including, a bunch of right of way, but -- but improving the road itself is one of them. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you very much, Mr. Gibbons. We -- in the past the city has had several areas that have been redesignated into federal floodplains and it's caused a big headache with homeowners. Certainly with their ability to improve their properties to get out of a flood just really has caused some bad situations. Can you give us a feeling for what kind of construction you are imagining? Are you going to be grading this? Like how are you going to handle the proximity to Ten Mile? And, then, I guess maybe a follow-up question to what Mr. Cavener is asking -- or just a statement. I'm of the same mindset. Schools are really far over capacity and like a source of frustration for me is that I don't think we are building in a projection on the absorption of the students that we have already approved in developments that are coming up and so I look at this like 400 overcapacity to me may not be a realistic number. Would you be comfortable limiting your phasing in some way or agreeing to develop in certain phases, you know, at different milestones, maybe along with our Fire Department, or something along those lines that would give us some assurance about when each phase will happen? Gibbons: Mayor, Councilman -- or Council Person Strader, as far as the floodplain is concerned and improvements to the property itself, part of -- so, we have got to treat our -- our -- our storm drainage on site and that means that the -- that the runway has to be three foot above the highest groundwater. We do have high groundwater, so we are going to have to raise -- we are going to have to do a lot of raising of the site as well. It's going to also help our future homebuilding efforts as far as getting them out of the floodplain. So, those things will be addressed when our -- our engineer starts his work on the -- on the final plat itself for constructing utilities and what have you. But, you know, that's -- Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 18 of 81 that's one of the challenges. There is also -- you know, there is -- the geotech report pointed out, you know, we have high groundwater and we have -- it's been historically pasture and so there is -- there is going to have to be a lot of -- a lot of grading to shore up the structural stability of the soil itself, too. So, as far as grading and the floodplain is concerned, when it's all said and done we will have adequately protected our future residents from the flood --floodplain,. Future improvements across Ten Mile will certainly help that as well and we also want to play -- play well with -- with our neighbors and our future residents, our neighboring properties and the city at large. Remind me what your second question was. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I was curious if you would be open to tying your development agreement to like some type of a phasing plan in terms of timing. At least that would make me feel more comfortable. I can only speak as one Council person here. If all these homes were delivered within a year I would be extremely uncomfortable. I don't think that's your plan. But I would be really uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable from a fire perspective, first and foremost, like the five minute safety thing to me is kind of a hard line. I have been having a very hard time going past that five minute marker. I just feel like if we are making exceptions all the time what's the point of having a standard and so if you could tie your phasing to fire access and we are building a new fire station, that might make me feel better or if you wanted to just create some type of milestones of when you are going to build each phase over time. For me it's really schools and fire are my number one concerns. And, then, just in general this location. You have got the wildfire risk. You have got the floodplain. You know, hats off to you, you have certainly got grit, you are not afraid of the -- of the biblical risks of this location, but I -- yeah, I -- I -- I have faith that you can figure those things out. Your answer previously gave me some comfort. But I just -- I do have concerns in general about the location as well, so -- Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Council Person Strader, so a development agreement is somewhat a negotiation between the city and a property owner-developer that guides that development and -- and I believe that -- that we can -- we can certainly work with the city to come up with a phasing or milestones or whatever that takes. I don't know what those are and -- and it may be a moving target a little bit, but we can -- we can certainly sit down and -- and we can figure that out. It's a -- it's a challenging sight all by itself, so -- so, making so much adjustments to the -- to the phasing plan and, you know, building pattern and what have you, yeah, by all means. Let's do it. Strader: Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 19 of 81 Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Gibbons, for stating that. I agree with Councilman Strader's concerns. They are the same exact concerns I had as I was reviewing this preparing for the meeting and I would also be very much in favor of a phasing plan. I realize you can't give specific dates, you don't know that yet, but just have a general idea of a timeline that might meet some of what the city is already working on in terms of providing services to that area. Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Council Person Perreault, yeah, that's -- you know, I'm not familiar at the moment with what the status of Fire Station No. 8 is or, you know, the school plan or, you know, the school's funding plan, which is always a wild card in everything, too. But, yeah, if we can -- if we can, you know, sit down and share some information and we have worked very closely with --with Fire Chief Bongiorno to date getting to this point and his -- his comments and his direction helped us, you know, lay out the roads and the phasing in the first place. So, between staff, Council, and Fire Department and whatever we can -- we can certainly, you know, come up with some guidelines. Simison: Jay, just out of curiosity, the -- what impact, if any, is there if you are never able to develop phase four from the --what is offered to the residents here? You -- as you said before, you have no control over the access based on the --whatever develops up on the north side and while -- or, I'm sorry, in the south up on the bluff, but let's say that's 30 years out before that property ever develops just for whatever reason, how does that impact this development in your opinion? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, as far as the R-8 itself is concerned and because of the access challenges for that matter -- and there is no existing home up there at the moment. Granted that access will be cut off, because it comes down a massive cut and fill graded road down to Lake Hazel and, you know, access through another neighboring property, you know, a driveway into a driveway, basically, is certainly possible and until that point -- if it never develops, if-- it is not make or break for the rest of the development plan. It is --what we really show from the -- and the reason we have R-8 up there in the first place is because that's kind of what the exist --what the potential development -- we have been through two developers and two different developments -- three different development plans for that south properly to date just getting to this point and they have been before us and ahead of us in the -- in the -- in the city process twice and I found out tonight they have been withdrawn again. So, you know, that -- that top of the hill can sit, it's got -- it's got the existing house that could remain in perpetuity for that matter. Simison: But from a practical -- Gibbons: But we have a plan. If-- if we get access we have a plan on what -- you know, what this piece of property can become. Simison: But from a practical standpoint HOA costs, amenities, none of that is -- how much of that, to your knowledge, would be impacted? None? Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 20 of 81 Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, not -- not a whole lot. You see that -- you know, there -- there are three or four pieces of open space connections and, really, if nobody lives up there and all we have is an existing house up there, we don't necessarily have the connections that -- that -- that need to go to the roads per se, we could -- you could simply -- you could actually, you know, connect the trail across and it wouldn't -- it wouldn't impact it. So, it's not a huge expense to -- to the -- to the homeowners association beyond, you know, maybe vegetation control to the -- to the existing vegetation, as well as the native vegetation that's up around the house itself, so -- Simison: Okay. Thank you. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: I was just going to follow up with what Jay was saying. If -- if that property isn't developed, it still has to be maintained by the fire code. So, they can't just let it run rampant with weeds or anything like that. Code Enforcement wouldn't allow it and it would -- it would have to be maintained, especially in this area with that hillside, we would -- we would want to make sure the hillside and that upper area are taken care of via the fire plan. That plan would just include that area until it's developed. Simison: Okay. Thank you. That was kind of what I was getting to is if you remove those homes from an HOA perspective cost, amenity element, how does that impact the rest of the plan for the people that are going to live there. Costs and maintain elements that -- just curious. It is buyer beware as always when -- with what those costs are, but -- Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, I don't believe that it would be cost prohibitive to maintain them. Basically the R-8 on top of the bluff from -- you know, from a fire perspective, vegetation control and what have you, that's -- that's -- compared to what's happening on the valley floor and amount of green space and manicured lawns and things that are down around the homes and stuff, minimal maintenance on top of the hill from -- from that perspective is -- is -- I don't have -- I can't give you a dollar figure, but it's not -- it's not a big amount. Provides more open space. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor. Confirmation on the -- on the fence along the waterway on the east boundary. Did you -- Jay, just remind me. Did you say that you were going to put up a fence or not? Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 21 of 81 Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, we are going to have a fence on the -- on the -- on the home side all along Ten Mile. We are proposing not to put a fence on the other side -- Bernt: Okay. Gibbons: -- next to the waterway itself. Most of the -- the rest of the city's pathways -- existing pathways that run along the drains and creeks are our natural flowing, low volume, and you will see -- typically you will have fences at the -- you know, the backs of the residential lots that backup to the pathway, but there isn't another -- another fence between the waterway and the pathway. I know of one instance where there is and the irrigation district hates it, because they got to reach across it and it tears everything up, it's in the way, and so we -- we -- we still want a fence, but we want to separate the you know, the -- the residential lot owners, the homeowners, private -- quasi-public private, you know, MEWs and what have you from the public pathway itself. So, it will still be fenced for safety reasons, but -- Bernt: One last question for you, Jay. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: You had requested that final design guidelines for the development be considered after this meeting this -- tonight and I think you answered the question of why that was the case. Do you need any further guidance in regard to that from -- from this body or are you comfortable with some -- do you have what you need to submit if -- if-- if there is no changes at all? And, if so, do you have what that looks like? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, my issue with not having them at this point was we didn't have a three story product that -- that the city had voiced any support for previously, other than, you know, a concept and so I kind of needed to hear from Council as to whether -- you know, if you hated the elevations for the three -- three story product that we presented or, you know, the two story product or the similar three story product that we presented tonight that you saw from staff, then, you know, back to the drawing board there, then, we kind of got to hold onto the design guidelines, but unless you have -- have serious heartburn over -- over what we presented, then, yeah, we can go -- have that information and go forward and pull it all together. I have to come back with a development agreement anyway. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Gibbons, I -- I like the elevations of the three story. Could you give us just -- I apologize, I don't know the background of -- I did read that the -- that the Commission was in favor of that, but can you give us some further insight into how that benefits the whole development in terms of does it allow for additional space for -- if I understood from Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 22 of 81 your comment earlier that this will have a 20-by-20 driveway on these products; is that right? Where it didn't have that on the -- on the two stories? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman -- Perreault: What's the benefits of this versus the other? Gibbons: Yes. So -- and this is -- so, code requires you have, you know, 85 feet -- or 80 feet of, you know, private open space where each -- each lot -- which typically consists of a stoop or a patio on the MEW or what have you and we showed a concept -- we showed three concepts of a three -- with three different products at P&Z and they really liked the potential to have a three story unit that had, you know, a private elevated deck space and so we reached out to an architecture consultant to work with this over the past couple of weeks to put together some -- some new concepts and this is kind of what she came up with and it's -- it's an interesting product and it does have the private deck space elevated up on a roof and, you know, we can work in the similar design elements and materials and treatments, colors, what have you in the design guidelines just to make these and the two story all fit together and so, you know, that's what we were trying to accomplish and they do have -- they do have two car garages and they do have -- because they are only 40 feet deep, the buildings themselves, and, then, I have room on a 65 foot lot to put a 20 by 20 parking pad. So, I have -- you know, I have now a four -- a four bedroom, three story house, basically, because I have four parking spaces or I can have less bedrooms and have guest parking on my property for that matter. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe just a comment. I really like the three story. I -- it's a -- it's a different product than we usually get here. I like that it's tucked in on the ridge. I think that -- that kind of makes it a little easier. It does block people's views. Generally like having a different kind of product. So, that -- that aspect I do like. Yeah. I -- I'm in favor personally of that look. Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we had four people sign in, none of which indicated a wish to testify. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody that would like to testify on this item --we have nobody in the -- in the room, but if you are on the Zoom line and you would like to testify, please, use the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the zoom platform, so that we can identify you and bring you in to provide testimony. And if you are on the phone you can use star Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 23 of 81 nine to unmute yourself and be brought in to be able to provide testimony on this item as well. Council, it appears we have no one who would like to testify on this item. So, would the applicant like to make any final comments? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, I -- I will stand on our discussion and my -- my presentation and comments earlier. Hopefully I addressed your concerns and your questions appropriately. And other than, you know, the condition 3-D with the -- with the -- requiring a fence on the path -- on the creek side of the pathway and the DA requirement, we have no issues with the rest of the conditions. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Jay, would you recommend that we modify conditioned 3-D, rather than eliminate it, but modify the language to account for what you described in your presentation? There is wrought iron fencing, it's just not located -- but to change that language to capture what you have presented? Gibbons: Councilman Borton, that -- that is what I would propose is to modify 3-D, but but modify it to accept the wrought iron style fencing five foot -- and it's detailed on the on the landscape and fencing plan. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And to that point, you know, as -- in our neighborhood we have the Five Mile Creek and the pathway system that runs along there and -- and there is no comparison -- from what I recall from being out in that area, you know, that has lots of weeds and cattails and different things and Five Mile is -- is a flowing, deeper type of waterway and we don't require any fencing of any sort between the pathway and that waterway. Again, to Jay's point, the irrigation district doesn't like it and it kind of separates you from that -- from that -- that part that makes it nice being along water and kids play down there and whatnot -- and I wouldn't let really young kids play down there, but -- so, I don't see the need to have that fencing when we don't require it under waterways that are faster flowing and deeper. So, I think that makes sense to me if we just go to a condition that notates the wrought iron fencing that would be in place there. And I don't have any issues, I don't think, with the inclusion of the design for -- for the DA after looking at that. You know, that's a matter of taste, do you like modern, do not like it, but having something like that -- I think Council Woman Strader, you know, put it well, but the location and how it fits the typography and whatnot and -- and that makes sense. So, I don't have any issues with that either. Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 24 of 81 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Maybe a question for Sonya about the fence requirement from staff. Can you just give us a little bit of background as to what germinated that requirement? Allen: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, it is a -- it -- it's a requirement in our code that if we feel it needs to protect public safety -- preserve public safety that fencing be provided. I didn't want it to be my call, but code calls it out as a director -- a Public Works director or the City Council decision. Simison: And just in that area, I can tell you that it's hit or miss further downstream or upstream as you flow up through Tuscany where we have sections which have no fencing requirement, but the homes have fences and further down where you have a fence between the pathway and the waterway in other sections. So, it's not a consistently applied principle in this area one way or the other. Along Ten Mile anyways. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Question maybe for--for Sonya. If we decide to work on some kind of a phasing plan --you know, I'm not sure what that would look like. It sounded like a couple of Council Members might be in favor of that. How would staff recommend that we achieve that? Would it be best to do that at a later development agreement and have Council give guidance or how -- how would they recommend that we go about doing that? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Council, you know, if Council wants to weigh in on it the project should be continued probably. The issue is, as I understand it, the Fire Department doesn't have funding as of yet to construct the fire station. So, I -- I think it's going to be a difficult thing to do. As well as for the school enrollment to know how to phase the project at this point based on those concerns. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess I would be curious to get the Fire Department's feedback on when they think the new fire station would be delivered at the earliest, assuming it did get funding, in order to have a -- you know, put some guardrails around an idea. Personally -- I'm just throwing an idea out there and maybe get the applicant's feedback. I mean if we said, you know, we don't want more than one phase delivered per year, would that be something they would be amenable to? So, I guess I would look for feedback from both the Fire Department and the applicant. Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 25 of 81 Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, the -- the tentative -- if everything was to move forward with --we have the design going right now for seven and eight. If they were funded and staffed, I believe Chief Butterfield told me that it would be later in 2023 when they could be up and running. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I certainly don't want this conversation to get into the weeds or to, you know, funding of different fire stations and when --when those stations might happen and if they don't happen. I don't -- I just want to say that I don't -- I don't believe that those decisions have been made and I believe that those decisions will be made this next year. I don't even think that there is decisions that have been made -- concrete decisions that have been made in regard to where seven and eight will be. I know that staff continues to call station eight in south Meridian and -- and station seven in north Meridian, but those decisions haven't been made yet and so I think it's real important that we take pause before we start, you know, preemptively talking about where fire stations may or may not be or -- or if these fire stations will even be built. So, I think that having this discussion right now in regard to fire stations is -- is very much premature. I don't know how you could -- I don't know how we could answer those questions right now personally. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Well, I think that's a great point and I think that's what I'm feeling uncomfortable about and what I can't really wrap my head around. I guess what I'm wondering that if there is even a precedent for City Council approving a phase of a project without annexing the whole thing or how we could go about trying to -- trying to do that. I -- I'm open to all ideas and being creative. I totally agree with Councilman Bernt. I just -- I'm trying to find a way to get to a yes and I -- I'm just uncomfortable right now with the idea that we could have this, you know, three -- three phases of this project with what I think are different risks than usual, different topography than usual, three story buildings and possibly be outside of the five minutes. I -- I'm just -- I wish there was a way we could try to address it. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question maybe for Mr. Nary. Mr. Nary, if the Council was supportive, could we approve this project, but include a limit on building permits being issued until either a date certain or until a fire station -- again, whatever -- whatever the reason Council decided was -- was established. Are we able to do that? Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 26 of 81 Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, well, certainly if the -- if the applicant is going to agree to that we can. I mean if that's a condition of a development agreement and they won't agree to it they won't sign it and, then, we won't annex the property. The one thing I want to caution the Council on is -- and Council Member Strader made this comment -- this is not a fire department standard, it's a fire department goal and it is a goal that is met and not met all over the city for various reasons and so it's -- it would concern me if that was the sole reason you didn't like this project. It doesn't sound like it is. But I want to be sure that I make it clear that it's got to be more than just this five minute goal that we have. Is it in the best interest of the city if you can't provide fire protection to the degree that you all are comfortable with from a public safety standpoint. So, that's just the difference between that. So, the limitation -- again, as Councilman Cavener is asking, we can do that. I don't know -- I'm not sure how to do it. I'm not sure what metric we would put in a -- in a contract that would be something that the applicant would be comfortable with, too, because, again, they would, then, be putting their risk on the city's building program. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, on that point, when we -- when Jay and I were working on this phasing plan, phase one -- and I don't know if you want to show them, Jay, which area that is for the first phase. That -- that's that big chunk that falls within our five minute response time. Our goal, as the Mayor -- Mayor stated -- or Treg mentioned. Basically I call it the racetrack. That -- that horseshoe area is -- is the area that's in phase one that I was comfortable with with the access that we had. The other part of the -- the factor that we need to look at was the reliability rating of Station 4, which right now is -- other than Station 1 is one of our lower reliability rating -- rated stations and, then, on top of that the next closest fire station is Station 14 in Boise and they have the exact same reliability rating that Station 4 does. So, they are really not a whole bunch of help, but we are in that same boat there. So, that's what I would be looking at as far as phasing goes. Again, like -- like Treg said, this is -- this is -- it's a goal and that's the goal -- or sorry. Bill Nary mentioned it's a goal and we like to keep that goal and, then, on top of that we also look at our reliability rating of the station. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I mean to elaborate on my comments, I don't think that there is something written in stone that says if you are outside of five minutes it's a red light and if you are inside of five minutes it's a green light, but I think as a responsible member of City Council that we should have adequate fire services and to me I personally am looking at it through a framework of a fire response time and so that's just how I'm looking at it and I'm planning to stick to it. Simison: And just so -- from a practical -- or from a -- you all will see this at some point in time in the not too distant future, but from a CFP standpoint, first station is 2023, which would be October of'23. Second station is 2025, which would be October 25, where they are, to Councilman Bernt's point, not determined, whether or not they meet those years, Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 27 of 81 undetermined, but if they both want the same time October 23 would be your general expected time frame. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: My thoughts on -- on fire response times and -- and to me it comes down to access, which I think Deputy Chief Bongiorno has pointed out, you know, phase one has access, it has emergency access, and, then, from there it is dependent upon other property owners on what that access and the timing of that access will be and if those things aren't developed and -- and hearing from the applicant that this is going to take a while for these phases to be developed, you know, I think comments from Council Woman Strader and Councilman Cavener about that helps, you know, that -- that does help with everything that is going on with roads, with schools, with fire stations, that timing. The difficulty is -- and I appreciate Council Woman Strader's enthusiasm to try and let's quantify that and see if we can make that work. In my mind as I try to work -- work it through, it -- it's exceedingly difficult and I don't know if we can come to anything that would be satisfactory when it's based on other properties and access and having that safety factor of getting vehicles in and out to respond to an emergency. So, I'm more reliant on how this phases out over time and having that ability to respond appropriately in having -- with having the right access. So, less so than -- than being right there at five minutes, but having that access and that ability to respond. Simison: Just to also comment on one other thing, that I -- I am meeting with the superintendent this week. I know that they have activated a full-time boundary committee and one of the questions I plan on bringing -- bringing up with her is what is going to be their threshold for determining when those boundary committees should re-adjust school boundaries, because I think to the point that part of this is -- we have had this conversation. The school district controls some aspects of, you know, the overcrowding at any school or development based on adjusting their boundaries, but what is their willingness to do so and how does that impact these decisions. But that may be something that we can -- I can get at least some direction from them on that in the future. So, you -- Council has a comfort level of making approvals when schools are already overcrowded to know how the district or when the district plans to look at those and make those adjustments. I don't think that there is an overcrowding amongst -- there is -- there is still seats within high schools within West Ada that they would not be over enrollment at the high school level to my knowledge. But I will try to get at least some guidance for future conversations. It doesn't help you today, but just so you are aware. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: One last question from me. This question is for Chief Bongiorno. Question for you, buddy. So, at the end where the -- where the boundary stops, where our five minute Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 28 of 81 goal is in phase one, how long would it take to get a firetruck at the furthest point in the subdivision? Are we talking 20 seconds, 30 seconds, ten seconds? What is that -- and I'm not even talking about phase four, that's a completely different conversation that I don't even know howyou would be able to quantify that right now, butjust thinking -- sorry, Luke. I know what you want. I can read your mind. From section one, two and three, at the end of phase one how long would it take to get a firetruck to -- like end of phase three? Is that better, Luke? Can you hear me? Cavener: Maybe the rim is a good -- I think a good example. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, it would probably be like another minute, minute and a half. I mean, again, it's -- it all varies on weather and -- you know, it's a variable number. Like that's a total guess, but I would guess another minute, minute and a half over the road running code. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, one follow up. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Chief, we are talking about more than a minute, though, for sure. I mean we are not talking about ten or 15 or 20 seconds. We are not talking seconds, we are talking -- we are talking over a minute; is that correct? Bongiorno: Yeah. Probably another minute, minute and a half. Bernt: Okay. Bongiorno: Yeah. And, then, the whole reason -- sorry. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt. The whole reason we did phase one where it was was because I was comfortable with the access and, then, phase two, that's where that bridge would have to come in and so we would have to see at what -- where the construction is on the -- the project that was approved to the east of there, because they have to have that access completed before they can build phase two and three. So, that -- that is a condition of them building phase two and three from me was they have to have that bridge built and access completed. So, they are kind of stuck there until that bridge is built. Simison: Deputy Chief, not to question your judgment, but -- I mean this is less than a quarter mile from -- I mean I'm looking like a -- maybe an eighth of a mile -- 700 feet. You are saying it takes us a minute to a minute and a half to drive 700 feet at code? Bongiorno: Well, you -- you have to remember a minute I think what is appropriate, but you are also -- you are looking for addresses. You are trying to find -- you are trying to read street signs. I mean it's not just -- and stop. You slow down as you get closer, because you got to try and figure out where you are going. Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 29 of 81 Simison: Right. Deputy Chief, I guess my point -- you would be doing that at the top of this horseshoe -- the same equation exists where ever you are going to stop. Bongiorno: True. Simison: So, if you -- but if you are only driving another 700 feet, you are transitioning that decision 700 feet down the road -- I guess that's my -- when I look at it it's like is that really accurate that it takes us that long to drive 700 additional feet down a straight road. Bongiorno: Like I said, it was a guess. Simison: Yeah. Okay. Bongiorno: So, a minute. It's going to take time and it's not -- it's not -- it's not seconds, I can tell you that. It's probably about a minute to get down that road farther. Again, you got to look at traffic, you got to look at weather. There is variables that are unknown. Plus the other thing we have to look at is if Station 4 is not in quarters, then, it's -- it's a moot point anyway. Simison: Correct. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I just wanted to make sure that my microphone worked. Simison: I'm looking for any motions or additional conversation from Council. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't know how much more conversation we want to have, but I'm happy to at least kind of share where I am on this is I really like the concept, I really like the project, I just have some real general concerns about the impact of this project in this part of Meridian right now. So, as it's presented I'm not supportive of it at this time. I don't know how the rest of you all feel, but we are all quiet, so I figured -- if others feel differently, I'm really open to hearing some of that feedback and maybe seeing something differently that I'm not. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 30 of 81 Borton: Been somewhat quiet. I appreciate the dialogue. It's a project that I haven't had in prep for today and nothing today necessarily changed it, a concern that would lead me to not want to move forward and approve it. I think all of the discussion is well taken for sure, but it seems to certainly fit with the type of plan that we intended there, the -- the comp plan, the future land use map. I thought the diversity of housing, I thought it was unique and creative and I thought that the applicant seemed to respond well to P&Z's concerns. I asked a question about the fencing, which I thought was an adequate remedy there and -- and having staff address the design guidelines through the DA didn't cause me any particular concerns. So, it doesn't mean that -- that the concerns raised aren't valid concerns, but I just felt like the applicant met what's necessary for this project in my eyes to proceed. So, I -- I didn't have concern with it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I think it's been a good discussion. There is a lot of issues here and all of the comments are valid and worthy of consideration. We wrestle with this quite a bit in a lot of different locations and it's -- they aren't easy decisions, because the points are -- are very valid. You know, I do look at this site with that phasing plan and thinking, okay, that -- that is what works for here and this is a difficult site to develop with the -- where it is up against the hill, with the Ten Mile Creek and the issues that are with that, and will we get something better down the road or will we get something worse and it -- when I look at all the issues the applicant has addressed, they figured out a way to address the Commission issues and staff issues and I'm thinking that -- that is a critical component to this. If they didn't figure those out that -- that becomes a different ballgame to me. But they figured them out, they will phase it in a way that will work I think and it's just -- I know where I'm going with the fire station in our community and where they have to be located and making that a priority, because they are needed, whether it's north or south, we need more fire stations and that is something that we will be talking about here in the near future. But for me I can be supportive of this -- of this project with -- with the plan moving forward and with the changes that we can make to it. But I think overall it's a good concept and I think Councilman Borton pointed out that it -- it is -- it does fit what we require for-- for this area. So, you don't like going -- going back and making changes on people when they put in what --what we want for particular areas in development. So, that's where -- where I am on this right now. Thanks. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I love the project. I think it's a really great addition to this area of Meridian if it's built. I -- I guess what it comes down to is -- is a philosophical thing that I have been thinking about a lot. Is it better to get the right project in the right place or is it better to make sure that we are ready for the right project and that we have adequate, you know, services -- especially safety services for an area. If we could have found a way I think Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 31 of 81 with staff's help to be more creative, especially on future applications with phasing and we had a way to either have milestones or a way -- a way to do that, I would have been all over yes on phase one and yes on phase two and the fire department signed off that we had adequate fire services there, but if we can't have a phasing plan, I just don't feel like it's the responsible thing to do to approve this. It's not just the five minute response time, which I understand is a goal, but it's having an adequate response time. The fact that we have three story buildings and the fact that it's near an area that we already know has an increased risk for wildfires, I just don't feel good about approving it without some kind of guardrails around a phasing plan, unfortunately. But it may very well move forward and I -- I do love the product and think that it would be a beautiful addition to Meridian. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Well, I guess I will go next. So, it isn't often that we get to this point in the hearing where I'm still a bit on the fence. I usually have -- I'm really leaning one way or the other. I can completely see both sides of the considerations. Excellent points made by my fellow Council Members. I don't -- there are some things about this project that I really like and some things that I don't like, but as far as what's best for Meridian, I feel like this is just a couple years too early and it really has nothing to do with the designs of the homes, the renderings -- I mean we -- we talked through all of that this evening through the movement of traffic and the sizes of the -- of the residences, all those kinds of things. I mean there is some -- you know, this is designed about as well as you can possibly -- possibly get I think with all the limitations that are created here. I do appreciate that the applicant has said that if phase four does not happen it won't -- it won't affect the rest of the phases. I -- I -- to be candid, I -- I lived through the downturn in real estate and I saw a lot of these types of properties that were contingent on the development of the property around it or contingent on a particular service that needed to come in that didn't and, then, the economy changed and, then, a portion of the development was finished and a portion wasn't and this property has a lot of what ifs, a lot of the -- you know -- you know, this has to happen -- the south side has to -- the development to the south has to develop for that connection or the development to the east has to develop this connection and I just -- there is so many of those in this and I -- I -- like Council Woman Strader, I'm really struggling with getting an idea of what comes in what order and how that aligns with ACHD's plan for the roads, how that aligns with -- you know, I really -- West Ada doesn't have a specific plan as far as funding goes. We don't have a specific plan as far as funding goes. So, that's really tough for us to come back to the applicant and say, hey, can you line up a phasing plan with those intended or expected future improvements to our services and so I think for me what it really comes down to is, you know, are there so many variables that could cause this to not be completed, whether it's over five years or whether it's at all or -- that's just I think the -- the difficult thing for me is, you know, there is -- there is a lot of outside factors that the applicant can't do anything about and -- and so I really do -- there is so many things about this project I like. I'm -- I'm really hesitant to say that I would vote no, I just am -- I'm concerned about the timing. I feel like it's a couple years too early and that's not because there isn't demand, there is absolutely Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 32 of 81 demand in real estate, there is absolutely buyer demand. These would sell. It's not so much that, it's just that we have to be able to make sure that we can provide those services to the residents in a satisfactory way. So, I'm not sure that that--that that's clear, except that I think I'm -- I'm leaning -- I'm leaning more towards a no than a yes at this point. It's a tough decision, because I think there is so many good things about it. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: It looks like it's my turn. I'm going to take my mask off for two seconds, just so that Councilman Cavener can hear me clearly. I -- a while ago I -- I installed a bunch of flooring in the River District over in Eagle where, you know, this -- this -- this product is very similar to that, according to what Jay said, and I always loved that subdivision. I have loved everything about it. I love the --just how it -- it's just different. It mixes things up. The elevations are great. I know the builder over there really well, dear friends of mine and they just did a great job with how they made those -- those homes look over there and -- and when I found out that this was going to be similar, I was really excited, because this is something that I don't know that exists right now in the City of Meridian and I think that it's pretty cool. I think Jay and his team did a great job with the design, like everyone else has said, and I -- looking at it I -- I think that given some of the complications that may or may not exist, I still believe that this would be a great addition to our community. This evening, you know, I really enjoy these -- these conversations that we have amongst ourselves. It's -- it's truly an honor, in my opinion, to be able to work with Council Members who care and who put forth the effort to be prepared and whether we disagree or whether we agree or whether our opinions are different or whether they are the same, I really appreciate the dialogue and the respect that -- that -- that -- that goes on within these conversations this evening, this discussion. So, I want to thank each and every one of you for it. Thanks, Jay, for the presentation. It was great. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Our public hearing is still open; correct? Simison: It is. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, would it be possible to ask the applicant a couple of questions? Simison: Sure. Mr. Cavener -- Cavener: Jay -- Simison: -- go right -- Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 33of81 Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Jay, you have heard kind of some feedback from -- from my colleagues and I tonight and -- I mean I think if you are doing a tally you kind of know where this is -- is headed and maybe a potential tie. I'm curious to your thoughts about us being supportive of a continuance to maybe allow you and -- and in your builder-owner to discuss maybe a more concrete phasing plan that could address some of the concerns that have been brought by a couple of my colleagues and I. Simison: Jay, you're muted. Jay, you're muted. Gibbons: Can you hear me now? Simison: Yes. Gibbons: Okay. So, I think that, you know, phasing is a -- is a huge issue in your mind, especially from a fire perspective and service perspective and given the opportunity to study that further and figure out if we can find a way to, you know, make it more to your preference we would certainly relish that opportunity. Cavener: Great. Thank you, Jay. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: On that note, it -- I'm going to make a -- I would like to make a motion to close the public hearing, if everyone is -- Cavener: Second. Perreault: Thank you. Simison: Motion and second to close the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I get the sense that Council will be comfortable with giving the -- the applicant some additional time to possibly get some more of our concerns and questions answered and I would like to be able to do that versus having a vote for denial this evening, if -- if Council so will, so I'm going to make a motion to continue -- let's see. I want to make sure I get the right file number. Make a motion to continue H-2020-0064. Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 34 of 81 Simison: Council Woman Perreault, we closed the public hearing. Do we have to reopen it to continue it? Perreault: Oh, you are right. Simison: So -- Perreault: Yes. I apologize. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we reopen the public hearing for H-2020-0064. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to reopen the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: My apologies. It's been a while since I have made a motion for a continuation. I move that we continue -- actually, before I make that motion, if we may ask the applicant if there is a date and time in mind that might work. I'm not sure how much time they prefer to make some investigation. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Gibbons: Council Woman Perreault, I -- given it's December and I don't know what your Council schedule is per se, so we are -- we are open to suggestion, of course. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you have two -- you have two weeks of hearings on the 15th and the 22nd. So, it either would have to be next week -- well, we couldn't do it next time. Sorry. We don't have a regular session next week. We could continue it to next week if-- if it's only going to take a week. I think it's going to take longer than that, so you are really looking at January. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 35of81 Hoaglun: My recollection is that the next couple weeks after -- following the 8th there is four hearings on each of those weeks. So, it's -- it's a very full -- five -- four and, then, five. Four on the 15th, five on the 22nd. So, that's very full evenings and -- just so you know. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I'm showing on the calendar that we only have a work session on January 5th. Could we have the clerk confirm that. Simison: She just stepped out of the room. Do we have any -- would the -- would the noticing for that even be known yet? I don't think it would be. Perreault: Okay. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we only have one item noticed for a public hearing on the 5th of January. Simison: So, we would have public meetings that night. Bernt: Hey, buddy. You're on mute, buddy. Mr. Gibbons. Simison: Jay, if you are trying to speak to us you are muted. Bernt: I think he's talking to himself. Gibbons: Were you asking me if that was acceptable to a January -- what -- what was the January date? The 5th? Yeah. That's fine. I -- I think that, you know, we -- we can meet with who we need to meet with, as well as, you know, you are talking about sideboards and milestones. I think we can come up with some proposals for you to discuss and kick around and see if we can get it done that way. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: That being said, I will finally make the appropriate motion. I move to continue file number H-2020-0047 to the date of January 5th, 2021. Cavener: Second. Simison: Can you repeat the motion? For which file number? Perreault: Yes. My apologies. I gave you the wrong file number, didn't I. Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 36 of 81 Simison: Yes. Perreault: For -- I move that we continue the hearing for H-2020-0064 to the date of January 5th, 2021. Cavener: Second agrees. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue the hearing to January 5th. And I'm a little disappointed, I was really looking forward to voting this evening personally, but I hope maybe I will also get an opportunity on the 5th to cast my vote if things remain the same. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the motion is agreed to and this is continued. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Gibbons: Thank you. Simison: Council, I'm going to go ahead and call a recess and we will reconvene at 8:15. Ten minute recess. (Recess: 8:05 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.) 3. Public Hearing 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 377 buildable lots (323 single family residential, 38 townhomes, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school), 39 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.53 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Simison: All right. Council, I will go ahead and bring us back from recess and next item up is a public hearing for Prescott Ridge, H-2020-0047. I will open this public hearing with staff -- staff comments and turn this over Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. A private street application has been approved by the director for the project. This site consists of 122.8 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located on the south side of West Chinden Boulevard, State Highway 20-26, and on the east side of North McDermott Road. A little history on this. A portion of this site consists of Lot 18, Block 1, Peregrine Heights Subdivision. It was formerly a deed restricted agricultural lot for open space, a nonfarm Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 37of81 that has since expired. The Comprehensive Plan future land use designation for the property is on nine acres along the highway. It's mixed use regional and medium density residential to the south, which calls for three to eight units per acre and that consists of 113.5 acres of land. Annexation of a total of 126.53 acres of land with R-8 zoning, which consists of 99.53 acres. R-15 zoning, which consists of.82 acres. And C-G zoning, which consists of 18.17 acres is requested for the development of a mix of residential and medical office uses, including a hospital with emergency care. West Ada School District plans to develop a school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. A master plan for the residential portion and concept plan for the medical campus portion of the site is proposed. The residential portion will include a mix of single family residential attached and detached homes, townhomes, and multi-family residential apartments. The commercial portion will include two three story structures, a 181,000 square foot hospital, with 60 in-patient beds, and a 67,000 square foot medical office building that will provide medical services geared towards women's health and pediatrics. Retail restaurant uses are planned on the first floor of the medical office building to serve the employment area and adjacent neighborhood as desired in the mixed use designated areas. Two different concept plans were submitted for the medical campus as shown. Option one depicts the medical office building adjacent to the out parcel at the northeast corner of the site and option two depicts the medical office building at the northeast corner where the outparcel is located that is currently not a part of this application. If the applicant is able to obtain this parcel, the office building is proposed in that location. And just a note, the medical office building was proposed closer to the west side of the development. At the request of the neighbors they did make this shift, so -- just so that you are aware. The single family residential uses are principally permitted in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The school, multi-family residential development, and hospital will require conditional use approval of the uses prior to development and 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 North 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 and, if so, it should be memorialized in the development agreement. If not, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD has denied the applicant's request for direct access to State Highway 20-26 for the medical campus. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 377 buildable lots. Sorry. I'm having problems advancing my slide here. There we go. Consisting of 317 single family residential attached and detached units, 38 townhomes, 14 multi-family residential, one commercial, and one school lot, 41 common lots and six other shared driveway lots on 123.54 acres of land in the proposed R-8, R-15, and C-G zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed in the single family residential portion of the development is 4,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 6,028 square feet. The average townhome lot size is 2,302 square feet. The overall gross density is 2.99 units per acre, with a net density of 7.49 units per acre. The gross density of the R-8 portion is 3.07 units per acre, with a net density of 6.9 units per acre. And the gross density of the R-15 portion is 6.8 units per acre, with a net density of 13.46 units per acre, consistent with the density desired in the associated medium density residential and mixed use regional designated Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 38 of 81 areas. The subdivision is proposed to develop in nine phases, as depicted on the phasing plan, over a time period of four to five years. The north-south collector street will be constructed from West Chinden Boulevard in alignment with Pollard Lane across Chinden to the north and extend to the southern boundary with the first phase. The commercial and single family residential portion of the site will develop first, followed by the townhomes and, then, the multi-family residential apartments. The school property is not included in the phasing plan, as it's under separate ownership and will develop separately from the residential portion. Access is proposed in the residential portion of the development via one collector street, Rustic Oak Way, from Chinden, which extends through the site to the south boundary and will eventually extend to McMillan Road. Access via McMillan 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 and an additional stub street is recommended by staff to be provided to the outparcel at the southwest corner of the site and that is -- if you can see my cursor here -- this parcel right here. 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 Lane to the west for access to Chinden. This is proposed instead of a backage road for consideration by Council, since a public street isn't desirable in this area. This would be just used as an emergency access until such time as the property to the west redevelops and this actually functions as a frontage street. The director has approved private streets in the townhome portion of the development with a MEW in accord with UDC standards as shown. The ACHD five year work plan shows no road improvements in this area. Chinden was recently widened to five -- or, excuse me, four travel lanes adjacent to the site. Preliminary plat lines are shown in red that are either in process or have been approved. 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 single family residential portion of the development. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of 10.51 acres or ten percent is required. A total of 12.41 acres or 11.8 percent is proposed consisting of the street buffers along collector streets, McDermott and Rustic Oak, open space areas at least 50 feet by 100 feet in area and linear open space. A minimum of five qualified site amenities are required. A 3,750 square foot clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office and meeting room, with an outdoor patio and a swimming pool, one large tot lot and two 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 square feet. A pavilion. Barbecues and seating area with a firepit 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 one and two story attached and detached units of varying sizes for the variety of lots proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stone and brick veneer accents. Staff is recommending articulation and other architectural elements are provided on elevations facing collector streets for two story homes. Elevations for the multi-family residential structures will be submitted with the conditional use application. A conceptual rendering was submitted as shown for the main medical building. The Commission recommended approval of these applications to City Council. Stephanie Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 39of81 Leonard, KM Engineering, and Mitch Armuth and Patrick Connor, Providence Properties, the applicant's representative, testified in favor, along with Betsy Hunsicker representing the proposed hospital and Randy Peterman, an adjacent property owner. No one testified in opposition of the application. The following folks commented: Cary Pitman. Sue Ropski. Val Stack. Paul Hoyer. Cory Coltrin. Doug Haneborg. Heidi Wilson. Charles Hey. Bonnie Leighton. WH Pacific representing the property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights. Written testimony was received from one person Josh Femreite, the chief of new schools for Gem Innovation Schools. And the key issues of discussion were as follows: 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 kindergarten through 12th grade public education options for future residents. They would like the 30 foot buffer extended along the entire east and south boundaries of Peregrine Heights Subdivision for a buffer to high density residential uses. Higher density I should say. Would like more of a transition to the lots at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights Subdivision, either with larger lots or common area. Not in favor of proposed access via Serenity Lane. Concern pertaining to future access for Serenity Lane residents via Chinden. Mrs. Ropski is concerned with location of trash dumpsters and parking adjacent to their property. Preference for the hospital to be located closer to the Chinden-Rustic Oak intersection away from low density residential lots at west boundary. Mr. Peterman is in favor of the proposed development as it will bring services to his property for development. Preference for the parking on the east side of the three story medical office building to be relocated to the west side of the building and the building shifted further to the east, so that the building is further away from adjacent residential properties. Concern pertaining to traffic on Serenity Lane if it were to be open to the south and the safety of children as there are no sidewalks along the private street. Concern pertaining to future restriction to access to Serenity Lane from Chinden Boulevard and resulting delays to emergency services to Peregrine Heights. Request for -- for provision of a fence or a gate at the south end of Serenity Lane cul-de-sac to keep it private. Request for the larger estate lots that abut the south end of Peregrine Heights to be carried over to the south side of Tanker Drive. And, finally, the property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights is in favor of the proposed frontage road along Chinden for access to the collector street. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: Preference for the applicant to obtain the outparcel at the northeast corner of the site in order to develop commercial, retail, restaurant uses, on the site. In favor of the variety in housing types and lots of proposed -- lot sizes proposed. The Fire Department's preference for a direct unhindered access to the site via Serenity Lane. Meaning not affected by a gate, bollards, or a chain. Opposed to right-in, right-out at Serenity Lane-Chinden Boulevard, as a fire engine will not be able to access the site from the east via Chinden. The provision of an electronic gate at the south end of Serenity lane for emergency access to Peregrine Heights and to keep the lane private. Trash enclosures should be located away from adjacent residential properties. In support of the reduction in height from four to three stories for the hospital and medical office building. Preference for the medical office building to be shifted further to the east and/or rotated. The provision of only one MEW in the townhome portion of the development. And general support of the revisions made to the concept plan for the commercial development,. Would like the applicant to work with ITD on noise abatement along the west boundary adjacent the State Highway 16. In favor of the walkability of the Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 40 of 81 development and especially the medical campus in support of the changes to the townhome portion of the development and the additional open space. And, finally, would like the applicant to work with staff to reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary of the subdivision to provide a better transition planned R-4 of the lots in the Oaks Subdivision. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation: They required noise abatement to be provided along the project's west boundary along North McDermott Road adjacent to the future extension of State Highway 16. Relocation of the parking on the east side of the medical office building to the west side of the building and shift the building further to the east away from adjacent residential properties. Provide an electronic gate that is approved by the fire department for access to serenity lane from the south and reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary to provide better transition to the R-4 properties planned to the south in the Oaks Subdivision. Those lots were reduced by five along the south and southeast boundaries in the revised splat. The only outstanding issue for Council tonight is the Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital from the collector street, North Rustic Oak Way, meets the intent of the UDC requirement 11-4-3-22, which requires hospitals that provide emergency access to have direct access on an arterial street and as I mentioned previously ITD did deny a request for direct access via Chinden for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the applicant dated May 5th, 2020, that's included in the public record. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. There has been one letter of written testimony submitted since the Commission hearing from Randall Peterman. He is in favor of the proposed development. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I want clarification from Sonya on something. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Sonya, that issue of the Rustic -- North Rustic Oak Way being a collector and ITD says they have to have direct -- direct access on an arterial, there is no arterial running north-south between McDermott and Black Cat, is there? I can't think of any, but -- Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, no, there is not. Hoaglun: So -- and North Rustic Way, if I follow, is a -- while it's a collector it's getting close to the half mile mark, maybe -- maybe it's not. But just looking at an aerial you had shown earlier, it's like, yeah, it's getting close to a half mile between Black Cat and McDermott. Is there going to be any light between McDermott and Black Cat that's planned? Is North Rustic Way eligible for that or only if it -- since it's a collector they won't even consider that? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, a traffic signal is planned at the location where the collector street is. Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 41 of 81 Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Sonya. Appreciate that. Allen: And this -- this collector street will extend between McMillan -- or excuse me. Yes. Excuse me. McMillan and the highway as well. Hoaglun: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, similar issue to last time. The clarification -- I'm looking at the Fire Department's comments in their agency comments. It's not clear to me from this map what part of this development falls within the five minutes and I wanted to just clarify the eight minute -- it looks like in the staff report an eight minute response time toward McDermott. So, how -- how does that kind of -- probably a comment for Mr. Bongiorno. But how does that -- how do we go from five minutes to eight minutes and just understanding that. Bongiorno: So, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, and also, Madam Clerk, if I can share my screen again, please. I can pull up the -- the map again. I have got it ready this time in anticipation. Weatherly: Sonya, if you will stop sharing for a second, so Chief Bongiorno can hop on. Bongiorno: Okay. It's coming. You got to tell me when it's up. Simison: It's up. Bongiorno: Okay. So, this is the five minute response map once again. The problem with this is it was developed off GIS and a couple issues with this that I want to point out that really doesn't make it completely accurate. Part of the problem -- the first problem is where Highway 16 ends and McDermott begins, Station 5, which is the closest to this property, cannot come down Chinden Boulevard and make a left onto McDermott Road. They have taken that turn out. So, that's why there is no green in -- on McDermott Road at all. The other problem is where Rustic Oak slash Levi connects right in this area here, the green stops right here, because that's the end of the road. So, once Rustic Oak gets pushed through, which I'm sure Stephanie will talk to you about the phasing plan, they plan to build Rustic Oak -- this whole section in the first phase. So, the -- you can see how far down Chinden our five minute response goes. So, you can kind of extrapolate and take that in -- once we make this corner the -- the five minute response is going to extend pretty far into this development. So, the picture that -- I can't remember when I did this report, if it has the updated picture or not. So, our green will creep into this quite a ways. The other thing I wanted to point out, since we were talking about fire stations, this piece of property down here in the corner, that is a piece of property that the -- is planned for a fire station. So, if I turn the future five minute response time on, that's what Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 42 of 81 it will look like when that station is built and staffed and running. So, we completely cover that area one hundred percent. Strader: Mr. Mayor, a follow up. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you very much. So -- okay. So, if -- let's say that -- I understand what you are saying and it sounds like this is really based on a satellite thing and so your common sense would say when that road is extended, then, the five minute response time is going to be bigger. Is it going to cover -- and I'm sorry to put you on the spot. Is it going to cover 90 percent of this, if you were going to have to peg a number? Is it going to cover 80 percent? Fifty percent? Bongiorno: It's probably going to cover -- I mean, again, because you can see how far down Chinden we can go. Again, that's at a 55 mile an hour speed limit. But if you just -- if you have that amount that's going to put us well into this subdivision. It's kind of hard to see, but this -- this is the subdivision -- you know, proposed subdivision is right here. So, we will be well within this subdivision with our five minute response. So, I would be comfortable saying we would cover a good majority of this and, then, once they do connect to McDermott we do have Station 2 that can come this way and -- and get to this subdivision if Station 5 is out. So, we would have multiple ways to get to this, as well as Rustic Oak, once it connects in with the Oaks. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Council, any further questions? Okay. Then we will go ahead and recognize Staff for 15 -- I'm sorry. Recognize the applicant for 15 minutes. I will turn this over to Stephanie. Connor: All right. The applicant here. Can you all hear us? Simison: Yeah. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Connor: My name is Patrick Connor. Address is 701 South Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. And I also have someone else here with me. Leonard: Hi. Stephanie Leonard with KM Engineering, 9233 West State, Boise. 83714. Can you see our screen yet? Simison: Yes, we can. Leonard: Okay. Simison: And you are recognized for 15 minutes. Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 43 of 81 Connor: Thank you. So, like I said, my name is Patrick Connor. I'm with Providence Properties and we build communities throughout the Treasure Valley. Prescott Ridge is a master planned community in northwest Meridian. Tonight our application is for annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat approval. The project location, as Sonya has stated before, is just south of Chinden and just east of McDermott Road. The subdivision is right here in white. Everything you see in pink or green is either under construction, approved, or built. So, as you can see this project is right in the middle of a whole lot of projects that are either underway or finished. Real quick about schools and since they are shown on here, the West Ada School District property is part of our plat because of an improper lot split years ago. They were part of an illegal lot split to make it an illegal parcel and to get to annexation and zoning. Also shown here is the Gem Prep Meridian future K-12 public charter school and we are currently assigned to the Pleasant View Elementary School, Star Middle School, and Meridian High School. Once Owyhee High School comes in we will probably be part of that attendance zone. Here is the future land use map. A majority of the parcel is medium density residential and, then, unfortunately, the north part of the parcel is mixed use regional. Current zoning map. We are surrounded by R-4 to the south, R-8 also to the south and, then, general commercial to the north. Tonight we are applying for three different zoning categories. The majority is R-8, 99 acres. R-15 about nine acres. And commercial -- general commercial about 18 acres. Here is a snapshot of the preliminary plat. As Sonya said, we have about -- sorry. We have 317 single family lots, 38 townhome lots, which are three or more unit buildings, eight single family attached units, two to a building. Two multi-family lots, which we are proposing four-plex -- a four-plex building on each of these lots. Forty-one common lots. One lot, which is a West Ada school parcel to the far east side and, then, one lot, the proposed medical campus, which we will get into detail later, about 18 acres, which abuts Chinden. We have over 12 acres of qualified open space, about 11.8 percent, which is shown in green. Talking about the open space and site amenities. This is the overall plan. We have a central clubhouse and pool, large tot lot with a community space and restrooms in the clubhouse. We have a number of pocket parks scattered throughout the project. We find this to be really important for building community and offering a small place of recreation for residents no matter where they live within the larger community. Two smaller tot lots are also shown. A dog park area on the west side. And recreational pathways throughout project. Here is some renderings of that large open green space with a clubhouse, pool, and large tot lot. And here is a render of the smaller tot lots that are strategically placed within the community. One of the biggest amenities that we have noticed in communities in Treasure Valley is having a really strong pathway system for recreation walking, biking, running. What's shown here are the pathways that are within common lots that connect to the public pathways that are along the public streets. You can see we have two points of access as a connection to the future school site, as well as two points of connection to the medical campus and points of connection to the parcel to the northwest of us. We also have a ten foot Parks Department pathway running from the pathway along Chinden through the project that connects to the future school site. Here is the phasing plan. As we said before, there is nine phases. The approximate build out -- we usually develop two phases a year, so at this pace it would be a three to four to five year project, depending on our timing. The first phase of the project is shown here and as the Chief Bongiorno said earlier, we have committed to building the full build out Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 44 of 81 of Rustic Oak or Levi Lane through the whole project from our southern boundary all the way to Chinden. This is really important for fire access and ensuring that we have two points of access to the project and help with response times for within our community and also on this next slide it also helps response times to the project around us, especially Oaks North to the south. Once this full build out of Levi Lane or Rustic Oak gets done, it will provide additional routes for emergency services and a full installation of this collector will help the entire region for their response times. Also the Police Department commented that it will improve the police response times as well. We have 15 neighbors to west that large lots -- large lots and large homes and part of our application shows us stubbing a road to the Serenity Lane. Serenity Lane is a private road and to be able to ensure that it main -- it maintains its privacy is a big priority for the neighbors there. So, we have committed to building a -- a gate access and dual gate will be used as emergency access only initially and it's been approved by the Fire Department as well, as long as we have an Opticom access device, which is a remote way of opening the gate in case of emergency. In working with the neighbors over the past year on this project and in different presentations, this is the concept that they said that they would prefer for that southern access point along Serenity Lane. Now we are going to talk about the housing types and the variety of housing that we are proposing tonight. We have five main housing varieties. A majority of the project shown in yellow is the mixed -- a mixture of 45 foot, 50 foot, and 60 foot homes. These are traditional single family residences. The next slide's category is shown in blue and these are 40 foot lots, which come with the optional zero lot line to help add the variety to the streetscape and offer a -- a different sort of housing type within the single family community. Showed in purple are our large lots, which are between 70 and 100 feet, facing strategically around the Peregrine Heights community as a transitionary lot size between their large lots and our single family community. Shown in green here is a townhome project with the details --the townhomes and single family detached units and our multi-family project. It shows the four-plexes, each on an individual lot, each four-plex sitting on an individual lot. I also want to note that the driveway and the parking space is also an individual lot within this multi-family four-plex. Here is some typical home elevations for single family lots on the 40 foot planned attached single family for the zero lot lines and included are our plans for our mixed variety of 50 and 60 foot lots. Diving now into the townhome portion of the project. This is one area that we are really excited about bringing to the City of Meridian. We worked really hard with the fire -- the city and the Fire Department to ensure this is a good product that is also going to be safe for future residents. What is shown is 46 total units, 29 of those are rear load townhomes, which are shown in the middle and on the one part of the project. These have basically rear entry -- the two car garages and, then, the front doors of the units open up to in this middle area common MEW on the north part with their own sort of private smaller common space. On the west side of this townhome project we have nine front load townhomes, which each have their own private backyards. And, then, on the very south side we have the attachment duplex homes that front onto a public street, but have the backyards that open to the common MEW. Also within this project we have a limited pocket park, which includes a pergola, barbecue area, seating, and a fire pit as shown. We wanted to keep the MEW open for kind of passive recreation and this is more kind of a space for gathering and program activities. This is a private street, as I said before, that goes to the project. All the homes on the private street, with Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 45 of 81 the exception of the duplex homes, that front on the public street. It was really important for the fire department to have two points of access on two separate roads and so we accommodated that here. Here is some elevations of the rear load units we are offering. The front load units with the backyards and the front load duplexes. I also want to note that every unit here has some space of--whether the front load, rear load, or the duplexes has some backyard or front yard space that can be fenced off. So, you can let a dog out in the middle of the night or have your small space to have a small vegetable garden that you can call your own. But also have the communal area of the common areas that you can share. Here is some examples of MEWs of some projects that our team has worked on around the country and here is some renderings of the communities and the gathering area. So, going into the multi-family four-plex plats. As I said before, there is 14 units -- or 14 lots within this project with the four-plex units, totaling 56 total units in this area. Because this is a multi-family project it will need to come through the conditional use permit and the design standards. Just really quick about our home quality. Along with Brighton Homes we are committed to building Energy Star certified homes. Last year in the Treasure Valley we led the Treasure Valley in the amount of homes that were -- that received this Energy Star certification. That's something that we are really proud of, building energy efficient homes, as it's important to the environment, but also offers lower energy costs for our homebuyers. We have a design center here in Meridian where every homebuyer will come and make all the selections within their -- for their house. We were most recently on the cover of the Parade of Homes and here is some images of that model home in Star. And, lastly, about the medical campus. Approximately 18 acres on the north side of the project in the mixed use area. This medical campus comprises of two buildings. One is the larger medical hospital in the center of the site, which is about 181,000 square feet and, then, the medical office building located in the northeast corner of the site as far close to Rustic Oak and Chinden as we could get it. Because of the offset from the future light on the corner of Chinden and Levi Lane as a full access, 660 feet down Levi, it was mentioned and by code we are required to offer a frontage road that extends to our far boundary or parallel to the state highway shown here in the pink. I also want to touch -- touch on that we have a -- a bike trail along the southern and the western part of the project with considerable dense trees to offer screening for the neighbors. We have rotated this building as many ways as I can count to ensure that they both function as a hospital, but also design to not interfere with the neighbors to our west and we have accommodated them in a number of ways. One is we actually lowered the -- the building height from four stories to three stories, which is a notable change. A majority of this hospital is actually single story, with just the center areas as a three story. The medical office building here is also three story. As Sonya said before, currently this outparcel is not part of this application. The medical group that is the user for this site has agreed on terms for this parcel and if this greater parcel is entitled and zoned to the intended use, this outparcel will become part of the project, which is shown in this next -- this next slide. It has moved all the way to the northeast corner. I want to quickly touch on a couple things as part of the -- as part of the mixed use requirements for the city. We wanted to have some integration with the surrounding area, which I have shown here and the outdoor area, the courtyards and outdoor dining that are integrated with our pathway system to allow people within the community to use this space as areas where they can relax or have a bite to eat, but also people that are users of the hospital can also share Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 46 of 81 this area. It also could create some sort of community there and also softens the use of the hospital in this residential area and that's shown here as well with the revised layout, assuming that outparcel comes into the property. I also want to note that the outparcel will be annexed and zoned at a conditional use permit process and that will come into the project at that point. Here is some images of some visioning of what this medical campus will look like and the integration within the community and just real briefly this is an overhead image of the history of St. Luke's along Eagle Road and Interstate 84 and how over time when St. Luke's came there was a majority of a residential area, but there is a lot of stimulation of development that happened because of the anchor of this medical center. We are well aware of the medical center on the north side of Chinden Road and we are actually really excited about the efficiency of uses of having two medical centers across the street from each other. One, it provides a better product for the residents of Meridian in offering a variety of services and, hopefully, more competition for a better product, but also a sharing of positions, a sharing of thoughts and ideas and employers and having this be an area and a magnet for really good paying jobs and services for the community--that serve the community. So, one thing I am looking forward to is potentially along Chinden, additional parcels coming into development for services that can serve the community as well. So, that is our presentation. Thank you all for allowing us to present tonight. The plan I represented to you is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the vision of the city. We are providing a diverse housing variety, types, and densities to appeal to many different buyers across the segment of our population. We are fine with all the dimensional standards and the zoning categories and we believe that the medical campus is a -- a model for this project and the mixed use designation and we consider it to be a real anchor for the community and just having the opportunity for future employees of the hospital being able to walk or ride their bike to work is something that we look forward to and we think that is a very positive thing for the community. We think that this project will really add community to the City of Meridian and that it will be a -- a model community as far as integrating a number of different housing varieties, but also land uses within the project. We are complying with all of the conditions that were brought forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission and a lot of the changes that were made we think will make this a better community for the future and that concludes the presentation. So, we stand for questions. Simison: Thank you, Patrick. Council, any questions of the applicant? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: One question to the -- the applicant. How -- and you may have said it and I may -- may have missed it and if you did so I apologize. How do you propose getting services to your subdivision. For example, water and such? Connor: Yes. Thank you for bringing that up. I meant to touch on that. So, services come from the south from the Oaks North Subdivision. We have a verbal agreement with the developers of that project, with Toll Brothers, and we have agreed upon terms verbally Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 47 of 81 to extend those utilities in a timely manner and so that -- that is something that we are currently working on with the -- the group that currently controls the water and sewer south of us. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Connor: The agreement will be finalized with this approval. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: He answered my question. Thank you. Simison: And that probably dovetails into the question I had is in terms -- kind of piggybacking a little bit on the question Council Woman Strader spoke about earlier is the location of phase one and this is at the very end as it pertains to the fire staff. Is that because of the water-sewer connection? Connor: Yes. That is accurate. The -- and I can go back to that drawing of phase one. Yeah. So, the water and sewer will come here -- Rustic Oak all the way north to Chinden. Another, you know, reasoning for that is we want to ensure that the services are available for the -- the hospital parcel, as well as the school parcel. So, that is one of the reasons why this road runs all the way from the south to the north, as well will run all the way to McDermott to our west. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe just to pivot into a detail or a little rabbit hole for a minute. If you could zoom in on either your elevations or your -- like site specific plan for the multi-family, I have some questions about that. Thank you. I looked at the amenity exhibit and I didn't see, you know, a tot lot or some type of an amenity for the -- the multi-family. Am I off track there? Connor: Right. So, as part of the conditional use permit process we will be required to have ten percent of-- of this parcel as part of open space. So, it's not necessarily shown well on here, because we don't have that much detail yet, but with the conditional use permit process we will have, you know, whether it's a tot lot or some sort of open space or an outdoor picnic area as part of this particular area. Strader: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Doctors make the worst patients and multi-family apartment owners are probably more keyed in on this stuff. I'm a little bit concerned in terms of ensuring that there is an Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 48 of 81 amenity like a tot lot. I don't think it's fair for the kids and apartments not to have a place to play. That's the first point that I would like to make. And, then, additionally, I -- I know we haven't seen a lot of detail with the elevations. A lot of these garden style apartments that have exposed concrete stairs I have a real concern about as well. I know of several of these garden style apartments that have had stairs actually collapse or break that have those concrete stairs that aren't covered. So, I would like -- I would like to make sure that's not going to happen. And, then, just -- I would like to understand the intention with these. Are you intending to -- I understand there will be a common management company, but are you intending to sell each apartment complex to individual owners or are you contemplating common ownership? Connor: So, the intent is that there is one owner of each building and so they -- you can look at them as investment properties for renting. It could be owned by one person who has, you know, four friends and each one has their own unit. I mean it just kind of depends. But the intent is that each building has a single owner and to touch really quick, Council Member, on the concrete stairs, all of those are covered -- I don't know if you can see it well in this rendering. It's not great. But there is an interior hallway -- interior slash exterior open hallway with -- that has the covered stairways. These sort of details as far as the tot lot and having a suitable recreational space I agree with you and that is something that we are going to have to work through with the conditional use permit with the public process and ensuring that this is a really great project for -- for families or anyone who chooses to live in this community. Leonard: I'm going to add something, too, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader. I believe that there is a condition in the staff report, too, that Sonya included that requires us to have one management company that will handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire multi-family development. So, that will ensure some consistency in the maintenance of the open space, even though the units -- or the buildings themselves will be privately owned. Strader: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I guess I have -- I have a concern and I'm not sure how you could address it and I'm not sure how pivotal it would be with my decision, but it's okay to have a common management company, but I have seen a lot of situations as a multi-family real estate owner myself where you have really disparate ownership from out of state owners and there is a lot of deferred maintenance issues and that's part of my concern. I don't know if there is a way to address that. I'm going to chew on it for a while. But that's partially where my concern is coming from. I just want to make sure that this part of the development is going to be as high of quality as -- as the rest of it. Leonard: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I might just add real quick. As part of the conditional use permit I believe staff can probably condition us to possibly include a draft CC&R or maybe have some stringent requirements for that part of the development, too. Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 49 of 81 That might be something that staff could touch on a little bit more as far as kind of the amount of -- the condition that they could include with the conditional use permit. And maybe mulling on it a little bit longer would kind of give us all some time to be creative about what that might look like, too. Strader: Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Excuse me. Not to belabor that same point, but I have the same concern as Council Woman Strader. There are a few projects that exist in Meridian like this that have individual owners and there are consistently issues with deferred maintenance. If I may suggest that when the homeowners association is designed and set up that potentially the exterior maintenance be all managed by the HOA, instead of the individual owners, meaning, you know, the roofs and the siding and the painting and whatnot. That may be one thing -- one way at least to the -- as far as the appearance goes to keep some conformity and there is only so much you can do about the maintenance on the interior if they are owned individually. But we have had discussions about this before as a Council and I think in general there is a preference -- I don't want to speak for my fellow Council Members, but if I remember our last conversation there is a preference for single owner for those types of developments. So, just wanted to put that out there. Connor: Council Member Perreault, that is absolutely something that we are accustomed to doing and that we are -- are definitely willing to have. So, we -- when we go to the commissioners for the process we will ensure that that's part of the conditions of maintaining the buildings and ensuring that we have a consistent exterior maintenance and that's -- and that's how I envision that the project to be managed. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: Just to take one more swack at that dead horse, I also agree with Council Woman Strader as well. When the buildings are individually owned, as far as trying to enforce the fire code, it becomes quite a challenge for my inspectors to try and drum up 16 different building owners to try and get them to get their sprinkler systems serviced. So, if we could do it the HOA thing or something, that would definitely help the fire department as well. So, thank you for that comment, Liz. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 50 of 81 Bernt: While Deputy Chief Bongiorno is unmuted I have a question for him in regard to a section of his analysis about a ladder truck and I -- and that is the closest ladder truck is Station 1, which is 13 minutes away. Just wanted to pick your brain, Deputy Chief, and get your thoughts and what you think about that. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, the fact for the multi-family -- really the -- the -- the ladder truck is in our first response for a structure fire. You get a ladder truck and three engines and a battalion chief. So, for the ladder truck to get there, if they were to do any rescue or -- or operations -- fire truck operations on the multi-story buildings, it's -- it's a 13 minute response if they are -- if they are in their house. I did pull the numbers for Eagle, because Eagle is straight down Chinden and straight down Eagle to their fire station and it's roughly right about the same amount of time. I think one was 12 minutes and one was 13 minutes or something to that fact. So, at some point as our city grows we will be adding a second ladder truck and that will help with that issue. Because anytime you do have a working fire they -- you get the same response. Again, so you get another ladder truck and three additional engines. So, that's always a concern when we start adding multi-story buildings, like the hospital, because, you know, our -- our -- we only have one ladder truck and it is from this point 13 -- 13 minutes away. Bernt: Follow up, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Council Bernt. Bernt: That's a big concern for me. This -- this is in a section of our city that almost couldn't be further away from Station 1, to be honest with you, and so if there was an incident where a ladder truck was needed, a 13 minute response time -- and I believe you said in your-- in your report that that was during the best of times. So, if-- if it was during rush hour or in the morning where there were more vehicles on the road, that potentially could be, you know, 13 minutes plus. It's -- that's a long ways. Bongiorno: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, it is and when I did my presentation to Council a couple weeks ago I did -- I did misspoke. That ladder truck that we are getting is -- it's -- it's not a replacement, it's -- it's an addition to. Bernt: That's what I thought. Bongiorno: Yeah. And I guess the replacement for the ladder truck is a couple years off in the -- in the CFP. So, we will have two ladder trucks. One will be used as a reserve, but at some point if we -- if we were to put it in Station 7 or Station 8 or somewhere on the north end of town it could be utilized and, then, we would have two truck companies. That benefits the citizens and it also gives us a better insurance rating as well. Bernt: Thank you, Chief. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 51 of 81 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Deputy Chief Bongiorno, while you are on I wanted to follow up. You had mentioned there is no left -- you cannot turn left heading west on Chinden onto -- onto Black Cat. How long is that arrangement going to last? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, if you look at the map that's up on the screen, we can't make a left onto McDermott is where that left is and it will be that way until Highway 16 is pushed through. Hoaglun: Okay. And that's -- that's -- that's what I thought. You know, that Idaho 16 corridor -- I think they are in phase two right now and doing some acquisitions and rights of way and starting on some different things. I remember a seminar -- ITD open house I went to and phase two was a 265 million dollar project. Phase three they have the connections where they add however they are going to do this bypass and 20-26 is slated in -- in phase three. That's only 185 million dollars for all that work for these connections. I have no idea where the state of Idaho is going to get that money. I mean we are how many millions every year falling short on just maintaining what we have. So, I guess I'm going to transition that, after I get off my soapbox, to the applicant to talk about some transportation issues that -- that might arise from that. So, let's -- Mr. Mayor, if I could, I would like to kind of ask some questions of the applicant on some transportation issues. Simison: Go at it. Hoaglun: All right. Well, thank you. Patrick, we -- we -- one frame of reference that have is I look at St. Luke's and you showed that slide and thank you for that, because there is a lot of similarities here where you are on a state highway, there is going to be access onto a collector and that was one of the things I wanted to double check is that emergency access for ambulances and whatnot coming down -- here you show Levi Lane, which I think is North Rustic Way on another slide. Is it going to be Levi Lane first of all? Connor: Currently that's the name of the driveway, but it will be North Rustic Oak. It's just shown this way that that's the road to the north, but it will be official North Rustic Way. Hoaglun: North Rustic Way then. And that is a workable solution for emergency vehicles, ambulances coming into the emergency portion off of that light to -- to come in that way? Will that work? Connor: So, currently that's -- that's the access, given you do not have direct access to Chinden. Now, I do want to touch on this one part of that is this particular medical campus is not a trauma hospital that's like a St. Luke's and St. AI's, they are really big trauma issues. This is strictly the -- the emergency is more of kind of like an urgent care use and it's really only there because of the level of surgery that they would essentially do on the medical campus and it's required to have there as part of the medical campus and so we do not essentially -- maybe the intended user of the medical campus can offer some more Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 52 of 81 detail on -- on the use of that ambulance, but -- and also another thing is there will be an access and there will be the lights and the sirens that we typically have when you think of ambulances around residential areas. Hoaglun: Great. Well, thank you for that. That's -- that's good to know. However, I also realize that as we grow as a community and this area grows and Star builds out, remembering how St. Luke's on Eagle Road grew and grew and grew and I think they had emergency things right from the get go and you won't, but, you know, trying to look ahead and seeing, okay, what will that look like five years, ten years, 20 years from now and the impacts that will be there, are we setting the foundation for that to be able to expand and to grow and planning it the correct way. So, hopefully, we -- we get it right right out of the box. I also was curious, because, like I said, using St. Luke's as the -- as the reference point on Eagle Road, if you are heading east on Chinden Boulevard they will -- ITD will not allow a right-in or right-out from the medical campus onto -- onto Chinden in the middle of that property or towards the -- closer to the west edge of the property? Connor: That's correct. We did apply for an emergency right-in, right-out directly to the state highway. ITD didn't -- did not allow that access. And if we are talking about the medical center, the user -- Betsy Hunsicker actually has her hand raised to speak a little bit on that. Is it okay, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, if she chimes in? Hoaglun: Yes, I'm fine with that, Mr. Mayor. Is the city clerk going to let her in? Is she in? Hunsicker: Hi. Can you all hear me? Simison: Yeah. Hunsicker: Oh. Okay. There was a blue circle there for a while. Hi. My name is Betsy Hunsicker. I'm with HCA Healthcare Westside Medical Center. So, just to -- the way we oriented the emergency department and with the hospital was along that Levi Lane or Rustic Oak Street, so the ambulance access actually will be -- we designed it to be more direct off of that -- from that access. So, that should work for us. I -- I totally agree with what you are saying, that, you know, we really envision this being a hospital that meets the kind of immediate needs of that community with women's care, surgical care, more, you know, kind of-- more reflective of a community with a small emergency room, but you are right, as it grows it likely would -- you know, it's likely that could grow as well, but -- but we did intentionally design it, so it's oriented along Levi Lane or Rustic Oak, so that would be a better access for the ambulances. Hoaglun: All right. Thank you for that. And, you know, looking at Luke's on Eagle it seems they make it work that way and I think that would be workable that way. If we go back to that other slide you had that showed the full development, Patrick, or whoever is controlling that, one of the concerns I have -- until that left turn is allowed onto McDermott I do have some concerns that with that light there and as it gets built out people are going Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 53of81 to be coming down, you know, North Rustic Way and, then, making their way over to McDermott as -- as a shortcut and when that road is completely built to -- to McMillan, I'm just wondering how in the world -- if -- if we don't have these access points on that Idaho 16 corridor built out yet, how-- how that's going to be -- be workable. I'm not saying it's a deal stopper, but it's -- it's just one of those things looking -- looking ahead going if they don't allow certain access points for people to fully turn left or turn right or whatever direction people want to go, people will find ways to cut through and find shortcuts and go through residential areas and just something I think we need to be aware of as -- as this whole thing flushes out with that Idaho corridor -- Idaho 16 corridor in the works. So, I don't know if you have a comment on that. I'm assuming there is traffic calming measures here. It looks like that street along the big open space would probably be more than 700 feet and you have some traffic calming things going on. If you might mention that. Yeah. Right through there. Leonard: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Hoaglun, we have -- we have worked extensively with ITD on exactly what you brought up as a concern and McDermott Road is actually going to terminate in a cul-de-sac just north of our northwest corner and so on that road -- our first phase, if you probably remember, pointing at the screen, if you can see my cursor, but Levi Lane to the south is Oaks North, it's going to be constructed and, then, over to the west we will be including about 65 residences in our first phase, which will stub that roadway over to McDermott Road. So, that will be a connection point there and Oaks -- Rustic Oaks North is actually intended to be a collector roadway, so it's meant and has been forecasted by the City of Meridian and Ada County Highway District on the master street map to be a road that will kind of collect more traffic and take stress off of more heavily used roads. So, in this case the intention of that roadway is to take most of the traffic that would usually be going over to McDermott or over to Black Cat and kind of give them a central -- a halfway point to go north and south. In regard to your question about that traffic calming, yes, that was a comment that ACHD had and that's something that will be easy to mitigate. We do have a couple of roads that are exceeding the 750 foot length. I think primarily the one that's on the southern boundary, kind of adjacent to the homes on the Oaks North Subdivision -- and the reason for that is we actually couldn't put stub streets in there. There weren't any that were provided with that subdivision. So, Levi Lane or Rustic Oak Way technically have some roads that kind of intersect in between, so it doesn't qualify for that 750 foot length requirement, but it will still, obviously, make sure that that road is properly mitigated for any traffic concerns and it's safe for folks living in the area as well to assist, so -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Stephanie, thank you for pointing out those intersections. Yes, that's -- that's a very good point. And it looks like for Levi, North Rustic, you do have setbacks there, so those houses -- the -- the backs of them will have some setback from that road, so they are not right up against it and if that's going to be a main -- it's still a collector, it's classified Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 54of81 as a collector, but they will -- they will -- they will have some buffer from that being directly on the roadway; is that correct? Leonard: Yes. That's correct, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun. We will put a 20 foot landscape buffer along the Levi Lane -- or Rustic Oak. Sorry. So, that will provide a nice buffer area for folks that have their homes backing onto that roadway. We also have a ten foot multi-use pathway, which Patrick mentioned, that kind of extends along the -- the entire north-south roadway there, so that will provide an additional barrier. Hoaglun: Okay. Good information. Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: While we are still on the topic of transportation, so Sonya had mentioned that Council needs to determine about the proposed access. You know, that being a collector -- Rustic Oak being a collector, instead of arterial, which is what is required in code for emergency care. So, we talked about what -- whether this really classifies as emergency care or not. So, I have a couple of questions regarding that. One, do you believe that this does classify as emergency care under our code and, number two, we had the same conversation with the hospital that's going to be going in nearby -- going into the north and that is, essentially, going to dead end into their development and they originally had intended that to be -- I mean that -- that will be a -- that can't be an arterial, because it, essentially, dead ends and it's a very short street, but they are going to design it in such a way that it has the capacity of an arterial, where it's going to be like a boulevard entrance, and so is that a conversation that's been had? And I would like to actually hear from the applicant and from the staff -- and from staff on whether that's a possibility here in this situation and so that it gives the -- the usability of an arterial, but -- but it's not actually, you know, designated that way. Hope that question made sense. Leonard: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I think -- so in regard to designing it as an arterial roadway, I don't know that we have got enough space to design it to that width or to include a boulevard entrance. I mean I think what we have actually shown here is exactly what we need for the collector. In fact, we had to be kind of creative with ACHD in dedicating the correct amount of right of way, which I think is like 16 plus feet. So, don't know if that would be an option. I think we, you know, certainly would be willing to think about what an option could be. I think we are lucky in this case, because the medical campus is directly abutting the state highway and we don't have any other uses that will be kind of in between those two uses and the way that we have designed the medical campus specifically is to kind of limit the number of access points that are on Rustic Oak. We have just one full access point that's up to 660 feet south of the intersection there as required by code and in allowing -- or providing that frontage road and, then, just one right-in, right-out that's shown a little bit further north of that. So, hopefully, that will alleviate, you know, any concern there, but a little tricky, but I think it's a little bit different Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 55 of 81 of a design than what's at the subdivision to the north, so -- and I apologize, but I don't remember the first part of your question. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: It was -- it was whether or not you agree with this being considered an emergency care facility under Meridian's code in -- in terms of requiring it to be an arterial. There was some conversation about this not necessarily being like an ambulatory hospital. Leonard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Perreault, I think we might defer to Betsy on that question, just because she has a lot better of a feel for how their hospital operates. So, we will go ahead and let her talk. Hunsicker: Yeah. And I -- I have to admit I don't know that I'm personally well versed in how the emergency use is defined by the City of Meridian, but from --from my perspective most hospitals have an adjacent and attached emergency room and that we are proposing it with that is to not actually require it to have an emergency room by the state of Idaho, so it's something that as -- when we come back for -- I think there has to be a future permitting of the actual hospital, so, you know, when we come back at that point in time we will be more specific about the actual services being provided in this location, but for now we are proposing it with an emergency room. So, I would assume an emergency -- a full service emergency room would -- would meet your definition at this point in time. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I wanted to drill down for a second into the open space. We are in the middle of updating our open space requirements and we have a workgroup, so it's a big focus for the city I think to increase our standards and really take a hard look at what qualified open space means. So, I just -- I kind of wanted to understand if you take out the open spaces on a couple of these lots that are small that don't meet the minimum dimensional standards and I personally don't count like buffers and things -- I just don't. I understand that we do, but I don't. So, what's your real open space I guess is my question that -- that's outside of those categories and, you know, do you think that's appropriate for an annexation and -- and the level of -- the quality of development that you have here? Leonard: Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, I think -- it's hard to calculate that kind of off-the-cuff, but if we were to take out the buffers, which is a hundred percent I think of the collectors and, then, 50 percent of the -- it would probably be around like ten percent with what we are showing here. I think the -- the blue outlines are shown on the screen, as you can see here, with the exception of the large central open space, are all areas that qualify under the open space ordinance. As far as -- we are not showing any linear open Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 56 of 81 space, which is always a little bit tricky, but all of those spaces you see here would qualify under the ordinance. Strader: Mr. Mayor, if I may, could we have staff -- Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: -- respond as well if they have that handy. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, staff did that analysis. As I stated it exceeds our UDC standards. The UDC does count buffers, so we have to count those. I don't have the -- I don't have the counts without those handy, though. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would like to understand what percentage of the qualified open space is being contributed by buffers and what our open space would really be if we didn't have that. That's just me. I understand what our requirements are, but this is a massive development and it just seems like it would be -- so, if the applicant gets a chance -- it may not -- the decision may not hinge on it necessarily, but I would like to know that information if -- if it's possible. Leonard: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I think -- I mean we can certainly try our best to guesstimate. The buffers do not offer a lot of usable open space in this regard. So, I think, you know, looking at the usable large open space, such as the -- almost four acre central park that we are providing, as well as multiple-use pathways that are included along all of Rustic Oak and to the east and along Chinden as well as to the small tot lot and the large tot lot, that the usable open space that -- I believe if we were to calculate would actually probably be over the ten percent. I think we are at 11.8 with the buffers included and I'm just trying to think about how far those all are to kind of calculate square footage, but I think it would be pretty minimal compared to the entire open space that we are providing overall. Strader: Thank you for your commentary. Leonard: Thanks. Simison: So, any additional questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Well, this is a public hearing. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this item? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we had a few people sign up, no one indicating a wish to testify. do see one hand raised, though. Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 57of81 Simison: Okay. Well, we will go ahead and go to the person who has indicated a desire to speak under their three minutes allotted time frame. If there is anybody else who is on the Zoom call that would like to testify, please, indicate so by raising your hand and we will bring you in one at a time to provide testimony. Madam Clerk, who is our first person you are bringing in? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, that would be Cary Pitman. Simison: Cary, if you can unmute -- Pitman: Can you hear me? Simison: Yes. We can hear you. If you can state your name and address for the record. Pitman: Cary Pitman. Address is 63 -- 6203 North Serenity Lane. Simison: Thank you. You are recognized for three minutes. Pitman: Can you -- can you bring up the slide of the frontage road's access proposal? Yeah. That one there. I'm the first house on the left when you come down Serenity there from the north going south. That -- that -- the corner of my property and that frontage road is only like 21 feet on the right of way. Is that going to be a one-way or two-way road? Oh, my gosh. Can you hear me? Simison: We can hear you. Do you have other comments or would you like staff to answer that question? Pitman: Yeah. Go ahead, staff, answer the question on the -- that frontage road in -- in that -- Allen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I -- Pitman: -- and going east -- Simison: Go ahead, Sonya. Allen: I believe it's 20 feet wide. The applicant can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's 20. Pitman: And that's -- that's substantial for two-way traffic? Connor: So, real quick, Mr. Mayor and Council Members, the -- we believe that it's actually 26 feet wide and it is intended for two-way traffic that's on that frontage road. There is no parking or there is no -- there is no backing along that. It's strictly a driving way. Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 58 of 81 Pitman: Well, I would dispute that from my statement I put out there from the corner of my fence to the -- the fence that's out there right now is 21 feet. So, I will dispute that. Also what is the CMU wall? The CMU wall behind my -- Connor: It's a type of masonry wall. It's required between commercial land use and residential land uses. So, it's an eight foot masonry wall to help with privacy and noise screening between two separate land uses. Pitman: Well, that will be great for the view that I used to have, so -- okay. But, anyway, I would dispute that -- that measurement between there and the right of way, so -- I don't know where you guys get that measurement from, but I have measured it consistently different in there. And that's -- what -- what is the frontage road used for? Access for employees or ambulance and emergency vehicles? What is the -- what's the purpose of this frontage road? Staff? Allen: Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure if you want me responding directly or -- Simison: Yes. Yes. Please -- please do. Allen: The purpose of the frontage road at this point will just be for emergency access to the site. When -- when and if the residential properties redevelop and the property to the west of Peregrine Heights Subdivision redevelops commercially, that will provide a frontage road along the state highway. City code requires it to reduce access points to the state highway. Pitman: So, that will be emergency access to the property to my west? So, the property to the west? Allen: It will eventually be a frontage road that's -- that's used as an access road -- a public access road to the properties to the --from the properties to the west to the collector street, Rustic Oak. But right now, until those properties redevelop, it will just be used as an emergency access to this medical center complex. Pitman: So, if somebody turns the wrong direction off of Chinden and comes down Serenity and blocks that emergency access road because of-- there is a gate or bollards or whatever could end up being down there, is that going to be an issue for someone? Allen: That's -- Mr. Mayor, that's a question for the Fire Department. I'm not sure that this is a required access. I will defer to Joe on that. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor and Cary, it -- that access is required for the medical campus if it gets approved and moves forward and it does have to be 26 feet wide because of the three story portion of the building. Thirty feet or three stories requires 26 foot wide roadways for the ladder truck. Pitman: That's 13 minutes away. Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 59of81 Bongiorno: Correct. Pitman: At this point. Yeah. So, my -- my concern is that -- and not that I would want this to happen, but if I am coming from my property and I'm going out to Chinden and should there not be bollards or a gate or whatever there and I'm going to turn right on Chinden and I have my -- my -- my truck and my camp trailer and somebody pulls up behind me and you need emergency access down that road, who is responsible for that? I mean is it -- if I can't get out on Chinden and I have got the road blocked essentially. Does that make sense? Bongiorno: It does and we would hope that with lights and sirens going that you would do your best to get out of the way. Pitman: Well, that would be my hope. But I just don't want to be -- I prefer that that not be an issue -- or be something that I would be put in front of, but it appears that that's not going to be -- that's just going to have to be a one time -- hopefully, if any, one time. All right. That was my questions for tonight. Thanks for your help. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for Mr. Pitman? Okay. Madam Clerk, who is our next person to testify? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, that will be Doug Haneborg. Simison: If you can state your name and address for the record after you unmute yourself that would be great. Mr. Haneborg, you are unmuted now. If you want to try speaking. Madam Clerk, if we want to try bringing in somebody else right now and maybe communicate with Mr. Haneborg for a phone-in number if necessary. Weatherly: And so, Cory, you will be next. One moment, please. Mr. Mayor, our next will be Cory Coltrin. Simison: Cory, if you can unmute your mic and say your name and address for the record. Coltrin: There we go. Yeah. This is Cory Coltrin at 6178 North Serenity Lane. I am the third home south of Chinden on Serenity Lane there and so I am the home that is going to be looking directly at a three story building it looks like and I would just like the Council to consider getting that hospital all the way over towards to the east as close to Levi Lane or Rustic whatever and getting it away from the -- our -- our neighborhood over there. Just fudge it over there as far as you possibly can. You know, we have been here 22 years now and have enjoyed a wonderful view and, obviously, we are going to lose that, but, you know, with a -- with a pool in the backyard and stuff it's going to be pretty uncomfortable having a -- having three stories looking down into my backyard. I don't care how much landscape you put in there, it's going to be -- it's going to -- it's going to be pretty detrimental to us and I would appreciate it if you guys would consider fudging that over just as far east as possible. Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 60 of 81 Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Would it be possible for the applicant to comment on Mr. Coltrin's concern and the possibility of moving that further east? Just curious if they had looked at that in their design. Connor: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council Members and Mr. Coltrin, we have moved this building around quite a bit. Initially -- I don't -- I'm not familiar with your name, but we had it even closer to the residences and it was oriented north-south. We have moved it as far over as we can possibly get it in order to provide sufficient access into the project for the -- for the buildings --for the roads for safety and also to have sufficient parking along Levi Lane. So, that -- where the building is is as far east as we can get it and we have put it about every way we could. Initially the building was oriented so the loading zone was adjacent to Mr. -- Mr. Coltrin's house and we rotated it to accommodate concerns of the neighbors. So, the loading zone is on the south side. So, we have looked at this thing and tried to move it and talked to the HOA representative today for over an hour about the location of this building and I hope they will have a chance to testify as well as kind of more back story and how the building has moved around and shifted and where it's at I believe is -- is as far away from the neighbors as possible. I think it's over 300 feet as it is right now and as I said before, it's -- it's three stories, which I know it isn't one story, but it's certainly not four, which it was initially. So, we did lose one story and it is one story on one half of it and, then, the other half is three. But, yeah we moved that building as far away from the neighbors and also guaranteeing access off of Levi Lane for safe access. Simison: Patrick, just a follow-up question to that, because you mentioned the parking along Levi. I'm just curious why is that parking needed there, as compared to on the back, since there is no real access into the building from that side? Connor: So, the -- the parking between the hospital and Levi, they try to have parking surrounding the building where ever it's at. We need to have sufficient parking adjacent to the ambulance entry and the urgent care center as close as possible. They need to have a certain number of spaces adjacent to the urgent care as possible. This building -- HCA has -- has built these hospitals around the country and in working with the architect for over six or seven months of how to get this thing designed, they are experts in how these things need to be designed and organized for patient safety and patient privacy and everything like that and so where that parking is adjacent to the building, as I said, is as close as we can possibly get it over and while maintaining safety and privacy for the patients. Hunsicker: Hi. This is Betsy from HCA Healthcare again, Mayor and Council Members. If I may add, we -- you do need to have parking over on the emergency side. Initially we did have more parking around the perimeter and that was also a concern of the neighbors Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 61 of 81 that employees will be parking and coming in kind of at all hours and be adjacent to their property with that, so -- so, that was also -- you know, we were trying to address their concern around just traffic on the perimeter backing up to people's homes and like Patrick said, it was turned so the tall building -- the three -- it was four stories previously and those went north-south. So, obviously, the longest perspective, the -- you know, the width was blocking the neighbors and now turning the width has -- has less -- doing that less or, you know, it's -- it's a narrower profile the direction of the neighbors. So, I -- I just want to kind of reinforce what Patrick said that we have moved this building and the MOB a lot and we have taken an entire story off of the building, which is a pretty significant change from -- in terms of making it a viable project and so I -- you know, I think we have -- we have really tried to accommodate the neighbors concerns pretty significantly. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: We have had conversations in the past about not wanting to -- I mean just really upholding -- I guess upholding Meridian's desire to have a premier community; right? That's -- that's part of what we -- what our value and our goal is as a city and we have talked about not having projects where there is a lot of concrete and a lot of blacktop. I'm curious if the applicant had considered any kind of parking structure, rather than having just asphalt and if that would free up any space for them to have some more retail or restaurant. To me it seems like it's just a really small amount, almost kind of like the retail and restaurant was put in there as a concession to what staff had suggested and I don't feel like it's a significant part of this project. So, just curious if -- if there was any consideration of a parking garage. I know they are -- they are very expensive and maybe it's completely cost prohibitive, but I would like to hear their thoughts on that. Hunsicker: This is Betsy and, Mayor and Council Members, I will try to address that. You are right, parking garages are very expensive. We initially had the MOB separate from the retail, but in the desire to move the MOB as far east as we could we -- we really had to put it all together. So, that was actually something that we initially had an office building and, then, we had two -- I think we had two separate pads that were retail on the corner, but to move that building further east and make that work -- we consolidated that and I think that the downside of the parking structure is that you end up putting that on the western end of this property, which I think would be undesirable for the neighbors to be backing up to a parking garage. That's based on the previous conversations. We did not propose that at any point, so I'm speculating, but based on other feedback that would be -- that's what I would have expected to have heard. But there is a -- but those are the other-- that's my commentary on that. Simison: We still have at least Mr. Haneborg. Have we tried to bring him back in, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to take a different approach and just give him permission to talk. Doug, you are unmuted. Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 62 of 81 Simison: Mr. Haneborg, if you can hear us if you can try to speak. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Haneborg, the phone number that you can try calling in on is 1-669-900-6833. Once you dial in enter code 86133943545. Simison: Madam Clerk, maybe we can put that up somehow, let him -- we don't know if he was sitting there with a pen and paper ready to write that down. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, it will take me a few minutes, but I would be happy to do that. Simison: Okay. Council, we have people who have already spoken asking to -- raising their hands again. Oh, we do have someone who has dialed in. Madam Clerk? That raised their hand to speak. Weatherly: Yes, Mr. Mayor. One moment. They should have the ability to unmute themselves and speak. Haneborg: Can you hear me okay? Simison: Yes, we can. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Haneborg: Okay. Yeah. Doug Haneborg. 6002 North Serenity Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Sorry about that. I was having some technical difficulties with the microphone. But, yeah, thank you guys for giving us an opportunity. I'm the current HOA president for Peregrine Heights and for time sake we asked some of the neighbors to just e-mail in questions or concerns that they had up to this point and so I have a short list here of just some questions or concerns. They pertain to both applicant and staff, but I don't know if it's best if I just kind of list them out and, then, we can address those or -- or what's best. But I also want to start off by thanking both Patrick and the hospital, they both have been, you know, great to work with and have listened to our questions and our concerns and have done the best to their ability up to this point to try to accommodate us, so we do appreciate that as well. One of the concerns that was brought up also recently was the possibility of another gate, probably on the north side of Serenity Lane. There is still quite a bit of concern of people trying to access through the neighborhood there and we will end up with maybe even twice the amount of traffic if people are going down to figure out that it's a dead end or they reach the gate at the south lane and, then, they have to turn around and come back through our neighborhood again. So, you know, either another gate there or a private road or dead end type sign we feel would -- would help that. There has also been some concern about that frontage road and the access road there and some confusion, too. We just would like some clarification. There is really nowhere else along Chinden Road that has any frontage road that I'm aware of, even down to Eagle Road, you know, where it's probably the busiest intersection, there is really to my knowledge no type of those -- that type of frontage road and it's such a short little section here and there is some concern with the traffic having to go through that parking lot and weave through there and just kind of what the future purposes is -- what is the land to the west of us going to be zoned as? Is that going to be primarily residential? Are they Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 63 of 81 planning commercial zoning there? So, there is just some concerns there. We would also be interested in seeing if maybe we could get a rendering or more detail -- Patrick did provide some of the pictures for the gates, so we appreciate that. And the style. We are just curious more of what that would look like at the front entrance if we are to put one there on the north side. We would probably have to widen or put in a cul-de-sac type area for cars that are not able to access through the gate or if they have to turn around, because that is a fairly narrow private road there on the north side. So, in going back to that frontage road, the 600 feet that's required off of Levi Lane sounds like that's like a city code or -- or something like that. The UDC 11-3H-4B.3. There is -- there is some curiosity about the actual frontage road itself, it being so close to Chinden and with the future expansion of Chinden and there not being that much room there, are there any ordinance or city code that there has to be so much room between Chinden and that frontage road. That's a concern as well. There is some questions about fire hydrants and future city water that would most likely be coming through our neighborhood. We are currently all on septic and wells and so there is some questions about that and concerns about that. But the need -- do we need to address some of these or should I stop and let -- Simison: Just keep -- keep going. Haneborg: -- people try to answer some of those things or -- Simison: Typically you testify and questions will be asked. Haneborg: Okay. And so -- yeah, there is just some concerns about that with the -- like fire hydrants, we probably need one on the north and the south side at least our neighborhood. I don't know what the city codes are for that, even though we are not, I don't think, part of the annexation, but with the water and things in the future coming through. Pertaining to the hospital, there is some questions and concerns about the lighting in the parking lot transitioning from west to east. If there is the possibility of doing like lower type parking lighting or -- or things that aren't so high up in the air that they are going to be shining into residents backyards or causing a nuisance for those homes that back up to the hospital, if they can maybe do -- do some type of lower lighting and, then, they can maybe get taller as they get closer to the buildings. But that's somewhat of a concern as well. You know, any of those -- we are -- we are aware that there is a sound barrier, but there is still some concerns for like trash and snow and noise from like HVAC units that will be on top of the buildings. So, there is just some concerns there still with noise and smell and lighting concerns as well. Also I don't know if Patrick or somebody can pull up a picture further down of the neighborhood of the larger estate lots, but they did do -- they did eliminate it looks like one of the lots there. There is some concern. Typically a home is the biggest purchase that a family makes and so these are all -- our lots here are all, you know, six, seven, eight hundred, nine hundred thousand dollar -- some approaching a million dollar lot and homes here. They are all at least an acre plus. And so there is some concern about, you know, how many lots are butting up to those properties. There is still four properties butting up to the very southeast corner lot there and so we are just curious is if, you know, there is still something that can be done there Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 64 of 81 with concern to property value possibly going down, you know, going from an acre, you know, with nothing next to it and, then, all of a sudden now there is four lots that butt right up next to it, whereas the other properties only have two that are butting up to it. So, just concerned that other -- it might devalue possible future square footage for some of the homes and properties. Going back to the fire as well, that five minute access. It seems to me that that's currently the situation, but just curious as Chinden also develops, it sounds like there has been talks of getting rid of the middle turn lane and maybe doing a concrete wall. There are no current points for u-turns anywhere, so it looks like from that map that the fire chief put up that currently it's green, but in the future when there won't be ability -- when there will be a right-in, right-out there on Serenity, what does that look like when Chinden is expanded, there is no u-turn anywhere there, Chinden eventually goes down to a two lane beyond -- east there of Highway 16 and there is really no u-turns anywhere beyond that. So, there is just some concern with fire access being able to get to the residence in a timely manner with there being no u-turns on the right-in, right-out. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Haneborg. Any further comments? If not, we can start -- Haneborg: Yeah. I'm just scrolling to make sure I didn't miss any here real quick, but I think the majority of them -- oh. There is questions about the second access point to McDermott and it seems to me like -- or seems to a lot of us that from the beginning the point of the access road up north was to create a second access point, but there is questions as to does McDermott not justify that and/or taking an access point over to Black Cat, like through the school or -- or north or south of the future school site there, if there is a way to tie into maybe Black Cat that way as well, because it seems like we are cramming these two access points in just north of us, which I think in the future, from what we understand, the plans are that that will be closed off completely, because it's going to be too close to Highway 16 is our understanding. So, there is some questions about that. I think that's the gist of it. I'm sure there will probably -- there could be still some other questions that we -- we didn't get to address right now that some other people might chime in and still want to ask, but I think that was -- were the majority of it. So, yeah, we can address those on transportation and fire and -- yeah. So, that will be different applicants and the staff that can maybe chime in on some of those concerns and questions that we have. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess the question I have for the HOA president -- I apologize, I didn't catch his name, but do you feel, sir, like you had a neighborhood meeting and that you have had an adequate opportunity to understand, you know, the details and -- I guess I'm just asking do you feel like you want more one-on-one interaction with the developer and city staff? That's certainly not in the cards at the moment, but feels like there were a lot of detailed questions. Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 65 of 81 Haneborg: Yeah. I feel like there is something -- I think some of us in the neighborhood feel like some of this is being thrown together, you know, and -- and we have been talking with Patrick for like over a year and, like I said, he has been great about answering questions and helping us. Some of this is not even with Patrick, some of it is more like fire or transportation. So, there is kind of a blend here. But I feel like as a neighborhood, you know, we are doing our best to ask our questions and try and get them answered and I think, you know, a lot of them have been. As you guys can tell from this plan, there has been a lot of changes and -- and that's -- you know, a lot of that has come from our suggestions, which we appreciate, you know, the flexibility and -- and them doing that and so I just think there is some concerns. I mean, like I said, you know, the biggest purchase most people make is their home and so for a lot of people here they have used their purchase, you know, in the last few recent years when prices have gone up or they are people that have lived here for 20 years and, you know, it's a big change, because a lot of the value here was -- were the views of the mountain and so there is all these proposals here and there is still some unanswered questions like about the frontage road that we feel like we are not really getting the answers on that makes sense. Like I -- like with the frontage road itself we are passing through a parking lot and, then, it's like Cary was saying, it's like butting up right next to his property line and, you know, eventually the plans are to close Serenity for future ITD planning it sounds like. So, yeah, I feel like there is just still some unanswered questions that we are not sure on. Strader: Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes. Strader: You know, it -- there is a lot of detail and it's a really big project and I -- I'm only one -- one City Council person, but I think it's okay to -- to take our time in making a final decision and getting it right and if--we could do this all night. We could be here until 2:00 a.m., but maybe continuing this to give some opportunity for staff and others to hash out some more detailed one-on-one meetings might actually work out best. That -- that's just my two cents. Simison: Let's start with getting the questions answered, because I think a lot of them are quite simple questions that I could answer, but I'm going to defer to staff and let them do it. Council, any -- any questions for Mr. Haneborg? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Not a question, just a response to one of his and has to deal with the property values and just for -- speaking from personal experience, Doug, you know, I -- my wife and I are rural property -- her family's farm and -- and we -- we experienced the same thing that you are looking at going through and that is having houses right up next to you and losing the views, I sympathize. We miss that. But it happens. And I have to -- have to tell you, though, with now having three houses behind me -- well, two plus a fraction of Page 78 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 66 of 81 the other one, except for '08 and '09 when everybody's property values went down, we have not experienced any property value decrease because of the development and those houses up against ours, so -- I mean if that's any solace, which, you know, this is a tough pill to swallow when --when development comes calling and I understand how your folks feel, but it can be a good thing if -- it sounds like you have got developers who are listening to you, which is always good and we want to certainly take a hard look at this and make it a good project, if that's where we end up going, but just wanted to share that with you, that at least from my experience when development moved in, because of the type of development, the quality and whatnot, we didn't experience any property value decrease, except for those -- those bad years for everybody. So, hope that helps. Simison: Deputy Chief, would you like to respond regarding the fire-related questions? Bongiorno: Sure. I will jump in. Mr. Mayor and Council and our caller -- I also didn't catch his name. So, a couple items. So, looking at access, as far as access goes, there is two things that we are looking at here, the proposed medical campus, because it has a building that's over 120,000 square feet and it's three stories tall, it -- that parcel alone requires two separate accesses and the two accesses have to be at least half the diagonal of the property apart. So, that's one reason why there is the frontage road over to Serenity Lane, so we would have one access on the west and one access on the east and, then, as far as the connection to McDermott goes, it's the same thing for access for the subdivision. Anytime you have more than 30 homes on a subdivision, you have to have two separate accesses. So, once Levi Lane or -- or Rustic Canyon is -- or Rustic Oak is built, they will have two separate accesses, one to the north and one to the south, and, then, also they are giving us an access out to McDermott. So, there will actually be three accesses, which is better. As far as Serenity Lane goes -- and it's my understanding that the north end -- the end up against Chinden Boulevard is going to stay open until the roadway is widened. Now, I don't know when that is scheduled to be widened, but it's my understanding when they do the full build up -- build out of Chinden Boulevard there will be a cul-de-sac on the end of Serenity Lane. You have to remember a cul-de-sac is 96 feet in diameter. So, that's going to eat up a lot of ground when they go to put that cul- de-sac in. There was no talk at least to me about another gate at the north end of Serenity Lane. Again, my goal the last time we talked about this at Planning and Zoning was we would like unhindered access and I was okay with the gate on the south end of Serenity Lane, because we were going to put an Opticom device on it, which would -- which would give us quicker access into your subdivision. As far as fire hydrants go, you -- because you are not in the city, I don't believe -- and I will defer this to Clint to fill in, but there will be no fire hydrants that I'm aware of brought up Serenity Lane. So, I believe there is one at the north end somewhere near that gate and, then, there is probably going to be one on the proposed medical campus nearby, but there are no plans to bring a fire hydrant onto Serenity Lane. That's all I had written down. So, if there is anything I missed -- Simison: Deputy Chief, I think -- I think the one thing that if the access changes, but maybe if you will just want to reiterate the point about where fire Station 7/8 is planned to be built, so that they are aware of where the future response will come from by the -- and that will occur well before Chinden is ever built out to six lanes. Page 79 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 67 of 81 Bongiorno: Correct. Mr. Mayor and City Council and our caller, yes, Station 7 or Station 8, whichever one we are going to call it, is within a mile. I don't know if -- Patrick, if you want to quit sharing I can -- I can bring that map up again. I still have it open. Let me know when it's up. Simison: It's up, chief. Bongiorno: Okay. So, here is Serenity Lane right here in this little green area and, then, right here over by the high school is where the -- we own this land right here, this -- this little Idaho shaped piece of land. The city -- I don't know if we have closed on it yet, but we own that piece of property and that is where the -- one of our proposed fire stations is going to go. So, once that station is open and built, we just have a quick jaunt down McDermott and, then, we are into that area fairly quickly. Again, with the -- with that station built that's what our five minute response time looks like in that area. So, the whole thing is green. And, actually, if we zoom out a little bit we cover -- we cover quite a bit. So, we will actually go almost into Star with that fire station being built. Simison: Thank you, Deputy Chief. If we can now go to Mr. Dolsby just to confirm the water-sewer infrastructure in this area. Dolsby: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, as a part of this development if -- Patrick, could you bring back up that -- yeah. Thank you. That the services are going to be stubbed down that little stub street that goes to the bottom. Yeah. Right there. There is water and sewer services that will be in that road when it gets stubbed to the end of that cul-de-sac and the plan to serve that Serenity Lane would be that -- that those water and sewer lines would be taken up in the future up Serenity Lane. We don't have any plans to do that as a city project, it would more than likely -- it would be done as kind of as an as-needed basis as the septics or the wells fail in Serenity Lane. So, right now we don't have -- we wouldn't have any plans to bring services up Serenity Lane or put fire hydrants in, but in the future water and sewer would most likely go up Serenity Lane to serve those homes. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Dolsby. And, Sonya, I'm going to turn the rest over to you to the best of your ability to follow up on any of the additional questions. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm not sure that I got everything he was asking, but I can cover a couple of them that I remember. There was some conversation about -- or concerns about light trespass. When we review the actual detail plans for the site with the certificate of zoning compliance and design review, we do require a photometric plan to be submitted from a light engineer and lighting cannot trespass onto adjacent residential property. So, we will be reviewing a photometric plan with approval of this project. Frontage roads. Typically we like to see a public street. The reason we did not require one to the west is because of the Peregrine Heights, the residential development, and the feasibility of it redeveloping anytime soon, we didn't -- we didn't feel like it was probably very feasible that that would happen. So, rather than require a stub street -- a public stub street to residential property that couldn't go Page 80 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 68 of 81 anywhere for quite some time, we looked at the alternative of a frontage road. So, that will provide access eventually to the property to the west, which is part of the future mixed use and interchange designated area and the State Highway 16 interchange. Yes. In that area there. Are there any other questions that I missed? Simison: I think -- Sonya, I think the only thing that I had -- and I just -- what is the land use designation that this area to the west is? Allen: Yeah. It's mixed use interchange. MUI. Simison: Okay. Allen: And it -- it's just basically for low traffic mix of uses. Simison: Is that primarily residential-commercial in that -- Allen: It could -- yeah. It could be that. We want -- we want to see more uses that don't generate a lot of traffic, so offices, possibly some residential, low intensity commercial uses. Simison: Okay. And, lastly, I will turn it over to the applicant, if you feel like there is any questions that we missed from the questions that were asked. Weatherly: Mr. Mayor? Excuse me. I saw Steve Siddoway raise his hand. I moved him over. Simison: Okay. Mr. Siddoway, did -- were there questions that were asked for you as well. You are looking a little Bohemian Rhapsody right now. Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, can you hear me okay? Simison: Yeah. Now we can hear you. Yeah. Siddoway: No -- Simison: Steve, maybe turn off your video. Siddoway: -- have one question -- all right. Can you hear me better now? Simison: Yes. Siddoway: Okay. I have been in communication back and forth during the hearing with our pathways project manager Kim, just to confirm something that I had a question about. If there -- it might be easiest to describe if we could bring up the slide that showed the -- the pathway network. Can we switch to that one? I think it's number 13. Yes. So, this line on -- actually, does look correct, but there is a part that's missing -- well, so as long Page 81 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 69 of 81 as the conditions of approval are adopted as they are already written we are fine, but from --from the --where the red line crosses what's shown is Levi Lane -- it sounds like it might have a new name now, but there is also a requirement to continue south to the southern edge -- yes. Right there. Of the subdivision to connect to a pathway that's being constructed in the Oaks Subdivision below it. So, I just want to make sure that that is also happening and hasn't been left off intentionally. Connors: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, yes, this is also a ten foot pathway. I neglected to show it on accident, but, yes, it does run full length to this property. Siddoway: Okay. That takes care of my concern. Thank you. Simison: Patrick, did you guys have any -- any additional comments to Mr. Haneborg's questions that may have not been addressed by staff? Connor: Yes. Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Thank you, Mr. Haneborg, for testifying. The -- the notion of the gate on the north end of Serenity Lane was just part of the conversation today that we had with the neighbor -- neighbor representative in a way to keep traffic from going down through them on accident. Whether a gate is a desirable for our access there -- I think there is other solutions we can provide, whether it's signage. We also have some -- some space here that we can provide a turnaround point -- if you have made the wrong turn that this is a private road, a private community, it will be accessible for them to turn around. This is some space and we are happy to do this as part of the application. As -- as staff said, the lighting study will happen in the conditional use permit process and we are more than happy to work in creating lighting that is not going to be a distraction and that keeps the sky dark and keeps the parking lot safe. Down at the front end of the property these are R-4 homes that are adjacent to this lot, because of its location on the corner. This particular homeowner is actually one of the landowners for this overall project. He supports the project. He is in favor of it. He is fine with the four neighbors adjacent to his parcel. Initially at the first Planning and Zoning Commission we had five lots adjacent to his and we added this green space here to mediate and it actually made the lots quite a bit larger than we initially had them. Again, if and when in the future of Serenity Lane does terminate at the north end at this point, it makes this access point even all the more critical, so we are happy that is planned here and that it will be there for future fire access. As of now with the gate it will be for Serenity use only, but that will be a primary access point in the future for access onto Chinden. And, then, just -- just to touch on some of the coordination we have had with the neighborhood. I believe it was December 17th of last year -- so, coming on a year that we had our very first neighborhood meeting with this project. It seems like five years ago with how this year has gone, but -- so, the first neighborhood meeting. We had a follow- up neighborhood meeting in the springtime and, then, we had another conditional use permit meeting specifically about the medical campus. So, we actually had three official meetings. That doesn't count the number of phone calls I have had with members of Peregrine Heights. Text messages. E-mails. You know, a couple hours each month the past three months at these public hearings working through some of these issues and we have made a lot of concessions, we have made a lot of changes. We have got a lot of Page 82 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 70 of 81 really valuable input that has made this project better and as best as I think we could possibly make at this point. The -- the concerns were completely valid and they completely make sense as far as the frontage road and transportation access and things like that and that's just going to be part -- part of the project because of the way that the code reads and the way the project is situated. I think we made a lot of accommodations to be the best possible we can be. We think that the medical campus is a really integral part of this overall project in making a true mixed use, but also an economic hub and a tax base for the City of Meridian. I just want to touch on two other points that we haven't had a chance to comment on. The multi-family portion over here -- like we said, there is one common management company, so there is one point of contact in the case of fire and emergency and that's the intent and that's the purpose of having that single management company is to ensure that the whole community is safe for emergency responses. That's the way that these projects function as we build in neighboring municipalities around the Treasure Valley. And, lastly, the parks -- there is some discussion on the amount of land that we are using for parks, excluding the buffers. I just also want to touch on -- there is a future school site over here with the school amenity, whether it's ball fields or playgrounds and things like that, that is another part of this project that's not being shown, but it is neighborhood amenity and it is part of a public facility that can be used by citizens of this area. And as far as the Parks and Rec, we think we have done a really good job in scouting these usable pocket parks with actual amenities, but also leaving some area for creative space and be able to throw a baseball or kick a soccer ball or, you know, pull -- get on a sled. So, I think we are really proud of this project, we are proud of what the community will become as it grows in the future and -- anything else that -- Leonard: I think you covered it. Connor: Okay. I think that covers several questions. If you have anymore questions we are open to them. Simison: Thank you, Patrick. Do we have anyone who has raised their hand wishing -- they wish to testify, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we do not. Simison: Okay. Patrick, I don't know if that intended to be your wrap up or not, but, Council, any additional questions for the applicant before we officially go to them for any final comments? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: A couple of questions. Patrick, on your last comment, help me understand how the school site is part of the project without any apparent connectivity. At least from what Page 83 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 71 of 81 we are looking at on the screen right now is a good example. What road connects to the east? Connor: Hold on one second. Let me pull up a different map. This probably does it the best. So, as I stated in the very beginning, but there is about 28 acres here that's owned by West Ada School District and the history here is a lot of these parcels in this area were illegally subdivided many many years ago. So, in order to have this particular parcel owned by West Ada School District legally annexed and zoned, their -- their option was to join in our plat and so it's shown here strictly for the intention of being annexed and zoned, because it's owned and will be developed by the school district itself, it's not necessarily part of our phasing plan or our project, but it is part of this application. Yeah. The -- this road here -- if you can see my cursor. That's West Rambling Street. That is part of the school district parcel. It's kind of like a panhandle. And that is their access road to the collector road and into their project. And that's also an ACHD collector road that will eventually connect to Rustic. Borton: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: The second question concerns the -- the outparcel on that northeast corner. Correct. So, it's not part of this application, but your reference to the other -- the map that shows if it were -- yeah. So, this is the actual application and plat, but you have got another one that has -- there you go. So, that -- that parcel -- it looks like it's about 130 feet wide and it looks to be completely useless. So, why wouldn't we wait until that parcel is part of this application, at least with an affidavit of interest that allows you to include it, because I don't see any scenario where the application makes sense without it. And it sounds like, to your credit, you might not either, which is why this is what's shown to us. So, why wouldn't we wait until that is a hundred percent certain to be part of this? Connor: So, this is kind of getting into the minutia of that -- sorry. Mayor and Council Members, this is kind of getting into the minutia of that particular parcel and how the deal is currently structured. That parcel -- it is a very kind of oddly sized and shaped parcel. We are including it and showing it here, because there is a -- it was recommended by staff to not leave any parcels not included and also it works better as an overall project in allowing us to have this as far away from here as possible and offering two points of access and because of the way the contract is negotiated for that parcel, a significant amount of money would go hard upon getting this in the contract and getting it part of this application, the intent with the --with strategy of the negotiation is if this parcel is annexed and zoned, it gives the hospital enough confidence to go hard -- or to go hard earnest money for this outparcel based on negotiations. If we wait or if it's part of this application and, then, for whatever reason it does not go through, it is a very expensive outparcel that is now unusable for the desired intent. So, like I said before, we do want to have this outparcel part of this application, part of this project. We want to bring it in during the conditional use permit process and annexing and zoning and we are showing this building as part of it. We wanted to show it in both ways, because we wanted to show that the Page 84 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 72 of 81 project can be developed and could be developed without this outparcel. Our complete intent is for it to look like this at the end of the day, but because our application excludes the outparcel we are showing it here. It can be developed like this. It can work. But that is not how we want it to be and that's not how -- if we are approved tonight and this was annexed and zoned tonight, this outparcel now becomes part of the project, there is enough security there for the hospital to move forward with the -- with the acquisition of that parcel and so this will be part of the conditional use design of the application. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just a quick follow up. Patrick, I -- that's amongst a lot of good concerns that have been raised I think by the -- by the public and fellow Council Members. That one for me is paramount, meaning the absence of that as part of this is a critical omission. We have seen other projects where you have -- there is an adjacent parcel under contract and you have a binding affidavit of interest or an automatic trigger upon annexation and there is -- there is zero room for any opportunity for it not to be included and -- and just the remarks about -- even a potential that it might not be included -- anything can go sideways unless you already haven it locked up contractually with absolute certainty. It didn't sound like you are there yet and there is risk, I understand, with -- with money going hard without it. That's the concern, because while this project technically could go forward without it, oftentimes we have been reluctant and have said maybe it's not time yet, because the parcels aren't complete and this -- for me that was one of the concerns in prep for this that I was hoping there was a different answer. I just didn't see anything which provided certainty and leaving that outparcel -- if -- if the very -- even if it's really unlikely, but the likelihood is greater than zero where you can't guarantee it won't happen --that parcel would be a problem for a long long time and perhaps completely unbuildable. So, those are the -- those are some of the concerns on that issue alone that -- I don't know how you -- how that survives today, quite frankly. That's -- that's a big one. Leonard: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Borton, thanks for your comments. I think -- this is, obviously, something that's been a very big deal throughout the duration of this whole project and my understanding is -- I haven't been involved since beginning of us working on this, but I'm saying that we were trying to get a hold of the property owner for that outparcel for quite some time to get them to be a part of this project at the very beginning of it and we weren't able to make contact and, then, as the project came to fruition, obviously, there was more interest from the outparcel in being included and as such it's kind of brought forth a weird situation where it's almost like a Catch 22 where if we include them at a certain point, then, they know that their property is valuable and it just kind of becomes-- it would be tricky, I guess, to require us to include them as part of this, knowing that they would be the only reason we would get maybe a recommendation or approval in this case. If that makes sense. I would be interested to maybe see what Bill Nary thinks or if there is legal counsel here just to kind of see how that would work,just because I'm not familiar with that whole -- of that kind of -- it just seems a little bit -- it could be strange I think. Page 85 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 73of81 Hunsicker: This is Betsy. Can I -- can I chime in here? This is Betsy from West -- from HCA West Valley. So, we actually have -- if it's not executed yet, we are almost to have an executed purchase and sale agreement on that property. We are already looking at a demolition -- we are already looking at demolition companies. The seller was out of town and unavailable for several weeks. I mean it's been a very challenging situation just to get them to -- you know, kind of to get it done, but -- but we have -- we -- we agree to all the terms and we have that PSA-- if it's not executed, then, it's very close to be executed. Borton: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the update. And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but I think it's beneficial for you, for sure, just to hear that concern. There have been very rare circumstances in different applications in prior years where the --the unintended event actually occurred and you have --whether it's a spite strip or just the -- the extremely rare, but problematic outparcel or spite strip that in hindsight we could have avoided and so that's why I'm being -- at least just trying to openly express that concern, that we have seen it happen before. Nothing's a deal until it's a deal, so without that one hundred percent certainty and maybe that comes very soon, but it's not here tonight. So, amongst the other areas of concern that one's just a problem. Simison: I completely agree personally. I think it's hard to judge a book by a different cover. Until that cover is part of it you don't get to -- you don't get to approve this project based on what may or may not happen in the future, you can only approve based on what's in front of you today. In my personal opinion. So, maybe a suggestion at the time we are at. Council Woman Strader had a suggestion to put this off for additional opportunities for -- to talk to the residents. I don't know if that's as important as it is for this outparcel to be determined if it will be part or not officially of a future application and if additional time would allow that to be wrapped up, since we hear it's close. As well as talk to the residents. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Council Woman Strader. Strader: I -- I could just summarize, I guess, where my head is at. I feel like I -- I just don't -- personally I just don't think we are there yet. I also don't think there is any sense in rushing through something that's not fully flushed out of this size and scope. 1 -- I would be okay with making a motion to continue it. I guess I would hope, you know, not only that we could -- certainly the developer would have an opportunity, if they wanted to take it, to continue the good work they have done in working with the neighbors, flush out any more concerns, hopefully come back to us with that remaining parcel acquired or under a contract or something more certain, to Councilman Borton's point, and, then, I -- I personally still have a few concerns about the multi-family development, the different ownership of those buildings and wanting to see some type of an amenity there and an Page 86 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 74of81 open space concerns that remain, because I -- if my fellow Council Members feel differently, they want to chime in, otherwise, I will make a motion to continue. Simison: I'm -- I'm getting general agreement that that would be the direction, the preference from your Council. Maybe a question for the applicant or -- or Betsy, if she's still here. How long until they think further decisions could be made upon the outparcel? Connor: We believe that -- Mr. Mayor, Council Members, we believe that the contract is there, the buyer has just been out of the country off and on throughout this year and so it's been hard to pin down. So, we think that -- we think that the purchase and sale agreement can be executed very shortly and it can be included in the application. Simison: So, very shortly during the holidays, is that January 5th or further out than that? Connor: Okay. We would need time and maybe -- maybe staff could advise us here, because it -- we are actually changing the application, we will have to renotice the neighbors, have an additional neighborhood meeting before the next hearing. If we can get a variance from that we would appreciate it and just have the application show as it's shown on the screen now as intended and since that affidavit and the outparcel be part of the application. Allen: Mr. Mayor? This is Sonya. Simison: Yes, Sonya. Allen: If -- I just want to speak up. If we are going this direction, if -- if this property is obtained and they do file a request for annexation, that part has to go back to the Commission. Well, not back to the Commission, but it has to go to the Commission and they have to make a recommendation to Council. Are you thinking of delaying this application that long? Anyway, just a consideration for you to be aware of. Simison: Mr. Nary, I know at one point in time the question was that they would do something through the CUP for the outparcel. Do you -- how would you envision this moving forward if it was delayed with that as part of the process? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, what I thought I heard Mr. Connor say was that their intention was -- would be to bring that back with the CUP and an annexation at the same time. So, I think that was their intent. If they -- if they want to do it now, Sonya is correct, you are going to have to amend this application, restart the process, put this on hold to get that other one to catch up to this one, so that it's one project. Or, I guess, alternatively -- I know this is a delay as well, but it sounds like that's the direction Council is considering -- you could remand this back to the Planning and Zoning Commission, because it still has to get amended, attached, connected together, one project, reviewed as a whole, all of the neighborhood meetings, all of that has to be done over. So, either way this either sits until it catches up to it or it goes back and they all get connected together at P&Z. Page 87 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 75of81 Simison: So, I guess I will ask the applicant, based on those directions, if they have a -- a desired way to move forward. Allen: Mr. Mayor? I'm sorry, this is Sonya. May -- may I interrupt real quick? Simison: Yes, Sonya. Allen: The -- the outparcel annexation would really be separate from the conditional use permit for the hospital. The medical office building doesn't require a conditional use permit. That wouldn't prohibit them from bringing in two separate applications, a conditional use permit for the hospital and an annexation for the medical office building, but they are not really the same application. So, I just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Frankly, I -- I'm not tracking any of that. So, I -- I think there could be some benefit, honestly, to going back to Planning and Zoning, because I feel like they have -- they will be able to hear the concerns from Council and -- and help maybe iron out some more details if it's needed. Yeah. I guess -- I think there is a consensus from Council that we are not ready to make a decision on this tonight, because we don't feel like we have a full application. So, I guess does Planning staff have a recommendation on the optimal way to do this or does the applicant have a strong opinion and -- and some timing that they want to suggest for a tentative -- or for a date to hear -- to have a discussion? Leonard: Mr. Mayor, Council, I would like to maybe question if we could do another option in potentially tabling this application as it stands now to provide enough time to finalize the purchase agreement that Betsy mentioned with the condition, obviously, that we would need to annex and zone that parcel to be able to use it as part of this project and potentially maybe add some information or some phrasing to the DA to that effect. Is it maybe an option. Just so that -- that the project doesn't get held up too much, just knowing how long this process usually takes. Is that something that the -- the Council might consider? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just so I understand, is the applicant requesting that we approve part of the project to move forward and not the entirety of it? Leonard: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, no, that's -- I'm sorry if I incorrectly stated that. I'm asking if we can maybe continue this project with the knowledge that we haven't yet acquired that parcel, but the understanding that it's quite possible that we will. Essentially, if -- I guess the way I'm thinking about it is if we have come to you with this Page 88 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 76 of 81 project and said, hey, we just bought this parcel, it's included in this concept plan, you could potentially have approved the project as you see it now, with the understanding that we would have to, obviously, annex that parcel in and zone it before we can develop it and, then, potentially include the condition or something phrasing wise in the development agreement that would see -- that we would need to do those things to be able to develop the --the parcel. The reason being the residential and the medical campus are --although in the same project they are both -- you know, they have different timelines and different -- different phasing plans and it would hold the rest of the project up contingent on the medical campuses movement I guess. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor? Leonard: If that makes sense. Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess one of the concerns I have -- and I don't know if Sonya has an opinion about this, but the problem with that, Stephanie, is that the record itself will be very disjointed, because you are going to have a record that the only thing they are going to be technically listening to at Planning and Zoning is the annexation of that one outparcel and a very broad conversation in how it's going to connect to something else that's not in front of them and, then, it's going to come back with a -- with this map that you are showing us tonight, which, actually, isn't the project map. It's the proposal if you had the other piece. So, the Council is really considering what you have, not what you might have, and so it really isn't the same thing. I know it seems small, but from a legal standpoint if-- if we were to be challenged on this decision, a district court is going to have a very hard time trying to piece this together as a -- one project when it's really now presented as two projects. It isn't simply like adding a piece to a campus, like with St. Luke's where they added the northern pieces, there is -- those were different. So, I'm really concerned about trying to just even hold it until the other one catches up. I -- it makes more sense to me from a legal standpoint to remand it back, get this amended, get your meetings done, get the noticing done, look at the project as a whole and, then, there is one decision based on one giant fact and record, than two. Simison: Well, Council, you have heard your recommendation from legal. I would either suggest you are going to do an up or down on what you have in front of you with an outparcel or remand back to Planning and Zoning for further direction at that point in time. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we remand file H-2020-0047 back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 89 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 77of81 Simison: So, before we -- do we need to close the public hearing and, technically, I don't think I have given the applicant the final statement yet. To be remanded or closed first? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the -- it's okay to leave the record open, because you are going to probably have to be writing in or providing comments, so that's not a problem for the record. Probably should give the applicant the last word first before you make a motion. Simison: Okay. So, would the applicant like to make any final comments before the motion you heard moves forward? Connor: No. Mr. Mayor, Council Members, we don't have anymore comments on that. We defer to legal advice. Leonard: Yeah. Thank you, Bill, for your comments on that. That does make sense. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Do I need to make my motion again? Simison: Yes. Make it one more time and, Mr. Nary, any specific comments that you would like to include -- have included in that motion? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I think Council Member Strader -- I think simply to remand it, again, to reconsider this application with the additional outparcel being added. It sounded as if the Council would not be interested in this project without it. So, if that's your desire, I would include that. They will have this record, so they will have all your comments besides that. So, that would be my only suggestion. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So moved. Simison: All right. Do I have a second? Perreault: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Page 90 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 78of81 Borton: Yeah. Thank you. Just very briefly. We don't -- to the applicants, we appreciate your patience and in -- in the somewhat clumsy nature of this process, but it really is truly designed to make sure we have an opportunity to get it right and in the very few times we remand a project to P&Z there has been a really good reason for it and there has been -- things have gotten better. So, it's -- it's not done lightly. We understand that time is critical, but-- but I think you can appreciate the concern on this particular issue. So, that's all. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional comments on the motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Do we need to select a date for their hearing at this time or will that be handled separately? Simison: That will be handled separately. Perreault: Okay. Simison: Hearing no further comments, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to and the item is remanded. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Simison: Thank you very much for working through that this evening and we look forward to seeing the complete full better project hopefully soon. Leonard: Thank you all. Appreciate your feedback. Connor: Thank you. Leonard: We will see you soon. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 4. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 20-1905: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-1, Regarding Adoption of 2018 International Building Code, 2018 International Residential Code, 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, 2018 International Energy Conservation Code, 2018 International Existing Building Code, and Respective Local Amendments; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-2, Regarding Amendments to International Building Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-3, Regarding Amendments to International Residential Code; Repealing and Replacing Meridian Page 91 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 79 of 81 City Code Section 10-1-4, Regarding Amendments to International Energy Conservation Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10- 2-3(B), Regarding Plumbing Permit and Inspection Fees; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-3-3(E), Regarding Electrical Permit and Inspection Fees; Repealing and Replacing Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, Regarding Adoption of the 2018 International Fire Code and Local Amendments Thereto; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-1, Regarding Adoption of 2018 International Mechanical Code, 2018 International Fuel Gas Code, 2018 International Residential Code Parts V And VI, and Respective Local Amendments; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-2, Regarding Amendments to 2018 International Mechanical Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-3, Regarding Amendments to the International Fuel Gas Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-4(H—M), Regarding Amendments to Part V (Mechanical) and Part VI (Fuel Gas) of the 2018 International Residential Code; Adopting a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Okay. Next item up is ordinance. It will be the third reading of Ordinance No. 20-1905. 1 will turn this over -- ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is the third reading of Ordinance No. 20-1905. An ordinance amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-1, regarding adoption of 2018 International Building Code, 2018 International Residential Code, 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, 2018 International Energy Conservation Code, 2018 International Existing Building Code, and respective local amendments; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-2, regarding amendments to International Building Code; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-3, regarding amendments to International Residential Code; repealing and replacing Meridian City Code Section 10- 1-4, regarding amendments to International Energy Conservation Code; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-2-3(B), regarding Plumbing Permit and Inspection Fees; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-3-3(E), regarding Electrical Permit and Inspection Fees; repealing and replacing Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, regarding adoption of the 2018 International Fire Code and local amendments thereto; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-1, regarding adoption of 2018 International Mechanical Code, 2018 International Fuel Gas Code, 2018 International Residential Code Parts V and VI, and respective local amendments; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-2, regarding amendments to 2018 International Mechanical Code; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-3, regarding amendments to the International Fuel Gas Code; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-4(H—M), regarding amendments to Part V (Mechanical) and Part VI (Fuel Gas) of the 2018 International Residential Code; adopting a savings clause; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, and those present, you have heard this read by title. Is there anybody who would like it read in this entirety? Seeing no one ask for that, do I have a motion? Page 92 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 80 of 81 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 20-1905 with suspension of rules. Simison: No suspension is necessary. Perreault: Oh, because she read the entire -- the entirety -- Simison: It's that we had all three readings over three weeks, so -- Perreault: Oh, got you. Simison: I have a motion and a -- do I have a second to the motion to approve? Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the third reading -- or Ordinance No. 20-1905. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION 5. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? I failed to mention during the -- the adoption of the agenda that we no longer need Executive Session, Item 5. We handled that business in our previous Executive Session after the workshop. Simison: So, you are moving to vacate Item 5 from the agenda? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we vacate Item 5 from the agenda this evening. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Page 93 Meridian City Council Item#2. December 1,2020 Page 81 of 81 Simison: I have a motion and a second to vacate Item 5. Is there any discussion. If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11 :00 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 12/15/2020 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 94 Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active Land Use/Development Application. By Law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that a topic be added to a future meeting agenda for more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. I CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET 1 Date: November 17, 2020 Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet or other provisions of law or policy. Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 20-2245: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, Establishing the Appointment of Scott Walters to Seat 1, Randy Spiwak to Seat 3, Taryn Richmond to Seat 6 and Shawn Keating to Seat 7 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission; and Providing an Effective Date APPROVED Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 20-2245 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERRAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,ESTABLISHING THE APPOINTMENT OF SCOTT WALTERS TO SEAT 1, RANDY SPIWAK TO SEAT 3, TARYN RICHMOND TO SEAT 6 AND SHAWN KEATING TO SEAT 7 OF THE MERIDIAN SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the Meridian City Code § 2-6-1 establishes the Solid Waste Advisory Commission, its members and terms of their appointments; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council for the City of Meridian wish to appoint Scott Walters as the Industry Expert to Seat 1, of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission with a term to expire September 30, 2023; WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council for the City of Meridian wish to appoint Randy Spiwak to Seat 3, of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission with a term to expire September 30, 2021; WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council for the City of Meridian wish to appoint Taryn Richmond to Seat 6 and Shawn Keating to Seat 7 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission with a term to expire September 30, 2023; WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of Scott Walters as Industry Expert to Seat 1, Randy Spiwak to Seat 3, Taryn Richmond to Seat 6 and Shawn Keating to Seat 7 of the Solid Waste Advisory Commission to be in the best interest of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission and of the City of Meridian; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY,IDAHO: Section 1. That, pursuant to Meridian City Code § 2-6-3, Randy Spiwak is hereby appointed to Seat 3 of Meridian Solid Waste Advisory with a term to expire September 30, 2021; Section 2. That,pursuant to Meridian City Code § 2-6-3, Scott Walters is hereby appointed as the Industry Expert to Seat 1 of Meridian Solid Waste Advisory with a term to expire September 30, 2023; Section 3. That, pursuant to Meridian City Code § 2-6-3, Taryn Richmond is hereby appointed to Seat 6 of Meridian Solid Waste Advisory with a term to expire September 30, 2023; RESOLUTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF WALTERS,SPIWAK,RICHMOND AND KEATING TO THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY - COMMISSION-Page 1 Item#1. Section 4. That, pursuant to Meridian City Code § 2-6-3, Shawn Keating is hereby appointed to Seat 7 of Meridian Solid Waste Advisory with a term to expire September 30, 2023; Section 5. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 1 st day of December, 2020. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 1 st day of December, 2020. APPROVED: ATTEST: By: Mayor Robert E. Simison Chris Johnson, City Clerk RESOLUTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF WALTERS,SPIWAK,RICHMOND AND KEATING TO THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMISSION-Page I Page 6 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings City Council Meeting December 1, 2020 FLUM Similar 2ElevationsStory - FLUM Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) 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. 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, attached & townhome 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. 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. The ACHD 5-Year Work Plan shows Eagle Rd. north of Lake Hazel being widened in 2023 & Lake Hazel east of Eagle being widened in 2024. Preliminary plat lines are shown in red that are either in process or have been approved. (the pre-lim lines depicted to the south are outdated and reflect a subdivision that was withdrawn) 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; this plan has been approved by the Fire Dept. subject to some minor modifications. 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, Staff recommends fencing is installed along the creek to restrict access, unless otherwise waived by City Council – the Applicant is requesting a waiver to this requirement. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the SFR detached & townhome units that consist of 1, 2 and 3-stories with 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. Updated concept elevations were submitted for the 3-story units that more closely align with the style of the other units in the development; these units incorporate a combination of flat & single-pitch roofs at a height of less than 40’ with each having a roof top deck; 2-story elevations in the same style were also submitted as another option. The final design will be enhanced with additional materials & design elements to be cohesive with the other units in the development. 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. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jay Gibbons, Applicant’s Representative ii. In opposition: Annette Alonso representing the Southern Rim Coalition iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Jennifer Loveday v. Key Issue(s):  Opinion that existing roadways 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;  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;  Preference for more/larger open spaces to be provided (which was addressed with the revised plan);  Connectivity between the upper and lower portions of the development;  Protection of the southern rim area and preservation of the natural hillside. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:  The plan for wildfire prevention on the unimproved hillside area;  Timing for development of the R-8 portion at the southwest corner of the site;  The desire for fencing to be provided along the creek for public safety;  The capacity of existing area schools to handle additional children and the new schools planned in this area;  The desire for more/larger usable common open spaces to be provided (as addressed with the revised plan), the upper & lower portions of the development to better integrated, and would like to see a better plan for the hillside.  In favor of the 3-story product and usable roof area and location of the units against the hillside;  In favor of the fitness loop amenity and trail system between the upper and lower portions of the development; Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:  In favor of the 3-story product type with the flat roof but wanted the design to tie in better with the other units – updated elevations should be submitted prior to the Council hearing. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:  The Applicant requests Council approval to not construct fencing along the Ten Mile creek (if Council doesn’t feel fencing is necessary to preserve public safety, condition #3d should be deleted);  The Applicant requests approval to submit final design guidelines for the development after the hearing for inclusion in the DA. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0064, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 1, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0064, as presented during the hearing on December 1, 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 _____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #3: Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Private Street – approved by the Director 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.. 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 is proposed. The residential portion will 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. Retail/restaurant uses are planned on the first floor of the medical office building to serve the employment area & adjacent neighborhood as desired in Mixed Use designated areas. Two (2) different concept plans were submitted for the medical campus – Option #1 depicts the medical office building adjacent to the out-parcel at the NEC of the site; and Option #2 depicts the medical office building at the NEC where the outparcel is located that is currently not a part of this application – if the Applicant is able to obtain this parcel, the office building is proposed in that location. 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 deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD has denied the Applicant’s request for a direct access to the SH 20-26 for the medical campus. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 377 buildable lots \[317 SFR (attached & detached units), 38 townhome, 14 MFR, 1 commercial & 1 school\], 41 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 6,028 s.f.; the average townhome lot size is 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 2.99 units/acre with a net density of 7.49 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 portion is 3.07 units/acre with a net density of 6.9 units/acre & the gross density of the R-15 portion is 6.8 units/acre with a net density of 13.46 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR & MU-R designated areas. The subdivision 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 commercial & SFR portion of the site will develop first, followed by the townhomes and then the MFR apartments. The school property is not included in the phasing plan as it is 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 out-parcel 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 isn’t desirable in this area. The Director has approved private streets in the townhome portion of the development with a mew in accord with UDC standards. The ACHD 5-Year Work Plan shows no road improvements in this area; Chinden was recently widened to 4 travel lanes adjacent to the site. Preliminary plat lines are shown in red that are either in process or have been approved. 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. 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 attached & detached 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. Elevations for the MFR structures will be submitted with the CUP application. A conceptual rendering was submitted for the main medical building as shown. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering and Mitch Armuth & Patrick Connor, Providence Properties (Applicant’s Representatives); Betsy Huntsinger, representing the proposed hospital Randall Peterman (adjacent property owner). ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Cary Pitman; Sue Ropski; Val Stack; Paul Hoyer; Cory Coltrin; Doug Haneborg; Heidi Wilson; Charles Hay; Bonnie Layton, WH Pacific (representing property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights) iv. Written testimony: Josh Femreite, Chief of New Schools for Gem Innovation Schools v. Key Issue(s):  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;  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; not in favor of proposed access via Serenity Ln.; concern pertaining to future access for Serenity Ln. residents via Chinden;  Ms. Ropski’s concern with location of trash dumpsters and parking adjacent to their property;  Preference for the hospital to be located closer to the Chinden/Rustic Oak intersection away from low density residential lots at west boundary;  Mr. Peterman is in favor of the proposed development as it will bring services to his property for development.  Preference for the parking on the east side of the 3-story medical office building to be relocated to the west side of the building and the building shifted further to the east so that the building is further away from adjacent residential properties;  Concern pertaining to traffic on Serenity Ln. if it were to be open to the south and the safety of children as there are no sidewalks along the private street;  Concern pertaining to future restriction of right-in/right-out access to Serenity Ln. from Chinden Blvd. and resulting delays for emergency services to Peregrine Heights;  Request for provision of a fence or a gate at the south end of the Serenity Ln. cul-de-sac to keep it private;  Request for the larger estate lots that abut the south end of Peregrine Heights to be carried over to the south side of W. Tanker Dr.;  Property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights is in favor of the proposed frontage road along Chinden Blvd. for access to the collector street. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:  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;  In favor of the variety in housing types and lot sizes proposed;  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.  The provision of an electronic gate at the south end of Serenity Ln. for emergency access to Peregrine Heights and to keep the lane private;  Trash enclosures should be located away from adjacent residential properties;  In support of the reduction in height from 4- to 3-stories for the hospital and medical office building;  Preference for the medical office building to be shifted further to the east and/or rotated;  The provision of only one (1) mew in the townhome portion of the development.  In general support of the revisions made to the concept plan for the commercial portion of the development.  Would like the Applicant to work with ITD on noise abatement along the west boundary adjacent to SH-16;  In favor of the walkability of the development and especially the medical campus;  In support of the changes to the townhome portion of the development and the additional open space;  Would like the Applicant to work with Staff to reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary of the subdivision to provide a better transition to planned R-4 zoned lots in The Oaks subdivision. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:  Requirement for noise abatement to be provided along the project’s west boundary along N. McDermott Rd. adjacent to the future extension of SH-16;  Relocate the parking on the east side of the medical office building to the west side of the building and shift the building further to the east away from the adjacent residential properties;  Provide an electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Dept. for access to Serenity Ln. from the south; and,  Reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary to provide better transition to the R-4 properties planned to the south in The Oaks subdivision (lots were reduced by 5 along the south and southeast boundaries). Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, meets the intent of the UDC (11-4-3-22), which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5, 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Randall Peterman – in favor of the proposed development Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 1, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0047, as presented during the hearing on December 1, 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 _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing 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. Page 7 Item#2. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 1, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing 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 City Council Public Hearing Page 8 i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: December 1, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 PROJECT NAME: Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 � r I 2 co OL x 3 IWO 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C� W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING December 1,2020 Legend DATE: 0 Praject D=-fiion TO: Mayor&City Council Y Y FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0064 Pura Vida Ridge Ranch ` I , I LOCATION: 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd.,in the NW 1/4 of Section 4,T.2N.,R.IE 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 Page 9 Item#2. Description Details I 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 Ia 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 CIPTabe 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 Page 10 Item#2. 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 IMPPi;.adi.�au,3 ro muna'1 5:41 split by priority PeAnotyz(Wnccalre ruEem ero 1o=0 7:1 ►'riorYtyl �M?nGwlswAriinl3FOZOnanuFee� 10'42 • Crimes 1 (in RD `M789/A119') • Crashes 12(in RD `M789/Al 19') West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) EnWlkh.nl �.wrNY Exyd p • Capacity of Schools • r.' ,er '"' T'�" �t� ° csnvE Ui.E"middikscfiadl an twD M.0" • #of Students Enrolled wuntnm Ylew 1416h3dxK4 x919 317e 4.e noes "E.—ollmrnt at 11II57alr Elrmensery 1s iurrtnuy ciao 5ivaaru i7 OIL ocvp"mant wln ha i[rondi*iilrsr�} Fbillimm ry unil.;mwirhni!l is ball to alrninlrrrr frn"hir.mi H111x144s Lkn-ereer " 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 Page 11 Item#2. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map LL Legend 4 Legend0 ff s. I�Praject Lcca�iar,,, r�oet r u NTrlil �� GIBE . S�• 1� �iwv�a Y} - hw_Frt ti Y HHEB Low Density Wgidenial Zoning Map Planned Development Map (fLegend POMI Legend FR ( Project Lccci�ar R- 11 iPr€�ject Luca�ian +- Cffy Limit OW—Auluw BIB -4 — Planned Parcels R-8 I , R- RUT FMU 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 Page 12 Item#2. IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 7/17/2020 11/13/2020 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 7/14/2020 11/10/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 7/23/2020 11/19/2020 Nextdoor posting 7/14/2020 11/10/2020 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 Page 13 Item#2. • "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 Page 14 Item#2. 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 Page 15 Item#2. 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 Page 16 Item#2. 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 Page 17 Item#2. 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-6) 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 Page 18 Item#2. Per UDC I I-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 Page 19 Item#2. 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 $IM[LE FAMILY ATTACHED 2"-0' V-0- INT GARAGE ACCESS CN T-01 �'-D' W-01 r-0' 24'SIREET (YEW) EMD BLDG SINGLE FAMILY ATTAOHEp U-U' INT CAME ACCESS OM 3'-D' 10'-0' 2w-cr ALLEY + 2 00'PAO END BLDG SMILE FAMLY ATTAGHEO 2'-o" ❑'—Y, IN COGARAGE -4" 9'-U' 10' ' S' ' SHARED C Y (MEW) END -0 E71D BLDG R-0 LOPS - STANDARD R-a FZT0AW$APPLY Page 12 Page 20 Item#2. 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 Page 21 Item#2. 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 3ra) September 17, and October 22,2020.At the public hearing on October 22n1 the Commission moved to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.Revised plans were submitted for the hearinz on October 22"d at the request of the Commission from the previous hearing that included a larger more consolidated central common open space area in place ofsome of the guest parking resulting in an increase of 0.36 of an acre of common area to 19.92%; additional site amenities consisting of a tot lot with children's play equipment& () work-out stations in deferent spots along the perimeter pathway; architectural design guidelines to ensure a consistent design theme and quality of development; landscape solutions for the hillside and a fire prevention plan; and the addition of(2) new product tykes for the 24'wide lots between the hillside&Road 3 (2-story&3-story). 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jay Gibbons,Applicant's Representative b. In opposition: Annette Alonso representing the Southern Rim Coalition c. Commenting d. Written testimony: Jennifer Loveday e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen,Bill Parsons f Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Opinion that existing roadways 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(which was addressed with the revised plan); d. Connectivity between the upper and lower portions of the development; e. Protection of the southern rim area and preservation of the natural hillside. 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; Page 14 Page 22 Item#2. 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(as addressed with the revised plan),the upper&lower portions of the development to better integrated, and would like to see a better plan for the hillside. f. In favor of the 3-story product and usable roof area and location of the units against the hillside; g In favor of the fitness loop amenity and trail system between the upper and lower portions of the development; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. hi favor of the 3-story product We with the flat roof but wanted the design to tie in better with the other units—updated elevations should be submitted prior to the Council hearing. 5. Outstandingis for City Council: A. The Applicant requests Council approval to not construct fencing along the Ten Mile creek as the UDC doesn't Wically require fencing along natural waterway actually states fencing shall not prevent access to the waterway—except in limited circumstances and in the interest of public safe, , larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by City Council(if Council doesn't feel fencing is necessary to preserve public safety, condition Od should be deleted); b. The Applicant is submitting revised elevations for the 3-story units prior to the Council hearingand nd requests approval to submit design guidelines for the overall development after the hearing for inclusion in the DA. Page 15 Page 23 Item#2. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description&Exhibit Map for Annexation i* G CPAJ S LAND S1JRv6YWOFLLC I Pure Vida Ranch SubdMs4on Date:0411 D2020 Job No.:6610 PURE VIDA RANCH St1BDrVISION ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION The following Describes a Parcel of Land being a portion of Govemment Lot 3 of Section 4, Township North,Range 1 East, BOBo Meridian,City of Meridian,Abe County Idaho.and more particuiady described as follows, COMMENCING at a found Aluminum Cap Marking the Northwest Corner of seid Section 4;From which the North i14 Comer of said Sectlon 4 beers, North a9°43'34" East, 2661.67 feet which is beming Monumented with 8 found "Illegible" Aluminum Cap; Thence along the Northerly Boundary Line of the NW 114 of said Section 4, North 99°43'34" East. 1325.81 feet to the Northwest Comer of said Covemmenl Lot 3, the POINT OF BEGINNING- Thence continuing along said Northerly Boundary Line, North 89°43'34` East, 382.86 feet to a found 112"Iron Pine WIllegible Cap"; Thence leaning said Northerly Boundary Liao, SOLO 34'1625"East, 1548.37 feet to a found 5M, Iran Pin"PI-5 780"; Thence, South 29°0570" East 83.15 feet 10 a point On the Southerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3; Thence along the Southerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3, South 89'43'59" West, 1300.136 feet to the Southwest Corner of sold Governmem Let 3 which is heing Menu mented with a found 518"Iron f'in'PLS 645"as Shown on Record of Survey No.14155, Records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence leaving said Soutfiefly Boundary, and along the westerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3,North 00'1211"East, 7356.40 feel lathe POINT OF BEGINNING- The vibm Descfbed Parcel cf Land contains 26.34 Acres,more or kns. air 825 Y 623 1ltb Ave.South,Nempat ID S3651•T_(208)442-0115-C.(20S)608-25I0-rgray.cls@gmaii.com Page 16 Page 24 Item#2. ANNEXATION EXhIBtT I`®'I A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTION 4, TOWN5hlF' 2 NORTH, RANGE I IrA5T, 15015E MERIDIAN, A❑A COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 UMIS OF BMING: N 89°43'34'E 2651,67' 32 33 E.Lake Mnal Road n N 89°43'34'F T_3N R1E. 33 r114Oamer 5 4 1325.81' NWGvmer "IllegiLXs" - MIX, T.2N. R 1E. Illeglae" 4431' 1300 00 POI N b 'RS 64T BEGINNNIN,,4 G D V Tex Parcel Na.S14Q4212550 do V1. Ct Ten �17 G r M:Ve Greek � � 4 I \ R Tax Parcel No.S1404212750 sr ti�p,L LAND cavl Lata sw c�,e< Gaut LOO z1.m ,�'pL51355P' "PLS 645' iJ 'S5 89"54 "E 1321 A2 Q �5 89°43'S8'W 1300.06' ` — — BE Comer 82501 S 89'43'59'W 1321.09' ��3 COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC TLs4347' '*A' F of 623 11th Avenue South Nampa,ID 83651 JN 6619 Df b---'(208)442-0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 17 Page 25 Item#2. 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 clescrl bed as follows: COMMENCING at a found Aluminwrn 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 '1llegible" 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 Ggvamment Lot 3, South OD-12'11"West, 803.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,- Thence leaving said 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 32019'11"East,299.15 feet to a point; Thence, South 0'11'513° 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 sale 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 conlains 6.84Acres,more or less. 623 11 th Ave.South,Nampa,ID 93651 -T_(W8)442-0115 •C.(2.4$)603-2510•rgray.cls; gmail.cran Page 18 Page 26 Item#2. Rff24NE * ANNEXATION EXHIBIT IIBII A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTiON 4, TOWN5F11P 2 NORTH, RANGE I EA5T, 5015E MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 BASIS OF BEARING: N 88°43'34'E 2651.67' 32 33,E.L ke Hazel Road °432"E Lam. RI,E, 33 N 114 Comer § 4 TLS 132581' U NWCarne 'Illegible' ~94Tk T.W. RIK 4 "111"IbW 4431" Oovt La13 POINT OF V "L8645' BEGINNING m ryR LINE TABLE I __LINE BEARING DISTANCE Scale,1"=250' An+e J Tax Parcel ' L1 N 9a°ODW E 2277-21 uy s No.51404,2I2550 ' L2 s 60135'33'E 2&P.43 Ed L0 s 32"10'11-E 2%.15 L4 500°11'S0'E 199.3f � 14-15 Total Parcel Area I9.B9Ac. '1 + 0 957,696 Sq. Ft. LLJ a F+� MAe Crack o I o L1 ---Q ` I rn s POkJY OF r n7 SEGINN04G R—B r-7 Tote) Parcel Area 8.64Ac. I� 289.2as sq-FL \ Tax Parcel \ rr, p�KL IAN40 Na.3I40d2I276Q � '$ `� GM 5WComer I� 784" I& I& �� � Gavl Lot 27.01` O &56 o $�IW 20 p 'c �S�3��tY� o'LSd45'` _ 633.$1' _ 66�8'45 _ 8257 Q 1 N BB°54'55'E 1321,Q2 S 89°43 3DrW SECamer COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC ses'43'59°w 1321.09' can,Lola T � � `o � ��>" r� r OF 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 �FNCE H YIQ IN 6619 OffLe:(208)4-42.0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 19 Page 27 Item#2. P � i LAND SURVEYING FLL f ' Pure Ufda Ranch SuWivislan Datfa: Q411=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 80°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 29'05'10" 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,280-04 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 20 Page 28 Item#2. REZONE * ANNEXATION EXH151T IIP" A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTiON 4, TOW115HIP 2 NORTH, RANGE i EAST, B015E MEiRI©fAN. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 RAW OF 6EARM; N W4nV E 2651.67' 32 33 T Iake Hazel Road 11 j89'43'34"F_,t2.B6' TON. 121E. 33 N 19Unner 5 4 "PL5 1325.A1 NwComer "Illagible" 943A10' "N. R.IE 4 Teglhw 4431" GoH.Lola PGINTOF ty 'PL9 645' BEGINNING � LINE TAKELINE BEARING I L7157AI4CE Scale:1"=2W w , Li N 9D°no'oo"E 22t21 I Ter Parcel C� No.SI404212550 , L2 561y°3533'E 266.04 US L3 S32 Vl1'E 299.15 L4 S 00'17'56'E i59.31 w C R-15 Total Parcel Area 12,88Aa. 0 957,898 Sq,Ft v W W crL Tee` , ¢o MIN Creek r' � z kPO1NTOF BEGINNING F_ TOW Parcel Area ci S.64Ac. 289,235 Sq.Ft- Tax Parcel \ atapL CA�O SW Comer No.S1404,21�2750 5r'1 15 r � 6°r GovL LLot 3 A 21.6t780" �_ _ 0PL.'. _ _ s3s.sr _ _ 825 1 N 89"54'55"E 1321.0Z �5 SB°43 3fi{3 w SE Comer o COMPASS LAND SURVEYING,PLLC sas�a3'Ss"w 1321,99' Govt.�T OF 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 JN 6619 Office.-(208)442-0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 21 — Page 29 Item#2. B. Preliminary Plat(date: 8/'^�2011/23/20) &Phasing Plan �..----- ------- ---- ��yy i'------'.__-.-...-.-.--....--..E LKE n� :L'_.__._.._._.__. 1 1 •-^ 1 BLS _ ����-- �_�=-��.'.'_�1�G-_'���:���'..f�i'�•�F.'F 11�1 -- ,=rtr - ���.;-t Tom_.=.. --_. -.� . .� •�{ 7 rx-iuiu WW UJ ILIL'll4JLJ PAN I nl it i If�rN MIMa L.W.W i jji FWr ------ — 6 Frill L 1�.��'� ��- .•-��'_ s2 ......... ..._. �. 1"_• --. '� .. _ � -, - Ate, ".:.��' �7:'.. ....,...�.,......d�.W,..w ter - a';k'• ._ _ �.....�d, kip ear V 71� PP.4 Page 22 Page 30 VA6 F—LAKE KA?ELRCIAD WCEMM *3�67 STAKI)AM LOCAL MEO 2TM+2710 MNM URUM LOCAL ZHUffr k 27191+271,.l MMOR"M LOCAL S= SF Ir ALLEY SIWJH:)DRRdEWAY pp.2 Page 23 Item#2. 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 IIECTK)N TG S.E.AGL E R0, N Phasing Plan 0 300 Bm Page 24 Page 32 Item#2. C. Landscape Plan for Subdivision (date: 4�2n�20 10/12/20) AA Itt II �� — - - - "x--- - + - - - - - - LL 3 ram . r �.,. dMMMV.L,. I _Y a, 3r-5;LT= YY6CHt PIJIF `:��' Y � -IiY�i�..i FT.i Lti{� PLMT SCE RIE _ _ - . r J. �i �'�+#r'i�x-'L.a.. � � y � O'er"_—•— Page 25 Page 33 Item#2. PLW 8GhED Y_E -� I __-____-_ ___-_.__-____-_._._- _ Yak ••-• �H �L n: M1 101 +rar APIAT - YI�IWYIIII I-II ��•,"••- �11 zn ffKANLI z IIF- 51 1'. k � �•� - Page 26 Page 34 Item#2. !y � �-- �• — — RI,Wf JO�LIi INK - ilOf 5R!Ar •` I _. '�••�—ice-_ am T LEA 1-•k1.L I1d ClIld Cl�--! PLik75CW' DAE F.t .�II Z=ME �! Page 27 Page 35 Item#2. u� i L+xoFF4F f W h,.r�r r �•• ip- L1.15 LIM Ali I fill "I write I ..1 lOR■YiJ11Y■ Y11 Qi■ s` II■liS�L■GOi7■„r �. Page 28 Page 36 Item#2. ~ .41ML 6 t { 5 YH, �r tih f.rt f _. r' �kT � � i �j �. zaw• ry.4 �� .. . . . . . . . . MLU Nj=��Ijl�zmlt "L'=:tom S'_F L ram.,_, :n.�xs,iG►,vTM�• �..,... �� 'r: �=—L��'',�t�+'..3Y . ll!ji �'8'4 u�nazrri I LffL3i Page 29 Page 37 Item#2. I kjk. . I �^ OM.4i4LiN— c{ — s - - LT--T 0i �x� �fix-- ■� �;��— .-. DRUG Page 30 Page 38 Item#2. D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(REVISED) � F-1 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 1"".8-1A) 01JALIFIED OPEN SPACE I 3G-3.B-1.E) 71 NON-GUALIFiED OPEN SPACE NONLQUALIFIED OPEN SPACE RIDGE FACE \ ® COM DN-SFLARED ORNrEWAY �. BUILDING tOT ® RIGFFT OF WAY L x OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS COMMON LOTS&BUF#EI45 QUA►JFK0 QUAUPIE0 OPEN OPEN ACTLIAL SPACE SPACE AREAigi CREDFf A EA(5F� FPAtF OF 35-FORE E.TAKE HAZEL RD.PUFFER BA) 6,3m 101% 6,3m 211-FOOT 11NEAR MEWS(11-3G3-R-LE} SM55 100% SE173 OPM SPACE(5CrR 1WMIN.)(S135,3,RMAI 165A3.3 1001A 155,87E ❑P€N 9PAU RIDGE FACE-NONQLKIJFIEp 154A94 0% - OPEN SPACE-OTF£4l NON QUALIFIED 5919Z2 0% SHAUDDRPfEWAn 3:1,744 9% - TQTALOPENSPACE E69Ai9 SF 22Q-077 SF QUAUFIEOOPENShACi PfE0vIfPW: 22$dllr SF m7,aLmw SPACE PR41IPM! 40AAW V 4 35% '. Opera Space & Siteoverage Plan Page 31 Page 39 Item#2. E. Planned Unit Development Site Amenities Plan(date: 4/3WO20 10/12/2077 Ih- i I it XV &RA�PLAIN a rou ri- Page 32 Page 40 Item#2. .r---:_-----_ --_-_-- d � ,r ---_—_------_----------------- +Ji� Page 33 Page 41 Item#2. i will VN ------------- .F Page 34 Page 42 Item#2. „ I ecwooa�l 1 1 1r L I _—_—J,LC�p _ �. P - 1 r 1 1 Lb77, 1 Dam Jh.i1 I Page 35 Page 43 Item#2. F. Parking Exhibit(REVISED) i ; � t T•� ���imuwuuica�w.'4�wwy. — ' errMIT .3 9 r _• •_,___ "•. _ k A#ached Housing Parking Summary r �I � j �•.�•�r . 1-_\`.� � caRea�MRXTYG =si a riue �.'. `-•---•- - - - �� , , � on eTwerr Rareaxo ]o er.' - .I. ,-fl_ _ _I yam' .� _ k fpTirL Mi111'IG RRTTlCrO +If bflliix - .. '1 IorA�ATT�eMm uuTe-�xr a,Tru Mt�Xnxes f I 1 i -, - m •. a'ouRm iM X116 Rars eeoamwua�Irtf-a�i errua ' OLIO TT ED%T+" -410-M-a eTA (T L MEN> MEM l All AmTXWFL Y i-1 amm RARX eTAL lINLL ee k 14 � �' 1' AYALLS IIe AXTFaRl1MTIr13 Wi91X TAR Ae•]Ve CXRFC+6 RUT wr s RUT Ft-Fr i -- -- - i �. A'Y , • i *. AL 45 1 Page 36 Page 44 Item#2. E.LAKE LIAZEL ROAD -Ed —E° PURA VIDA RIDGE RANCH J - SUBDIVISION II R-15 PARKING BY - BUILDING TYPE LOT TYPE ALL LOTS HAVE 2-W& QUA"T_ PARKING 11MOMS IN REAR 9NUE FANLY ATTACHED I "AROM AMM 9N ALLEY R GS 9S2 #'RDADS+W.20`PIE] 9NGLE MALY ATTACHED aIRAE *ECM ON AV fi• 1� � sIEn piYE'M.4Y L'+a�+n1 R--6 LOTS- 6TANCAO PA§MW +FWLIES Sri \ lk RL f 1 r• - l x } x Page 37 Page 45 Item#2. G. Pedestrian Connectivity Plan(dated: 11/23/20)-REVISED ...�" - ,ht�."�- ,r s ..-r�-���r^.—�r���r�a":�7+=ti-�Ss:.•���a's=ems• . PLR -� ---- ----- �i IOJT -- I�r �-`\ 41 . rncaovnnerrm FkUT tart Fur GONIE TMU EXHW •' gff - 5 5 I Page 38 Page 46 Aw It LJ AIMAM LOW IN r t k Item#2. Single-family detached units: Mr 111 NO ,� N ; �� Ln 4 �m lip F 14 fill w sioll a Page 40 Page 48 Item#2. Townhome units: 14 a r w 3 b s F t j€ o € a °a rr 4 OUR rY a Page 41 Page 49 Item#2. EiC Ird HIM i g : iIl j,4 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 42 Page 50 J _� :I F M r=r-MENGGH �rrA ir -�iE�iire� r� .ire:� r� � r�. .� �� • 1���:! � �_ NEW HOME PRODUCT NEW 3-STORY — - - � FRONT CL€WAIIQN 1 ❑ a REAR fL�YATION MUMMER HOME - 1 1 1 PRODUCT Page 43 I. Reductions to Dimensional Standards in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 District E.LAKE HAZEL ROAD PURA VIDA RIDGE RANCH SUBDIVISION R-15 SETBACKS ,Np LOT TYPE kI L w�llf,H"Isarlf"I o FRONT GARAGE SIDE STREErzim REAR 11 -4,11 F"Mr-HU -C.2. O-0 INT N_f ja-r MD ELCC FAWLI ln l_ 0'-17 WT C­ E A=M 13-4, zj�a' Y W-Cr' zj•-a, _LL r+2y'�n P., EkM ELM ';0 .CVL 41�FIWL, , ­cr 14T I,"�M. Em Cr S IF— L ROAD LEGEND 33ROAD 2TROAD SHARED DRIVEWAY ti 1 41 PARKING i OTHER Page 44 Item#2. 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 patterns 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 4 November 23,2020, is approved as submitted. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VIII.C, dated April 9 October 12, 2020, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict bushes within the buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd. in accord with UDC 11-313-7C.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 45 Page 53 Item#2. 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 46 Page 54 Item#2. 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. Page 47 Page 55 Item#2. 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. 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 48 Page 56 Item#2. 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. Page 49 Page 57 Item#2. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=194384&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191277&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT h yps://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=194261&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192101&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=l 92042&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL hllps://weblink.meridianci. .org,/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191332&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. NEW YORK IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190971&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT hllps://weblink.meridianci. .org,/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191387&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191392&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity L. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianci , .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; The Commission finds the proposed annexation with R-8 and R-15 zoning and proposed development is generally consistent with the MHDR FL UM designation in the Comprehensive Plan. (See section V above for more information) Page 50 Page 58 Item#2. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the 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; The Commission finds 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 The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds that the proposed plat with Staffs recommendations is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property 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, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section Mfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Page 51 Page 59 Item#2. The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds the proposed residential uses and density complies with the guidelines for PUD's and the MHDR FL UM designation for this site. Page 52 Page 60 Item#2. 7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. The Commission finds 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. 8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The Commission finds the proposed PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 53 Page 61 Applicant Presentation 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 ❖ Annex 26.34 acres and Rezone to R-8 & R-15 ❖ Comprehensive Plan designation is MHDR up to 12 units per acre ❖ 157 Building lots, 35 common lots, multi-use pathway, pergolas, shelter, open play area, tot lot, benching, & trail connections ❖ PUD to allow mix of housing types, R-15 setback PROJECT exceptions, retain native hillside/creek, quality building OVERVIEW types & materials ❖ Over 18% qualified open space (4.89 acres) of 41% total COUNCILCITY open space. ❖ Bridge connection over Ten Mile Creek & 4 stub streets to adjacent properties ❖ ACHD approved traffic study requiring improvements to Lake Hazel Road. ❖ 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 ❖CONCERNS FENCING ALONG TEN MILE CREEK/DRAIN ❖ MORE HILLSIDE TREATMENT ADDRESSED ❖ PROVIDE AFIRE-WISE PLAN FOR COMMISSION REVIEW COMMISSION ❖ PROVIDE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR OCTOBERCOMMISSION REVIEW RECOMMENDED • TO COUNCIL LACK OF VEHICULAR CONNECTION BETWEEN R-15 HOMES WITH 3-STORY FROOF ON • AND R-8 HOMES WHICH IS DEPENDENT ON DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY. NINE ■®■■E -11 Ilk ORIGINAL J*. so k ` " i PLAT �z - i FULL - ----- tom;. - ACCESS ` FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS - TO ADJACENT PROPERTY ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTY VEHICULAR �f A CIRCULATION I I ACCESS ACCESS TO ADJACENT T ADJACENT PROPERTY DOnDCDTV ----------- insr`` MONO f ,�■■■■ NOOK.", 17 f .. UPDATED PLAT ` H .1 V 90 b -INCREASED CONNECTED OPEN SPACE -REDUCED PARKING LOTS ` - -REMOVED ONE ROAD ' W -ADDED HOUSING TYPE R-15 1- - - - - - - - -R-8 - - - - - - � 1 .. i RUT ' 1' RUT y , SIDEWALK Y MICRO-PATHWAY ILV T' ` 10-FOOT MULTI-USE PATHWAY TRAIL w RArr PEDESTRIAN RUT CIRCULATION �>w q "RU RUT RUT ��, � 1 a �f 2�STORY R�15 PRODUCT T E A  _ -21'-23'x57' WITH 2 CAR GARAGE - NO PARKING PAD ON SHARED DRIVEWAYS 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 . ED 0 r Cal 1 Ll REAR ELEVATION 3-STORY R-15 PRODUCT TYPE i - 24'x40' WITH 2 CAR GARAGE - 20'x20' PARKING PAD ON 27' WIDE ROADS - COMBINATION FLAT & SINGLE PITCH ROOF WITH PRIVATE DECK ON EACH LOT (FLAT ROOF, DECK ON MEW & PITCH ROOF, DECK ON ROAD SIDE) %� �:5�'..4; �. .. -`'.. � �• ':j:•s ref'r,•�...� .t. �,�. � I - 'ai • eve ��"-. 'L ra:?'� ■■■+(1 _ '' ? Ik•. _.��. =.fix�,< � �• �4�s �� . . iir...� .. _� "� � 1 • � 1 F - '�ae�• {X•^. �i� _ •gyp�.``A_�i�— . S As�. ..r ... RECREATIONpmr & FITNESS o ..Y .. PLAN CONNECTED MULTI-USE PATHWAY & _ - ti�. SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS ILLUSTRATE A ' �� ��► op�� \ .75 MILE LOOP ®� i FITNESS STATIONS & BIKE REPAIR STATION 0 PED/BIKE CIRCUITS = .60 MILE CIRCUIT BIKE TRAIL TRANSVERSING SLOPE W/ - REST AREAS, BENCHES, BIKE POST, TRASH RECEPTACLES � 9-8 teu sr ° T WROUGHT } } y IRON FENCE :{s 5 0 73-8 6 WROUGH" IRON FENCE t , 1z-s VH!GATE 4 =I s ` FENCING �5 .Y ADJACENT TO � � s ts� 17 .r�yY MULTI—USE . ATTACHED TO BUILDING ,FENCING PLA "��` zo�� �� �� mbi �� �� r PATHWAY �� I} I Y WROUGHT IRON STYLE r FOR SAFETY BETWEEN HOMES & PATHWAY/CREEK : CITY STANDARDS FOR MULTI—USE PATHWAYS ON CREEKS/DRAINS (NOT LIVE IRRIGATION WATER) IS NO FENCE ON CREEK/DRAIN SIDE OF PATHWAY ._ s -GATE AT MEW/PATHWAY :: 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 TO BE APPROVED J - _ i - �;• yY ! ,. as AMA or rov 1� V. f � 4 , t } r� .. -Igo F COMPLIES WITH MERIDIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIES WITH CITY OF MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CODE REASONING COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING & PLANNED FUTURE USES IN FOR THE VICINITY ACCESS TO LAKE HAZEL ROAD (A MOBILITY CORRIDOR) APPROVAL OF PROVIDES STREET CONNECTIONS TO NEIGHBORING H�2020�0064 PROPERTIES COUNCILCITY HEARING PROVIDES EXCEPTIONAL RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES & OPEN SPACE PROVIDES UNIQUE HOUSING TYPES GEARED TO THE NEXT GENERATION rk 10-11 jr 44 IP.. 14 k Av ke Me Owl CF I.d A • 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing 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 377 buildable lots (323 single-family residential, 38 townhomes, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school), 39 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.53 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Page 81 Item#3. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 1, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing 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 377 buildable lots (323 single- family residential, 38 townhomes, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school), 39 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 123.53 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 City Council Public Hearing Page 82 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: December 1, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify I YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#3. STAFF REPORT C�Z w � � �' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING December 1,2020 Legend DATE: IffProject Lflcfltan TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ,- SUBJECT: H-2020-0047 Prescott Ridge—AZ,PP,PS,ALT I _ LOCATION: South of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. McDermott Rd., in the North %2 of - --- - - Section 28,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. ;o (Parcels: 50428233640, R6991222210, -- 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 39-5 377 buildable lots [346 323 single-family residential (94 attached-&-22-2-/detached),6-3 38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school],3-2 39 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway) lots on "� 123.53 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. Altemative Gemplianee to UDG 11 3 F 4 A.4,whieh r-equir-es a limited gated development when teen Wmes are proposed, :s also eques Alternative Compliance is no longer required based on the revised plan which includes a mew. 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) Pagel Page 83 Item#3. Description Details Page Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 394 377 buildable lots(3-6 323 single-family residential,63 38 townhome, 14 multi-family, 1 commercial and 1 school)/3-2 39 common lots/6 other (common driveway)lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases Number of Residential Units(type 346 323 single-family(14-attached/22-2-detached),(63 38)townhome and of units) (56)multi-family units Density(gross&net) Overall-3-6-3 3.17 units/acre(gross);7:86 7.95 units/acre(net) R-8 area:4-8-7-3.13 units/acre(gross);744 7_2 units/acre(net) R-15 area: 12.97 7.79 units/acre(gross);21.39 10.95 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 11.56 12.41 acres(or 11.80//O) [%]/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 Page 2 Page 84 Item#3. Description Details I Page Proposed Road Capolal knpr4vments Plan CIP)I Ir4ograted Five Year WoFk Plan IIFYWP�; Improvements + Black Ca[ Road ie hwo in the CIP to be vxienQ.d to 34enp.-.�from Chlrlden BCLJleaarv. McMUlan Rued between 2Q26 and 2030 + The in[ersectlan of Black Cal Road and Chindan Boulevard is listed in the CIP 1a be widened to 5-lands 9r,I lie north log.5-kenos on the sout+l leg-6-lian 5 art 1ho east I13g and&Wus rtn Mo wurll log bo,wur.-Z926 aAd ROM. • The inbersechon of hkWan Road and Black Cel Road s Ilebed Pn[he CIP ba recanstrucbed a& e mulli-lane roundabout with 2 lanes an the nwitibound and southbaund legs and 1 lane on the wesiboun6 and eastbound legs. • The Inlerseetion or McMi!.Lan%ad and ULDem3otl Road is Ilsied In ihe CIP 10 be Undened is 3-lanes orr dhe north leg,44aes orr the south leg-3-Ianss on the ease leg end 3-kanes on the west leg between 2031 and 2435. 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 I 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 • Distance(elem,ms, earnurnerrt CaarAlY r.,� , hs) Pleasant View Ebementarg ow""iu'ar'r 650 2.4 !A.- — star Ulddw 5[haol ?94 IDW 5A fftridian H igh Sshool 3965 24W 6-1 Film to 1to abundant amounafff growth In the area,West Ada sarkively build,ng new yehc4ol�and boundaries are always dianguLE.Their future s[udent5 f0d[d pOtentldlly aI1fild-Dwyher High S[IOU l • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater Page 3 Page 85 Item#3. • 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 •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 Le end Lo nsiN Le end TM � Isidential � � Pra}ect Lacs iron ;F{o"e c- Loo a mar �.I - :x Irate O ens -- ti4 l -- � r 3 � ll Page 4 Page 86 Item#3. Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R1 Legend 0 ff ff Praject LacafK:m R-$ IetPrcject Lccafian i i C--y um�tr i - i! — Parred Page's r r RUT _ -4- R-8 R-4 ,R 8 R-1 r '-�—._. 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 newspaper 6/26/2020, 8/28/2020 11/13/2020 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 6/23/2020, 8/26/2020 11/10/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 7/2/2020, 8/27/2020 11/10/2020 Nextdoor posting 6/23/2020, 8/27/2020 11/10/2020 Page 5 Page 87 Item#3. 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 3.13 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 northwestportion 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. Page 6 Page 88 Item#3. • "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 the future school to the east. Larger lot sizes are proposed as a transition to the I-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/SH2O-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./SH20-26, 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. Page 7 Page 89 Item#3. • "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 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 of N. 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 apart 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./SH 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. • "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 eHtdeer yard area at the seuth end ef the he6pital a shaded sitting area in front of the medical office building, a large outdoor plaza/green space area in front 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. Page 8 Page 90 Item#3. • "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 emeepdevelopment-, ;Mieh Staff Feeontmends is shifted to Me nop4h sofrofit on the main eft#ff"e a&k • "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 a part of this development.A hospital is proposed in the medical campus on the northern portion of the site adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH20-26 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. Te ensu„v sueh ffpaees and1glaees are A shaded sitting, area is proposed in front of the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/ rg een space area is proposed in front of the hospital. • "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." R designated airea is eenskoent with this guideline-, Staff meemmends the eeneeptplan isirevised aeeerding4,„ ,to the Q, , G,,,•,,ed h ar4n gL.A shaded sitting area is proposed in front of the medical office building and a lame outdoor plaza/ rg een space area is proposed in front of the hospital. • "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' Page 9 Page 91 Item#3. also as a fmffsidon bMpeen 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. • 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 development plan 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. Page 10 Page 92 Item#3. 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 3-story 220;000 181,000+/-square foot(s.f.)hospital with approximately 90 60 in-patient beds and a 4 3-story 90,000 67,000+/-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. 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 11-213- 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 11-3114B.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. #netj Page 11 Page 93 Item#3. feasible as determined by City Goun .Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Note:ITD denied the Applicant's request for access via SH 20- 26/Chinden Blvd. for the medical campus. 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 VIILA. 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 433 422 lots—395 377 buildable lots [346 323 single-family residential(14-attached-&-22-2L/detached),6-3 38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and I school],42 39 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway) lots on 123.26 123.53 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, 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 5,982 s.£; the average townhome lot size is 2-,037 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 3-.6-3 3.17 units/acre with a net density of 7-.86 7.95 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 zoned portion is 4.P 3.13 units/acre with a net density of 749 7.2 units/acre and the gross density of the R-15 zoned portion is 12.97 7.79 units/acre with a net density of 21.39 10.95 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. Page 12 Page 94 Item#3. 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 16-7-9-, driveway may only serwe a maximum of(6) dwelling units peir UDC 11 6C 3D 8 units are proposed off each djrivewa�-. 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 a mews nor is proposed but no gates are proposed(alternative compliance is requested to this standard see analysis below in Section . , hearing.proposed over-all design meets or-exceeds the intent of the required standards and shall not be detrimental to the publie health, safety and welfare and where private streets are determined to enhanee the safety of the development by establishing a eleaF emeFgeney vehiele tFavel lane. Howeveir,the Fire Dept. and Staff would not be in support of such a request as Staff is of . . . .. roving sueh at the number-of units and density proposed would result in a neighbor-hood that is seveFely undeF paFlied,whieh eould be detrimental to the publie health,safety and welfare if emeFgeney seFviees weFe not able to aeeess homes within the development due to parking issues on the private street. Staff r-eeommends this POFOOH of the development is Fedesigned with publie stFeets (alleys and/or- eommon dr-iveways may be ineor-pffated), OF if pFivate streets aFe proposed, eaeh unit should fFont on and be accessed Aa the private street(s) and the design should include a mew or-gated entry in aeeor-d with UDC 11 3F 1 however,publie streets are preferred.Alternatively, a multi family development(i.e. one str-uetur-e on one property with 3 or-more dwelling units)with townhome style units might be a development option fof:this af!ea. A fvvised parking plan should submitted for-this area as well that pf!ovides for adequate guest parking above the minimum UDG standards (Table 11 3C 6) to seF,.,e this portion of the development.A revised eoneept plan and par-king plan should be submitted prior-to or-at the Commission heaAng for-r-eview and a revised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior-to the City Couneil hearing that r-efleets The lot layout4development plan for-the multi family development on Lots 70 83,Bloek 12 depiets par-king and aeeess dr-iveways on buildable lots the number-of parldng sp ith eaeh lot and are not eommensurate with the parldng required for each building. Therefore, Staff reeommends the aeeess dt!iveways and par-king are placed in a eommon lot with an ingress egr-ess/par-king easement for-eaeh buildable lot.A r-evised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior-to the City Couneil A revised plat was submitted that depicts the private street in the townhome portion of the development within a common lot as requested, see Section VIII.C. 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 Page 13 Page 95 Item#3. 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 wayfinding 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. 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 revised design . 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 ACED 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 Page 14 Page 96 Item#3. 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 15 extra off-street parking spaces in the townhome portion of the development and a total of 505 497 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 street buffers in the following locations: along N. McDermott Rd.,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20- 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 n: 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. Page 15 Page 97 Item#3. 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 VULA appears to include landscaped parkways throughout the development; however, they are only proposed along N. Rustic Oak Way—the plan should be revised to remove trees where parkways aren't proposed. 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 and N. McDermott Rd., an entryway corridor; and a 20' wide buffer is required along N. Rustic Oak Way,Thl M Pe,.. et4 Rd. and W. Ramblin St.,collector streets, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25' wide buffer is required on the C-G zoned property to residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 1I- 2B-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 1I- 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 11-3B-8C. 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 11-3H-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 11-3 : 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 MILE,that depicts 11.56 12.41 acres (or 11.8%)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 Page 16 Page 98 Item#3. 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 11-3G1 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-1�: 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. 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 11-1A-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 Page 17 Page 99 Item#3. 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 l- 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 II-3� A private street loop(N. Highfire Loop)is proposed for access within the portion of the development where townhomes are proposed on Lots 17 79 17-44 and 54-67,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. A mew is proposed but no gates 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 eant Fequests a4emmive eemplianee-te UPC 11 entry.to allow the development as proposed,without a mew(s) or-a gated Alternative Compliance is no longer necessary as a mew is proposed on the revised plan. As noted above in Seetion AILB,Lot Layout, Staff meommends ehanges 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 enhaneed by the provision of a private street in this area with the density and lot layout proposed par-king in fire lanes due to inadequaey of par-king for-guests and over-flow par-kiing.Therefore, Staff does not r-eeommend approval of the private street as proposed; a subsequent Fequest for- pr-ivate streets may be eonsider-ed if warranted by the redesign-. D. Alter-native Complianee (UDC—,U �3} belief tha�the townhome poi4ioa of the develepmef4 will bet4er-ia�egr-ate with the rest of the Pr-eseet4 Ridge eemmunity and ,vill be easily aeeessible a-ad usable withE*4 a ga4ed ea#y and will pfevide a safe-r- Page 18 Page 100 Item#3. -Beeause Staff is not suppoftive of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development with the private street, Staff is in turn I .. ,. e of the request for alternative eompliance.As noted above in Seetion • >Lot Layout, Staff recommends ehanges to the layout of this portion e the plat.A subsequent Fequest may be eonsider-ed if warr-anted by the .Because a mew is now proposed on the revised plans, alternative compliance is no longer necessary. 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 July 16tn and Au su t 20") 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 Bong_iorno 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Gem Innovation School is in strong support of the project as their future campus lies approximatelSyards 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 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 boundary; e. Mr. Peterman is in favor of the proposed development as it will bring services to his property for development. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Preference for owner-occupied townhomes rather than rental or more multi-family 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; Page 19 Page 101 Item#3. 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 change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)sus)for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items again on October 22"d. At the public hearing on October 22',the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties(Applicant's Representative); Betsy Huntsin eg r=representing the proposed hospital b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Cary Pitman; Sue Ropski;Val Stack; Doug Haneborg; Heidi Wilson; Charles Hay; Bonnie Layton,WH Pacific(representing property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights) d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) testimony_ a. Preference for the parking on the east side of the 3-story medical office buildingto o be relocated to the west side of the building and the building shifted further to the east so that the building is further away from adjacent residential properties; b. Concern pertaining to traffic on Serenity Ln. if it were to be open to the south and the safety of children as there are no sidewalks along the private street, c. Concern pertaining to future restriction of right-in/right-out access to Serenity Ln. from Chinden Blvd. and resulting delays for emergency services to Peregrine Heights; c. Request for provision of a fence or a gate at the south end of the Serenity Ln. cul-de-sac to keep it private, d. Request for the larger estate lots that abut the south end of Peregrine Heights to be carried over to the south side of W. Tanker Dr.; e. Property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights is in favor of the proposed frontage road along Chinden Blvd. for access to the collector street. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The provision of an electronic gate at the south end of Serenity Ln. for emergency access to Peregrine Heights and to keep the lane private; b. Impacts to the design of the site if the outparcel at the northeast corner of the site isn't purchased by the Developer and developed as part of this site; C. Trash enclosures should be located away from adjacent residential properties, d. In support of the reduction in height from 4-to 3-stories for the hospital and medical office building; e. Preference for the medical office building to be shifted further to the east and/or rotated; £ The provision of only one(1)mew in the townhome portion of the development. Page 20 Page 102 Item#3. g. In general support of the revisions made to the concept plan for the commercial portion of the development. h. Would like the Applicant to work with ITD on noise abatement along the west boundary adjacent to SH-16; i. In favor of the walkability of the development and especially the medical campus; In support of the changes to the townhome portion of the development and the additional open space; k. Would like the Applicant to work with Staff to reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary of the subdivision to provide a better transition to planned R-4 zoned lots in The Oaks subdivision. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Requirement for noise abatement to be provided along the project's west boundary along N. McDermott Rd. adjacent to the future extension of SH-16 (see Section IX.A.1a.7 and A.3a); b. Relocate the parking on the east side of the medical office building to the west side of the building and shift the building further to the east away from the adjacent residential properties(see revised concept plans in Section VIII.A); c. The Applicant shall work with Staff to provide an electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Dept. for access to Serenity Ln. from the south(see DA provision#A.Ia.6 in Section IX)-, and, d. Reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary to provide better transition to the R-4 properties planned to the south in The Oaks subdivision(lots were reduced by 5 along the south and southeast boundaries, see revised plat in Section VIII.C). 5. Outstandingissue(s)for City Council: a. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, meets the intent of the UDC(11-4-3-22),which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street.ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5, 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively. Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Page 21 Page 103 Item#3. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Master Plan Conceptual Rendering&Medical Campus Conceptual Development Plan-REVISED US HIGHWAY 26/CHINDEN RM __ II 5'. 7---- PROPOSED MEPIC4L - - --- CAMPUS � PRE SCOTT - , RIDGE �. NERMIAN,IDAHO fORCEPTIAL 5UMECETOCHANGE FUTURE - SCHEY[R SITE I I " �T±� - - I k - - illF FUTVREIDAJON THSUBDIVISION 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; Page 22 Page 104 Item#3. Concept Plan#1: �1��� �merrL>nere�rr: � •,s ,. a,,,,a; f'ri. k +lac�.� +w�.r �,? _ � li..lr� -,awlr,� ~� + ► rrrrrn..lr 14lr 4 t MUM" "am R -_ - _ _ _x MSUDIAN HWITAL l417a+1 Concept Plan#2 (including out-parcel): A Ik Am 7k A .11 sole x I• - —� vwr4l, MOS 12itablF2rskalvanl shown avr.Mite#to,hr"*tcnn r.r �rw.a,! - ■ I • rhs out-parcel is me qulrsol. ��.:.�. •- 'aC'F'�#' ��.•� - `tea,. _.. _ _.. r.! ti + , I Y e.,'C M.AN.OFCION]E iria Fsk�Oiwtl.Mr.,".} . �iv,+n a.�.r. M.,.YMN,n rt, 1� NU101AN HOWTAI;CONCERT FLAN INCLUDING THE OUT•P+WCEL IN NORTNP.ST CORNER Page 23 Page 105 Item#3. B. Annexation&Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps C ZONING LEGEND l R-R + RU RUT o I — S ox �_ I e[p O� p - R-15 I �, I w I � - I RUT _ . .. Ionr f o '�1 Nn;rgb� 11 IM1:1N0 f B ) 1 OF 1 RuT Sao 60 R-S R-4 vlanRaie 1"==_un Page 24 Page 106 Item#3. km E N G I N E E R IN G April 6,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Descriptlonfor 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 hears 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 line,S89'27'17"E a distance of 982.15 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,500'32'43"W a distance of 125.00 feet to a point; Thence S01"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 SO4'02'47"E a distance of 96.02 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S00°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 S00°32'13"W a distance of 139.52 feet to a 1/2-inch re bar; Thence S73'36'44"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,N00°43'55"E a distance of 596.55 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 1,248.58 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,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 Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence fallowing said easterly line, SI70'43'55"W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch pipe marking the Center 1/4 of sald Section 28; Thence leaving said easterly line,500"43'51"W a distance of 24.35 feet to a 5/8-in&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 S89"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; 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 89714 & 208.639.69313 ■ kmengllp.-om Page 25 Page 107 Item#3. Thence S89"15'00"W a distance of 20.04 feet to a 5J8-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 1f 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❑f 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 N00'52'17"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 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 5/8- inch rebar; Thence N00"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. 12459 0 M 0 F 1� .�.Zo� Client Project Name PAGE 7 Page 26 Page 108 Item#3. JLLi1[/L64 CM s O _ PONT W 3E2TaanC 14 1/4 Cusm AIn�1 21 f 20 21 _ 584 7i'14?'E 7fA0�4' W.Che."ii N d IHM1'414. dl P914r ff CCwYEY4CES1EhT 04ah[ EWW32'143 $7X39aY`74-JrE 1 c L11 Z Z _ 13135 Q OJ �R LLJ SCALE; t"-500' Annexation Area:126.53±14C_ . 2823d640,RM12ZZ314,504Z81Z095a, ; 5042MU 151 0s28151ZW&504Z8Z1110Z 4 Cu Tent ZDNL1g'RUT ', o U 6 $ 5a�'�C011: ¢Ya jn'i�pp3 [LOR�7'l2'M � rA7�",kryy 13$4.r 1 OF °oa Lwr' i x 0: EEC'TFdH T$ plkE rEXTM OF WCT 76 hti�2i's1`rr MG U}. f �r EFLF9S CAP ' N '�'+LS`N TEA.S,}' — w /+t0 SC['119M ad6 477 �04 L177333KTniwi-mr:-Lia Li7 wn't4n�cww3` Lrl1__T'-Lr 14 Frj finla"p e a Ir1f;HELP UM T"LE $ w LIME ELMMa oaraliCT LJW a[nrkuc o1R+sKi L+ d0`W4YV F809P L[i irmdrWil 36M O a LE Zrarc'[ a15 E L[a 97T2T4" 4514 +% +' L3 a"1'4LY BG.0 .LYT $Iwlwj y n nano N L4 srff4lE oral L50 x[a'dY=% MS1 y n[ L` 8 rqA tp, 6+4 9F1'E#' 77A�F V� i a Lis aaf7T'sT"N 13.18 Lao 34 MLli E [am Q coo � r U N&4395'a 711 M L21 MWrJ'rj-r 4a4[ fu `q rev C Lf i9L1 ffi'3jE 46M L2E IIR�'1}`L HAM ++ _ L74 .7.1!g7"�,5 ld-u L24 w7',7r-ft 210 13 XLLI akT O 02 L96 rii'S3'ikti 51.73 Llj ar YYi!"M ".an k9T 11R]Y43E 720<>d � L14 116�Ot4�A' R5.57 U Q C FNETAUE Yrraj[rt UMM k+DL4 LEWPi I DELTA 416 Wa 0#00 r..'si34Y+[uya[ cY RFLW 3A65' 3!wsr xll�-dY132 I]6.aR' SHEET_ Y1aaW wi+' I wzrjr hhvw,rM 51ET I km: �n'ar,s Page 27 Page 109 Item#3. kill 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 2/4 corner 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 2,6D9.40 feet to the POINT Of BEGINNING. Thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28, 589"25'25"E a distance of 60.00 feet to a point; 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 fallowing said easterly line,SOD'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 rebar on the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, Thence following said easterly line, 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,S00'43'51"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 199.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S64'04'03"W a distance of 27.64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N89'DV25"W a distance of 789.53 feet to a point; Thence NOO'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"00'37"E a distance of 690.74 feet to a point; 9233 West State Street • Boise,Idaho 53714 • 208.639.6939 • kmenallp.com Page 28 Page 110 Item#3. Thence leaving said westerly line, S71"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 S45"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 N00°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 N00°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 SOO°34'29"W a distance of 420.05 feet to a point; Thence S89°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 chord bearing of S73"37'27"E and a chord distance of 81.69 feet to a paint; 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"35'09",a chord bearing of N16°22'33"E and a chard distance of 272.30 feet to a point; Thence N00"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 NOO'34'29"E a distance of 122.33 feet to a point; 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, NOO'43'55"E a distance of 586.55 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 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. �,Xsx CD 1 49 0 OF Client Project Name PAGE 2 Page 29 Page 111 Item#3. PQ11r OF 2MWKINVI ALLN&AJU W EAM 4F W.MING $EGTKW 25 w.Omriden 641d jH.r T71M'1 rL EW27'Wk OHM I Cl ALUM*"CAP NW QWLWEPZ I m I ( I 1 3 I C A a S#2�'!YE 1215$' m h m IX — yr ¢ SCALE- 1" 5m' _n LPN STr 177 I G ° Rezone Area:".5at AC- e m swza 15s�oaza1 99 i313&SORI�SIi3 �p&t �o iPortbn�. -it 4 current2aning:RUT 54 MI'E lPmpcq"$4nm6: w1e m me � l yy�_� rrar:l u."• r+�'7I'irn a"17-N SHEET' 1 OF 2 [a<}JIEIk-�6T a/�s mh1�e �of a LI" 5P — 3'PIPE CENTER OF 5EEMN 26 24'14'Y EEdyq' � G'iP Lid NgP1A'2GYf 7�0'�}' — — — w 1/4 EE31N72 —71 SEL'rLPN 29 LA Ly wkw... ..nrrn r�ayy�1 waaZ.,e roll e+wL: I LA 4k Lb F-W 104e#p� La_ — w1157Edariw 11hE:TA➢fE Ly'6f ThYxS � n Lr1E IlWiW� J151AWN LNE ALM--X. ,VAI`1LZ A Le *er2VM-E •9A9 HIS nv'_2"'rt 9'.5.99 tp # L2 3H.Z Lib WY37".!t L7i411 Er y7 ID a--' 45 LRIN-so'l 44hi4 L74 S574VM-E 'I607 G!} kJ 1tfd 36'G144'11' 1"7 L91 xGla'fiE z9aAG � '$ Ll xeo'w'.54* MW Ln �p.'rsw wasu LP 4772ro,1 ln+M LIS NWSA 4F '21.3a 1-10 g WWN 20bq 12a 11EP25LZgv, IT" L71 IYAJ!'ypY1 18lb3 19L NR�l'aQ1= A4S0 � � !� L13 K•rGdwN 77jm L71 WUM11 riAa } S7i HT8a7'13'E t+l T 4 CURVE TABLE as dl1111.4 I LOPA LENCIn ot4ti trldl j$mm4 vyvm FtlLL1. isaw a27: 31'3rw 3TS3777E i In-' 2 OF � CS �k00.a17' ]iSiS 31'�6'h2' N7c]y'SSZ; i rtkY� iiwn r. riar •Sa1 k +44�Itlob-0an km �u IllalY R}4 Page 30 Page 112 Item#3. km ENGINEERING April 7,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-15 Prescott Ridge 5ubdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion cf Northwest 1J4 and a portion of the West 1/7 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 29, which bears N89"27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 1J4 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 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 589"25'31"E a distance of 546.59 feet to a point; Thence NOW34'29"E a distance of 275.11 feet to a point; Thence 589°24'23"E a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence 500°36'19"W a distance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence N89°25'31"W a distance of 496.43 feet to a point; Thence S00'34'29"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 272,30 feet to a point; Thence N57'49'22"W a distance of 139.87 feet to a point; Thence 82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150.0a feet,a delta angle of 31"3VD9",a chord bearing of 1473'37'27"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°3429"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. 4 � 12459 a or 1� 4 9233 West State Street Boise,Idaho 83714 t Z48.639.6939 a kmengilp.carn Page 31 Page 113 Item#3. uuK4NuM CAP N 1/4 CORN€R a. BASIS OF BECING 4J_[Jv net+A�H+w ] SEGFlClr4 26 .. 3 xo 71 _ SOW27'171r 29M,4 ' r4 O # Po1NT Or Colo"CEWENT I I } m m L-uWl-w cAP I 0 Nw CORNER SECTION 28 89fr'2+'23'E 496.54' L m (D K I � I $ 1 ryI P Z r, * I ry z 119 i Lu CL w .. H6?2S'34 Y+ 995,43' R2Z{}Cke 15.fea.9_92±AC. R6991222210�Portlon)& a a W2MN5D Vortlon) o -Currekrt Zonir4g=RUT a Proposed 2onlrlg;R-15 Atli: ,VIIk7@0 "DAIT 1110 5t I SHEET! iE I 2 OF t Neazss,�x I ui{Vp TABLE40 s� km�'a2"w 1 DID200 WAVE WILJ5 LEHOTP VELTA ORD6RG CHIME] I.38-82' I C1 544P4' M.7@' 3i'Si'04• S1637'33-W 372.3Q' SLR = 1�� • kr�New.xam�wu Funnrn cR IM20• m73• 3i'34'Op• N7337'27W 61,59' soft IPAKl.3ma �e�,ipeia0�fT7� PRm izffli 639,BM3 Page 32 Page 114 Item#3. 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 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 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, 589'27'17"E a distance of 1,484.65 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S89a27'17"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"£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 S00"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 SO❑"32'13"W a distance of 139,52 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence S73"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 28; Thence leaving said easterly line,589'25'31"E a distance of 17.44 feet to a point; Thence S00"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-inch rebar; Thence 569°18'13"W a distance of 270.56 feetto 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 5/8- inch rebar; Thence N00°32'43"E a distance of 125.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 18.172 acres,more or less. p ' Attached hereto is Exhibit 6 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. a~ 12459 Ar 141•74D-2-0 9Z33 West State Street a Boise,Idaho 83714 0 208.639.6939 o kmengllp.com Page 33 Page 115 Item#3. `$ a rw PMUQF OEWN460 hlnjer.erya{HS.x2q/�r,] w C1 CAR N 1}4 COMM SECF1ow 2B Ici _ SC0'2*17'tE 2epu,#p' C i 275C33'a3�r rasp' w m t 43'E F2GO8' 0 ; 4d xS" I c m s�ro147"E I Ln e w to 904Mr47'E . 42 Rezone Area:IS.17#AC. Mol m t 4A V saae 11 t-0 R594122210[narxion�, L, o V, 504Z8M9M[Po",5042912OW Portion) °� o &54A28197.�00(PorCFonf � x4 �F ,� $ Curren[Zoning:RLtT a. m .y fll Peopos�_'d Zonirl�C•G 50tr32',3'ye � re UNE TABLE 1394' I o 4-- LINE 9EARIf4G alsrwoeE L1 Si'37'471; M8 Q6 y 13 -95' � L2 5T27'471` 764,9O # _3 1Z15 aAT +pi 7m0 SHEET! QRW TA�61,f F 0URVE 44AMUS I L2ft—M DELTA {HORtlMr. CHORD C1 115A4'I S3.1a' 2VZr-I ' +11W41'131R 52.67' I f r+,amum- r7 Trw al,wsao IMWF MrSTATESREE, av,Pti+4A3a1+ tii4ru 17dlI i7l+�9�! Foy Fmdi f3§6f9a Page 34 Page 116 Item#3. C. Preliminary Plat(date: 8/2912020 1044 inn 11/20/20),Phasing Plan A, Tot Layout Exhibit REVISED PRESCOTT PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING - --F — I _I ;, , AP&R['14{]rLANDUTIATO IN A MUTON OF TIl NOII7NFAIT GH W IFlr W-M Ivgll IJI13i Moldh a rb u alo.YNura ■-ri 6L IUr LwL17.■&AL 6YLYIIILin"fLYrWT.iWrib ""SFr — aiwr- — Z.- :7 Xp=J ■ r w_ �_ r ITT A. ■ _ I Y a -dam-F I. _.. �. •�- 5 -��L ■ * ■ 6 E ' rl141�■VOI YJS �LI 1--��f-_ � ■ ° D#■ ■Q !{I�1 ■ 6'-■ ■ 0 ■ !`� '� � iT'JFONIL'R4q ! f F f! ■i ■t+Yil i# f 4 Y e 8 c o i41■ o �I ' 1I y.�J �r •..I I�•I ry� a ■ � 4r; 7 1 r y f Jfh. r+ , V. o ram_ �JJ/ P t q rfr I J+I i L A ■ it i. ° ■ L i yyIII ! � � f � �, inn #x �Y I�� 1 1 i 1 TC' - ■ km 1 b ■ 4 O ■ � o # ■ 8 ■ 1 n L Page 35 Page 117 Item#3. MWTCH UNL SEE SHEET PPx2 { ; :. _ * _- 40 49 1 a � 49 a a 45i ■ Y • 0 n ■ O p Y # # ' yyII ■ h.urrrnvn .. .. _ __ ter_ � !- -• Q HU l.■�`� 4 i FV HF O � ■ R5/,T[ll Ig1F SFF 311FEf��2.1 �ti _ _ _ Q _ ''' •`'•�'-�• + . a ' Ham ti Y � Page 36 Page 118 Item#3. ■i Ix e No �� �; — — --— -------- =ter• � - --- -� .—..---� ' ---- _.i� I 1 wlira;LIMY-ue 31>1lY�l�lir _ r.�' ■■K.Piaxlai 1 a�ai:a+���y..aa.aa■•x�rfi _ 4 1 ■ 1 • ■ a � d �' MATT UR-16 SMrrF 7.7 1 kh ■ 1 1 1 ■ ■ iI ■ ■ t i� �M t� +� RZ7 �2 i 1 Y 1 1 Y 1 1 +i�4f{h uY,E�lEe SFferfFla 1 Y 1 1 levar W[!SII!Wd 1 iS�GWr.444 1 _ L6 J J5 - LR " y1 Page 37 Page 119 Item#3. PHASE RUILDA51LE LOTS r 2 4T IlJ � S <1 4 43 z r 11 r� s 42 1 •'_ 5 87 ZO m= m � 9 t• �a ca '=HOSE 9 TOTAL _I BULDA LE 31� n LOTS (g a km I I m P� pgg,3444 rl �S ors fpiR^ 4 -'HA`E S e 4Zn1 OF Iul E HAS 1 0 3�0 600 906 R-s'xale:l'=300' Page 38 Page 120 Item#3. D. Landscape Plan(date: 4/'�20 'n�°�N 11/19/20)—REVISED 03 j4vzEz .trenr - •-+ � T �• is at I Tam - — I• - by iOQ LANDSEAM i '—1 - mm. - - . ---- 0 - .-:r.:._ r r • I _ I �I rru r 1 Page 39 Page 121 MM TT Lift- R.-T ------------------- -------------- ------- moor ..... ..... ........... .11102 T: . ......... ...... .... ... ..... .... MUM iiiIimIii Page 40 Item#3. 1 1 .I 1' - G,-rrryyy� 7 G r' • � ��r�••A h.' i I,,— r rr r 1i�.JdFri�, ti� f C, _er;i�y_ rtirn rta- ,1 km 1 .1 .1 1 1 .1 Page 41 Page 123 Item#3. E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenities(dated: 9/26QO 10/9/2020)—REVISED PRE5COTT RIDGE 5UBDIVI51O'H OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT �22 �• 1 r i • _ _ ' w�adw.n ME21DW �m4 Ha ESLZ Page 42 Page 124 Item#3. AMEWIES r,,L -fir A-POCILANDCUt1UMSE u+.....wuw.e..m T r — laWSFBUILDING _ 547f30TCOL �r 17 PARKING 5PA.CES r B-LARGE TOT LOT - _ KIP C-SMA OT PRESCOTT D-LDOEW PARKIFOtKET PARK E•OPEN$PKE RIDGE S—^ � F-mEw NTRR11AN.MAW6 E µ tip% A SCHEMATIC CLUBHOUSE t ` w G SMALL TOT LOT v ti DQG.PA-RI(IPOCKET PARK Page 43 Page 125 Item#3. F. Parking Plan(dated:4/Q� 10/21/2020)—REVISED M. n : i J -wul�r.ir+r i r imu wx ror+uar-m AVIONNER PIIIIIIII 1 -- ` p4HkNtiIH PK.NT a'H.Mt-TS { 6 4 vo o 1 R � r f 2 7 3 3 3 99 16 - � BOG PARKING EKHt$Ii sru¢o cursouaHG Page 44 Page 126 Item#3. G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives -REVISED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PRESCOTT RIDGE - ■■ rwuaiu�ar.m.v�o _ _ ... .... a,TOWNHOMES a FOUR-PLEY FLATS Jr IIIE 1 AA�-A 4 q mr "m a APNI I 1M ll +E + h r Page 45 Page 127 Item#3. MAIN MEDICAL BUILDING- .DRAFT REPOERhVG. V?EW bDO ING WEST Page 46 Page 128 Item#3. H. Parcel Status Exhibit IandproDATi4 Parcel Status Exhibit R6997222101 -Whealan -- Legal parcel as a platicsd kX SO4212211102- Roark within PeregFeie Heights Legal parcel per e-mail SuWivision and e-mail from From Drunk Darllelsan treal Daniolson dated doled 8,�6,19, —'' 8,26.19, WIP20 W Cnrqu—Blvd 1751 r. r a 94281,20644-RoMenGa Illegal parcel, hall will heeorr,e ACHp { right-of-way per Chrkyly Little a-mall { dated 11.6.19. R6991n221Q- Roark - Legal parr+�l as a plalted 5{}4281311 - ckraot ine PeF grn Illegal parcel,Ixrl incWded lot urllhln Pero Heights i i with INN,appllratlon to 50428233640-Hon rectify illegal slatus. Legal parce'I peF a-mail *- trorn Vrprx Danielson dal. .d 9.5.19, f� $042B120950 R $04281-31315-Kuw?4l Hausa paFCPI is R-k-mAinder I-.dlf:�gal. hue will CJe.i*,etill" by this a fication. S042822IM20-Thomson l;r. Legal parcel per a-mail ��116-V-15 I?om Brent Danielson 43'35'13.74 dated 9,5,19, vot aLa4vY Aug 76.2059-iandvowmT%.o�m The roKeN$16 auallap1$$t this"hsoTe err.For InrQrmatlWWl Seale:1 inch eppeaa 600+ear purposes only and do not constitute a legal document, Page 47 Page 129 Item#3. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION commercial,The conceptual development plan for the C G zoned portion of the site, shall be Fevised and submitted to the City CleFk ftt least 10 days p4or to the City Couneil hearing to Feflee eonfor-manee with the following guidelines in the COMPFehensive Plan for-Mixed Use a elm its • The buildings in the commercial C G zoned portion of the de3f,elopment shall be arranged to er-eate some form of > usable aFea, parks,mixed use guidelines in the CompFehensive Plan (pg. 3 13). limited to plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space,libraries, site; and schools sha provided in the Mixed Use designated portion of the outdoor seating areas at restaurants not satisfy this requheinent as it is notpart of the AKxed Use desknated area. • Development of the Mixed Use designated area shall be eenteFed aFound spnees that aFe well designed public and quasi public centers of aetivity. Spaces should be activated and ineor-porate permanent design elements and amenities that fosteF a wide var-iety of inteFests FaHgiHg from leiSUFe to play. These aFeas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further plaeemaking opportunities consider • The 4 story medieal office building proposed at the southeast corner of the commere development shall be sh fted to the HOFth to f-Font on the main eHtFy dFive aisle off N. RU Oak Way as a better-tr-anSit-80-H t0o the Fesidenees to the south. • A eommer-eial land use type shall be ineluded on the plan in the MU R designated a retail,restaurants, 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 V111 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; Page 48 Page 130 Item#3. Lot 68, 70, 81-83, and 77-78,Block 12; and Lots 43 44,75 42,45 and-167, Block 8 that face collector streets(i.e.N. 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. 6. An electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Department shall be provided for access to Serenity Ln. from the south. 7. Noise abatement for the future SH-16 extension shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to N. McDermott Rd. constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. 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 11-311-413. 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. . Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5, 2020 included in the public record. Page 49 Page 131 Item#3. 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. 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 Let 1, Bleek 15 as it's AGHD right of way and eannot 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 11-3A-3A.2. 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 townheme pertion of the development(i. . Imets 16 79 Bleek 8)with pub! streets (alleys and/or-eawmAen dr-iveways may be ineefper-a4ed); or-,if pr-iv4e stfeets are townheme style tmits might be a d&velapmeat option for-this area. A revised eoneept plan shall be presented prior-to or-at the Commission hearing for-review and a revised plat r-efleeting this ehange shall be submitted at least 10 days prior-to the City Couneil hearing.if private streets are proposed with a townhome development,a mew or-gated private streets should be provided in aeeor-d with UDC 11 3F 1.Also,pr-ovide updated density multi family development(i.e. one stigiettife on ofte pr-epefty with 3 or-more dwelling tmits)with 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 Confleil hearing depieting this eh .Done 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 and N. McDermott Rd.; 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 Rename-Lett Bl ek 15 as it's A C14D :ght of way and eannot pplaRed as a eaffffnen let. 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 Page 50 Page 132 Item#3. 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 11-313-12C. 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 11-3B-1OC.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 (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. a , rds the.,,...,,�,eme t4io,, fthe ��}F� � 2F:riri�cincr36upmg rvrcvriniivir-ccrcu9-iircri�. cv-ovmivrnc�vrcrvrrvrcna. development in Bleek 9 in aeeer-d with the standards listed in UDG 11 3G 3R. 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. m. 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 11-2A-6, 11-2A-7 and 11-2B-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 par-Wag plan shall be submitted prior-to or-at th-e Commission hearing for-the townhome portion of the development that r-efleets the ehanges noted above in eondition#A.2f and that provides for-adequate guest par-king to serwe 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. Page 51 Page 133 Item#3. 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 eonunon driveways off the private street as proposed en the preliminary plat in 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. 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. Page 52 Page 134 Item#3. 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. 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 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 Page 53 Page 135 Item#3. 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 54 Page 136 Item#3. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188188&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=191860&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=189738&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX Page 55 Page 137 Item#3. G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192646&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City H. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT(SID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188429&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) hyps://weblink.meridiancity.or lWebLink/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=Meridian City X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E): Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: l. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission 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 FL UM 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; The Commission finds 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. The Commission finds 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; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 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. Page 56 Page 138 Item#3. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IX. B. Preliminary Plat Findings(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; The Commission finds that the proposed plat, with 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; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section IXfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural,scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. 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 net meets the requirements in UDC 11-3F-4A.6 as as-. FLur4her-,j94+wte streets aie net intendedfer tewnheme develepment-s ether than these that er a common mew is proposed through the site design er that„repese a smit a .,.W resia.,n 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 Page 57 Page 139 Item#3. The Director finds granting approval of the private street with the let deHsio,aHd jqa4d as proposed eeuld prewent a Huisaneefi-bi-area i;esideHt-s without adequate pa4ingfop guests aH everflow pat"alld a safety,e I - --y vehieles aeeessing the site Ore lanes should not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Director finds the use and location of the private street de Het H es.,ri4, aireetby .eHffiet wiM does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the regional transportation plan. 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 deegtet incorporates a mew of,gate devek�qme in the design. €ellewing 1. Stfict-adher-cace-er-applie-atiea of the requirements-CrG TV•feasible; r� 3. The altemative means will not be materially det-Fifnental to the publie welfwe or-impair-the inteaded Page 58 Page 140 Applicant Presentation 1 �tl I PRESCOTT RIDGE MERIDIAN, IDAHO FIT orm L'C0y r S.3labs - t � ally ill; 4� i M may, Prescott Ridge Annexation, Zoning and Preliminary Plat City of Meridian, City Council December 1, 2020 Project • • iInformation =, dl #; # 4 'mom r�k• �:ll� ,,. - ��+r1�1�1111.:�111y�s11�111�� ;�� . •- it �� � ��� I�- L e i o k: ltb,rl 11MBin�1t*w HE ro qP qP IF a .,r.�R �,�.#'s11i1 aillM 77) �� ■9 RR■RI w r 411191 VIOL 5 L� Ill gas IM� - . - ■I�Illll�t* �!_'lell! fJfl11' rpm �: lilllllllll 11I 1 ��1, = poll lrllll11111111 111111 � _ ,�, .a 2. '. � y�IlllFlll Illll llllil ��AI� � � '•�;E•�4 � _ �- •4#IG1111�+1�4p111111F,tR11e1v1' wltlAR � - — �� � *� 1111 Ia1111 Illlif Seem ' l Illlrl� �� ¢ �illli +�l1111�#�!rllllNl 1i11151�nw1 - - �J = • + r! +� = Rlry: Ri11�4 44l1glll,111�if9!# IIFII�"TIC : 'Spt11� r' �f t fits : •.r ,. 11'" _;"� 1Ml11l f ffrt�•. 6 sy= . 11tti�Eltl1«ll �, I1;a �" FAIR'.f'w w �71w#141M1lw R1+' r R-;: a0r ir���rrlr.�111r+L;� '� 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 Current Zoning Map r 1 - f # * " 0 # 1 C unu umuq *�. M1 �� � IIIIIWIIIIIII� �jV 1 1 1 a�-i �. � W� 1■ �_g 11111■1 � Ins ' ■ IN ■ - � Y '- i 11111111 111 1 111111 .._ ., v ,�,' - I _ 11111111111 111 C '_ . Requested Zoning Boundaries Zoning Details • C-G Zone, 18.18 acres ; • R-15 Zone, 8.95 acres y • R-8 Zone, 99.41 acres I + sue' �• 3 r'MM nrsimin�'�• 11111!l1111 tl Will k =1111 lttt { "t• • 11111 � <-� NO Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat Details: i�llliL • 317 single family lots • 38 Townhome Lots (+3 unit buildings) jrN/r • 8 Single Family Attached Lots (2 unit buildings) ® • 14 Multifamily Lots with proposed 4-plex 00© © building on each lot ao®®® ©v®o® • 41 common lots }. �y 00©gip • 1 lot 18.18 ac Proposed Medical Campus 1 lot, (28 ac) West Ada School Parcel 00© © 12.43 acres of qualified open space (11.8%) mild mom� m s 4!u � �������_�� am _MM ®®logo I ' 00 ` ' �` Qualified Open S Qualified Open Space: 12.43 Acres, 11.8% I � wK vXtl�a SOX Ew,�cm 1 � 1 N OPFN WACE I 1 L 1 � -- + I � 1 e.anee k ® aLOCxB � N n CIFIRE LCOo �f ell]CRS OIOCR 1. W. - fl 'l1,.WIVIHIXL UK. 8 4 O W.SfVRGILL PFAk�i. a 0° �°®�© } W'fF1iNE(•t I ® 40 �® �y' w.FlRE°iNF QR Q ID Is 0 W.PARACHVIl VR ® la[l ® y ® ® ® ® I fLCCF 12 o 0 O p 701 w P ure N MOl MNCi ® ® ® CL BLOOIi 11 s 0 -0 ® ® ® ® 2 RI in ® 0 r' a m ® Z p W 5-WE"MNR ST I® ® m ® ID � ® ® ® @ O ID ®LO �� HqR 4� ID dm O jjq�D fl r} ry ® 9 BIOCK 5 - - - Open Sn2cp- and Site Amenities Central Park with Clubhouse, Pool and Large Tot Lot a IMF= F Pocket Parks — Two small Tot Lots -- - L. 1.1 it �i Dog park area NO ` �.,� �w.s �4ti4` �1.- '� f� ' `�a�ahiY��`�9�Ls�i ��-�■1 ■ �A Recreational Pathways ""79 NEI 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 PRESCOTT RIDGE . # - !fills . llll`1fIE. �I.Il I it - CCCCCC- l - Parks Alreadv ConstrUCteds,HIGHWAY20CHINDEN BLVD. PROPOSEb MEDICAL � CAMPUS PRESCOTT -- RIDGE - MERIDIAN, IDAHO _ CpNCEP7UA45U6}CC'f T4ChiM1>•JGE ky - _ ' FUTURE SCHOOL — - SITE — F- -- - r _ I + TP rL ------------ FUTURE OAKSMORTH SUBPIVISIUN Phasing Plan a� PHASE I oil W. Emu MobEL um 0 MR a� o� + ®® I� 4^w � -- �IIII � Serviceability - _ Chind_en Blvd . 17 r Lan�is¢api Fire Department Staff Report • 3ar "This project can be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department. The phasing plan shall be += ` strictly adhered to ensure there _ Jr is always 2 access points Waterfleld - li r' I r ;. ,.. . � bevelaprneni Co LLC � 1 � � .i,i �?• ,i available for fire, police and w EMS." +P "The project does meet the targeted goal of 80% or greater +i reliability. „ ` ,r � F�i� a 0avao�oop � .. _ PHASE 1 REGIONAL Access and Emergency Response Time Improvement On Levi Ln (Rustic Oak) Extension: -r s lull Meridian Fire Department: "Pushing Levi Lane through will ^° help with fire response times. As t Prescott Ridge04 .. , �; . it sits, we cannot turn left from • _ �� _, Chinden onto McDermott. This will give station 5 an avenue to l „ make that run to McDermott - ppppoQ000 c without having g to o all the way -ll--ab=: - around. It would benefit all �op4�o = o�co.� _ construction areas in the map section. 0-9 tii Meridian Police Department I �•,� �► ��.. "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 Future Electronic Gate— Preserve the privacy of Serenity Lane while offering , �. i ' '� � ' �,I, ' Meridian Fire Dept approved "O ticom" access. �' na. � =�� � � ` .y�r,� �, MEN .�„E�> ti. Y � � `� ems••�pr.. �CS� �� � j �����I ■` _ .-- - _- 'ail '� • � ' Q o ���, , .� -_ - - v 1� a f Boo. ��>a0b �md� Q�QO �plo o - - # Goo Serenity Lane ( Peregrine Heights) Access Proposed Electronic Gate Access for Serenity Lane: This access a gate preserves the privacy .:__:. r In , mlt1�� of our Serenity Lane neighbors while �,lll II III Illlllllli� f - ,,,,` : 1„1,,,,,,,,��� q I,r.f,�i ifI�p�N,�y,rll� ;,q�� offering unhindered emergency access - - through a O ticom device. II!! lk�. IIIIIIIII g p Opticom allows the Fire Truck or Emergency Vehicle to trigger the opening of the gate in advance to ensure rapid access to the destination. 4 M1101 o 4 1�1IIIII II�II � IIII IIIIIIIII11lll� �� - - _ ., ,� Housing Types 120 ..... .. ..... ao®®® ao�o® ao�*�oo i �a���*•.a 00 Novi.� MAIIII gill NUN ' sun �oE=moo© [� S l ©0® 0 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 Townhome Single Family Attached PROPOSED MEDICAL CAMPUS PRESCOTT RIDGE tia�r FUTURE SCHOOL SITE �-- IIIIIEIE.�I� 7 �r Townhome and Single Family Attached IL I 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� ••P 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 WEST CHIHDEN BLVD_ PATHWAY CONHEDTIDN ,, i�.�L` FRONTAGE NOISE ABATEMENT ,' TO M... ROAD BERM AND WALL PROPERTY LRiE n-�SHADE4 t _ _ r _p >m OUTDOOR s.J�',r' a'. r .r AREA OF e'KIGK --y' _ - — ai, - RESPITE CMU SMAL �f I III f r 4 J ~ t I � PHASE 2 3STORY •, '�1yq�yp � _ ItE3TAVRA � I = « i NOT A PART Of PARCEL I w R x MONUMENT SIGNAGE rl 30'DENSE LANDSCAPE BUFFER I APA , a AND WALKING PATHIh�JJ_LLIII=tt_1:1J 'D `I I I I I I I PI I I III I ' —— DUMOOR PLAZA - ANDGREENSPACE IJ •� Fer - - `'.j..:!. Ell WALK IH BIKE PARKINGi+ ��$�•��gf f� ENTRY + ENTRY PHASE 7 B ..- 4ECCNiATIYE _ - - FSED E y - SCREENING FOR ~ ; PATIENT PRIVACY i E%ISTIRG w FPHA.=3 SINGLE a - S STORY =T T FAMILY - —_ HOSPITAL � �� i 157ORY ro 1 STORY jP J — I - _ STAFF E�TRY 71. 1111 ll � — 5RAIDED OUTDOOR - - l.11 .i �� I I I f'1 AREA OF RE5PITE - �^ --' ^. 5 PA USE _ PATHWAY CONNECTION a'HICK# PROPERTY LINE , _p IQ[[jiiLTMyy _ POINT CMU WALL 1� R�9I I10" IL SITE PLAN-OPTION PLAHNEOSINGLE FAMILY � $� C N1iECTlOf1 f�16-!HT mwN H E8 Medical Campus WEST OHINDEN BLVD- SHADED - Y MTOCIOR AREA PATHNlAY CONNECTION - —FRONTAGE NOISE ABATEIAENT OF RESPRE TQ�HIHDEN ROAD EGERM AND WALL ROW BOUNDARY PROPERTY LONE —r------- � —————— b— T2 �— HIGH CMU W,4L n I� ENTRY � $ .x . .a 1 — PHASE 2 i + \ - 3 STORY r RESTAURANT MONUMENT — i Building toshift to GE SIGNA o deast corner if out- 9FFTFFL LU 30'DENSE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AOA I parcel is acquired AND WALKING PATH I =1 I III 1 I I I QUIn L------74QR PLAZA � �!� _ AND GREEN SPACE c�y ` 5XA6E❑ dR+ •-dc'? 4•t*•� EOWALK � — w 71M, 4UTDOORAREA iY"t*y, °i F •*•c•*• p,IN IN ENTRY OF RESPITE BIKE PARKING - _ • �� -'''V�i .• �+�Sh — — 1 _•�'= s NTRY 6EC#RATIVE PHASE 1 E m FEED =___ i SCREENING FOR PATIENT PRIVACY EXISTING � � PHASE 3 SINGLE a I 36TORY i FAMILY HOSPITAL ' 'S70RY f a I $!I STAFF t y l I I ENTRY I SHADED OUTDOOR .1 A-A MULTIUSE AREA OF RESPITE -- i � PATHWACONNECnON WHICH PROPERTY LINE —PE12EMIAN PATHWAY POINT CMV WALL r R NNEC E TI L SITE PLAN-OPTION 2B P7�4eaNEdSINGLE FAMILY.�k � C NNECTI INT P NED 14 T0N H E8 ,v , 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 CAM PUS PRESCOTT RIDGE II - If. I - -.- MERIDLkN, D O III�IIiI III ;j1'-I •��'� . ■f Lk.i FUTURE SITE . •1r..r ltal � gill r. 1 I � Townhome and Single Family Attached r M Rear-load Townhomes Pocket Park son No - ia■ ' _ Igor son ■■ Front-load Townhomes �! Me 1 C Y lid Single-Family Attached ►.:., 1 Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat Details: i�llliL • 317 single family lots • 38 Townhome Lots (+3 unit buildings) jrN/r • 8 Single Family Attached Lots (2 unit buildings) ® • 14 Multifamily Lots with proposed 4-plex 00© © buildings on each lot ao®®® ©v®o® • 41 common lots �iyYF �r1 00© © • 1 lot 15.12 ac Proposed Medical Campus • 12.43 acres of qualified open space (11.8%) @�OINN oo®®® f IF. ! q.1 .iY ea.. d t�iF�!`�•��r;-��...� fitoil HUM ME p Q pop® a�®� n oo® o Unocal = a no � ' �` 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) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Third Reading of Ordinance No. 20-1905: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-1, Regarding Adoption of 2018 International Building Code, 2018 International Residential Code, 2018 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, 2018 International Energy Conservation Code, 2018 International Existing Building Code, and Respective Local Amendments; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-2, Regarding Amendments to International Building Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-3, Regarding Amendments to International Residential Code; Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 10-1-4, Regarding Amendments to International Energy Conservation Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-2-3(B), Regarding Plumbing Permit and Inspection Fees, Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-3-3(E), Regarding Electrical Permit and Inspection Fees, Repealing and Replacing Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, Regarding Adoption of the 2018 International Fire Code and Local Amendments Thereto; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-1, Regarding Adoption of 2018 International Mechanical Code, 2018 International Fuel Gas Code, 2018 International Residential Code Parts V And VI, and Respective Local Amendments; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-2, Regarding Amendments to 2018 International Mechanical Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-3, Regarding Amendments to the International Fuel Gas Code; Amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5- 4(H—M), Regarding Amendments to Part V (Mechanical) and Part VI (Fuel Gas) of the 2018 International Residential Code; Adopting a Savings Clause; and Providing an Effective Date Third Reading Page 179 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1905 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT,STRADER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-1-1, REGARDING ADOPTION OF 2018 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE,2018 INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, AND RESPECTIVE LOCAL AMENDMENTS;AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-1-2,REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-1-3, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE; REPEALING AND REPLACING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-1-4, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-2-3(B), REGARDING PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-3-3(E), REGARDING ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES; REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 4, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-1, REGARDING ADOPTION OF 2018 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE PARTS V AND VI, AND RESPECTIVE LOCAL AMENDMENTS; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-2, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO 2018 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-3,REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-4(H—M), REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO PART V (MECHANICAL) AND PART VI (FUEL GAS) OF THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE; ADOPTING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code section 39-4116(4)(b), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and the following amendments to the 2018 International Building Code (IBC), the 2018 Idaho Residential Code (IRC), 2018 International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC), and the 2018 International Existing Building Code, and that such amendments are reasonably necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare; WHEREAS,pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-2619, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2017 Idaho State Plumbing Code (ISPC); WHEREAS,pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-1001C, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC); CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 1 Page 180 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 WHEREAS,pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301, 41-253(1), and 41-256(1), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2018 International Fire Code (IFC); WHEREAS,pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-5016(4), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC); WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that the following amendments do establish at least an equivalent level of protection to that of 2018 IBC, 2018 ISPSC; 2018 IRC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IFC, and 2018 IMC; 2018 IFGC; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Idaho Code section 39-4116(4)(e), a public hearing on the amendments to the IBC, IRC, and IECC was conducted on November 17, 2020, following provision of the proposed language of this ordinance to Associated General Contractors of America, Associated builders and contractors, Association of Idaho Cities, Idaho Association of Building Officials, Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho Association of REALTORSV, Idaho Building Contractors Association, American Institute of Architects Idaho Chapter, Idaho Fire Chiefs Association, Idaho Society of Professional Engineers, Idaho State Independent Living Council, Southwest Idaho Building Trades, and Idaho Building Trades,by e-mail sent on October 14, 2020, and publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the Meridian Press on October 16, 2020; NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Meridian City Code section 10-1-1 shall be amended as follows: 10-1-1: ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE,INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE,AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: The following codes, published by the International Code Council, inel ding all appen iees thereto, are hereby adopted and incorporated in full as if set forth at length herein, and shall apply and control within the city of Meridian, save and except such portions as hereinafter deleted, modified or amended: A. The 2015-2018 edition of the International Building Code (hereinafter IBC), as amended by section 10-1-2 of this chapter; B. The 20122018 edition of the International Residential Code (hereinafter IRC), as amended by section 10-1-3 of this chapter; C. The 2018 edition of the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code; CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 2 Page 181 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 4'27D. As to residential o *The 20122018 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (hereinafter IECC), as amended by section 10-1-4 of this chapter:; and D-.E. The 2015-2018 edition of the International Existing Building code (hereinafter IEBC), with no amendments. Section 2. That Meridian City Code section 10-1-2 shall be amended as follows: 10-1-2: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE: The following amendments to the IBC shall apply: A. IBC section 105.2, exception 1 under"Building," shall be amended to read as follows: Building: 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, emissions testing facilities, and similar uses, provided that the floor area is not greater than 120 square feet(11 m2). B. IBC section 1 n�107.2.6 shall be amended to read as follows: Site Plan. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing, to scale, the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades, and the proposed finished grades. The site plan shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or when otherwise warranted. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. C. IBC section 109.2 shall be amended to provide as follows: Schedule of Permit Fees. The fee for each permit shall be as set forth pursuant to a schedule of permit fees as established by resolution of the city council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this code shall be made by the building official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical,plumbing,heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. Final building permit valuation shall be set by the building official for all permits that require initial estimated valuation and final estimated valuation by the applicant. Payment of permit fees is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued or considered valid until fees are paid. D. A new section, section 109.6.1, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Permit Fee Refunds. Up to eighty percent(80%) of the fees paid for a valid permit may be CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 3 Page 182 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 refunded to the permit holder upon request, if the permit holder has not commenced any work under said permit. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the building official no later than one hundred eighty(180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. E. A new section, section 109.7, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Permit Transfer. A building permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the building official. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the building official; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the building official, such permit shall be deemed void. F. IBC section 202, Definition for Townhouse, shall be amended to provide as follows: A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from the foundation to the roof, separated by property lines, and with open space on at least two sides. F-.G. IBC section 312.1 shall be amended with the deletion of the requirement for agricultural buildings to comply with the IBC. &.H. IBC section 1612 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Flood Loads. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. HMI. A new section, section 1805.3.4, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Waterproofing Hydraulic Elevator Shaft Pits. Elevator shafts shall be designed to prevent the intrusion of water into the hydraulic elevator shaft pit, with accommodation made for the high groundwater table in the city of Meridian, in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers standard A17.1, section 2.2.2.3. U. IBC section 1807.1.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Wood Footings Or Foundations. Regardless of the provisions of the IRC or IBC, this chapter, related chapters, appendices or tables, the city of Meridian shall not allow the use of wood, treated or otherwise, for footings or foundations. JK. IBC section 3002.4 shall be amended to provide as follows: Elevator Car To Accommodate Ambulance Stretcher. Where elevators are provided in buildings two (2) or-fner-estories above, or-two (2) or-more stories be! above or below grade plane, at least one (1) elevator shall be provided for fire department emergency access to all floors. The elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher twenty-four by eighty-four inches (24" x 84") with not less than five inches (5")radius corners, in the horizontal, open position and shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall not be less than three inches (3") high, and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoistway door frame. CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 4 Page 183 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 L. IBC Section 3113.1 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Relocatable Buildings. The provisions of this Section shall apply to relocatable buildings. Relocatable buildings manufactured after the effective date of this code shall comply with the applicable provisions of this code; title 39, chapter 43, Idaho Code; and IDAPA 07.03.03. Excotion: This Section shall not apply to manufactured housing used as dwellings. ISM. IBC section 305.2.3 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Twelve (12) Or Fewer Children In A Dwelling Unit. A facility such as the above within a dwelling unit and having twelve (12) or fewer children receiving such daycare shall be classified as a group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the IRG International Residential Code. N. IBC Section 308.2.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care. A facility with five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care shall be classified as a Group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the International Residential Code. O. IBC Section 308.3.2 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Five (5) or fewer persons receiving medical care. A facility with five (5) or fewer persons receiving medical care shall be classified as a Group R-3 occupancy. &P. IBC section 308.6.4 308.5.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Persons Receiving Care In A Dwelling Unit. A facility such as the above within a dwelling unit and having twelve (12) or fewer children receiving daycare or having five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care shall be classified as a group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the MG International Residential Code. M-.Q. IBC section 310.5-310.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Residential Group R-3. Residential Group R-3 occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in natures and not classified as group R-1, R-2, R-4, E, or I, including: 1. Buildings that do not eei#ain more thantwe (2) dwelling units; 2 Bear-ding Louses (ne tf , scent)with sixteen (1 6) or-fewer-e nts-, z Bear-ding houses (tfa sieRt) with for (1 mor-fewer-oeeupants; 4. Cafe f4eilities that provide aeeemmodations for-five (5) or-fewer-. 7. Dwelling tmits providing dayear-e for-twelve (12) er-fewer-ehildr-en. g. Lodging heiise with five or-fewer-giiest f-eems. 1. Buildings that do not contain more than two (2) dwelling 2. Care facilities that provide accommodations for five (5) or fewer persons receiving personal care, custodial care or medical care. 3. Congregate living facilities (nontransient)with sixteen (16) or fewer occupants, including boarding houses nontransient), convents, dormitories, fraternities and sororities, and monasteries. CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 5 Page 184 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 4. Congregate living facilities (transient)with ten (10) or fewer occupants, including boarding houses (transient). 5. Dwelling units providing day care for twelve (12)or fewer children. 6. Lodging houses (transient)with five (5) or fewer guest rooms and ten(10) or fewer occupants. N-.R. IBC section 310.5.1310.4.1 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Care Facilities Within A Dwelling. Care facilities for twelve (12) or fewer children receiving daycare or for five (5) or fewer persons receiving personal care or custodial care that are within a single f� il, one- or two-family dwelling are permitted to comply with the IRG International Residential Code. 0. Add footnote (f) 2902.6 in the headef t:ew of the table eeltima labeled"Drinking fettatains"of Table 2902.1 Minimum Number of Requir-ed Plumbing Fixtufts, and add feetnete (f)ttnder Table 2902.1 to state the following: Drinking fetmtains aF- - t fef an eee"a*t lead of (30) fewer. gS. IBC section 2902.6 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Drinking fountains shall not be-required for an occupant load of thirty(30) or fewer. Q-.T. Footnote (e)to table 2902.1, Minimum Number Of Required Plumbing Fixtures, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: For business occupancies, excluding restaurants, and mercantile occupancies with an occupant load of thirty(30) or fewer, service sinks shall not be required. R-.U. IBC Appendices B, E, F, 14, 1, and T B, H, and I shall be mandatory. Section 3. That Meridian City Code section 10-1-3 shall be amended as follows: 10-1-3: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE: The following amendments to the IRC shall apply: A. Parts VII(plumbing), VIII (electrical), and IV (Energy Conservation) shall be deleted. B. Exeeptie„ 1� seetie„ R101.2, Seepe, hall be deleted.. The exception under Section R101.2 Scope shall be deleted and replaced with the following_ Exception: The following shall also be permitted to be constructed, in accordance with this code: 1. Owner-occupied lodging houses with five (5) or fewer guestrooms and ten (10) or fewer total occupants. 2. A care facility with five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care within a dwelling unit or single-family dwelling. 3. A care facility for five 5 or fewer persons receiving personal care that are within a dwelling unit or single-family dwelling 4 A care facility with twelve (12) or fewer children receiving day care within a dwelling unit or single-family dwelling_ CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 6 Page 185 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 G. Exeeption 2 of 1RG seetion R 101.2, Seepe, shall be deleted and r-eplaeed with language to provide as follows: Exeeption: Owner- oeetipied lodging hottses with three (3) fiyg4Ror-fewer-guestr-ooms shall dwellings. Sueb oeeupaneies shall be r-e"ir-ed to install smoke alafTas and ear-bon mone alarms in acear-danee with seetions R314 and R315, respectively, of the 1RC or one and two family dwellings C. Section R104.10.1 Flood hazard areas shall be deleted. D. Item 2 of the `Building" subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt from Permit, shall be deleted and replaced with the following_: Fences not over six feet W)high may be exempted from the requirement for a building permit in the absence of any other applicable land use regulations governing the installation, height, type, or other aspect thereof. D—. E. Item 7 of the 'Building" subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt From Permit, shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Prefabricated swimming pools that are not greater than four(4) feet(one thousand, two hundred nineteen(1219) mm) deep. €-F. A new item, no. 11, shall be added to the 'Building" subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt From Permit: Flagpoles. F-.-G. A new section, section R108.5.1, shall be added to the IRC to provide as follows: Permit Fee Refunds. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the fees paid for a valid permit may be refunded to the permit holder upon request, if the permit holder has not commenced any work under said permit. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the community development director or designee no later than one hundred eighty(180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. FAH. A new section, section R108.5.2, shall be added to the IRC to provide as follows: Permit Transfer. A building permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the Building Official. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the senm+uni3� development dir-eeter-of- Building Official; if transfer is attempted without written approval, such permit shall be deemed void. I. Section R109.1.3 shall be deleted and replaced with the following R109.1.3 Floodplain inspections. For construction in areas prone to flooding as established by Table R301.2(1), ppon placement of the lowest floor, including basement, CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 7 Page 186 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 the building official is authorized to require submission of documentation of the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, required in Section R322. J. Section R202, Definition for Townhouse, shall be amended to provide as follows: A single—family dwelling unit constructed in a rg_oup of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from the foundation to the roof, separated by_propegy lines, and with open space on at least two sides. H-.-K. Table R201.2(1) R301.2 1 , Climate and Geographic Design Criteria, shall be completed with criteria as follows: GROUND SNOW LOAD: 20 psf. Design roof load shall not be less than a uniform snow load of 25 psf. WIND DESIGN SPEED (mph): 115 mph for risk occupancy II or less; 120 mph for risk occupancy III or greater. WIND DESIGN TOPOGRAPHIC EFFECTS: No, in accordance with Section R301.2.1.5 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: C WEATHERING: Severe FROST LINE DEPTH: 24 inches TERMITE: Slight to Moderate WINTER DESIGN TEMP: 10 degrees F (annual mean temperature: 51.1 degrees F). The outdoor design dry-bulb temperature shall be selected from the columns of 97 %2 percent values for winter from Appendix D of the Idaho State Plumbing Code or as determined by the Building Official. ICE BARRIER UNDER LAYMENT REQUIRED: No FLOOD HAZARDS: Refer to Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, Flood Damage Prevention. L. Section R301.2.1.2, Protection of Openings, shall be deleted. -LM. IRC section R301.2.4, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Floodplain Construction. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian City Code. J-.N. IRC Table R302.1(1), Exterior Walls shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 8 Page 187 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 MINIMUM FIRE EXTERIOR WALL ELEMENT MINIMUM FIRE- SEPARATION RESISTANCE RATING DISTANCE 1 hour-tested in accordance Walls Fire-resistance rated with ASTM E 119,or-UL263 <3 feet with expesufe ffem both sides-,or Section 703.3 of the International Building Code with ex osure from both sides Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours 3 fee t>3 feet Fire-resistance rated 1 hour on the undersides 2 eet>2 feet to<3 feet Projections heave timber,or fire retardant-treated woods,b Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours 3 fee t>3 feet Not allowed N/A <3 feet Openings in 25%maximum of wall 0 hours 3 feet>3 feet to<5 feet Walls area Unlimited 0 hours 5 feet Comply with Section R302.4 <3 feet Penetrations All None required 3 fee t>3 feet For SI: 1 foot= 304.8 mm. N/A=Not Applicable a The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to zero (0)hours on the underside of the eave overhang if fireblocking is provided from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. b The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to zero (0)hours on the underside of the rake overhangwhere here gable vent openings are not installed. language to provide as fellews: Exeeption: Two (2) one houf fire r-esistanee rated wall assemblies or-a eenffnea two hett fin r-esistanee rated�vall assembly tested in aeoer-danee with ASTN4 E!19 of UL 263 is pet:mit4ed for-townhettses. if�wo (2) one heiff rated walls afe used, pitffilbing and eleetfi installations within the wall eavity shall eenfefm with fire r-esistanee penet-Fation A-Re b-ouf rated walls. The two hour-fire r-esistanee rated eeffifflon wa4l shall not eentain pittmbing or-fneehanieal e"ipmeat, duets, or-vents within its wall ea-vity. The wall shall be r-a4ed for-fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against the exter-ior- walls and the tffider-side of the roof sheathing. Penetfations of eleetfieal eti4let boxes shall be O. Section R302.13, Fire protection of floors, shall be deleted. P. Section R303.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with the following_ CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 9 Page 188 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 R303.4 Mechanical Ventilation. Dwelling units shall be provided with whole-house mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section M1505.4. &Q IRC section R302.6, Dwelling/Garage Fire Separation, shall be amended to provide as follows: Dwelling/Garage Fire Separation. Walls and ceiling of garages shall be covered with not less than 5/8-inch(15.9 mm)type X gypsum board or equivalent. M. 1RC section R303.4 shall be deleted and replaced with language to provide as fellow&,- Dwelling units shall be provided with whole house fneehanieal ventilation in aeeer-da Exeeption: Where the air-ififiltr-ation rate of a dwelling unit is eqtial to 5 air- ehanges per houf or-greater-when tested with a blower doof!at a pressure of 0.2 inch w.e. (50 pa) in N-.R. The exception to IRC section R313.1, Townhouse Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Exception: Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall not be required in townhouses where either two (2) one-hour fire-resistance rated walls or a common two-hour fire- resistance rated wall, as specified in item number 2 of Section R302.2.2 is installed between dwelling units or when additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire sprinkler system installed. 0-.S. IRC section R313.2 shall be deleted. T. The exceptions to Section R314.2.2 Alterations, repairs and additions, shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Exceptions: 1. Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings, such as, but not limited to, replacement of roofing or siding, or the addition or replacement of windows or doors, or the addition of a porch or deck or electrical permits, are exempt from the requirements of this section. 2. Installation, alteration or repairs of plumbing or mechanical systems are exempt from the requirements of this section. U. The exceptions to Section R315.2.2 Alterations, repairs and additions, shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Exceptions: 1. Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings, such as, but not limited to, replacement of roofing or siding, or the addition or replacement of windows or doors, or the addition of a porch or deck or electrical permits, are exempt from the requirements of this section. 2. Installation, alteration or repairs of noncombustion plumbing or mechanical systems are exempt from the requirements of this section. P. New lanpage shall be added to 1RG seetion R315.3 to provide as follows.! Exeeptier: WoFk involving the exterior-suffaees of a.w elh*gs Q-.V. IRC section R322 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Flood-Resistant Construction. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 10 Page 189 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. RL.W. IRC section R402.1 shall be amended to provide as follows: Wood. Regardless of the provisions of the IBC or IRC, this chapter, related chapters, appendices or tables, the city of Meridian shall not allow the use of wood, treated or otherwise, for footings or foundations. X. The following tables shall be deleted: Table R403.4 Minimum Depth(D) and Width(W) of Crushed Stone Footings (inches), Table R403.1(1) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings for or Light-Frame Construction (inches), Table R403.1(2) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings for Light-Frame Construction and Brick Veneer(inches), and Table R403.1(3) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings with Cast-In-Place or Fully Grouted Masonry Wall Construction (inched Y. A new table, Table R403.1, shall be added, to read as follows: TABLE R403.1 MINIMUM WIDTH OF CONCRETE,PRECAST,OR MASONRY FOOTINGS(inches)' LOAD-BEARING VALUE OF SOIL(psf) 1,500 2,000 3,000 >4,000 Conventional light-frame construction 1-Story 12 12 12 12 2-Story 15 12 12 12 3-Story 23 17 12 12 4-inch brick veneer over light frame or 8-inch hollow concrete masonry 1-Story 12 12 12 12 2-Story 21 16 12 12 3-Story 32 24 16 12 8-inch solid or fully grouted masonry 1-Story 16 12 12 12 2-Story 29 21 14 12 3-Story 42 32 21 16 For SI: 1 inch=25.4 mm, 1 pound per square foot=0.0479 kPa. a Where minimum footing width is twelve(12)inches,use of a single width of solid or fully grouted twelve(12)- inch nominal concrete masonry units is permitted. Z. Section R403.1.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following_ R403.1.1 Minimum size. Minimum sizes for concrete and masonr figs shall be as set forth in Table R403.1 and Figure R403.1(1). The footingwidth idth(W) shall be based on the load bearing value of the soil in accordance with Table R401.4.1. Spread footings shall be at least six (6) inches in thickness (T). Footing projections (P) shall be at least two (2) inches and shall not exceed the thickness of the footing. The size of footings sppporting piers and CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 11 Page 190 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 columns shall be based on the tributary load and allowable soil pressure in accordance with Table R401.4.1. S. !R(; seetion R501.3 and its exeeptions shall be deleted. AAA. IRC section R602.10 shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Wall Bracing. Buildings shall be braced in accordance with this section or, when applicable section R602.12, or the most current edition of APA System Report SR-102 as an alternate method. Where a building, or portion thereof, does not comply with one (1) or more of the bracing requirements in this section, those portions shall be designated and constructed in accordance with section R301.1. U. The feflewiiig seetieos and tables of 1RC ehapter- 11 shall be amended in aee0FdaR0e With the 1. �--Able N 102 1.1 (1EC;/ table , lastilation And Fene tr—at on Requir-e rrent RDA Component; ''�ble N 1 ,��3 (Ific7c table R402.1.3), Equivalent Faeter-s; > > Wall And Floor-instilationt. 4. Szetion Nl1A2.4.1 (r� R402.4 4),, Building T1,v,-,,..,,1 Envelop c Se t; R402.4.1 1) installation; 6-Table NI 102.4.1.1 (!EGG table R402 n 1 1), Air-u.,ffie,-And lastilation installation; 7. Seetien-N1!102.4.1.2 (IECC R482.4.1.2) Tossing Option 8. Add eeti6 (!EGG R402.4.1.3), Visual >speetion Option; 9. Add seEtletrAl!102.6 (1EGC .402.6), Residential Log Home-The al E elope Requirements By Component; and BBB. IRC Appendices A, B, C, D, H, I, j, and-K-,and_Q shall be mandatory. Section 4. That Meridian City Code section 10-1-4, shall be repealed, and replaced with the following: 10-1-4: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE: The following amendments to the IECC shall apply: A. The rows in Table R402.1.2 for climate zones "5 and Marine 4" and"6" shall be deleted and replaced with the following: TABLE R402.1.2 INSULATION AND FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS BY COMPONENT a CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 12 Page 191 ttem#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 Glazed Wood c d c Basement Slab Crawlspace Climate Fenestration U- b Fenestration Ceiling Frame Mass Wall Floor Skylight Wall R-Value Wall Zone Factorb U-factor SHGCb,a R-Value Wall R-Valuei R-Value R-Value & R-Value R-Value Depth 5 0.32 0.55 NR 38 20 or 13/17 309 15/19 10,2 ft 15/19 13+5h 22 or 309 6 0.30 0.55 NR 49 13+5h 15/20 15/19 10,4 ft 15/19 B. The following footnote shall be added to the title of IRC table R402.1.2, Insulation And Fenestration Requirements By Component: k. For residential log home building thermal envelope construction requirements see section R402.6. C. The rows in Table R402.1.4 for climate zones "5 and Marine 4" and"6" shall be deleted and replaced with the following: TABLE R402.1.4 EQUIVALENT U-FACTORS a Climate Fenestration Skylight Ceiling Frame Wall Mass Wall Floor Basement Crawlspace Zone U-factor U-factor U-factor U-factor U-factorb U-factor Wall Wall U-factor U-factor 5 0.32 0.55 0.030 0.060 0.082 0.033 0.050 0.055 M A 6 0.30 0.55 0.026 0.057 0.060 0.033 0.050 0.055 D. Section R402.4.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R402.4.1 Building thermal envelope. 1. Until June 30, 2021, the building thermal envelope shall comply with Sections R402.4.1.1 (Installation) and either Section R402.4.1.2 (Testing) or Section R402.4.1.3 (Visual inspection). 2. Effective July 1, 2021, the building thermal envelope of a minimum of twenty percent(20%) of all new single-family homes constructed by each builder shall comply with Section R402.4.1.1 (Installation) and Section R402.4.1.2 (Testing). The authority having jurisdiction may: 2.1. Determine how to enforce this requirement, starting with the fifth house and continuing with each subsequent fifth house. 2.2. Waive this requirement if significant testing indicates the five (5) air changes per hour (ACH)requirement is consistently being met or exceeded(resulting in a lower ACH). 2.3. Grant exceptions to this requirement in rural areas where testing equipment is not available or cost effective. 3. Effective July 1, 2021, the building thermal envelope of eighty percent (80%) of all new single-family homes constructed by each builder shall comply with Section R402.4.1.1 (Installation) and either Section R402.4.1.2 (Testing) or Section R402.4.1.3 (Visual inspection). 4. The sealing methods between dissimilar materials shall allow for differential expansion and contraction. E. Section R402.4.1.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R402.4.1.1 Installation. The components of the building thermal envelope as listed in Table R402.4.1.1 shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the criteria listed in Table R402.4.1.1, as applicable to the method of construction. CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 13 Page 192 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 F. Section R402.4.1.2 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R402.4.1.2 Testing. Testing building envelope tightness and insulation installation shall be considered acceptable when tested air leakage is less than five (5) air changes per hour (ACH)when tested with a blower door at a pressure of 33.5 psf(50 Pa). Testing shall occur after rough in and after installation of penetrations of the building envelope, including penetrations for utilities, plumbing, electrical, ventilation and combustion appliances. Testing shall be conducted in accordance with RESNET/ICC 380, ASTM E 779 or ASTM E 1827 and reported at a pressure of 0.2-inch w.g. (50 Pascals). During testing: 1. Exterior windows and doors, fireplace and stove doors shall be closed, but not sealed. 2. Dampers shall be closed, but not sealed, including exhaust, intake, makeup air,backdraft and flue dampers. 3. Interior doors shall be open. 4. Exterior openings for continuous ventilation systems and heat recovery ventilators shall be closed and sealed. 5. Heating and cooling system(s) shall be turned off. 6. HVAC ducts shall not be sealed. 7.Supply and return registers shall not be sealed. G. A new section, Section R402.4.1.3, shall be added, to read as follows: R402.4.1.3 Visual inspection. Building envelope tightness and insulation installation shall be considered acceptable when the items listed in Table R402.4.1.1, applicable to the method of construction, are field verified. Where required by code official an approved party independent from the installer of the insulation shall inspect the air barrier and insulation. H. A new section, Section R402.6, shall be added, to read as follows: R402.6 Residential log home thermal envelope. Residential log home construction shall comply with Section R401 (General), Section R402.4 (Air leakage), Section R402.5 (Maximum fenestration U-factor and SHGC), Section R403.1 (Controls), the mandatory sections of Sections R403.3 through R403.9, Section R404 (Electrical Power and Lighting Systems), and either 1., 2., or 3. as follows: 1. Sections R402.2 through R402.3, Section R403.3.1 (Insulation), Section R404.1 (Lightning equipment), and Table R402.6 (Log Home Prescriptive Thermal Envelope Requirements by Component). 2. Section R405 (Simulated Performance Alternative). 3. REScheck(U.S. Department of Energy Building Codes Program). I. A new table, Table R402.6, shall be added, to read as follows: TABLE R402.6 LOG HOME PRESCRIPTIVE THERMAL ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS BY COMPONENT For SI: 1 foot=304.8 min. Min. Slab Crawl Climate Fenestration Skylight Glazed Ceiling Average Floor Basement R-value Space Zone U-factora U-factor Fenestration R-value Log Size R-value Wall & Wall SHGC In R-valued Depthb R-valued Inches 5,6-High efficiency 0.32 0.60 NR 49 5 30 15/19 10,4 ft. 10/13 equipment pathc CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 14 Page 193 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 5 0.32 0.60 NR 49 8 30 10/13 10,2 ft. 10/13 6 0.30 0.60 NR 49 8 30 15/19 10,4 ft. 10/13 aThe fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights.The SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration. bR-5 shall be added to the required slab edge R-values for heated slabs. c90%AFUE natural gas or propane, 84%AFUE oil,or 15 SEER heat pump heating equipment(zonal electric resistance heating equipment such as electric base board electric resistance heating equipment as the sole source for heating is con- sidered compliant with the high efficiency equipment path). d"15/19"means R-15 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home or R-19 cavity insulation at the interior of the basement wall."15/19"shall be permitted to be met with R-13 cavity insulation on the interior of the basement wall plus R-5 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home."10/13"means R-10 continuous insu-lated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home or R-13 cavity insulation at the interior of the basement wall. J. Section R403.5.3 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R403.5.3 Hot water pipe insulation (Prescriptive). Insulation for hot water piping with a thermal resistance, R-value, of not less than R-3 shall be applied to the following: 1. Piping serving more than one (1) dwelling unit. 2. Piping located outside the conditioned space. 3. Piping located under a floor slab. 4. Buried piping. 5. Supply and return piping in recirculation systems other than demand recirculation systems. K. Section R404.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R404.1 Lighting equipment (Mandatory). A minimum of seventy-five percent(75%) of the lamps in permanently installed lighting fixtures shall be high-efficacy lamps or a minimum of seventy-five percent(75%) of the permanently installed lighting fixtures shall contain only high efficacy lamps. L. Section R406.3 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R406.3 Energy Rating Index. The Energy Rating Index (ERI) shall be determined in accordance with RESNET/ICC 301. Energy used to recharge or refuel a vehicle used for transportation on roads that are not on the building site shall not be included in the ERI reference design or the rated design. M. Table R406.4 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Table R406.4 - Maximum Energy Rating Index Climate Zone Energy Rating 5 68 6 68 'Where on-site renewable energy is included for compliance using the ERI analysis of Section R406.4, the building shall meet the mandatory requirements of Section R406.2, and the building thermal envelope shall be greater than or equal to the levels of efficiency and SHGC in Table R402.1.2 or Table R402.1.4 of the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code. N. A new section, Section C 101.5.2, shall be added to read as follows: C 101.5.2 Industrial, electronic, and manufacturing equipment. Buildings or portions thereof that are heated or cooled exclusively to maintain the required operating CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 15 Page 194 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 temperature of industrial, electronic, or manufacturing equipment shall be exempt from the provisions of this code. Such buildings or portions thereof shall be separated from connected conditioned space by building thermal envelope assemblies complying with this code. O. The following exception shall be added to Section C402.5 Air leakage—thermal envelope (Mandatory): Exception: For buildings having over fifty thousand(50,000) square feet of conditioned floor area, air leakage testing shall be permitted to be conducted on less than the whole building, provided the following portions of the building are tested and their measured air leakage is area-weighted by the surface areas of the building envelope: 1. The entire floor area of all stories that have any spaces directly under a roof. 2.The entire floor area of all stories that have a building entrance or loading dock. 3. Representative above-grade wall sections of the building totaling at least twenty-five percent(25%) of the above-grade wall area enclosing the remaining conditioned space. Floor area tested under subparagraphs 1. or 2. of this exception shall not be included in the twenty-five percent (25%) of above-grade wall sections tested under this subparagraph. P. The following exception shall be added to Section C403.5 Economizers (Prescriptive): 7. Unusual outdoor air contaminate conditions—Systems where special outside air filtration and treatment for the reduction and treatment of unusual outdoor contaminants, makes an air economizer infeasible. Q. Table C404.5.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: TABLE C404.5.1 PIPING VOLUME AND MAXIMUM PIPING LENGTHS NOMINAL PIPE VOLUME MAXIMUM PIPING LENGTH(feet) SIZE(inches) (liquid ounces per Public lavatory faucets Other fixtures foot length) and appliances 1/4 0.33 31 50 5/16 0.5 N/A-non-standard size 50 3/8 0.75 17 50 1/2 1.5 10 43 5/8 2 7 32 3/4 3 5 21 7/8 4 N/A-non-standard size 16 1 5 3 13 1 1/4 8 2 8 1 1/2 11 1 6 2 or larger 118 1 1 4 For SI: 1 inch=25.4 nun; 1 foot=304.8 nun; 1 liquid ounce=0.030 L; 1 gallon= 128 ounces. CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 16 Page 195 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 Section 5. That Meridian City Code section 10-2-3(B) shall be amended as follows: B. Permit And Inspection Fees: Fees for permits and inspections shall be fixed by the city council by resolution. 1. Payment Due Upon Issuance: Payment for all permit types is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued until fees are paid. 2. Permit Fee Refunds: Up to eighty percent(80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request, if the permit holder has not commenced any work under said permit. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the public works director or designee no later than one hundred eighty(180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. 3. Permit Transfer: A permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the public works director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. Section 6. That Meridian City Code section 10-3-3(E), shall be amended as follows: 10-3-3: PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; ISSUANCE: E. Permit And Inspection Fees: Fees for permits and inspections shall be fixed by the city council by resolution. 1. Payment Due Upon Issuance: Payment for all permit types is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued until fees are paid. 2. Permit Fee Refunds: Up to eighty percent(80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request, if the permit holder has not commenced any work under said permit. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the Community Development Department director or designee no later than one hundred eighty(180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. 3. Permit Transfer: A permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the Community Development Department director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 17 Page 196 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 Section 7. That Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, shall be repealed and replaced as follows: Chapter 4 FIRE CODE 10-4-1: FIRE CODE ADOPTED: There is hereby adopted by the mayor and the city council of the city of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, for the purpose of regulating and governing the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises in the city of Meridian, Idaho, and providing for the issuance of permits for hazardous uses or operations; and each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, terms, and appendices of such International Fire Code, 2018 edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., and the same are hereby adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, with the revisions, additions, and deletions thereto as set forth in this chapter. From the date in which this chapter shall take effect, the provisions of the international fire code, 2018 edition, and the revisions, additions, and deletions thereto as set forth in this chapter shall be controlling within the limits of the city of Meridian. 10-4-2: AMENDMENTS TO THE FIRE CODE: To the extent that any provision of the international fire code, 2018 edition (hereinafter IFC) conflicts with a provision of Idaho Code, the provision of Idaho Code shall prevail. Additionally, the following amendments to the IFC shall apply: IFC section 101.2.1 shall be replaced with language to read as follows: Section 101.2.1 Appendices. All Appendices shall be mandatory except Appendix J. IFC section 103.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 103.2 Appointment. The code official shall be the fire chief of the city of Meridian. In the absence or by designation of the fire chief, the deputy chief/fire prevention or designee shall be the code official. IFC section 103.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 103.3 Deputies. In accordance with the prescribed procedures of the city of Meridian the fire chief shall have the authority to appoint a deputy fire chief/fire prevention, or other technical officer, inspectors and other employees. IFC section 104.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 104.1 General. The fire code official is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended and shall have the authority to render interpretations of the IFC as herein adopted and amended, and to adopt policies, procedures, rules and regulations in order to clarify the application of such provisions. Such interpretations,policies,procedures, rules and regulations shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of the IFC as herein CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 18 Page 197 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 adopted and amended and shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in the IFC as herein adopted and amended. The fire chief is authorized to administer and enforce the IFC as herein adopted and amended. Under the fire chiefs direction, the fire department is authorized to enforce all ordinances of the city of Meridian pertaining to: a. The prevention of fires; b. The suppression or extinguishment of dangerous or hazardous fires; c. The storage, use and handling of hazardous materials; d. The installation and maintenance of automatic, manual and other private fire alarm systems and fire-extinguishing equipment; e. The maintenance and regulation of fire escapes; f. The maintenance of fire protection and the elimination of fire hazards on land and in buildings, and other property, including those under construction; g. The maintenance of means of egress; and h. The investigation of the cause, origin and circumstances of fire and unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, except that for authority related to control and investigation of emergency scenes, IFC section 104.11 shall apply. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 104.10.2 Fire Prevention Personnel And Police. As requested by the fire chief, the chief of police shall be authorized to assign such available police officers as necessary to assist the fire department in enforcing the provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended. IFC section 105.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 105.1.1 Permits required. A property owner or owner's authorized agent who intends to conduct an operation or business, or install or modify systems and equipment that are regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the fire code official and obtain a permit if required by the Meridian Fire Department. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 105.3.9 Working Without Permit. Any person who commences or causes the commencement of work for which a permit is required under the IFC as herein adopted and amended or under other provision of law without first obtaining each and every required permit, shall, upon application for such permit or permits,pay a doubled permit fee or fees, as established by fee schedule. This provision shall not apply to emergency repair work performed during off-business hours, where such emergency repair work is undertaken in order to reinstate operational status, so long as each and every applicable permit is obtained on the next business day. IFC section 110.4 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 110.4 Violation Penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of the IFC as herein adopted and amended or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor,punishable by a fine of not more CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 19 Page 198 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 than $500.00 dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. IFC section 112.4 shall be deleted. IFC section 106.5 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 106.5 Refunds. Up to eighty percent(80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the Community Development Department director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not to be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 106.6 Permit Transfer. A permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the Community Development Department director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. These definitions shall be added to IFC section 202: DRIVEWAY. A vehicular ingress and egress route that serves no more than six (6) single family dwellings, not including accessory structures. FIRE STATION. A building, or portion of a building that provides, at a minimum, all weather protection for fire apparatus. Temperatures inside the building used for this purpose must be maintained at above thirty-two (32) degrees Fahrenheit. IFC section 307.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 307.1.1 Prohibited open burning. Open burning shall be prohibited when atmospheric conditions or local circumstances make such fires hazardous. Hazardous conditions shall include, but shall not be limited to: a)winds of ten miles per hour(10 mph) or greater; b) a red flag warning of high fire danger issued by the National Weather Service; or c) an open burning ban due to the air quality index or other conditions determined by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. IFC section 307.4.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 307.4.2 Recreational fires. Recreational fires shall not be conducted within 25 feet (7620 mm) of a structure or combustible material. Conditions that could cause a fire to spread within 25 feet(7620 mm) of a structure shall be eliminated prior to ignition. Recreational fires shall not have a total fuel area larger than three feet(3') in diameter and not more than two feet (2') in height. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 20 Page 199 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 Section 307.6 Open burning rules. The following additional rules shall apply to open burning: 307.6.1 Hours. Open burning shall be allowed only between 8:00 a.m. and sunset, with the exception of recreational fires. 307.6.2 Prohibited materials. Burning of the following materials shall be prohibited at all times and under all conditions: yard waste, grass clippings, hazardous materials, construction waste, demolition or salvage debris,junk motor vehicles, commercial waste, industrial waste, tar or tar paper, railroad ties, oil, grease, household waste, tires, plastics, paints, petroleum products, telephone poles, rubber, dead animals, asphalt materials,preservative-treated wood, pathogenic waste, and/or insulated wire. 307.6.3 Burn barrels prohibited. Open burning in metal barrels shall be prohibited. 307.6.4 Smoke management. Any person conducting an open burn shall ensure that smoke caused by burning shall rise up and away from neighboring residences, highways, and other populated areas. IFC section 308.1.6.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 308.1.6.3 Sky Lanterns. It shall be unlawful for any person to release a sky lantern or cause a sky lantern to be released, whether tethered or untethered. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell sky lanterns inside the boundaries of the City of Meridian. IFC section 501.3 shall be amended to read as follows: 501.3 Construction documents. Construction documents for proposed driveways, fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. IFC section 501.4 shall be amended to read as follows: 501.4 Timing of installation. Where fire apparatus access roads, driveways, or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except where approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection where construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 501.4.1 Fire Hydrant Installation Timing. All necessary fire hydrants shall be installed and operational before any combustible materials, as such term is defined by the international building code, 2018 edition, may be brought onto the site. Failure to comply with this provision will result in a stop work order which shall be effective until all necessary fire hydrants are installed and operational. The following words shall be added to IFC section 502.1: DRIVEWAY FIRE STATION The following words shall be added to the heading of IFC section 503: AND DRIVEWAYS CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 21 Page 200 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 IFC section 503.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Driveways shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.4.1. Exceptions: 1. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet(45 720 mm)where any of the following conditions occur: 1.1 The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2, or 903.3.1.3. 1.2 Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided. 1.3 There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group U occupancies. 2. Where approved by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be permitted to be exempted or modified for solar photovoltaic power generation facilities. A new section, section 503.7, shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 503.7 Driveways. Driveways shall be provided when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of a building is located more than 150 feet(45720mm) from a fire apparatus access road. Driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet(3658mm) and a minimum unobstructed height of 13 feet 6 inches (4115mm). Driveways in excess of 150 feet (45720mm) in length shall be provided with turnarounds. Driveways in excess of 200 feet (60960mm) in length and less than 20 feet(6096mm) in width may require turnouts in addition to turnarounds. Section 503.7.1 Limits. A driveway shall not serve in excess of six (6) single family dwellings. Section 503.7.2 Turnarounds. See Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Section 503.7.3 Turnouts. Where line of sight along a driveway is obstructed by a man-made or natural feature, turnouts shall be located as may be required by the fire code official to provide for safe passage of vehicles. Driveway turnouts shall be of an all-weather road surface at least 10 feet(3048mm)wide and 30 feet(9144mm) long. Section 503.7.4 Bridge Load Limits. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges on driveways and private roads. Design loads for bridges shall be established by the fire code official. Section 503.7.5. Fire Apparatus Access Road Address Markers. All buildings shall have a permanently posted address, which shall be placed at each driveway entrance and be visible from both directions of travel along the road. In all cases, the address shall be posted at the beginning CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 22 Page 201 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 of construction and maintained thereafter. Address signs along one-way roads shall be visible from both the intended direction of travel and the opposite direction. Where multiple addresses are required at a single driveway, they shall be mounted on a single post, and additional signs shall be posted at locations where driveways divide. Section 503.7.5.1. Lighted Address Markers. If required the address marker shall be backlit or front lit. The accompanying site map shall also be lit for Police, Fire or EMS to easily see them from dusk to dawn. Section 503.7.6 Grade. The gradient for driveways shall not exceed 10 percent unless approved by the fire code official. Section 503.7.7 Security Gates. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. Section 503.7.8 Surface. Driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of local responding fire apparatus and shall be surfaced as to provide all weather driving capabilities. IFC Section 505.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 505.1.1 Address Identification. The required height of each address number shall be calculated by the distance of the addressed building from the road, as follows: where the building is less than one hundred feet(100') from the road, the height of each address number shall be six inches (6") in height; where the building is one hundred feet to one hundred fifty feet(100-150') from the road, the height of each address number shall be at least eight inches (8") in height; where the building is one hundred fifty-one feet to two hundred feet(151-200') from the road, the height of each address number shall be ten inches (10") in height; where the building is two hundred one feet to two hundred fifty-one feet(201-25 F) from the road, the height of each address number shall be twelve inches (12") in height. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 505.1.2 Multi-Tenant or Suite Identification. Tenant space or suite identification shall be of sufficient size to be clearly visible from the road or drive aisle, and shall be installed on exterior front and rear access doors. IFC section 507.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 507.2 Type of Water Supply. A water supply shall consist of water delivered by fire apparatus, reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks,water mains, or other sources approved by the fire code official capable of providing the required fire flow, except that the water supply required by this code shall only apply to structures served by a municipal fire department of a fire protection district and within ten miles (16093m) of a responding fire station. The exceptions to IFC section 507.5.1 shall not apply. IFC 604.5.4 shall be amended to read as follows: CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 23 Page 202 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 Section 604.5.4 Grounding. Extension cords without a grounding lug shall not be permitted. IFC section 903.3.7 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 903.3.7 Fire Department Connections. The location of the fire department connection shall be within one hundred feet (100') of a fire hydrant unless approved by the fire chief or designee. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.1.1 All Buildings That Are Required To Be Sprinklered. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants of each tenant space shall be provided in the interior of the building at a normally attended location within each tenant space with a minimum of one per floor. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.2.2 Alarms.Approved audible devices and visual alarms with a minimum candela rating of 110 shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system on the exterior of the building per NFPA standard 13/13R located above the fire department connection. A combination audible and visual alarm device is acceptable. IFC section 903.4.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 903.4.3 Floor Control Valves.Approved supervised indicating control valves shall be provided at the point of connection to the riser on each floor in institutional and multi-tenant buildings two or more stories in height. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.4 Location Of Fire Sprinkler Controls. Sprinkler riser and appurtenances shall be enclosed in a one hour rated room equipped with an exterior door. IFC section 904.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 904.1.1 Certification of service personnel for fire-extinguishing equipment. If required by the authority having jurisdiction, service personnel providing or conducting maintenance on automatic fire-extinguishing systems, other than automatic sprinkler systems, shall possess a valid certificate issued by an approved governmental agency, or other approved organization for the type of system and work performed. IFC section 906.2.1 shall be amended to read as follows: 906.2.1 Certification of service personnel for portable fire extinguishers. If required by the authority having jurisdiction, service personnel providing or conducting maintenance on portable fire extinguishers shall possess a valid certificate issued by an approved governmental agency, or other approved organization for the type of work performed. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 907.1.4 Non-Required Fire Alarm Systems. Where fire alarm systems not required by the IFC as herein adopted and amended or other provision of law are installed, any and all notification devices shall meet the minimum design, installation, and occupant notification CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 24 Page 203 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 requirements for systems which are required by the IFC as herein adopted and amended or other provision of law. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 907.1.5 Partial Or Limited Fire Alarm Detection Systems. Where partial or limited fire alarm detection systems are installed, any and all notification devices shall meet the minimum design, installation, and occupant notification requirements applicable to full and/or unlimited fire alarm systems. IFC section 912.4.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 912.4.1 Locking fire department connection caps. Automatic Sprinkler and Standpipe systems shall be equipped with locking caps at all FDC connections. IFC section 1101.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 1101.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to existing buildings constructed prior to the adoption of this code only, if in the opinion of the fire code official, they constitute a distinct hazard to life or property. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: 2404.3.3.7 Inflatable or Portable Spray Booths. Inflatable or portable spray booths shall be prohibited from use unless specifically listed and approved for such use. IFC chapter 56 shall be amended as follows: Chapter 56 Explosives and Fireworks. Delete Sections 5601.1.3, 5601.2.2, 5601.2.3, 5601.2.4.1, 5601.2.4.2, 5608.2, 5608.2.1, and 5608.3. IFC chapter 80 shall be amended as follows: Chapter 80 Referenced Standards. Where referenced, the following NFPA standards shall refer to same in the following editions: NFPA Year NFPA Year NFPA Year NFPA Year Standard Edition Standard Edition Standard Edition Standard Edition 2 2020 34 2018 120 2020 505 2018 4 2015 40 2019 160 2016 652 2019 10 2018 45 2019 170 2018 654 2020 11 2016 51 2018 204 2018 655 2017 12 2018 52 2019 211 2019 664 2020 12A 2018 55 2020 241 2019 701 2019 13 2019 56 2020 253 2015 703 2018 13D 2019 58 2020 260 2019 704 2017 13R 2019 59A 2019 261 2018 720 2015 14 2019 61 2020 265 2019 750 2019 15 2017 69 2019 286 2019 853 2020 16 2019 70 2020 289 2019 914 2019 17 2017 72 2019 303 2016 1122 2018 17A 2017 80 2019 318 2018 1123 2018 20 2019 85 2019 326 2020 1124 2017 CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 25 Page 204 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 24 2019 86 2019 385 2017 1125 2017 25 2020 92 2018 400 2019 1126 2021 30 2018 96 2017 407 2017 1127 2018 30A 2018 99 2018 409 2016 1221 2019 30B 2019 101 2018 410 2020 2001 2018 31 2020 105 2019 484 2019 2010 2020 32 2016 110 2019 495 2018 33 2018 111 2019 498 2018 Section 8. That Meridian City Code section 10-5-1 shall be amended as follows: 10-5-1: ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE, INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE PARTS V AND VI,AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: The following codes, published by the International Code Council, :,,eluding all appen iees thereto,are hereby adopted and incorporated in full as if set forth at length herein, and shall apply and control within the City of Meridian, save and except such portions as hereinafter deleted, modified or amended: A. The 24122018 edition of the International Mechanical Code (hereinafter-TMG), including appendix A, as adopted by the State of Idaho, together with rules and regulations adopted by the State of Idaho, as amended by section 10-5-2 of this chapter(hereinafter IMC); B. The 29 -2 2018 International Fuel Gas Code (hereinafter-TF GC) including appendices A, B, C, and D, as adopted by the State of Idaho, together with rules and regulations adopted by the State of Idaho, as amended by section 10-5-3 of this chapter(hereinafter IFGQ; and C. IRC parts V and VI, with appendices A, B, C and D,published under the authority. of the International Code Council, Inc., as adopted by the State of Idaho, together with rules and regulations adopted by the State of Idaho, as amended by section 10-5-4 of this chapter. Section 9. That Meridian City Code section 10-5-2 shall be amended as follows: 10-5-2: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE: The following amendments to the IMC shall apply: A. The following definitions provided in IMC section 202, Definitions, shall be amended as follows: Light-Duty Cooking Appliance: Light-duty cooking appliances include gas and electric ovens (including standard, bake, roasting, revolving, retherm, convection, combination convection/steamer, countertop conveyorized baking/finishing, deck, pastry, n elee t an ovens), electric and gas steam jacketed kettles, electric and gas pasta cookers, electric and gas compartment steamers (both pressure and atmospheric) and electric and gas cheesemelters. CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 26 Page 205 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 Medium-Duty Cooking Appliance: Medium-duty cooking appliances include electric discrete element ranges (with or without oven), electric and gas hot-top ranges, electric and gas griddles, electric and gas double sided griddles, electric and gas fryers (including open deep fat fryers, donut fryers, kettle fryers and pressure fryers), electric and gas conveyorpizza ovens, electric and gas tilting skillets (braising pans) and electric and gas rotisseries. B. The following language shall be added to IMC section 401.1 Scope: Exception: The principles specified in ASHRAE 62-2010 may be used as an alternative to this chapter to demonstrate compliance with required ventilation air for occupants. C. The following language shall be added to IMC section 504.6.1504.8.1 Material And Size: Exception: Dryer duct may be constructed of 0.013 (30 gage) or equivalent if prefabricated 0.016 (28 gage) ducts and fittings are not available. D. The following language shall be added to IMC table 603.4 Duct Construction Minimum Sheet Metal Thickness For Single Dwelling Units: Exception: Round duct, enclosed rectangular ducts and fittings less than fourteen(14) inches may be constructed of 0.013 (30 gage) or equivalent if prefabricated 0.016 (28 gage) ducts and fittings are not available. Section 10. That Meridian City Code section 10-5-3 shall be amended as follows: 10-5-3: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE: A. IFGC section 109 shall be deleted. A—. B. The last sentence of IFGC section 406.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: Mechanical gauges used to measure test pressure shall have a range such that the highest end of the scale is not greater than two (2) times the test pressure nor lower than one and one-half (1.5)times the test pressure. B-C. IFGC section 406.4.1 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: Test Pressure. Not less than twenty(20)psig (140kPa gauge) test pressure shall be required for systems with a maximum working pressure up to ten(10) inches water column. For systems with a maximum working pressure between ten(10) inches water column and ten (10)psig (70kPa gauge); not less than sixty(60)psig (420kPa gauge) test pressure shall be required. For systems over ten(10)psig (70kPa gauge)working pressure, minimum test pressure shall be no less than six (6)times working pressure. Q-D. IFGC section 406.4.2 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: The test duration shall not be less than twenty(20)minutes. D. The last sei#enee of WGG seetion 408.4 shall be deleted, and r-eplaeed with langtiage to read as follows- CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 27 Page 206 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 illuminating appliances, ranges, clothes dryers, outdoor gr-ills, decorative vented applianees for-installation in vefited f4r-eplaees, and gas fir-eplaees need not be so E. A new section, IFGC section 503.4.1.2, shall be added, to read as follows: Testing. All plastic pipe within a dwelling used for venting flue gases shall be tested at five (5)psi for fifteen (15)minutes. F. Anew sentence shall be added to IFGC section 505.1.1, to read as follows: An interlock between the cooking appliance and the exhaust hood system shall not be required for appliances that are of the manually operated type and are factory equipped with standing pilot burner ignition systems. Section 11. That Meridian City Code sections 10-5-4(HM) shall be amended as follows: 14. Anew entenee-shall e-added-to seetier "�7.3Tte read as follows Owdoor-air-shall be dueted predominantly herizental to avoid ehimney eff-eet. Outdoef air-duets will eentain an aeeessible baek draft damper-and be designed to have an opeff er-ass seetion of twenty (20) square inehes per one thousand (1,000) square feet e ,,ditto e EH. The following language shall be added to table M1601.1.1(2): Round duct, enclosed rectangular ducts and fittings less than fourteen (14) inches may be constructed of 0.013 (30 gage) or equivalent if prefabricated 0.016 (28 gage) ducts and fittings are not available. JI The last sentence of section G2417.4 (406.4) shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: Mechanical gauges used to measure test pressure shall have a range such that the highest end of the scale is not greater than two (2)times the test pressure nor lower than one and one-half(1.5) times the test pressure. I-J. Section G2417.4.1 (IFGC 406.4.1) shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: The test pressure shall not be less than twenty(20)psig (one hundred forty(140)kPa gauge)test pressure shall be required for systems with a maximum working pressure up to ten(10) inches water column. For systems with a maximum working pressure between ten(10) inches water column and ten(10)psig (seventy(70)kPa gauge), not less than sixty(60)psig(four hundred twenty(420)kPa gauge)test pressure shall be required. For systems over ten (10)psig(seventy(70)kPa gauge) working pressure, minimum test pressure shall be no less than six (6)times working pressure. &K. Section G2417.4.2 (IFGC 406.4.2) shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: The test duration shall not be less than twenty(20) minutes. CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 28 Page 207 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 M-.L. A new section, section G2427.4.1.2, shall be added, to read as follows: Testing. All plastic pipe within a dwelling used for venting flue gases shall be tested at five (5)psi for fifteen (15)minutes. Section 12. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the provisions and parts of this ordinance shall be severable. If any paragraph, part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Section 13. All City of Meridian ordinances, or resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed. Section 14. That this ordinance shall be effective on January 1, 2021. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 52020. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of , 2020. APPROVED: ATTEST: A&14 Robert Simison, Mayor Chrls Johnson, City Clerk STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 20-1905 The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached summary of Ordinance no. 20- of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3). DATED this day of , 2020. William L.M. Nary, City Attorney CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 29 Page 208 item#4. DRAFT • 11/5/2020 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1905 An Ordinance amending Meridian City Code section 10-1-1, regarding adoption of 2018 International Building Code, 2018 International Residential Code, 2018 International Swimming Pool And Spa Code, 2018 International Energy Conservation Code, 2018 International Existing Building Code, and respective local amendments; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-2, regarding amendments to International Building Code; amending Meridian City Code Section 10- 1-3, regarding amendments to International Residential Code; repealing and replacing Meridian City Code Section 10-1-4, regarding amendments to International Energy Conservation Code; amending Meridian City Code section 10-2-3(B), regarding plumbing permit and inspection fees; amending Meridian City Code section 10-3-3(E), regarding electrical permit and inspection fees; repealing and replacing Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, regarding adoption of the 2018 International Fire Code and local amendments thereto; amending Meridian City Code section 10- 5-1,regarding adoption of 2018 International Mechanical Code,2018 International Fuel Gas Code, 2018 International Residential Code Parts V and VI, and respective local amendments; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-2, regarding amendments to 2018 International Mechanical Code; amending Meridian City Code section 10-5-3, regarding amendments to the International Fuel Gas Code; amending Meridian City Code sections 10-5-4(H—M), regarding amendments to Part V (Mechanical) and Part VI (Fuel Gas) of the 2018 International Residential Code; adopting a savings clause; and providing an effective date. First Reading: Adopted after first reading by suspension of the rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code City of Meridian § 50-902: YES NO Mayor and City Council Second Reading: By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Third Reading: CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC,2018 IRC,2017 ISPC,2018 IECC,2017 NEC,2018 IFC,2018 IMC,2018 IFGC PAGE 30 Page 209 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1905 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-1-1, REGARDING ADOPTION OF 2018 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL AND SPA CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, AND RESPECTIVE LOCAL AMENDMENTS; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-1-2, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-1-3, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE; REPEALING AND REPLACING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-1-4, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-2-3(B), REGARDING PLUMBING PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-3-3(E), REGARDING ELECTRICAL PERMIT AND INSPECTION FEES; REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 4, MERIDIAN CITY CODE, REGARDING ADOPTION OF THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS THERETO; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-1, REGARDING ADOPTION OF 2018 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE, 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE PARTS V AND VI, AND RESPECTIVE LOCAL AMENDMENTS; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-2, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO 2018 INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-3, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE; AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-5-4(H–M), REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO PART V (MECHANICAL) AND PART VI (FUEL GAS) OF THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE; ADOPTING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code section 39-4116(4)(b), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and the following amendments to the 2018 International Building Code (IBC), the 2018 Idaho Residential Code (IRC), 2018 International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC), and the 2018 International Existing Building Code, and that such amendments are reasonably necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare; WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-2619, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2017 Idaho State Plumbing Code (ISPC); WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-1001C, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2017 National Electrical Code (NEC); C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 1 WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301, 41-253(1), and 41-256(1), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2018 International Fire Code (IFC); WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under Idaho Code sections 50-301 and 54-5016(4), the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that good cause exists for the adoption and following amendments to the 2018 International Mechanical Code (IMC); WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian hereby finds that the following amendments do establish at least an equivalent level of protection to that of 2018 IBC, 2018 ISPSC; 2018 IRC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IFC, and 2018 IMC; 2018 IFGC; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code section 39-4116(4)(e), a public hearing on the amendments to the IBC, IRC, and IECC was conducted on November 17, 2020, following provision of the proposed language of this ordinance to Associated General Contractors of America, Associated builders and contractors, Association of Idaho Cities, Idaho Association of Building Officials, Idaho Association of Counties, Idaho Association of REALTORS®, Idaho Building Contractors Association, American Institute of Architects Idaho Chapter, Idaho Fire Chiefs Association, Idaho Society of Professional Engineers, Idaho State Independent Living Council, Southwest Idaho Building Trades, and Idaho Building Trades, by e-mail sent on October 14, 2020, and publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the Meridian Press on October 16, 2020; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That Meridian City Code section 10-1-1 shall be amended as follows: 10-1-1: ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE, INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE, INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: The following codes, published by the International Code Council, including all appendices thereto, are hereby adopted and incorporated in full as if set forth at length herein, and shall apply and control within the city of Meridian, save and except such portions as hereinafter deleted, modified or amended: A. The 2015 2018 edition of the International Building Code (hereinafter IBC), as amended by section 10-1-2 of this chapter; B. The 2012 2018 edition of the International Residential Code (hereinafter IRC), as amended by section 10-1-3 of this chapter; and C. The 2018 edition of the International Swimming Pool and Spa Code; C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 2 C.D. As to residential occupancies, tThe 2012 2018 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (hereinafter IECC), as amended by section 10-1-4 of this chapter.; and D.E. The 2015 2018 edition of the International Existing Building code (hereinafter IEBC), with no amendments. Section 2. That Meridian City Code section 10-1-2 shall be amended as follows: 10-1-2: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE: The following amendments to the IBC shall apply: A. IBC section 105.2, exception 1 under “Building,” shall be amended to read as follows: Building: 1. One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses, emissions testing facilities, and similar uses, provided that the floor area is not greater 2 than 120 square feet (11m). B. IBC section 107.2.5107.2.6 shall be amended to read as follows: Site Plan. The construction documents submitted with the application for permit shall be accompanied by a site plan showing, to scale, the size and location of new construction and existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades, and the proposed finished grades. The site plan shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. In the case of demolition, the site plan shall show construction to be demolished and the location and size of existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. The building official is authorized to waive or modify the requirement for a site plan when the application for permit is for alteration or repair or when otherwise warranted. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. C. IBC section 109.2 shall be amended to provide as follows: Schedule of Permit Fees. The fee for each permit shall be as set forth pursuant to a schedule of permit fees as established by resolution of the city council. The determination of value or valuation under any of the provisions of this code shall be made by the building official. The value to be used in computing the building permit and building plan review fees shall be the total value of all construction work for which the permit is issued as well as all finish work, painting, roofing, electrical, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, elevators, fire extinguishing systems and any other permanent equipment. Final building permit valuation shall be set by the building official for all permits that require initial estimated valuation and final estimated valuation by the applicant. Payment of permit fees is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued or considered valid until fees are paid. D. A new section, section 109.6.1, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Permit Fee Refunds. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the fees paid for a valid permit may be C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 3 refunded to the permit holder upon request, if the permit holder has not commenced any work under said permit. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the building official no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. E. A new section, section 109.7, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Permit Transfer. A building permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the building official. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the building official; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the building official, such permit shall be deemed void. F. IBC section 202, Definition for Townhouse, shall be amended to provide as follows: A single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from the foundation to the roof, separated by property lines, and with open space on at least two sides. F.G. IBC section 312.1 shall be amended with the deletion of the requirement for agricultural buildings to comply with the IBC. G.H. IBC section 1612 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Flood Loads. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. H.I. A new section, section 1805.3.4, shall be added to the IBC to provide as follows: Waterproofing Hydraulic Elevator Shaft Pits. Elevator shafts shall be designed to prevent the intrusion of water into the hydraulic elevator shaft pit, with accommodation made for the high groundwater table in the city of Meridian, in accordance with American Society of Mechanical Engineers standard A17.1, section 2.2.2.3. I.J. IBC section 1807.1.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Wood Footings Or Foundations. Regardless of the provisions of the IRC or IBC, this chapter, related chapters, appendices or tables, the city of Meridian shall not allow the use of wood, treated or otherwise, for footings or foundations. J.K. IBC section 3002.4 shall be amended to provide as follows: Elevator Car To Accommodate Ambulance Stretcher. Where elevators are provided in buildings two (2) or more stories above, or two (2) or more stories below, above or below grade plane, at least one (1) elevator shall be provided for fire department emergency access to all floors. The elevator car shall be of such a size and arrangement to accommodate an ambulance stretcher twenty-four by eighty-four inches (24" x 84") with not less than five inches (5") radius corners, in the horizontal, open position and shall be identified by the international symbol for emergency medical services (star of life). The symbol shall not be less than three inches (3") high, and shall be placed inside on both sides of the hoistway door frame. C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 4 L. IBC Section 3113.1 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Relocatable Buildings. The provisions of this Section shall apply to relocatable buildings. Relocatable buildings manufactured after the effective date of this code shall comply with the applicable provisions of this code; title 39, chapter 43, Idaho Code; and IDAPA 07.03.03. Exception: This Section shall not apply to manufactured housing used as dwellings. K.M. IBC section 305.2.3 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Twelve (12) Or Fewer Children In A Dwelling Unit. A facility such as the above within a dwelling unit and having twelve (12) or fewer children receiving such daycare shall be classified as a group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the IRC International Residential Code. N. IBC Section 308.2.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care. A facility with five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care shall be classified as a Group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the International Residential Code. O. IBC Section 308.3.2 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Five (5) or fewer persons receiving medical care. A facility with five (5) or fewer persons receiving medical care shall be classified as a Group R-3 occupancy. L.P. IBC section 308.6.4 308.5.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Persons Receiving Care In A Dwelling Unit. A facility such as the above within a dwelling unit and having twelve (12) or fewer children receiving daycare or having five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care shall be classified as a group R-3 occupancy or shall comply with the IRC International Residential Code. M.Q. IBC section 310.5 310.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Residential Group R-3. Residential Group R-3 occupancies where the occupants are primarily permanent in natures and not classified as group R-1, R-2, R-4, E, or I, including: 1. Buildings that do not contain more than two (2) dwelling units; 2. Boarding houses (non-transient) with sixteen (16) or fewer occupants; 3. Boarding houses (transient) with ten (10) or fewer occupants; 4. Care facilities that provide accommodations for five (5) or fewer persons receiving care; 5. Congregate living facilities (non-transient) with sixteen (16) or fewer occupants; 6. Congregate living facilities (transient) with ten (10) or fewer occupants; or 7. Dwelling units providing daycare for twelve (12) or fewer children. 8. Lodging house with five or fewer guest rooms. 1. Buildings that do not contain more than two (2) dwelling units. 2. Care facilities that provide accommodations for five (5) or fewer persons receiving personal care, custodial care or medical care. 3. Congregate living facilities (nontransient) with sixteen (16) or fewer occupants, including boarding houses (nontransient), convents, dormitories, fraternities and sororities, and monasteries. C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 5 4. Congregate living facilities (transient) with ten (10) or fewer occupants, including boarding houses (transient). 5. Dwelling units providing day care for twelve (12)or fewer children. 6. Lodging houses (transient) with five (5) or fewer guest rooms and ten (10) or fewer occupants. N.R. IBC section 310.5.1 310.4.1 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Care Facilities Within A Dwelling. Care facilities for twelve (12) or fewer children receiving daycare or for five (5) or fewer persons receiving personal care or custodial care that are within a single-family one- or two-family dwelling are permitted to comply with the IRC International Residential Code. O. Add footnote (f) 2902.6 in the header row of the table column labeled “Drinking fountains” of Table 2902.1 Minimum Number of Required Plumbing Fixtures, and add footnote (f) under Table 2902.1 to state the following: Drinking fountains are not required for an occupant load of (30) or fewer. P.S. IBC section 2902.6 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Drinking fountains shall not be required for an occupant load of thirty (30) or fewer. Q.T. Footnote (e) to table 2902.1, Minimum Number Of Required Plumbing Fixtures, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: For business occupancies, excluding restaurants, and mercantile occupancies with an occupant load of thirty (30) or fewer, service sinks shall not be required. R.U. IBC Appendices B, E, F, H, I, and L B, H, and I shall be mandatory. Section 3. That Meridian City Code section 10-1-3 shall be amended as follows: 10-1-3: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE: The following amendments to the IRC shall apply: A. Parts VII (plumbing), and VIII (electrical), and IV (Energy Conservation) shall be deleted. B. Exception 1 of IRC section R101.2, Scope, shall be deleted. The exception under Section R101.2 Scope shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Exception: The following shall also be permitted to be constructed, in accordance with this code: 1. Owner-occupied lodging houses with five (5) or fewer guestrooms and ten (10) or fewer total occupants. 2. A care facility with five (5) or fewer persons receiving custodial care within a dwelling unit or single-family dwelling. 3. A care facility for five (5) or fewer persons receiving personal care that are within a dwelling unit or single-family dwelling. 4. A care facility with twelve (12) or fewer children receiving day care within a dwelling unit or single-family dwelling. C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 6 C. Exception 2 of IRC section R101.2, Scope, shall be deleted and replaced with language to provide as follows: Exception: Owner-occupied lodging houses with three (3) five (5) or fewer guestrooms shall be permitted to be constructed in accordance with the IRC for one- and two-family dwellings. Such occupancies shall be required to install smoke alarms and carbon monoxide alarms in accordance with sections R314 and R315, respectively, of the IRC or one- and two- family dwellings. C. Section R104.10.1 Flood hazard areas shall be deleted. D. Item 2 of the “Building” subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt from Permit, shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Fences not over six feet (6’) high may be exempted from the requirement for a building permit in the absence of any other applicable land use regulations governing the installation, height, type, or other aspect thereof. D. E. Item 7 of the "Building" subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt From Permit, shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Prefabricated swimming pools that are not greater than four (4) feet (one thousand, two hundred nineteen (1219) mm) deep. E. F. A new item, no. 11, shall be added to the "Building" subsection of IRC section R105.2, Work Exempt From Permit: Flagpoles. F. G. A new section, section R108.5.1, shall be added to the IRC to provide as follows: Permit Fee Refunds. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the fees paid for a valid permit may be refunded to the permit holder upon request, if the permit holder has not commenced any work under said permit. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the community development director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. G. H. A new section, section R108.5.2, shall be added to the IRC to provide as follows: Permit Transfer. A building permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the community development director or designee Building Official. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the community development director or designee Building Official; if transfer is attempted without written approval, such permit shall be deemed void. I. Section R109.1.3 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R109.1.3 Floodplain inspections. For construction in areas prone to flooding as established by Table R301.2(1), upon placement of the lowest floor, including basement, C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 7 the building official is authorized to require submission of documentation of the elevation of the lowest floor, including basement, required in Section R322. J. Section R202, Definition for Townhouse, shall be amended to provide as follows: A single–family dwelling unit constructed in a group of three or more attached units in which each unit extends from the foundation to the roof, separated by property lines, and with open space on at least two sides. H. K. Table R201.2(1) R301.2(1), Climate and Geographic Design Criteria, shall be completed with criteria as follows: GROUND SNOW LOAD: 20 psf. Design roof load shall not be less than a uniform snow load of 25 psf. WIND DESIGN SPEED (mph): 115 mph for risk occupancy II or less; 120 mph for risk occupancy III or greater. WIND DESIGN TOPOGRAPHIC EFFECTS: No, in accordance with Section R301.2.1.5 SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: C WEATHERING: Severe FROST LINE DEPTH: 24 inches TERMITE: Slight to Moderate WINTER DESIGN TEMP: 10 degrees F (annual mean temperature: 51.1 degrees F). The outdoor design dry-bulb temperature shall be selected from the columns of 97 ½ percent values for winter from Appendix D of the Idaho State Plumbing Code or as determined by the Building Official. ICE BARRIER UNDER LAYMENT REQUIRED: No FLOOD HAZARDS: Refer to Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, Flood Damage Prevention. L. Section R301.2.1.2, Protection of Openings, shall be deleted. I.M. IRC section R301.2.4, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Floodplain Construction. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian City Code. J.N. IRC Table R302.1(1), Exterior Walls shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 8 MINIMUM FIRE EXTERIOR WALL ELEMENT MINIMUM FIRE-SEPARATION RESISTANCE RATING DISTANCE 1 hour-tested in accordance Walls Fire-resistance rated with ASTM E 119, or UL263 < 3 feet with exposure from both sides , or Section 703.3 of the International Building Code with exposure from both sides Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours 3 feet ≥ 3 feet Fire-resistance rated 1 hour on the underside, or 2 feet ≥ 2 feet to < 3 feet Projections heavy timber, or fire a,b retardant-treated wood Not fire-resistance rated 0 hours 3 feet ≥ 3 feet Not allowed N/A < 3 feet Openings in 25% maximum of wall 0 hours 3 feet ≥ 3 feet to < 5 feet Walls area Unlimited 0 hours 5 feet Comply with Section R302.4 < 3 feet Penetrations All None required 3 feet ≥ 3 feet For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm. N/A = Not Applicable a The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to zero (0) hours on the underside of the eave overhang if fireblocking is provided from the wall top plate to the underside of the roof sheathing. b The fire-resistance rating shall be permitted to be reduced to zero (0) hours on the underside of the rake overhang where gable vent openings are not installed. K. The exception to IRC section R302.2, Townhouses, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Exception: Two (2) one-hour fire-resistance rated wall assemblies or a common two-hour fire-resistance rated wall assembly tested in accordance with ASTM E119 or UL 263 is permitted for townhouses. If two (2) one-hour rated walls are used, plumbing and electrical installations within the wall cavity shall conform with fire-resistance penetration requirements in accordance with section R302.4 through R302.4.2 for each of the two (2) one-hour rated walls. The two-hour fire-resistance rated common wall shall not contain plumbing or mechanical equipment, ducts, or vents within its wall cavity. The wall shall be rated for fire exposure from both sides and shall extend to and be tight against the exterior walls and the underside of the roof sheathing. Penetrations of electrical outlet boxes shall be in accordance with section R302.4. O. Section R302.13, Fire protection of floors, shall be deleted. P. Section R303.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 9 R303.4 Mechanical Ventilation. Dwelling units shall be provided with whole-house mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section M1505.4. L.Q. IRC section R302.6, Dwelling/Garage Fire Separation, shall be amended to provide as follows: Dwelling/Garage Fire Separation. Walls and ceiling of garages shall be covered with not less 5 than /-inch (15.9 mm) type X gypsum board or equivalent. 8 M. IRC section R303.4 shall be deleted and replaced with language to provide as follows; Dwelling units shall be provided with whole-house mechanical ventilation in accordance with Section M1507.3. Exception: Where the air infiltration rate of a dwelling unit is equal to 5 air changes per hour or greater when tested with a blower door at a pressure of 0.2 inch w.c. (50 pa) in accordance with Section N1102.4.1.2. N.R. The exception to IRC section R313.1, Townhouse Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems, shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Exception: Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall not be required in townhouses where either two (2) one-hour fire-resistance rated walls or a common two-hour fire- resistance rated wall, as specified in item number 2 of Section R302.2.2 is installed between dwelling units or when additions or alterations are made to existing townhouses that do not have an automatic residential fire sprinkler system installed. O.S. IRC section R313.2 shall be deleted. T. The exceptions to Section R314.2.2 Alterations, repairs and additions, shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Exceptions: 1. Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings, such as, but not limited to, replacement of roofing or siding, or the addition or replacement of windows or doors, or the addition of a porch or deck or electrical permits, are exempt from the requirements of this section. 2. Installation, alteration or repairs of plumbing or mechanical systems are exempt from the requirements of this section. U. The exceptions to Section R315.2.2 Alterations, repairs and additions, shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Exceptions: 1. Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings, such as, but not limited to, replacement of roofing or siding, or the addition or replacement of windows or doors, or the addition of a porch or deck or electrical permits, are exempt from the requirements of this section. 2. Installation, alteration or repairs of noncombustion plumbing or mechanical systems are exempt from the requirements of this section. P. New language shall be added to IRC section R315.3 to provide as follows: Exception: Work involving the exterior surfaces of dwellings. Q.V. IRC section R322 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to provide as follows: Flood-Resistant Construction. All development located in the Meridian floodplain overlay C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 10 district is required to meet the provisions of the Meridian flood damage prevention ordinance, title 10, chapter 6, Meridian city code. R.W. IRC section R402.1 shall be amended to provide as follows: Wood. Regardless of the provisions of the IBC or IRC, this chapter, related chapters, appendices or tables, the city of Meridian shall not allow the use of wood, treated or otherwise, for footings or foundations. X. The following tables shall be deleted: Table R403.4 Minimum Depth (D) and Width (W) of Crushed Stone Footings (inches), Table R403.1(1) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings for Light-Frame Construction (inches), Table R403.1(2) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings for Light-Frame Construction and Brick Veneer (inches), and Table R403.1(3) Minimum Width and Thickness for Concrete Footings with Cast-In-Place or Fully Grouted Masonry Wall Construction (inches). Y. A new table, Table R403.1, shall be added, to read as follows: TABLE R403.1 a MINIMUM WIDTH OF CONCRETE, PRECAST, OR MASONRY FOOTINGS (inches) LOAD-BEARING VALUE OF SOIL (psf) 1,500 2,000 3,000 ≥ 4,000 Conventional light-frame construction 1-Story 12 12 12 12 2-Story 15 12 12 12 3-Story 23 17 12 12 4-inch brick veneer over light frame or 8-inch hollow concrete masonry 1-Story 12 12 12 12 2-Story 21 16 12 12 3-Story 32 24 16 12 8-inch solid or fully grouted masonry 1-Story 16 12 12 12 2-Story 29 21 14 12 3-Story 42 32 21 16 For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm, 1 pound per square foot = 0.0479 kPa. a Where minimum footing width is twelve (12) inches, use of a single width of solid or fully grouted twelve (12)- inch nominal concrete masonry units is permitted. Z. Section R403.1.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R403.1.1 Minimum size. Minimum sizes for concrete and masonry footings shall be as set forth in Table R403.1 and Figure R403.1(1). The footing width (W) shall be based on the load bearing value of the soil in accordance with Table R401.4.1. Spread footings shall be at least six (6) inches in thickness (T). Footing projections (P) shall be at least two (2) inches and shall not exceed the thickness of the footing. The size of footings supporting piers and C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 11 columns shall be based on the tributary load and allowable soil pressure in accordance with Table R401.4.1. S. IRC section R501.3 and its exceptions shall be deleted. T.AA. IRC section R602.10 shall be deleted, and replaced with the following: Wall Bracing. Buildings shall be braced in accordance with this section or, when applicable section R602.12, or the most current edition of APA System Report SR-102 as an alternate method. Where a building, or portion thereof, does not comply with one (1) or more of the bracing requirements in this section, those portions shall be designated and constructed in accordance with section R301.1. U. The following sections and tables of IRC chapter 11 shall be amended in accordance with the requirements contained below: 1. Table N1102.1.1 (IECC table R402.1.1), Insulation And Fenestration Requirements By Component; 2. Table N1102.1.3 (IECC table R402.1.3), Equivalent U-Factors; 3. Table N1102.2.6 (IECC table R402.2.6), Steel-Frame Ceiling, Wall And Floor Insulation (R-Value); 4. Section N1102.4.1 (IECC R402.4.1), Building Thermal Envelope; 5. Section N1102.4.1.1 (IECC R402.4.1.1), Installation; 6. Table N1102.4.1.1 (IECC table R402.4.1.1), Air Barrier And Insulation Installation; 7. Section N1102.4.1.2 (IECC R402.4.1.2), Testing Option; 8. Add section N1102.4.1.3 (IECC R402.4.1.3), Visual Inspection Option; 9. Add section N1102.6 (IECC R402.6), Residential Log Home Thermal Envelope; 10. Add table N1102.6 (IECC table R402.6), Log Home Prescriptive Thermal Envelope Requirements By Component; and 11. Section N1104.1 (IECC R404.1), Lighting Equipment. V.BB. IRC Appendices A, B, C, D, H, I, J, and K, and Q shall be mandatory. Section 4. That Meridian City Code section 10-1-4, shall be repealed, and replaced with the following: 10-1-4: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE: The following amendments to the IECC shall apply: A. The rows in Table R402.1.2 for climate zones “5 and Marine 4” and “6” shall be deleted and replaced with the following: TABLE R402.1.2 a INSULATION AND FENESTRATION REQUIREMENTS BY COMPONENT C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 12 Glazed Wood c d c BasementSlabCrawlspace Climate Fenestration U- b Fenestration Ceiling Frame Mass Wall Floor SkylightWall R-Value Wall Zone bb, eR-Value Wall iR-Value Factor U-factor SHGC R-Value R-Value & R-Value R-Value Depth g 5 0.32 0.55 NR 38 20 or 13/17 15/19 10, 2 ft 15/19 30 h 13+5 22 or g 30 6 0.30 0.55 NR 49 h15/20 15/19 10, 4 ft 15/19 13+5 B. The following footnote shall be added to the title of IRC table R402.1.2, Insulation And Fenestration Requirements By Component: k. For residential log home building thermal envelope construction requirements see section R402.6. C. The rows in Table R402.1.4 for climate zones “5 and Marine 4” and “6” shall be deleted and replaced with the following: TABLE R402.1.4 a EQUIVALENT U-FACTORS Climate Fenestration Skylight Ceiling Frame Wall Mass Wall Floor Basement Crawlspace b Zone U-factor U-factor U-factor U-factor U-factor Wall Wall U-factor U-factor U-factor 5 0.32 0.55 0.030 0.060 0.082 0.033 0.050 0.055 6 0.30 0.55 0.026 0.057 0.060 0.033 0.050 0.055 D. Section R402.4.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R402.4.1 Building thermal envelope. 1. Until June 30, 2021, the building thermal envelope shall comply with Sections R402.4.1.1 (Installation) and either Section R402.4.1.2 (Testing) or Section R402.4.1.3 (Visual inspection). 2. Effective July 1, 2021, the building thermal envelope of a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of all new single-family homes constructed by each builder shall comply with Section R402.4.1.1 (Installation) and Section R402.4.1.2 (Testing). The authority having jurisdiction may: 2.1. Determine how to enforce this requirement, starting with the fifth house and continuing with each subsequent fifth house. 2.2. Waive this requirement if significant testing indicates the five (5) air changes per hour (ACH) requirement is consistently being met or exceeded (resulting in a lower ACH). 2.3. Grant exceptions to this requirement in rural areas where testing equipment is not available or cost effective. 3. Effective July 1, 2021, the building thermal envelope of eighty percent (80%) of all new single-family homes constructed by each builder shall comply with Section R402.4.1.1 (Installation) and either Section R402.4.1.2 (Testing) or Section R402.4.1.3 (Visual inspection). 4. The sealing methods between dissimilar materials shall allow for differential expansion and contraction. E. Section R402.4.1.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R402.4.1.1 Installation. The components of the building thermal envelope as listed in Table R402.4.1.1 shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and the criteria listed in Table R402.4.1.1, as applicable to the method of construction. C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 13 F. Section R402.4.1.2 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R402.4.1.2 Testing. Testing building envelope tightness and insulation installation shall be considered acceptable when tested air leakage is less than five (5) air changes per hour (ACH) when tested with a blower door at a pressure of 33.5 psf (50 Pa). Testing shall occur after rough in and after installation of penetrations of the building envelope, including penetrations for utilities, plumbing, electrical, ventilation and combustion appliances. Testing shall be conducted in accordance with RESNET/ ICC 380, ASTM E 779 or ASTM E 1827 and reported at a pressure of 0.2-inch w.g. (50 Pascals). During testing: 1. Exterior windows and doors, fireplace and stove doors shall be closed, but not sealed. 2. Dampers shall be closed, but not sealed, including exhaust, intake, makeup air, backdraft and flue dampers. 3. Interior doors shall be open. 4. Exterior openings for continuous ventilation systems and heat recovery ventilators shall be closed and sealed. 5. Heating and cooling system(s) shall be turned off. 6. HVAC ducts shall not be sealed. 7.Supply and return registers shall not be sealed. G. A new section, Section R402.4.1.3, shall be added, to read as follows: R402.4.1.3 Visual inspection. Building envelope tightness and insulation installation shall be considered acceptable when the items listed in Table R402.4.1.1, applicable to the method of construction, are field verified. Where required by code official an approved party independent from the installer of the insulation shall inspect the air barrier and insulation. H. A new section, Section R402.6, shall be added, to read as follows: R402.6 Residential log home thermal envelope. Residential log home construction shall comply with Section R401 (General), Section R402.4 (Air leakage), Section R402.5 (Maximum fenestration U-factor and SHGC), Section R403.1 (Controls), the mandatory sections of Sections R403.3 through R403.9, Section R404 (Electrical Power and Lighting Systems), and either 1., 2., or 3. as follows: 1. Sections R402.2 through R402.3, Section R403.3.1 (Insulation), Section R404.1 (Lightning equipment), and Table R402.6 (Log Home Prescriptive Thermal Envelope Requirements by Component). 2. Section R405 (Simulated Performance Alternative). 3. REScheck (U.S. Department of Energy Building Codes Program). I. A new table, Table R402.6, shall be added, to read as follows: TABLE R402.6 LOG HOME PRESCRIPTIVE THERMAL ENVELOPE REQUIREMENTS BY COMPONENT For SI: 1 foot = 304.8 mm. Min. Slab Crawl Climate Fenestration Skylight Glazed Ceiling Average Floor Basement R-value Space Zone aU-factor Fenestration R-value Log Size R-value Wall & Wall U-factor SHGC In dbd R-value Depth R-value Inches 5, 6 - High efficiency 0.32 0.60 NR 49 5 30 15/19 10, 4 ft. 10/13 equipment c path C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 14 5 0.32 0.60 NR 49 8 30 10/13 10, 2 ft. 10/13 6 0.30 0.60 NR 49 8 30 15/19 10, 4 ft. 10/13 a The fenestration U-factor column excludes skylights. The SHGC column applies to all glazed fenestration. b R-5 shall be added to the required slab edge R-values for heated slabs. c 90% AFUE natural gas or propane, 84% AFUE oil, or 15 SEER heat pump heating equipment (zonal electric resistance heating equipment such as electric base board electric resistance heating equipment as the sole source for heating is con- sidered compliant with the high efficiency equipment path). d “15/19” means R-15 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home or R-19 cavity insulation at the interior of the basement wall. “15/19” shall be permitted to be met with R-13 cavity insulation on the interior of the basement wall plus R-5 continuous insulated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home. “10/13” means R-10 continuous insu- lated sheathing on the interior or exterior of the home or R-13 cavity insulation at the interior of the basement wall. J. Section R403.5.3 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R403.5.3 Hot water pipe insulation (Prescriptive). Insulation for hot water piping with a thermal resistance, R-value, of not less than R-3 shall be applied to the following: 1. Piping serving more than one (1) dwelling unit. 2. Piping located outside the conditioned space. 3. Piping located under a floor slab. 4. Buried piping. 5. Supply and return piping in recirculation systems other than demand recirculation systems. K. Section R404.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R404.1 Lighting equipment (Mandatory). A minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the lamps in permanently installed lighting fixtures shall be high-efficacy lamps or a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the permanently installed lighting fixtures shall contain only high efficacy lamps. L. Section R406.3 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: R406.3 Energy Rating Index. The Energy Rating Index (ERI) shall be determined in accordance with RESNET/ICC 301. Energy used to recharge or refuel a vehicle used for transportation on roads that are not on the building site shall not be included in the ERI reference design or the rated design. M. Table R406.4 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: Table R406.4 - Maximum Energy Rating Index Climate Zone Energy Rating a 5 68 Index 6 68 a Where on-site renewable energy is included for compliance using the ERI analysis of Section R406.4, the building shall meet the mandatory requirements of Section R406.2, and the building thermal envelope shall be greater than or equal to the levels of efficiency and SHGC in Table R402.1.2 or Table R402.1.4 of the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code. N. A new section, Section C101.5.2, shall be added to read as follows: C101.5.2 Industrial, electronic, and manufacturing equipment. Buildings or portions thereof that are heated or cooled exclusively to maintain the required operating C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 15 temperature of industrial, electronic, or manufacturing equipment shall be exempt from the provisions of this code. Such buildings or portions thereof shall be separated from connected conditioned space by building thermal envelope assemblies complying with this code. O. The following exception shall be added to Section C402.5 Air leakage―thermal envelope (Mandatory): Exception: For buildings having over fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of conditioned floor area, air leakage testing shall be permitted to be conducted on less than the whole building, provided the following portions of the building are tested and their measured air leakage is area-weighted by the surface areas of the building envelope: 1. The entire floor area of all stories that have any spaces directly under a roof. 2.The entire floor area of all stories that have a building entrance or loading dock. 3. Representative above-grade wall sections of the building totaling at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the above-grade wall area enclosing the remaining conditioned space. Floor area tested under subparagraphs 1. or 2. of this exception shall not be included in the twenty-five percent (25%) of above-grade wall sections tested under this subparagraph. P. The following exception shall be added to Section C403.5 Economizers (Prescriptive): 7. Unusual outdoor air contaminate conditions – Systems where special outside air filtration and treatment for the reduction and treatment of unusual outdoor contaminants, makes an air economizer infeasible. Q. Table C404.5.1 shall be deleted and replaced with the following: TABLE C404.5.1 PIPING VOLUME AND MAXIMUM PIPING LENGTHS NOMINAL PIPE VOLUME MAXIMUM PIPING LENGTH (feet) SIZE (inches) (liquid ounces per Public lavatory faucets Other fixtures foot length) and appliances 1/4 0.33 31 50 5/16 0.5 N/A - non-standard size 50 3/8 0.75 17 50 1/2 1.5 10 43 5/8 2 7 32 3/4 3 5 21 7/8 4 N/A - non-standard size 16 1 5 3 13 1 1/4 8 2 8 1 1/2 11 1 6 2 or larger 18 1 4 For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm; 1 foot = 304.8 mm; 1 liquid ounce = 0.030 L; 1 gallon = 128 ounces. C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 16 Section 5. That Meridian City Code section 10-2-3(B) shall be amended as follows: B. Permit And Inspection Fees: Fees for permits and inspections shall be fixed by the city council by resolution. 1. Payment Due Upon Issuance: Payment for all permit types is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued until fees are paid. 2. Permit Fee Refunds: Up to eighty percent (80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request, if the permit holder has not commenced any work under said permit. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the public works director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. 3. Permit Transfer: A permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the public works director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. Section 6. That Meridian City Code section 10-3-3(E), shall be amended as follows: 10-3-3: PERMIT REQUIRED; APPLICATION; ISSUANCE: E. Permit And Inspection Fees: Fees for permits and inspections shall be fixed by the city council by resolution. 1. Payment Due Upon Issuance: Payment for all permit types is required at the time the permit is issued. Permits shall not be issued until fees are paid. 2. Permit Fee Refunds: Up to eighty percent (80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request, if the permit holder has not commenced any work under said permit. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the Community Development Department director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. 3. Permit Transfer: A permit granted pursuant to this chapter may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the Community Development Department director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 17 Section 7. That Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, shall be repealed and replaced as follows: Chapter 4 FIRE CODE 10-4-1: FIRE CODE ADOPTED: There is hereby adopted by the mayor and the city council of the city of Meridian, county of Ada, state of Idaho, for the purpose of regulating and governing the safeguarding of life and property from fire and explosion hazards arising from the storage, handling and use of hazardous substances, materials and devices, and from conditions hazardous to life or property in the occupancy of buildings and premises in the city of Meridian, Idaho, and providing for the issuance of permits for hazardous uses or operations; and each and all of the regulations, provisions, conditions, terms, and appendices of such International Fire Code, 2018 edition, published by the International Code Council, Inc., and the same are hereby adopted and incorporated as fully as if set out at length herein, with the revisions, additions, and deletions thereto as set forth in this chapter. From the date in which this chapter shall take effect, the provisions of the international fire code, 2018 edition, and the revisions, additions, and deletions thereto as set forth in this chapter shall be controlling within the limits of the city of Meridian. 10-4-2: AMENDMENTS TO THE FIRE CODE: To the extent that any provision of the international fire code, 2018 edition (hereinafter IFC) conflicts with a provision of Idaho Code, the provision of Idaho Code shall prevail. Additionally, the following amendments to the IFC shall apply: IFC section 101.2.1 shall be replaced with language to read as follows: Section 101.2.1 Appendices. All Appendices shall be mandatory except Appendix J. IFC section 103.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 103.2 Appointment. The code official shall be the fire chief of the city of Meridian. In the absence or by designation of the fire chief, the deputy chief/fire prevention or designee shall be the code official. IFC section 103.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 103.3 Deputies. In accordance with the prescribed procedures of the city of Meridian the fire chief shall have the authority to appoint a deputy fire chief/fire prevention, or other technical officer, inspectors and other employees. IFC section 104.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 104.1 General. The fire code official is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended and shall have the authority to render interpretations of the IFC as herein adopted and amended, and to adopt policies, procedures, rules and regulations in order to clarify the application of such provisions. Such interpretations, policies, procedures, rules and regulations shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of the IFC as herein C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 18 adopted and amended and shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in the IFC as herein adopted and amended. The fire chief is authorized to administer and enforce the IFC as herein adopted and amended. Under the fire chief's direction, the fire department is authorized to enforce all ordinances of the city of Meridian pertaining to: a. The prevention of fires; b. The suppression or extinguishment of dangerous or hazardous fires; c. The storage, use and handling of hazardous materials; d. The installation and maintenance of automatic, manual and other private fire alarm systems and fire-extinguishing equipment; e. The maintenance and regulation of fire escapes; f. The maintenance of fire protection and the elimination of fire hazards on land and in buildings, and other property, including those under construction; g. The maintenance of means of egress; and h. The investigation of the cause, origin and circumstances of fire and unauthorized releases of hazardous materials, except that for authority related to control and investigation of emergency scenes, IFC section 104.11 shall apply. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 104.10.2 Fire Prevention Personnel And Police. As requested by the fire chief, the chief of police shall be authorized to assign such available police officers as necessary to assist the fire department in enforcing the provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended. IFC section 105.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 105.1.1 Permits required. A property owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to conduct an operation or business, or install or modify systems and equipment that are regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first make application to the fire code official and obtain a permit if required by the Meridian Fire Department. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 105.3.9 Working Without Permit. Any person who commences or causes the commencement of work for which a permit is required under the IFC as herein adopted and amended or under other provision of law without first obtaining each and every required permit, shall, upon application for such permit or permits, pay a doubled permit fee or fees, as established by fee schedule. This provision shall not apply to emergency repair work performed during off-business hours, where such emergency repair work is undertaken in order to reinstate operational status, so long as each and every applicable permit is obtained on the next business day. IFC section 110.4 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 110.4 Violation Penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of the IFC as herein adopted and amended or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions of the IFC as herein adopted and amended, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 19 than $500.00 dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both such fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues after due notice has been served shall be deemed a separate offense. IFC section 112.4 shall be deleted. IFC section 106.5 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 106.5 Refunds. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the permit fee paid may be refunded to the permit holder upon request. The permit holder shall request such refund in writing to the Community Development Department director or designee no later than one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of permit issuance. Plan review fees shall not to be refunded in part or in whole after completion of plan review. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 106.6 Permit Transfer. A permit granted pursuant to this code may be transferred from one permit holder to another permit holder upon written request by the current permit holder to the Community Development Department director or designee. Expired permits may not be transferred. No permit transfer may be made without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee; if transfer is attempted without written approval of the Community Development Department director or designee, such permit shall be deemed void. These definitions shall be added to IFC section 202: DRIVEWAY. A vehicular ingress and egress route that serves no more than six (6) single family dwellings, not including accessory structures. FIRE STATION. A building, or portion of a building that provides, at a minimum, all weather protection for fire apparatus. Temperatures inside the building used for this purpose must be maintained at above thirty-two (32) degrees Fahrenheit. IFC section 307.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 307.1.1 Prohibited open burning. Open burning shall be prohibited when atmospheric conditions or local circumstances make such fires hazardous. Hazardous conditions shall include, but shall not be limited to: a) winds of ten miles per hour (10 mph) or greater; b) a red flag warning of high fire danger issued by the National Weather Service; or c) an open burning ban due to the air quality index or other conditions determined by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. IFC section 307.4.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 307.4.2 Recreational fires. Recreational fires shall not be conducted within 25 feet (7620 mm) of a structure or combustible material. Conditions that could cause a fire to spread within 25 feet (7620 mm) of a structure shall be eliminated prior to ignition. Recreational fires shall not have a total fuel area larger than three feet (3') in diameter and not more than two feet (2') in height. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 20 Section 307.6 Open burning rules. The following additional rules shall apply to open burning: 307.6.1 Hours. Open burning shall be allowed only between 8:00 a.m. and sunset, with the exception of recreational fires. 307.6.2 Prohibited materials. Burning of the following materials shall be prohibited at all times and under all conditions: yard waste, grass clippings, hazardous materials, construction waste, demolition or salvage debris, junk motor vehicles, commercial waste, industrial waste, tar or tar paper, railroad ties, oil, grease, household waste, tires, plastics, paints, petroleum products, telephone poles, rubber, dead animals, asphalt materials, preservative-treated wood, pathogenic waste, and/or insulated wire. 307.6.3 Burn barrels prohibited. Open burning in metal barrels shall be prohibited. 307.6.4 Smoke management. Any person conducting an open burn shall ensure that smoke caused by burning shall rise up and away from neighboring residences, highways, and other populated areas. IFC section 308.1.6.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 308.1.6.3 Sky Lanterns. It shall be unlawful for any person to release a sky lantern or cause a sky lantern to be released, whether tethered or untethered. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell sky lanterns inside the boundaries of the City of Meridian. IFC section 501.3 shall be amended to read as follows: 501.3 Construction documents. Construction documents for proposed driveways, fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access roads and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. IFC section 501.4 shall be amended to read as follows: 501.4 Timing of installation. Where fire apparatus access roads, driveways, or a water supply for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except where approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection where construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 501.4.1 Fire Hydrant Installation Timing. All necessary fire hydrants shall be installed and operational before any combustible materials, as such term is defined by the international building code, 2018 edition, may be brought onto the site. Failure to comply with this provision will result in a stop work order which shall be effective until all necessary fire hydrants are installed and operational. The following words shall be added to IFC section 502.1: DRIVEWAY FIRE STATION The following words shall be added to the heading of IFC section 503: AND DRIVEWAYS C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 21 IFC section 503.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: 503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building, or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Driveways shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.4.1. Exceptions: 1. The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45 720 mm) where any of the following conditions occur: 1.1 The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2, or 903.3.1.3. 1.2 Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided. 1.3 There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group U occupancies. 2. Where approved by the fire code official, fire apparatus access roads shall be permitted to be exempted or modified for solar photovoltaic power generation facilities. A new section, section 503.7, shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 503.7 Driveways. Driveways shall be provided when any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of a building is located more than 150 feet (45720mm) from a fire apparatus access road. Driveways shall provide a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet (3658mm) and a minimum unobstructed height of 13 feet 6 inches (4115mm). Driveways in excess of 150 feet (45720mm) in length shall be provided with turnarounds. Driveways in excess of 200 feet (60960mm) in length and less than 20 feet (6096mm) in width may require turnouts in addition to turnarounds. Section 503.7.1 Limits. A driveway shall not serve in excess of six (6) single family dwellings. Section 503.7.2 Turnarounds. See Appendix D, Fire Apparatus Access Roads. Section 503.7.3 Turnouts. Where line of sight along a driveway is obstructed by a man-made or natural feature, turnouts shall be located as may be required by the fire code official to provide for safe passage of vehicles. Driveway turnouts shall be of an all-weather road surface at least 10 feet (3048mm) wide and 30 feet (9144mm) long. Section 503.7.4 Bridge Load Limits. Vehicle load limits shall be posted at both entrances to bridges on driveways and private roads. Design loads for bridges shall be established by the fire code official. Section 503.7.5. Fire Apparatus Access Road Address Markers. All buildings shall have a permanently posted address, which shall be placed at each driveway entrance and be visible from both directions of travel along the road. In all cases, the address shall be posted at the beginning C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 22 of construction and maintained thereafter. Address signs along one-way roads shall be visible from both the intended direction of travel and the opposite direction. Where multiple addresses are required at a single driveway, they shall be mounted on a single post, and additional signs shall be posted at locations where driveways divide. Section 503.7.5.1. Lighted Address Markers. If required the address marker shall be backlit or front lit. The accompanying site map shall also be lit for Police, Fire or EMS to easily see them from dusk to dawn. Section 503.7.6 Grade. The gradient for driveways shall not exceed 10 percent unless approved by the fire code official. Section 503.7.7 Security Gates. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. The security gates and emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. Section 503.7.8 Surface. Driveways shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of local responding fire apparatus and shall be surfaced as to provide all weather driving capabilities. IFC Section 505.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 505.1.1 Address Identification. The required height of each address number shall be calculated by the distance of the addressed building from the road, as follows: where the building is less than one hundred feet (100') from the road, the height of each address number shall be six inches (6") in height; where the building is one hundred feet to one hundred fifty feet (100-150') from the road, the height of each address number shall be at least eight inches (8") in height; where the building is one hundred fifty-one feet to two hundred feet (151-200') from the road, the height of each address number shall be ten inches (10") in height; where the building is two hundred one feet to two hundred fifty-one feet (201-251') from the road, the height of each address number shall be twelve inches (12") in height. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 505.1.2 Multi-Tenant or Suite Identification. Tenant space or suite identification shall be of sufficient size to be clearly visible from the road or drive aisle, and shall be installed on exterior front and rear access doors. IFC section 507.2 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 507.2 Type of Water Supply. A water supply shall consist of water delivered by fire apparatus, reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains, or other sources approved by the fire code official capable of providing the required fire flow, except that the water supply required by this code shall only apply to structures served by a municipal fire department of a fire protection district and within ten miles (16093m) of a responding fire station. The exceptions to IFC section 507.5.1 shall not apply. IFC 604.5.4 shall be amended to read as follows: C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 23 Section 604.5.4 Grounding. Extension cords without a grounding lug shall not be permitted. IFC section 903.3.7 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 903.3.7 Fire Department Connections. The location of the fire department connection shall be within one hundred feet (100') of a fire hydrant unless approved by the fire chief or designee. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.1.1 All Buildings That Are Required To Be Sprinklered. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm to alert the occupants of each tenant space shall be provided in the interior of the building at a normally attended location within each tenant space with a minimum of one per floor. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.2.2 Alarms. Approved audible devices and visual alarms with a minimum candela rating of 110 shall be connected to every automatic sprinkler system on the exterior of the building per NFPA standard 13/13R located above the fire department connection. A combination audible and visual alarm device is acceptable. IFC section 903.4.3 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 903.4.3 Floor Control Valves. Approved supervised indicating control valves shall be provided at the point of connection to the riser on each floor in institutional and multi-tenant buildings two or more stories in height. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 903.4.4 Location Of Fire Sprinkler Controls. Sprinkler riser and appurtenances shall be enclosed in a one hour rated room equipped with an exterior door. IFC section 904.1.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 904.1.1 Certification of service personnel for fire-extinguishing equipment. If required by the authority having jurisdiction, service personnel providing or conducting maintenance on automatic fire-extinguishing systems, other than automatic sprinkler systems, shall possess a valid certificate issued by an approved governmental agency, or other approved organization for the type of system and work performed. IFC section 906.2.1 shall be amended to read as follows: 906.2.1 Certification of service personnel for portable fire extinguishers. If required by the authority having jurisdiction, service personnel providing or conducting maintenance on portable fire extinguishers shall possess a valid certificate issued by an approved governmental agency, or other approved organization for the type of work performed. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 907.1.4 Non-Required Fire Alarm Systems. Where fire alarm systems not required by the IFC as herein adopted and amended or other provision of law are installed, any and all notification devices shall meet the minimum design, installation, and occupant notification C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 24 requirements for systems which are required by the IFC as herein adopted and amended or other provision of law. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: Section 907.1.5 Partial Or Limited Fire Alarm Detection Systems. Where partial or limited fire alarm detection systems are installed, any and all notification devices shall meet the minimum design, installation, and occupant notification requirements applicable to full and/or unlimited fire alarm systems. IFC section 912.4.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 912.4.1 Locking fire department connection caps. Automatic Sprinkler and Standpipe systems shall be equipped with locking caps at all FDC connections. IFC section 1101.1 shall be amended to read as follows: Section 1101.1 Scope. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to existing buildings constructed prior to the adoption of this code only, if in the opinion of the fire code official, they constitute a distinct hazard to life or property. A new section shall be added to the provisions of the IFC as follows: 2404.3.3.7 Inflatable or Portable Spray Booths. Inflatable or portable spray booths shall be prohibited from use unless specifically listed and approved for such use. IFC chapter 56 shall be amended as follows: Chapter 56 Explosives and Fireworks. Delete Sections 5601.1.3, 5601.2.2, 5601.2.3, 5601.2.4.1, 5601.2.4.2, 5608.2, 5608.2.1, and 5608.3. IFC chapter 80 shall be amended as follows: Chapter 80 Referenced Standards. Where referenced, the following NFPA standards shall refer to same in the following editions: NFPA Year NFPA Year NFPA Year NFPA Year Standard Edition Standard Edition Standard Edition Standard Edition 2 2020 34 2018 120 2020 505 2018 4 2015 40 2019 160 2016 652 2019 10 2018 45 2019 170 2018 654 2020 11 2016 51 2018 204 2018 655 2017 12 2018 52 2019 211 2019 664 2020 12A 2018 55 2020 241 2019 701 2019 13 2019 56 2020 253 2015 703 2018 13D 2019 58 2020 260 2019 704 2017 13R 2019 59A 2019 261 2018 720 2015 14 2019 61 2020 265 2019 750 2019 15 2017 69 2019 286 2019 853 2020 16 2019 70 2020 289 2019 914 2019 17 2017 72 2019 303 2016 1122 2018 17A 2017 80 2019 318 2018 1123 2018 20 2019 85 2019 326 2020 1124 2017 C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 25 24 2019 86 2019 385 2017 1125 2017 25 2020 92 2018 400 2019 1126 2021 30 2018 96 2017 407 2017 1127 2018 30A 2018 99 2018 409 2016 1221 2019 30B 2019 101 2018 410 2020 2001 2018 31 2020 105 2019 484 2019 2010 2020 32 2016 110 2019 495 2018 33 2018 111 2019 498 2018 Section 8. That Meridian City Code section 10-5-1 shall be amended as follows: 10-5-1: ADOPTION OF INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE, INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE PARTS V AND VI, AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: The following codes, published by the International Code Council, including all appendices thereto, are hereby adopted and incorporated in full as if set forth at length herein, and shall apply and control within the City of Meridian, save and except such portions as hereinafter deleted, modified or amended: A. The 20122018 edition of the International Mechanical Code (hereinafter IMC), including appendix A, as adopted by the State of Idaho, together with rules and regulations adopted by the State of Idaho, as amended by section 10-5-2 of this chapter (hereinafter IMC); B. The 2012 2018 International Fuel Gas Code (hereinafter IFGC) including appendices A, B, C, and D, as adopted by the State of Idaho, together with rules and regulations adopted by the State of Idaho, as amended by section 10-5-3 of this chapter (hereinafter IFGC); and C. IRC parts V and VI, with appendices A, B, C and D, published under the authority of the International Code Council, Inc., as adopted by the State of Idaho, together with rules and regulations adopted by the State of Idaho, as amended by section 10-5-4 of this chapter. Section 9. That Meridian City Code section 10-5-2 shall be amended as follows: 10-5-2: AMENDMENTS TO INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE: The following amendments to the IMC shall apply: A. The following definitions provided in IMC section 202, Definitions, shall be amended as follows: Light-Duty Cooking Appliance: Light-duty cooking appliances include gas and electric ovens (including standard, bake, roasting, revolving, retherm, convection, combination convection/steamer, countertop conveyorized baking/finishing, deck, pastry, and electric and gas conveyor pizza ovens), electric and gas steam jacketed kettles, electric and gas pasta cookers, electric and gas compartment steamers (both pressure and atmospheric) and electric and gas cheesemelters. C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 26 Medium-Duty Cooking Appliance: Medium-duty cooking appliances include electric discrete element ranges (with or without oven), electric and gas hot-top ranges, electric and gas griddles, electric and gas double sided griddles, electric and gas fryers (including open deep fat fryers, donut fryers, kettle fryers and pressure fryers), electric and gas conveyor pizza ovens, electric and gas tilting skillets (braising pans) and electric and gas rotisseries. B. The following language shall be added to IMC section 401.1 Scope: Exception: The principles specified in ASHRAE 62-2010 may be used as an alternative to this chapter to demonstrate compliance with required ventilation air for occupants. C. The following language shall be added to IMC section 504.6.1504.8.1 Material And Size: Exception: Dryer duct may be constructed of 0.013 (30 gage) or equivalent if prefabricated 0.016 (28 gage) ducts and fittings are not available. D. The following language shall be added to IMC table 603.4 Duct Construction Minimum Sheet Metal Thickness For Single Dwelling Units: Exception: Round duct, enclosed rectangular ducts and fittings less than fourteen (14) inches may be constructed of 0.013 (30 gage) or equivalent if prefabricated 0.016 (28 gage) ducts and fittings are not available. Section 10. That Meridian City Code section 10-5-3 shall be amended as follows: 10-5-3: AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE: A. IFGC section 109 shall be deleted. A. B. The last sentence of IFGC section 406.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: Mechanical gauges used to measure test pressure shall have a range such that the highest end of the scale is not greater than two (2) times the test pressure nor lower than one and one-half (1.5) times the test pressure. B. C. IFGC section 406.4.1 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: Test Pressure. Not less than twenty (20) psig (140kPa gauge) test pressure shall be required for systems with a maximum working pressure up to ten (10) inches water column. For systems with a maximum working pressure between ten (10) inches water column and ten (10) psig (70kPa gauge); not less than sixty (60) psig (420kPa gauge) test pressure shall be required. For systems over ten (10) psig (70kPa gauge) working pressure, minimum test pressure shall be no less than six (6) times working pressure. C. D. IFGC section 406.4.2 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: The test duration shall not be less than twenty (20) minutes. D. The last sentence of IFGC section 408.4 shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 27 Illuminating appliances, ranges, clothes dryers, outdoor grills, decorative vented appliances for installation in vented fireplaces, and gas fireplaces need not be so equipped. E. A new section, IFGC section 503.4.1.2, shall be added, to read as follows: Testing. All plastic pipe within a dwelling used for venting flue gases shall be tested at five (5) psi for fifteen (15) minutes. F. A new sentence shall be added to IFGC section 505.1.1, to read as follows: An interlock between the cooking appliance and the exhaust hood system shall not be required for appliances that are of the manually operated type and are factory equipped with standing pilot burner ignition systems. Section 11. That Meridian City Code sections 10-5-4(H–M) shall be amended as follows: H. A new sentence shall be added to section M1507.3.1, to read as follows: Outdoor air shall be ducted predominantly horizontal to avoid chimney effect. Outdoor air ducts will contain an accessible back draft damper and be designed to have an open cross section of twenty (20) square inches per one thousand (1,000) square feet of conditioned space. I.H. The following language shall be added to table M1601.1.1(2): Round duct, enclosed rectangular ducts and fittings less than fourteen (14) inches may be constructed of 0.013 (30 gage) or equivalent if prefabricated 0.016 (28 gage) ducts and fittings are not available. J.I The last sentence of section G2417.4 (406.4) shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: Mechanical gauges used to measure test pressure shall have a range such that the highest end of the scale is not greater than two (2) times the test pressure nor lower than one and one-half (1.5) times the test pressure. K.J. Section G2417.4.1 (IFGC 406.4.1) shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: The test pressure shall not be less than twenty (20) psig (one hundred forty (140) kPa gauge) test pressure shall be required for systems with a maximum working pressure up to ten (10) inches water column. For systems with a maximum working pressure between ten (10) inches water column and ten (10) psig (seventy (70) kPa gauge), not less than sixty (60) psig (four hundred twenty (420) kPa gauge) test pressure shall be required. For systems over ten (10) psig (seventy (70) kPa gauge) working pressure, minimum test pressure shall be no less than six (6) times working pressure. L.K. Section G2417.4.2 (IFGC 406.4.2) shall be deleted, and replaced with language to read as follows: The test duration shall not be less than twenty (20) minutes. C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 28 �L. A new section section G2427 .4 . 1 .2 shall be added to read as follows : Testing . All plastic pipe within a dwelling used for venting flue gases shall be tested at five (5) psi for fifteen ( 15) minutes . Section 12. It is hereby declared to be the legislative intent that the provisions and parts of this ordinance shall be severable . If any paragraph, part, section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance . Section 13 . All City of Meridian ordinances, or resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed. Section 14. That this ordinance shall be effective on January 1 , 2021 . PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 2020 . APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of 2020 . APPROVED : ATTEST , Robert Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO , 204905 The undersigned, William L.M . Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho , hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached summary of Ordinance No . 20- 1905 of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3 ) . DATED this 1 " day of December, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney CODE ADOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS : 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC PAGE 29 NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-_________ An Ordinance amending Meridian City Code section 10-1-1, regarding adoption of 2018 International Building Code, 2018 International Residential Code, 2018 International Swimming Pool And Spa Code, 2018 International Energy Conservation Code, 2018 International Existing Building Code, and respective local amendments; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-1-2, regarding amendments to International Building Code; amending Meridian City Code Section 10- 1-3, regarding amendments to International Residential Code; repealing and replacing Meridian City Code Section 10-1-4, regarding amendments to International Energy Conservation Code; amending Meridian City Code section 10-2-3(B), regarding plumbing permit and inspection fees; amending Meridian City Code section 10-3-3(E), regarding electrical permit and inspection fees; repealing and replacing Title 10, Chapter 4, Meridian City Code, regarding adoption of the 2018 International Fire Code and local amendments thereto; amending Meridian City Code section 10- 5-1, regarding adoption of 2018 International Mechanical Code, 2018 International Fuel Gas Code, 2018 International Residential Code Parts V and VI, and respective local amendments; amending Meridian City Code Section 10-5-2, regarding amendments to 2018 International Mechanical Code; amending Meridian City Code section 10-5-3, regarding amendments to the International Fuel Gas Code; amending Meridian City Code sections 10-5-4(H–M), regarding amendments to Part V (Mechanical) and Part VI (Fuel Gas) of the 2018 International Residential Code; adopting a savings clause; and providing an effective date. First Reading: _________________ Adopted after first reading by suspension of ____________________________________ the rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code City of Meridian § 50-902: YES_______ NO_______ Mayor and City Council Second Reading: ________________ By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Third Reading: _________________ C ODE A DOPTION AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS: 2018 IBC, 2018 IRC, 2017 ISPC, 2018 IECC, 2017 NEC, 2018 IFC, 2018 IMC, 2018 IFGC P AGE 30