The URL can be used to link to this page

2020-12-22 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, December 22, 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/84044768633 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 840 4476 8633 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Joe Borton PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted Motion to adopt the agenda made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum 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. PROCLAMATIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Rocky Mountain High School Football: 2020 5A State Champions 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 Continued from November 24, 2020 for Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) by Riley Planning Services, Located at 710 N. Black Cat Rd. Approved A. Request: Rezone of 4.71 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district (Medium- Low Density Residential) to the R-8 zoning district (Medium-Density Residential); and, B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 4.71 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing for Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision (H-2020-0104) by Wadsworth Development, Located at 3085 E. Ustick Rd. Approved A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of five (5) commercial building lots in the C-G zoning district for ownership purposes. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 4. Public Hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd. Approved A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots, 26 common lots and 3 common driveway lots on 24.54 acres. B. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. # 114030972) to allow townhomes and patio homes whereas the existing development agreement allows self-storage and multifamily. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 5. Public Hearing for 2810 E. Franklin Rd. (H-2020-0097) by KM Engineering, Located at 2810 E. Franklin Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 1.01 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 6. Public Hearing for Southridge Apartments (H-2020-0109) by The Land Group, Located on the South Side of W. Overland Rd. Midway Between S. Ten Mile Rd. and S. Linder Rd. Approved A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #2015-112096) to include an updated conceptual development plan for the third phase of the development. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 7. Ordinance No. 20-1908: An Ordinance (H-2020-0038 – Sagewood West Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of the NW ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 10.41 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 8. Ordinance No. 20-1909: An Ordinance (H-2020-0058 Epic Storage) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Lying in the NW ¼ NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 3 North, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 4.55 Acres of Land from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to C-C (Community Business) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 9. Ordinance No. 20-1910: An Ordinance (H-2020-0066 Apex) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of the East ½ of the Northwest ¼, all of the Southeast ¼ of Section 31, and a Portion of the West ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 32, Township 3, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, all of West ½ of the Northwest ¼ Section 5 and a Portion of the East ½ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 384.27 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning District R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(264.06 Acres), R-15 (Medium High Residential)(76.93 Acres) and C-C (Community Business)(43.28 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION 10. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer. Motion to enter executive session made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener In to Executive Session: 9:28pm Out of Executive Session: 9:58pm ADJOURNMENT 9:58pm Item#4. Meridian City Council December 22, 2020. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:04 p.m., Tuesday, December 22, 2020, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Joe Borton and Jessica Perreault. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, Jeff Lavey, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is December 22nd, 2020, at 6:04 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: We are getting better at that all the time. Next up is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Merry Christmas, by the way. Simison: Merry Christmas to you. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Page 88 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 2 of 66 Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the -- the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Next item is our public forum. We do have someone who has signed up on this item and so I will turn this over to Mr. Ryan Head. Johnson: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Mr. Head, you are recognized for three minutes. You have unmuted. If you want to -- Head: Hello. Sorry. It -- it kicked me out and, then, I was just -- I didn't hear the introduction, so -- Mr. Mayor and Council Members, I'm Ryan Head. I am the planning manager at ACHD. A new planning manager there, replacing Justin Lucas, who decided he had bigger and better things to do. Now he's my boss again. But that's okay. I just wanted -- I had the pleasure of serving as liaison to the city in the past and just -- I know our Mayor -- the Mayor and Council President met with our director this week and our directorjust asked me to come on and introduce myself. I also wanted to introduce -- you have probably met Kristy Inselman, who will be serving as the official liaison from ACHD to the City of Meridian. She has a lot of expertise from a number of different areas and will serve you well. But I just wanted to come on and introduce myself and let you know that we are here to serve you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Thank you, Ryan. Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I know that we are not supposed to ask questions, but I'm confused about your role. So, Kristy is the liaison and what are you? Head: I am the planning manager at ACHD. So, Kristy works for me. I oversee our liaison program -- Bernt: Got it. Head: -- as well as all of our plans, so -- Page 89 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 3 of 66 Inselman: I'm a senior transportation planner with ACHD and I also work on the five year work plan, so I can -- I can help in this role during the public hearing process and I would also be your contact for that program as well. Bernt: Awesome. Simison: Thank you very much. Appreciate the introduction, faces to names, and look forward to hearing your voices at a minimum on projects real soon, so -- Head: Perfect. Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, one -- I know -- I know this is sort of a -- not typical to make an announcement during the public forum by a Council Member, but I just wanted to take a quick second and wish a dedicated citizen of our -- of our city Christine Borton a happy 80th birthday today, so -- I doubt she is listening right now, because they are having a huge party as we speak. Hopefully she goes back to the minutes and is able to watch, but, Christine -- Mrs. -- Mrs. Borton, Merry-- Merry Christmas to you. Happy Birthday. 80th birthday. And thank you for your family -- for Council Member Borton and Big Jim and Little Jim, so Merry Christmas and happy birthday. Simison: Thank you, Councilman Bernt. And by huge bash we mean socially acceptable and appropriate size, using appropriate safety measures to slow the spread of COVID in our community. Bernt: I didn't -- I didn't mean that. Simison: That's -- Bernt: Maybe I did. Simison: Okay. Bernt: Whatever. PROCLAMATIONS [Action Item] 1. Rocky Mountain High School Football: 2020 5A State Champions Simison: Next item is a proclamation honoring the Rocky Mountain High School Football 2020 5A state champions. We are going to do this down at the podium and ask Coach Chris Culig and his two members of the team to come up and join me, please. Just want to say thank you for your accommodations and in helping us still take time to honor the Page 90 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 4 of 66 achievements of our youth. We know this -- this year has been especially challenging for many people with the disruptions in the school and education system, as well as disruptions on and off the field with practices and games at all levels. So, the fact that we were able to successfully get through a full sports season this fall and have a continuing championship football team here in the City of Meridian is quite an honor. So, with that we are going to go ahead and do a proclamation to honor the Rocky Mountain team this year and, then, we will ask the coach to make some comments. But whereas being a Rocky Mountain football player is more than tackles, yardage, kickoffs and touchdowns and achieving the state title, it is training to build leadership, character, confidence, teamwork and resilience, all traits needed to succeed on the field, in the classroom, and in the real world and whereas the Rocky Mountain football team never backed down from familiar opponents and knocked off defending state champion Rigby to win it's second state title in three seasons and third in six years and whereas for the 2019-2020 season the Grizzly football team overcame many hurdles, but their hard work paid off as they took the 5-A state championship and whereas the capturing of the state title builds school spirit and allows these student athletes to walk the halls of Rocky Mountain with a little extra swagger and whereas the leadership, training, and discipline of the head coach and assistants to help team members focus their talents and passion to become a winning team, with each player making valuable contributions to their victory. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, here proclaim December 22nd, 2020, as Rocky Mountain High School football state champions day in the City of Meridian and call upon the community to join me in congratulating the Grizzlies on their remarkable athletic achievement and for representing Meridian so proudly in the state tournament, dated this 22nd day of December 2020. We also -- there is two proclamations here. There is also a second one which includes all the names of the players and the coaches and that one will be included in the record. So, if any of them ever want to come and find their name on the -- at least it's recognized here. I don't know where else you can get it outside of the yearbook. On the trophy. They can also find it here if they ever really need to do that from that standpoint. So, with that I just want to say thank you and, coach, we would love to have any comments you would have. Culig: Well, first of all, thank you very much. It was really a special season. You know, it takes a lot of people -- it takes great players like we have here -- Ty Tanner, Jordan Erickson. It takes our whole group of administrators and teachers and parents -- in order to have a successful program and win a state championship you basically need to have all those pieces and, obviously, having the support of the city and recognizing all the hard work, especially with a year like we had, is pretty special. So, thanks and we appreciate it. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing Continued from November 24, 2020 for Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) by Riley Planning Services, Located at 710 N. Black Cat Rd. Page 91 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 5 of 66 A. Request: Rezone of 4.71 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district (Medium Low Density Residential) to the R-8 zoning district (Medium-Density Residential); and, B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 4.71 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Simison: Next item on the agenda under Action Items is a public hearing continued from November 24th, 2020, for Horse Meadows Subdivision, H-2020-0060. We will continue this public hearing and turn this over to Mr. Dodson for any comments. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Before we start I -- I was absent the evening of November 24th. I was out of town. But I want it to be mentioned on the public record that I did go over the notes and I did watch the video, so I'm up to snuff of what happened that evening, so -- thank you. Simison: Thank you. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilman Bernt. I was going to ask that, if the Council Members that were not here were up to it or not and whether or not I should go over all of my notes again or just what happened afterwards. Bernt: I think we are good. Dodson: Okay. In that case -- so, this was continued from the November 24th hearing in order to work with ACHD on the proposed access. This was -- the plat shown to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is the same -- which is slightly different than the one that was shown at the previous Council meeting. This was -- as you can see in the southern boundary there are a few differences along the bottom. Other than that, the applicant revised the plat for the eighth time and we spoke to ACHD regarding moving the access from here along -- about a hundred feet from Black Cat all the way to here, as far east as they could go, while still maintaining a buildable lot along the eastern boundary. The applicant sent this a couple weeks ago. ACHD actually amended their requirements -- their district policies to allow this revised plat and move the access further east in line with some of the concerns that Council presented. So, really, that's the only change. It's basically a mirror image. So, all of the other requirements --or I should say recommended DA provisions that I had laid out last time and are shown in the outline still are applicable. It just is a mirror image. I did revise the lot numbers and so that if you need to make those as part of your motion, that they are included in that. Other than that I will stand for questions. Page 92 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 6 of 66 Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? I'm seeing headshake. Would the applicant like to make any comments regarding this item? Constantikes: Mayor and Council Members, Penelope Constantikes. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701 . Thank you for seeing us again and I just have a few comments. I was very pleased to see that ACHD was willing to modify that staff report. So, that was a good event to have happen. There was some unexpected benefits of changing the plat that way. One of the items that P&Z felt was important was the number of lots along Black Cat Road. As a result of us flipping the plat, we now have even fewer lots along Black Cat Road than we did previously. So, that was an unexpected benefit and we have the same lot count. Buildable lots actually went up slightly. Open space increased slightly. Let's see. I did some research into -- I'm going to take that back. Excuse me. So, the easement modification is fully in -- in route now. All the neighbors have received copies and are under consideration for that. So, I would be happy to answer any questions you have about the revised plat. I know there was the road realignment and, then, there were -- I think there were a few other items that maybe some of the Council Members would want to bring up. Simison: Council, any questions. Not seeing any questions. Constantikes: Very good. Thank you. Simison: This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to provide testimony or anybody online who would like to provide testimony please -- you can do that online by using the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the Zoom platform. Not seeing anybody wishing to come forward or raise their hand online, are there any last comments from the applicant? I see no -- Council, I will turn this over to you for any additional questions, comments, or motions. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we -- we close the public hearing. Cavener: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion?. If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. Page 93 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 7 of 66 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we approve Item No. 2 on tonight's agenda, H-2020-0060. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had some concerns about this the last time around. got to applaud the applicant and staff. ACHD. I know we got a new liaison. Working to make some changes on the road. I appreciate that. My concerns are really with -- I really feel like they were trying to jam too many units into too small of a footprint. These are tightly packed lots. It's not something I'm supportive of at the time. Simison: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for staff. Simison: Go ahead, Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I just wanted to find out -- do we need to -- it looks like we should include the language regarding the DA provision 1-E be modified to bring all those easement holders into this DA and to relinquish the rights, et cetera, et cetera. That language that was included in that staff report. Is that right, Joe? Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, yes. Thank you for bringing that up. I was going to say that the motion should include -- under number five on the outline B, and, then, the -- striking condition 2-C and, then, including a new condition below. Those three changes. If you want to have them incorporated. Simison: I guess I would ask the motion maker if that is something he would like or not? Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I can just speak to those for the maker of the motion benefit. You know, we wanted to include these easement holders into this to make sure everybody's tied Page 94 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 8 of 66 together to move this forward. We do need to strike that other approval 2-C, because it had some language to that and we are going to add the new language and we do want to have -- this was discussed at the other meeting -- that five foot wide micro path along the lot -- south side of Lot 20 to connect the sidewalk, so everything comes together in a way that works. So, nothing -- nothing too crazy here, but just kind of the -- the workman stuff that needs to be done. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I would like to remove my motion and have someone else make it, please. Simison: Second agree? Strader: Yes. Simison: Okay. Councilman Hoaglun, could we turn to you for the full motion? Hoaglun: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I move that we approve file number H-2020-0060 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 22nd, 2020, and that also that the plan also includes these modifications, that DA provision number 1-E be modified to read as follows: A final plat application shall not be submitted until the applicant receives approval and provides documentation from all easement holders and the parcel numbers are in the -- in the document and in the staff report and to relinquish their rights to the existing access easement once the public road connection to Pine Avenue is constructed. Also that we strike condition of approval 2-C, since with the modified DA provision of 1-E above that takes care of that and that we also include a new condition of approval as follows: That they -- they construct a five foot wide micro path along the south side of Lot 20, Block 2, that connects to the sidewalk along the west side of North Traquair-- however we pronounce that street and to Black Cat Road. So, that's my motion, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Do I have a second? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on that rather lengthy motion that was very clear and concise and we appreciate it. Strader: Mr. Mayor, one quick comment. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: My apologies. I -- I didn't realize those were outside of the staff report, but I did want to comment that I think this isn't a big improvement on the -- on the situation. Yeah. I know we have been through now -- this is the eighth version. Appreciate the applicant's Page 95 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 9 of 66 efforts and patients working through the process. Also appreciate the concerns about the number of units going in. I really hope that this does end up being at a lower price point to help serve housing affordability, but I think in the future we may need to look at this area holistically, because we have a lot going on and so we do take those -- and at least definitely and my fellow Council I think also takes these traffic concerns to heart. And thank you to ACHD for listening and making changes. Simison: Thank you. Council, any further questions or comments? Ask the clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, nay; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: Three ayes and one no. Motion passes and the item is agreed to. Thank you, very much, everyone, for their work on that and getting a much better option. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision (H-2020-0104) by Wadsworth Development, Located at 3085 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of five (5) commercial building lots in the C-G zoning district for ownership purposes. Simison: Next item is Item 3, a public hearing for Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision, H- 2020-0104. 1 will open this public hearing with staff comments and turn it over to Joe. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. As noted this is for Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision, H-2020-0104. It is for a commercial preliminary plat. The site currently consists of 3.29 acres of land, currently zoned C-G, located at 3085 East Ustick, which is the southwest corner of Ustick and Eagle Road. It has C-G zoning in all directions as noted in the central map here, including commercial uses, except directly to its west, which is undeveloped. West and south. But there is an approved indoor rec facility, Villa Sport there. In 2019 there was a DA modification to remove this site, as well the Villa Sport site from an existing DA and enter into a new one. Also in 2019 -- I believe it was my first CZC -- was approved on this site for a parking lot and the relevant site improvements, including the landscaping. Then in this year we approved a CZC and design review for a new urgent care facility on one of the lots in this proposed subdivision. In Lot 4 specifically. The future land use designation on the site is mixed use regional, which wants us to look at well beyond the boundaries of just the site for proposed uses. The subject site as noted is on the very hard corner of Eagle and Ustick. The southwest corner. The surrounding areas provide a plethora of commercial uses that are used at a regional level. Again, to the west is the -- proposed to be a high end indoor gym, Villa Sport, and to the south is existing residential and some community serving commercial. Additionally, some vacant lots. As lots within this subdivision develop over time staff believes they will likely be a higher benefit to the users of the future Villa Sport and Page 96 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 10 of 66 residents to the southwest of this site. Staff is of the opinion that there is less need for these five relatively small commercial lots to serve a regional base than those sites to the north and east, the bigger commercial subdivisions. In addition, this project, in conjunction with the approved uses to the west, should satisfy the Comprehensive Plan and mixed use policies. The submitted preliminary plat proposes five commercial building lots that vary in size from .39 acres to 1.02 acres. The C-G zoning district does not have a minimum lot size requirement. All landscape buffers are previously approved with the existing CZC as noted. When future buildings are proposed on each building lot, staff will analyze each building for compliance with other dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district, including their proposed use. Access for this development will be via a shared driveway constructed with the Villa Sport improvements along Ustick, limited to a right-in, right-out access. This applicant will be required to construct this shared driveway if this development is constructed before the Villa Sport. That is in the existing development agreement. There are no public streets as part of this commercial development and there are, therefore, no public stub streets proposed. Instead there are private drive aisles as our standard for commercial developments. The applicant has an existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial properties, but will be required to maintain the cross-access agreement across the proposed lots, so internal to the site, that are already existing in the CC&Rs. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in the UDC for nonresidential uses at the ratio of one for 500 square feet. If any restaurants are proposed, the parking ratio is one per 250. With the existing and approved CZC, 109 parking spaces were approved, but did not show any parking directly adjacent to the northern -- I apologize. The northern building lots along Ustick. The revised site plan provided by the applicant showed some changes to the parking lot that differ from the currently approved site plan and that CZC. One of these changes includes three additional trash enclosures, for a total of four, but now none are proposed within the center of the parking area. The new locations of the trash enclosures should help minimize any blind corners while traversing the site. In addition, the applicant is now showing a reconfiguration of some of the parking spaces and additional parking adjacent to the northern building lots. These changes show a net positive gain of 16 additional parking spaces. Again, as each pad site is developed the required number of spaces will be checked throughout the site and the applicant will be required to comply with code requirements as each building lot develops. As noted above, the parking for the whole site will be available for each building per the CC&Rs, which are already recorded. Because the overall parking plan has changed since the original CZC, the applicant will need to obtain approval of a new CZC outlining those changes. Basically just clean up the record. And they will have to do that prior to obtaining anymore building permits. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this preliminary plat with very little, if at all, any discussion. Staff recommends approval as well and after that I will follow -- I'm here for questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 97 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 11 of 66 Cavener: Joe, just a quick question. You touched on this. I appreciated the narrative also in the staff report -- about the -- the change in the parking lot plan with the trash enclosures. Is that something that was initiated by the applicant or something suggested by staff? Dodson: Councilman Cavener, that was initiated by staff to have them -- came up on our project review meeting and just -- some of the concerns with having two or three right in the central area and people trying to drive around that -- because they are always covered up with CMU walls and once it gets busy it's just -- it can be dangerous. So, we wanted to try to space them out and the applicant was willing to do that for multiple reasons, most of all being that if they are closer to the proposed buildings that helps the applicant find tenants, too. So, it was a win-win. Cavener: Nice job. Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Seeing none, I will turn this over to the applicant and recognize Tamara Thompson. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tamara Thompson. I'm with The Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle and I'm hoping you guys can all hear me okay. Great. Thank you. If you would like, I can share my screen. I have just a couple slides. Joe did a great job walking you through the project and just a couple things -- just to clarify a few other things for you. Maybe just to give a little bit more context. All right. The vicinity map should be up on the screen and, again, we are on the southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick and I just wanted to give you just a little -- a little context just to show you how the preliminary plat fits in with the corner. Here is kind of an overlay, if you will, of -- of the corner and how the lots lay out there and, then, I have done one with colors. Sometimes it's hard on those black and whites to see exactly where the lot lines are. So, that will show you the five commercial lots. They do share parking, so there would be shared parking and a shared access, and that access is shared also with the sports facility next door. So, right now there is two access points onto Eagle Road. I'm sorry. Onto Ustick to the north. Both of those will be closed and we are having one combined shared access point and, then, eventually that will connect down to provide access to Eagle Road. So, just to give you that context there. And that we --we have read the staff report. We agree with staff's analysis and the recommended conditions of approval and we respectfully request your approval tonight. Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Simison: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, besides the applicant we had one additional. Brad Watson. And brought him in to be able to speak. Page 98 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 12 of 66 Simison: Okay. If there is anybody else that would like to testify on the item that's online, please, indicate so by raising -- using the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the Zoom and if there is anyone here after this person -- Mr. Watson, you are recognized for three minutes. Watson: Thank you. I'm with the owner of the property and I just joined the meeting. I, obviously, signed up in the wrong category, but Tamara did an awesome job and represented us well and I don't have anything more to say. Simison: Thank you very much. Council, any questions for Mr. Watson? And, Mr. Watson, if you could, just for the record just give us your address so we have it. Watson: Yes. 166 East 14000 South, Suite 210, Draper, D-r-a-p-e-r, Utah. 84020. Simison: Thank you. Seeing no one else who has signed up to testify or coming forward to do so, would the applicant like to make any final comments? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Tamara Thompson again. No final comments. Thank you. Simison: Council, what's your pleasure? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: No one else wants to comment, I move that we close the public hearing on No. 3, Item H-2020-0104. Hoaglun: I will second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Tamara did a great job with the report and appreciate Tamara being here virtually. Again, not a lot of discussion on the Planning and Zoning Commission. This seems pretty cut and dry. So, with that I move approval of item H-2020-0104, the preliminary plat. I don't think there is any other revisions within that. So, I would move that we approve it as presented. Page 99 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 13 of 66 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the item. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Simison: Thank you very much. Joe, appreciate you being here. Merry Christmas. And you, too, Tamara. Dodson: Merry Christmas. Thank you guys. I will be here for a few more minutes to help this applicant get going and, then, I will merry my way out. 4. Public Hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots, 26 common lots and 3 common driveway lots on 24.54 acres. B. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #114030972) to allow townhomes and patio homes whereas the existing development agreement allows self-storage and multi-family. Simison: Okay. Next item is a public hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision, H-2020- 0093. We will open this public hearing was staff comments. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, my apologies. Alan is entering the meeting now. I didn't put him over fast enough. Simison: No problem. Well, Alan, you are ready to go as soon as you get situated. Tiefenbach: Sorry, Mr. Mayor, I didn't have the -- I was just given the ability to share and to -- so give me just one second, sir. Simison: Okay. Tiefenbach: All right. Let's see here. Can you see that? Simison: Yes. Page 100 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 14 of 66 Tiefenbach: Okay. All right. Greetings, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a preliminary plat and a development agreement modification. This site consists of just a little bit short of 25 acres, zoned R-15, located at the northeast corner of North McDermott Road and West McMillan Road. If you know the area -- hopefully you can see my pointer. This is the Gem Innovation School, which recently got a conditional use. To the east is single family residence, as well as to the west and to the south. A little history on this property. Oh. And here is the ACHD preliminary lines map. The property is outlined in blue. What you see in red are the subdivisions that are building out or are approved and what you see in yellow are projects that are still in the hearing stage -- active hearing applications. So, kind of a long history on this one. In 2008 the subject property received annexation approval for a large master plan residential development. That was called The Oak Creek. In 2013 the subject property was rezoned to R-15 as a portion of the Oaks North Subdivision. This was a huge subdivision. The subject property was approved for multi-family and self storage uses. So, to the north was multi-family and to the south was self storage. The development agreement was amended to allow this. In 2018 the multi-family portion of the project was proposed to be rezoned to R-8 and this was to develop single family residential. This included another amendment to the DA. It went to the Planning Commission, but it didn't go to Council. The preliminary -- the plat was never finalized. So, it reverts back to the original Oaks North plat, which, again, allows only multi-family and self storage on this area. The -- this proposal is for 94 single family residential lots and 92 townhouse lots, three common driveways and 26 common lots. So, on the north is what you see are the 94 single family lots. To the south you see here those are the townhouses. So, again, as I have listed, there have been several rezonings and development agreements relating to this property. This preliminary plat would include a new development agreement to allow single family and townhouse uses, instead of the multi-family and the self storage. Again, like I said, 92 townhouses, 94 single family. The proposed street network stubs two streets to the east. One is Cherrybrook -- this is Cherrybrook, which you can see here. The other is Daphne, which you can see here. This is Trident, which is an existing street, and it connects to McMillan through the Elks -- or through The Oaks Subdivision. This proposal would not provide direct access to an arterial, nor would it increase the number of access points to nearby collectors. There is several internal roads, as you can see, and the townhouses are actually alley loaded and they are set up along the MEWS, which are these little parks and these pathways as you can see here. ACHD's commented that Marysville Street and Palustris Avenue, which are these two streets here, were very long and they needed to have traffic calming. I'm sure the applicant is going to talk a little bit about that. They have done that. I want to make a point of clarification. The staff report mentioned that the applicant would be required to conserve --to construct curb and gutter along McMillan. However, it's been later clarified that it is known as an arterial and the curb and gutter were not required. Finally, I want to note that the unified development code stated that residential development along McDermott had to provide noise abatement by a wall or a berm or a combination of that. This was recommended as a condition of approval at the November 5th Planning Commission hearing. The applicant has since updated the plans. You probably can't read it here, but it's called out here and if you look in the staff report I provided a section of that sound attenuation structure on those berms. This development proposes not just a little shy of 70 percent qualified open space. Move forward here. Page 101 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page —of 66 Here is a picture of the central amenity. This includes several grassy areas larger than 50 by 100, pathways along all the landscape buffers and micro pathways and MEWs, as well as this one acre park. Again, pathways include a ten foot pathway along Dermott, a five foot pathway along McMillan, and numerous micro pathways. This outdoor park that you see here contains a playground, a firepit, outdoor kitchen and a shelter. Also the applicant has provided -- provided an updated parking plan. This is what you see here. So, the townhouses in particular -- each town house -- house has a two car garage and a driveway large enough for two cars. So, four cars for each townhouse. In addition to that, there is additional on-street parking as well. No, the on-street parking can't be counted as part of the parking requirements, but this parking plan is to demonstrate that there is sufficient parking here. The applicant has also provided building elevations at the originals -- with the original staff report and some of the earlier versions, the elevations that staff saw, we thought that there needed to be a few changes made. These were mostly to extending some roof lines and breaking up some of the roofs on the townhouses. The original roof lines were very very long. So, they have broken up these roof lines, so you don't see these long massive structures. So, this was heard by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on November 5th. At the Planning Commission the Commissioners -- they recommended approval, but there were three things that they added. The first one is that they recommended that the development agreement be modified to include a limitation to no more than three units on a common drive. The applicant shows four units on a common drive and it's important to note that our -- that our Unified Development Code allows six. So, you can have three on each side of the common drive. So, again, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to only have three total. The second recommendation that the Planning Commission made was that they wanted to revise the plans to incorporate additional parking and the third was that they thought that there wasn't enough open space. I think that the -- the applicant is going to speak to this. Staff is okay with the -- with the proposal as it's presented. They are well in excess of what the code requires. So, I think that the -- the applicant is going to -- they are not agreeable to these conditions and I'm here to stand for any questions if you would like, Council. Simison: All right. Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I have a question for staff. If Mr. -- Deputy Chief Bongiorno is here or another fire department person. Tiefenbach: I'm not aware of fire present, ma'am. Simison: We do have Deputy Chief Bongiorno. Bongiorno: I'm here. Page 102 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 16 of 66 Tiefenbach: Oh. Hi, Joe. Strader: Hey. Thank you. So, my five minute fire spots -- I feel like a broken record. So, this was approved in 2008. It happened; right? Multi-family, too, maybe riskier than single family. But I'm looking at the map on the agency comments. It's outside of the five minutes, but it was in black and white on laserfiche. I couldn't tell how close to five minutes it was. Just give me a feel for how long -- how -- how far outside of the five minutes this might be if you could and, then, in your opinion, is this an improvement moving from multi-family to single family and townhomes from a safety perspective, if we were going to be stuck with multi-family instead? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, this project is outside -- the five minute response barrier in that map -- I can pull up the map and show it to you if you like. Ends right at Trident or right before Trident. The last time Ms. McKay and I had spoken, they were going to fire sprinkler everything in this development. So, I'm not sure if that's still being done, but that's the last discussion that we had. Let me -- do I have -- Mr. Clerk or Madam Clerk, do I have the ability to share this map? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Chief, you do, yes. Just share screen. Bottom of your screen. Bongiorno: Oh, there it is right there. It's in green. Okay. Let me know what's up and I will -- Johnson: It's visible now. Bongiorno: Okay. There we go. So, actually, the five minute response area kind of ends back there at Rustic Oak. So, that's what the map looks like at this time and, again, last time I talked with Ms. McKay they had talked about that whole section there in orange that was brought to you tonight, they were going to go ahead and fire sprinkler that. Again, if we ever get to station seven, station eight, however it plays out, that property is nearby and would definitely -- so, here is the school. This piece of property right here is the one that the city owns right now -- or the fire department owns. So, it's less than a mile away. It's right around the corner literally. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Invite the applicant to come forward, be recognized for 15 minutes. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council. I'm Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. We are representing the applicant on the application that's before you. As staff indicated, this is approximately 24 and a half acres, located there on the northeast corner of McDermott and McMillan Road. Initially when --when I brought through the Oaks North and the Oaks South development in 2013, our original preliminary plat, this particular area was planned for apartments and mini storage. There was a condition within our development Page 103 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 17 of 66 agreement that stated that we would have at a minimum eight dwelling units per acre on this site. The reason being is at the time the staff and the Council wanted to see some diversity in the subdivision and they wanted us to provide some type of rental type component here. A lot has changed over the past seven years. ITD has changed their plan for McMillan to be an overpass over the new State Highway 16. Instead, State Highway 16 will go over the top of McMillan Road. Therefore, their initial plan for McDermott bypass kind of went by the wayside and I did receive in writing from ITD indicating that they would no longer need the right of way that we anticipated for the overpass, since it -- 16 will go over McMillan. The applicant on this particular project is BB Living. They are a division of Toll Brothers. They are a company that does townhomes and detached single family and they rent and manage them. They have on-site management for these facilities. So, when we took a look at -- at this site design there is -- where is my cursor? How come I always get lost. There I am. So, this is -- this is the area here. We just showed it. We didn't have any multi-family site plan. It was just designated for X number of dwelling units and, then, we had some mini storage here and the mini storage component was anticipated because we didn't want to put houses under an overpass. But, like I said, since that is no longer the plan, then, we kind of had to rethink this particular area. So, we came up with -- with a mixture of -- we have townhouses in the southern portion adjacent to McMillan, which is an arterial, and McDermott right there at the intersection, which is now downgraded to a collector roadway and, then, on the northern portion we would have single family dwellings. This kind of gives you a better -- a better view of the project. So, we have a collector that comes into the site called Trident Way. So, we are not proposing any new approaches to McDermott or to McMillan. Ada County Highway District reviewed the site plan and the type of units and indicated that we would generate less traffic than the initial plan for the apartments and the mini storage and, therefore, they did not require a updated traffic study. Also over the past seven years we have built the roundabout at Rustic Oak Way, which is the primary continuous collector into Oaks North and Oaks South. It goes clear -- it will go eventually to the north and it already is stubbed to the south next to Five Mile Creek. One of the things that we wanted to do is, obviously, create a nice appeal as the -- as you enter into Trident. So, that's why we kind of have these units -- as you can see we have this -- this building, we have sets of fours, fives, sixes and, then, these are not all in a straight line, but they are kind of angled, so that it gives it a -- kind of a better esthetic feel as you come in if the buildings aren't all lined up. We have 35 feet of landscaping along McMillan Road. We will be widening that 17 feet from centerline with a five foot detached walk. We kept that intersection free of any dwellings. We have a pedestrian pathway that comes down and links in, so we can, obviously, create some type of landscape or some type of, you know, visual interest here at the intersection. We -- your pathway consultant had indicated that McDermott Road is planned for a ten foot multi-use pathway. So, we do have 35 feet of landscaping for the entryway corridor that McDermott is and, then, we have a ten foot multi-use pathway. Staff has indicated the UDC requires berming and, then, a sound wall and they have asked us to install that with the first phase and, then, install our landscape fencing and sidewalk along McMillan with the first phase and we have agreed to that. Up here we have the Creason Lateral, which we piped all the way through The Oaks project and we have a pathway that runs along the Creason. So, we will be linking into that with a micro path and, then, another pathway that goes out to Page 104 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 18 of 66 McDermott here. The charter school is proposed here right along our northern boundary. We have internal micro paths, as you can see, that lead up through to the internal pathway system within the Oaks North project. We have 1.7 -- or a 1.07 acre central amenity located here and, then, we have pathways that link down into the townhome area and, then, we have a MEW that runs between the buildings and, then, pathways that run both north and south. So, everyone has easy access. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Sorry, Becky. I don't mean to interrupt. I'm not sure -- what is a MEW? McKay: A MEW is -- has to be under -- in your UDC a minimum of 20 feet wide. It's a landscaped grassed area with a five foot pathway and it is a common area that's in between either single family dwellings or townhomes. So, they sit on a common area. So, one of the things that -- that BB Living wanted to do was if -- if we have garages front loaded on our public streets -- and all of these streets are proposed as public, we wanted to have some alley load product that gives it a little bit of variety and -- and visual interest. Where, then, we can have -- instead of being garage oriented, they are on the alley here, which is a public alley, and, then, the front of the structures are on this Daphne Street that comes in. The sidewalks on Daphne are all detached with an eight foot landscaped strip. We have left a lot of landscape area here, so that we can put a monument, create a sense of place for this development, and, then, all of the -- of the sidewalk is detached along Daphne. On the internal public streets they are five foot attached and they are all 33 feet from back of curb to back of curb. This is kind of a blow up of the landscape plan. As you can see -- you can see what we have done here at the McDermott-McMillan intersection where we have significant landscaping and pedestrian pathways that link into the sidewalk. As we come up here you can see that we have our primary central amenity. We have playground equipment. We have an outdoor kitchen barbecue area. We have a seating area. We have a gathering place with a fireplace and, then, here you can see these micro paths that are coming up. We have end block buffers on all of our end blocks. Even though this is an R-15 zone, we are not using three foot sideyard setbacks. Our sideyard setbacks are five for all of the single family dwellings and, then, obviously, for the townhomes. Here is a blow up of that central amenity. You can see here is like a play structure. There is swings here. Then there is also another -- a third play equipment that's here. We have our outdoor kitchen. You can see it located here. Then we have this kind of little plaza area where we have seating, gas fireplace, and, then, here we have a picnic area. So this is kind of a blow up of that amenity. They have built these and other communities. You can kind of see it's all covered. Very inviting. Here is the kitchen area. It's not just a barbecuer stuck out with -- you know, in the middle of nowhere. It's a full, you know, kitchen area where people can be asleep, gather after COVID and barbecue and have -- have a few drinks or pop and -- and -- and get together and that's -- that's their theme. They -- they cater to -- to people that want smaller rental lots and here is another gathering area that we will be emulating. You can see they have the Adirondack chairs. They have the fireplace. They use planters and, like I said, a plaza Page 105 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 19 of 66 type concept that's very inviting. This is an elevation of those single family dwellings. During the -- the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff's review they had asked us to add some additional modulation to that front elevation, so we -- we did add an element over the garages. We have extended the roof lines, so that the two story don't have just a single plain in the front. There will be a mixture of single story and two stories in the detached units. Here is another example where we have gone in and placed in -- an architectural feature right over the garage to add that modulation articulation. There is a street scene, kind of shows you what the dwellings would look like. These are the townhomes. Each one of them has a two car garage. Each one is -- the minimum size of those garages are 20 by 20. Some of the garages are a little bit larger, like 20 and a half by 20, and, then, we will have two spaces in front of the garage. Your current UDC requires that we be able to park two cars in the garage and two on the driveway and we do meet those standards. One of the things that staff had asked us to do was to create some relief in this roof, that we wouldn't have any longer than 50 feet where we would change in elevation to just add some character to that roofline and break it up. This kind of gives you an end view. You can see the --the doors, the different architectural features. A lot of articulation. Changing of materials to -- to create a nice exterior look, whether it's from the side, the front, or from the rear. This is -- they have their Craftsman style. They have different multiple styles, multiple color schemes, so they are not all identical. It's going to, obviously, be diversified in how it looks. So, it does not look like that one product was constructed throughout the whole development. Before BB Living gave me some of their-- their demographics and some examples of -- like the play equipment they have in other communities. The -- one of the things that they wanted me to, obviously, emphasize was the fact that--oh, Clang it. I'm sorry. They wanted me to emphasize that their average renter stays for approximately two years. The average age of their renter is approximately 39 years old, with a combined income of around 124,000. Typically each household is comprised of two adults, one child, and a half a pet and I'm not sure what the half a pet is. I only have whole pets. So, this -- they -- they don't allow any of the -- the renters to use the garages for storage. The cars must be parked in the garage. They have on-site management that's there 24/7. If they violate any of their rules they give them warnings. They make sure that these neighborhoods are well kept and, obviously, they are looking for people that want a smaller lot, want to rent, but want to be in an excellent larger community and that's what Oaks North is. Oops. So, one of the things that I wanted to -- to emphasize is this property is already zoned R-15. Our proposed density is 7.58. We are not asking for a rezone. It's already zoned for it. We are asking basically for less density than what is in the original development agreement and that is why we are asking for a DA modification. Also to take out that apartment component. In closing, we have 20 percent of open space and 16.75 percent qualified open space. So, we will exceed the ten percent and we have significant parking. As Alan indicated, we have 60 spaces for guests. Can I answer any questions you may have? Simison: Thank you, Becky. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 106 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 20 of 66 Strader: Quick question, Becky. If you could just confirm that you are okay with a requirement to sprinkler the whole subdivision, as the deputy chief alluded to. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, yes. In our-- in our pre-application meetings with Mr. Bongiorno we did agree that all units, including the townhomes and single family, would be sprinkled. Strader: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Becky, can you address the request from the Commission to limit no more than three units on a common drive and kind of point out where those are and how many units? McKay: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, we have only three common drives. We have one up in the northwest corner where we have the detached single family dwellings. There are three. We have one common drive here where we have four townhomes. We have a common drive over here in the southeast corner where we have four townhomes. Your UDC allows us to have up to six. The Fire Department and Public Works did review our driveways. We did submit to Public Works a design of our -- how we would handle our utilities and they were in full agreement that having the four units was acceptable and as you can see our driveways fan out when they reach the road. So, it's not just a narrow 20 foot little corridor. So, we are asking that the Council allow us to have four units on these two common driveways. Hoaglun: And -- thank you, Becky. Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Becky, also why don't you talk about the -- incorporating additional parking and open space for the townhouses. I think that was another issue that was discussed. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, at the Planning and Zoning Commission we had -- the staff recommended approval and we had no opposition to our project and they asked a handful of questions and, then, they closed the public hearing and after the public hearing was closed, then, they started debating the driveways and debating the -- the open space and I really don't think they had a good grasp of the magnitude of open space that we have within this project. I have 4.97 acres of total open space in this project, which is over 20 percent. I have six -- almost 17 percent qualified open space. So, I'm on your ordinance committee that has been working on the new open space requirements and even in this -- with the new ordinance up'ing the open space to 15 percent I still exceed the new ordinance. So, I really was absolutely baffled by the Planning and Zoning Page 107 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 21 of 66 Commission saying we don't think you have enough open space. Throughout the Oaks North we have I think 27 acres of open space. They will be able to use the clubhouse and pool and, then, we are also providing almost five acres of open space within this project. So, I was -- I didn't understand where they were going. I couldn't address it, because they closed the public hearing. It's -- it's -- it -- it kind of went sideways. One of those nights where -- Twilight Zone night. So, yeah, this -- this project -- you know, we want -- we have got it fit -- you know, with a great feel with the MEWs, with the ped paths, with the -- over an acre, you know, gathering places and in the landscaping. I mean I think we have got -- these guys have gone up beyond and, you know, they are -- they are going to landscape the heck out of this, because they want it to be a real component of The Oaks and not be just like the -- you know, an apartment component that was stuck in as an afterthought. This is integrated into that project. So, I ask the -- the Council to accept the open space that we have proposed, since it far exceeds your code. Hoaglun: Thank you, Becky. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Becky, is my assumption correct, the whole neighborhood will be rentals, then; correct? McKay: Yes, sir. Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor a follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: And I think, Becky, this is -- I think where the Planning and Zoning Commission was getting, which is -- what it appears to me is -- it was not intended on your part, but it appears to be an unintended kind of income equity issue in that your larger single family homes that are going to have a little bit more space for people to recreate and play and your guys's estimation is about 180 kids in this neighborhood, all in close proximity to the usable open space. Whereas those that are in the townhouse are the -- are far -- further away from it and so I think the direction the Planning and Zoning Commission was getting to -- and, frankly, I agree -- is not that you guys haven't went over and above with your open space, it is where it's located. I think that's a missed opportunity to provide more usable open space, particularly to the part of your neighbors that are going to need it the most. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, one of the things that they -- that I think you need to kind of take into consideration is the families that rent will most likely be within the -- with the single family lots. We put the primary open space, along with the play equipment, right here at the entrance. We have pedestrian pathways that come straight up and we have the MEW and most of the townhome people are either singles or a lot of Page 108 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 22 of 66 them have no children. That's -- that's kind of, you know, the demographics that they -- that they have. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Becky, could you pull up the -- you showed us a slide that broke down the demo and maybe I misread it. McKay: Yeah. I think what they -- they were talking overall in their product, so -- so, if you look at -- look at the townhomes -- the average -- the average lot size for the single family lot is 3,702 square feet. The average lot size for the townhomes is 2,481 square feet. Everyone that I know that lives in a townhome, they are either single or they have no children. They are empty nesters. Cavener: Becky -- McKay: We find that people that have -- Simison: Councilman Cavener. McKay: -- kids typically want the single family. Cavener: Becky, with all due respect, I think that we see a lot of young families in all sorts of living situations and I -- I have not seen a townhouse complex in Meridian that does not have young kids, unless it's age restricted. So, that's just going to have to be a piece that we are going to have to agree to disagree on. McKay: Jason Jarvis is with BB Living. He is the expert. They build these communities all over. So, I would like him to address that. Jarvis: Jason Jarvis. BB Living. 4900 North Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale, Arizona. Thank you very much, Mayor and Council Member Cavener. Yeah, we are not saying that there will not be kids in there. What that demographic was supposed to be showing which is on the average throughout our communities, through all of our markets, and we are in five or six different markets right now. So, again, not -- not trying to state there wouldn't be any, but traditionally we see more -- you know, for -- for every two kids in a single family, then, we have a professional couple in a townhome. So, on the average -- and we do see some kids in there, but typically, since that is a smaller unit, I mean if you have got a lot of kids you are not going to rent -- typically they don't rent there long term. It's usually with a younger child and that's why we try to spend so much time -- like Becky stated -- on the pathways in the MEW to kind of put that centralized open space in the middle of the community where everybody had a pathway and availability to get there, as well as when you drive in with that sense of arrival, so that there was -- agree to disagree on whether you like it or not, but that was the thought process behind it. Page 109 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 23 of 66 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Appreciate that. Not trying to jam you up. I think -- I think what we are saying is the same thing. You are putting a lot of people -- and, yeah, there is going to be young families, there are going to be kids that are there. Again, you are saying one for every unit. Haven't even talked about the dogs yet or the .5 pets. But that's where my concern comes from is you have got the smaller unit that is the furthest away from the usable open space. So, I think that was the point that the Planning and Zoning Commission was trying to make as well. Disappointing they didn't have an opportunity, Becky, I think for you to respond and provide that -- that context. We have been guilty of that as well as the Council. I'm just trying to wrap my head around why that location, again, and why not an opportunity for the folks that are going to be in a much smaller unit to have that equal access in a part of Meridian that we don't have as much of a park system right now as we would like to have. Jarvis: And I just wanted to add one more thing. Being part of The Oaks, all of our residents do have access to all of the other amenities within the master plan as well. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jason, I hadn't seen that in a staff report. I appreciate you saying that. I had a question about -- there is a lot of exhibits showing pools and I didn't see a pool here, so that -- that piece makes a little bit more context to me, but I'm -- I'm just trying to think about the mom or the dad that has a seven year old kid, they are going to feel much more comfortable with their seven year old kid walking to the greenspace or the playground that's down at he end of the street than is walking to, again, a beautiful complex that has great amenities, but maybe a mom or dad wouldn't feel comfortable letting their seven, eight, or nine year old go and do that and that's one of the things that makes Meridian so great is our open space. Places for families to congregate. And so I just -- I love your guys' work. Becky, you talked about the roundabout and we talked about sense of place. It's wonderful. I just feel on this particular element you guys missed the mark. McKay: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I think, you know, here are -- this entrance was set with -- with the Oaks. So, the utilities and the street were set there. So, what -- what we tried to create was -- we would have our own sense of place with this significant landscaping here at our entrance and, then, since there is no -- there are no driveways here, no driveways at all on Daphne, so this is all detached walk. So, it is very pedestrian friendly and that's what all these micro paths lead to and so one of the things that we always work with with the staff is in a project they want me to centrally locate that open space. Don't -- you know, if-- I see a lot of projects where they will put it like -- you know, it's over in the low point of the -- of the project, because it serves storm drainage purposes. Page 110 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 24 of 66 Cavener: Sure. McKay: Here that's not the case. We put it right smack in the middle. So, it is -- you know, the distance from the lots on the north and the lots on the south aren't that -- that significant and all of those micro paths from each -- the north quadrant and the south quadrant all lead to it and, then, the MEW -- I don't think the Commission really understood the MEW. I mean that creates open space, play areas where they can throw the Frisbee, chase the dog, all kinds of things. So, it's not like this is the only game in town and we have two pool facilities in Oaks North and South. We have got playgrounds that are spread throughout. We have multi use path -- ten foot pathways that go north, south, east, west. So, this is one of the most walkable, bike friendly neighborhoods in Meridian and this is a component of that and so I -- I would not -- as a planner I would not have stuck it down in the townhomes, because, then, the staff would have said, well, we want it centrally located so everybody can benefit from it. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Becky, I agree with staff. I go crazy when -- and you see this, because you are going to be at the public hearings where somebody else brings in -- and you're right, they put in the drainage pond and that's suddenly an amenity. I sniffed that out. That doesn't go very far. But to me if it is not a -- in place of, but in addition to and, honestly, I think you touched on the MEW as an ideal location. A MEW is great for, again, persons that is going to take their dog out to use the restroom. A MEW is not great for a nine or ten year old kid, including, you know, a recreation amenity -- again, one that you have gotten your plaza, moved over there -- to me -- I guess that's kind of what I -- when I knew that this type of a project was coming and the reputation they have, those are the type of things that I was expecting, because I think you guys strive to level up. So, to me it was not a case of one or the other, it's in addition to. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, would it be more palatable to you for us to put some type of a play structure in the MEW? Jason? Jarvis: Mayor, Councilman Cavener, thank you. What -- what we -- what we find and what I just kind of wanted to bring again on the central open space -- and this is kind of what we programmed, you know, in other markets just from our experience and what we have seen and what resident feedback we have got back. So, we do spend a lot of time with those MEWs. What we find is that, you know, the seven year or nine year old kid you are not going to go out and throw the ball right there, because it's really not the spot. But what they do do is they get on their bikes or their skateboards or their scooters and they go with mom and dad and they take a walk and they go up to the park and that's why we focus a lot more of that grassy area where little brother can go play on the -- on the playground and big brother and dad can throw the football or throw the baseball or kick the soccer ball around and, again, that's the -- that's the thought process behind it and why we put the focus there and what we find is we do get a lot of, you know, mom with Page 111 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 25 of 66 her stroller with those younger kids out walking the community and, then, you know, that's kind of the destination where they get out to play and then -- and, then, head back. So, again, just trying to explain our reasoning behind it and appreciate all your comments. They are very valid, but -- but just wanted to kind of let you know where our thoughts were on it. Cavener: Thank you. Appreciate it. Strader: Mr. Mayor? McKay: Councilman Cavener, we -- we worked this site plan. We had -- I bet we had 20 variations trying to achieve the -- what their vision was going to be, what would comply with Meridian's UDC, what would comply with ACHD requirements and I think we are there. I mean if -- if -- if you are thinking that you want some -- you know, some little feature within -- or gathering place in the MEW, you know, then, I think -- I think Jason and his group are very willing to do that. Sorry. Simison: Council Woman Strader, were you looking to speak? Strader: Yeah. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah. I share some of the same concern. Like I'm looking -- and I guess for a single family resident in sort of the northern quadrant or part of the property there is micro path at least, if they are the farthest away in that last row, they are near Gem Innovation School and, then, there is a micro path leading them there and I guess what I'm struggling with is I don't see that kind of access to the green space from the folks that are -- I guess at the southern area along McMillan. Like I see the two micro paths leading from north in the townhomes toward the MEW, but I don't see a similar set of micro paths leading toward the MEW. So, I'm imagining someone on that sort of southern most row of townhomes has to walk all the way around to get to the green space. I think that -- that will be my -- part of my perception, is that maybe -- McKay: Mr. Mayor -- Strader: There is something that needs to be done -- excuse me. Sorry. Just give me one second and I will get out my second part of my question, which is -- I absolutely hate these shared common drives. I know what our code says. I hope we change it soon. I really -- it looks to me like we are really cramming them on there where we have four and I just want to get that out there. I like what you are doing. I think it's beautiful. But I think we need more paths to get to the green space for the townhomes and I think there are way too many townhomes sharing these common drives in the corners. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, so it's kind of hard to see at this -- at this particular scale. So, you can see that there is a micro path here. We have another micro path here. Oh, crud. And, then, there is a micro path -- there -- this is the alleyway, then, we have another micro path that comes here, here, and, then, we have a pathway that comes here and another one here. So, there is a pathway that goes all the way through these blocks that leads up to the central amenity and, then, on the common drive issues, Page 112 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 26 of 66 you know, the -- the UDC allows us to have up to six. I think six is too many. I don't think there should be any more than four. In some instances it makes sense. Like, you know, in these corners we struggled here. Obviously, trying to make this work. It's hard when you have a 90 to put townhomes on a 90 degree curve here. So, it's kind of out of necessity that we have the common drives. But, obviously, you can see that it is the exception in this project and not--similar to some of the other projects where you required redesign, because they had a whole bunch of common drives throughout their entire project. We just have -- we have three units up here in this northwest corner. We have about three and a half, because this lot -- this townhome here is technically on the public street and, then, the only area we have four is right here. I guess my recommendation, if the Council, you know, has heartburn with the common drives, then, we should change the UDC to -- to not allow it, but -- but we have worked with Fire, we have worked with Public Works, we have worked with Planning to integrate it into this project and, like I said, we -- we only have three. Did I answer your question? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think you tried -- I think you -- you gave it a good -- a good go. I guess I'm just not seeing where those micro paths are. How wide are they? How are they in comparison to the other ones that are clearly marked on the map and, then, I guess the second part of my -- I guess just thought processes is to your point, I think we are in the process of looking at our UDC. We should absolutely do that. But, you know, it's not just about the UDC, we are really looking for -- I think trying to level up and I think we are really holding all of our applicants to a higher standard these days, whether it's open space, et cetera. I think you are really--you are hitting the high marks for the most part. I'm not liking those four especially. But, yeah, if you could just show us the -- the pathway you are talking about and how it compares that would be super. McKay: Yeah. Right -- it's hard to see -- it's a five foot wide pathway here. There is five foot of landscaping on each side and, there is another five foot pathway here with five feet of landscaping on each side and, then, it links to these pathways that are here and -- I'm not sure if those are 15 or those are 20. Those may be 20. So, they show up a little bit -- and, then, we have -- we have some 15s and, then, we have some pathways that are 30. This pathway here is 30 feet wide, with a five foot -- it's a 30 foot wide lot with a five foot path. This one's 15 with a five foot path. And, then, this one up here opens up. It's 30 feet. So, we have these -- these common lots allowing for that pedestrian interconnectivity through -- from north to south and, then, from east to west. And, then, we have a pathway that also comes down and links into the detached walk along McMillan and the ten foot multi-use pathway that goes along McDermott. If someone follows the ten foot multi-use pathway over to the east, then, they will hook into the multi-use pathway -- there it is. So, we -- in The Oaks project -- Oaks North we have a ten foot pathway that goes all the way up and all the way here which, then, was connected with the adjoining project and lines up with the collector over here and the elementary school is located over at Bainbridge and Volterra and I designed the Volterra Subdivision also. Then the multi- Page 113 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page— of 66 use pathway goes all the way to the south, hooks into the ten foot multi-use pathway along Five Mile Creek that we installed. So, this -- this is definitely one of your most walkable neighborhoods and we kept that in mind in our site planning for this corner, that we would accommodate that and also knowing that that is a charter school, so by incorporating our north path -- our north pathway -- oops. It goes up to the school and -- and -- and I agree with -- with Councilman Strader, setting the bar high -- with The Oaks project we set the bar high and I think what we have proposed here, is far -- is far better than what was initially within our development application of the apartments and the mini storage. This provides a better component that -- that is giving us diversity in a very large subdivision that had 365 acres. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Just --just another quick comment. I don't know if it's any -- something that I would approve or disapprove of in -- with regard to this -- this application, but one of the things that I see in these -- these private drives is when people park on both sides of the road it really creates an issue and I have seen it personally when I have -- I have driven through similar communities and have received many complaints and a-mails in regard to this over the years and so what are the assurances that we are not going to have parking problems, especially in these smaller units in this -- in this community? McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, the common drives have to be striped and signed as no parking. Also BB Living sets the rules for the driveways. We are providing a 20 by 20 driveway -- 20 by 20 garage. As you can see how these fan out, there is also parking with -- this is your parallel parking standard. It's nine by 25 -- or 23. Excuse me. Nine -- we have calculated nine by 23. So, there is parking here for guests. There is also intermittent parking on the street. We also did a cross-section so that if -- if they have guests most of the residents -- they indicated to me at BB Living they have two cars and in most of their jurisdictions they average 2.5 to 2.8 parking spaces per unit and here in this townhome area we have 4.65 parking spaces per unit. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Becky, I'm loving the stats tonight. You are throwing stats like crazy. I love it. I love how you call pop pop, not soda, by the way. I heard that earlier. I don't know -- you are from Idaho like me, I guess. McKay: I am. I'm a native. Bernt: So, my -- we are not talking about like an urban area here. We are talking about suburbia -- McKay: Sure. Page 114 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 28 of 66 Bernt: -- where the garages are going to be stuffed full of stuff. I mean it's just reality. And so that's my -- that's my concern is that, you know -- McKay: I would like Jason to address that, because he and I had this conversation. Bernt: It's a different story when we are more urban -- you know, we have more density, you know, we are downtown, we want to go up, less parking, because we want people to walk. We want to get people on their bikes, but this is not one of those locations and so I have a concern about where you are going to stuff all of these cars, because it's -- it's -- and it wouldn't be such a big deal, but this is dense. Jarvis: Yeah. Very good. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, appreciate the comment. Yes. So, the parking -- one of the nuances with -- with being a rental community is -- is we don't build it and go away. We have to build it and manage it. So, we look into that quite extensively and as Becky had kind of stated, typically on these projects we are about 2.5 to 2.8 parking spaces per unit. So, a little bit -- so, two in the garage and, then, one guest spot -- a little bit less than that here. At that 4.6 we felt very very good about that amount of parking and one of the things that's specific -- Bernt: I don't mean to interrupt -- Jarvis: -- that's specific, because I want to answer your -- your garage question. So, in our lease agreements we -- we write in our lease agreements that the -- the tenant will agree that they have to park cars in their garage. It is not to be used for storage and we have enforcement contingencies in our leasing agreement to cover that, as well as -- as Becky had stated earlier, we have full-time leasing staff that's on site at all times that help enforce that, because it does become, you know, an issue as you have seen in these other communities. So, that's one of the ways that we handle it, because we want to make sure it's good for our residents as well and, then, she had touched base on the fire -- the no parking on the fire lane on those alleys to make sure that we are not in there. And just like another HOA, we monitor that as well with our on-site staff. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, a follow up? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Would you be willing to put in the DA that -- that you will be the -- the -- would you --the property manager as the owner of-- of the properties in -- because that--that brings assurance to me, because you have someone on site. You guys -- you guys are checking it out and I don't mean to be picking on you, I just know Meridian. I mean I know you're not from here, but I'm from here, I have lived here for a long, long time and Becky has looked at these things and has designed them multiple times. It's going to be an issue. I -- but with you -- I guess the difference maybe is that in most cases the owners or developers of the property aren't the ones normally who are looking over and on site. That makes a huge difference. Page 115 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 29 of 66 Jarvis: Correct. And that -- you know, Mayor and Council Member Bernt, yes, that -- that's exactly what we were trying to portray, because if we have a site where you come in and there is cars everywhere and there is nowhere to park, it turns people off -- Bernt: Right. Jarvis: -- from wanting to sign a lease there. So, that is something that we are very conscious about and we wouldn't have a problem agreeing to that. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Bernt: That's easy. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you Mr. Mayor. To kind of dovetail on that, Becky, I will put you on the spot -- or maybe Alan can look it up. Is Trident Way going to be listed as no parking or will there be on-street parking allowed on Trident Way? McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, Trident Way is a collector roadway. So, it is signed no parking. Simison: Council, any further questions? McKay: Mr. Mayor, Deb Nelson would like to -- Simison: Well, let's -- let's wait -- is she representing part of the team? Okay. So, not testifying on behalf of somebody else. Nelson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Not to take away from any of the great points that you heard from Becky and Jason -- excuse me. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street in Boise. I just wanted to add one additional comment for your consideration when -- because there has been several questions about the Commission's additional recommendations involving open space and parking and the common drives and so as you, you know, digest all of the factual points and benefits that Becky and Jason have described about -- about the site design the way that they have proposed it and the way staff supported it and nobody opposed it, I also want you just to keep in mind the legal context that the application before you is not a rezone and so, Council Member Strader, I appreciate your comment that you guys are always trying to improve and really everything you have said is additive; right? You're looking to -- to -- to add preference of design features to --to be additive. But in this context where we are not seeking a rezone, the standards that you apply are different and so this is already zoned for R-15 and if you look at the criteria in your code for a subdivision, you know, it's important to note exactly what you state in there for compliance with the code, that you need to confirm that the plat is consistent with the UDC and as a point of comparison, if you have got something -- for example, a conditional use permit, your -- your standards change and it says that Page 116 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 30 of 66 you can require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this title and so there is --there is just a point of differentiation here where we are not seeking anything additional there. Now, we are --we are asking you to modify the development agreement in a specific way and that is to reduce the density, so that we can get under that eight units per acre. If we were asking -- you know, oftentimes applicants are coming in and asking for a more intense development than is allowed in a development agreement. You are asking to increase density. Here they are seeking to decrease density and decrease intensity and so conditions of approval that are really targeted at further reduction of that intensity don't relate to the type of request we have got before you for the development agreement and so I -- again, this is just additional context for you to consider. I know Council Member Borton isn't here tonight, but he often will reflect when we have got an application before you where we are not seeking a rezone or a conditional use permit that the standards are different when you are looking at it this way. So, Becky and Jason have outlined the important site design constraints, you know, that we want you to take into account the substance as well, but wanted you to have that context. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I think we are well aware that -- of the situation. Deb, of the modification that you are asking for. I think we are well aware of what -- what's on here. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, wonderful. Any questions for me? Bernt: No. Nelson: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else who would like to provide testimony on this application here or online? If you are online, please, use the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the Zoom platform. We will just give this a second. Okay. Seeing no one who has raised their hand or come forward to provide any testimony, would the applicant like to make any final comments? McKay: Mr. Mayor, just -- Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario. I just want to make sure that the Council received my letter that I did provide to the city clerk where we did ask for the modifications as Deb Nelson indicated for item -- allowing us to have up to four units on -- on a common drive and, then, obviously, accepting the parking that we show within our project being at a total of 428 spaces on-street and off- street meets the UDC requirements -- exceeds the UDC requirements and that our open space and internal pathways are acceptable. Thank you. Page 117 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 31 of 66 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question for our clerk. Where is that letter located if-- I did not see it. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener -- Becky, was that December -- December 17th? McKay: Yes, sir. Johnson: That is in the record of the project folder, the cc applicant's response to staff report. Cavener: Oh, there it is. Thank you. I missed that. Thank you. McKay: And I will stand for any -- any subsequent questions. We think we have got a great project. We are excited. We want to move forward and we would like the support of the Council to -- to allow us to -- to get going. Thank you. Simison: Council, any further comments for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I guess just a comment. I get to share my view. I think we understand the legal framework we are in. I -- I also look at the history here. You know, this -- this property has been in discussions in the city since 2008 in multiple forms and I think our expectations change over time and part of that's how we evolve and I guess I'm a little surprised that something like the difference of three units on a common drive versus four units on a common drive would be the thing that either of us would hang our hat on at the end of the day, but I guess I'm just -- I'm a little surprised that I'm not hearing a little more flexibility, that if there were some small changes, like the ones that I think were recommended by Planning and Zoning, that--that that would be something that you guys couldn't work with. It just surprises me. You know, a lot of folks come before us and I rarely see -- not that it's not important, but I rarely see something of that magnitude that inflexible. Jarvis: Mayor, Council Member Strader, thank you. Hey, we -- we hear you. We have tried -- we thought we came in with a great project, meeting above all of your other requirements, which is kind of why we felt like -- and not -- and coming down in density. So, we felt like we were --we were going above and beyond where we could have started low, let you make comments and, then, come back with what we have proposed; right? So, I completely understand that. If -- if -- if it -- it's Christmas, we would all like to go home with an approval and I'm sure you guys would like to get out of here as well. If -- if Page 118 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 32 of 66 we kept the stipulation to the three on the motor court as a gift from us, we would extend that and be acceptable to that, because I know it's getting late and -- and, you know, we would all like to move on as well. So, if that -- if that would help Council as well, we would like to go ahead and throw that out there, because I -- we understand your point and we don't want to seem like we are -- we are being thick headed or unreasonable as well. Strader: Happy Holidays to you, too. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I think we will probably want to have some discussion without closing the public hearing and allow additional feedback if necessary. But one of the things that -- that surprised me when I came on Council and that concept of whole subdivisions being rentals and owned by a company, I was like what in the world and -- and we are all aware of people who have a few rentals and they can be problem issues in the neighborhood. So, I started researching these -- these types of facilities and whatnot. I was struck by the fact that because they are in it to -- there is a bottom line and there are investors and they look for a rate of return, that there is an expectation of certain things being done to maintain that value. So, that was the surprise to me that going, oh, maybe this isn't such a bad thing. You know, I prefer homeownership. I think that's the American way and in value. So, I'm not so -- so, anti to these types of things like I was the first time around and things like having the garages must be a place where you park. Councilman Bernt is correct, I mean those places fill up and -- and I even have room and still try to have to figure out, oh, I better clean this out. But -- so, having -- having people on site, having that part of the lease agreement -- yeah, there will be people who try to get around that, but at least there is something --something there. I would also agree with Council Woman Strader. I'm not a fan of those -- those alley load units, but I also realize the trade-off for that is on Daphne, then, you don't have that nice flow and ability to park and a nice look and sidewalks without driveways. But, yeah, from --from how it looks standpoint and you are driving down and we see all those vehicles down that thing, yeah, it's not very pretty. It's not pretty at all. But, you know, I recognize the trade-off on that. I appreciate the fact that they are willing to go to three. I think that's something we do need to tackle in our code on what we allow. Six just -- and I can understand if they make it wide enough they would have three on each side, but, wow, that's -- I think Councilman Cavener touched on that, the difficulty that -- that poses there. So, I do like the layout. The micro paths that are there. And thank you, Council Woman Strader, for pointing out that was hard to see. It looked like there was one. It is narrower, but it does allow that continuity to go through the units to the central plaza area. There is -- there is a lot of pros about this development and the detail that went into it. We have seen worse, but also at the same time whenever you are approving something that's really dense, it just -- it's -- it's dense and it just kind of gives you that feeling -- I -- I wish there was more space. I wish we could do this and that. But at the same time there is that factor of, okay, what's the price point, how does this allow people to get into a home, have a place that is nice and they enjoy in an area that's very nice and The Oaks is a nicely designed subdivision and it's a Page 119 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 33 of 66 very large one. So, yeah, that's just my -- my -- my stream of thought as this process unwound a little bit tonight and trying to figure out which way to go on this is there are just things that are good and not so great about it, but are they things that necessitate denial, but, then, where do you go from there in terms of how do you -- how do you fulfill the need of housing in our community that meets all needs. So, there are some tough things to hash out. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't know if it's possible for either Alan or our clerk to pull up the site layout that shows those pathways. As is -- as Becky was walking kind of through it -- again, I was struck by the --the wide nice pathways where the single family homes are and, again, those tightly packed pathways are where the density is and you almost would want to do the inverse on that. Again, you have got all these people that are packed in, but maybe want to give them more space -- to Council Member Hoaglun. They just -- it made me feel a little bit -- almost kind of like -- like an airline, like we have got coach and we have got first class and the first class, they get all the cool amenities and all the space and all those in coach get packed in. I think there is always a really high threshold for denial, but I'm not sold on what's before us and Council Member Hoaglun hit the nail on the head, we deny this, you know, you come back with a higher density, you know, we don't always know what the future is going to hold and so the other piece that I think is really important I think for -- for the applicant and the public to hear is I take the recommendations from our Planning Commission with high regard. I think our P&Z Commission is firing on all cylinders and I get a little frustrated when our Planning and Zoning Commission makes some recommendations -- and I'm not going to say they were ignored, but they felt a little bit like they were ignored and, again, the applicant maybe feels like they had a better mousetrap and that's why they didn't adhere to any of those recommendations. I think it's important to note because our P&Z Commission -- at least right now is doing a really really great job, that when they bring forth recommendations I definitely listen. I was disappointed to not see any of that embraced in what came before us. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: If I might share my ah-ha moment with Council -- Councilman Cavener on the pathways. I, too, was wondering why on the south side they couldn't have the same 15 foot -- you know, just -- they are trying to squeeze another unit in there. But my ah-ha moment was it struck me that if -- with the Gem State Academy on that north side, you are going to have more kids filling that up from the south -- from the south going north, you are going to increase the number of students walking in that direction if they aren't going to the elementary school to the east. So, that was my thinking was, oh, okay, that makes sense, because you are going to add kids as you are going to the -- to the north Page 120 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 34 of 66 and, therefore, you better have wider paths, because you are going to have a lot of kids going in that direction. If that helps. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: You know, I -- I think it is an improvement on -- on what this was previously approved to be in the sense that, you know, I don't think that multi-family and self storage is a better use of this property. But that being said, you know, things are evolving. I like in general the direction it's going. I -- personally I -- to get on board with it I really want a limitation to the three units on the common drive and I would like to see those pathways from the southern portion of the property with the townhomes where they are five feet wide, widened to at least, you know, what the ones in that top level are at. It doesn't have to be the 15 foot, but seven feet or ten feet -- something where a parent would feel comfortable watching their kid go down that pathway and I think -- I think we should support the Planning and Zoning Commission as well. I think that their recommendations didn't come out of nowhere. I think they were good recommendations and I -- and I want to support them there as well. You know, it's -- it's -- I understand what the letter of the UDC code says, but we are really heading to a higher standard here and I think these are small changes in the context of a massive development personally. So, I appreciated the overture on three per common drive. I think if we could widen these pathways slightly I can get on board. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I -- if Becky could answer that question -- I heard her -- heard Becky say that the farthest south pathways were ten feet wide, five feet on each side, but I would like her to clarify those -- the width of those pathways again. I didn't think they were five feet. I think that was the sidewalk. But I -- I may not have understood that correctly. Simison: Well, while she's getting her stuff, I recall it being five feet, with five feet on either side of the pathway to -- for a total span of 15 feet on the southern most portion. In that area. But she's there. I will let her speak. McKay: Mr. Mayor, so -- Johnson: That's on Alan's screen. That's why you are not able to move it. McKay: Oh, that's Alan screen. Okay. I thought it was me. Tiefenbach: Would you like me to unshare that, Council? Cavener: Only if Becky needs -- Page 121 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 35 of 66 McKay: Can I point? I guess I can't point if -- Tiefenbach: I have to -- I have to stop this screen if you want to do that. McKay: Yes. Tiefenbach: Yes? McKay: Yes. Johnson: I will have to go bring yours back up then. One moment. Cavener: Can she draw on it? McKay: I don't think so. Johnson: It's possible, but cumbersome. Simison: While we are waiting for this, Becky, just one -- one of my comments kind of goes back to something Councilman Cavener talked about earlier and I don't know the possibility or the practicality, but when I look at the plat I see the two small common areas both on the east and west side, one on the entrance, the one on the left-hand side, and I -- you know, I understand you have to deal -- you are dealing with it. Is there any way that those two could be combined into something in the middle of the lower portion to provide -- McKay: Yes. Mr. Mayor, that was going to be my recommendation, that -- that we consolidate, instead of -- instead of having the two independent pathways, that we consolidate the pathway and, then, have a -- and, then, have a wider area, because we -- we have -- we have two, four, six pathways that go through that block, lead into the MEW, lead up to Daphne to the north. So, we will -- we can shift over and, then, combine those into a wider, more pedestrian friendly pathway if the Commission is concerned. So, just to kind of give you -- am I going to lose the arrow. There we go. So, this -- this pathway is 30 feet in width. I mean not the pathway itself, the lot is 30 feet in width. The pathway itself is five. This pathway here is 15 feet in width with a five foot pathway. That's the minimum in your code. We have to have a minimum of five foot of landscaping on each side of a five foot pathway. I have another pathway that is kind of hard for you guys to see. It's right here. So, it lines up straight with these and, then, we go up to the school there. I have a pathway that comes out here. We have another common area where we can have a pathway here and a pathway here. So, the ones -- if we take these two pathways here, these two pathways, and we combine them into one and we take these and make a larger area -- because, see, I have landscaping on the end blocks that I can shift over, we did that just so we would have a nice curb appeal. So, I could shift some of that here and, then, consolidate that pathway if that is the Council's wishes and I think -- I think that would obviously help, because it's kind of hard -- yeah -- to see at this size. Page 122 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 36 of 66 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Alongside that, Becky -- I like the analogy about Christmas and all of that. have got maybe ghost of Council Members past in my ear. Council Member Milam. At that point maybe where those pathways are --where it meets the MEW, putting some sort of recreational kids activity -- again, whether it's a -- you had mentioned that that might be of interest earlier, maybe relocating one of the three down there. So, whether it's a play structure, a swing set, or some -- McKay: Activity. Cavener: -- activity for those that are using skateboards or rollerblades I think would make a lot of sense. McKay: Yes, sir. He is -- the applicant is agreeable. Simison: Council, further questions, comments, motions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Cavener -- or Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: So, what Councilman Cavener was just asking about and they have agreed to is -- is an activity structure of some sort. Was it at the intersection of the MEW and -- and one of the -- or somewhere along the MEW was what we are doing? And it sounds like to me Council is -- and the applicant has agreed to no more than three units on a common drive. Did I hear that correctly? That the pathways on the -- the two pathways on the most southern side of the development would be widened to 15 feet; is that correct? No? Because they are already five, five, and five -- Simison: Councilman Cavener -- Hoaglun: -- or was it 20? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun, they are already 15 feet. They are talking about combining them into one. So, there would only be one path. Hoaglun: That's right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The -- the other thing that we -- we have talked about the additional parking. I don't see what -- anything is going to happen with that. They -- we have -- we have approved some with a lot less. And, again, to the point of where they have in their lease agreement that the garages are to be used for parking the cars, not -- not storage helps. And the open space, I think with these changes that we have talked about helping that open space. Was there -- was there anything that -- that's missing if we move forward with this? Page 123 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 0, of 66 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, I think if I'm understanding correctly, the two small 15 foot in totality pathways would be combined in that southern most block of townhomes to be 30 feet. If I understood that correctly. Simison: Minimum. And there is also discussion about perhaps incorporating some of the end cap landscaping to maximize it even further if necessary, especially if you are going to put an amenity in there, but that is what seemed to be shared, yes. Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I just want to make sure I understand that pathway. What Becky -- I understood Becky to say was they could push those developments out a little bit, go off into the end cap landscaping and, then, widen those pathways and I thought that it would keep both of them, but you are saying it combined into one. Okay. Okay. Got it. All right. Anything else that we might have missed? Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would move that we close the public hearing on -- it just disappeared on me. Where are -- Cavener: Number four. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman -- Hoaglun: In number four. Yeah. I can't find it now. Cavener: I will back -- I will back up Councilman Hoaglun -- Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: -- if I may. Mr. Mayor, I move we closed the item on No. 4, public hearing for Oakwind Estate Subdivision, Item No. H-2020-0093. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I would second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The public hearing is closed. Page 124 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 38 of 66 MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks to the applicants. Appreciate the dialogue, the back and forth. You sharing some of your perspective as to some of the whys. It was a good education at least for me tonight. I appreciate that. Appreciate you working with us to build a better project, one that I think is going to sit really well with your already existing neighborhood. So, with that, Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Item 4 -- or No. 4, excuse me, Item H- 2020-0093, include all staff and applicant testimony, with provisions related to the reduction of no more than three units on a common drive, a combining of the two southerly pathways into one larger pathway and to establish a recreation amenity at the intersection of the MEW and the pathway. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Do we need to specify that the combined pathway will be at least a certain width or -- if it looked to planning staff on whether we should specify that as 30 feet or some minimum or if it -- or if that matters. Tiefenbach: Council Person Strader, Members of the Council, I think it would be very helpful for staff, especially when we are putting together our findings, to how the actual -- a width. It's very difficult for us otherwise to be kind of ambiguous about this. So, it would be much appreciated, ma'am. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Cavener: My apologies. My apologies. I figured it had been captured in the -- in the testimony. But with that case I would like to amend my motion to include that southern combined pathway be a minimum of 30 feet in width. The lot of the pathway be a minimum of 30 feet wide. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second agrees. Simison: Okay. I have a motion with the second agreeing. Is there any further discussion on the motion as amended by the maker and the seconder? If not, clerk will call the roll. Page 125 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 39 of 66 Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Simison: And we are going to take a ten minute recess. We will reconvene at 8:15. (Recess: 8:06 p.m. to 8:17 p.m.) 5. Public Hearing for 2810 E. Franklin Rd. (H-2020-0097) by KM Engineering, Located at 2810 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 1.01 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. Simison: Council, we will go ahead and come out of recess and we will move on to the next item this evening, which is a public hearing for H-2020-0097. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. I will turn it over to Sonya. Allen: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning. This site consists of 1.01 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 2810 East Franklin Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is commercial. The applicant is proposing to annex 1.01 acres of land in the C-G zoning district, consistent with the associated future land use map designation of commercial. A conceptual development plan is proposed that depicts the existing residential home on the property that the applicant proposes to remodel and expand for a flex space use. The concept plan depicts a 2,239 square foot of office on the first floor and 1 ,550 square feet of office and support uses in the basement of the existing structure and a new 2,600 square foot structure for a warehouse. The new structure is proposed to the north behind the existing structure and will include a daylight basement. The user will be an automotive tool and equipment supplier, classified as a flex space use. The business proposes to sell products online to automotive businesses and at home mechanics and will not end up with any retail sales on the site. Flex space is a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-18. The proposed use and site design complies with these standards. The topography of the site slopes down significantly from Franklin Road to the north property boundary and has approximately a 20 foot grade difference as shown on the grading plan. A retaining wall is proposed at the north and west boundaries of the area proposed to be improved with this project. A 35 foot wide street buffer is required with development along Franklin Road, an entryway corridor, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The existing driveway access via Franklin Road is proposed to remain for access to the site and has been approved by ACHD. Because it closely aligns with the driveway on the south side of Franklin Road, relocation of the driveway is not recommended. The UDC requires cross-access, ingress-egress easements to be granted to adjoining properties where access to a local street is not available, unless Page 126 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 40 of 66 otherwise waived by City Council. In accord with this standard, staff recommends cross- access easements are provided and driveways constructed to the properties to the east and west. A 20 foot wide cross-access easement is depicted on the concept plan to the east and west, but the applicant requests Council approval of a waiver to this requirement to not provide cross-access easements due to the topography of the site and site constraints related to the space available for development. At a minimum staff recommends Council require cross-access to the west. However, it should be noted that staff did contact Ada county to see if a cross-access easement was provided to the subject property with redevelopment of the adjacent property to the west back in 2002. But one was not. There still may be an opportunity in the future, though, to get a cross-access easement. A minimum of 12 vehicle spaces, based on 6,389 square feet, and one bicycle space is required. A total of 13 spaces are depicted on the concept plan, including an ADA accessible space, which is one more than required. However, if cross-access driveways are provided to adjacent properties as required, parking will be reduced by up to three spaces, which will result in parking below the required minimum standard. If a waiver is not approved by Council -- Simison: Sonya, we lost you. Allen: -- five foot wide perimeter landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Sonya. Allen: Landscape per the standards -- Simison: Sonya. Allen: Yes. Simison: We lost you for probably about 30 seconds. Allen: Fabulous. Do you know where I left off? Where you left off hearing me? Mr. Mayor, can you hear me? Simison: Yeah, we did. We heard 12 vehicle spaces -- 12, 13 space are depicted on the conceptual -- Cavener: I think she was right at the Snider Lateral piece. I think either the parking lot landscaping piece is probably where she dropped off. Allen- So, I was saying that if cross-access driveways are provided that this property required, parking will be reduced by up to three spaces, which will result in parking below Page 127 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 41 of 66 the required minimum standards. If a waiver is not approved by Council to the requirement for cross-access, the app -- Simison: We just lost you again. Allen: -- or other paved vehicular -- Simison: Sonya, we lost you again. It was a hard drop. Allen: Oh, sorry. Cavener: I think it was right after she said not approved by Council. Simison: Yeah. Right after not approved by Council, then, you dropped. Allen: Would you prefer I continuing and try again or would you like me to try calling in on my cell? Simison: Try -- keep -- keep going, because other times -- Allen: Okay. Simison: -- you are sounding great, it just was a hard drop. It doesn't make any sense. Allen: I'm so sorry. All right. If-- if a waiver is not approved by Council to the requirement for cross-access, the applicant should consider constructing a smaller addition to reduce the parking requirement. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with UDC standards, which requires a minimum five foot wide perimeter landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other behavior paved vehicular use areas, landscaped for standards in the UDC. A retaining wall and fence is proposed along the west boundary adjacent to the parallel parking spaces where the buffer is required, which doesn't leave adequate area for landscaping. If the site cannot be reconfigured to comply with the standard, alternative compliance may be requested with a certificate of zoning compliance application. The Snider Lateral exists in a 40 foot wide easement on the northern portion of the property that is not proposed to be improved. All irrigation laterals are required to be piped unless improved as a water amenity or linear open space. City Council may waive this requirement if it finds public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The applicant proposes to fence off the area where the lateral is located to preserve public safety and request a Council waiver to this requirement to allow the lateral to remain open. Because a large portion of the site on the north end is not proposed to be improved, staff recommends it regularly maintained in this area, so as not to create a nuisance and -- and in a manner that prevents wildfire in accord with Meridian City Code 4-2. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the remodel of the existing structure and proposed addition as shown. The materials for the front facade and sides of the existing building consists of stucco, with prefinished metal siding and stone veneer accents. The materials for the proposed warehouse Page 128 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page—of 66 addition consist of a mix of horizontal and vertical metal siding. All improvements to the existing structure and new construction are required to comply with the design standards listed in the architectural standards manual. The Commission recommended approval of the subject annexation. Summary of the Commission hearing. Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. Written testimony was, again, received by the applicant Stephanie Leonard and key issues of discussion by the Commission -- they were in favor of the proposed improvements to the existing structure and use and the adequacy of the proposed parking in relation to the square footage of office use proposed was a concern. Commission did not make any changes to the staff recommendation and written testimony since the Commission hearing was received from Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering, the applicant's representative and, again, the applicant requests Council waivers to the UDC requirements for cross-access and ingress-egress easements to be granted to the adjacent properties to the east and west and for the Snider Lateral on the northern portion of the site to remain open and not be piped. If Council approves these requests, conditions A-1-B and A-1-C in Section 9 should be modified accordingly. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions? Cavener: Sounds great. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a quick question. The grading kind of threw me and I know we have some flood areas here. Is this in a flood area? A floodplain? Allen: I don't believe it is, Council Woman Strader. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And I guess just -- it looks like the grading and everything is fine. You don't consider that there is any kind of an issue with the way that it's currently outlined? Allen: The City of Meridian does not require a grading permit and planning does not review that, so that should be handled by their engineer to ensure there is no grade -- or there is no drainage issues. Strader: Buyer beware. Thanks, Sonya. Page 129 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 43 of 66 Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. We will turn this over to the applicant's representative. State your name and address for the record and be recognized for 15 minutes. Leonard: Okay. Hopefully you can hear me now. I couldn't find which screen I was on there. Okay. Well, Sonya did a fantastic job covering the project, so I won't be too lengthy with our presentation. We are requesting -- hopefully you can see -- sorry. Okay. So, we are requesting to annex this property into the City of Meridian. It's about an acre of land. It's located west of Eagle Road and north of Franklin Road. We are adjacent to several properties that have already been annexed and zoned into the City of Meridian. As you can see, we have got a fair amount of light industrial to the north and, then, some general service commercial to the east and community business district to the south. There are some Ada county parcels that surround us, but the ones that are directly adjacent to the west are used for industrial uses and commercial uses and so our request is to annex into the city with the zoning district of C-G is consistent with the existing development and what the Comprehensive Plan calls for in the area, which is commercial. This is our conceptual site plan. We did make revisions before the Planning and Zoning Commission the last go around to move a parking space out of the 35 foot landscape buffer that's shown on the south part of the site adjacent to Franklin Road. Otherwise, we are in compliance with the number of parking spaces that are required. As Sonya mentioned, we are proposing to expand upon an existing structure, so we will be renovating that, obviously, with new building materials and, then, adding a building addition to the south part of the site for 2,600 square feet of additional warehouse space. Our applicant -- or our client is a -- an automotive and online tool equipment supplier and they are proposing to use the site as a flex space to accommodate warehouse and office space for their building -- or for their business. So, that is primarily -- the warehouse space will be for the tools and other items that they sell online and, then, the existing structure that's going to be renovated is for employees and when they have the occasional person stop by that needs to do business with them, so -- building elevations, as Sonya mentioned, will include a variety of materials. We are including stone veneer and stucco. We have metal included as well. The east elevation will be one of the site elevations and, then, the elevation on this -- on the bottom part is actually the north elevation, so they will be facing away from Franklin Road. The west elevation is another site elevation and for Council Woman Strader that kind of depicts the grading a little bit, which there is a fair amount of on the site. Of course, our engineers will be making sure that drainage is adequately accommodated and that the building is, obviously, able to be on the site in a structural sound way. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Leonard: The bottom elevation -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Sorry, Stephanie. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 130 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page—of 66 Hoaglun: The slides aren't -- the slides aren't moving for -- obviously you are referencing some slides that I'm not seeing. I have your first slide up, but it's not -- there we go. Leonard: Oh, really? Okay. Let me try to -- I was having some difficulty getting it to share it first. Let me try to see if I can -- Simison: And, Stephanie, after you are done if you could state your -- state your name and address for the record at the conclusion of your comments. Leonard: Of course. I was so excited. Sorry. Johnson: And, Mr. Mayor -- Stephanie, I think you are -- when you are sharing screen you are sharing the actual PowerPoint edit, not this -- not the presentation mode. Leonard: I just made that change. Thank you, Chris. Johnson: You're welcome. Leonard: Hopefully this will work. Are you seeing the changing of the slides? Hoaglun: No, not -- Leonard: Okay. Hold on just a second. Not working? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Stephanie, I --yes. It's different. We are not seeing it in presentation mode. We see the slide -- your title slide and, then, we actually see the next slide smaller that's coming up. Leonard: Okay. Johnson: Mr. Mayor. Stephanie -- Leonard: Sorry. I have three screens open, so I think it's having a hard time picking which one. Johnson: I'm bringing it up for you here, Stephanie. If you just tell me where to go I will drive. Leonard: Thank you, Chris. Okay. So, Stephanie Leonard with KM Engineering. I'm representing the applicant and our client on this project. As I mentioned, we are consistent with other uses and zoning districts that are adjacent to us. Go ahead and go to the next slide, Chris. This is our conceptual site plan. Kind of went through this. But as you can see we are accommodating an existing building and the site is fairly constrained as far as the grading that I mentioned and, then, also just kind of working around an existing building with the parking requirements, drive aisle requirements and trash enclosure requirements that are -- that reviewing agencies require for the site. So, Page 131 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 45 of 66 kind of a little bit of a funky drive aisle and, then, making everything fit was a little bit of a challenge. Next slide, please. These are our building elevations. This -- as you can see we kind of have a mix of colors. Or, actually, I'm sorry, Sonya showed a mix of colors that we recently revised. This -- this version has kind of a mix of materials that we are proposing. We have got stone veneer, stucco, and metal siding, both horizontal and vertical, is proposed. We are proposing one loading bay on the back of the property. So, that will be the north elevation facing away from Franklin Road. If you can go to the next one, Chris. The bottom -- the bottom elevation shown here is what folks from Franklin Road will see. So, that will be a decorative and -- and a vast improvement on the existing home that's actually on the site. So, that is what we are proposing as far as building elevations and, of course, if this project is approved we will be required to go through the certificate of zoning compliance and design review, as Sonya mentioned. The flex use is a principal permitted use in this zone. So, that will be our next step. So, next slide, please. As Sonya mentioned, we are requesting a couple of waivers to requirements just due to the site constraints that are on the site and just kind of the natural -- the elements that are present here. So, the -- the first waive we are requesting is to omit staff condition to provide easements and to construct cross-access driveways to the east and west. As you -- as we have talked about briefly, the site does have a fair amount of slope. So, that would require grading and retention, which we are already providing a grading and retention wall to the north. You can see there is kind of a double hatched line at the top. That's our retention wall and if I remember correctly it's like an eight foot wall and, then, we are providing a little bit of that wall, too, on the west side. So, that's kind of right along with a vegetative boundary is to the property of the west. Construction of that driveway to the west would include like a -- I think it's like a five foot drop off to the property to the west, which would, essentially, be a driveway kind of to nowhere, since that property doesn't currently have an easily accessible way to get over there and doesn't have a requirement to have any kind of cross-access. The property to the east has a similar situation and challenge. That property actually is annexed and zoned into the city as well and I don't -- I wasn't able to find any requirement that they had to provide cross-access there, so that would eliminate several parking spaces, as Sonya mentioned, and would also likely be a driveway that may not ever be connected in the future. So, you know, with that we respectfully request that that requirement is waived for this site in particular, just due to the site constraints and -- and kind of the situation we are working with around -- working on the existing building. Next slide, please, Chris. So, the next waiver that we would like to request is to leave the Snider Lateral open. Typically the UDC requires that you cover or pipe any existing laterals. In this case we feel that it's got a fair amount of vegetation around it and we would like to leave it as an amenity for the site and leave it in its natural state, so that we can just -- to keep it the way it is, essentially. So, the retaining wall and fence that Sonya mentioned will provide a barrier to that lateral, so it will keep the public safe and will make it so that it's inaccessible from our site anyway. So, as Sonya mentioned it is located within a 40 foot easement, so that would also keep it free from any kind of built structure or -- or fence or anything like that. So, I guess next slide, please, Chris. With that we feel that this proposed use is very consistent with the area. I think that the remodeled house and addition to the building will be an improvement and will really elevate the properties in the area and provide another commercial opportunity to this growing part of Meridian. It's really close to major transportation Page 132 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 46 of 66 corridors and will be easily accessible and the C-G zoning district I think would be in the best interest of the city for this property and specifically this project. So, we are in agreement with the staff report, with the exception of the conditions that I mentioned for the waivers that we are requesting and with that I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Stephanie. Council, any questions? Seeing no questions. This is a public hearing. We have nobody in the room. Is there anybody who signed up to testify online, Mr. Clerk? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there was nobody signed up. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody that would like to testify on this item that's waiting, if you can, please, indicate so by using the raise your hand feature and we will bring you in. I don't think that's going to be the case. I see no one raising their hand or coming forward. Stephanie, would you like to make any final comments? Leonard: No. I thank you for hearing me tonight and for dealing with the technical difficulties of the presentation. Yeah, I guess I will just stand with what I said before. think this will be a great project for the City of Meridian and we are excited for our applicant to grow his business here. So, thank you. Simison: Thank you. So, my question for Mr. Nary that -- well, I guess it's for Mr. Nary. don't know. But when you -- when you have a project come forward that essentially says we are not going to have any customers, but this building could be sold to somebody else as soon as it's built, how -- since we have no business licensing, is there any process by which that this would ever be reviewed or determined that a business that now wants customers or didn't want customers would have access? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that's a great question. I mean certainly the problem is is you could put in a provision in the development agreement that any business located in the site would have to be of similar nature, without on-site customers and things like that, and if they wanted to have that they would have to come back, that would be one check. The problem would be if the access may not be available then. There may not be a way to make cross-access at that point in time, because of changed circumstances, buildings, whatever gets built on site or on the adjacent property, because there is no cross-access. So, it is -- it is a little problematic that it's -- as you stated, because not only could it get built and sold, it could get sold without being built and so, again, you would have, essentially, a landlocked parcel without cross-access. It is problematic. I would agree. Simison: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 133 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 47 of 66 Strader: Maybe a follow up for Mr. Nary. Is it possible to require access and not exercise it? Like is it possible to reserve an access and then -- and, then, just not require that it be implemented? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Strader, great question as well. We have on occasion -- I don't know of the adjoining parcel if it already has a requirement for cross-access currently. What happens in a majority of these -- we will require the property, such as this one, preserve the cross-access easement area, but not construct it until the other side gets built and so I don't know -- and I didn't hear from Sonya if it's already required on the adjacent property, since that's already annexed into the city, because their -- their trigger is this cross-access getting built. Otherwise, they have reserved the space as well. But that would be a question to Sonya. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, the property to the west of this is actually in Ada county and they did not require a cross-access easement to this property with development back in 2002. The only -- the only issue I would note with -- if you require an easement, but don't require it to be constructed is it's fairly impossible or very difficult in the future to get it constructed if we don't require it to be constructed now with development. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, maybe a quick follow up for Sonya there. Would it be possible to require it if the -- if the property in Ada county tried to be annexed into the city at that time as a part of that application, the property to the west? Could we require them to do it at that time? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, absolutely. That -- that is when we could obtain that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, question for Sonya. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Sonya, under that scenario we require the applicant to reserve easements and with -- with the thought that to the west someday that might be coming into our -- our area and we can require that. But the parking requirements, if there is parking there, which recall there is some spaces there and that goes away and, then, they fall under the limit and -- but they are already stuck. Everything's built. How do we handle that? Any ideas there? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yeah, it's -- it's just a -- it's a difficult situation. If it's -- it's difficult to come back to this property owner and ask them to pay money to, you know, construct and pave a driveway to the adjacent property and it would make their parking nonconforming. Page 134 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 48 of 66 Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, just -- Simison: Councilman -- Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: It's -- it's -- I'm pleased to see that someone is able to use this difficult property, a sloping lot, that, you know, it's not level and to be able to fully use it. So, it's kind of like, hey, that's a great idea to -- to go down and do what they are doing. So, it's kind of -- I'm kind of on the fence about that, which is another issue if you don't pipe, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe a question for the applicant. Would it be preferable to have to build it now to nowhere or would it be preferable from your perspective to have that be an easement that exists and, then, the development of the future property might trigger it at that time? Leonard: Thank you, Mayor -- Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader. I think in my opinion -- I can't speak for our client fully. I don't know that -- I think that a future building of it would be preferred. Obviously, we would be more than happy to provide the cross-access easement at this point, knowing that in the future that it could be developed. I think it just -- it would make more sense if we had kind of a collaborative effort between the property owner to the west to make sure that it was a driveway that was going to be utilized and improved at a time in which it would be used. Does that make sense? Rather than having a driveway that might age for who knows how long. Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: My concern is -- is by leaving the easement there without construction, it would be very difficult to come back and require that construction process to happen, if impossible, only because we don't have the means to look over that or to be a part of that conversation, unless the property owner to the west, you know, comes to us requesting, I guess, would be the only way that we would ever do that and so in these scenarios it's -- it's almost best to do what's needed right now, knowing that in the future it's likely that that property to the west will be annexed and at that time it will be an easy opportunity for -- and we could use that--that annexation as an opportunity to make them use that cross- connection at that time as well. So, those properties are connected. So, that would -- that would be my opinion on that issue. As my mask keeps falling down. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 135 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 49 of 66 Strader: Sorry, Treg. At least on the -- over Zoom I lost you a little bit. I think -- I think I followed what you were saying. So, if we -- so, I guess if -- if we preserve the cross- access easements -- just the easements and don't require the construction, I get it, it's not going to happen, but, then, that would allow the property to the west, if they come annex into the city, at least that easement would be there, so they would be able to construct something. Am I tracking? Is that what you were saying, too, or was it not -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: To a -- to a certain degree, yes. There is just one spot that -- that you -- that we -- that I may have made not clear enough, but -- so, yes, that could happen. But, then, the -- this -- this property owner legally wouldn't have -- he -- that -- the property wouldn't have to make that connection unless they were good neighbors and I'm assuming that they are good neighbors and are great people, but they certainly wouldn't be forced to. It would be a gesture on their part to make it happen. I could be wrong on that. Maybe Mr. Nary could clarify, but -- Nary: So -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Strader, so here is what you could consider doing. If you are not going to require them to construct the access today, is we haven't done this before, so this is a completely new idea, but one of the problems with these types of easements that don't get constructed is that nobody remembers they are there and so they put parking spaces there and they park other things there, they put a building there, they do other stuff. So, one thing we have never put into a development agreement, but you could require -- if you are not going to require construction -- is that they have to put up a Jersey barrier there where that is. Just like ACHD does when they put in easements for roadways they put in a Jersey barrier that says this road will be constructed in the future. So, it's notice to the world that something's going to go here at some point in time. You could require that without construction. Mr. Bernt is correct that in the future when the future property owner wants cross-access you are going to require that property to construct it at that time. To enforce your development agreement, you are going to -- if they aren't willingly do it or they can't afford it or don't want to or whatever the reason is in the future, you do have a contract -- I mean you can sue them for compliance with your development agreement. It is a contract with the property owner that must be complied with. So, there is a mechanism to do it. It's not easy or simple. You know, again, one of the problems with future development agreement conditions that aren't tied to a permit or tied to building permits or some other function that the city is involved with, is someone has to come and tell us that it's not there and that it's supposed to be there. So, there is some clunkiness to it and -- and, again, I don't know if the Jersey barrier idea is -- is worthwhile, but it is a way to at least mark that something's there, because that's exactly what happens is people have no idea that it's there, they didn't Page 136 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 50 of 66 read their CC&Rs, they didn't read the title report, they don't realize it's there and, then, they don't want to do it and they don't realize they have to do it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: If Chris could put that sitemap back up, I have some questions for the applicant. In my notes I have got down that to the west there would be a five foot retaining wall, because due to elevation change. I want to know if that's correct and I also want to see exactly where that easement is going and what parking spaces are there. I'm intrigued by Mr. Nary's idea, but I just need to look more into the details. And, Stephanie, if you could -- once that is up kind of talk us through that -- what -- what exists there to the west and if that -- it looks like it's all paved and that sort of thing. Can you let me know? Leonard: Sure. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, we created -- I may try to share my screen again. But we created a grading exhibit to kind of show exactly how that grade changes, but roughly -- sorry. See, if I can give it a shot. It was -- it was also the -- the fifth slide of our PowerPoint, too, if -- my screen doesn't end up showing, but -- so, there is a contour that's like -- does anyone see my screen? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Stephanie, I can see it. It's not full presentation mode, but I can see it. Leonard: Okay. Let me -- I'm going to turn off my webcam and see if that's going to be the issue, because I feel like it is. Hoaglun: And there we go. Leonard: Okay. So, you don't get to see me anymore, but I can actually see the screen. So, apologies on that. So, as you can see there is a line here that says the existing adjacent grade is at 2,643 and, then, there is another line that's at 2,648. If we were to construct--you can see it a little bit. Construct the beginning of the driveway on the arrow that's further east, that would start at 2,648 and, then, it would go down to 2,643 when it got to the west property line at -- at that point in the site. I think the grade, as Sonya mentioned, it gets worse as you go north. If you look kind of further south it's not quite as bad, but the -- I think the point being, really, is that we have got a retaining wall that we are planning that's kind of along that entire boundary and, then, along the north side of the site that would be changed and as a result the engineering of the site would change as well. We also are providing -- we have one extra parking space, but we would be required to provide that cross-access driveway. It would eliminate one of those to the west. If we were to be required to provide it to the east it would eliminate potentially three to four parking spaces, which would put us in -- out of compliance with what the code requires. So, hopefully, that kind of shows the situation. One thing I would like to note, too, is that if that property to the west came in -- so, they are currently in the county right now. If they were to annex and go through a similar process to what we are right now, Page 137 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 51 of 66 they could potentially be required to do a cross-access easement at that time as well and, then, you know, as -- as Bill was mentioning maybe there could be some kind of condition in the development agreement that would be required at that time to require construction of the driveway in a way that would be -- I guess work for both sides. Hopefully I answered all your questions. Allen: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Sonya. Allen: Perhaps another option would be to require this property owner to grant an easement for construction of that driveway. That might be a consideration through the development agreement. Or part of the cross-access easement. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe to follow up for Sonya. So, by using that distinction -- so, providing a construction access easement, if I'm understanding, then, the applicant here is allowing for construction to happen in the future and, then, the property to the west is paying for it. Is that the distinction with what you are proposing? Allen: It is. I'm not sure it's a great idea, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, but it's a consideration. It still doesn't change the fact that if -- if we require a cross-access to be granted that it will likely put the parking below the minimum standards and create a nonconforming parking situation, so -- you know, Council just needs to I guess determine if it makes sense to approve a waiver to that requirement in this instance. Strader: Thank you. Allen: Thank you. Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Just --just thinking -- trying to think ahead to the future, we could require that--that a construction easement be placed into this and, then, when that other property looks to be annexed and -- and come into Meridian's jurisdiction, it could be a future council deciding that and they may not want to foot the construction bill to bring it up to grade to make that cross-access easement and the property owners, then, to the east, wherever that is, would say, hey, you are taking away parking spaces, we will fall under -- it just -- everything keeps kind of getting -- getting complicated and while I like cross- access agreements, I don't know if they -- in this situation may not work and I would like to see full use of this property, because it's -- it's a difficult property to -- to have full use Page 138 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 52 of 66 because of the grading of it. So, I'm inclined to lean towards that exception providing the waiver for cross-access, but others may not. Simison: The thing that I keep coming back to -- at least from the standpoint on all -- how do you solve this for this -- I -- to me it's something like Dashwood, you know, you can -- you can put up something that says it's going to be a cross-access, they are expected to be continued in the future, circumstances of the next property are going to probably dictate whether or not that's even a possibility or not or even what's here at that point in time, more than anything else. That doesn't resolve anything great. This is on -- this is near an intersection of, you know, major state highway and a five lane roadway. Cross- access would seem to make a lot of sense. If you think people are going to go from one business to the next. If they are not going to be going from this business to the adjacent businesses, more than likely, then, cross-access doesn't seem to provide a lot of benefit. It's not like you are going from a bank to a gas station or from something. So, I think -- you know. But you got to look long term sometimes and not just what's there today and I have -- so, it's not a -- it's not a great -- I mean we could probably talk about this for another hour easily. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Maybe the answer is requiring that construction easement and what happens in the future happens, but at least it's there and provides notice that action is to be taken -- some determination has to be made and we just don't throw in the towel, but have it -- have something in place that a future decision will have to be made. I would love to have cross-access to all the properties. You're right, it's Franklin Road, but it's not like it's all retail establishment, medical facilities, those types of things that we typically see. This is commercial, but even commercial sometimes can -- can benefit from it, but this is a little more challenging with the topography. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I kind of want to defer to some of my fellow Councilmen that have been on the Council a bit longer as to what would work best. Maybe Councilman Bernt has a perspective for their comments. Seems tough. Maybe we go with the construction access easement and -- on the west and -- and give them a parking exception. I'm not sure that it works as well to the east. It appears to impact parking much worse and I think it's a worse transition it seems like. So, I would be okay with that. If that works for the rest of the group. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Page 139 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 53 of 66 Bernt: I have been called out. Strader: Sorry. Lifeline. Bernt: I am -- I'm in favor of cross-access. I think this is your only shot at it. It's the only way you can control it. It's the only way that you are going to be able to make sure that it happens. In my -- I don't have a lot of experience. For heaven's sakes, Brad has more experience on Council than I do and Luke certainly has way more -- but with my -- from what I have seen lack of -- lack of access always -- almost always creates problems and if we are not in front of it right now and do the right thing now, then, it will most likely never happen and that's the reason why these property owners hire smart people like Stephanie and The Land Group to figure it out for them and I promise you that they will figure it out. I guarantee it. It will be beautiful. Stephanie will figure it out. It will be gorgeous and it will be functional. That's my thought. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Council Member Bernt, what do you think Council Member Borton would have to say? Sorry. Bernt: Oh, I hope someone's listening. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: On a serious point, Council Member Bernt hit the nail on the head. We know whatever decision we make likely in the future someone will say we should have done it differently, but defaulting to access always seems to be the more prudent decision to make. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I don't think I have ever laughed that hard on the Dais before. Thank you for that. I think we all needed that tonight. Appreciate it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Question to Sonya. Sonya, was that -- you called that a construction easement? Is that what the proper term was for reserving that property and for when the property in the west comes into city jurisdiction, then, we can marry the two? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun. Yes, I believe that's appropriate language that Mr. Nary can correct me if I'm wrong, but allows them to go onto their property to construct a driveway. Page 140 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 54 of 66 Nary: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. So, Council Member Hoaglun, I'm more concerned about requiring somebody -- adjacent property owner construct something on a separate piece of property that has nothing to do with them. So, I think that's more problematic. You know, if -- my suggestion was simply not require construction now, but in the future. I recognize that's a challenge as well, but requiring an adjacent property to do an off-site improvement like that on --to the benefit of a different property owner I think it's going to be problematic in the future. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, follow up with Mr. Nary. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: So, Bill, you are recommending that that easement be -- that easement to the west property be reserved for future access. Would that get us to where we are trying to get to? Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, I think -- I think, actually, Council Member Bernt was -- was right on the money. I mean if you don't require it to be built now it will be a challenge to get it built in the future, whether it's built by the property owner at the time, whether they are resistant to doing it. It could be ten years from now. Again, people forget, people don't realize it. So, if you don't construct it now it may never be constructed or it may require another legal action to get it constructed in the future, which, again, a future council will have to decide whether they are willing to do that. So, I -- I think Council Member Bernt was right, that if you don't do it now there will be challenges either way. You are going to be challenged with parking, you are going to be challenged with access, you can be challenged with construction in the future. Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: To build -- Bill, you mentioned have them build it now. What -- what does that mean? Is it actually lowering the grade and actually making things level and running asphalt right up to the property line and maybe installing Jersey barriers, don't know what it is, but -- but they would have to get everything ready to go for that future --future cross- access agreement that may be 20 years in the making. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, it would look just like your roadways out there that have those barricades that say road to be extended in the future and I have seen many of those barricades in front of buildings that will likely never change, so you are correct, you are constructing it so that all the other property owner has to do is build on their property and, basically, the roads have to match. So, it is a complete construction Page 141 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 05 of 66 and I think as also been pointed out, on the east it's still also in the county and I don't even know what's on that property. So, it is a challenge either way. I mean -- because you will have a constructed driveway that goes to nothing for who knows how long. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: We need to make a decision. Simison: Yes, you do. You need to either close the public hearing or extend it to see if they want to go out and come back with another solution or something else. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question for Stephanie. You have heard kind of some of the conversation from Council tonight. Would it be beneficial from your perspective to continue this out a month and give you an opportunity to look at some other options? Are you looking for Council to make a decision tonight? Leonard: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I -- you know, I don't know what the answer to that question is. I think -- I'm reaching out to -- to our client right now to kind of see what their opinion is. I don't know how big of a deal it is to grade or how much that would cost for the property owner or if that's kind of in their grand scheme of things at this point. I would like to note --we were kind of looking at the site plan as we were chatting and just trying to figure out where we might place another parking space if -- if need be on the west side. So, say we were required to maybe just provide the cross-access at this point, knowing that in the future we would have to actually construct it, I think we could accommodate a space or maybe even two on the north part of the site adjacent to the trash enclosure, so -- so, that is -- I mean I -- I believe an option as far as being able to -- to accommodate a future construction if need be. Additionally, I think Sonya and I, when we were kind of looking through the site plan and talking about the -- the condition requirement, I talked about putting it maybe further south. I know that that might be just where the grade is and, unfortunately, the building to the west is kind of like right in the way there, but I wonder if that might be an option that would work, too, and maybe be a little bit less detrimental cost wise. But, yeah, I haven't received a response and I don't know -- I don't know if it would be best to just make the decision. I would -- I -- I guess maybe I would defer to what you folks think your decision would be if -- or what maybe some good ideas would be in reconfiguring the site plan in a way that would provide cross- access without causing too much of an issue for our client, if there are any good ideas. Unfortunately, the site's pretty -- I mean there is an existing building that we are trying to reuse and the grade of everything just makes it so we kind of configured everything exactly the way that it could and fit everything in the way that we could, so -- aside from the cross-access that's being required, we are meeting the requirements otherwise. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Page 142 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 56 of 66 Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Stephanie, I think what Council Member Cavener is saying is do you want this continued or do you want this -- because it sounds like it's probably going to get passed with -- I don't know that to be, but those would be your two -- do you want us to make a decision or do you want to have this continued? Leonard: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt. I did understand the question. I was kind of trying to talk with our client to see if they had a preference on that. My gut feeling is that you might require the construction of the cross-access regardless of how the project is reconfigured and I believe that they are pretty eager to get the project going. Bernt: Okay. Leonard: So, I guess my -- my opinion is to just make your decision and we will figure it out and design it as required. Bernt: Perfect. Leonard: Thank you. Bernt: Thank you. Simison: With that, Councilman Bernt, would you like to make a motion? Bernt: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing. Cavener: Second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Any -- any thoughts on the Snider Lateral before we make motions? Okay. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we approve Item No. 5, H-2020-0097, approving the waiver for the Snider Lateral on the northern portion of the site to remain open and not piped. However, Page 143 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 0, of 66 declining the applicant's request from us to waive the UDC requirements for cross-access ingress-egress easements to the adjacent properties to the east and west. Leonard: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Bernt, if I may-- I do know that the hearing is closed. Can I ask a question? Simison: One second. Let me see if this has a second first. Cavener: I will second it. Simison: Okay. So, I do have a motion and a second. Mr. Nary, do we need to reopen the public hearing to hear from the applicant? Nary: I think we just need -- she's going to ask a question. I think it's just -- if she wants to clarify what's been required, I think that's perfectly fine. Simison: All right. Stephanie, go ahead. Leonard: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to clarify. I think-- my understanding from our discussion is that the requirement would just be for cross-access and construction to the west. Cross-access and construction of a driveway to the east would be pretty difficult to accomplish and the property to the east is already annexed into the city and hasn't--from what I can tell -- been required to provide that cross-access or have a constructed driveway. So, that would eliminate three of our required parking spaces, while maybe potentially never connecting to anything. I don't know if that's a possibility to open the public hearing and have that discussion again and maybe make a different motion, but that was my understanding. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: As we were discussing this that was my understanding as well. We were only looking at the west access only and not necessarily the east, so -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I would like to modify my motion and not include the east, only the west, for cross- access ingress-egress. Simison: Does the second concur? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, that was my understanding is that's what the motion was being made to. So, I agree. Page 144 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 58 of 66 Simison: Motion and a second to that -- stated as that at this point in time. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Allen: Mr. Mayor, clarification, please. Simison: Yes, Sonya. Allen: Does that motion include construction of the driveway or just provision of an easement to the west? Bernt: Mr. Mayor, that would include construction. It's what -- it's what you are asking for. Allen: Thank you. Simison: Second concurs with that assumption? Yes? If there is no further questions or comments, I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. Item is passed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Simison: Merry Christmas. Leonard: Thank you. 6. Public Hearing for Southridge Apartments (H-2020-0109) by The Land Group, Located on the South Side of W. Overland Rd. Midway Between S. Ten Mile Rd. and S. Linder Rd. A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #2015- 112096) to include an updated conceptual development plan for the third phase of the development. Simison: Next item is a public hearing for Southridge Apartments, H-2020-0109. We will open this public hearing with staff comments and turn it over to Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next and last item before you on land use applications is a request for a development agreement modification. This site consists of 8.61 acres of land. It's zoned R-15. It is located on the south side of West Overland Road, midway between Ten Mile and Linder Roads. This property was originally annexed back in 2006 and later rezoned in 2011 . The existing development agreement for the property includes a concept plan for the first two phases of development and requires a modification to the agreement to update the concept plan to include a Page 145 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 59 of 66 development plan for the third phase prior to development. A total of 476 dwelling units were approved to develop in the first two phases combined. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is high density residential in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. The proposed concept plan depicts a total of 14 structures on 8.61 acres of land containing approximately 164 dwelling units, with associated common areas, access driveways, and parking for the third phase of development. Two access driveways are proposed via South Grand Fork Way, a local street. The third phase continued is through a design of the first two phases with three story apartment buildings rotated such that no two buildings are parallel to each other or parallel with a public street, eliminating the row effect. Associated parking areas and drive aisles are angled to eliminate long parking lot views, which also assist in traffic calming. The proposed concept plan appears to be in general compliance with UDC standards. Detailed review will take place with subsequent conditional use permit application. With the third phase an overall density -- gross density of 18 units on 35.5 acres of land. That's -- excuse me. Units per acre -- 18 units per acre on 35.5 acres of land will be provided for the entire multi-family development consistent with the density desired in high density residential designated in the Ten Mile plan, which is 16 to 25 units per acre. The applicant is requesting condition number 5.15 in Section 5.1 of the development agreement, which requires the DA to be modified prior to development of phase three, to include a concept development plan for the area is removed from the agreement as the condition has been satisfied with this application. Staff is recommending approval. We have received written testimony from Jason Densmer and Tamara Thompson from The Land Group in agreement with the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. With that we will open this up to the applicant. Can you state your name and address for the record and be recognized for 15 minutes. Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Tamara Thompson with The Land Group. We are at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. Sonya did a great job of giving you the overview. I just have a couple -- just items to add. This is a development agreement modification to add a concept plan for phase three. The property has already been annexed and zoned previously. It's just -- the concept plan needs to be updated for this last phase. Phases one and two already have a conditional use permit approval and CZC and design review approval and many of the phase one buildings are already occupied or under construction. As outlined in the staff report, phase three is consistent with the R-15 zone, the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan and the previous phases one and two. With your approval, the next step would be a conditional use permit for phase three and, then, CZC and DR approval. We have read the staff report and agree with staff's analysis and conditions of approval and we respectfully request your approval tonight. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Page 146 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 60 of 66 Simison: Okay. And there is nobody in the room. Is there anybody--do we have anybody still online that may wish to provide testimony? If so, if you can do so -- if you can indicate by using the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the Zoom platform. Not seeing any of the three people looking to raise their hand, so I will ask the applicant -- Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move that we closed the public hearing on Item 6, South Ridge Apartments, H- 2020-0109. Simison: Before we have a second can I just confirm that the applicant has no final comments? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, thank you. My final comment is Merry Christmas, because I'm the last one on the agenda. So, hope you all have a nice holiday. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Do I have a second to Councilman Cavener's motion? Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I move we approve Item 6, South Ridge Apartments, H-2019-0109 as presented. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Real quick. Tamara, thanks. Merry Christmas. Apologies to having you kind of be the bookends of our meeting tonight. I should have caught that and moved some things around. So, appreciate your fortitude to stick with us tonight. Have a Merry Christmas. Simison: All right. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, clerk will call the roll. Page 147 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 61 of 66 Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Simison: Thank you all for getting us to that point tonight and, Sonya, for your work this evening. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Merry Christmas. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 7. Ordinance No. 20-1908: An Ordinance (H-2020-0038 — Sagewood West Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of the NW '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 10.41 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Okay. Next we are going to move on to the Clerk's show. Item No. 7 is Ordinance No. 20-1908. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2020-0038, Sagewood West Subdivision, for annexation of a parcel of land being a portion of the NW 1/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian,Ada county, Idaho, as described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 10.41 acres of land from RUT to R-8, medium density residential zoning district, in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date. Simison: Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Would anybody like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Page 148 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 62 of 66 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we approve Ordinance No. 20-1908, with suspension of the rules. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 20-1908 under suspension of the rules. 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 ordinance is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 8. Ordinance No. 20-1909: An Ordinance (H-2020-0058 Epic Storage) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Lying in the NW '/4 NW '/4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 3 North, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 4.55 Acres of Land from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to C-C (Community Business) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next is Item 8, Ordinance No. 20-1909. 1 will ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2020-0058, Epic Storage, for rezone of a parcel of land lying in the NW '/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 3 North, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 4.55 acres of land from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to C-C (Community Business) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Council, you have heard this item --this ordinance read by title. Is there anyone that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 149 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 63 of 66 Cavener: Move we approve Ordinance No. 20-1909, with suspension of the rules. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I second that motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 20-1909 under suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The ordinance is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 9. Ordinance No. 20-1910: An Ordinance (H-2020-0066 Apex) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of the East % of the Northwest 1/4, all of the Southeast '/4 of Section 31, and a Portion of the West '/z of the Southwest '/4 of Section 32, Township 3, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, all of West % of the Northwest '/4 Section 5 and a Portion of the East % of the Northeast '/4 of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 384.27 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning District R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(264.06 Acres), R-15 (Medium High Residential)(76.93 Acres) and C-C (Community Business)(43.28 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Item 9 is Ordinance No. 29-1910. 1 will ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2020-0068, Apex, for rezone of a parcel of land situated in a portion of the East '/z of the Northwest '/4, all of the Southeast '/4 of Section 31, and a portion of the West '/2 of the Southwest '/4 of Section 32, Township 3, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, all of the West '/2 of the Northwest '/4, Section 5 and a portion of the east '/2 of the Northeast '/4 of Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 384.27 acres of land from R-4 (Medium- Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) -- sorry. and R-8, (Medium Density Residential) (264.06 acres), R-15 (medium high residential) (76.93 acres) and C-C (Community Business) (43.28 acres) zoning districts in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada Page 150 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 64 of 66 County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Council, you have heard this item read by title. Is there anyone that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we approve Ordinance No. 20-1910 with suspension of the rules. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I second that motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 20-1910 under suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. The ordinance is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Simison: Thank you all for a great meeting this evening. I know we got one more thing to do, but we will come out and just say it's been a great first calendar year 2020 of meetings. So, thank you, I appreciate the honor to chair these meeting, except for when I haven't. Appreciate the honor. Or chair the meetings. So, with that -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I just wanted to say one thing to those who are watching or our citizens of Meridian, I wish you all, on behalf of our Meridian City Council, a Happy Holiday, Merry Christmas. I hope you all find peace and solace in all that you do and know that we are grateful for the opportunity to work on your behalf. So, Happy Holiday, Merry Christmas, and with prayer and hopes of -- of a prosperous 2021 with tons of blessings for all. Ho-Ho-Ho. Thank you. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Perfect. Any item under future meeting topics? EXECUTIVE SESSION Page 151 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 65 of 66 10. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer Simison: Then do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a). Cavener: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to go into Executive Session. Ask the clerk to call the role. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (9:28 p.m. to 9:58 p.m.) Bernt: Move we come put of Executive Session. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and second to come out of Executive Session. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Bernt: I move we adjourn. Cavener: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: FOURAYES. TWOABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:58 P.M. Page 152 Meridian City Council Item#4. December 22,2020 Page 66 of 66 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 1-5-2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 153 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date . December 22 , 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 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Rocky Mountain High School Football: 2020 5A State Champions Page 4 Item#1. Q-: WE NI D I AN IDAHO The Office of the Nayor PR0CLAJWAT10JV Whereas, being a Rocky Mountain football player is more than tackles,yardage,kickoffs and touchdowns and achieving a state title. It is training to build leadership,character,confidence,teamwork and resilience— all traits needed to succeed on the field, in the classroom and in the real world; and, Whereas, the Rocky Mountain Football team never backed down from familiar opponents and knocked off defending state champ Rigby to win its second state title in three seasons and third in six years; and, Whereas, for the 2019-2020 season, the Grizzly Football Team overcame many hurdles but their hard work payed off as they took the SA State Championship; and, Whereas, the capturing of the state title builds school spirit and allows these student athletes to walk the halls of Rocky Mountain with a little extra swagger; and, Whereas, the leadership,training and discipline of Head Coach Chris Culig and Assistants Scott Criner,Tim Stanley,Colin Dornene, Tim Souza, Kaleo Nawahine,Nick Weatherly,Lamont Oliver,Glenn Humphries,Eric Fillmore,Mark Criner, Kekoa Nawahine,Jacob Pele, Mike Tanner,James Clyde, Anthony Flores,Troy Bacon,Joe Koga,Jeremy Ferguson, Garrett Munson, Issac Naylor and Brian Sweaney helped team members Jordan Erickson,Elijah Almanza, Landon Albert,Cameron Jenkins,Kobe Warr,Trevor VanGerpen,Braden Valentine,Ty Tanner,Jack England,Xander Nawahine,Max Nead, Selby Wilson, C.J. Jacobsen,Tegan Sweaney,Arthur Williams,Hunter Craig,Jackson Criner, Ryan Robertson,Dawson Freeman, Kade Thompson, Gage Tanner,Maxwell Lehman,Beaux Taylor, Daniel Juarez III,Brayden Rundell,Austin Grenfell,Noah Shoemake,Carter Pratt,Treygan Price, Caden Zierenberg,Justin Douglas,Jackson Fullmer,Jarell Lucas,Lucas Leavitt,Luke Luchini,Brekon Albert, Micah Clyde,Caden Kelley,Troy Wilkey,Michael Kukuk,A.J. Edwards,Ty Page,Parker Weatherly, Kade Steadman,Mason Jacobsen,Anthony Pellegrini, Sean McKernan,Zack Black, Owen Toledo,Javan Taylor,Lucas Gaul, Zachary Nyland,Andrew Crosby,Clayton Slack,Trevor Beek,Justin Kozlowski, Ryan Bohr, Vladimir Toropeev,Zachary Penner,Alexander Glos, Preston Slack,Lucas Neufeld,Kevin Croft,Aaron Able,Jackson Mason, Isaac Thayer,Landon Wilson,Rory Munson,Michael Riddle,Glory Kabongo,Leroy Taula focus their talents and passion to become a winning team, with each player making valuable contributions to their victory. Therefore, I,Mayor Robert E. Simison,hereby proclaim December 22, 2020 as Rocky Mountain Nigh SchooCFootbaCC State Champions Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the coiTreg 'oin me in congratulating the Grizzlies on their remarkable athletic achievement and for representing Mthan ro i h state tournament. Dated this 22'd day of December, 2020 rt . S' 'son, ayor Bernt, until President Brad Hoaglun, City Council Vice-President Liz Strader, City Council Joe Borton, City Council Jessica Perreault,City Council Luke Cavener, City Council Page 5 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings Changes to Agenda: N/A th Item #2: Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) Continued from the Nov. 24 hearing to work with ACHD on entrance to subdivision. Application(s):  Rezone, Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.71 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at the SEC of Black Cat and Pine. History: AZ-06-016, PP-06-010, FP-07-034; VAR-06-008 –The plats have expired. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential Summary of Request: Rezone from the existing R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 4.71 acres. The gross density of the project is 5.52 du/ac which is in the middle of the allowed density for the future land use designation of MDR (3-8 du/ac). The average lot size within the development is around 4, 100 square feet. The minimum lot size in the requested R-8 zone is 4000 square feet. Because the lots are so close to the minimum lot size and the look of the submitted elevations, Staff was concerned with the proposed homes being able to fit on the lots so Staff requested the Applicant provide an exhibit showing how these will occur. The Applicant provided this exhibit for the previous layout; its applicability still stands despite the changes to the plat. Because the subject site is less than five (5) acres in size, the UDC minimum requirement of 10% qualified open space and at least one site amenity are not required to be met. However, the Applicant is requesting a rezone to a zoning district that allows higher density. Therefore, Staff finds it appropriate that usable open space and an amenity be provided. In response, the Applicant proposed approximately 35,000 square feet of open space (approx.. 17%) with the previous plat and has proposed approx. 8,000 more square feet of open space with the revised plat (total is now approx. 21%). This open space consists mostly of the street buffers along the outside of the development but also includes a central common lot that is almost 8,000 square feet, per the latest plat. Access into this development is proposed via a new local street connection to Pine Avenue. All internal local streets within the proposed development are shown as 33-foot wide street sections with 5-foot attached sidewalks – street section will accommodate on- street parking where no driveways exist. Originally, access was proposed to Black cat by way of converting W. Quarterhorse Lane to a new public street. However, ACHD denied that access because the adjacent Pine Ave. is a lesser classified street and therefore access must be taken from Pine. W. Quarterhorse Lane is currently an ingress/egress access easement with 4 servient sites, including this subject site. Without the consent of all easement holders, the access to Black Cat must remain. At the Commission meeting, Staff recommended the easement area remain as a non-buildable lot until such time it can be included as part of a future development. Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval with some requested changes. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Penelope Constantikes, Applicant Representative b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Drew Morgan, Neighbor; Penelope Constantikes d. Written testimony: 17 residents submitted written testimony and 3 left voicemails outlining similar concerns of traffic increasing in the area even without this development and the density of the project in relation to traffic. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Clarification of future plans for the existing private lane along the southern boundary, Quarterhorse Lane. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. How Quarterhorse Lane is intended to function both in the near future and in the years to come – specifically, how much of it will be green space and how much is expected to be right-of-way for the other easement holders to the east and southeast; b. Size of the lots in relation to the submitted conceptual elevations and concern over whether those homes can actually be built on the proposed lots; c. Location and amount of open space being proposed and how will the different locations be accessed by residents; 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant has not submitted different elevations based on the Commission’s recommendations because the submitted elevations are the designs that are intended to be constructed in the development. b. The revised plat now shows the private lane easement as a common lot and dedicated right-of-way. If Council supports the revised plan, Staff recommends DA provision 1.e be modified to read as follows: “A final plat application shall not be submitted until the Applicant receives approval and provides documentation from all easement holders (Parcels S1210325555, S1210325800, & S1210325710) to relinquish their rights to the existing access easement once the public road connection to Pine Avenue is constructed.” Council strike condition of approval 2c. as this coincides with modified DA provision 1e. above. Council include a new condition of approval as follows: i. Construct a 5-foot wide micro-path along the south side of Lot 7, Block 1 that connects to the sidewalk along the west side of N. Traquair St. and to Black Cat Road. As noted, following the Commission hearing, the Applicant revised the plat in response to the Commission’s recommendations and incorporated other changes that have not been fully analyzed by staff. The applicant has provided a comprehensive narrative of the proposed changes and staff has provided a summary of the proposed changes for the Council’s consideration. Staff has also outlined some of the outstanding issues and recommended changes or inclusion of new conditions of approval based on these changes. • The open space has been moved from the NEC to a more central location within the subdivision (Lot 6, Block 2). The overall open space has increased approximately 8,000 square feet to total nearly an acre due to the layout changes; • Per the recommendation of the Commission, one lot has been removed from the west boundary abutting Black Cat Road; • Most notable, the Applicant is now proposing to construct common open space and a public street over the area of the subject site that contains the existing ingress/egress easement. Conveyance of this right-of-way is contingent upon all easement holders relinquishing their rights to the use of said easement. The applicant’s attorney is working with the three (3) affected parties on a resolution but no such relinquishment has been obtained at this time. 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-2020-0060, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 22, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0060, as presented during the hearing on December 22, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0060 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #3: Wadsworth Meridian (H-2020-0104) Application(s):  Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.29 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 3085 E. Ustick, the SWC of Ustick and Eagle. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: C-G zoning in all directions with undeveloped land to the west and south. History: H-2019-0082 (DA Modification to remove the subject site from an existing DA and enter into a new one specific to this site; DA Inst. #2019-121599); A-2019-0376 (CZC for parking lot, landscaping, and other relevant site improvements); A-2020-0163 (CZC and Design Review approval of an urgent care facility on the SEC pad site). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Regional Summary of Request: The subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of E. Ustick Road (an arterial street) and N. Eagle Road/SH 55. To the east and across Eagle Road are two large commercial centers; to the north is an additional commercial center. These surrounding areas provide a plethora of commercial uses that are used at a regional level. Directly to the west of the subject site is intended to be a high-end indoor gym (Villasport) and further to the south of the site is existing residential and some community serving commercial. As lots within this subdivision develop over time, Staff believes that they will likely be a higher benefit to users of the future Villasport and residents to the southwest of this site. Staff is of the opinion that there is less need for these five relatively small commercial lots to serve a regional base than those sites to the north and east. In addition, this project, in conjunction with the approved uses to the west, should satisfy the comprehensive plan and mixed-use policies. The submitted Preliminary Plat proposes five (5) commercial building lots that vary in size from 0.39 acres to 1.02 acres. The C-G zoning district does not have a minimum lot size requirement. All landscape buffers are previously approved with the CZC for the overall site improvements (A-2019-0376). When future buildings are proposed on each building lot, Staff will analyze each building for compliance with other dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district. Access for this development will be via a shared driveway constructed with the Villasport improvements limited to a right-in/right-out access—this Applicant will be required to construct this shared driveway access for their development if it this site develops before the Villasport project. There are no public streets as part of this commercial development and therefore no stub streets are proposed. Instead, there are private drive-aisles as are standard for commercial developments. The Applicant has an existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial properties (Inst. #106169335) and will be required to maintain the cross-access agreement across the proposed lots via the CC&Rs. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B for nonresidential uses at the ratio of one (1) space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. If any restaurants are proposed, the parking ratio is one (1) space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. With the existing and approved CZC, 109 parking spaces were approved but did not show any parking directly adjacent to the future commercial buildings on the north end of the site. The revised site plan provided by the Applicant shows some changes to the parking lot that differ from the currently approved site plan. One of these changes include three additional trash enclosures for a total of four but now none are proposed within the center parking area. The new locations of the trash enclosures should help minimize any blind corners when traversing the site. In addition, the Applicant is now showing a reconfiguration of some of the parking spaces and additional parking adjacent to the northern building lots. These changes show a net positive gain of 16 additional parking spaces. Again, as each pad site is developed, the required number of spaces will be checked throughout the site and the Applicant will be required to comply with code requirements. As noted above, parking for the whole site will be available for each building site per the recorded CC&Rs. Because the overall parking plan has changed since the original approval of the CZC, the Applicant will need to obtain approval of a new CZC outlining the changes made to the site improvements prior to obtaining any more building permits. Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat request. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Tamara Thompson, Applicant Representative ii. In opposition: N/A iii. Commenting: Tamara Thompson iv. Written testimony: None v. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. None Changes to Agenda: \[if applicable\] Item # 4 Application(s):  Preliminary Plat and Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 24.54 acres of land, zoned R-15, located at Northeast Corner of N. McDermott Road and W. McMillan Road. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Gem Innovation School located to the north (zoned R-15), single family residential to the east, west and south (R-4 and R-8). History:  In 2008, the subject property received annexation approval for a large master planned residential development (Oak Creek AZ 08-004 and PP-08-003).  In 2013, the subject property was rezoned to the R-15 zone as a portion of the Oaks North Subdivision. Subject property was approved for multifamily and self-storage uses. DA was amended to allow this.  In 2018, the multifamily portion of the property (16.71) acres was proposed to be rezoned to R-8 to develop single family detached. This included another amendment to the DA to remove the multifamily requirement. It went to PC, but not to Council and has since been withdrawn.  The Oaks North Plat and DA #114030972 still govern this property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential, 3-8 du/acre Summary of Request: Preliminary Plat (PP) consisting of 94 single family lots, 92 townhouse lots, 3 common driveways and 26 common lots on 24.54 acres in the R-15 zone. A concurrent development agreement modification is submitted to change the development plan from multifamily and self-storage uses to the single family and townhome uses being proposed with the subject project. Notes:  As listed above, there have been several rezonings and DAs relating to this property. The property is part of the Oaks North Plat and development agreement.  This Preliminary Plat proposal includes a new development agreement to allow single family and townhouse uses (the property is presently part of much larger DA).  Single family homes (94) will be on lots of between 3,000 and 5,000 sq. ft.  Townhouses will be on lots of between 2,100 and 3,200 sq. ft.  The proposed street network stubs two streets to the east – W. Cherrybrook Dr. and W. Daphne St. - which connect to N. Trident Way.  N. Trident Way terminates at W. McMillan Rd to the south and W. Milano Dr. in the Oaks North development to the north.  This proposal would not provide direct access to an arterial nor would it increase the number of access points to nearby collectors or arterials.  There are also several internal roads, and alley loaded access.  ACHD has commented that Marysville Street and Palustris Avenue are proposed to be greater than 750-feet in length and will need to be redesigned to reduce the length of the roadways or to include the use of passive design elements.  The staff report mentioned the applicant will be required to construct curb and gutter along McMillan. However, it has later been clarified that McMillian is an arterial and curb and gutter are not required.  Finally, the UDC states residential development along McDermott Road from Chinden Blvd to I-84 is required to provide noise abatement by constructing a berm or a berm and wall combination. This was recommended as a condition of approval at the November 5, 2020 Planning Commission. The applicant has updated the plans accordingly.  The development proposes 16.95% of qualified open space. This includes several grassy areas larger than 50’ x 100’, pathways along all the landscape buffers, micro-pathways internal to the development and along mews fronting the single family attached, and a one-acre park central to the development.  Pathways include a 10’ pathway along W. McDermott Rd., a 5’ pathway along W. McMillan Rd. and 5’ micro-pathways interspersed throughout the development. As required by UDC 11-3A-8, all micro-pathways are within lots of at least 15’ in width and contain landscape strips of at least 5’ in width with at least 100 tree per hundred linear feet as required by UDC 11-3B-12.  The one-acre park contains a playground, fire pit, outdoor kitchen and shelter.  Applicant has provided a parking plan that shows at least 44 additional on-street spaces.  The applicant has provided building elevations for both the proposed single family residential and the townhouses. Staff had concerns with the way some of the overhangs on the single family residences, and that the rooflines on the townhouses were too long without variation. The applicant has revised the elevations. Staff is satisfied with the elevations as revised. Commission Recommendation:  The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on November 5, 2020. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject preliminary plat and development agreement modification request. The Planning Commission recommended three additional changes: o Recommended DA be modified to include a limitation to no more than 3 units on a common drive. o Recommended DA be modified to include revised conceptual plans that incorporate additional parking and open space for the townhouses. Summary of the Commission public hearing: The applicant is not in agreement with these additional changes and will speak to these tonight. Notes: Item #5: 2810 E. Franklin Rd. (H-2020-0097) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.01 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 2810 E. Franklin Rd. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to annex 1.01 acres of land with a C-G zoning district consistent with the associated FLUM designation of Commercial. A conceptual development plan is proposed that depicts the existing residential home on the property that the Applicant proposes to remodel and expand for a flex space use. The concept plan depicts 2,239 square feet (s.f.) of office on the first floor & 1,550 s.f. of office and support uses in the basement of the existing structure, and a new 2,600 s.f. structure for a warehouse. The new structure is proposed to the north behind the existing structure and will include a daylight basement. The user will be an automotive tool and equipment supplier, classified as a flex space use. The business proposes to sell products online to automotive businesses and at-home mechanics and will not conduct any retail sales on the site. Flex space is a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-18; the proposed use & site design complies with these standards. The topography of this site slopes down significantly from Franklin Rd. to the north property boundary and has approximately a 20’ grade difference as shown on the grading plan. A retaining wall is proposed at the north & west boundaries of the area proposed to be improved with this project. A 35’ wide street buffer is required with development along Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The existing driveway access via Franklin Rd. is proposed to remain for access to the site and has been approved by ACHD. Because it closely aligns with a driveway on the south side of Franklin Rd., relocation of the driveway is not recommended. The UDC requires cross-access/ingress-egress easements to be granted to adjoining properties where access to a local street is not available, unless otherwise waived by City Council. In accord with this standard, Staff recommends cross-access easements are provided & driveways constructed to the properties to the east and west. A 20-foot wide cross-access easement is depicted on the concept plan to the east and west but the Applicant requests Council approval of a waiver to this requirement to not provide cross-access easements due to the topography of the site and site constraints related to the space available for development. At a minimum, Staff recommends Council require cross-access to the west. Note: Staff contacted Ada County to see if a cross-access easement was provided to the subject property with re-development of the adjacent property to the west in 2002 but one was not. A minimum of 12 vehicle spaces (based on 6,389 s.f.) and one (1) bicycle space is required. A total of 13 spaces are depicted on the conceptual site plan, including an ADA space, which is one more than required. However, if cross-access driveways are provided to adjacent properties as required, parking will be reduced by up to (3) spaces, which will result in parking below the required minimum standard. If a waiver is not approved by Council to the requirement for cross-access, the Applicant should construct a smaller addition to reduce the parking requirement. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with UDC standards, which requires a minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading or other paved vehicular use areas, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 8C.1b. A retaining wall and fence is proposed along the west boundary adjacent to the parallel parking spaces where the buffer is required, which doesn’t leave adequate area for landscaping. If the site cannot be reconfigured to comply with this standard, alternative compliance may be requested with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The Snyder Lateral exists in a 40-foot wide easement on the northern portion of the property that is not proposed to be improved. All irrigation laterals are required to be piped unless improved as a water amenity or linear open space; the City Council may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The Applicant proposes to fence off the area where the lateral is located to preserve public safety and requests a Council waiver to this requirement to allow the lateral to remain open. Because a large portion of this site on the north end is not proposed to be improved, Staff recommends weeds are regularly maintained in this area so as not to create a nuisance and in a manner that prevents wildfire in accord with MCC 4-2. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the remodel of the existing structure and proposed addition. The materials for the front façade and sides of the existing building consist of stucco with pre-finished metal siding & stone veneer accents; the materials for the proposed warehouse addition consist of a mix of horizontal & vertical metal siding. All improvements to the existing structure and new construction are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering (Applicant’s Representative) ii. In opposition/Commenting: None iii. Written testimony: Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering (Applicant’s Representative) Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. If favor of the proposed improvements to the existing structure and use; ii. Adequacy of the proposed parking in relation to the square footage of office use proposed; Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Stephanie Leonard, KM Engineering (Applicant’s Representative) - The Applicant requests Council waivers to the UDC requirements for cross-access/ingress-egress easements to be granted to the adjacent properties to the east & west; and for the Snyder Lateral on the northern portion of the site to remain open and not be piped. If Council approves these requests, conditions #A.1b and #A.1c in Section IX should be modified accordingly. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0097, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 22, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0097, as presented during the hearing on December 22, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0097 to the hearing date of _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6: Southridge Apartments (H-2019-0109) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8.61 acres of land, zoned R-15, located south of W. Overland Rd., midway between Ten Mile & Linder Roads. History: This property was originally annexed in 2006 and later rezoned in 2011. The existing DA for the property includes a concept plan for the first two phases of development and requires a modification to the agreement to update the concept plan to include a rd development plan for the 3 phase prior to development. A total of 476 dwelling units were approved to develop in the first two phases combined. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: HDR in the TMISAP Summary of Request: The proposed concept plan depicts a total of 14 structures on 8.61 acres of land containing approximately 164 dwelling units with associated common areas, access driveways and parking for the 3rd phase of development. Two (2) access driveways are proposed via S. Grand Fork Way, a local street. The third phase continues the design of the first two phases with 3-story apartment buildings rotated such that no two buildings are parallel to each other or parallel with a public street, eliminating the “row” effect. Associated parking areas and drive aisles are angled to eliminate long parking lot views, which also assist in traffic calming. The proposed concept plan appears to be in general compliance with UDC standards; detailed review will take place with a subsequent CUP application. With the third phase, an overall gross density of 18+/- units on 35.5 acres of land will be provided for the entire multi-family development, consistent with the density (i.e. 16-25 units/acre) desired in High Density Residential designated areas in the TMISAP. The Applicant requests condition #5.1.5 in Section 5.1 of the DA, which requires the DA to be modified prior to development of Phase 3 to include a conceptual development plan for the area, is removed from the agreement as the condition has been satisfied with this application. Staff Recommendation: Approval Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Jason Densmer, TLG (in agreement with staff report) Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0109, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 22, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0109, as presented during the hearing on December 22, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0109 to the hearing date of _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #\[#\]: \[Project name\] (\[file #\]) Application(s):  Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of \[#\] acres of land, zoned \[district\], located at \[address/general location\]. History: \[details\] Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: \[details\] Summary of Request: \[details\] Commission Recommendation: \[approval/denial\] Summary of Commission Public Hearing: iv. In favor: v. In opposition: vi. Commenting: vii. Written testimony: viii. Key Issue(s): Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: \[name(s)\] - \[issue(s)\] Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number \[#\], as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of \[date\]: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number \[#\], as presented during the hearing on \[date\], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number \[#\] to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0104, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of December 22, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0104, as presented during the hearing on December 22, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0104 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) City Council Meeting December 22, 2020 •which designates the property for multifamily and self storage. Also includes a modification to the existing development agreement •and 26 common lots on 24.54 acres. Proposal for preliminary plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhouse lots, FLUM •The Oaks North Plat and DA #114030972 still govern this property.•withdrawn. requirement. It went to PC, but not to Council and has since been included another amendment to the DA to remove the multifamily 8 to develop single family detached. This -proposed to be rezoned to RIn 2018, the multifamily portion of the property (16.71) acres was •storage uses. DA was amended to allow this. -multifamily and selfof the Oaks North Subdivision. Subject property was approved for 15 zone as a portion -In 2013, the subject property was rezoned to the R•003). -08-004 and PP-master planned residential development (Oak Creek AZ 08In 2008, the subject property received annexation approval for a large Planning Commission at their Nov 5 meeting had three items they believed units, whereas they only propose four. parking spaces (not being counted) and state a common lot can serve 6 street -street parking spaces per townhouse in addition to 60 on-have four offthat the 16.95% open space already exceeds the 10% requirement, they The recommended only 3 building lots be served by a common lot.•They recommended additional parking be added. •They recommended additional open space be added. •were concerns and offered recommended changes to the project. FLUM Original parking area from plan)swale in center of subsurface drainage (omitted depiction of Concept PlanRevisedConcept Plan Grading Plan Concept Elevations Existing Concept PlanProposed Concept Plan 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from November 24, 2020 for Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) by Riley Planning Services, Located at 710 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 4.71 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district (Medium-Low Density Residential) to the R-8 zoning district (Medium-Density Residential); and, B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 4.71 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Page 6 Item#2. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: November 24, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Horse Meadows Subdivision (H-2020-0060) by Riley Planning Services, Located at 710 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 4.71 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district (Medium- Low Density Residential) to the R-8 zoning district (Medium-Density Residential); and, B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 5 common lots on 4.71 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : December 22 , 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 i PROJECT NAME : Horse Meadows Subdivision ( W2020 - 0060 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#2. Mayor Robert E. Simison E IDIAN.� City Council Members: =�� Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault I D A H O Luke Cavener Liz Strader DECEMBER 15, 2020 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council CC: City Clerk FROM: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner RE: Horse Meadows Continuance (12/22/2020)—Plat revision for ingress/egress The Horse Meadows Subdivision application was continued from the November 24th hearing in order for Staff and the Applicant to reach out to ACHD regarding the approved access point to Pine Avenue for this proposed development. On December 9th Staff received a revised plat from the Applicant showing the requested revision by City Council to move the access point as far east as possible, essentially one lot west of the east property boundary(see attached Exhibit A). Staff sent this to ACHD with a request to amend their policies in order to allow this revised access point, as requested by City Council. On December 14th, Staff received a revised staff report from ACHD approving the requested plat changes (see online agency comments section) and subsequent access point approximately 375 feet from the Pine/Black Cat intersection. No other significant changes were made to the plat as it was essentially mirrored in order to provide a revised access point. Joseph Dodson Current Associate Planner Attachments: Exhibit A—REVISED Plat—December City Council Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 page s Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Item#2. Exhibit A: e 9 t - - r p E, i - I I i r r �lI• P I. S _ m LII _ — - K' I I .. I`�1 Z O •J I L� J Y N - ,O m z Q z N !2 S � - s om �� 1 x � z �$ y c3 6 �1 c2 g S a 4 �� a I ti P �i " vYY Pnl o O H » i 7� a ., HORSL MEADOWS SUBDIVISION Rewswns s a - oce swo am uc ROCK SOLID CIVIL PRELIMINARYPLAT i Roar inuo av�un 2 Page 9 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 11/17/2020 Legend � DATE: j � �� Pro ect Location ' TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0060 Horse Meadows Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 710 N. Black Cat,in -- , the NW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 10, ` Township 3N.,Range 1 W. 0 71 n I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 5.33 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat consisting of 26 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 4.71 acres,by Riley Planning Services. NOTE: The ACHD staff report requires the Applicant to take access off of W.Pine Avenue instead of converting the existing private lane easement(Quarterhorse Lane) into a public road access, as originally proposed. The easement will remain as a non-buildable lot until such time as the easement holders relinquish their rights to use said access with future development of their respective properties. In addition, in response to the staff report for the September 17, 2020 Commission meeting, the Applicant requested a continuance to a future meeting date in order to revise the plat and obtain additional information regarding the existing easement as discussed in the staff report. The plat has been revised and has resulted in strikethrough and underline changes throughout the staff report. NOTE to City Council.Following the Commission public hearing, the Applicant revised the plat in response to the Commission's recommendation and incorporated other changes that have not been fully analyzed by staff. The applicant has provided a comprehensive narrative of the proposed changes and staff has provided a summary of the proposed changes for the Council's consideration. Staff has also outlined some of the outstanding issues and recommended changes or inclusion of new conditions of approval based on these changes in Section VI. below. • The open space has been moved from the NEC to a more central location within the subdivision (Lot 6,Block 2). The overall open space has increased approximately 8,000 square feet to total nearly an acre due to the layout changes; Pagel Page 10 Item#2. • The Applicant is now proposing to construct common open space and a public street over area of the subject site that contains an existing ingress/egress easement. Conveyance of this right-of-way is contingent upon all easement holders relinquishing their rights to the use of said easement. The applicant's attorney is working with the three(3) affected parties on a resolution; • Per the recommendation of the Commission, one lot has been removed from the west boundary abutting Black Cat Road, II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 4.71 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) �8 31 total lots—26 single-family residential;and 4 5 common lots. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one(1)phase. Number of Residential Units(type 26 total single-family detached units of units) Density(gross&net) Gross— 5.52 du/ac.;Net—unknown Open Space(acres,total 34,912 square feet(approximately 17%)and includes the [%]/buffer/qualified) required landscape buffers and one open space lot containing the proposed amenity;property is less than 5 acres so minimum open space requirement is not applicable. Amenities 1 amenity—Tot Lot Physical Features(waterways, N/A hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 14,2020—5 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-06-016,PP-06-010,FP-07-034;VAR-06-008—These approvals have expired. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Originally,access was proposed from W. Quarterhorse Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Lane,an existing private street along the southern property boundary.However,ACHD is requiring the applicant take access from Pine Ave. and does not have the authority to require the applicant to close the private driveway connection to Black Cat. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Stub streets are proposed to the existing private lane Access (Quarterhorse Lane)that are less than 150' in length that will be terminated with some kind of barrier and signs that state the streets will be extended in the future.The Page 2 Page 11 Item#2. Description Details I Page Applicant is still required to allow the other easement holders to use their access rights of Quarterhorse Lane. Existing Road Network W. Quarterhorse Lane—a two-lane private street Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No Buffers Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is proposing additional ROW dedication and construction of detached sidewalks along both Black Cat and Pine. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.1 miles from Fire Station#2 • Fire Response Time The proposed development falls within the 5 minute response time goal. • Resource Reliability 76%(below the target goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 1 —Residential;current resources would be adequate to supply service to this project. • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths, and turnarounds. The project will be limited to 30 homes due to a singular access oint. Police Service • Distance to Police Station 4.5 miles • Response Time Approximately 3.5 minutes • Accessibility MPD has no concerns with access into this development; the MPD can service this development if approved. • Additional Comments • Between June 2019 and June 2020,MPD responded to 1,281 calls for service within one mile of this proposed development.The crime count on those calls was 126. • Between June 2019 and June 2020,MPD responded to 29 crashes within 1 miles of this proposed development. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ins,hs) Peregrine Elementary—3.2 miles Meridian Middle—3.1 miles Meridian High—2.8 miles • Capacity of Schools Peregrine—650 students Meridian Middle— 1250 students Meridian High—2400 students • #of Students Enrolled Peregrine—517 students Meridian Middle— 1273 students Meridian High—2101 students Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly Adjacent • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.95 • Project Consistent with WW YES Master Plan/Facility Plan • Additional Comments Additional 918 gpd flow has been committed. Water • Distance to Water Services Directly Adjacent Page 3 Page 12 Item#2. Description Details Page • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns Yes,see below • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns The water main should be looped through the site whenever possible;if any stub is not used it will be required to be abandoned dead end at the cul de s must be extended to the northwest via the common lot pathwa ,...7 tied into the existing 8" water,v..,i stub i Black Cat This stub is not etffenfly shown on the plans but is stubbed Page 4 Page 13 1 1 1 __.•��■�� CHERR CHERRY= ■:' 11 :1■ ■'Ini= ' I � I4nn■....r �� O.ni.*yNn b/ �/,,,.� 1..■1 ....■ �� .- - ... ' - - � �. err"" 1�11■�1 III�A■.■■■1::.Mr■r.� _ 1 �` �a �A �� ■u■q Pnlnm minn , 11111= =i 111111=0 77...11 F ■mn�an_clxrunnlm � �- a a u u � �-FR!ANKLiN- --- - FRANKLIN y 1 I.."-_ �11111111111111�11 - -fllonlllf911g 11 `=l11111 Inlllll e - "�'��tlllillll a - 6- • �IIIP� ' 1 . 1. ■�'.■.i1111��i�'I.1••1 D ■ ■1111. ■' ■ ■1111.■ �: . - • • • nmu unu.p uu � • - • • • � ■unu unu.p�.■rm mn .. n ,. ■ mn .. C 4W,1s ,1 ■1.,, i ��j11�,.�N I n.uun. 1 _ ■�I � .nu.u..L �* 1 ' ■��■�1��I:..■iii■:'°s°!n. � • -• •• . ��I: ■iii■:'?°•+.■ ..■■■..■ ■. ■r' ....■.■■.Ip�� iii:�::�:i ::. . �� :::�::•�•: :� 1• ■..'..1111 m nnn►.'�n ■..'■.Illl.m nnn►.'�n ' ■u.:ul■nm . 1 ' ■u■:n■■nm n11nn m :I�nmullll nn:I�nmlln 1 nnmll 11t■ u nn.n. nl.1 M. �' ` u nn.ml■Im.1 • ' Intl ==■ mna ■ iiiii e_'" oil n__.I�Inmull F- Inx�a.eew�unmm i�57� �IIIIII II- - � U�uCJ <aJ {ma�I1��yyi ■II. 1111 Illllllllll�il L IIIIOI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII •�nnnu= nnuu i111 ♦ • (null= -iiiil' wuu 11 � 11 Item#2. IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/26/2020 11/6/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 6/23/2020 11/4/2020 Site Posting 90 10/2/2020 11/6/2020 Nextdoor posting 6/23/2020 11/4/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g compplan) Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The subject site is currently zoned R-4 and the Applicant is requesting a rezone to R-8; both zoning designations comply with the future land use designation of Medium Density Residential (MDR). The proposed development is proposed as 26 single-family residential lots at a gross density of approximately 5.5 du/ac meeting the required gross density in the MDR. Single-family homes are a desired residential use in the MDR as. and the proposed development will match much of what is nearby but with smaller lots and more density, therefore offering homes at different price points than the surround R-4 sites to the north of the subject site. but with the within thisfutui�e land use designatien. F-Hrther site design ana4wis-is.belew in z9Hbs-eqHen fanii4,hemes.. These additional heusing designs meet the intent ef-previding housing ept Staff finds the proposed development and use to be generally consistent with the future land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation and/or rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of rezoning with the provisions included in Section HII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the rezone for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancioy.orglcompplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities"(2.02.01 A). The Applicant is proposing to construct detached sidewalks along both Black Cat and Pine and add a micro pathway into the development in the northeast corner of the site. The Applicant is proposing these buffers and micro pathway as their open space;the micro pathway is also shown with a tot-lot which is intended to be a site amenity. This pedestrian connection is a nice addition, especially with it being shown within a larger common lot than originally proposed.Because of the redesign that occurred, this pedestrian connection and the new street connection to Pine Ave allows for more pedestrian and bicycle connection through the site. The proposed plat is smaller than 5 acres Page 6 Page 15 Item#2. and therefore is not required to meet the minimum 10% open space standard and the open space that is proposed within this development is lamely landscape buffers that offer pedestrian connectivity but is not active in its use. The Applicant is proposing a tot lot, as mentioned, which should help activate the common lot that it is within.Despite the type of open space proposed, Fuller Park(the closest public park to the site) is approximately I mile away by foot and the proposed pedestrian connectivity should make it more efficient to reach it. Staff finds that despite the proximity of the public park, it does not alleviate the need for usable open space within this development as desired in the purpose statement of UDC 11-3G, the Common Open Space code section. Therefore,Staff finds that the Applicant should lose an internal buildinje lot and make it a common open space lot instead. This chanize would help this project meet both the UDC and the Comprehensive Plan. "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity"(6.01.02B). The existing access to this site is via W. Quarterhorse Lane—a private road that other parcels located to the south and east also use as an access to Black Cat Road, an arterial street.According to the originally submitted plat, the Applicant proposed to convert the private road to a public road. The Applicant proposed the main access for this development to be from Black Cat rather than the adjacent Pine Avenue, a collector street.However,ACHD policy does not support the Quarterhorse access to Black Cat, an arterial street.As such, they have required the applicant to take access from the lesser classified street,Pine Avenue, which necessitated a redesign of the project. City code, UDC 11- 3A-3, also requires access to be taken from Pine Ave. To complicate the matter further, Quarterhorse Lane will remain as a private lane and ACHD does not have the authority to require the closure of this access. The new layout does in fact show access to Pine, a lesser classified street but the private lane access to Black Cat cannot be closed without the consent of all easement holders. Further, access prevents the extension of the 25 foot wide landscape buffer and the 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along N. Black Cat Rd. Staff is of the opinion this area should be depicted on the plat as a non-buildable lot until the easement holders consent to vacate the access—the Applicant has revised the plat to show this and will extend the landscapiniz and sidewalk as far south along Black Cat as possible. To ensure this lot can re-develop in the future, staff recommends the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates how the 25 foot wide landscape buffer and two stub streets are going to be extended in the future and how the remaining portion of the easement area can be redeveloped with the adjacentproperties. See additional discussion below in the Access section of the staff report(V.E). "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services"(3.03.03F).Public services are readily available to the subject site because of the existing nearby developments to the north and west. Applicable service departments have granted their approval of the development and its impact to the system with one modification; the Water Department would like to see the water system looped through and connected to the water main in Black Cat Road to ensure better water quality is achieved. It should be noted that the Public Works Department general lX does not want public infrastructure placed in Me private road easements. However, the Applicant has limited options to loop the water main in this development and must utilize the existing private access easement. Public Works has signed off on this location and has offered their comments regarding this (see Section VIII.B). Page 7 Page 16 Item#2. "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits" (4.05.03B). The subject site is near the edge of the City's limits but has City of Meridian development to its north and west. In addition, this site is currently vacant and underutilized because it is already annexed but not yet developed. The proposed development is an opportunity to develop the site adequately and remove a vacant parcel from the City. This development is also allowingthe he City to plan for the future use of the private road easement and for how the future road network will work in this area should it redevelop from county land and be annexed into the C "Encourage the assembly of parcels for master planning,design and entitlement purposes; discourage piecemeal annexation and development"(3.03.03J). The subjectparcel is already annexed into the City of Meridian and cannot be made part of a larger assembly of parcels at this time. The public road layout should lay the infrastructure for future connectivity of the immediate area as all parcels to the south and east that are not currently annexed into the City should have a lower classified street to access in the future. With Quarterhorse Lane being the only access for these parcels, master planning the public road network becomes even more imperative as City code and ACHD cannot support maintaining this access to Black Cat. This requires that ultimately all easement holders agree to vacate their rights to the easement and take access through this development and other local street networks to the east. With the revised plat, the Applicant has provided two stub streets to the existing Quarterhorse Lane for future connectivity. , it is sdM unekear how Me easement ama is inkwded to be . The Applicant agrees that at least a portion of the existing easement should be come public right-of-way in the future so that the parcels to the southeast have local street access to Pine and the accesses to Black Cat are continued to be limited in line with ACHD and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives if Staffs recommendations are adhered to and despite the W. Quarterhorse Lane access remaining. C. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential homes;this use is listed as a principally permitted use in the requested R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant's revised plat shows front loaded single-family homes within the R-8 zone, seemingly the industry standard in the requested zone. The proposed development and use meet both the zoning and comprehensive plan policies despite the development not providing a new housing type.However, the proposed lot sizes are smaller than those closest to the subject site and therefore cannot accommodate as large of a home which should dictate a lower price point for these homes:the comprehensive plan also calls for housing variety in the way of price point but this is merely coniecture at this point in the development process. The proposed use is allowed in the requested zone but does not offer an "exciting"or "premier"housing type outside of what already exists in the immediate area. as a majot*of the proposed tise but also showsfour hontes that are aMey loaded and i4vo homes that areproposed jvkh side loade garages-. This is a ehafigeftom aiq pmvious plat submitted to Staff and would allojv d�fftren pro proposed and not as allftont loaded-. Page 8 Page 17 Item#2. D. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed preliminary plat appears to meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested R-8 zoning district and use of detached single-family homes. This includes property sizes, required street frontages,and road widths of the local streets and alleyway. All local streets are proposed as 33-foot wide street sections within 47 feet of right-of-way. Staff notes that the Applicant's request to rezone the property from the existing R-4 district to the R-8 zoning district, increases the number of lots that are able to be developed on this parcel. This is due to the minimum lot size in the R-8 district being half of that in the R-4 district. The Applicant has not proposed all lots at the minimum 4,000 square feet but the average lot size in the development is just below 4,100 square feet. Because the Applicant is proposing such small lots and is new 19repesiffg dif-ftring so,Les ef detaehed single family homes (a8ey,and side leade unite Staff is recommending that prior to the City Council hearing the Applicant provide exhibits showing how the d�fftren homes s will physically fit on the proposed lots. E. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access into this development is now proposed via a new street connection to Pine Avenue instead of converting W. Quarterhorse Lane to a new public street. The Applicant has chosen to take access from Pine Avenue after receiving the draft staff report from ACHD which required a completely new plat layout following the initial submittal; subsequent revisions have maintained this access point to Pine.W. Quarterhorse Lane is currently an ingress/egress access easement with 4 servient sites,including the subject site of this application.Without the consent of all easement holders,the access must remain until the remainder of the properties annex or redevelop. Therefore the easement will remain as a non-buildable lot until such time it can be included as part of a future development. As noted above, staff has received reef ffie fi s .,.....he *t..,.,,.,;ao an exhibit for the Commission that demonstrates how this area of the property could redevelop with the required street frontage improvements and be incorporated into a future plat when the properties to the southeast redevelop in the future. The applicant should relinquish their right to use of said easement as part of the rezone request. All internal local streets within the proposed development are shown as 33-foot wide street sections that will accommodate on- street parking where no driveways exist. The new layout proposes access off of Pine Avenue in line with N. Traquair Place on the north side of Pine. The internal streets provide two north-south stub streets to the existing private lane (Quarterhorse Lane) that will be extended in the future and a cul-de-sac that serves six(6) homes A„p':. Ht i -the alley leaded and side leaded heme�y. Staff can support this revised layout more than previously submitted plats as it places the easement within a lot of its own, shown as Lot 910 Block 1. However-, this let is net speeifieally,addressed an the plat er wit zspeeifieaI4,with thefutui;e read neti�,ark W411 it be green zspaee? W411 it beeeme part ef thefu4w�e read neti�,ark? These are questions.the Gemmission and Geuned should ask ef MeApplieant. Staff understands that there maybe no precise way to know what will happen here with this easement but it is often up to the developer/Applicant to show Staff that all aspects of a property have been vetted;Staff is net-now comfortable in stating that this due diligence has occurred with the future of this access easement because the Applicant has provided an exhibit showing this lot as common open space to be landscaped with grass and still accommodate the existing gravel access road for the servient sites. In addition, the area of the access easement that is between the new local north-south street and Black Cat will hold both a sewer and water main line in order to loop the systems. These utilities require a 30-foot wide easement which will overlay the lot and Page 9 Page 18 Item#2. make this area non buildable in perpetuity. pplicant has stated to Staff that the remaining easement area is best suited for future right-of-way for future redevelopment to the southeast and Staff agrees. The exhibit provided by the Applicant does not specifically show this because it is unknown where future access to the south could be taken from but the story has been told in both discussion and in the response to the previous staff report. Despite the unknowns, Staff is more comfortable supporting this revised plat with the requirement of an additional DA provision to ensure this easement area is used appropriately in the future. This recommended provision is to restrict Lot 110-Block I as a non-buildable lot for either common open space or future right-of-way dedication as other easement holders redevelop their own properties and relinquish their rights to this private lane access in the future. Note:Staff has received a revised staff report from ACHD and they have approved the revised plat with specific conditions of approval(see Section VIII.G). F. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards.No parking plan was submitted with the application. The street sections(33 feet wide) of the proposed local streets within the development, as shown on the submitted plat, accommodate parking on both sides of the street where no driveways exist. The cul-de-sac is proposed with a radius of 48 feet and cannot accommodate any parking along its perimeter. G. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): No multi-use pathways are proposed or required with this development because the master pathways plan does not show any multi-use pathway adjacent to the subject site. This Applicant is proposing attached sidewalks along all local streets that will connect to the detached sidewalks proposed along the arterial and collector streets via the micro-pathway proposed in the northeast corner of the site and the new road connection out to Pine. These sidewalks and micro-pathway should help improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity from this development. Originally, the Applicant proposed their micro pathway and amenity in the northwest corner of the site but Staff was concerned with the amenity being on an intersection that is only going to get busier over time. During the project review meeting between department staff some additional comments from Public Works regarding the location of the proposed micro pathway have come to Staffs attention. Public Works noted that this development should loop their water line to the water main that lays in Black Cat Road to help with water quality for the development. The revised plat still proposes the micro path and amenity in the northeast corner which does not help Public Works with achieving a looped water system on this property. In lieu of this, Public Works has recommended that the water main connect to the main within Black Cat via a new water main easement in the existing Quarterhorse Lane access easement, generally paralleling the sewer main proposed in the easement area as well. This will require the Applicant to abandon the existing main line stub located in the intersection of Black Cat and Pine since it will no longer be needed. The Applicant has taken these comments into account with their most recent revisions to the plat and has made the appropriate accommodations for a looped system via the existing access easement. Public Works has reviewed the latest plat and utility payout and offers their support of the new lavout of the looped systems. Page 10 Page 19 Item#2. Publie W—,.4 . hf a s ;, C .,f;en iTT77 A H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal local streets. The Applicant is also proposing 5-foot detached sidewalks within the required landscape street buffers on Pine Avenue and Black Cat Road. There are no existing sidewalks adjacent to the site and along the arterial streets. These additional sidewalks will add to the pedestrian connectivity throughout the immediate area and offer safer routes for pedestrians and cyclists alike. Black Cat Road is expected to be widened adjacent to this site within the next five (S)years and the proposed sidewalk is shown outside of that ultimate ROW. However, the sidewalks appear to be right at the edge of the ultimate ROW which does not meet code. UDC 11-3B-7C.]a states that detached sidewalks shall have an average minimum separation ofgreater than four(4)feet to back of curb and the back of curb shall be measured from the ultimate curb location. Therefore,Staff is recommending a condition of approval to move the detached sidewalks further into the landscape buffers to meet this requirement. I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to N. Black Cat Road, an arterial, and a 20-foot buffer is required adjacent to Pine,a collector street. This buffer should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and placed into a common lot that is at least as wide as the required buffer width;this common lot should also contain the detached sidewalk required along both roadways. Pathways,including micro-paths are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12. The original landscape plans appear to show compliance with those requirements but no updated landscape plans have been provided that match the revised plat layout. The submitted plat depicts a 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Black Cat and a 20 foot wide buffer along Pine, both within common lots. The correct number of trees appeared to be shown on the original landscape plans as well(see Section VII.Q. To ensure these buffers are installed and vegetated appropriately, the improvements required outside of the ultimate ROW should be constructed prior to receiving building permit approvals. Code also dictates that street landscape buffers are to be vegetated with shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative ground cover in addition to trees; the submitted landscape plans do not appear to show this vegetation. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to revise the landscape plans to correct this as well as revise the landscape plan to match the revised plat layout and be submitted to Staff no later than ten (10) days prior to the City Council hearing. J. Open Space and Amenity(UDC 11-3U): Because the subject site is less than five(5) acres in size, the minimum requirement of 10% qualified open space and at least one site amenity are not required to be met by UDC 11-3G. However, the Applicant is requesting a rezone to a zoning district that allows higher density. Staff finds it appropriate that usable open space and an amenity be provided. In response, the Applicant has proposed approximately 35,000 square feet of open space which amounts to approximately 17%of the site. This open space consists mostly of the street buffers along the outside of the development and also includes the common lot that holds the micro pathway and the proposed tot-lot in the northeast corner of the site at the end of the cul-de-sac. Even though the regulations in UDC 11-3G do not apply to this development because of its size,Staff believes that the purpose statement of providing open space that improves the Page 11 Page 20 Item#2. livability of neighborhoods should still be adhered to.In addition, the purpose statement for subdivision regulations in UDC 11-"-1 discusses promotion of developments that provide for adequate sunlight,fresh air, and usable open space. Staff ean better suppar4 the new open spaee layout but is sdH unsure how it WY work with PubUe ' .Due to the existence of a larre public park beinz within a mile of the development,Staff can understand why the Applicant has not proposed more usable open space within the development.However, it is Staffs opinion that more usable open space should be made available within the site to accommodate those who cannot so easily walk or bike to Fuller Parr In order to meet the purpose statement of UDC 11-3G and the subdivision regulations the Applicant should lose a buildable lot and convert it to open space. Therefore.Staff is recommending that Lot 6,Block 2 be a common open space lot instead of a buildable lot. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC requirements in regards to height,type, and location. The Applicant should ensure fencing still meets the required UDC standards once providing a revised landscape plan that matches the revised plat. L. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the detached single-family homes for this project(see Section VILD). The submitted elevations show a combination of single and two-story single-family homes. The elevations also show different architectural elements,finish materials, and overall design options including some RV size garage spaces. However, with such small lot sizes proposed. Staff is concerned the submitted elevations may not depict homes that can actually fit within the building envelope of the R-8 zoning district. To help staffsee this, Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the Applicant provide an exhibit showinghproposed home will fit on these lots. However-, theApplieaHt has Hot provided eeHe"al eleiw6aHs ef the alley leaded orside Design review is not required for single-family detached structures but Staff finds the submitted elevations meet the requirements in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because a number of the homes abut streets that are heavily traveled, Staff is recommending a condition of approval that requires those homes abutting both Black Cat and Pine are constructed with modulation and variations in materials to mitigate any potential of a monotonous wall plane along these streets. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone and the requested preliminary plat per the analysis in Section V and per the findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on October 22,2020.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Rezone and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Penelope Constantikes,Applicant Representative b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Drew Morgan,Neighbor; Penelope Constantikes Page 12 Page 21 Item#2. d. Written testimony: 17 residents submitted written testimony and 3 left voicemails outlining similar concerns of traffic increasing in the area even without this development and the density of the project in relation to traffic. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. Clarification of future plans for the existing private lane along the southern boundary, Quarterhorse Lane. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. How Quarterhorse Lane is intended to function both in the near future and in the years to come—specifically,how much of it will be green and how much is expected to be right-of-way for the other easement holders to the east and southeast; b. Size of the lots in relation to the submitted conceptual elevations and concern over whether those homes can actually be built on the proposed lots; C. Location and amount of open space being proposed and how will the different locations be accessed by residents; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Add a condition requiringfencing encing along the north boundary of the open space lot(Lot 10,Block 2)in the northeast corner of the site where the tot-lot is located for added safe b. That the applicant revise the plat to reconfigure the lots (Lots 9& 11,Block 2)around the northeast corner open space lot of the site to increase its size; c. Add a condition to work with Staff on providingfencing encing within the ingress/egress easement along the southern boundary to fence off the gravel road from the open space within this lot(Lot 10,Block 1); d. Revise the plat to remove a lot along Black Cat Road to widen those lots. e. Provide sample elevations of the homes that will fit on the proposed lots. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant has not submitted different elevations based on the Commission's recommendations because the submitted elevations are the designs that are intended to be constructed in the development. b. The revised plat now shows the private lane easement as a common lot and dedicated right-of-way. If Council supports the revised plan, Staff recommends DA provision l.e be modified to read as follows: "A final plat application shall not be submitted until the Applicant receives approval and provides documentation from all easement holders(Parcels 51210325555, 51210325800,& 51210325710)to relinquish their rights to the existing access easement once the public road connection to Pine Avenue is constructed." Council strike condition of approval 2c. as this coincides with modified DA provision le. above. Council include a new condition of approval as follows: i. Construct a 5-foot wide micro-path along the south side of Lot 7,Block 1 that connects to the sidewalk along the west side of N. Traquair St. and to Black Cat Road. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 13 Page 22 Item#2. VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map wo DAVID EVANS P•Na ASSOC IATES INC DESCRIPTION FOR HORSE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION REZONE The following describes a parcel of real property,situated within a portion of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter(NW l/4 SW 1/4)and within a of portion of the Northwest Quarter(N W 1/4)of Section 10,Township 3 North,Rangel West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the centerline of North Black Cat Road,which is also the northwest corner of said NW 1/4 SW 1/4,also being the southwest corner of said NW 1/4;Thence,along the extension of said centerline,along the west boundary line of said NW IA,North 00o25'10"East,21.95 feet to the intersection and centerline of West Pine Avenue; Thence,along the centerline of said West Pine Avenue,South 89°13'30"East,525.16 feet; Thence,departing said centerline,South 00°25'10"West,20.12 feet to the northeast corner of the land described in Warranty Instrument,Number 2020-034862,which is also shown in Record of Survey, Instrument Number,95043060 as the northwest corner of Parcel 2; Thence,along the east boundary line of said Warranty Deed,Instrument Number 2020-034862,South 00°25'10"West,420.45 feet to the southeast corner of said Warranty Deed; Thence,along the south boundary line of said Warranty Deed,North 89'34'50"West,487.09 feet to the cast right of way of North Black Cat Road; Thence,continuing along the extension of said south boundary line,departing said east right of way, North 89°34'50"West,38.00 feet to the west boundary line of said NW 1/4 SW 1/4; Thence,along said west boundary line,North 00'25'10"East,421.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGIINNING,containing 5.33 acres more or less. �0 O i 13 4 sT 5 0 0 of P.Sl1Lt�P Page 14 Page 23 Item#2. EXHIBIT MAP FOR REZONE HORSE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION A PORTION OF THE NW1/4 OF THE SW1/4 AND A PORTION OF i HE N W1/4 OF SECTION 10 T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 W C'0VTEk[JNF W. PINE AVE. a tr, S891 TWE 525.16' 3 in CV N r N _ _ Ir] 0 FOUND BRASS CAP — — — FOUND I/2"RE9AR "Np N Z NW CDR N%4 SWI/4 2' EBB8 WESTIQ1i,10 NE COR WARRANTY DEED SECIINST. NO. 2020-034862 I q I 4' 4) }ww 0 00 S G r N �d i 00 CJ LO W I TOTAL REZONE = I AREA 5.33 Aft L C ❑z a I a Z CV LN L) W�Z V~1 .040 N 2 V I N_ FOUND 1/2'REBAR S- INGRESEGRESS _ I ABLE CAP / EASEMENT WARRANTY DEED NST NO, 2020-34W2 L N89'34'50'W N 89'34'50" W 487.09' 38.00' 1"=100' OIL N yea E 5 DAVID EVANS a 4 7° ANoASSOCIATES ime. 4401 �D TM 9179 W Black Eagle Dr O Boise Idaho P.SUL��P� Phone: 208-585-5558 Page 15 Page 24 Item#2. 525.16 — s89°23'30"e � 0 3 oh Q O N ry C O < 0 e n89°34150"w 487.09 Title: Date:05-20-2020 Scale: 1 inch= 100 feet File:RSCV16 HORSE MEADOWS SUB REZONE.des Tract 1: 5.331 Acres: 232208 Sq Feet:Closure=s89.2310w 0.06 Feet: Precision—1132299: Perimeter=1935 Feet 001=00.2510e 21.85 004=s00.251Ow 420.45 007=00.251 Oe 421.98 002=s89.1330e 525.16 005=n89.345Ow487.09 003=s00.25IOw 20.12 006=n89.3450w 38.00 Page 16 Page 25 Item#2. B. Preliminary Plat(date: 94A2020 on 6/2020 11/12/20) � 5 -• I -- -� f r T a. f �jp C/) I QI II � I I, 'I I • I I I I I i I N I Ir RI m E , 'l n fi z -�� J.. 1i f ' r If 4 o y om z y o tt�� I = ()p .a n a €- e� r V' ;` ' I Vim: o O z es� r FW- k 55' I- 4 iM - y � FIB $�.� l�:-Na(q. o�:k^i�'4 may•� � I �/ u LI r: - �I` Z a11e HORSE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION - Revisions ROCK SOLID CIVIL _ K� PRELIMINARY PLAT Page 17 Page 26 Item#2. ® --- ---- --------------------------- ------------------- 5 8921 8C F 1518'3' t� W.PIN(At¢ — a —- - - - - - - - —- - - 0 SB97a' {. so'.4e�.•c' J 'n! lo7.a I' L s Ia x9r I ;a n e`lunz S •• .... ... rnlaL,1W 1 ccuuorr Lcr Ho 0 im 4,552 I 1 IwIt , 14 1 !< I . P.LOGk 1 svn I I � �qh _ , J s9 8,013 f Ia $ 3 4�80 7 Gj i I 4,610 4 4.453 tt r +4p II ,q" err a ocJz v a o9i qlt f'a M 4.230 � 3� �� L — —r,.,•— —J <I L 4 —J I tt _eras_ 17 d,1126 d,Je6 h 11 y I# 4,313 i I it r — - -_— � � \� — — J L — J err ,(d Q •P � ":, � k 8 COVNON Wi a �1•—— �.&2 50Fr r—— 3 a F 6,000 eaY lamue mr •i9 n:« 4 1.66•0 1? 16 IMV 9i0' — Vy- 4v9Ft tta g Q a ` r tri 1' JJ I L B4S' Mdf 82noo sI 1. sgft e s I 6.CB5 qfk SIC k �\ 21 I1 rvR9'.Si�ll'w 2G2.3i .............................. ]LOCK 2 J �yY _ - I iI r — — x FWb� t-WI. Page 18 Page 27 Item#2. C. Landscape Plan(date: 4/20/2020)(NOT APPROVED) m—s.kop am.m D o.....m .aE,... c o it I I . IL---------- -------- --- r I f L--- J L----------- '�I• ----------i -------- --------- �— —1 I —I .. III �---------- —H----------ti— III I• =: L---------J L---- -----J L-------- u r I I •� i I sA� I I I I m1 I I•� I � 'T I_— 1 L— � I I, I Ili If � I I I I I I I I _� � • `� � _ aj r I I I I \\ 3¢ I I' ^ F x N 0 o Q' Pn s ga o- q t9n � o P s I! � e K �• IJ 7 i s 9 2 D^ HORSE MEADOWS SUBDIVISION F1' ➢_ iZ °. 5 }� do's r@v a £�� Page 19 Page 28 Item#2. N—CK CAT ROAD ————- —————— -- �.,sp� II IL _------L —7 i �F � �� I ` � v— L � � I .��AS •fir IL---------J \J v I a- -- � I 1 I° — —\ 3m ------ i' W , IL_ —L I L— —� •�_ I � I , ---------- -- ------ I I I I .• y r � � 1 HORSEMEADOWSSUBDIVISION El 71CH—C—AT RD MERIDIAN.IDZ— E, S f2A ge �- Page 20 Page 29 Item#2. l� LAN—APERE-IREFOENTS. PLANT SCHEDULE ERviEw. IRS�• �P �Ea Ervo rE�v y U_�- _ .� LUS �9 — C p I .,.»....,.-,•.»�.,.. O .,.�� /,'�� I End — A YC Q n:wexxwrw�nmvu:ur,u:,u,ra - n,. F- — `L 5 I � _ II® K .�,M—BURLAP TREE—TING,o (2,��.o �.a.°.e 14 TUBULAR ...L1.00 Page 21 Page 30 BuildingD. Conceptual Page 22 �I a i� Item#2. - A l_ Page 23 Page 32 a . -- ;r. - s r I� Page 24 'y c --: Page 25 a` s I hy-" 1C k .a r_ 4 � i4y Page Item#2. E. Proposed use of existing access easement 92 I � a- _ o #h xasU G "� bl v r rg Y$ II 14 { x ,C6YI'L M-ILIZOS I d ss m JJ A are ou vmvdy'N s. I FI II' N ��o•e a! I� al !li b ! i VEF - Page 27 Page 36 Item#2. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of rezone of this property. Prior to approval of the rezone ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of rezone ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the rezone. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the submitted and revised plans and conceptual building elevations for the detached single- family dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. c. Direct lot access to N. Black Cat Road and W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. d. Upon approval of the preliminary plat and rezone,the Applicant shall relinquish their rights to use the ingress-egress easement along the south boundary known as W. Quarterhorse Lane. e. Lot 910,Block 1 (the lot containing W. Quarterhorse Lane) shall be a non- buildable lot owned and maintained by the HOA until such time that it is redeveloped in the future as either common open space or as public right-of- way. that aom east-a4es the ex4ors: n of t4e 25 feet wide!ands,ape L uff the two sttib stfeets and integration with the adjaeeat pr-epeAies to ensiffe this area is 2 At least for ( m days prior-t the City r,,, nei hear-ing Prior to Final Plat submittal,the preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated 09�0mr012020 11/12/2020, shall be revised as follows: a. Add. fiete prohibiting dire t lot aeeess via N Blae,Cat Read. b. Revise the plat to show the detached sidewalks along N. Black Cat Road and W.Pine Avenue with at least 4 feet of separation between it and the ultimate ACHD right-of-way. c. Add Revise plat note number 18 regarding statiag4ha4 Lot 910,Block Ito state: Lot 10, Block 1 is a non-buildable lot and is to be owned and maintained by the HOA until such time that it redevelops as either common open space or as public right,-off,-�waj on1X. dShow Let6,Bleek 2 as ca eewAnefi openi3aee lot ifi rcead of c� 3 At least for ( m days prior-t the City r,,,nei hear-:r.g Prior to Final Plat submittal,the landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated 04/20/2020 shall be revised as follows: a. Revise the landscape plan to show the required shrubs and other vegetative ground cover within the street landscape buffers along N. Black Cat Road and W. Pine Avenue. b. Revise the landscape plan to show the layout of the revised preliminary plat; make any adjustments to the calculations table if needed. Page 28 Page 37 Item#2. c. Revise the landscape plans to show the detached sidewalks along N. Black Cat Road and W. Pine Avenue with at least 4 feet of separation between it and the ultimate ACHD right-of-way. d. Show Let 6, Bleek 2 as a eemmon open Qi3aee lot instead of a building let with the eefFeet yegetatien as set fe#h i UPC-11 3G and 4-3& e. Revise the landscape plans to show Lot 4-9 8,Block 1 with the required vegetative ground cover. £ Add a detail of the proposed tet44 amenity to the landscape plans to ensure quality of structures. 4. Prior-te the Gemmissien heafing,the Appheant shall provide the fellewing te Planning S 1)building elevations depieting these homes th4 are alley leaded a-ad side leaded,a*d; 2) e*hibits showing setbaek eemplianee with the pr-opesed bttildiag let sizes a-ad diff-er-eat style Homes. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the R-8 dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for all buildable lots. 6. All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 9. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 10. The fagade of structures that face N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Pine Ave. shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials,color,modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical)to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Meridian Design Manual. 11. The Applicant shall adhere to all ACHD conditions of approval. 12. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing_required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 13. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 14. At least ten H 04 days vr-ier-to the City Geeneil heafine,the Appligant shall ensiffe that no tfee - B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. Page 29 Page 38 Item#2. lot pathway and tied into the e*isting n watef main stii in Blaek Cat. This sttib is not 1.3 Due to service crossing issues,please relocate the storm drainage beds on the south end of the project to the east-west roadway. 1.4 Relocate the east-west sewer alignment at the southwest corner of the development to connect to the existing manhole that is closer to the south property boundary in N. Black Cat Road. 1.5 Applicant to abandon the existing water main stub,per Meridian Public Works standards, near the northwest corner of the development in N. Black Cat Road. 1.6 Genneet the wa4efmaia at the seffffi end of N. Tr-aqt*air-St-Feet to the e*isfiag mainline in N. Blaek Cat Read. The alignmefft of this eenneetieft should follow established Ut4it� 1.7 The applicants design engineer has indicated that a geotechnical site investigation was conducted by MTI(Materials Testing&Inspection)dated December 4,2019, indicating that groundwater was encountered at 14-feet below ground surface. It was also stated that the MTI report concluded that groundwater would remain greater than 4-feet below ground surface. The actual MTI report was not submitted with the application,and typically they highlight any specific soils concerns,and specific construction considerations and recommendations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these considerations and recommendations to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils, and that shallow groundwater does not become a problem with home construction. Prior to this application being considered by the Meridian City Council, the applicant shall be required to submit the MTI report and any up to date ground water monitoring data based upon current adopted building codes, as well as any other updated geotechnical information or recommendations since the initial work. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. Page 30 Page 39 Item#2. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. Page 31 Page 40 Item#2. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190297&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190779&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191217&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ky Page 32 Page 41 Item#2. F. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190615&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=194266&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Ry IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8 and proposed use are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all provisions of the Development Agreement and conditions of approval are complied with. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and use of detached single-family dwellings complies with the regulations outlined for the requested upzone to the R-8 zoning district, specifically the purpose statement. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; 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 Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The property is already annexed into the City of Meridian. Therefore, Commission finds that this finding is not applicable. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial Page 33 Page 42 Item#2. compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan analysis and other analysis in Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, 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; 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 VIII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, 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 and approves of the project. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 34 Page 43 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision (H-2020-0104) by Wadsworth Development, Located at 3085 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of five (5) commercial building lots in the C-G zoning district for ownership purposes. Page 68 Item#3. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: December 22, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision (H-2020-0104) by Wadsworth Development, Located at 3085 E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of five (5) commercial building lots in the C-G zoning district for ownership purposes. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 69 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : December 22o 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision ( W2020 - 0104 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i 13 i 14 I I i I I Item#3. STAFF REPORT C:�*%- W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/22/2020 Legend DATE: 0 I�l U Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ®- FF SUBJECT: H-2020-0104 Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision ' ' IBM 'J Ey LOCATION: The site is located at 3085 E. Ustick - Road, at the southwest corner of S. Eagle Road and E. Ustick Road,in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5,Township 3N., Range 1 E. ' I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Preliminary Plat approval consisting of five (5)commercial building lots on 3.29 acres in the C-G zoning district for ownership purposes,by Wadsworth Development. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 3.29(C-G zoning district) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Regional Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 5 building lots Physical Features(waterways, Milk Lateral runs along southern boundary of property; hazards,flood plain,hillside) portion of irrigation casement that is on the subject site is being respected and was verified during CZC approval. Neighborhood meeting date;#of July 27,2020—One(1)attendee(representative of Kohls) attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2019-0082(DA Modification to remove the subject site from an existing DA and enter into a new one specific to this site;DA Inst.#2019-121599);A-2019-0376(CZC for parking lot,landscaping,and other relevant site improvements);A-2020-0163(CZC and Design Review approval of an urgent care facility on the SEC pad site). Page 1 Page 70 Item#3. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes;Comply with letter noting review that occurred with urgent care CZC(A-2020-0163). • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via a proposed shared driveway into Hwy/Loca1)(Existing and Proposed) the development from E.Ustick Rd.No direct access is proposed or allowed to E.Ustick Rd.or N.Eagle Rd. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Subject site has existing cross-access agreements in place Access for adjacent properties to the west and south.All of these properties will be accessed via drive aisles. Existing Road Network No Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ The required sidewalks and landscaping is currently under Buffers construction commensurate with the approved CZC plans (A-2019-0376). Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not required to perform any road improvements because Ustick and Eagle are at their full- build out at this time. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.2 miles from Fire Station#3 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#3 reliability currently 80% • Risk Identification Risk Factor 3—commercial • Accessibility Proposed project meets all Fire required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Police Service • Distance to Station 3.5 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 2.5 minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 10/1/2019-9/30/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,379 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 98. See attached documents for details. Between 10/1/2019-9/30/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 92 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services 0 • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.98 Project Consistent with WW YES Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns Flow is committed Water • Distance to Water Services 0' • Pressure Zone 3 Page 2 Page 71 Item#3. Description Details Page • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water YES Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns No comments C. Project Area Maps .Future Land Use Map .Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend _ 0Project Location Project Location Medium_ Density " a ® Residential Commercial -Low Density � I Residential ® A ,; -- Civic .Zoning Map -Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 Project Location I Project Location C-1 y City Limits R-3 Planned Parcels i� ® C-N C-GEH RUT R-2 R-1_C R-1-A ____c- _ C ' a Rl R'-8 _R-_8 Rl ' -- - -RUT-R-2 RUT o0 Rl R r% Y n o�p R-4 _ --- ----- -A R-2-P.,4. --4 L-4 C"C R-40Lt 4 --- `�R1 CKG rR,48n - Page 3 Page 72 Item#3. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Brad Watson,Wadworth Development— 166 E. 14000 South, Ste. 210,Draper,UT 84020 B. Owner: Nate Ballard,Wadworth Development 166 E. 14000 South, Ste. 210, Draper, UT 84020 C. Representative: Kristen McNeill, The Land Group,Inc.—462 E. Shore Drive, Suite 100,Eagle, ID 83616 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/30/2020 12/4/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/30/2020 11/23/2020 Site Posting 11/5/2020 12/10/2020 Nextdoor posting 10/30/2020 11/23/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property was annexed in 2003 as part of a larger annexation area(AZ-03-018). There was a Development Agreement(DA) associated with this annexation which was modified in 2019 to remove this property from that DA(H-2019-0082) and enter into a new one serving just this site(DA Inst.#2019-121599).The Applicant does not have to subdivide the property in order to develop it but is choosing to for future ownership purposes.The Applicant is required to comply with all existing DA provisions.Each building site will be evaluated for compliance with all applicable previous approvals at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application submittal on each building lot. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Mixed Use regional—In general,the purpose of mixed-use designations is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents and workers. The intent is to promote developments that offer functional and physical integration of land uses,to create and enhance neighborhood sense of place,and to allow developers a greater degree of design and use flexibility. Specifically,the purpose of the regional 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 subject site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of E. Ustick Road(an arterial street) and N. Eagle Road/SH SS. Staff and the Applicant understand the importance of providing more commercial uses in this area, especially on an undeveloped corner. To the east and across Eagle Road are two large commercial centers; to the north is an additional Page 4 Page 73 Item#3. commercial center. These surrounding areas provide a plethora of commercial uses that are used at a regional level. Directly to the west of the subject site is intended to be a high-end indoor gym (Villasport) and further to the south of the site is existing residential and some community serving commercial.As these lots get developed over time, Staff believes that they will continue to add to the City's commercial base and will likely be a higher benefit to users of the future Villasport and residents to the southwest of this site. Staff is of the opinion that there is less need for these five relatively small commercial lots to serve a regional base than those sites to the north and east. In addition, this project, in conjunction with the approved uses to the west, should satisfy the comprehensive plan and mixed-use policies. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridianciV.or /�compplan): Some applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D). This subdivision has received previous approvals that have analyzed the required landscape buffers and site design.All perimeter landscaping will be constructed outside of each individual lot and outside of the platting process. The approved landscaping meets all code requirements and helps to beautify the property while keeping the building lots visible. The landscaping also creates the required buffer to the two adjacent busy streets. In addition, each future building site will add to the perimeter landscaping to enhance each of their sites. There are no directly adjacent residences and likely, the subject site will not be directly viewable from the nearest residential neighborhood once other properties redevelop in the near future. The Applicant chose to construct the parking on the interior of all the proposed building lots which helps screen the parking lot from public view. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A).As noted above, the site design hides the parking lot from adjacent uses to the extent possible and allows each building to be integrated into the surrounding properties. Commercial zoning exists in all directions around the subject site which lends itself to not requiring any major buffer to a residential development. Staff finds the approved site design meets the best design practices outlined in plan. "Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas."(3.06.02C).No end users are not known at this time for the proposed lots along the north of the subject site. However, the most recent approval on site was for an urgent care facility in the southeast corner and the expected building to the west of the urgent care facility is planned to be a multi-tenant building. The urgent care facility will be its own small employment center and very likely, other buildings within this commercial subdivision will spring up to be a supportive use to it. In addition, a large gym is approved(but not yet constructed) on the adjacent property to the west— it is very likely businesses will open up in this subdivision in response to that larger employer as well. "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A). Where feasible, each building site will have pedestrian connections to one another and will have connections to the sidewalks along the adjacent major roadways on the north and east sides of the overall site. So long as these connections are required with each CZC review, Staff believes the subject site will have adequate pedestrian circulation especially due to the relatively small size of this commercial development. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent and in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 5 Page 74 Item#3. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject site is vacant at this time with basic site improvements completed(grading). All improvements along Ustick and Eagle Roads are existing. With the approved CZC,utilities and drainage will be completed. In addition,when each building lot develops, each development will be analyzed for compliance with city code. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The uses allowed on the subject site are those listed in UDC Table 11-2B-2 for the C-G zoning district. There has been an approved CZC on the property located on the building lot in the southeast corner of the site for an urgent care facility;this is a principally permitted use in the C- G district. Each future use will be analyzed for compliance when they are proposed over time. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The submitted Preliminary Plat proposes five(5)commercial building lots that vary in size from 0.39 acres to 1.02 acres. The C-G zoning district does not have a minimum lot size requirement but does have required landscape buffers and land use buffers. Because there are no adjacent residential districts,there are no required land use buffers. In addition, all landscape buffers are previously approved with the CZC for the overall site improvements(A-2019-0376). When future buildings are proposed on each building lot, Staff will analyze each building for compliance with other dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district. The proposed preliminary plat appears to meet the UDC requirements for the C-G zoning district outlined in UDC Table 11-2B-3. F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to and for this development will be via a shared driveway constructed with the Villasport improvements limited to a right-in/right-out access—this Applicant will be required to construct this shared driveway access for their development if it this site develops before the Villasport project. There are no public streets as part of this commercial development and therefore no stub streets are proposed. Instead,there are private drive-aisles as are standard for commercial developments. The Applicant has an existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial properties(Inst. #106169335). The Applicant's plat and subsequent plans show the shared driveway access with the Villasport project as a named private lane, N. Cajun Lane. Further to the south of the subject site, there is a private street with this name and the commercial drive aisle will be a continuation of this driving surface but in fact will not be a named street. Therefore, the Applicant needs to revise the plat to show this lane as a drive aisle and not a named private street. In addition, because the Applicant is proposing to subdivide this property, cross-access between the five proposed lots is also required. In the recorded Covenant, Conditions, and Restrictions (Inst. #2020-075457) this cross- access is discussed and dictated for each lot and future user. The Applicant should note this and the instrument number on the plat for transparency. G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B for nonresidential uses at the ratio of one (1) space per 500 square feet of gross floor area. In addition,if any restaurants are proposed,the parking ratio is one(1) space per 250 square feet of gross floor area.With the approved CZC, 109 parking spaces were approved but did not show any parking directly adjacent to the future commercial buildings on the north end of the site. Page 6 Page 75 Item#3. The revised site plan provided by the Applicant shows some changes to the parking lot that differ from the currently approved site plan. One of these changes include three additional trash enclosures for a total of four but none are proposed within the center parking area which is appreciated. The new locations of the trash enclosures should help minimize any blind corners when traversing the site. In addition, the Applicant is now showing reconfiguration of some of the parking spaces and additional parking adjacent to the northern building lots. These changes show a net positive gain of 16 additional parking spaces. Again, as each pad site is developed, the required number of spaces will be checked and the Applicant will be required to comply with code requirements. As noted above,parking for the whole site will be available for each building site per the recorded CC&Rs. Because the overall parking plan has changed since the original approval of the CZC, the Applicant will need to obtain approval of a new CZC outlining the changes made to the site improvements prior to obtaining any more building permits. H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The required multi-use pathway along Eagle Road will be constructed under the approved CZC from 2019 unless that expires and a new CZC will be required to be approved.No other pathways are proposed or required. Through the approved CZC, the Applicant is also required to construct the multi-use pathway with decorative street lamps as outlined in UDC 11-3H-4C. A portion of the multi-use pathway will be widened to 14 feet in width to accommodate a wide enough surface for city vehicles to access the city sewer main that the Applicant must pull from the corner of Ustick and Eagle. Public Works has reviewed approved this change from the approved CZC utility plans. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Minimum 5-foot wide sidewalks are required adjacent to all commercial buildings as outlined in UDC 11-3A-17. The one building site with an approval (American Family Urgent Care) showed compliance with this requirement. In addition, each building site will be analyzed for compliance with this requirement. The Applicant is required to construct 5-foot wide detached sidewalk within the landscape buffer to Ustick Road per the conditions of approval in the existing CZC. This sidewalk will connect to the multi-use pathway at the intersection of Ustick and Eagle Roads. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E. Ustick Road, an arterial street,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to N. Eagle Road/SH 55, landscaped per the standards listed in 11-3B-7C. All landscape buffers have been reviewed and approved with the existing CZC. K. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has not submitted conceptual elevations for the future commercial pad sites because end users are not yet known. Future commercial buildings are required to obtain certificate of zoning compliance and administrative design review approval and each building will be analyzed against the UDC and Architectural Standards Manual at that time. Page 7 Page 76 Item#3. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat application per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on November 19,2020.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Preliminary request. I. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Tamara Thompson d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. None 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 8 Page 77 EE VIL EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(dated: 09/28/2020) Wad r •311 Idnojp luewdOIBAOU 41AOMSPOM UO!S!A!pqnS ue!p!jaw qpomspem AN 11 to all: 11 41 11 M-a...p. IRV -Lop" 'IM fin T- �'j P� 10 I -L APJ'v,�, its 1 i �C, E a- Mgig• I i ll M IN 0 BIN' U-9 Ab btqdYw. vot PH rTrftT71= Page 9 EEI Item#3. B. Updated Site Plan(date: 11/13/2020) Z O a U U z OJ 8 aJ w r.+ \ W Q� �U =' 1 W Z $ 0 W cm9 iOr - \�� a e � III +I j� lf � 1 I 4 I w i(-414- > I I 11 II g I --- - a I I I n�1 III I I I 'I avreP secxn , I I ---------------------- ---------- = I I I I li I Page 10 Page 79 C. Landscape Plans(date: 10/09/2020) IL C2 P-b AH dnojq jU9WdOj9A9[j qIJOMSPUM e3 non oNv m3usn iv sNowwo3 mon a H NE I�t 12 AM5 gg Q IN i R H R ON o-I 4 R CL U. CL. im Page I I VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANMNG DiviSION 1. With the final plat submittal,the preliminary plat included in Section VII.A,dated September 28,2020, shall be revised as follows: a. Add a plat note prohibiting direct lot access to E.Ustick Road and N. Eagle Road. b. Add a plat note noting the existing cross-access agreement with the adjacent commercial properties(Parcel numbers S 1105110110& Sl 105110120)to include the recorded instrument number(Inst. #1061693 3 5). c. Revise plat note#11 to include the record instrument number for the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (Inst. #2020-075457). d. Remove the name of the shared driveway shown on the plat as N. Cajun Lane—this is not a named street in this location. e. Graphically depict the required landscape buffers along E.Ustick Road and N. Eagle Road on the plat per UDC 11-3B-7C.2. 2. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated October 9,2020,is approved as submitted. 3. The Applicant and/or assigns has the ongoing obligation to comply with all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site: H-2019- 0082;DA Inst. #2019-121599; A-2019-0376; and A-2020-0163. 4. The Applicant shall construct the multi-use pathway along N. Eagle Road with decorative street lamps in accord with UDC I I-3H-4C. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I I-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3C-6C for nonresidential uses. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 9. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC I I-3B-14. 10. The Applicant is required to obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)and Administrative Design Review(DES) approval for each new commercial building site. 11. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of preliminary plat approval by City Council(date unknown at this time); or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 12. Prior to submittal of a final plat for City Engineer signature,the applicant shall submit public access easements for the multi-use pathway along N. Eagle Road. Submit easements to the Planning Division for Council approval and subsequent recordation. The easements shall be a minimum of 14' wide (10' pathway+2' shoulder each side). Use standard City template for Page 12 public access easement. Easement checklist must accompany all easement submittals. Coordinate with Kim Warren from the City of Meridian Parks Department. 13. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. 1.2 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by Material Testing&Inspection dated July 25,2019 indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure structural integrity. 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 I I-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. Page 13 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-I 2-3H. 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 I-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public—works.aspx?id=272. Page 14 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.g,v x?id=215566&dbid=O&roo=MeridianC _p ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.a�px?id=216305&dbid=O&roo=MeridianC hty E. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aWx?id=215841&dbid=O&roo=MeridianC hty F. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.g,vpx?id=216454&dbid=O&roo=MeridianC ity IX. FINDINGS A. 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; Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan regarding land use, density, transportation, andpedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan policies and analysis in, Section V of this reportfor more information) Page 15 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details ftom 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, Commissionfinds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure ofcapital improvementfunds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is publicfinancial capability of supporting servicesfor the proposed development based upon commentsfi-oni the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,A CHD, etc). (See Section VlIfor more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road sarfety issues in their analysis but has not provided comments at this time. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historicfeatures that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 16 Applicant Presentation Wadsworth Meridian Subdivision 0104-2020-H December, 2020Meridian City Council Preliminary Plat Vicinity Map Current 8-R15-RG-C Future Land Use Map Vicinity Map Concept Plan THANK YOU Concept Elevations Existing Conditions 7/tem#4.77 E IDIAN*-----, (:>'*_W, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Oakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots, 26 common lots and 3 common driveway lots on 24.54 acres. B. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. # 114030972) to allow townhomes and patio homes whereas the existing development agreement allows self-storage and multifamily. FPage 90 I ' C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: December 15, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Clakwind Estates Subdivision (H-2020-0093) by Engineering Solutions, Located at 5685 N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat for 94 single family lots, 92 townhome lots, 26 common lots and 3 common driveway lots on 24.54 acres. B. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst.# 114030972) to allow townhomes and patio homes whereas the existing development agreement allows self-storage and multifamily. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign U12 to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : December 22 , 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME . Oakwind Estates Subdivision ( W2020 - 0093 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 � 3 i 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 I STAFF REPORT El� C�Wl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/22/2020 Legend DATE: - ------ TO: Mayor&City Council lei Ppn-je-n-1 bna n�on FROM: Alan Tiefenbach 208-489-0573 SUBJECT: H-2020-0093 Oakwind Estates Subdivision—PP and MDA LOCATION: Northeast Comer of N. McDermott Road and W. McMillan Road 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary Plat(PP)proposal consisting of 94 single family lots, 92 townhouse lots, 3 common driveways and 26 common lots on 24.54 acres in the R-15 zone. A concurrent development agreement modification(Instrument#114030972)is submitted to change the development plan from multifamily and self-storage uses to the single family and townhome uses being proposed with the subject project.NOTE: The Oaks development agreement governs a larger area that what is being proposed with this development application. Therefore,the subject modification will exclude the subject property from the boundary of the overall DA, so the applicant can enter into a new DA with provisions that are relevant to the proposed development. 11. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 24.54 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 94 single family lots,92 townhouse lots,3 common driveways and 26 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) Two Phases Number of Residential Units(type 186—94 SFR detached and 92 townhomes of units) Density(gross&net) 7.58 du/acre gross, 10.13 du/acre net Open Space(acres,total 4.97 acres total,4.16 acres(16.95%)qualified open space. [%]/buffer/qualified) Pagel Description Details Page Amenities Pathways,central lawn,playground,fire pit,outdoor kitchen and shelter,additional qualified open space> 20,000 sq. ft. Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of Oct 10,2019,2 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Oakcreek AZ 08-004,Oaks North-RZ-13-015,PP-13- 00 14,MDA-13-015&DA Instrument#114030974; and Oakwind H-2018-0119.The previous Oakwind development is not moving forward because the applicant failed to execute the amended development agreement. The new proposal is intended to supersede the previous approval. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission Yes Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State 2 local streets,Cherrybrook Drive and Daphne Street,will Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) connect to N. Trident Way,which connects to W. McMillan Rd(arterial). Traffic Level of Service D Existing Road Network No existing internal roads. Existing Arterial Sidewalks McDermott Road—Undeveloped(no sidewalks or buffers) Buffers McMillan Road—Undeveloped(no sidewalks or buffers) Proposed Road Improvements Applicant required to construct all internal roads. 10'wide walkway and installation of curb and gutter along N.McDermott and W.McMillan. Distance to nearest City Park(+ 2 1/2 miles, Seasons Park,Keith Bird Legacy Park size) Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.5 miles • Fire Response Time >5 minutes • Resource Reliability 86% • Risk Identification I • Accessibility Roadway access,radio coverage • Special/resource needs No aerial device necessary • Water Supply 1,000 gpm • Other Resources None needed Police Service • Distance to Police Station 8 miles • Police Response Time >5 minutes • Calls for Service 102 within one mile • %of calls for service split by 47%P2,53%P3 priority • Accessibility Satisfactory. • Specialty/resource needs None necessary. • Crimes 14 • Crashes 3 Page 2 Description Details Page e Other Reports 85 West Ada School District • Impacted Schools Pleasant View ES- 1.8 Miles Star MS—7.2 Miles Meridian HS—5.5 Miles • Capacity of Schools Pleasant View ES-650 Star MS— 1000 Meridian HS—2075 • #of Students Enrolled Pleasant View ES-356 Star MS—701 Meridian HS— 1975 • Estimated New Students Generated by Development Pleasant View ES-60 Star MS—30 Meridian HS—40 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services 0 • Sewer Shed N.McDermott Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application • WRRF Declining Balance 13.97 • Project Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Yes Plan Water * Distance to Water Services 0 e Pressure Zone I * Estimated Project Water ERU's See application 9 Water Quality No concerns * Project Consistent with Water Master Plan Yes 9 Impacts/Concerns *Water main should be removed from McDermott Rd. *Water main in Daphne St should be 12",the main shall extend west and stub at McDermott Rd *Alley with both water and sewer shall be 20' wide with 5' easements on either side to a total of 30'. *Each phase of the development will need to be modeled to verify minimum fire flow pressure is maintained. Page 3 CF(i -.E'R 6u a it A, ff..'.�V�(' - :HNINI-R.I.A �rn poll ri wig; ............ !1"IE R 7...... ........... will MJLUA OM Mi 0 = - ............. C. Representative: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions LLP— 1029 N. Rosario St. Ste 100,Meridian ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 10/16/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 10/13/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 10/27/20 on site Nextdoor posting 10/13/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS This proposal includes platting the subject property to allow 94 single family lots, 92 townhouse lots, 3 common driveways and 26 common lots on 24.54 acres previously conceptually approved to develop with multifamily and self-storage uses. This proposal includes amending the existing development agreement(Instrument#11403 0972)that only allows multifamily and self-storage on this property. This subdivision is proposed to develop in two(2)phases as shown on the preliminary plat. In 2008,the subject property received annexation approval(AZ-08-004)for a large master planned residential development(Oak Creek AZ 08-004 and PP-08-003). The original annexation included 318.74 acres, although at the time only 139 lots on 30.72 acres at the SW comer of McMillan Road and Black Cat Road were proposed for platting(including the subject property). This was because city services were only available to this area with the expansion of the Black Cat trunk. The annexation included development agreement instrument# 109009629(agreement later terminated and replaced with the agreement noted below). In 2013,the subject property was rezoned to the R-15 zone and was included as a portion of the Oaks North Subdivision. The Oaks North Plat included a lot for both the multifamily and self-storage uses. The lot that was to develop with multi-family was required to at a density range between 8-15 du/ acre and the self-storage was allowed on 7.83 acres on the southern portion of the property subject to further approvals per the recorded DA.. In 2018,the 16.71 acre multifamily lot was proposed to be rezoned from R-15 to R-8 to develop eighty-two(82)single-family detached dwellings on lots ranging in size from 5,400 square feet to 8,600 square feet with an average lot size of 5,843 square feet(the Oakwind Subdivision H-2018- 0 119). This proposal included yet another amendment to the existing development agreement to remove the multifamily uses. This proposal was recommended for approval by the January 17,2019 Planning Commission,but was withdrawn by the applicant in June of 2019 before proceeding to the City Council. Accordingly,the Oaks North Plat and DA#114030972 still govern this property. A. Development Agreement Modification(MDA) The Applicant proposes to revise the following sections of Development Agreement Instrument# 114030972: 5.1.4 "Development of the multi-family lots requires conditional use permit approval. The density range in these areas shall be 8 to 15 dwelling units to the acre." Page 5 Proposedfor deletion. 5.1.9 "The proposed outdoor storage is an accessory use in the R-15 district for the benefit of the proposed residential developments and shall not operate as a stand-alone commercial business. Development of this lot shall not commence until the Owner/Developer obtains certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval of the storage facility." Proposedfor deletion. 5.1.12 "The Owner/Developer shall provide a method for notifying home owners of the future multi-family developments proposed with the Oaks North and Oaks South developments as determined by the Planning Division Manager." Proposed revision would strike the reference to the Oaks North. B. Sta supports a modification to the development agreement.As described below, the result would still be a diversity in housing, with a significant amount of useable open space. However,since the development agreement applies to the entire Oaks North and South (of which this property is only a smallpart)staff believes it would be better to leave the existing development agreement as is and create a new development agreementfor this property. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht�gs:llwww.meridiancity.orizlcompplan) The site is designated MDR(Medium Density Residential),which allows smaller residential lots. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units or less per acre (du./acre). The applicant proposes to develop this 24.54-acre site with 94 singlejamily lots and 92 townhouse lots at a gross density of 7.58 dwelling units per acre (d.u./acre) consistent with the MDR FL UM designation. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies (ht�gs:llwww.meridiancio�.orglcompplan): (Staff analysis is in italics after the cited policy) • Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) 94 singlejamily homes are proposed on the northern portion of the development on lots between 3,000 squarefeet and 5,500 squarefeet, with the average lot size being 3,700 square feet. The southern portion is proposed to develop with 92 townhomes on lots between 2,100 squarefeet and 3,200 squarefeet, with the average townhouse lot being 2,481 squarefeet. With the Oaks North and South Subdivisions being comprised of 963 singlejamily lots with lot sizes averaging 10,000 sq.ft. +/-) this proposalfor smaller lot sizes and singlejamily attachedprovides the "missing middle"housing encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. • Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. (2.0 1.0 1 G) As mentioned above, this proposal would allowfor a more diverse type of housing. • 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). This new subdivision provides a 10'widepathway along W. McDermott Rd. and a 10'wide pathway along W McMillan Rd.A 5'wide pathway bisects the proposed development north Page 6 —south and links to a 10'widepathway connecting thefuture Gem Innovation School to the Oaks North development. The townhouses are organized along mews with pathways and open space dividing the townhouse rows into groups of 5 and 7 units. The proposedplat depicts a total of 4.16 acres (or 16 9501o) of qualified open space, much of which is usable, and amenities consisting of a central open grassy area, community playground,fire pit, outdoor kitchen and shelter. The development as proposed would result in a pedestrian-friendly community that links to surrounding development andprovide quality open spacefor the residents. "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21.A regional sewer lift station andpressure sewer line were installed with the Oaks South Subdivision, extending east on McMillan Road and then south on Black Cat Road to the North Black Cat Lift Station. Oakwind Estates (this development) will connect to an existing 15-inch gravity sewer main line in N. Trident Way. An 8-inch sewer main line will be constructed and will be stubbed through a common lot to McDermott Roadforfuture service to the west. The applicant will be required to extend the 12-inch water main located at the intersection ofMcMillan and McDermott Roads north along the development's McDermottfrontage. This development cannot be served by Meridian Fire within the 5-minute response time but does meet the resource reliability goal ofgreater than 80%. Extended response times put the residents andfirst responders at a higher risk. More than one point of access is available to this property as N. Trident Way and W. Milano Dr. (which provides access to W McMillan via N. Rustic Oak Way) have already been constructed and stubbed to the subject property as part of the Oaks North No. 1. Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. (3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity"(6.01.02B). The proposed street network stubs two streets to the east— W. Cherrybrook Dr. and W Daphne St. -which connect to N. Trident Way. N. Trident Way terminates at W McMillan Rd to the south and W. Milano Dr. in the Oaks North development to the north. This proposal would not provide direct access to an arterial nor would it increase the number of access points to nearby collectors or arterials. Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices. (3.07.01A) The proposed density of 7.5 du/acre meets the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation of 3- 8 dwelling units per acre, andprovides a diversity of housing anticipated by the Planfor this area. However, staff notes townhouse lots as small as 2,200 sq.ft. are directly across the Page 7 streetfrom lots in the Oaks North No. I Subdivision which are between 8,000 squarefeet and 9,100 sf.ft. The applicant has noted Toll Southwest LLC(the owner) is also the developer of the Oaks North No. I to the east, and the subject property is part of this larger development. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures presently on the property. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes single-family detached and townhome dwellings which are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table I I-2A-2. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC LI-2): The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I I-2A-7 for the R-15 district.All lots meet the minimum 2,000 sq. ft.requirements, and future structures should comply with the minimum setbacks of the district. UDC I I-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 feet, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. Two pedestrian connections and a common open space area bisect the lots along N. McDermott Rd. in Block I with the longest block face being 628 feet. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3,LJ-3H-4): This development is estimated to generate 888 additional vehicle trips per day. ACHD previously reviewed this site as part of The Oaks Subdivision in December 2013 and as Oakwind Subdivision in February 2018. ACHD has noted their requirements will remain the same for this project, as the number of lots as proposed would likely be less dense than the 3 multifamily lots that were approved with the previous proposal. There are presently no local roadways within the site. This proposal includes 2 local streets - Cherrybrook Drive and Daphne Street-that are proposed to stub to the site's east property line. This would connect to N. Trident Way(approved and constructed as part of the Oaks North), which would route traffic to W. McMillian Rd. The applicant also proposes to provide alley- loaded access to townhouses in Block 3 by constructing a 20-foot wide paved alley that runs east/west between Marysville Way and Palustris Way. The proposed new access points are consistent with Comprehensive Plan action item 6.01.0213 which restricts access points on arterial streets. W. McMillan Rd.to the south and McDermott Road to the west are improved with 2-travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. An interim signal is planned to be installed at the W. McMillan Rd/N. Black Cat Rd. intersection in the next two years. Future improvements to W. McMillian Rd include widening W. McMillan Rd to 3-lanes from McDermott Road to Black Cat Road and installing a roundabout at this intersection. Future plans for N. McDermott Rd. include widening to three lanes. At the request of ACHD,the applicant is required to dedicate right-of-way and improve both roads along the frontages. Improvements include a 10' wide walkway along both roads and installation of curb and gutter. Per ACHD, Marysville Street and Palustris Avenue are proposed to be greater than 750-feet in length and will need to be redesigned to reduce the length of the roadways or to include the use of passive design elements. Stop sips, speed humps/bumps and valley gutter are not accepted as Page 8 traffic calming. Prior to City Council,the applicant should be required to submit a revised preliminary plat showing the redesigned roadways and approved by ACHD. Finally, UDC 11-3H states residential development along McDermott Road from Chinden Blvd to 1-84 is required to provide noise abatement by constructing a berm or a berm and wall combination a minimum of ten feet(10')higher than the elevation at the centerline approximately parallel to W. McDermott Rd. The landscape plan does not reflect this improvement. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit a landscape plan which meets the requirements of UDC 11-3H-4D prior to City Council. H. Common Driveways(UDC 11-6C-3): The proposed preliminary plat shows three common driveways (Lots 17,47 and 73 Block 1). Lots 17 and 47 will each serve three single family residences, and Lot 73 will serve 4 single family attached units. The common driveways meet the minimum width of twenty feet(20'), and none of the driveways exceed the maximum allowed length of one hundred fifty feet(15 0'). 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 should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. 1. Parking(UDC LI-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for single-family attached and detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit(i.e. 2, 3 and 4 bedroom units require 4 per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad)in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3 C-6. All elevations show at least two car garages, and the landscape plan shows parking pads of least 20' x 20'in front of the single family attached. The applicant has provided a parking exhibit for the single family attached portion of the project (southern portion). The parking plan provides a 33' local street section which allows for additional on-street parking. It is important to note this on-street parking does not count toward meeting minimum requirements.ACHD and Meridian Fire have both reviewed the plan and have not expressed concerns. J. Pathways ( UDC H-3A-8): As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan analysis above,this new subdivision provides a 10' pathway along W. McDermott Rd.,a 10' pathway along W. McMillan Rd. and 5' micro- pathways interspersed throughout the development. As required by UDC I I-3A-8, all micro- pathways are within lots of at least 15' in width and contain landscape strips of at least 5' in width with at least 100 tree per hundred linear feet as required by UDC I 1-313-12. K. Sidewalks(UDC LI-3A-1 7): Attached sidewalks are proposed throughout the development on both sides of all roads and meet the minimum widths of UDC 11-3A-17. L. Parkways (UDCLI-3A-17): No parkways are proposed with this development. M. Landscaping(UDC H-3B): The proposed landscape plan meets the requirements of UDC 11-313. 15 species of trees are provided where at least 5 different species are required. All proposed trees meet the minimum Page 9 sizes as indicated in Table 11-3B-5-2. A 35' wide landscape buffer is proposed along N. McDermott Rd as is required for an entryway corridor,and a 3 5' wide buffer is shown along W. McMillan Rd. whereas 20' would be required. The minimum landscape buffer density of I tree per 35' linear feet is exceeded, and all pathways include the minimum 5' landscape strip on each side of the pathway. Several landscaped common open spaces are provided including a central park of approximately I acre. Finally, landscaped mews of at least 20' are provided along the front of each single family attached unit,all containing a pathway and trees. The proposed landscape plan contains a note which indicates no trees exist on site and therefore tree preservation or mitigation does not apply. N. Qualified Open Space (UDC LI-3G): The development proposes 4.16 acres(16.95%) of qualified open space. This includes several grassy areas larger than 50' x 100',pathways along all the landscape buffers,micro-pathways internal to the development and along mews fronting the single family attached, and a one-acre park central to the development. The development proposes quality open space which exceeds the requirements. 0. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC LI-3G): The proposal includes a one-acre park with a playground, fire pit, outdoor kitchen and shelter. In addition,4.16 acres of qualified open space is proposed,which is 1.76 acres over the minimum requirement of 2.4 acres. (Additional qualified open space of at least twenty thousand(20,000) square feet is counted as an additional amenity.)The development exceeds the minimum requirements for qualified site amenities. P. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-A)- No waterways bisect this development. Q. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6,LI-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed along N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd., and 4' vinyl fencing is proposed along pathway connections, and common open areas as it allowed by UDC 11-3A-7-A. As mentioned in the section regarding access above,noise abatement by constructing a berrn or a berm and wall combination a minimum of ten feet(10')is required along W. McDermott Rd. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant submit a landscape plan which meets the requirements of UDC 11-3H-4D prior to City Council. R. Utilities (UDC LI-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. S. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manuao: Conceptual building elevation renderings were submitted for the future single family detached and townhomes within the development. Home styles for both types of home include the Bungalow,Farmhouse, and Craftsman. Materials include lap siding,pitched composite shingle roofs with gables, and vinyl windows. Several building types include exposed timber frame. Overall, staff believes the architecture and materials are high quality but does have concerns. One concern is the length of the first story roofs on the single-family homes. It is staff's opinion that these roofs should extend further over to the garage doors, or there should be another roof Page 10 element on the garage side of the house. Staff likewise has concerns with the porch roof elements that are over the doors on the townhouses and recommends these elements comprise a larger percentage of the townhouse fagade. Staff also has concerns with the length of the rooflines of several of the townhouse rows. As a condition of approval, staff recommends no single family attached roofline may exceed more than 50 (fifty)feet without providing variations in roof profile including but not limited at least two of the following: two or more visible roof planes; dormers, lookouts or,turrets. Townhouses will be required to be reviewed with a future design review process and will be required to meet the standards of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). Also,because the rear and/or sides of 2-story homes will be highly visible from the arterial streets (i.e.N. McDermott and W. McMillan Rd.), staff recommends articulation is incorporated 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 these roads. One story residences are exempt from this requirement. VI. DECISION A. Staff- The proposed plat includes less density than what was originally approved,but still contains a diverse housing stock in terms of lot sizes,house sizes,and both detached and attached housing product.ACHD reviewed the impacts of earlier projects in this location which included more density and determined roads are either adequate or will be upgraded to satisfactorily serve the project. Water and sewer can be extended to the subject property. Finally,the qualified open space and amenities as proposed exceed the minimum requirements; the amount of qualified open space is almost double what is required,is central to the development and there are numerous pathways integrated into and out of the plat. Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat and creation of a new development agreement for this property with the conditions noted in Section V11. per the Findings in Section ix. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on November 5,2020.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend gpproval of the subjec preliminM plat and development ageement modification request. 1. Summga of the Commission public hggliM a. In favor: Becky McKgy,Engineering Solutions LLP b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Becky McKqy,Engineering Solutions LLP d. Written testimony: None Staff presenting gpplication: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on gpplication: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: Page I I a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Inquired how much surrounding development had been built out. b. Discussion regarding limiting shared drives to no more than 3 units. C. Enressed concerns regarding additional parking in the townhouse portion. d. Preferred additional open space for the townhouse portion. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendations(A new plat, amenity exhibit, landscape plan and elevations have been updated with the staff report to reflect the chan2es required by the Commission and ACHD.The applicant has not provided additional open space or parkin2): a. Recommended DA be modified to include a limitation to no more than 3 units on a common drive. b. Recommended DA be modified to include revised conceptual plans that incoKi2orate additional parking and open space for the townhouses. c. Revised width of pathwqy along W. McMillian Rd from 10' to 5'. Page 12 EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 94,420-20 L12/8/2020) 2� A 0 0 AM.1Z .6%CZ1 04'a— I I .,_M�L%Mn L.C.c"wq:. 4X T I im Jim, I I uQ 3' _12 I A Lr.p Pi q W z 'PE P -Im- LPIP MW ;v". it r L I I �.z P?� IPT Ir 1 4 L: L I T d. r 5 N, L c yv f A LW. -AFT" ' r W P, -Lor L L I %L1 1.P. I n "P N'-0-ILN—4- L+,-J L c he-%: M L1.+I A ji w bb M M P. I p d P.. 3r I L L I L6 �r_ C_---- - Mi ----- -------—---—------------—---—---—---—------------—-- B. Phasing Plan(date: 9/1/2020) F-- � 113 "A"'WE jjCALd—AAQ!A 32,�, ..4 3 Ob r mv IeF 0 al.40- At k %1-WTW 223.FL L t 01 ell L I R 4 NO-dm eef IL IL K L I L I F'.�,,, v EIW,42,0 Sand WIYE 3-fle -E A54. T "Wd 53 W-M OEM W.ElTrw :ZZ. Par, M MM -MFft=NO MINFON EE ME Kl� EWEN Page 14 C. Landscgpe Plan(dat&.--94/202-0 �Tuw PACs r F�nsrmp �V L-�W i TPJ!p� p 4 p p I Liz P. P�w 4'DrRH T f I Tpj :fy T T' i K.-41 phf: �T- 27 .—NJAMYL :I V 1111 11. 1 L 11 Y p U) -0 mkr 4 Hi Ft;mO.ii u I �,r.r ArA:�Nr V%LL +4 1 ET� ..L, TP.- ilr 71 ri. Pi It 7 zML FdA fAFA -HV41141-1 Page 15 VON N iAAE Arc Ito BMW in F=11 Ing .1 Fm=99 POP w 1 Films 41-0 NMI -0901 milk loom I Jim MEOWS Mw E. Amenity Exhibit(date: I 1/18/2020) 0 Page 17 F. Townhouse Parking Plan FM CD r W DAPHNE ST L APGAR PUBLIC ALLEY pl �j LT W. RiVA CAPRI ST, W MrV11L4N ROAD 44± ON STREEr PARALLEL PARKIN- OAKWIND E57WES PRELIMINARY PLA7' 94 x 23'L (TOWNHOUSE PARKINO EXHIBIT) 1 100' EXHIBIT - 1 Page 18 F.I. Building Elevations(date: 14�� 12/3/2020) JOU FIF-IF-]--]El 1EII-IFIFIF171F] PLAN 1 F, .............. PLAN 2A PLAN 3C Ti F-1-1- PLAN 3C PLAN 2A PLAN 113 PLAN 4A Page 19 13--- PLAN 4A C3=- El 13 C3 nFT 13----- PLAN 4B Page 20 F.2.Revised Building Elevations (date: 11/5/2020) FFCW a-EMMN-FAFMWKXZE FRIDWELEVATICN-CFAfTWAN ,A 6 LEFr ELEVAT10N FUGHTELEVATUM REM ELEVAT" rage i F.3 Revised Building Elevations (date: 11/5/2020) LEF7ELEVA-nom RKWr B-EVA74DN REARELEVAPM Page 22 1. Legal Description Leo D-exdOm Oakwind Estates A pa rce I locate d in the SW'/,of the SW I/,of Se cti on 28,Town shi p 4 N orth, R ange 1 West 8 d 5's M erki 1 an,Ada C o unty,I d ah o. a nd m ore pa rb cu la rly described a s fol bws: Co mme nc ing at a 13 ra ss C ap m on um art m arki ng the southwe st c orner of sa id Sect on 28, f rum w hi c h a 13 rass C ap m on um ent m a rk irg the southe ast corner of the SW 1/4 (S 1/4 c orner) of sa 1 d Sectbn 2 8 b ea rs S W1 6'5 Er E a d is-tan ce of 2635.25 feet Thence N 1'00'42" E along the west boundary of said SW 1/4 of Section 28 a distance of 25.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving "d west boundary S 89'1658' E a distance of 25.00 feel b the POINT OF BEGINNING; The n ce N 1"00'42' E al ong a I i ne bei ng pa ra I Id to an d 25.00 feet ea ste H y of sa�d west bou nd ary of the SW 1/4 a d 1 stan ce of 1290.49 the north bo un da ry of s ai d SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4; Thence along said north boundary S 6'9018'59' E a distance of 425.00 feet to a poiint; The nce leavi ng sa id north bo un d ary S 88"59'1 T E a di sta nce of 324.54 f eat to a point; The n ce S 1'0(742'W a d istar ce of 10 1.68 f eat to a pol nt; The nice S 88'59'1 S'E a d istance of 121.46 feet to a point Thence S 1'01Y42"W a distance of 47.00 feetto a point; Thence N 88059'lT W a distance of 121.46 feettD a point The nce S 1'0942"W a di star ce of 22.35 feet to a poi nt; The nce S 15'28'05' E a d i stan m of 262.84 f eel to a poi nt; The nce S 10'22'36' E a d i stan ce of 85-B2 feet to a poi nt-, Then ce S 85'08'45' W a di sta nce of 11.10 f eat to a point; Then ce S 1'00'4T W a d Istar ce of 142 12 f eet to a poi nt; Then ce S 4'19'19'E a d islan ce of 136.47 feet to a point; Then ce S 1'00AZ W a di sta nce of 50.00 f eat to a poi nt; Then ce S 88 051j 18' E a d 1 stan ce of 3.02 f eat b a point; The n ce S 44'47'25' E a di stan ce of 28.54 feet to a pol nt; The n ce S 0'43'02'W a di sta nce of 383.2 3 f eet to a poi rt; L 61utions Oakw"Ertales di�dS JOL M.1!�-73 C.—d SLffe"Md C�W 1FV Puge$of 2 Page 23 Thence S 45'43'02" VV a distance of 5Z3j feet to a point, Then oe S D`4 T02" VV a distarice of 1100 f eet tu a point: The nce N 89'16'58"W abN a Ift being 25.00 feet nortivrly of and para liel to the sou th bo undary of said SVV '/,of the SVV 1/,a distanc e of 931.39 feet lo 14e P 0 IN T 0 F B EGIN N IN G. This parcel contakis 24.54 acres and is sAect to any easerne�nts existing or in use. Clinton W. Hansen, PUS Land SoMions, PC LA September 1,2020 T t -zo X, O> VV. Th a OA&North CaMMOM UndSolutions Anbm.19-73 Page202 vage 4 CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION The subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the existing Development Agreement(DA)(Inst. #11403 0972)upon the property owner(s)entering into a new agreement. The new DA shall be signed by the property owner(s)and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting subject modification. Currently,a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The new DA shall incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the submitted plat, phasing plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, amenities and conceptual building elevations for included in Section V11 and the provisions contained herein. b. The applicant shall construct the street buffers,pathways and sound attenuation wall along N. McDermott Rd. and W. McMillan Rd with the first phase of development. c. The pathway along W. McMillan Rd shall be reduced from 10' to 5' in width. d. No single family attached roofline may exceed more than 50(fifty)feet without providing variations in roof profile including but not limited at least two of the following: two or more visible roof planes; dormers, lookouts or,turrets. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. e. The Development Agreement shall require the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face the arterial streets(i.e.N. McDermott and W. McMillan Rd.)to 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. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. f. DA shall include a limitation to no more than 3 units on a common drive. g. DA shall include revised conceptual plans that incorporate additional parking and open space for the townhouses. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section V11A, shall be revised ten(10)days prior to the Council hearing as follows: a. Note#10: Revise to include Lot 84,Block 1 as a common lot to be owned and maintained by the Home Owners Association. b. Marysville Street and Palustris Avenue will need to be redesigned to reduce the length of the roadways or to include the use of passive design elements. Stop signs, speed humps/bumps and valley gutter are not accepted as traffic calming. The applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat showing the redesigned roadways and approved by ACHD prior to City Council. 3. The landscape plan included in Section Vll.B shall be revised ten(10) days prior to the Council hearing as follows: a. The applieapA sha4l revise the landseape plan to ifielude a beFm a-Rd sound a4eauatiefl wall along W. MeDefmett Rd as r-equir-ed in UDG 11 3H 4 D. All r-equi I'Pr shall be on the west side of the wall, Page 25 4. -Prior-to the Plafming Commission,the Applieaat shall fvvise the pr-epesed elevations to e* the first floor rooffines on the single family residenees further toward the gar-ag te--a similar element, and expand the poreh roofs on the townhouses to inelude a larger-pereepAage Of the faeade. 5. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit is required to 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) should 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. a. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for all buildable lots. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table I I- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. All townhouses are required to complete design review approval prior to building permits. 9. Developer shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 10. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC I 1-613-7. 11. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions does not relieve the applicant of responsibility. B. PUBLIC WoRKs DEPARTMENT 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The water main in W. Daphne Street needs to be 12-inch diameter. The water main shall extend west, and stub at McDermott Road. 1.2 Each phase will need to be modeled at Final Plat to verify there aren't any pressure issues. 1.3 Remove the water main in McDermott Rd 1.4 Confirm sewer mainline slope from SSMH TL-12 to the first new proposed Manhole(should be 0.04%).Need to ensure that property to the west has adequate depth for future development. 1.5 When there are four or more lots on a common drive, a mainline can be installed in lieu of extending service lines. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. Page 26 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 I 10%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. Page 27 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 I I-12-3 H. 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 28 C. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (SCHOOLS ANALYSIS) HTTPs:11wEBLiNK.mEP=ANciTy.oRGIWEBLiNr,,IDocViEw.Aspx?iD=214998&DBiD--0&REP0=ME R[DIANCITY D. ACHD hqps:11Weblink.meridianciV.oLy_1WebLink1Doc View.gy x?id=214524&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianC ,_p Lty D. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciV.oLvl_WebLinkIDocView.g,,vpx?id=203768&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianC Lty E. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancio�.or.zlWebLinkIDocView.g,y x?id=203794&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianC _p iv F. COMPASS https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aMx?id=214349&dbid=O&repo=MeridianC Lty G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT https:11weblink.meridiancib�.orglWebLinklDoc View.g,,Ypx?id=214828&dbid=O&rgpo=MeridianC hty VII. FINDINGS Preliminary Plat(UDC I 1-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372,7-8-2008,eff.7-8-2008) Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use,transportation, and circulation.Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the StaffReportfor more information. Page 29 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See the Comprehensive Plan analysis regarding serving development by critical public facilities as well as the section regarding urban infrastructure. 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, 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; Commission recommends the Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police,Fire,ACHD, etc.)to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or envirom-nental problems associated with the platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Commission recommends that the Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when detertnining whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05- 1170,8-30-2005,eff.9-15-2005) Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 30 7/tem#5.77 E IDIAN*-----, (:>'*-W, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for 2810 E. Franklin Rd. (H-2020-0097) by KM Engineering, Located at 2810 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 1.01 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 22, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for 2810 E. Franklin Rd. (H-2020-0097) by KM Engineering, Located at 2810 E. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 1.01 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : December 22, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : 2810 E . Franklin Rd . ( H - 2020 - 0097 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i STAFF REPORT El� C�wl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING December 22,2020 Legend DATE: Iff Ppc�)E�_l L -fion TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 TF-FFF] SUBJECT: H-2020-0097 2 8 10 E. Franklin Rd.—AZ LOCATION: 2 8 10 E. Franklin Rd., in the SE 1/4of CPO Section 8,Township 3N.,Range IE. (Parcel#S 1108449000) pp;qM �m .0 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests annexation of 1.01 acres of land with a C-G zoning district. 11. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.92 of an acre(1.01 including adjacent right-of-way to the centerline of E.Franklin Rd.) Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Single-family residential Proposed Land Use(s) Flex space Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning Commercial(General Retail and Service Commercial) Waterways The Snider Lateral crosses the northern portion of this site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 2,2020;3 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) None Pagel B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Y s • Requires ACHD Commission No Action(yes/no) Access(Arterial/Collectors/State One(1)existing access via E.Franklin Rd.,an arterial street Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) and entryway corridor,proposed to remain Fire Service No comments were submitted. Police Service No comments were submitted. Wastewater Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent in Franklin Rd. Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunk Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application WRRF Declining Balance 13.98 Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan Impacts/Concerns No comment Water Distance to Water Services Directly adjacent in Franklin Rd. Pressure Zone 3 Estimated Project Water ERU's See application Water Quality None Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan Impacts/Concems No comment C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Prejeof Lcou-non f Limbsm let i8 n ial lu . ..... ... ..... 0M Pagc 2 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend Pi,�feo-t I�-n-fion Prciect LaccrffDn City Ljnyk Plunrw--d Parcels 1TTT_M F J cc> L R.-4 RU PC I V 111. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering—9233 W. State St., Boise, ID 83714 B. Owner: Daniel Eisenring— 194 W. Broderick Dr.,Meridian, ID 83646 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification 10/30/2020 12/4/2020 published in newspaper Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 10/30/2020 12/1/2020 Public hearing notice sign posted 11/5/2020 12/3/2020 on site Nextdoor posting 10/30/2020 12/2/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)in the Comprehensive Plan. The Commercial designation provides for a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services,and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi-family residential may be allowed in Page 3 some cases but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity and amenities. The Applicant proposes to redevelop this site for a flex space use that will consist of office and warehouse space for an automotive tool and equipment supplier. Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage infill development."(3.03.01E) The Comprehensive Plan defines infill as "development on vacantparcels, or redevelopment of existingparcels to a higher and better use that is surrounded by developedproperty within the City ofMeridian."The subject property abuts City annexed land to the north, east and south and is proposed to redevelop with a commercial use. • "Focus development and redevelopment intensity on key transportation corridors." (3.07.02C) The subjectproperty andproposedflex space use is located adjacent to E. Franklin Rd., a key transportation corridor and entryway corridor into the City. Redevelopment of this property to a commercial use is an appropriate intensity in this location along a major transportation corridor. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The property to the north is zoned industrial(I-L); the property to the northwest is developed with a landscape supply business and the property directly to the north is undeveloped. The property to the east is vacantlundeveloped land zoned C-G. The office proposed in the existing building adjacent to Franklin Rd. and the warehouse proposed in the rear buildingJacing industrial zoned land should be compatible with existing andfuture abutting industrial and commercial uses. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation, low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01C) A 35-foot wide landscaped street buffer will be required with development along E. Franklin Rd., an arterial street and entryway corridor, landscapedper the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available in E. Franklin Rd. and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D) Street buffer andparking lot landscaping will be required with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC I I-3B-7C and I I-3B-8C, respectively. The design of the new structure is required to be consistent with the standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. • "Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity."(6.01.02B) The Applicant will be required to grant cross-access easements to adjacent properties to the east and west with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2, unless otherwise waived by Council. The Applicant is requesting a waiverfrom City Council to notprovide cross-access easements to Page 4 adjacent properties due to the topography of the site combined with the space availablefor development with retention of the existing structure. 0 "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) The proposed annexation andflex space use of the property conforms to the City's vision and City water and sewer services are available to be extended to the property. Fire and police service are already provided in this area. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION&ZONING The area proposed to be annexed consists of 1.0 1 acres of land and includes land to the section line of E. Franklin Rd. The property is currently zoned RUT and located in Ada County. The Applicant proposes to annex the property into the City with a C-G zoning district consistent with the associated FLUM designation of Commercial. A conceptual development plan is proposed as shown in Section VIII.B. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary.A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. The topography of this site slopes down significantly from Franklin Rd. to the north property boundary and has approximately a 20 foot grade difference as shown on the grading plan in Section VIII.B. A retaining wall is depicted on the concept plan at the north and west boundaries of the area proposed to be improved with this project. There is an existing residential home on the property that the Applicant proposes to remodel and expand for a flex space use. The concept plan depicts 2,239 square feet(s.f.) of office on the first floor and 1,550 s.f. of office and support uses in the basement of the existing structure, and a new 2,600 s.f. structure for a warehouse.The new structure is proposed to the north behind the existing structure and will include a daylight basement. The user will be an automotive tool and equipment supplier, classified as a flex space use. The business proposes to sell products online to automotive businesses and at-home mechanics and will not conduct any retail sales on the site. Flex space is listed in UDC Table 11-213-2 as a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-18: Flex Space,as follows: A. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise a minimum of thirty percent(30%) of the structure and/or tenant space. The proposed officelsapport use comprises approximately 60%of the structure in accord with this standard; retail sale ofproducts to the public is not proposed. B. Light industry and warehousing shall not comprise more than seventy percent(70%)of the tenant space.At approximately 4001o, theproposed warehouse area complies with this standard. C. In the C-C, C-G and M-E Districts,roll-up doors shall not be visible from a public street. One roll-up door is proposed at the rear of the structure, which isn't visiblefrom E. Franklin Rd. D. Except in the I-L and I-H Districts,loading docks are prohibited.No loading docks are proposed; because thisproperty isproposed to be zoned C-G, loading docks areprohibited. E. Retail use shall not exceed twenty five percent(25%)of leasable area in any tenant space. No retail sales are proposed. The proposed use and site design complies with the above listed standards. Compliance with the dimensional standards for the C-G zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-213-3 is also required. The existing and proposed structures comply with the minimum setback requirements of the district. A 35' Page 5 wide street buffer is required with development along Franklin Rd., an entryway corridor, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. The existing driveway access via Franklin Rd. is proposed to remain for access to the site and has been approved by ACHD. Because it closely aligns with a driveway on the south side of Franklin Rd., relocation of the driveway is not recommended. The UDC (1 1-3A-3A.2)requires cross-access/ingress- egress easements to be granted to adjoining properties where access to a local street is not available, unless otherwise waived by City Council. In accord with this standard,because access isn't available via a local street, Staff recommends cross-access easements are provided and driveways constructed to the properties to the east and west. A 20-foot wide cross-access easement is depicted on the concept plan to the east and west but the Applicant requests Council approval of a waiver to this requirement to not provide cross-access easements due to the topography of the site and site constraints related to the space available for development.At a minimum, Staff recommends Council require cross- access to the west.Note: Staff contacted Ada County to see if a cross-access easement was provided to the subjectproperty with re-development of the adjacent property to the west but has yet to receive an answer. U pdate:Ada County rolied back that a cross-access easement wasn't provided to the subiec propeLty with redevelopment of the site in 2002 (File#02-33-MSP). A minimum of one(1) off-street vehicle parking space is required to be provided for every 500 square feet of gross floor area; and one(1)bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion thereof. Based on 6,389 square feet, a minimum of 12 vehicle spaces and one(1) bicycle space is required. A total of 13 spaces are depicted on the conceptual site plan,including an ADA space,which is one more than required. However, if cross-access driveways are provided to adjacent properties as required by the UDC, it will reduce the parking by up to(3)spaces,which will result in parking below the required minimum standard. If a waiver is not approved by Council to the requirement for cross-access to be provided to adjacent properties to the east and west,the Applicant may apply for alternative compliance to UDC 11-3C-6B.1; or,construct a smaller addition to reduce the parking requirement. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-8C,which requires a minimum 5-foot wide perimeter landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading or other paved vehicular use areas,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 8C.1b.A retaining wall and fence is proposed along the west boundary adjacent to the parallel parking spaces where the buffer is required,which doesn't leave adequare area for landscaping.If the site cannot be reconfigured to comply with this standard, alternative compliance may be requested with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. The Snyder Lateral exists in a 40-foot wide easement on the northern portion of the property that is not proposed to be improved. All irrigation laterals are required to be piped unless improved as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in LTDC I I-IA-1 as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B. The City Council may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved per UDC 11-3A-6B.3a. The Applicant proposes to fence off the area where the lateral is located to preserve public safety and requests a Council waiver to this requirement. Because a large portion of this site on the north end is not proposed to be improved, Staff recommends weeds are regularly maintained in this area so as not to create a nuisance and in a manner that prevents wildfire in accord with MCC 4-2. Conceptual building elevations with materials were submitted as shown in Section VIII.0 of the remodel of the existing structure and proposed addition. The materials for the front fagade and sides of the existing building consist of stucco with pre-finished metal siding and stone veneer accents; the materials for the proposed warehouse addition consist of a mix of horizontal and vertical metal siding. All improvements to the existing structure and new construction are required to comply with the Page 6 design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of a building permit application. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651 IA. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application and as recommended by Staff in accord with UDC standards,Staff recommends a DA is required as a provision of annexation(see provision in Section IX.A). VII. DECISION A. Staff- Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation&Zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planniniz&Zoniniz Commission heard this item on November 19,2020. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend gpproval of the subject A-Z request. 1. Sunungy of Commission p1lblic hearin&. a. In favor: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering(Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: None d. Written testimony: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering(Applicant's Representative) Staff presenting gpplication: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on gpplication: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. key iLssue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. If favor of the proposed iMprovements to the existing structure and use; 1L. Adequacy of the proposed parking in relation to the square footage of office use proposed; C. Possibilfty of relocating the storm drainage area to allow for more parking to be provided. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. 6utsianding issue(s) for Ci1y Council: a. The Applicant requests Council waivers to the UDC requirements for cross- access/ingress-egress easements to be granted to the adjacent properties to the east& west; and for the Spyder Lateral on the northern portion of the site to be piped. Page 7 VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map 9233 VVEST STXTE STREET I BOISE,ID 93714 1 �M.Gag.6939 I FAX 208.6313.6930 septernba�f 22,2D20 Project No.-20-1 IS ExhibltA ll-Lgal Deszfipfion lor Aninexatlon and qezene to C-C3 A parcel of land situaled In a ptxtlion of the Southeast-1/4 of Sec�lon 9,Town&hip 3 North,Range 1 East, 13-M,Ada Cuunty, Idaho and bel ng rrwre partIcula Oy descrIbed as I allows, Commend Fig at a fo und lbra-vi ca p mariang the Sc2utfiea A Curner of saW Section 8,WhIch boo rs P189'54'35'W a&%tance of 2,571-03 faat f rorn a foLmd brass cap markling Vie South.1/4 corner of said section 8, Then ce following the soLitherly I I ne of said Southeast 1/4,N[85r54'35'W a disuncE of 1,171-19 fO-Let to the POINT Of BEGIN NING� Th enCe foltow[ng siaid souther ly Ifne,N843'54'35'W a distance gf 152.04 feet Tlhenci�leaving said southerly line,NOD'12'W E a distanoE of 290,38 f eet to a fou nd 0-inch.rebar on the boundary I I rqe of Olson a nel Bush Subdivision No-3(Book 107,Pages 14,905—14,997 of Plats); Thence fol lovving said subdIvislork boundary line the 10owInS rm�2)rGurses- i. S89'5&':L5'E a dMance of 14SL84 feet to a fatind-5/8-inch rebar, 2. 500'13'25"E a d6tance of 29CL54 feet to t1he MINT OF BEGINNING. 521d parcel�contairu I.OD6 a cres,more OF less,a nd is subject to all Px1sti ng Pasome ntsa nd/ar irights-of- way of remrd or implied. All subdivisiion5,deeds,records of wrvew,and other instruments of record referenced herefn are recorded domments of the couW in which the5e described lands are slUmtad In, Attached hereto[s Exh2ft B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. L A& 662 OF ENGINEERS SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 8 Olson and�uth 5uladivision MD-3 Lut!a Ent to 6f)2 & c%1 HOMM ArEa; 1.005+-AC W AM 512)1644SOM L61 Unpl=2d A LDt 11 S110843SSA5 co Cuvr*nL Zan�i�g�RUT �b Propuseff zomimg,-c-c- C14 *pr) b 1�4-7-eop FP(MNT OF BEMNIN 6 9 _W7 16 N89'54'35"LW 152,04' L -W59'54rZ5'W 2571 S S 1/4 CORNER SMTIOM a BASM OF 0EAMNG POINT OF COMMERCEMENT FOUND RPAGS CAP E. Franklin Rd, SE CORNER SE)nON a PER CP&.F INST. Nu. lo4l'819B4 MIMID BRASS cAp "IRLS 5291 12-04" LEGEND 0 50 100 150 FOUND BRAss CAp REMR PM rl SU3 fe'.1" 50' 0 1/2-INGH REMR CALCULATED POINT REZONE BOUmDARy "—E*S7ING HFGHT-OF-WAY &am — — —SEQTK�N LJNE E NV I N E E R I W G 9213 WEST STATr;WMFr AIWCENT BOUNDARY UAE SOLK,IMWBR14. P"5 1210 63-40!9 EXHIBIT B CAM Vnnn A N N EXATIO N AN 1) REZON E TO C-G PAWECn SHEEP A PORTM OF THE 5 V2 OF THE SE 114 OF 1 OF I SECTION 8, T314, RIE, ADA COUNTY, 1DA.H0 Page 9 B. Conceptual Development Plan&Grading Exhibit(dated: November 5,2020) L--J r ........... L MWLW RD I km J OF L Page 10 w Am -no i km ld)Fl Page 11 C. Conceptual Building Elevations(dated: September 10, 2020) ...... ..... . . .. . . Or"L V6%RMHCLM n f.&P&LE MMEH A3.01 qM LIAM _C71 . .............. ........... i RIM A342 Page 12 IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION I A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan included in Section V111.13, applicable standards in the Unified Development Code, and the provisions contained herein. b. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements shall be granted to adjoining properties to the east and west with development as set forth in UDC I I-3A-3A.2,unless otherwise waived by City Council. Driveways shall be constructed within the easements to the property boundary to facilitate future cross-access between properties. Recorded copies of the easements shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. c. The Snyder Lateral,lying on the northern portion of the subject property, shall be piped or otherwise covered with development as set forth in UDC I I-3A-613,unless otherwise waived by City Council. d. The unimproved portion of the site shall be regularly maintained in a manner that prevents weeds from being a nuisance and prevents wildfire in accord with MCC 4-2. e. All development shall comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 19 and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Sanitary sewer and water service lines currently exist to this address. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT No comments were received. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were received. E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT No comments were received. F. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT h ttps:11we b lin k.m eridia n c i ty.o Ly_lWe bL in klBro ws e.aspx?id=214 62 8&db id=0&nep o Meridia n Ci ty G. ADA COUNTY HIGHwAy DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciV.orglWebLinklDoc View.yffpx?id=216415&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiV Page 13 X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Stafffinds the Applicant's proposal to annex the subject 1.01 acreproperty with a C-G zoning district for the development of a flex space use is consistent with the associated Commercial FLUM designationfor this property. (See Section V abovefor more information) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and subsequent development will comply with the regulations of the C-G zoning district and will providefor the service needs of the community in accord with the purpose statement of the Commercial districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and we�fare. 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 map amendment will not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery ofservices by any political subdivision providing public services within the City, including the school district. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 14 Applicant Presentation 2810 Franklin RoadDecember 22, 2020City of Meridian Annexation Application Project Location & Information G-CRUT Concept Site Plan 1,550 SF Basement (office and support)2,239 SF First Floor (offices)Existing Structure (to be renovated)Basement2,600 SF Daylight (Warehouse)Building Addition Building Elevations Waiver Requests Waiver Requests Thank you 7/tem#6.77 E IDIAN*-----, (:>'*-W, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Southridge Apartments (H-2020-0109) by The Land Group, Located on the South Side of W. Overland Rd. Midway Between S. Ten Mile Rd. and S. Linder Rd. A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #2015-112096) to include an updated conceptual development plan for the third phase of the development. Fage 164 C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: December 22, 2020 Topic: Public Hearing for Southridge Apartments (H-2020-0109) by The Land Group, Located on the South Side of W. Overland Rd. Midway Between S. Ten Mile Rd. and S. Linder Rd. A. Request: Development Agreement Modification (Inst. #2015-112096) to include an updated conceptual development plan for the third phase of the development. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign U12 to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : December 22, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 PROJECT NAME : Southridge Apartments ( W202MI09 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 10 I 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT El� C�Wl COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12/22/2020 Legend DATE: 0 L TO: Mayor&City Council T FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner TN- �.c 208-884-5533 R- R R-9 SUBJECT: H-2019-0109 , C R-, Southridge Apartments R4 R-4 R-2 LOCATION: South of W. Overland Rd.,midway between S. Ten Mile Rd. and S. Linder RLI Rd.,in the north'/2 of Section 23,T.3N., R.lW. (Parcel#S1223120955) 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification of the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2015-112096)to include an updated conceptual development plan for the third phase of development. 11. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kristen McNeill, The Land Group,Inc.—462 W. Shore Dr., Ste. 100,Eagle,ID 83 616 B. Owner: Tim Eck, Southridge Farm, LLC—6152 W. Half Moon Ln.,Eagle,ID 83616 C. Representative: Jason Densmer,The Land Group, Inc. —462 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 100,Eagle, ID 83616 111. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in 12/4/2020 newspaper Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/23/2020 Public hearing notice sip posted 12/10/2020 Next Door 11/23/2020 Page 1 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS History: This property was annexed as part of the larger Southridge Subdivision development in 2007 (AZ-06-031); a Development Agreement(DA) was approved with the annexation (Inst. #107074205). An amendment to the DA (Inst. #107074205) was approved in 2008, which replaced the original agreement(MDA-08-004, Inst. #111102269, recorded on 12115111) but was actually recorded after a subsequent amendment to the DA associated with RZ-1 1-002 referenced below but didn't reference that agreement. In 2011, an amendment to the original DA (Inst. 107074205) was approved with the rezone (RZ-1 I- 002) to R-15 that replaced the original DA and separated the subject property into its own DA—this amendment appears to have "crossedpaths"at the same approximate time as the DA associated with MDA-08-004 and therefore included incorrect reference numbersfor the recorded DA it was replacing. This amendment included a conceptual development plan for thefirst two of three phases of a multi-family development and was required to be modifiedprior to development of the third phase to include an updated concept plan for that area (Inst. #]1]099621, recorded on 1217111). An amendment to the agreement(Inst. #111099621) was approved in 2015 to change the development planfor the eastern 3.05 acres of the thirdphasefrom multi-family to single-family but did not include a development planfor the remaining portion ofPhase 3 (MDA-15-010, Inst. #2015-112096). An amendment to the existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2015-112096, Southridge Apartments—MDA-15-010)is proposed to include a conceptual development plan for the third and final phase of the multi-family development, as required by the DA. The concept plan also includes the previously approved first and second phases of development. The proposed concept plan depicts a total of 14 structures on 8.61 acres of land containing approximately 164 dwelling units with associated common areas, access driveways and parking for the third phase of development(see Section VI.B). Two (2) access driveways are proposed via S. Grand Fork Way, a local street. The third phase continues the design of the first two phases with 3- story apartment buildings rotated such that no two buildings are parallel to each other or parallel with a public street, eliminating the"row"effect.Associated parking areas and drive aisles are angled to eliminate long parking lot views,which also assist in traffic calming. The proposed concept plan appears to be in general compliance with UDC standards; detailed review will take place with a subsequent Conditional Use Permit(CUP) application. A total of 476 dwelling units were approved to develop in the first two phases combined(CUP H- 2017-0077). With the third phase, an overall gross density of 18+/-units on 35.5 acres of land will be provided for the entire multi-family development, consistent with the density(i.e. 16-25 units/acre) desired in High Density Residential designated areas in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP). A conditional use permit is required to be submitted for the third phase of the multi-family development per UDC Table I I-2A-2. At that time, Staff will review the details of the proposed project for consistency with the dimensional standards of the R-15 zoning district listed in UDC Table I I-2A-7, specific use standards for multi-family developments in UDC 11-4-3-27 and other applicable UDC standards. All structures are required to be designed consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The Applicant requests condition#5.1.5 in Section 5.1 of the DA,which requires the DA to be modified prior to development of Phase 3 to include a conceptual development plan for the area,is removed from the agreement as the condition has been satisfied with this application(see Section VII.B below). Page 2 V. DECISION A. Staff- Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA consistent with Section VII.B. Page 3 VI. EXHIBITS A. Existing Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property and Conceptual Development Plan in Development Agreement(Inst. #2015-112096) 665.1 Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: I. Development of the site shall substantially comply with the conceptual site plan included in Exhibit B,the design standards listed in UDC I I-3A-19 and the guidelines contained in the City of Meridian Design Manual or any updated version thereof in effect at the time of development. 2. All future development shall comply with the dimensional standards for the R-15 zoning district contained in UDC Table I I-2A-7 and the TN-R zoning district contained in UDC Table 11-2D-6 as applicable. 3. The developer shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval associated with development of this site. 4. An easement recorded on 10/02/09 as instrument#109112713 grants cross-access to Parcel No. S1223120727—the 4.8 acre parcel to the east of the subject property. 5. Prior to development of the third phase of the project,a modification to the development agreement is required to update the conceptual site plan to include a development plan for this area. 6. The 30-foot wide road right-of-way easement known as Old Thom Lane that runs through this site and provides access to the Rice property(parcel#S1223131250) shall be protected and preserved throughout the construction process and after; or, an alternative access route shall be provided with the appropriate instrument. 7. The road right-of-way easement for Old Thom Lane shall be vacated at such time as the easement has either been relocated or is no longer needed." Page 4 OFWWW Mud ................ .4f I Op 1A r. Ila bu[I'Diarmlsed] nuomy IN Con,ftot Me Plan 89wWridge Apariments Cmcepl Sne PLan Page 5 B. Proposed Amendment to Existing Conditions and Conceptual Development Plan All existing conditions shall remain except for condition#5.1.5,which no longer applies with the subject amendment and shall be deleted, as follows: S. Prior-to development of the third phase of the pr-qjeet, a medifieation to the developmen agreement is required to update the coneeptual site plan to inelude a development plan fof this area. LU=C2 W.Overland Rd. =44= -7 �5 IV �01 LL. CJ ;-Ad�- 01�6 VI/01 00 E n-1 W E 8.� = -C F CU CL PHASE 0 AREA IIFJNG ADDEDTO SOnNG F'H_M E 0 MEA EAnNG T Sr 06 M DEVEDIPMENT AGREEMENT=SrrE PLAN :IP Ln Southridge Apartments C* Ex Master Site Plan Page 6 7/tem#7.77 E IDIAN*-----, (:>'*-W, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 20-1908: An Ordinance (H-2020-0038—Sagewood West Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of the NW Y4of the NW Y4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 10.41 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2020-178118 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 KRISTINA LOWRY 12/23/2020 10:32 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1908 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0038 — SAGEWOOD WEST SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 10.41 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Corey Barton. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2020-178117 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 KRISTINA LOWRY 12/23/2020 10:32 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1908 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0038 — SAGEWOOD WEST SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 10.41 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Corey Barton. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two(2)separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 22nd day of December 2020. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,this 22nd day of December 2020. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, County of Ada ss: On this 22nd day of December.2020,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing At: Meridian,Idaho My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L .M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . oa- zJ William L . M. Nary, tity Attomeyawool SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 204908 An ordinance (H-2020 -003 8) for annexation of a parcel of land being a portion of the NW %4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from RUT to R- 8 (Medium Density Residential) zoning districts providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary . [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] �I ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — Sagewest West Subdivision (H 2O20-0038) Page 3 of 3 Page 175 EXHIBIT A 5awtc)oth Land 5urvp—yin�, LLC 203D 5.Ws5hin�tor A,,r Lmriott, ID 836 17 (205)396-,�1()4 (P.08)398-8 05 Sagewood West Subdivision Annexation Description BASIS OF BEARING for this description is South 8913442"East, between a brass carp marking the northwest corner of Section 24 and a brass cap marking the N1/4 of Section 24, both in T. 3 N., R. I W., B.M., City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho. A parcel of land being a portion of the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 24,T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M.,City of Meridian Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northwest corner of said Section 24; Thence South 89034'42"East, coincident with the centerline of W. Overland Road, 800.09 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing, South 89'3442"East coincident with said centerline of W. Overland Road, a distance of 77.38 feet; Thence leaving said centerline of W. Overland Road, South 0'25'18"West,48.00 feet to a 5/8" rebar with no cap; Thence South 57046'04"East, 532-56 feet to a 5/8"rebar with no cap on the west boundary of Sagewood Subdivision,as shown In Book 110 of Plats, Pages 15846-15847, Ada County Records; Thence South 0126'18"West, coincident with said west boundary of Sagewood Subdivision, 759.66 feet to a 5/8"rebar with no cap marking the southwest corner of said Sagewood Subdivision and an angle point in the northerly boundary of Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 2,as shown in Book 115 of Plats, Pages 17180-17188,Ada County Records; Thence South 0019'18"West, coincident with said northerly boundary of Fal.1 Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 2, a distance of 29.74 feet to a 5/8"rebar/cap PLS 11334; Thence North 77045'27"West, coincident with the northerly boundary of said Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 2 and Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1, as shown in Book 114 of Plats, Pages 17036-17046,Ada County Records, 313.88 feet; Thence North 61003'23"West, coincident with said northerly boundary of Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1, a distance of 351.87 feet to a 5/8"rebar/cap PLS t1334; P:\2020\1 EMT\120017-1335 W OVERLAND SUB-CG�Survey\Drawirigs\Descriptions�120017-Sagewood West Annexation Description.docx Sagewood West Subdivision—H-2020-0038 EXHIBIT A Thence South 6600134"East, 134.28 feet to a 1/2"rebar/cap PLS 7323; Thence North 2025'32"West, 396.59 feet to a 1/2"rebar/cap PLS 7323; Thence North 2001'52"West, 178.11 feet to a 112"rebar/cap PLS 7323; Thence North 1048'29"West, 147.07 feet to a 1/2"rebar/cap PLS 7323; Thence North 003525"West, 167.48 feet to a 5/8"rebar/cap PLS 5082; Thence North 0'07'23"W., 51.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 10.41 acres, more or less. 1157 4 or%0;� BE P-\2020\1 EM'R1 20017-1335 W OVFRLAND SUB-CO�Survey\Drawings\Descriptions\120017-Sagewood West Annexation Description.docx 2 Sagewood West Subdivision—H-2020-0038 EXHIBIT B 9 SIS OF BEARING Sffl�AWZE 2&0.Mt................ ............ mw� S&�NW21E 77.3W 0 ER�ROAD N 0-07'23 WIVIS NV4 M,�2 awlw�ld - - -- -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - JPLS 7323 z S-- NTS 10.47ACRES* 15 4,? BE pu 1 OR,, - - - - - - - - - - - - T.3 R I O.M. FAL[,CRFPK UP DOW$9UDDrVISION NO 2 SCOK 115,PkGES 17180-17188 PROJECT: OWNERIDEVELOPER: 2030 S. WASHINGTON AVE. SAGEWOOD WEST SUBDIVISION EMMETT,ID 83617 120017-EX ANNEXATION EXHIBIT CONGER GROUP P. (208)398-8104 PROJLCF* MERIDIAN,IDAHO F, (208)398-8105 120017 SHEET NiTE: 312020 WWW.S4WT-C)OTHLS.COM 1 OF1 Sagewood West Subdivision—H-2020-0038 7/tem#8.77 E IDIAN*-----, (:>'*-W, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 20-1909: An Ordinance (H-2020-0058 Epic Storage) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Lying in the NW Y4NWY4of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 3 North, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 4.55 Acres of Land from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to C-C (Community Business) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law, and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance, and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules, and Providing an Effective Date APPROVED Fage 179 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2020-178869 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 CHE FOWLER 12/24/2020 09:16 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO NO FEE ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-008609 Re-Record to correct legal description BOISE IDAHO Pgs=7 CHE FOWLER 01/15/2021 04:16 PM by deleting pages 1, 4 and 5 with CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE pages 2, 6 and 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1909 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE(H-2020-0058 EPIC STORAGE) FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NW 1/4 NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3 NORTH, BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 4.55 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO C-C (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAI T AN I THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNT OF A IDAH SECTION 1. T t th 11 in des bed la as evidenc by ached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Jarron Langston. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to C- (Community Business) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances,resolutions,orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. Pagel Re-Record to correct legal description by correcting pages 1, 4 and 5 with pages 2, 6 and 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1909 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0058 EPIC STORAGE)FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NW '/4 NW '/4 OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 4.55 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO C-C (COMMUNITY BUSINESS) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,AS REQUIRED BY LAW;AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE;AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit"A"is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re-zoning by the owner of said property,to-wit: Jarron Langston. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from R-8(Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to C- C (Community Business) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances,resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in fiill force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. Page 2 Item#8. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned,with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2)plus one (1)of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 22nd day of December 2020. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 22nd day of December , 2020. MA O BERT . SI ISON ATTESY: C�`n CHRIS JOHNSON ITY C04 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 22nd day of December 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. CHARLENE WAY COMMISSION##67390 Notary Public for Idaho NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF IDAHO Residing At: Meridian, Idaho MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 3128122 My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022 Item#8. \�NPL LANps �\C E 3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION VCr 15758 FOR 1 z-4-20 EPIC DEVELOPMENT IDAHO II, LLC Te OF o��o FR�� Haw�Ro C-C REZONE Exhibit A A parcel of land lying in the NW1/4 NW1/4 of Section 24,Township 3 North, Range 3 North, Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho, said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a Brass Cap marking the NW Corner of said Section 24;thence along the north line of said Section 24, S.891107'23"E. 545.43 feet to a point lying on the centerline of Overland Road also being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S.00142'34"W. 395.65 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence S.89124'47"E. 82.99 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; The along the easterly boundary line of Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision##2 Bk 115 Pg. 17181, S.00026'27"W. 454.58 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence along th orth to boundaL f II Creek Mea ws S E n#1 Bk 114 Pg. 17038, S.64059' 'E. 88. f / in Thence S.60°34' 88 Thence N.01057'33"W. 13.75 feet to a 1/2" iron pint marking the southwest corner of quitclaim deed instrument#2019-113633; Thence along the westerly boundary line of said quitclaim deed instrument#2019-113633 the following courses and distances: Thence N,01°57'33"W. 396.50 feet to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence N.01°34'57"W. 178.16 feet to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence N.01°22'35"W. 147.08 feet to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence N.00005'45"W. 218.47 feet to a point lying on the centerline of Overland Road; Thence along the centerline of Overland Road, N.89°07'23"W. 254.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 4.55 acres, more or less, and is subject to all existing easements and right- of-ways of record or implied. Page 183 Item#8. OVERLAND ROAD CP&F NO. 14 13 (BASIS OF BEARING) 9016820 S89' 07' 23"E 1327.87' 23 24 545.43' 254.39' 528.05' o CP&F NO. W 1/16 107153515 I I S CORNER891 POINT OF BEGINNING 0) � N � Z O �O n N O O r S89' 24' 47"E `D `n 8 r Z I ON,,L LAND �\ EN/F�O,��G�G I 4 15758 N I o s 12-4-20 0 �, TqT�OF �DA� � sn FR�C NOW o � S64' 59' 52"E 88.16' o N1' 57' 33"W 13.75' S60' 34' 45"E 140.87' a11F: DEM BY. saw: of J.J. HOWARD 12/3/20 - Q 1 1 PRECISION STORAGE SURVEYiHC CPI F• }¢AWN W., OB wm NO. ISO' cL5 ------ LEGAL EXHIBIT Page 184 EXHIBIT A PROPERTY DESCRIPTION FOR EPIC DEVELOPMENT IDAHO II, LLC C-C REZONE Exhibit A A parcel of land lying in the NW1/4 NW1/4 of Section 24,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County Idaho,said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a Brass Cap marking the NW Corner of said Section 24; thence along the north line of said Section 24, 5.89°07'23"E. 545.43 feet to a point lying on the centerline of Overland Road also being the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence 5.001142'34"W. 395.65 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence 5.89°24'47"E. 82.99 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; The along the easterly boundary line of Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision#2 Bk 115 Pg. 17181, S.0002627"W. 454.58 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence along the northeasterly boundary line of Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision #1 Bk 114 Pg. 17038, 5.64159'52"E. 88.16 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; Thence S.6013445"E. 140.88 to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence N.01°57'33"W. 13.75 feet to a 1/2" iron pint marking the southwest corner of quitclaim deed instrument#2019-113633; Thence along the westerly boundary line of said quitclaim deed instrument# 2019-113633 the following courses and distances: Thence N.01°57'33"W. 396.50 feet to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence N.01134'57"W. 178.16 feet to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence N.01022'35"W. 147.08 feet to a 1/2" iron pin; Thence N.00105'45"W. 218.47 feet to a point lying on the centerline of Overland Road; Thence along the centerline of Overland Road, N.89°07'23"W. 254.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 4.55 acres, more or less, and is subject to all existing easements and right-of-ways of record or implied. a�- LD 1 0: 15758 8 J. Fi{ir:1 �` Epic Storage - Exhibit A to DA Page 6 OVERLAND ROAD CP&F NO. 14 13 (BASIS OF BEARING) 9016820 S89' 07' 23"E 1327.87' 23 24 545.43' 254.39' 528.05' o CP&F NO. W 1/16 107153515 [ 3-1 CORNER U, �„ LS 8951 POINT OF BEGINNING ° [ `" � N � � O Z G7 p K) 0 0 i� S89' 24' 47"E 82.99' M [ z no [ u� ,n n, p,L LA NO 15758 ! rq 12-4-20 (n Lo '?IC NOW�� z 0 [ S64' 59' 52"E 88.16' 0 N1' 57' 33"W 13.75' S60' 34' 45"E 140.87' INS oaiat 6'r: }� 9IL 9F J.J. HOWARD 12/3/20 — © 3 PRECISION STORAGE swwswe am ar: txarn�c Ito. a/ mrpyu-ra 1" = 1&0' cLs ----�-- LEGAL EXHIBIT Page 7 i I Item #8. CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . fA ) JJ h• . t � 6 Wi iam L. M. Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 204909 An ordinance (11-2020 -0058 Epic Storage) for the rezone of a tract of land as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from R4 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District to C-C (Community Business) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] RE-ZONE ORDINANCE . Epic STORAGE - H-2020-0058 PAGE 3 or; 182 7/tem#9.77 E IDIAN*-----, (:>'*_W, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 20-1910: An Ordinance (H-2020-0066 Apex) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of the East Y2of the Northwest Y4, all of the Southeast Y4 of Section 31, and a Portion of the West Y2of the Southwest Y4of Section 32, Township 3, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, all of West Y2of the Northwest XSection 5 and a Portion of the East Y2of the Northeast Xof Section 6, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 384.27 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium-Low Density Residential) Zoning District R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(264.06 Acres), R-15 (Medium High Residential)(76.93 Acres) and C-C (Community Business)(43.28 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date APPROVED ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2020-178119 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=20 KRISTINA LOWRY 12/23/2020 10:32 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1910 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0066 APEX) FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE EAST '/2 OF THE NORTHWEST '/4, ALL OF THE SOUTHEAST '/4 OF SECTION 31, AND A PORTION OF THE WEST '/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 3, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, ALL OF WEST '/2 OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 SECTION 5 AND A PORTION OF THE EAST '/2 OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 384.27 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-4 (MEDIUM-LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)(264.06 ACRES), R-15 (MEDIUM HIGH RSIDENTIAL)(76.93 ACRES) AND C-C (COMMUNITY BUSINESS)(43.28 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Smith Brighton Inc. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from R-4(Medium Low Density Residential)to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)Zoning District, R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) and C- C (Community Business) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. RE-ZONE ORDINANCE APEX-H-2020-0066 PAGE I OF 3 SECTION6. All ordinances,resolutions,orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned,with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2)plus one(1)of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly,this Ordinance shall be in ftill force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 22nd day of December 2020. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, thi 2ndday of December 92020. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss: County of Ada 22nd December On this day of 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing At: Meridian, Idaho My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022 Item #9. CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L.M . Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . , &0) William L. M. Nary, City Attorney_ SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO , 204910 An ordinance (H-2020-0066 Apex) for the rezone of a parcel of land as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from R4 (Medium Low Density Residential) to R4 (Medium Density Residential) (264 . 06 acres), R45 (Medium High Residential) (76 . 93 acres) and C-C (Community Business)(43 .28 acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by laws and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] R&ZoNE ORDINANCE - APEx - H-2020-0066 PAGE 3 OF 3 Page 188 EXHIBIT A &am M.51113 1 am&= 9233 WEST STATE STREET 1 801517,111383714 1 209.639.61939 J FAX20&639.6930 August 18,2020 Apex Subdivision Project No.20-017 Legal Description ExhibitA Legal Description for ApexSubdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4,all Of the Southeast 114 of Section 31 and a portion of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 114 of Section 32,Township 3 North,Range I East, B.M.,all of West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 Section 5 and a portion of the East 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6,Township 2 North, Range I East B.M.,all situated in the City of Meridian,Ada County, Idabo and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8-inch rebar markingthe Center 1/4 Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East, B.M.,thence following the southerly line of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 32, S89'57'15'W a di5tance of 2,328.94 feel to a 5/8-inch rebar marking the Center-West 1/16 corner of said Section 31; Thence leaving said southerly line and following the westerly line of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4, NCO'25'36"E a distance of 1,559.66 feet to a point; Thence leaving said westerly line,N81'55'55"E a distance of 518,76 feet to a point; Thence 56.28 feet along the arc of a circilar curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 58.00 feet,a delta angle of 55'35'50",a chord bearing of S20*49'52"E and a chord distance of 54.10 feet to a point; Thence 546'52'43"E a distance of 45.40 feet to a point; Thence 554'18'10"E a distance of 180.18 feet to a point; Thence 161.54 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 588.00 feet, a delta angle of 15'44'26",a chord bea ring of S62'IV23"E and a chord dista nce of 161.03 feet to a point; Thence 570'02'36"E a distance of 107.80 feet to a point; Thence 519*57'24'W a distance of 12.00 feet to a point; Thence 570'02'36"E a distance of 14.45 feet to a point; Thence S61'58'(]S"E a distance of 207,13 feet to a point; Thence 565'32'50"E a distance of 188,57 feet to a point on the easterly line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 said Section 31; Thence following said easterly line,500'38'17'W a distance of 1,140.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 43.744 acres,more or less. TOGETHERWITH: BEGINNING at a 5/8-inch rebar marking Lhe Center 114 Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,B.M., thence following the northerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 31, N99'57'56"E a distance of 2,601.37 feet to a brass cap marking the East 1/4 corner of said Section 31; Thence leaving said northerly line and following easterly line of the Southeast 114 of said Section 31, S00*32'22"E a distance of 226.26 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the centerline of Farr Lateral; ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page I Thence leaving said easterly line a nd following the centerl ine of said Farr Latera I the fo Ilowing seven (7) courses: 1. S38'43'32"E a distance of 61.71 feet to a point; 2. S5rl2'32"E a distance of 444.04 feet to a point; 3. 56D36'10"E a distance of V2.66 feet to a point; 4. S86'OW31"E a distance of 206.22 feet to a point; 5. 573*45'13"E a distance of 301-51 feet to a point, 6. S43'15'53"E a distance of 313.74 feet to a point; 7. S29WIYE a distance of 37.13 feet to a point on the eastedy Ilre of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 said Section 32; Therce leaving said centerline and following the easterIV line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4of said Section 32,500'08!25"E a distance of 206.12 feet to a 1/2-inch reharon the easterly boundary of said Farr Late ra 1; Thence leaving 5aid. easterly line and following the easterly boundary of said Farr Lateral the following twelve(12)courses- 1. 22.57 feet along the arc of a circular cu;rve to the right,said curve having a radius of 144.67 feet,a delta angle of 08'56'24 ,a chord bearing of SS6'50'4V'W and a chord distance of 22.55 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar, 2. S61'18!54"W a distance of 91.61 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar, 1 122.47 feet a lo ng the are of a crcu la r c u rve to th e right, sa id curve havi ng a radi us of 220.0)feet, a delta a ngle of 3 1'5Y 39",a cho rd bea ri ng of S77'15'42"W and a c hord d ista nce of 120.89 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 4. NBV47'31!'W a distance of 362-95 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 5. 59347'OG'W a distance of 26.72 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 6. 569'57'44:"W a distance of 12&97 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 7. 90.S9 feet alarg the arc of a r1rcular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 110.00 feet,a cle Ita a ng le of 47'20'30", a chord bea ring of SW 18!02"W a nd a ch ord d ista nce of 88.33 feet to a PoTnt; S. 64.48 feet a[org the arc of a crcular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of IMOG feet,a delta angle of 33'35'03�', a chord bearing of SOS'50'15"W and chord distance of 63.56 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar, 9. SIO'5745"E a distance of 410.17 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 10. 114,95 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 140.00feet�a delta angle of 47'02'41", a chord bearing of 534*2-9'08"E and a chord distance of 111.75 feet toa 1/2-inch rebar; 11. S58'00'3r E a dista nce of 2 19-85 fe et to a 1/2-i nch rebar; 12. 569*55'45"E a distance of 503.32 feet to a 1/2-inrh rebar on the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the southwest 1/4 of said SectiGn 32; Thence leaving said easterly boundary and following easterly Jine of the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section 32,SWI(YO2"E a distance of 431.17 feet to a 5/8Anch rebar common to Section 5,Township 2 North Range 1 East, B.M.,and Section 32,Township 3 North Range 1 East, B.M.� Thence leaving said easterly line and following the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 5,SOW01!43"E a distance of 2,677.88 feet to the Center-West 1/16 corner of said Section 5; PAGE 12 Page 2 Thence leaving said easterly line and followirg the southerly line of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 5,N89*52'38"W a distance of 1,329.65 feet to a brass cap common to Sections 5 and 6; Thence leaving said southerly line and following the southerly line of the East IP of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 6,N89'22'STW a&stance of 1,304.25 feet to a point; Thence ieaving siald southerly line,NOC'43'55"W a distance of 111.26 feet to a polint; Thence NOT2(Y23"W a distance of 549.25 feet to a point, Thence N8734�26"W a distance of 13.49 feet to the we5terly line of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 6; Thence following the westerly line of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 6, \1100'02,06"W a distance of 66.73 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way line uf the Rawson Canal; Th.eirre leaving said westerly line and following the westerly right-of-way line of said Rawson Canal the following nine(9)courses: 1. N78'25'55"E a distance of 161.21 feet to a point; 2. NW55'20"E a distance of 74.17 feet to a point; 3. N31'51'12'E a d1stance of 92.01 feet to a point; 4. 1\1110'251C�E a distance of 381,33 feet to a poirit; 5. N05'25'52"W a distance of 106-26 feet to a point, & N18'56'20"W a distance of 287.65 feet to a point; 7- N32V8'38"W a distance of 91.83 feet to a point; S. N6 1'32'57"W a distance of 104-61 feet to a point; 9� N745YO5"W a distance of 44.02 feet to a point, Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way line, N00112'06"W a distance of 890.79 feet to a poirt on the ric)rtherly line of the Ncorthew 1/4 of said Section 6, Thence followingsaid northerly line,N89'42'21"W a distance of 1,370.00 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar common to Section 6,Township 2 North Range I East,B.M.,and Section 31,Township 3 North Range I East,B.M.; Thence leaving said northerly line and foflowing the westerly'ine of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 31, NOW16'52"E a cli-sta n ce of 1,342.44 feet to a 5/8-i nc h re ba r m a rki ng the Center-So uth 1/16 corner of said Section 31; Thence NOO*16'52"E a distance of 1,342.44 feet to the POINT 011'BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 366.1�4 acres, more or less. Said description contains a total of 409,938 acres,more or less. ... 12459 14 OF % Z' B g -10-w" PAGE 13 Page 3 12 1318.94 Title: Apex Subdivision Date: 09-17-2020 Scale: I inch--300 feet File: 200817 Apex Subdivision Legal 20-017 Trad 1: 43.744 Acres: 1905504 Sq Feet:Closure=s57.2522w 0-01 Feet- Precision-1/452791 8� Furimeter 5510 Feet 001=s&9,5715w 1318.94 006=s54.18 1 Oe 180.18 01 I=s6l.5805e 207.13 111=11INZ 154426 002=nUO.2536c M8.66 103 012=s65.3250e 198,57 003=nS 1.55 55e 518.76 008=00,0236e 107,80 013=00.3817w 1140.13 M 3550 009�sI9.5724vv 12.00 005�06,5243r,-45A0 G10=s?OA2I6e 14A5 Page 4 rp"'57'56"e �q 21 9j n&9'42'2 I"w OR n99*5X33"w 1304.25 1329.65 Title: Apex Subdivision Date�08-18-2020 Scale: I inch= 1000 fmt File:200817 Apex Subdivision Legal 20-017 Tract 1; 366.194 Acres: 15951396 Sq Fept-.Clmure=550.3758c:0,02 Fw� Precision>1/9999"; Perimeter 19597 Feet 00 1=n89.5756e 2601.37 016�s69J744w 129-97 031=08.2555e 161.21 DI )G Ddt-47 2030 002�00.3222e n626 "n.J� 032=n545520,e 74.17 003-s38.4332c 61�71 Bn M336 033�01-51 12e 92,01 004�61.1232e 444.M 01 9�sl 0,5745e 410.17 034�m 10 25 1 Oe 381,33 02.D:�k R=140.190 DdtR=47 024 t 005=s60.3610e 272.66 Bn"4.290k,c�d=]I 1.7� 035=nOS.2652w 10C26 OC6=s86.043 I e 206.22 021=08,0%je 219.85 036--n 18.5620w 2S7-65 007=03,451,3e 301.51 022-s69,5545e 503.32 037=n32.0939w 91.83 008�sO.1553e 313.74 023=sOD.1OU2e43L17 038=n6i.3257w 104.61 009==s29.01]3e 37A3 024--sOU.0143e 2672.88 039�04.5905-w 44,02 0 1 0=00.0825c 206,12 025�n89,5233w 1329-65 040�00.006w S90.79 011 R ;,1,44-67,��lp-.OIJON �6 " 026--n99.2250w 1304.25 041=n89,4221w 1370.DO B 56 0� 0 12-s61,1354w 91-61 027=nOO.4355w 111.26 042-nOO,1652e 1342.44 M=n 1.5339 120.89 029�nffl.2023w 549.25 043=00,1652c 1342.44 014�ng&473 1w 362.95 029--nS7.3426w 13.49 0 1 5-A3.4706w 26.72 030=nOO.0206w 66.73 Page 5 km 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOISE,ID83714 I 2CS.639�6939 I FAX208.639,6930 April 2,2020 Project No.2MI7 Exhilibtit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-9-North Apex Subdivision A portion of the Cast 112 of the Northwest 1/4,a portion of the Southeast 1/4 and a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 31,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M., City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as f0lows: BEGINNING at a 5/8-Inch rebar ma rking the Center of said Section 31,thence following the northerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, N89'57'56"E a distance of 2,601.37 feet to a brass cap marking the East 1/4 corner of satc!Section 31; Thence leaving said northerly line and follDwing the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4,500'32'22'F a distance of 1,419.94 feet; Thence leaving said easterly line, N89'42'21"W a distance of 1,423-17 feet� Thence 500'16'52"W a distance of 620XC feet; Thence N89'42'21"W a distance of 1,198-50 feet to the weste rIV line of said 5outheast 1/4; Thence following said westerly line, NOO'16'52'E a distance of 69144 feet to the Center-South 1/16 Forner of said Section 31; The nce le avi ng sa i d we st e rl y I i n e,S8 9'5 2'08'F a d ista nce o f 62.50 feet� The nce NOU'l G'S 2"E a d!sta ri ce of 8 9 5�00 feet; Thence 199.42 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 280.0 feet, a delta angle of 4W48'25",a chord bearIng of N20*07'20'W and a chord distance of 195.23 feet; Thence N40'31'33"W a di5tance of 241-33 feet; Thence 198.79 feet along the arc of a circalar curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 230.00 feet, a delta angle of 49'31'13",a chord bearing of N65'17'09'W and a rhord distance of 192.66 feet to the soutberly 11ne of said East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 31; Thence following said southerly line,S89'57'15"W a distance of 98U6 feet to a 518-inch rebar marking the Cente r-We5t 1/16 co r ne r of 5 a�d Sect a nt 3 1; T h e nce lea v i ng s aid so ut h e rly I i ne a n d fo 1:owi ng the weste rly I i ne of s a Id Fa�;T 1/2 of the Northwest-1/4, NOO'25'3 6"E a d ista n ce of 1,558.G6 feet; Thence leaving said westerly line, N81155'55"E a distance of 518.76 feet; Thence 56.28 feet along the arc of a c[rcular curve to the left,said rurve having a radius of 58.00 feet,a delta angle of 55*35'5C�',a chord bearing of 520'49'52'E and a chord distance of 54.10 feet; The n ce S46'52'43'E a d i5ta n ce vf 45.40 f�e t; The nce S54'18'10'E a d 1 sta n ce of 180.18 f eet; Thence 161.54 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said ctirve having a radius of 588.00 feet, a delta angle of 15'44'26",a chord bearing of 562'1(Y23'E and a chord distance of 161�03 feet; Thence S70'02'36"E a d[starlLe of 107�80 feet; The nce 5 19'5 7'24"W a d ista n ce of 12.00 fe at; Thence 570'02'36"E a distance of 14AS feet, Thence 551'58'05"E a distance of 207.13 feet; Tfience SGS'32'50"E a distance of 189.57 feet to the easterly line of said Last 112 of the NoTthwest 1/4; Page 6 Thence following said easterly line,S00'3VITU a distance of 1,140.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 144.78 acres, more or less. Attached heretols Exhibit Band by this reference is hereby made a part of KL 12459 OF Z. 'B -7--70 21D 2 ,,,,j-55'S5'E L2 BRASS CAP LLJ 51 B3 NORTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 31 L5 `2� 7 0 NOG'38'1 7E Le 4& 15R7.a4' < 00 C CL 0 5/8-INCH REDAR 0 > 4- Z C-W 1/16 CORNER BRASS CAP SFCMN 31 EAST 1/4 CORNER EA T 0 POINT OF BEGINNING 'OF SECTION 31 0 :3 5/8-INCH REBAR N Lo 0 'n� CENTER OF SECTION 31 BASIS F BEARING� CU X o. 2., _r 950.26' N89'57'� "E 2601-37" 32 0) CL 317" < ALUMINUM CAP Z WEST 1/4 CORNER SEC-rION .31 N4D'31'33-W a 241�33' Rezone Area. 144.78±AC. 4,5 All of 51131244500&p-ortlon of R7824220042, X q) LU uj �n S113141720.0,S1131438400 &S1131417251 > Current Zoning:RUT&R-4 0 41Y N = , 4 Proposed Zoning�R-8 CD 0 Ln DATE' MARCH 2D20 'A PROJECT- 20-017 SHEET: Ll I OF 2 5/8-INCH REEAR Ll N89'42'21'W 1423.17' C-S 1 116 CORNER OF SEC`nQN 31 N89'42'21'W 1196-50' km I MUM 0 -300 500 1 ENGIKE RS-SURV 5-PIANMERS 9233 WE5T STATE STREET ONE.IDAH083714 SCALE: 1"=600' PHONE(20S I 639'sm I F0 12DOI 639-6350 Page 7 kin 9233 WEST STATE STREET I BOISE,ID 33714 1 209.639-6M I FAX 208-M.6930 April 2,2020 Project No-2"17 EPdhibft A Legal Description for Rezone to R-43-5outh APeX$Vl)aiviSi*rk A 0 rCel Of Nnd siviated!in a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 5 and a portion of tl�le East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Sect-iori 6.Township'Z North, Range I East B.PA-,City of Meridian, Ada County, Ida ho and beling more particularity described as follow,%, Cornmen ceinig at a brass cap markI ng the co rner corn mon to Sectio ns 5 and 6,Township 2 North.Ra nge I East and-lieC60715�1.aAdl 32,Townshlp a North,Range 1 East which bears 589'42'21'E a dii5ta rK%-of 2,W.00 feet from a 5/8�inrh reW r rna0ing the North 1/4 corner of said Section 6,thence following the easlerly line of ttie Northea st 1/4 Gf said Section 6,SDO*04'35"E a d istance of 661.-"f`L-et to the POINT OF BEGIN N ING. Thence leaving said easterly linE,N89'5 V42"I a&StaXe of 966-Oa Net, Thence N41'51'13'E a distanoe of�947-3,7 feet to the easterly line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 Of 5ection 5-r Then Ce 1O110WiflC S@ id e2 sterky line,SCKY'01'43�E a d islance of 2j42 1-%feet to t he Center-West 1/16 ra rner of said Section 5, 7henre IL-aVi rtg said easteply lincz and fol IgWioe ft southerly line of sald West 112 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 5,N89,5 2 r�8"W,(jig',rice of 1'a29.65 feet to a bras ca p rnarl6ng the WL-5t:1/4 comer-of 5a id -�eCt�(in 5(East'AJ4 rorner of sail Section 6); 7hence leavl rig said so Lithe rly I i nee of the We5t 112 of the Northwest 114 of Sect i"5 a rid following the wtithe rIV ii ne of sa id Ea st 112 Gf the No rtheast 114 of Section 6,N89'22'50"W a d Islance of 1,3(A-25 feet-, The nce leavi rkg 5aid southe rly 1i rker N00�43'SYVV.2 d Istanca Of 111-26 f ffet', The nce NOTZD'2 Y W a d igancr-of 549-25 fee t'- The nce N87'34'2 S�V 2 d I.Sta[IC2 of 13-49 f eet to the westerly I ine of sa id E ast 112 a f the Northeast IJ4 of Section 6; ThenrQ fol lowi rkg raid westeriV 5ne,N 00"02'06"W a d Ista rice of 66-73 feet to the westerly rIght-cf-way line of th&Rawso n Can a 1; Thence leavi�ng 5a id weste rly I i ne a n4 fol lowi rkg"id we-5terly right-of-way I i"the tollowi ng courses- I. N7 9'2 5'55'E a distance of 16 1.21 Feet '2. N54'55'20"E a distance of 74,17 feet, 3. Nal'SV�2"I!a distance of 92.01 feet, 4, N 10'2Y10"E a distionce of 381.3 3 feet, 5. N05'26'52'W a distance of 106.2 6 feet; -6- N 19'56'2CYW a distance of 287.65 feet; 7. N 32*C8'3VW a distance of 9 1.8a feet; -R. N61'32'57"W a distance 0104.61 fee�; 9, N 74'59'05"W a distarloe Of 44J�2 Feet, ThenCe leaving said we-qerlly rlight-of-waV I i n P,NG0602'06"W a d istance uf 396.78 fe et; E"GINEERS I SURVEYORS PLANNrRS Page 8 The nre 599'42'20'E a dist-a rice of 796.96 feet; Thence S00'04'35"E a distance of 252-00 feet-P Thence S89'4Z'20"E a distance Df 473AO feet to the @as1@r1V line of said East 1/2 of the Northeast 114 of Sertion 6(westerly Iiije of soi(I wimt 1/2 of tha Northwest 1/4 of Section 5), Thence folllawiq sold easterly line(and sold westerly line), M00'(1435"W a d1stance of$4.63 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. $a Id parcel contain&a total of 119.28 EvcreSr rnvre a r less. Amched hPreto i5 Exhibit B ard by thils reference is hereby made a part of, fj 12459 c, 41 OF % q. PAGE 2 Page 9 BASIS OF BEARING 31 9'42'21"F 2W,00' ELAKEHAZELRD 31,,,.32 T.31N., R.1E. 6 1370.60'— 6 'S T-2N., RA E. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT CREBAR 1�54/R-INCH REBAR BRASS CAP WEST 1/15 ORNERY _r_ -0 -0 NOM 1/4. CORNER N[W CORNER SECTION 6 SEC'nON 5 AND Senom 6 RE CORNER SECTION 6 SECTION -32 e 0 m V) b 01 En C? c: S89'42'20-E 796,...96' = .2 REWINNING Ln 0 d, tj FZ 4- Ld, c'j 6 (D -1 51 m 473.40' 0 L9 LINE TABLE Lei X LINE BEARING DISTANCE CL r Rezone Area. 119.28±AC. Ll N8734'26'W 13.49 co 0 Z N 1 B15 6,20V Portion ofS1406110015, - L2 NV02'0" 66.7Z 0 26-7.65' All of S1406110350 and a Portion of 51405212410 U N78'25'55'E 161.21 !E Current Zoning:R-4 x L4 N!W155'20"E 74.17 LU Proposed Zonlrkg:R 9 L5 N31'51'12'E 92-01 Lj 4�:! U) L6 NS'26'52W 106.26 Z > L-7 NZ5ToB',)a'W' 91.&3 p MTE' MARCH 20ZD ED L8 N61'32'57"W 104.61 L4 �qj�- PROJECT 20-017 Ln U N74'59'05"W 44,02 Z) SHEET� Ll b 0 LIO SO'04'35' 1 OF I E Ll I NO04'35W NO(Y20'23'V 549.25' 1 tL12 NST22-WW 0 200 400 800 BRkSS CAP "as W 1/4 CORNER SECTION 5 1/2-INCH REBAR SCALE: 1"=400' E 1/4 CORNER SECTION 6 kill GmEmmm C-E 1/16 CORNER NOV43'55"W C-W 1/16 CORNER ENGINEERS-SuRvkvoR�.PLANNERS SECTION 6 111,26' SEnc)N 5� 9233WFSTSWISTREEr N89'22'50'w 1304.2.5' 6 N89,52'38'W 1,329AV L--L1 2 FAK(ZUS)6W.69M Page 10 km 9233 WEST STATE STREET I 901SE,11D83714 1 208.639.6939 1 FAX208.639-6930 April2g,2020 PrDject No.20-017 Exh[bit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-15 Apex Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of Vie South 1J2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31 and a portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 32,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,B.M.,and a portion of the Northeast 114 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 6,Township 2 North,Range I East B.M.,al I situated in the City of Merld[an,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as followv BEGrNNING at a 5/9-inch rebar marking the corner common W Section 31,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,and Section 6,Township 2 North,Range I East,which bears N89042'2 1"E a distance of 2,640.00 feet from a 5/5-inch rebar ma rk[ng the Southeast 1/4 corner of said Section 31; The nc-e following the westedy line c)f the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 114 of Section 31,NOO'16'52"E a distance of 660,00 feet; Thence leaving said westerly line,589'42'21'E a distance of 1,198.50 feet; Thence NOIY16'52"E a distanice of 620.00 feet; Thence S89*42'21"E a distance of 1,971.82 feet to the easterly boundary of the Farr Late4-al; Thence following said easterly boundary the foJlowing courses� 1. 64.48 feet along the a rc of a circuJar curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 110-00 feet,a delta angle of 33'35'03",a chord bearing of 505'50'15"W and a chord distance of 63.56 feet to a 112-inch rebar, 2. S10'57'45"E a d[stance of 410-17 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 3. 114.95 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 140.00 feet, a delta angle of 47'02r4l",a chord bearing of S34'29'iO8'E and a chord distance of 111.75 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar, 4. S58'00'310E a distance of 219-95 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; 5. S69'55'45"E a distance of 503-32 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar on the easterly line of said Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 114 of Section 32; Thence following said easterly line,S00'1Cr02"E a distance of 430.90 feet to the southerly line of the Southwest 114 of Section 32; Thence following said southerly line,N89'57'46"W a distance cf 641.22 feet, Thence NGO'06'18"W a distance of 124.99 feet; Thence N47'51'44"W a distance of 79736 feet; Thence N89'42'2 1rW a distance of 775.42 feet, Thence SCO'16052'W a distance of 1,154.01 feet; Thence N89'42'20"W a distance of 587.77 feet, Thence NOO'02'06"W a distance of 494-01 feet to the southerly line of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31; Thence fcRowing said southerly line,N99'42r2 1"W a distance of 1,370.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 11 Said parcel contains a total of 76.93 acres, more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit Band by this reference is hereby made apart of. " 11 C4 �d CA M OF , IB3 do LEGEND FOUND BRASS CAP M 5/8—INGH RERAR A CALCULATED POINT Lr) C r-I Ln M REZONE BOUNDARY 0 500 1000 1500 -4 EXISTING PARCEL LINE I Q� C ;4 P Ian Sca I e:V 500' 0 �: 2 —SECTION LINE 41 0 In aj .17 CURVE TABLE C: 5; 0 LO CURVE RADIU5 LENGTH DELTA CHORD ORG CHORD (3) M V) C1 110.00' 64.48 33,35,03, S5150115"M 5156, >C 140.00' 114.95' 4TO2'41 $34729'08"E 111.75' 1� Q) 'j LO C2 4- CL OJ U 3 < 4D 589'42'21"E 1971M'_ LU LA C1 Rezone Area:76.93±AC_ 0 'C-4 Portion of S11314384DO,51131438900' :0; S1131417251r 511323258M&S140611WIS SD N Current Zoning�R-4 Proposed Zoning:R-15 cl� rq E587 QO'3 I'E S89*42'21"E 1195,50' 775.42' NB9-42'21'W VAIE' APRIL 20211 1%5.4 PNIECT; 20-017 31�1 SHEM 1 OF I to M N0906118"w BASIS OF REARING 12k99 2640.00' ;r T�3 N., R-1 E, 3 2 M 6 N 9'42'21'W 1370.00' P 7.2N., RAE� 9'57'46W 541.2 E LAKE HAZI EL RD P T BRASS CAP IDIN IF BEGINNING 0 518_1 C 0 SE CORNER 5/8—INCH REBAR NIGH RE13AR to SECTION 31 WEST 1/16 CORNER SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 31 SEMON 5 AND 32 ENG NEEPS SURVEYORS PLANNERS 587,77' 9233 WF.3T.STATE MtEET BOISE,IDAHO 85714 NBW42'2C)'W PHONE(2041539-cm FAX(20aj 629 09M Page 12 km r4,Trc7M7=- 9233 WE5TSTA7E STREET I 13015E,053714 1 M8,639.6939 1 FAX208.639.6930 April 29,2020 Project No.20-17117 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to C-C Apex 5ijbdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31,a portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 114 of Section 32,Township 3 North,Range I East,B.K,and a portion of the Northwest 1�4 of the Northwest 1/4otSection 5,and a portion of the Northeast 1J4of the Northeast 1/4 of Sectlon 5,Township 2 North,Range I East B.M.,ail situated in the City of Meridian, Ada county, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Cornmen&g at a brass cap marking the Northwest corner of Section 5,Township 2 North,Rainge I East, which bears N89'57'04"VV a d1stance of 1,331.87 feetfrom a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the West 1/16 conner of said Sections 5 and 32; Thence following the northerly line of said Northwest 1/4,S89'57'04"E a distance of 690.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continu[ng along said northerly line,S89*57'04"E a distarice of 641,21 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the West 1116 cornerof said Sections 5 and 32; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4of said Section 5,SGO'01'43"E a distance of 250.92 feet to a polrit; Thence leavfng said easterly line,S41'51'13'W a distance of 547,17 feet to a point-, Thence S89'53'42"W a distance of 966.03 feet to a point on the westerly Ifne of sa�d Northwest IL/4; Thence following said westerly line,1100*04'35"W a distance of 167-37 feet to a point; Thence leaving said westerly line, N89'42'20"W a d[stance of 632.58 feet to a point; Thence NOO'16'52"E a distance of 1,154.01 feet to a point; Thence S9942'21"E a distance of 775.42 feet to a point; Thence S47'51'44"E a distance of 797.36 feet to a point; Thence SCO'05'18"E a distance of 125.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 43.28 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. 12459 0 F L Page 13 BRASS CAP .6 LU LAST 1/4 CORNER -4 SECTION 31-\ 32 Z 14 S89'42'21"E 77! j 0 300 600 9DO Plan Scale�1" 300' 0 c -1, 0 tn c IZ QjP� N r U 0 Z Z N L9 0 aj -0 of :3 Ln E2 c� Ln POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 5/a- REBAR CO x M 125.13' 5 & 32 FOUND BRASS CAP SI)0*06'1 8"E WEST 1/16 CDR ER 4� CL 31 SE CORNER SEC71DN 31 SECTIONS 3 < 31 cq 559'42'21'E- k32 T.3N.. RAE, BMW S89'57'04"E 641.2 1' !E CD 6 _ �`) — — — — — x 2W.00' T.2N., RAE. 1331.87' LU E LAKE HAZEL RD BASIS OF BEARING POINT OF BECINNING Z I 1L, S00'D1'4.3'E N M 250.92' LIJ Rezone Area:43.28±AC. Portbn of S1 18 1417 2 51,S1 117 32 5800, w CT"I S s8"57'04"1 )N S 34 -2 3 2 0 3 00 P I a"Sca'e' (5.113.'E q -7 n: Sco 125.13. 3 .1 E 0�66. 2 T;.32 �a E. —6g 2 133 -117; 55'3 BE R 5 OASIS OF -A ING OA 1 0 Soo. D 1-4 3 250.92 8ilA' b c C) S1405223000, S140611001S En Current Zoning:R-4 .0 proposed Zoning:C-C DATE; APNL 2MQ III-011 NSO.42'20'W 682-58' MOO`04 35 167.37' SHEET: 111011 OF I S89'53'42'W 966.03' LEGEND FOUND BRASS CAP 5/6-INCH REBAR A CALCULATED POINT �REZONE BOUNDARY ENGIN EER.5.SuRVUORS.RANNERS 923.3 WEST STATE ST14E EXISTING PARCEL LINE BOSE,IDAHO 9�714 615 PMNE(209)639 6939 SECTION LINE FM(208)639��30 Page 14 EXHIBIT B 51 B.7V BRASS CAR NORTH 1/4 CORNER SECTIDN 31 Ls \1--NOIr3W I 7"E L6 t! < 0 z 0 LLP kn 0 5/8—=A RE13AR C-W 1/16 CORNER BRASS CAP 41 0 C6 z SECTION 31 (1) EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 31 POINT OF BEGINNING N V) 0 5/8-IMCH REEIAR o- CBC-ER OF SEC1`1ON 31 BASIS OF SFARING aj X N89',' E D,601,37, cr_ ci 2i 32 1 CL r! EA%,1/4 8 R S 115" F- S ' ALUMINUM CAP z rn WEST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 31 241.33' Rezone Area; 144.78±AC. 4�5 All of 51131244500&portion of R7824220042, x r-I I LU LU Uj �0 S1131417200,5113143WO &S1131417251 a Current Zoning.RUT&R-4 .4 PrOP05ed Zoning!R-8 �; .2 4�q I DA-F. Y"CH ZVO PADIGCT- 20 0o SHEET: Ll N89'42-21'W 1423.17- 1 OF 2 5/8-INCH NREBAR � , �'jn . C-S 1116 CORNER P N OF SECVON �il 'i Nag'42'21-W f195,EO' 0 300 5100 1200 9233 WMT5TPLTE STRIM7 "5E.IDAHO 83714 SCALE: 1"=600' PHON S fZM)639-GM X(M]6394930 APEX H-2020-0066 EXHIBIT B BASIS OF BEARING 2 31 9'42'21"E 2640,00' 1 LAKE HAZEL RD 31 2 L.LN T 6 1370.00' 5 !14 .2 R.1 E. POINT OF COMMENCEMENT 5/8-INCH REBAR r 5/6-INCH REUAR BRASS CAP WEST 1/16 CORNERY o n�n SECTION 5 AND INORTH 1/4-CORNER NW CORNER SECTION 5 Nib, d SSarCN 6 WE CORNER SECTON 43 SECTION 32 0 'D un b S89'42'20'E 796.96' rUlNi lut MINN Mr, 1jr 0 NW53'42"E 966.03' See, 42' 473.40' L9 LINE TABLE (D X UNI BEARING I D15TANCE Rezone Area.119.28±AC. CL t: Ll N87-34'26'W 13.49 Portion ofSI406110015, L2 N902-06-W 66.737 :Ll Al I of S 14061103 50 a nd -0 a Portion of 51405212410 L3 N78-25-55-E 16 1�21 :E C u rre r t Zon Ing:R-4 x L4 NW55'20"E 74.17 LU v Proposed Zcnlng�R-8 �u L5 N31'51'12"E 92-01 LU LG N5�26'52W 106.26 .2 Z 0 L7 N32,oB'38'W 91.83 nATE' MARCH 200 LB N61'32'57"W 104.61 L4 N PmEcr. ZO-017 L9 N74*511'05'11 44.02 lHEET, Ll 0 LIO SO'04'3!5'E 2,52.00 1 OF 1 Lll N904'35"W 84.63 NOO+20'23'V — 549.25' L12 Kgg'22'50'W 17.75 0 200 400 Boo BRkSS CAP W 1/4 CORNER SECTION 5 W " 37CALE: I:"=40:0' E 1/4 CORNER SEC-110N 6 1/2-INCH REBAR N C-E 1/16 CORNER NOCT43'55W L C-w 1/16 CORNER EMGINEFAS-SVftV�VORS,FLANNERS SECTION 6 111.26' SECTION 5 9233 WEST SIAM�r— NBT22'50'W 13044-25' 6 5 9,65' bul5k.IDOUB3714 N89*52'38'W 132 PlIGN E(ZDE)639-6939 L-Ll 2 'A-(Z95)6W-5930 APEX H-2020-0066 EXHIBIT B LEGEND FOUND 13RASS CAP 5/8—INCH REBAR A CALCULATED POINT Ln REZOINE BOONDARY Soo 1Quu 1500 m EXISTING PARCEL LINE Plan Scale:1" 500' —SECTION LINE 41 0 CURVE TABLE 0 _0 " CURVE RADIU5 LENGTH DELTA CHDRDBRG HORD D V1 0a 01 11 CLOD' 64-48, 33*351031 S5*50,15"W 63-55, 14 C2 140-00' 114.95' 4TC2'41- S34!29'08-E 111.75- _C� < iE 589'42'21-E 1971.a2'— x U-i LA C1 Remne Area;76.951 AC_ m b Portion of 511314384M S11314389,00, 513.31427252,511,32325800,&51406110015 L' Current Zonln&�R-4 Proposed Zoning:9-25 0 0 1198.50' 775.42" CL NB9-42'21'W DATE: dk� FROKET 20017 SHEET! 1 OF I 14 10 m BASIS OF BEARING 124M' 2840.00' T,31M_ R.1 E (A 6 N89'42'21"W 1370.00' 7.2N., R.1 F. 6q BRASS CAP N89'!57'46*W 641.2 E LAKE HAZEL RD POINT OF BEGINNING /R Im. SE CORNER 5/8—INCH REW 5 B—INCH RE13AR SLG1ION 31 RMCOMM M. SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 31 WEST 1/16 CORNER M SECTION 5 AND 32 EM51NEE�-SURY�.PLPNMER5 587.77" 9213 WET STAW STREET 8015F,IMHD837M PHONE P081 539-eM F�(NMI 6394?RM APEX H-2020-0066 EXHIBIT B URASS CAP LU I EAST 1/4 CORNER-\ = SECTION 3, 32 SR9'42'21'E 77 j v I u 0 3(10 600 900 0 Plan Scale:1" 300' 0 Qj u 0 P4 z aj -a �Z�;j CC :3 Ln E2 b 5/8- REBAR x 604 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT FOUND FIRASS CAP Suew'18"E WEST 1/16 CORNER 41 (V J - SE CORNER SECTION 31 SECTIONS 5 & 32 0 0 S8W42'21'E 31 ,32 T.3N.. R.1E, agmul S89'57'04"E 641.21' �E >e Co 2W.00, T.2N., RAE. 1331.87' Lu 5 vI a E t.AKP HAM RI) 6 POINT OF BEGINNING BASIS OF BEARING z 0 250.92' Rezune Areii:43.281 AC. II ofS113141725L S1132325800� S1405 223000,&S140611GOIS Current Znning:R-4 Proposed zolling:C-C 125 13) T P.IE, 'go�66' �.32 R.'E. DATI; A1111 1111 N89�42'20'W 682.68' N0Q'Q4 35 W PROJECL 2"17 167.37' SHEET: 1 OF I S89,53'42"W 966.03' LEGEND FOUND BRASS CAP 5/6-INCH REBAR lam A CALCULATED POINT MMEMEM ,REZONE BOUNDARY ENCINEEIL$-SUIVEVOM-�N�RS 92�3WE$ISTATE5"EH EXISTING FARCEL LINE "St,IDAHO 83714 615 PUME(2001 G39-03 SECTION LINE FAX J2081639,030 APEX H-2020-0066