Loading...
2021-01-05 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, January 05, 2021 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/88581625280 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 885 8162 5280 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Luke Cavener PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at 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. 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. 1. Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the southwest corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. Remanded to Planning and Zoning Commission A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. Motion to remand to Planning and Zoning Commission made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault Applicant to pay re-notice fees. 2. Public Hearing Continued from December 1, 2020 for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H- 2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck & Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 3. Ordinance No. 20-1911: An Ordinance (H-2020-0006 – Teakwood Place Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the NW ¼ of the NW¼ of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, 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 7.35 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 Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault 4. Ordinance No. 20-1912: An Ordinance (H-2020-0085 Ada County Coroner) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being Lot 2, Block 2 and the Adjacent Right of Way, Seyam Subdivision as Recorded in Book 108 of Plats, Ages 15674-15676, Records of Ada County, Idaho, Located in the SW ¼ of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 1.77 Acres of Land from I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail And Service Commercial) 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 Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion to enter executive session made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault In to executive session: 7:38 pm Out of executive session: 8:39 pm 5. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer, 74-206(1)(c) To acquire an interest in real property not owned by a public agency, and 74-206(1)(d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code. ADJOURNMENT Adjourned at 8:39 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council January 5, 2020. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:03 p.m., Tuesday, January 5, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Member Absent: Luke Cavener. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Tracy Basterrechea, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt _X_ Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, I will call this meeting to order. For the record it is January 5, 2021, at 6:03 p.m. We will begin tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Our next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item is the community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by Vinnie Hanke with Valley Life Christian Church. If you would all join us in this invocation or take this as a moment of silence. Pastor Hanke. Hanke: Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, Happy New Year. Thank you for the opportunity to pray for you and alongside of you. Let's pray. God, we thank you for the beginning of a new year and, God, as we consider your mercy a gift to us with each new sunrise and each new turn of the calendar we pray that you would fill the City Council with wisdom, with continued courage to lead through a challenging and difficult season. We pray that you would grant them wisdom tonight to consider the motions before them and that you would inspire them to lead our city well. God, we ask that you be glorified through all these things and it's through the name of your son Jesus Christ that I pray. Amen. God bless you all. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Page 21 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 2- — PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, under Public Forum we did not. Simison: Okay. Well, then, as Council President Bernt did two weeks ago, I'm going to take a moment of privilege and read something into the record before we get into the regular part. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Bernt: Mr. Mayor, before you do it, do we -- do we need to adopt the agenda before you do that? Or we can do it -- Simison: You are correct. Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: So, going back to my original point, a moment of personal privilege. I received this letter on December 2nd, 2020, from the Municipal Services Department, Office of the City Clerk, regarding Christopher Johnson. Dear Mr. Simison, it is with pleasure that inform you, the City of Meridian, that City Clerk Christopher Johnson has fulfilled the requirements to be certified as a municipal city clerk for the state of Idaho. Thank you for your city support which allowed Mr. Johnson to attend the training that is required for the certification. In doing so the City of Meridian and its citizens will also benefit from the knowledge that Christopher Johnson has obtained. Sincerely, Renata McLeod, Certification Committee Chair. So, I just want to congratulate Mr. Johnson for your effort to do that quickly and it will be of great benefit, so worthy recognition from others for your efforts. Bernt: Congratulations. Johnson: Thank you, everyone. Bernt: Awesome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for doing that. Page 22 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 3- 30 ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A- Team Land Consultants, Located at the southwest corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. Simison: Next up is our Action Items. First item is a public hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision, H-2020-0100. I will open this public hearing with staff comments and turn it over to Mr. Dodson. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can everybody hear me all right? Simison: Yes. Dodson: Okay. Good. So, the applicant got a recommendation of denial and because of that they are requesting a remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission, so I do not have anything to present tonight. They took those comments very seriously from the Commission and have already provided me a revised plan that needs a lot more of what the Commission talked about wanting to see, so they wanted to go -- you know, be remanded back and kind of start over with them and get a better recommendation for you guys. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Do we have the applicant joining us this evening for any purpose? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I am not sure. I can't tell by some of the names. So, if the applicant is online if you can hit the raise your hand button. There they are. Simison: I don't know if it's going to be Mr. Arnold. If so, if you can unmute yourself and, then, state your name and address for the record. Arnold: This is Steve Arnold. I'm A Team Land Consultants. Address 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709. Page 23 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 4- — Simison: Thank you. You are recognized for up to 15 minutes for any additional comments you would like to make. Arnold: We don't have a lot of comments. We, like Joe has spoken, we have taken a lot of the feedback that we have gotten from the Planning and Zoning Commission. We have taken that fairly seriously and have started redesigning our site. Like Joe said, we are -- I think we are fairly close to what the Planning and Zoning Commission was looking for at our last hearing and I think with some tweaks between staff and ourselves, who will be there, and I think we will have a product type that the Planning and Zoning Commission can approve. With that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't have a question, but I just wanted to say that I really -- that we -- I think all my Council Members -- fellow Council Members will agree that we appreciate it when an applicant just continues to work hard to meet the --to meet the requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission that are not only in our code, but also things that we would really like to see have happen as -- as a city and as a community to make this a better place. So, I just want to say all in all every time we see an applicant work really hard to meet those requests to take the extra time to go back to Planning and Zoning, I just -- I really appreciate it. We know and understand how much effort goes into that and so want to say that we appreciate your efforts to do that and just try to keep our city a fantastic place to be. Simison: Thank you. Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, yeah, I -- I fully agree with you on that and I think between staff and ourselves, you know, each time we tweak the site plan I think we are getting it better and we are honestly in -- in this site for the long haul. We are representing the marketing. So, anything that we can make the site better with actually helps all of us. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. I actually moved the paper out prior to people attending, which I was not expecting. So, everybody here is actually here for that project. Simison: Okay. With what you have heard this evening is there anybody who would like to come forward and testify at this time? Please come forward and state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for up to three minutes. Page 24 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 5 of 30 Buckner: Hello. My name is John Buckner. I am a member of the community here that is being affected by this application. I want to thank the Council for the time to come up and speak during this matter and I would like to revocalize my opposition to this application. As myself and many other community members who have submitted formal public contests to the city and the Council, we all objected on various grounds. One very significant reason being the fact that it does not match the character of our neighborhood. For one reason being that we are a much lower density community and they want to insert -- inject a lot of homes raising it to a very high density as the application states and it just doesn't make any sense from a design perspective and we also have the sympathy and sentiment of fellow Council Members, including Steven Yearsley and Lisa Holland and another -- another person who -- Bill Parsons. Who all agreed that it just does not fit. However nice of a design it is, they do look like nice homes, but they just don't fit our community. Our community is full of older homes. These look like modern, very trendy apartments -- they look like apartments, not like homes, and the design does not account for a lot of space for people to really travel within the community. There are no real right of ways for them to drive through. The roads are very narrow, so if you get a lot of people coming for like a New Year's Eve or Christmas Eve, people are going to be packing the streets, they are not going to get through, neither will public utilities or things like trash or things like that. So, again, it does not seem well planned out. The last change involved reducing the number of units from 50 to 48, so it's doubtful to me that they are going to bring down the number of units to a reasonable number. So, I would strongly request and advise the Council to oppose this application for the sake of the community and people who care about their homes in the neighborhood. Thank you. Simison: Sir, if you wouldn't mind stating your address for the record. Buckner: The entire address? Simison: Yes. Buckner: 3877 South Picasso Avenue, Meridian. Simison: Thank you. Appreciate it. Unruh: Council Members, thanks so much for giving us the opportunity to speak to this. My name is Stan Unruh and my address is 3246 South Murlo Way. It's across the creek from the proposed division. And besides the concerns that my fellow neighbor just mentioned, I would just also like to express quite a bit of concern, because we just look out our back window and see that Locust Grove is backed up every morning right where the exit that is planned at the moment for this neighborhood. So, we are talking about inserting into a very small piece of property nearly 50 homes and I know the Council has asked them to reconsider the design and they are tweaking it and our concern is that they are going to tweak it down to just slightly below that and we are going to have nearly a hundred vehicles coming out onto Locust Grove, which is already a high dense -- or a high traffic street. If you look at the future planning, the street is going to narrow from four lane -- after they build the circle the street is going to narrow from four lanes down to two Page 25 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 6 of 30 lanes and, then, shortly right after that is right where the exit from this development is going to come out. So, it's going to be very very difficult for people coming out of this development to turn left. So, naturally, if I lived in this development I would want to turn right and, then, I would turn right again and they will be right down a neighborhood street right by our home and, then, on to Victory. So, the easiest thing for this community to do is all this traffic will just turn right and go right through a neighborhood that has kids and so I think that -- that this piece of property became available because the city exercised their right of eminent domain to make the circle, The former property owner then sold the thing and he sold the property to this developer. It came up on rather short notice, that it hasn't really been in the long-term planning of the city and now the developer would like to make one exit for 50 homes onto a street that's already quite busy. So, I just would plead with the City Council to really give that a lot of consideration. These are the kind of things that we elect you to kind of protect us from and we ask that you keep that in mind as -- as you weigh the developer's tweaking to their plan. We really are not asking for -- we are not anti-development zealots, we are asking for reasonable development and development that just meets -- or that matches the homes that are already there. Thank you very much. Simison: Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Not a question, but just wanted to make a couple of clarifications for the gentleman -- both gentlemen who came to speak and thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. We -- we take -- we take the public concern and the testimony very seriously. Just one thing I wanted to clarify is if this gets remanded back to Planning and Zoning that they will have another hearing and, then, whatever is decided there it will still come to City Council, so you will have another opportunity to come speak before us at the -- at the time and date that we actually will be making the decision and so I would strongly encourage you to do so -- to do so and also just wanted to clarify that in regard to eminent domain and the roundabout that's going in there, that's actually an Ada County Highway District decision and not the City of Meridian. So, just wanted to clarify that that ACHD is -- has been involved with that as well, so -- but we all are elected on both ACHD and City Council, but just wanted to share a couple of those things and -- and continue to encourage members of the public who have concerns about this application to come -- go -- go to the Planning -- Planning and Zoning Commission hearing a second time and, then, of course, please, feel free to come before us as well. Simison: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony at this time on this item? Mr. Clerk, do we have -- is there anybody online who has raised their hand who expressed an interest in testifying? Is there anybody who is online that would like to provide any comments regarding this item before Council? If you can use the raise your hand feature on the Zoom platform, then, we can bring you in for comments. Seeing no one else that would like to testify, would the applicant like to make any final comments? Page 26 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 7— — Arnold: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, I think when we resubmit we are going to address a lot of the original concerns by both the neighborhood and -- and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Just briefly I think I will -- I will kind of hit on Council Woman Perreault's comment. The property was never under eminent domain. We have purchased it from the original owner and we are currently working with ACHD and have their roundabout in our design. So, a lot of the traffic concerns that are in existence now will be fixed, so to speak, in the future with the road widening and ACHD has already approved it at the 48 lots. We are probably going to drop at least nine to ten lots that will address a lot of the density concerns. So, I think the next round that we present to the Planning and Zoning Commission -- I think our neighborhood will have a little bit of appease on it and, then, next time we are before the City Council I think we will have a positive recommendation. With that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any further comments? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we remand. Direct the applicant to pay for the renoticing fees on file -- or item number H-2020-0100. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. It is remanded back to Planning and Zoning Commission for further action. Thank you for those that came for that and I'm sure that they will provide -- repost the site as necessary, so you will be notified about any future public hearings on this topic. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 2. Public Hearing Continued from December 1, 2020 for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck & Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 8 of 30 A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11- 2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Simison: All right. Next item up is a public hearing continued from December 1st, 2020, for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch H-2020-0064. I will continue this public hearing with staff comments and turn this over to Sonya. Allen: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Give me just a moment. I seem to have lost my presentation. Hopefully you all can see it now. The next item before you is a continued hearing for Pura Vida River -- Ridge Ranch. Excuse me. It was last heard at the Council hearing on December 1 st. Council continued this project to tonight's meeting and directed the applicant to submit a phasing plan to address concerns pertaining to fire access based on anticipated timing for construction of the new fire station and school enrollment. The applicant submitted a letter this morning addressing these issues that's included in the public record and the applicant is in attendance tonight to answer any questions Council may have. An updated fire safety plan was submitted that has been approved by the Fire Department and final design guidelines were submitted to ensure quality of development and cohesive patterns of development with the PUD that are included in the public record as well and staff does approve of these updated final design guidelines. The only outstanding issue for Council tonight is the applicant is requesting Council approval to not construct fencing along the Ten Mile Creek. If Council doesn't feel fencing is necessary to preserve public safety condition number 3-D should be deleted. Staff will turn this over to the applicant. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Then with that I will ask the applicant to -- want to make sure that they are in the meeting? Okay. If you can state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for 15 minutes. Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Council Persons, I am Jay Gibbons. 2002 South Vista Avenue, Boise, Idaho. Representing the property owner, South Beck & Baird. Thank you for the opportunity to come before you again tonight in regards to Pura Vida Ridge Ranch Subdivision application. Council had asked a couple questions to -- to bring back -- to have time in the past month to discuss further with Fire Department, as -- as well as the school district to address the issues with how we can structure this development and the phasing of this development, so that the Council is more comfortable with the fact that currently the five minute fire response timeline only extends to the back of our phase two. The Council was concerned that we would potentially move this project forward faster than the city could prioritize, fund, and build the next fire station that's projected to service Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 9- — the south Meridian area. It's not really -- in our opinion it's not really a phasing issue. What we have -- we have what we feel is -- is -- we are confident in the city's processes. You have got -- ahead of us we have, of course, the Council's approval of the project. We have to finalize the development agreement that incorporates all of-- all the conditions of approval, findings of fact. We, then, have to turn around and -- and create a construction package and a final plat application for the first phase, get that approved and install all the improvements that are required, sewer and water -- you know, before we can sell -- or build the first home. Pull the first building permit and, then, we have to turn around and do the same thing again for phase two. That's -- that's more than likely going to be -- serve as -- as the buffer -- time buffer that -- that, you know, Council was looking for. Secondly, we would like to be a part of helping support the city's prioritizing, you know, process going forward. I know that that's -- that's, you know, every citizen's opportunity to -- to be part of that discussion and -- and throw their support behind the Council, so that, you know, the city doesn't feel like they are -- they are out on a limb here. I know that for several years, having been a former city council -- or a former -- former Meridian city employee that, you know, growth in the south Meridian area has been a priority for several years and, you know, it's going to take some time for the city to fully be ready for that infrastructure when the fire --the next fire station is -- is-- is one of those infrastructure items. We would like to --we would like to help gather support for the city on that. I know that we are -- we are not alone. There are several other developments and many other properties in south Meridian that are going to fall into the same category and that, you know, only a portion of their proposed development falls within the fire response timeline. But over time that -- that will change and -- and fire stations will come on -- on board and we are confident it's all going to fall into place. The second issue was school enrollment. As you are aware and you had said that you had recently had a -- had a presentation from the school district and we followed up with the school district this past month. Talked to a woman at the -- at the West Ada School District, specifically so we could understand what the caps on Hunter Elementary and Hillsdale Elementary. Hillsdale Elementary, the school boundary for that elementary school, includes the Pura Vida development. The purpose of the caps are to basically -- you know, West Ada School District has an open enrollment policy. If a student from outside of the specific school's boundary wants to attend they have to petition to get in and the caps are there to reserve space for the school aged children that live within that school's boundary. We also were told that the next school to serve southeast Meridian is scheduled to go on -- to come online of 20 -- in the fall of 2021 , which means that the Hillsdale Elementary School boundary will be readjusted to take out all of the students that are on the west side of Eagle Road in -- in south -- southeast Meridian and so that -- that frees up, you know, part of their school boundary and the caps will be reduced or whatever, but the -- but the school district is adamant that if the Pura Vida -- any school age kids that Pura Vida development generates have a place at Hillsdale -- Hillsdale Elementary, which is half a mile to the north. And so we -- we wanted to bring that message back to the Council and -- and let you know that West Ada School District and our owners and myself feel that the -- you know, the school enrollment issue is really not an issue. There just needs to be some clarification and getting an understanding of what that means. So, as far as the last issue and -- and as staff pointed out, condition 3-B, fencing along Ten Mile Creek itself. As you recall my presentation on the 1 st of December, we do have fencing along the west side Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 10—30 of the pathway that runs -- a multi-use pathway that will run along Ten Mile Creek. We do not propose fencing along -- between the pathway and the creek or drain itself. That's also consistent with the development directly to the north of us on East Lake Hazel Road. They do have an open style fencing on the rear property lines. There is no fencing between the pathway and the drain itself. So, we are consistent with what the city has required of other developments and with -- you know, with the pathway plan requirements as far as pathway placement is concerned along natural flowing creeks and drains. And with that I am happy to be here. I'm happy to bring this back to you and have -- have a discussion and, hopefully, we can -- we can resolve your concerns and that you will -- we can get your approval on this project and with that I will stand for any questions. Thanks. Simison: Thank you, Jay. Council, any questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Mr. Gibbons. I --we have toyed many times with creating some type of a cutoff for application materials for this reason. City Council Members usually work a full-time job in addition to their duties here. I did not see your letter that was posted today. So, if you wouldn't mind giving me an overview of what you are proposing specifically -- I have just been skimming it now, but do you want to give me a flavor, please, for what you are proposing to mitigate the concerns regarding fire access that would be appreciated. Gibbons: Council Woman Strader, Mr. Mayor, this -- so, one of the -- one of the issues, of course, with the overall development is that we only have one access to Lake Hazel Road. In phase one we are proposing a connection to the multi-use greenbelt path there off of the east-west road that -- on the ring road that -- that will connect and provide a temporary secondary access. Long term we have a bridge that will connect to the east to Poiema Subdivision, which was approved by Council on August 25th of last year and it does -- we -- we did coordinate with that property owner and the applicant team to coordinate that exact location. Their roadway system connects up to Lake Hazel Road that provide secondary access from Poiema through Pura Vida Ridge Ranch to -- to Lake Hazel on -- to benefit them, as well as, vice versa, it benefits us. But the road itself it could -- you know, that's projected to be built in phase two, the -- the bridge over the creek. If -- if we -- you know, if the Council feels it prudent to allow or require that bridge and that roadway extension to be built through Poiema to East Lake Hazel to provide secondary access prior to phase two, we can -- you know, we are -- my ownership group is certainly willing to do that. But I think your overall concern is -- is your concern that our development is going to progress faster than the city's priority -- priorities for building a new fire station and so that's basically we -- you know, we are kind of proposing some options there, but we are -- we are confident the city processes are going to provide that buffer that-- that you are really looking for, not necessarily a hard and fast line in the sand as far as development timing or, you know, years -- how in the future that, you know, nobody knows what the economy is going to hold or the housing market itself. So, I'm pretty -- pretty comfortable in that confidence. We want to be part of your process and, Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 11 —30 then, of course, secondly, as I -- as I said, the school enrollment and overcrowding issue that the Council felt was important was -- you know, we did talk to West Ada and -- and the caps on -- on enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary were explained to us and -- and the purpose behind them and that they stated that, you know, those caps are in place for really for -- for potential student enrollment outside of their district boundary to -- or Pura Vida Ridge Ranch is currently within their -- their boundary and -- and so they have room for -- for any potential students that we generate and that was -- that was the gist of what that letter spoke to. Did I answered your question or -- Strader: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I may have some follow up for staff at a later time. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council, anyone else have questions for the applicant? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, the -- the bridge to the church property -- that church property have they started development? Can you give me the status of the property there to the east, the church property, and, then, the status of the property that's to the south that you show as a future connection to South Eagle Road. Where do they stand in their development plans? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, so, of course, Poiema Subdivision was approved in August of last year. I haven't spoken to them recently, but I'm pretty sure they are -- you know, they are moving forward with -- A, they got -- they got their CU approved for the church itself, plus the subdivision. They have got to work on the final plat on -- on that, but I'm not certain what their time frame is. What we are willing to do is -- is, of course, the bridge is fully within our property and we are on the hook for building that entirely. It's the connection up to Lake Hazel Road that we are willing to work with them to make sure that if their development has not progressed to the state -- to the -- to the point where they are ready to build those -- those -- those roads and -- that road and the connecting road to Lake Hazel, that we are willing to approve that route to a gravel road that -- that will meet the Fire Department's specifications and guidelines until they actually go in and pave the road. And with regard to the development to the south -- in the time that we have been working with the city to get our application to this point, that property has been under two separate ownerships and development applications submitted to the city and both have been withdrawn before they actually get to Planning and Zoning. So, I know that it's -- I know the developer, the current owner and -- and I'm pretty sure they are working on plans for the -- for the next go round, but, like I said, it's been in -- it's been in the works and, then, it's gone away twice on us. But, you know, we have coordinated that -- that access point and we will --we will meet and continue to work with whoever comes through with an application and make sure that, you know, we -- we Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 12—30 connect to them, because they are going to need a connection to us on the south part of the rim on their -- on their west -- northwest -- or northeast property line as well, so -- Hoaglun: Thank you, Jay. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. Mr. Gibbons, so in the four years that I have been doing this I'm not sure I have ever read a proposal where some of the fire mitigation efforts are going to be the responsibility of a homeowner's association and potentially the homeowners themselves and so I'm just curious how -- and I read through as much of that document as I possibly could, which talks about what -- you know, what the mitigation efforts will be on the individual properties and I just have a lot of concerns about -- and that's sort of the ideal situation, but if -- if the HOA doesn't do a great job of explaining to an individual owner that they can't, you know, change around their landscaping, you know, they can't -- they can't cut down landscaping that's intended to be fire mitigation, you know, parts -- parts of the mitigation -- trying to think of the word. Anyhow, I think you get where I'm going with this. So, I just have a lot of concerns that even with the best intentions homeowners associations, even with a great property management company, are still run by neighbors that probably don't, for the most part, have experience in how that's supposed to work and so can you communicate to us what efforts would be taken and required by the HOA and the homeowners to make sure that that stays the way that it's ideally written in the document you have provided to us? Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Council Person Perreault, so I know that it's -- fire mitigation plans in Meridian are a new thing and the city's working towards that and we have worked with -- you know, extensively with -- with the fire chief to get to this point. Ada county itself, as well as the city of Boise, have fire mitigation issues in their foothills and in their hillside areas and have plans in place. So, it's not new to them. But in our instance, yes, it's on a homeowner's association to enforce the issues and to provide the maintenance itself. However, in the instance of -- the way this works currently is, really, the landscape that is -- that is -- that is shown on the overall landscape plan and all of our product is -- is -- you know, it might have a three foot setback on the -- on the sides that kind of abut the common lot, the purpose of the fire mitigation plans is the slope itself, it's not going to -- it's not going to impact 98 percent of the homes or residents on this -- on this development project. It will only affect the ones that -- that specifically butt up against the toe of the slope. However, we have provided defensible space for them with irrigated -- you know, a strip of irrigated, low maintenance lawn, that's on the -- on the southeast -- or southwest side of the sidewalk that runs all the way along there. So, there is a green buffer that separates them from -- from the homes adequately in that regard and -- and all the landscape around the homes is -- is actually pretty much all maintained by the homeowner association -- association as it is. These aren't large lots. The lots are -- are designated. They basically fit the homes and very little else. So, there is -- there is very little for the homeowner to actually have to maintain. It's the homeowner association that they will be Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 13 of 30 a part of, but it's -- it's in their best interest to -- to, you know, be a part of that and make sure that everybody stays safe. You have got to -- oh, you have got 15 -- what, 15 lots up on the -- on the rim that fire moves uphill faster. I think that's the way that -- that goes. The backs of those lots are required to have a defensible space, which means those lots will have an irrigated lawn and landscape, basically, that separates that back natural area to their house. They may have their own defensible space in place there and they will be maintaining that in perpetuity, but it's not a matter of who is going to cut down things in the common areas, because that's mostly what is -- provides the protection to 98 percent of the residents themselves. Did I help with that? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Yeah. That helps to -- to greater explain -- that helps to greater explain it. I -- I just -- I guess where -- more where I was going with that is that, you know, as a -- as a real estate broker, you know, I encourage my individual clients to read the CC&Rs at length, be very familiar with them, understand what their obligations are and understand what the homeowners association obligations are and I would say a majority of the time they-- they don't and the HOA in many circumstances doesn't even understand their own obligation or appropriately explain it to their property management companies and whatnot. So, I guess that's kind of where I was going with it in terms of-- to me it's a little bit risky to -- to have any fire mitigation be dependent on an HOA or -- or property managers at all. Of course, any individual person who owns their own home, you know, in any location has to have some involvement in making sure their home doesn't burn down, but when we have extra risk in a situation like this, I know there isn't anything that's foolproof per se, but I would guess that the average person is not -- is just going to -- you know, their -- their first response is going to be to call the fire department, not to -- not to have tried to figure out whether or not they or the HOA has taken responsibility in the mitigation. So, yeah, I just -- that's the -- that's the one thing that has me -- has me a little bit nervous. Now, you had mentioned that this is happening in other areas of the valley and it is. I know that to be the case in -- in the foothills in Boise. But one thing that would help me is to -- or maybe this is more of a recommendation to you and not a question to you, it's just I would highly encourage you, if this application gets approved, to have something that a homeowner and a homeowner's association and the homeowners themselves have to actually physically sign and have a disclosure of compliance for that, because, you know, I most certainly don't want my property to be dependent on whether or not my neighbor is able to take care of their -- their own responsibilities with fire mitigation. Gibbons: Mr. Mayor, Council Person Perreault, I -- I agree entirely. I think that there is going to have to be, you know, an education process as -- as new homeowners come on board. When the homeowner's -- homeowner's association is formed they are going to have to get up to speed and understand what the responsibilities of the development are and -- and, then, turn that around and also educate their -- their fellow residents and Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 14—30 community members on, you know, what's entailed, what to watch out for, who is going to do what and, you know, make sure everybody understands and is on the same page. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: I was going to go ahead and jump in. Jay beat me to it though. The big word is education. So, I think with this particular project education for the HOA is going to be critical. So, that -- that is something that the Fire Department is going to take some responsibility in as well to make sure that the fire -- that the plan is being met, because, you know, after a long winter and we have that growing season -- spring, you know, we want to make sure that the -- the hillside is maintained to keep the fire risk down. You know, we can't one hundred percent control it without like concreting the whole hillside, which isn't -- isn't doable. But in that mitigation plan it talks about, you know, keeping vegetation to a certain height and -- and keeping it maintained and once the HOA understands that and, you know, Jay mentioned the 13 lots up at the top of the hill, that's really my area where I'm most concerned is because of -- you know, I was on the fire in Boise and I saw what happened to all those houses up on the top of the hill and they had been trying to get them to clean the area below them and -- and we saw -- all saw what happened that -- that summer day. So, you know, the -- the -- the clear spaces behind those houses up at the top of the hill is going to be critical. So, if they are buying land up there, I think they would also need to know, hey, don't throw your grass clippings over the fence, because you have the potential of causing bigger problems. So, it's education. think Jay hit it right on the head and that's something that they will do as a developer with their HOA and something that we will swing by, take a look at it, and if something doesn't look right we will contact the HOA and we will educate them to make sure that everybody's safe in this particular area. I did have -- Jerry McAdams -- Captain McAdams from Boise Fire Department, who is the WUI expert for Boise, look at this plan. He thought it was very well written and he was satisfied with the way it was presented with the first draft. So, I -- I have read through this draft also and am happy with it as well. So, I think it's -- it's very doable. It -- it's very thought out and I think for our first go -- I appreciate Jay working with me as this was our first WUI project that we have had to deal with and he -- he made it really simple for me. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you very much, Deputy Chief. I'm going to push on you a little bit. Are we ready, do you think as a city, to develop in these -- like Wildland Urban Interface areas? Do we have the same types of policies and programs that another city like Boise has already? Are there gaps that we need to take a look at? And I guess I'm -- I'm keying in on the staff report. Part of my concern wasn't just response time, it's the comment that, you know, fire staff is very concerned and so I just want to understand if -- if we are ready and we are at a phase as a city where we are ready to develop in these areas. Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 15—30 Bongiorno: So, Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, I think, again, as -- as we have talked about in the past -- and I can pull up the maps and kind of show you what -- what we are dealing with as far as response times and stuff go. As far as WUI goes, there are very few WUI areas in Meridian. We are pretty flat in the city. We do have some hills here and there and it just so happens that this is one of those areas. So, this -- this was the first one. It is -- it is a relatively small hillside compared to some of the other stuff that's around. The prop -- the property to the south that Jay had talked about, they also will have to have a very similar plan, because this hillside continues into that next project. So, that project will also be required to have a WUI plan as well. But once we get out past this point we are pretty flat. We may have some stuff over on the west side of -- of Meridian Road where we will be looking at WUI stuff again, but as far as our city goes we -- we are pretty flat and I think we are okay with developing in a WUI area with these plans. You know, like I said, I have had Boise fire, their expert look at it and he -- and he thought it was completely appropriate for the project that -- that I presented to him. So, I think the -- the better question is are we ready to develop in this area and -- and that's why I said, I can -- I would be more than happy to pull up the maps again if we want to look at the green slime colored map. Strader: Mr. Mayor, maybe another follow up from a different perspective. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: You know, part of I think what the applicant is trying to say is the city is going to have times in our process and approvals where we are going to have the ability to help control, you know, additional approvals with the phasing and so forth. Maybe a question for both the Fire Department and the Planning staff -- is that true? At what point will we have the ability to put the brakes on something if we feel like we don't have the right access, we don't feel like we have an adequate fire response time, do we, in fact, have any control at those later phases? Bongiorno: So, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I think you --we have denied projects in the past and I know we have had one of them that was -- I think it was on Locust Grove where the access was poor. It was just poor access period and I believe that was part of the reason for denial of that particular project. This particular project, you know, we worked with the developer, phase one I was one hundred percent comfortable with them developing phase one. The bulk of it falls within our five minute response time and, then, once they got -- if they wanted to develop phase two, that's when they needed that bridge built across the -- the canal to give us another access point that -- just because the way this property is, you know, it's long skinny, so we -- that -- meaning the half the diagonal rule for access points was a little trickier and so Jay worked with the people next door to get that -- with Poiema to get that bridge built that gives us -- now we have two access points that are far -- way farther apart that will definitely help. So, I don't know if I answered your question or not, but I -- I did a lot of talk in there. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 16 of 30 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: It sort of helps. I mean ideally -- but -- okay. So, let's say that somehow phase one and phase two got approved, but not additional phases without a subsequent approval. I'm not saying we would do that, but let's say that that's how this played out. Let's now compare that to -- if the whole project gets approved and they build the access for phase two, are you concerned at all if there is not an additional fire station in the area or additional access that the rest of the phases would be completed? Do we have any control at that point where we could say, no, we are not going to provide a further approval of an additional phase? Bongiorno: So, Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, I -- again, all I can do is make recommendations. You know, you -- you build it we will come. We will be there. The question will be how long is it going to take us to get there is really the biggest -- the biggest question. You know, I have raised my -- we have -- the concerns were in my report with this particular project. Part of it -- only part of it falls within that five minute responsive goal that we like to try and meet and, then, the other problem we have with Station Four, which is the reliability rating is down with that station, because they are very busy. The other problem is Station 14 in Boise, which is the next one, they also have a very low reliability rating. It's exactly the same reliability rating as Station Four. So -- let me see if I can pull up this map. I'm not sure who is running the ship tonight, if it's the clerk or -- Simison: Deputy Chief? Deputy Chief, before you -- Mr. Nary, could you perhaps respond to Council Woman Strader's question, because I think it's a pretty simple direct question for you. Nary: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Perreault, so what I understood Jay to be requesting is that the city would not approve any permits for phases two or three until the bridge and the fire access is -- is approved by the Meridian Fire Department. So, phase two and three can't be -- can't get a building permit until the road has fire approval for access. Stage four -- or phase four can't -- can't receive building permits until the project below it is built, because that also requires a separate access point. So, those are the -- those would be the conditions in the development agreement that we would have. So, that would be the control, that there wouldn't be any additional permitting allowed until those were accessible that way. So, if that hopefully answers your question. Strader: Yes. Thank you. Bongiorno: So, Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, kind of continuing on. So, if you see my map here, the --the area we are looking at is right here and you can see we have, you know, Fire Station Six is right over here. You have Four, 14 and 17, and, then, way over here on Linder you have Kuna's fire station down here in the bottom corner. So, we have this giant no man's land where we just don't have coverage. Yes, Station Four can get there to the corner of it in -- in that five minute response time as we see in this map, Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 17—30 so here is -- here is Jay's project right here and here is Poiema and, then, here is the project to the north -- or to the south. But, again, there is no fire stations out there. If-- if we were to get the fire station out on Lake Hazel built that solves a lot of problems for this particular area. The other one is this project out here that was approved a couple months ago that barely touches, again, each corner of it, but we are developing this whole area and this whole area that's outside of our five minute response time as well. So, once that station on Lake Hazel gets built, then, this whole area I believe will turn green and I think they had put a -- yeah, they did. So, that's what it would look like if we built that fire station on Lake Hazel. So, it's quite -- quite a -- quite a difference. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And, Deputy Chief, does having the bridge built make a material difference in your mind in terms of the safety factor? Maybe it's still outside of five minutes, but it's -- I mean how do you judge that -- that additional element? Bongiorno: So, what -- what we are looking for there is if, for example, there is a major accident right here at this intersection, someone comes out and there is a T-bone accident and let's say that this particular intersection is now closed off. That -- that was -- you know, other than this -- we have this emergency access right over here by the canal that we can utilize, but the main -- the main goal is we -- we would like to have two separate accesses to more than 30 lots. So, for this particular lot it's, obviously, very large, so if something were -- I always use the plane crash scenario. If the plane was to crash right here we would have no way to help grandma who might be having a heart attack in this subdivision. Once they build this bridge across, now that gives us access over here where we can -- we have two points that are, you know, basically a quarter of a mile apart that we can get into this thing. Is it really a fire thing? Probably not so much. Could it be a police issue as well? And I think Chief Lavey spoke to this last time we discussed access. That would be more -- probably more realistic, because if you have someone sitting at this corner with a long gun, police can't get in here. They have to -- they would have to come all the way around and come in and access it from the backside. So, it's -- it's really a -- the access part of it is a safety thing. So, for this particular area for phase one -- and I don't know if Sonya wants to bring that phasing map back up. It might -- it's a better map than what I have. I'm comfortable with phase one, because we have access. It's doable. But, again, they can't do phase two and beyond without that bridge. Strader: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, to follow up on that, Deputy Chief, in phase two it would be approved if the bridge is built and you have access. What about phase three? If it's just the bridge, Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 18—30 they have the main entrance, they have the bridge, but phase three they are planning a stub street to the south. Does that stub street need to be completed before phase three could be built? Bongiorno: What -- Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, as I understand it that stub street goes to a dead end anyway. I don't think it goes anywhere at this point. I would like it to connect to the property to the south to give them another access to the -- to the north. We have discussed that, but the previous applicants that have since withdrawn, haven't entertained that idea. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: So, my question is -- Deputy Chief, is with the bridge phase three can move forward or it would not move forward with just the bridge? Bongiorno: No. We are -- I was -- sorry. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I am okay with phase three being built with the bridge. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Bongiorno: Yes. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. We have three people signed up. The first is Jenny Johnson and I just brought her in as a panelist. Simison: Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record, you will be recognized for three minutes. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, it may have been a time that she was transferring over she didn't hear, but Jenny Johnson. Simison: You can unmute yourself. It looks like you can bring her back in. Johnson: It looks like she is completely gone, but I will watch for her, but we do have Justin Griffin. Simison: Okay. So, if you can state your name and address. It looks like you are muted. Unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Griffin: All right. Can you hear me? Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 19—30 Simison: Yes. Griffin: Great. I'm Justin Griffin. My address is 2988 South Slate Creek Way in Meridian. And so I want to just -- I have owned this property for nearly -- I think 17 or 18 years. This has been my dream property. If you have ever been to this area, I believe south of the freeway this is the greatest property south of the freeway. Amazing views of the foothills. I raised my children. We always called this the farm. We have had cattle. As my kids -- I have been here for 20 years in Meridian and I think of Dairy Days. We had the only small dairy, really, in Meridian and so my kids have been able to raise cows here and this is a special property to me and initially I was going to build my dream home up on the rim, but the change -- planning and zoning changed. It went from the low density to R-15 and it kind of squashed our dreams. I have raised my kids here as of two days ago and now an empty nester. So, my life has changed. I have spent -- we spent years trying to develop this to help this. This is a legacy project for me. I'm not a developer. I have -- this is my dream. If you create a place for family-- or for--for my--for myself as a person who is an empty nester, we have got the golf course to one side. Jenny is our marketer. She has had -- she just texted me having a hard time getting on. But these townhomes are set up for -- really for people that are empty nesters. For young millennials. This is really what this is set for and so I believe we have created a great project, but every time we have had a change -- initially it was -- we are going to come in with lower density, but the city said they wanted us to come back and do a higher density and we did that. We have done everything we could to make this a great project. We feel like we have created something special here, something I'm proud of, and this is where -- now I want to move back to -- I want to live. I'm an old duffer that would like to go golfing, walk over to the golf course from our property. There is -- it's a great location. It's unique to Meridian. This is one of the only places that has got hillsides. That's one of the reasons we have the hillside is because the -- the South Rim Coalition wanted to maintain open space and so we want to create that. So, we created walkways. We have got walkways along the hillside, along the creek, and great views. I really believe that we have tried to do everything we can. We have worked on this for a couple of years with staff. This is a great project. I hope that you see that it's a great project and we have worked really hard with this and, yeah, if you have questions for me I'm more than happy to answer them, but this is the something that's very important to me and I feel like we have done everything we could to make this a great project for the City of Meridian and make it a better place. Simison: All right. Thank you very much. Council, any questions? Excellent. Thank you very much. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Ms. Johnson is back. She should be able to unmute herself now. J.Johnson: Is it working now? Simison: It is. If you can state your name and address for the record. Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 20—30 J.Johnson: So, in the Treasure Valley I have sold more than 300 townhomes and with the townhomes primarily -- yeah. I mean they are being sold to, you know, young professionals or older generation, you know, for -- that are downsizing for, you know, the savings that they have for the utility costs and everything. So, I just wanted to just state what I have seen and what -- what -- you know, we have been selling. Also the price points of these townhomes are going to be about 420 -- you know, 425 to 450 thousand or the median, you know, single family home right now the purchase price is around 394,000. So, I just wanted to state a few -- you know, my -- what I have been seeing in the valley as far as townhomes versus single family homes, because I know that we are -- we are concerned with the schools and overcrowding the schools. Simison: Thank you. Can you just state your name and address for the record, please? J.Johnson: Jenny Johnson. And my address is 534 West Tall Prairie Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Audrey D'Orazio. Simison: Okay. If you can unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. D'Orazio: Can you hear me? Simison: Yes, we can. D'Orazio: Okay. My name is Audrey D'Orazio. My address is 4450 West Saddle Ridge Drive, Nampa, Idaho. 83687. And Justin Griffin and I are partners in this property and we have owned it for about 17 years now and I just kind of want to reiterate what Justin has said and I'm -- I'm also a mortgage lender and have been for 25 years here in Meridian and so I do see the demand of what we need, but when Justin and I bought this property we bought it because we wanted to raise our families here and it was zoned two units per acre and, unfortunately, after the crash they changed the zoning on us and they made -- made it medium to high density. So, it did crush our dreams. We couldn't build our dream homes on top of the hill anymore and raise our children and, then, after the crash it just wasn't, obviously, feasible for us to do anything with the property, so we just kind of sat on it. But through the years, you know, we have met with the city over and over again to try to get what would be in the best interest of the -- of the city. So, for the ten years that we even thought about doing something with the property, besides living up there, any development, is trying to get the views of the city on what they wanted. We -- they -- when they changed it to medium high density, like Justin told you, we did take a plan to them a few years ago and they -- what we were told by the city is that they wanted even more homes up there. So, Justin and I have worked really hard put a lot of our own money into this project to try to get the best project to leave a legacy, you know, for our families and say, hey, we -- we did do this. We wanted something with really quality that Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 21 —30 would -- that would fit the demand of this city and people that are moving in here and also to be, you know, not a cookie cutter and just something that would be a premier place for people to live, but also do the medium to high density. I wanted to make a point that we are only developing about 60 percent of the whole property that we own and we also wanted to leave some of the nature there. We wanted to leave the canal the way it is. We wanted to leave the grassy area on the foothills and not cut into it like was suggested before to get more homes on there to meet the medium to high density. So, we are on the lower end of the medium to high density to try to fit into the plan -- the comp plan that Meridian developed ten years ago and what we were also told is they wanted to have medium to high density on Lake Hazel and Eagle Road, because Lake Hazel is going to be a four lane highway from the freeway all the way to Nampa and so it's going to be a major arterial and that Meridian Road they wanted it to be the next Eagle Road and so they wanted medium to high density where our subdivision is, so everyone there can service Meridian Road from Victory all the way on to Kuna. So -- Simison: if you can conclude you testimony, please. D'Orazio: I'm sorry. What? Simison: If you could conclude your testimony, please. D'Orazio: Oh, yes. And the last thing I just wanted to mention is that I know it was brought up that there was a lot of services around there and there are -- Meridian's really building up. There is a lot of new schools. There is a lot of places to eat. A lot of YMCAs. There is the golf course. We built a greenbelt all around the subdivision. So, you know, Justin and I we do want a quality project and we tried to work with the city and we are trying to hand you guys everything that you would want to get this approved. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody else? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was the last person signed up. There is -- there are two additional people on, including your chief financial officer. I don't know if they want to weigh in or not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody else who would like to provide testimony on the item, please, raise your hand and we can bring you in. Okay. Seeing no one raising their hand -- oh, there we go. It looks like we have Michael, who has raised his hand to testify. If you can state your name and address for the record, please, and you will be recognized for three minutes. And you will need to unmute yourself. There you go. Rodriquez: 4470 East Columbia Road, Meridian. I just want to speak on a couple issues that were requested, schools and the five minute fire response time. We are definitely willing to go ahead and put the second road in on phase number two over the bridge. We can do that initially. We spoke with Joe Bongiorno about that and make it an easier access in the event different criteria that could arise. Also for schools --two schools that we were Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 22 of 30 aware of that had the caps that were Hunter and Hillsdale. Hunter that's not in our district. That's on the west side of Cloverdale. Hillsdale is, however, and spoke both with Kammi Nelson at West Ada and Diana Castillo at Hillsdale itself. Both reiterated that the caps only apply to people outside of the district trying to come in and if there was an issue inside of the district-- let's say for some reason the project had to turn to family --assisting family, rather than mobile professionals, which it's being built for, they said that they would have alternatives already in place, like Silver Sage to buffer some of the concerns that you had. Simison: All right. Thank you. Michael, we didn't get your last name. If you can, please, say it for the record. Rodriguez: Yeah. It's Michael Rodriguez. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yeah. Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, sir. Did -- did they tell you that Hillsdale has capacity under their cap? I understand that all the district's boundaries may be redrawn, but what kind of capacity is currently there? Rodriquez: Yes. She said they did put a temporary cap on it. They will on the 12th is when they are going to actually go over some of the boundaries and rewrite or adjust, whichever they are going to do. She said, though, they do have the capacity at this point right now for anything -- anything that's built within the district they are okay. It's specifically for people wanting to go --that are outside of the district wanting to go in there. Strader: Thank you. Rodriquez: Yep. Simison: All right. I think that's everyone who is -- wished to provide testimony on this item, so I will turn it over to Mr. Gibbons for any closing remarks. Recognized for ten minutes. Gibbons: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Persons. I really don't have much to follow up on. You heard from a lot of folks in support of the project and I appreciate everybody's input and the work that the city staff itself has put into this project and working with us over the past year or more to get to where we are today and with that I -- I hope that, you know, we have satisfied your concerns and issues that existed before are lesser and that we have a good project and that you will be on board with approval and I appreciate being here. Thank you. Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 23—30 Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. Council, I will turn it over to you for any discussion or initial comments. Or motions. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Just a few thoughts I will throw out there. I appreciate the -- the further review of this -- this application as we work with our school district and caps and boundaries and the changes that are hopefully forthcoming and also our need for additional fire coverage in that area. I think one of the things that we have to look at, you know, we have -- we have -- we have approved some developments out there that are -- that are outside that fire response time and I think there is definitely a need for that fire station in south Meridian, which I think we are all aware and we will be dealing with in the budget session for two fire stations, one in north, one in south and how that might work and how it looks. But for this particular development we already approved Poiema just to the east and having that bridge would certainly help them and -- and this development to provide that access and without that access they cannot move to phase two. So, I think the Fire Department is -- has done a good job of not approving items when they don't fit, when they aren't progressing as they are supposed to. You don't just give in, but they make sure that there is adequate access before a phase can move forward. So, I'm -- I'm comfortable with that of having them give that approval and that will determine whether there is a phase two and three based on -- on that bridge. So, it's -- it's a unique property. It's I think going to be one of the more difficult ones to develop because of the shape of it and so having -- having something that's a good quality in there is -- is important and I know there is concern with -- with the -- the hill there. It isn't a huge hill if my memory serves me right. I have been out there quite a while ago, but -- and I think a wildfire plan -- safety plan that's in place will help and it's -- everyone is responsible. If you have a cabin up in the mountains or a house in the foothills, you -- you have to pay attention to that stuff and I think you have a lot -- if you own a house there or any of those other places you have a lot invested. So, I think you would want to fire -- a wildfire safety plan for your property and keep what you have and I think our department can handle the situation out there as long as the access is in place. So, I don't have any -- any issues with that and I certainly don't have a problem -- I think we covered it last time in testimony. There was a fence up against -- at the houses where the sidewalks were and everything and I think in our discussions back then -- my recollection is -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- was that not-- there would not be a need for a fence between the pathway and the creek, because there was that fence from the units to the pathway. So, that was my recollection. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Well, just to be forthcoming, I'm still struggling. I'm struggling with the fire response time. I know it touches -- I know phase one is in there. I think we hit in a gray area with phase two. I worry about phase three. I really worry that -- that access helps, Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 24 of 30 but what if we haven't built that other fire station yet and I just -- it's not the same as just response time, it's the reliability factor. It's hearing that the Fire Department's very concerned about wildfire risk and I think that the plan is extremely helpful. It's hard, because I feel like I want to approve this because I love the project. I love how it looks. I think it would be fantastic. I love the quality of it. I just -- I worry about approving something too far ahead of time. If we are just not ready to provide the level of service from a safety perspective that we need to provide and I was hoping for some kind of a hard and fast time limit maybe on phase three or something like that. I will defer to the rest of Council on what they think about. It's a gray area. There are a lot of great things about this project, but I think for me at this point I'm a no. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Not much more to add to it. I think the presentation and information from Fire in particular has helped get me over the top. I think Councilman Hoaglun stated it very well and -- and I tend to agree with -- with that assessment that he's presented and share that support for this project. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Bernt: Go ahead, Jessica. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: This is a tough one. The first time we heard this I -- I had that -- you know, had that internal struggle and I -- I appreciate the additional information and the length that the applicant has gone to to resolve the concerns that we have. I know it is exceptionally hard work to do that and some of it has given more clarity. Some of it has answered questions for me. I trust our Fire Department and their assessment -- assessment of things, but I also still do have that--that hesitation. Like I said, more along the lines of just-- if--so --and forgive me as I stumble over my words most likely, because I'm still working this out in my own thoughts. But if we were to have a project like this that was -- that -- where -- where we have to have a wild fire area plan, but it was not also outside of our five minute response time, then, I might have some more comfort and I don't know that that even exists in Meridian, actually, because any -- any sort of venture foothill area tends to be on the perimeter of the city. But that's where the struggle is for me is -- I see the -- I guess the wildfire response plan as separate from our five minute response time, but also not -- you know, they are -- they are -- they-- they work together, but they are also separate and so having both of those concerns is -- is where I think I'm -- I'm struggling with. Also concerns over the -- the schools as I'm sure the -- that Mr. Gibbons probably knows that numerous conversations with the district. We have had public meetings. We have -- we have consistently received different information from the Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 25 of 30 district, from the public, from the parents, from the developers, who all have had conversations with different members of the school district and it seems like the -- the information we get is -- is different nearly every time. So, unless something has recently changed I am aware that they will be looking at redrawing some of the lines. I am aware that students have gotten into Hillsdale that were not able to get in prior because of other students that have left because of COVID, that are homeschooling or that are --you know, doing school online and so I know there have been some changes to that. But for us -- or for me I should say -- I can't speak for my fellow Council Members. It's not just about this next enrollment year, there is an anticipation that the -- that COVID will be resolved to the extent that our students are going to be back in the classroom and how is that, then, going to change enrollment numbers in 2022 school year. So, there is kind of all those questions that I know the applicant doesn't have a crystal ball and they are not able to answer those, but we -- but it's -- you know, we are -- we have the obligation to -- to sort of look into the future to the extent that we are able. I mean that's essentially what -- what we are supposed to do, not only with our Comprehensive Plan, but as elected officials and so this -- this -- I don't -- I'm saying all of this because I can't say for sure that there is something that the applicant has not done or has not answered for us. I don't know that there is anything else that you can answer for us. You have done absolutely everything you possibly can and so at this point I am -- I kind of hold off, because I wanted to hear what other Council Members have to say. I'm leaning in the direction along with Council Woman Strader, that I just -- I'm feeling a little bit like there is a lot of square pegs and round holes. I'm very curious to see what Council President Bernt has to say and -- and still going to think about this here for a few more minutes. Bernt: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Ms. Perreault, I hope you are not expecting anything over the top. I don't have a ton to say, to be honest with you. I might -- my thoughts haven't changed from their original presentation. I think this is a good project. It's a unique project. I'm familiar with other projects that look a lot like this in other areas of our valley that promote a lot of different activities and I like the diversity in that -- in the -- in the housing that this project offers. I don't discount the concerns that my fellow Council Members have in regard to fire response. I have thoughts in regard to that. I don't know if this is the appropriate time to discuss that. Maybe we should save that conversation for -- for another workshop, but -- and I agree with Councilman Hoaglun and what he originally said and Councilman Borton, so I'm in -- I'm in favor of this project as it stands. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would move that we close the public hearing on File Number H-2020-0064. Bernt: Second. Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page——30 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. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I do appreciate, as Councilman Bernt has stated, the views of everybody here on Council and the struggle we have. I certainly can see the understanding of how this development -- I will characterize it as a bridge too far. It's one of those things that you see it differently and that -- that's certainly fine. There is valid reasons for it and I think that's -- that's why we all get along so well, because we don't always see eye to eye on things, but we agree to disagree without any rancor. So, Mr. Mayor, I would move to approve file number H-2020-0064 has presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 5th, 2021, with the deletion of condition number 3-D and not require fencing between the pathway and the creek. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I would like to take the opportunity to second Councilman Hoaglun's motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, would you include in that-- or are you considering also that the condition that the phases two and three can't issue building permits until the secondary access on the bridge and fire access be approved by the Meridian Fire Department? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, yes, I thought that was in the Fire Department letter, but if I need to make that clear, that is certainly part of my motion, that they would have that ability -- that would not do any approvals until that -- or phases two and three until that bridge is in per their recommendation. Nary: Thank you. Simison: Second concur? Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 27—30 Bernt: Second concurs. Yes. Simison: Second concurs. Is there further discussion on the motion? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to comment that I share my respect for my colleagues and, you know, while I will vote no because of the reasons I outlined, I'm -- I'm still excited for our city to have this project. Just was too far for me, but I respect where you guys are coming from. Simison: Well -- and -- and while I didn't speak much on this one, I will say at least from my personal perspective the school district is taking affirmative actions to try to adjust the numbers of enrollment within the schools that will hopefully allow growth to continue to occur throughout the community in a reasonable fashion and they plan to do that on a yearly basis. So, I feel -- I have -- I have some confidence that I have not seen previously that, you know, the enrollment issues will not be as big, so long as there remains enough capacity district wide to address them and, then, secondarily, you know, per the CFP that we will discuss next week, you do have a plan where worst case scenario fire service hopefully by 2025 in this location, which would coincide with -- even if you did a year out for each phase would put that -- that phase three in about 2025. But with -- with the plan that you will hopefully see and agree to and could have in 2023 that would provide the coverage as early as phase two for this type of a project. But just my two cents for your consideration before you vote and with that ask the Clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Hoaglun, nay; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: Four ayes. One no. Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 3. Ordinance No. 20-1911: An Ordinance (H-2020-0006 — Teakwood Place Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the NW '/4 of the NW'/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, 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 7.35 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 Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 28 of 30 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: Thank you to the applicant and staff and Council for a lot of good deliberation this evening. With that we will move on to Ordinances. Item 3, Ordinance No. 20-1911 . Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an ordinance related to H-2020-0006, Teakwood Place Subdivision, for annexation of a parcel of land located in the NW '/4 of the NW'/4 of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, 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 7.35 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: Thank you. Council, you have heard this item read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 20-1911 with suspension of rules. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 20-1911 under suspension of rules. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. The ordinance has passed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 4. Ordinance No. 20-1912: An Ordinance (H-2020-0085 Ada County Coroner) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being Lot 2, Block 2 and the Adjacent Right of Way, Seyam Subdivision as Recorded in Book 108 of Plats, Ages 15674-15676, Records of Ada County, Idaho, Located in the SW '/4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 1.77 Acres of Land from I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail And Service Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 29 of 30 Commercial) 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: Item 4 is Ordinance No. 20-1912. Ask the clerk to read this by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance related to H-2020-0085,Ada County Coroner for rezone of a parcel of land being Lot 2, Block 2 of the adjacent right of way, Seyam Subdivision as recorded in Book 108 of Plats, Pages 15674-15676, records of Ada county, Idaho, located in the SW '/4 of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 1.77 acres of land from I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) 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: Thank you. Council, you have heard this item read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Seeing nothing, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 20-1912 with the suspension of rules. Strader: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve this item 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 motion is agreed to? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION 5. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer, 74-206(1)(c) To acquire an interest in real property not owned by a public agency, and 74-206(1)(d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 5,2021 Page 30 of 30 Chapter 1, Title 74, Idaho Code. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a), 74- 206(1)(c) and 74-206(1)(d). Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to go into Executive Session. Any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes and we are adjourned into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (7:38 p.m. to 8:39 p.m.) Bernt: Move we come out of Executive Session. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bernt: Move we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:39 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 1 / 19 / 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 50 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 3 PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: January 5, 2021 i 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 i f Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings Item #2: Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) st At the last hearing on December 1, Council continued this project to tonight’s meeting and directed the Applicant to submit a phasing plan to address concerns pertaining to fire access based on anticipated timing for construction of the new fire station & school enrollment. The Applicant submitted a letter this morning addressing these issues that’s included in the public record & is in attendance tonight to answer any questions the Council may have. An updated fire safety plan was submitted that has been approved by the Fire Dept. and final design guidelines were submitted to ensure quality of development and cohesive patterns of development with the PUD that are also included in the public record. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: The Applicant requests Council approval to not construct fencing along the Ten Mile creek (if Council doesn’t feel fencing is necessary to preserve public safety, condition #3d should be deleted). Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Planned Unit Development Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 26.34 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MHDR (8-12 units/acre) Summary of Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) & R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts is requested for the development of 157 SFR homes consisting of a mix of detached, attached & townhome units at a gross density of 8.23 units/acre (excluding undevelopable areas) consistent with the MHDR FLUM designation for the property. The area proposed to be zoned R-8 consists of the upper rim area at the SWC of the site proposed to develop with SFR detached homes which will provide a transition to future MDR development to the south. The area proposed to be zoned R-15 consists of the slope & the lower valley area on the remainder of the site proposed to develop primarily with townhomes and a couple SFR attached units, which should be consistent with future MHDR development to the east & west. A DA is recommended as a provision of annexation. A preliminary plat is proposed to subdivide the property consisting of 157 buildable lots (30 detached, 2 attached & 125 townhome units) & 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 & R-15 zoning districts. The plat is proposed to develop in 4 phases as shown on the phasing plan - the first phase is nearest Lake Hazel Rd. with subsequent phases progressing to the south with the last phase at the SWC of the site which requires a public street access to be provided from the south. Access is proposed via one public street & one emergency only access via E. Lake Hazel Rd.; (1) stub street is proposed to the west and (2) stub streets are proposed to the south for future extension and (1) stub street is planned to the east boundary of the site from Poiema Subdivision for interconnectivity – a bridge is required to be constructed across the Ten Mile Creek to the east on the subject property in this location. Alleys & common driveways are proposed off internal public streets for access to the proposed units. Traffic calming is proposed on Road 3, which is over 700’ in length, by narrowing the street down to 24’ between Roads 6 & 7. The ACHD 5-Year Work Plan shows Eagle Rd. north of Lake Hazel being widened in 2023 & Lake Hazel east of Eagle being widened in 2024. Preliminary plat lines are shown in red that are either in process or have been approved. (the pre-lim lines depicted to the south are outdated and reflect a subdivision that was withdrawn) A PUD is proposed to enable the development of a mix of SFR detached, attached & townhome units on the site at a gross density of 8.23 units/acre (excluding undevelopable areas) while preserving the natural topography of the property and the Ten Mile Creek. This property has significant topography which prevents development of over 25% of the property for buildable lots. The Applicant states there is a 58’ height difference between the valley floor & the rim with an average slope of approximately 40%. As part of the PUD, the Applicant requests deviations from UDC standards pertaining to building setbacks as shown on the PP, sidewalks, landscaping along pathways and cul-de-sac & block face lengths. The details & justification for such is included in the staff report. A 35’ wide street buffer is proposed along Lake Hazel containing a berm and landscaping is proposed within common areas except for the portion of the site that’s on the hillside; no landscaping or sprinklers are proposed as the area is proposed to be left natural & unimproved – the applicant states low growing vegetation currently exists in this area that doesn’t require supplemental moisture & installing an irrigation system would cause unnecessary damage to the hillside – the HOA is proposed to be responsible for reducing fuels on an annual basis at a minimum. A fire safety plan was submitted as requested due to Staff’s concern about the potential danger of wildfires in this area. The Plan illustrates how the proposed development plan will comply with the current Boise City Fire Prevention Code 7-01-69, Chapter 49; this plan has been approved by the Fire Dept. subject to some minor modifications. Qualified open space in excess of the minimum standards – a minimum of 2.63 acres (or 10%) is required, a total of 5.25 acres (or 19.92% is proposed consisting of ½ the street buffer along Lake Hazel, linear open space (mews) & open grassy areas of at least 50’ x 100’ in area (this does not include the unimproved hillside area). Site amenities in excess of UDC standards are proposed; a minimum of (1) qualified amenity is required. Proposed amenities consist of a 10’ wide 1,631+/- foot long segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek, a 16’ x 16’ shelter with a picnic table, (2) 8’ x 12’ arbors with benches in separate common areas, and a dirt trail and paved 5’ wide pathway on the hillside, (4) workout stations and a tot lot with children’s play equipment. Pathways are proposed around the perimeter of the development and internally with connections to the multi-use pathway along the creek adjacent to the east boundary of the site. A pathway & trails are also proposed in the unimproved slope area providing pedestrian connections between the upper ridge & lower valley lots. A parking plan was submitted that demonstrates compliance with the off-street parking standards for residential uses. A total of 20 additional off-street spaces are proposed for guests in mini parking lots dispersed throughout the development; and an additional 88 spaces can be accommodated on-street for a total of 108 extra spaces \[down from 157+/- shown on the previous plan (-49)\]. As noted, the Ten Mile Creek is a natural waterway that runs along the eastern boundary of this site. As such, the UDC states that fencing should not prevent access to the waterway; however, in limited circumstances & in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council, Director and/or Public Works Director. Fencing is not proposed or desired by the Applicant. The Applicant states water flows year ‘round in the creek, is shallow and slow flowing at an approximate depth of 18 to 24 inches and is overgrown with cattails. The depth of the waterway in relation to the surrounding land is approximately 6’ from the top of bank to the bottom of the channel and the width is approximately 15’ to 20’. Fencing the creek would likely impede the irrigation district’s ability to maintain the drain. Because this is not a large open water system with deep, fast flowing current, Staff is not overly concerned; however, any waterway may present a hazard to young children. For this reason, Staff recommends fencing is installed along the creek to restrict access, unless otherwise waived by City Council – the Applicant is requesting a waiver to this requirement. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the SFR detached & townhome units that consist of 1, 2 and 3-stories with a variety of vertical & horizontal siding, stucco, brick/stone veneer accents with wood/timber design elements with gable style shingled roofs with metal accent roofing on some elevations. Updated concept elevations were submitted for the 3-story units that more closely align with the style of the other units in the development; these units incorporate a combination of flat & single-pitch roofs at a height of less than 40’ with each having a roof top deck; 2-story elevations in the same style were also submitted as another option. The final design will be enhanced with additional materials & design elements to be cohesive with the other units in the development. To ensure quality of development within the PUD in accord with the UDC, the Applicant (at Staff’s recommendation) submitted design guidelines for the overall development to be included in the DA that promote innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development. To ensure compliance with these guidelines and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual, Staff recommends all structures, including single-family detached, are subject to design review. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jay Gibbons, Applicant’s Representative ii. In opposition: Annette Alonso representing the Southern Rim Coalition iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Jennifer Loveday v. Key Issue(s):  Opinion that existing roadways in this area cannot support additional traffic without improvements & the schools can’t support the influx of children this (along with other) developments approved in this area will bring;  Concern pertaining to the density proposed (i.e. too high) and lack of a buffer to adjacent rural property where a horse facility is located;  Preference for more/larger open spaces to be provided (which was addressed with the revised plan);  Connectivity between the upper and lower portions of the development;  Protection of the southern rim area and preservation of the natural hillside. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:  The plan for wildfire prevention on the unimproved hillside area;  Timing for development of the R-8 portion at the southwest corner of the site;  The desire for fencing to be provided along the creek for public safety;  The capacity of existing area schools to handle additional children and the new schools planned in this area;  The desire for more/larger usable common open spaces to be provided (as addressed with the revised plan), the upper & lower portions of the development to better integrated, and would like to see a better plan for the hillside.  In favor of the 3-story product and usable roof area and location of the units against the hillside;  In favor of the fitness loop amenity and trail system between the upper and lower portions of the development; Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:  In favor of the 3-story product type with the flat roof but wanted the design to tie in better with the other units – updated elevations should be submitted prior to the Council hearing. Written Testimony since Commission/Council Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0064, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 5, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0064, as presented during the hearing on January 5, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0064 to the hearing date of _____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) City Council Meeting January 5, 2021 FLUM Similar 2Story Elevations- 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the southwest corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district.B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district.C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. Page 4 1 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: January 05, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1 PROJECT NAME: Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) 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#1. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: January 5, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the southwest corner of E.Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 5 Item#1. Charlene Way From: Joseph Dodson Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:34 PM To: City Clerk Subject: FW: Compass Pointe Hello, Please add the below email to the public record for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100). It is the Applicant's request to be remanded back to P&Z. Thank you, Joseph Dodson I Current Associate Planner City of Meridian I Community Development 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.884.5533 Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention,and may be released upon request,unless exempt from disclosure by law. From: steve@ateamboise.com <steve@ateamboise.com> Sent: Monday, December 28, 2020 4:28 PM To:Joseph Dodson <jdodson@meridiancity.org> Cc: 'Jim Henson' <jimrhenson@gmail.com>; 'Gina Henson' <Gina.Henson @wlbutler.com> Subject: Compass Pointe ':',xteirur:::lll Sender der-Please use caution with links or attachments. Joseph, 1 Page 6 st meeting with the Planning and Zoning Commission the Commission recommended to deny the project to the City Council because of density concerns with our site. There is a City Council meeting coming up on January 5, 2021 to discuss this project. After hearing the concerns of the Planning and Zoning Commission we believe we can redesign the site to accommodate their concerns, therefore we respectively request the City Council to not hear our item on the 5t"and remand us back to the Planning and Zoning Commission so that we can address the concerns of the Commission. Remanding us back to the Planning and Zoning Commission will give us the opportunity to work and the Commission so when we come back to the City Council we can have a recommendation for approval before the Council. Please let me know if you need any additional information to support this request for remanding us to the Commission. Thank You, '6�Land Consdiharnts Steve Arnold, Project Manager - - 7020 Steve@ateamboise.com Virus-free. v�vv. .:..i. :,. .ccnn 2 Page 7 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from December 1, 2020 for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck & Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts.B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts.C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Page 8 Item#2. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 5, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from December 1, 2020 for Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H- 2020-0064) by Jay Gibbons, South Beck&Baird, Located 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEEP DATE: January 05, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 PROJECT NAME: Pura Vida Ridge Ranch (H-2020-0064) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 l 2 i i 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C� W COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING January 5,2021 Legend DATE: 0 Praject Lcofl3ton TO: Mayor&City Council Y Y FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0064 - ' Pura Vida Ridge Ranch ` I , I LOCATION: 3727 E. Lake Hazel Rd.,in the NW 1/4 of Section 4,T.2N.,R.IE Parcels: S 1404212550& S 1404212750 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant requests approval of the following applications: • Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres)zoning districts; • Preliminary plat consisting of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts; and, • Planned Unit Development with a request for a deviation from the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 to allow reduced building setbacks in the R-15 zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 26.34 Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT(Rural Urban Transition)in Ada County(existing)/R- 15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(proposed) Future Land Use Designation MHDR(Medium High Density Residential) - Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential F Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 157 buildable lots/35 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 4 phases Number of Residential Units(type 157 single-family units [30 standard detached,6 attached of units) and 121 townhomes(68 alley-loaded&53 standard)] Density(gross&net) 5.96 units/acre(gross)and 15.77 units/acre(net)with undevelopable areas—8.23 units/acre(gross)and 16.48 Page 1 Page 29 Item#2. Description Details I Page units/acre(net)without undevelopable areas(i.e.hillside, creek and right-of-way of Lake Hazel Rd.) Open Space(acres,total 4.89 acres(or 18.57%)- 'h Lake Hazel Rd.buffer,linear [%]/buffer/qualified) open space(mews), 50'x 100' common open space areas. (10.87 acres or 41.35%with unqualified open space) Amenities A minimum of(1)amenity is required.A 16'x 16' shelter with a picnic table on Lot 10,Block 3;an 8'x 12' arbor with 2 benches on Lot 1,Block 10;an arbor with 2 benches on Lot 8,Block 5; a dirt trail and paved 5'wide pathway on the hillside;and a segment of the City's 10' wide multi-use pathway system along the Ten Mile Creek are proposed. Physical Features(waterways, Ten Mile Creek runs along east boundary; significant hazards,flood plain,hillside) slope/hillside on southwest portion of site Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 11,2020;3 attendees(see sign-in sheet included in attendees: application) History(previous approvals) None B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(a Traffic Impact Study was required) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Access One full access&one emergency only access is proposed via Lake (Arterial/Collectors/State Hazel Rd.,an arterial street Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Lake Hazel&Eagle Roads:Better than"E"(Acceptable level of service for a 2-lane principal arterial is"B") Stub Stub streets are proposed to the west and to the south for extension with Street/Interconnectivity/ future development;a stub street is planned to this site from the east Cross Access which will require construction of a bridge over the Ten Mile Creek on this site. Existing Road Network Lake Hazel Rd.;no internal streets Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road * Lakq H4Qml Rpgiid is ijul-R dulril In Elm IFY'NP Ip 4a widened 74 S-LPW from EVgIG K-,"l Io Cloverdale RcW in 2024. Improvements . Eagle Road is scheduled in 1he LFY%YP Io be viderred to 5-lanes from Laks Hazel Road Ia Amily Road in 2023 • the Inte�ac9on of Lake Hazel Bead and Eagle Road is scheduled in awm IVYVVP Ta he wksonud Iv&tm¢s on ft rKath lug 5-lams on 1ho"h.7-Ian(lE earl.dnd Vanes on fna west leg.and recanstruetedrsignaliaed in=D . • Laka Hazel Road rs Iisled in the CIP So he widened To 54anes ilmm Locust Grove Road la Eagle RrAd hetween 70M kind 2030 • the inlem'w<Mn of Laxv kazel Road and Lecusi r2ny.T ROed,s iia6ad-1hv CIPTabe widened Io Nanes on The north",2-lanes on The 6oulh 2-lane=-east,end Nanes on The west fag, and signalized mrwean 2026 and 2430. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.8 miles from Station#4(will be 1 mile from future Station#8) • Fire Response Time Part of this project(northern 1/3+/-)is within 5 minute response time goal,the rest is not Page 2 Page 30 Item#2. Description Details Page • Resource Reliability 78%-does not meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to the proposed project(risk factors include an open waterway&steep hillside with the potential for wildfire if not maintained) • Accessibility Meets all required access,road widths&turnarounds • Special/resource needs Aerial device not required • Water Supply 1,000 gallons/minute for one hour Police Service • Distance to Police 5.5 miles Station • Police Response Time 3:42 minutes • Calls for Service 13 (in RD `M789/A119')(between 6/1/19—5/31/20) • %of calls for service Prn4re�3+ravp{.adr.�e.n a ro R.rai. 5:41 split by priority PeAnotyz(Wnccalre ruEem ero 1o=0' 7:1 ►'riorYtyl �M?nGwlswAriinl3FOZOnanuFee� 10'42 • Crimes 1 (in RD `M789/A119') • Crashes 12(in RD `M789/A119') West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) EnWlkh.nl �.wrNY Exyd p • Capacity of Schools • r.' ,er '"' T'�" �t� ° csnvE Ui.E"middikscfiadl an twD M.0" • #of Students Enrolled wuntnm Ylew 1416h3dhn4 x919 317e 4.e noes "E.—ollmrnt at 11II57alr Elrmensery 1s iurrtnuy ciao 5ivaaru i7 OIL ocvp"mant wln ha i[rondi*iilrsr�} FJillimm ry unil.;mwirhni!l is ball to alrninlrrrr frn"hir.mi H111x144s Lkn-ereer " Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent to site Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.96 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impact/Concerns None Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent to site Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None Page 3 Page 31 Item#2. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map LL Legend 4 Legend0 ff s. I�Praject Lcca�iar,,, r�oet r u NTrlil �� GIBE . S�• 1� �iwv�a Y} - hw_Frt ti Y HHEB Low Density Wgidenial Zoning Map Planned Development Map (fLegend POMI Legend FR ( Project Lccci�ar R- 11 iPr€�ject Luca�ian +- Cffy Limit OW—Auluw BIB -4 — Planned Parcels R-8 I , R- RUT FMU III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jay Gibbons, South Beck&Baird—2002 S. Vista Ave., Boise,ID 83705 B. Owner: Justin Griffin, Sunrise Rim,LLC—4450 W. Saddle Ridge Dr.,Nampa, ID 83687 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 4 Page 32 Item#2. IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 7/17/2020 11/13/2020 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 7/14/2020 11/10/2020 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 7/23/2020 11/19/2020 Nextdoor posting 7/14/2020 11/10/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Medium High Density Residential(MHDR). The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The subject property is proposed to develop with a mix of residential housing types consisting of single- family detached(30), single-family attached(6)and townhome(121)units at a gross density of 5.96 units per acre. The density calculation includes land area(approximately 7.26 acres)that is undevelopable due to the slope/hillside on the southwest portion of the development(approximately 4.27 acres),the Ten Mile Creek which lies entirely on this property along the east boundary(approximately 2.61 acres), and the right-of-way to the centerline of Lake Hazel Rd. (0.38 of an acre).Without this undevelopable area,the gross density is estimated to be 8.23+/-units per acre,which is consistent with the MHDR FLUM designation;the net density is 16.48+/-units/acre. For the purposes of determining consistency with the density desired in this area, Staff is of the opinion excluding the undevelopable areas of the site from the density calculation is appropriate and the resulting density meets the intent of the Plan. Further,because this site is not located near mixed use commercial or employment areas, Staff believes the proposed density, at the lower end of the desired range, is appropriate for this property. All of the proposed structures except for the single-family detached homes are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual to ensure a high quality architectural design and materials for quality of place. Pedestrian connectivity is proposed throughout the development through sidewalks,pathways,micro-pathways and trails and to adjacent properties for future interconnectivity consistent with the MHDR FLUM designation. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and applies to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Provide for a wide diversity of housing types(single-family, modular,mobile homes and multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development."(3.07.03B) The proposed mix of single family attached and detached homes and townhomes will contribute to the variety of housing types available in the City for ownership and rental choices. Page 5 Page 33 Item#2. • "Require open space areas within all development."(6.01.O1A) An open space exhibit is included in Section VIII.D that depicts qualified open space in excess of the minimum UDC standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. Proposed qualified open space consists of half of the Lake Hazel Rd. street buffer, linear open space (mews) and 50'x 100'common open space areas. Additional open space is proposed consisting of unimproved hillside with walking paths and trails that doesn't count toward qualified open space. • "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.0117) The proposed development is contiguous to the City and can be provided with City water and sewer service. Police and Fire can also provide emergency services to this development. • "Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets."(3.06.02D) One(1)public street access (Road 1) and one (1) emergency only access is proposed via E. Lake Hazel Rd. • "Coordinate with developers, irrigation districts, and drainage entities to implement the proposed pathway network along canals, ditches, creeks, laterals and sloughs." (3.08.02B) A 10'wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the Ten Mile Creek which runs along the east boundary of the site. • "Encourage new development to include buffered sidewalks, a sidewalk separated from the motor vehicle land by a planter strip, especially on collector and arterial roadways."(6.01.01J) A 35'wide landscaped street buffer with a detached sidewalk is required along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an entryway corridor, as proposed. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The proposed plat provides usable common open space areas and a segment of the City's multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek as an amenity for the site that will provide connectivity to adjacent developments and safe pedestrian access to the Hillsdale elementary school and the YMCA to the north. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided."(3.03.03) The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's vision in terms that a mix of residential housing types at a density consistent with the MHDR designation is proposed. Public services and infrastructure are proposed to be provided. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."(3.07.00) The proposed residential single-family and townhouse dwellings and site design should be compatible with future development on adjacent properties to the east and west that are also designated for MHDR uses. Medium density residential uses are designated on the FLUMfor future development to the south. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) Three(3) different housing types (i.e. single-family attached, detached and townhomes) on various lot sizes are proposed in this development which will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area. • "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system."(3.03.03B) A segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed along the project's east boundary along the Ten Mile Creek which will provide connectivity with adjacent developments. Several micro path connections are proposed to the multi-use pathway from adjacent mews and several pathways are proposed through internal common areas. Page 6 Page 34 Item#2. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (UDC) A. ANNEXATION&ZONING(AZ) Annexation of 26.34 acres of land with R-8 (6.64 acres) and R-15 (19.69 acres)zoning districts is proposed. The area proposed to be zoned R-8 consists of the upper rim area at the southwest corner of the site proposed to develop with single-family detached homes which will provide a transition to future medium density residential development to the south. The area proposed to be zoned R-15 consists of the slope and the lower valley area on the remainder of the site proposed to develop primarily with townhomes with a few single-family attached structures,which should be consistent with future medium high-density residential development to the east and west. The proposed zoning,uses and density are consistent with the MHDR FLUM designation in the Comprehensive Plan for this property as discussed above in Section V. A preliminary plat,landscape plan and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is planned to develop with 157 single-family detached(30), attached(6)and townhome (121) units(see Section VIII). The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north across E. Lake Hazel Rd. and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary.A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A along with separate legal descriptions and exhibit maps for each zoning district proposed. The City may require a Development Agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation and zoning request pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application,staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section IX. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT The proposed preliminary plat consists of a total of 157 buildable lots and 35 common lots on 26.34 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts(see Section VIII.B). The proposed dwelling units consist of 30 standard detached, 6 attached and 121 townhome units(68 alley-loaded&53 standard). The minimum lot size proposed is 1,400 square feet(s.£)with an overall average lot size of 2,763 s.f. The average lot size in the R-8 district is 5,991 s.f. and the average lot size in the R-15 district is 2,000 s.f. Phasing: A phasing plan was submitted that depicts four(4)phases of development(see Section VIII.B). The first phase is nearest Lake Hazel Rd.with subsequent phases progressing to the south with the last phase at the southwest corner of the site which requires a public street access to be provided from the south. The Fire Dept. is requiring secondary access to be provided from the east or south(or other means as agreeable by the Fire Dept.)prior to development of Phases 2 or 3. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home at the southwest corner of the site that is proposed to be removed with development;this structure should be removed prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for the phase in which it is located(i.e.Phase 4). Dimensional Standards (UDClL-2): All development should comply with the dimensional standards for the applicable district as follows: UDC Tables 11-2A-6(R-8 district) and 11-2A-7(R-15 district). Page 7 Page 35 Item#2. Design: All subdivisions are required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 (i.e. streets, alleys, common driveways,block face,etc.). Traffic calming is proposed on Road 3,which is greater than 700' in length,by narrowing the street down to 24' between Roads 6 and 7 as approved by ACHD. As additional traffic calming and an alternative design to parking lots for guests,the Applicant should consider providing on-street parking with bulb-outs on 33' wide street sections for more of a traditional neighborhood design. The stub street(Road 3)proposed to the south will result in a block face and cul-de-sac length in excess of UDC standards at approximately 1,050'when extended in the future with redevelopment of the property to the south.Due to the topography and significant slope in this area along with the location of the Ten Mile Creek,the design options are limited for this area.Therefore, Staff recommends it's approved with the PUD as an exception to the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3 (see PUD analysis section below). Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed on the plat via one public street and one emergency only access via E. Lake Hazel Rd., a residential mobility arterial street; direct access via E. Lake Hazel Rd. is prohibited. One(1) stub street is proposed to the west and two(2) stub streets are proposed to the south for future extension; and one stub street is planned to the east boundary of the site from Poiema Subdivision for interconnectivity as shown below—a bridge is required to be constructed across the Ten Mile Creek to the east on the subject property in this location.Access to the R-8 zoned portion of the site will be from the south via Eagle Rd.when the adjacent property redevelops—access via Eagle Rd. is not available to this site at this time. Am ui E_LAPI NAZE _iPClAU v eeeatE L a � rrrrVE h �` pV�EOP� f O xl C"I R T8 AD39LCEN Jim PROPERTY y Ai[i7a 4 f TO AMI:G h. ay � rRi}PEE�T i FwruR� a€VElOPIM€l4T `, � t AM" iGGEJfi rQ ANAC OPT ,p ADJACEX T kRQY*tT1r :PROPERTY FG�1lR� liar i s a€WLEGOPIMENT Two(2)alleys(i.e. Roads 9 and 10) and(11) common/shared driveways are proposed off internal public streets for access to proposed attached and townhome units. All alleys are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-313 and all common/shared driveways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. The alley and common/shared driveway sections depicted on the plat comply with UDC standards. Emergency access should be provided in accord with the phasing plan approved by the Fire Dept. included in Section VIII.B. The Applicant should coordinate with Terri Ricks and Fire Dept.for Page 8 Page 36 Item#2. addressing lots accessed by alleys without frontage on a public street.Address signage for wayfinding purposes should be provided in these areas as well as at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A pedestrian connectivity plan was submitted that depicts sidewalks along streets,pathways through internal common open space areas and micro-pathways through mews providing connections to the multi- use pathway along the creek. A 10' wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan, a 5' wide concrete pathway is proposed from Road 4 to Road 8 and at the top of the slope in Lot 40,Block 5, and dirt trails are proposed within the unimproved slope area providing connections between the upper ridge and the lower valley lots (see Section IX.G). These walkways provide pedestrian connections to the shelters with picnic tables and benches proposed as amenities within the development. The pathway along the creek is required to be located within a 14'wide public use easement; the easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 Sidewalks are required to be provided on both sides of all public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17D. A 7-foot wide detached sidewalk is proposed within the street buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd. Internal sidewalks are proposed in accord with UDC standards except for adjacent to the 24'wide street sections(i.e.Roads 4,6 and 7)where sidewalks are only proposed in certain areas as shown on the pedestrian connectivity exhibit in Section VIII.G. The Applicant requests an exception to this standard through the PUD to only provide sidewalks in the areas shown and as required by ACHD (see PUD section below). Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : As all internal sidewalks are attached to the curb,no parkways are proposed or required. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street and entryway corridor, per UDC Table 11-2A-7, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C as proposed. A berm and an additional 10 trees are proposed above the minimum requirement. Bushes should be added within the buffer in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.3,which requires a combination of trees and shrubs along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Qualified/required open space areas should be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E as proposed. An additional 40 trees are proposed above the minimum requirement. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards(an additional 27 trees are proposed) except for along the concrete walkway in the unimproved hillside/slope area. The Applicant requests an exception to this standard with the PUD(see analysis below under PUD section). There are two(2)existing trees on the site that are less than 4"caliper in size that are proposed to be removed;because they are below 4"caliper,no mitigation is required per UDC 11-3B-1OC.5a. Landscaping is proposed in off-street parking areas within the development. The Applicant is not proposing to landscape or provide irrigation sprinklers on the hillside and proposes to leave the area natural and unimproved.The Applicant states that low growing vegetation currently exists that doesn't require supplemental moisture and installing an irrigation system would cause unnecessary damage to the hillside and that the Homeowner's Association (HOA)will be responsible for reducing fuels on an annual basis at a minimum. Page 9 Page 37 Item#2. Staff and the Fire Dept.is very concerned about the potential danger of wildfires in this area. Therefore,the Fire Dept.is requiring defensible space to be provided—a minimum of 30' (and possibly more for steep topography)from all structures to the undeveloped,natural open space— plantings within this area should be fire-resistant(see Section IX.0 for more information).A wildfire safety plan is required to be approved by the Fire Dept.prior to approval of the first final plat.A copy of the approved plan should be included in the CC&R's for the subdivision. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3 : A minimum of 10%of the land area of the development is required to be provided in qualified open space as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B. Based on the 26.34 acre site,a minimum of 2.63 acres is required to be provided; a total of 4.9 acres(or 18.57%)is proposed,which exceeds the minimum standards. Qualified open space consists of half of the street buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street; linear open space(i.e. mews); and open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area. This calculation does not include the hillside where pathways/trails are located as that area is proposed to remain natural and not be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E.2. With this area there is approximately 10.87 acres(or 41.3501o) open space. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 A minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required for each 20 acres of development area. Based on the 26.34 acre site, a minimum of one (1)qualified site amenity is required. A 10-foot wide 1,631+/-foot long segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed along the east boundary of the site adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek. Additional amenities,in excess of UDC standards,are proposed as follows: a 16' x 16' shelter with a picnic table on Lot 10,Block 3; an 8' x 12' arbor with 2 benches on Lot 1,Block 10; an arbor with 2 benches on Lot 8,Block 5; and a dirt trail and paved 5' wide pathway on the hillside on Lot 8,Block 5. Parking(UDC 11-3C-� Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for residential uses,which requires parking pads to be provided in addition to garage parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms per unit(i.e. 1-2 bedroom units require 2 spaces per unit with at least one of those being in an enclosed garage,the other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad; 3-4 bedroom units require 4 spaces per unit with at least two of those being in an enclosed garage,the other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad). A total of(96)2-bedroom units and a total of(31)3-to 4-bedroom units are proposed in the single-family attached&townhome portion of the development which requires a total of 316 off-street parking spaces (158 covered spaces& 158 uncovered spaces). A parking exhibit was submitted for the proposed development that depicts a total of 254 garage spaces and 62 driveway parking spaces for a total of 316 spaces in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 (see Section IX.F). A total of 71 off- street parking spaces are proposed for guests in mini parking lots dispersed throughout the development; and an additional 88+/-parking spaces can be accommodated on-street for a total of 157+/-extra spaces for guests. These calculations exclude the single-family detached portion of the site which will provide off-street parking in accord with UDC standards; on-street parking will also be available for guests. The Applicant is proposing 20' long x 18'wide parking pads,which are 2' less in width than required. The parking pads should be revised to be 20' x 20' in accord with UDC Table 11-3C-6. On-street parking is allowed with 33' wide street sections but not with 24' street sections (i.e.Roads 4,6 and 7); therefore, "No Parking"signs shall be erected along these streets. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Ten Mile Creek runs along the east boundary of this site. As a natural waterway, it's required to remain open as a natural amenity and not be piped or covered and should be improved and protected with development of the subdivision. Page 10 Page 38 Item#2. Per UDC I I-3A-6C, fencing along natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway;no fencing is proposed or desired by the Applicant adjacent to the creek. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council,Director and/or Public Works Director. The Applicant states water flows year `round in the creek and is shallow and slow flowing at an approximate depth of 18 to 24 inches.The depth of the waterway in relation to the surrounding land is approximately 6' from the top of bank to the bottom of the channel and the width is approximately 15' to 20'.Fencing the creek would likely impede the irrigation district's ability to maintain the drain.Because this is not a large open water system with deep,fast flowing current, Staff is not overly concerned; however, any waterway may present a hazard to young children.For this reason and because Staff has not received a determination from the Director or the Public Work's Director on this matter,Staff recommends fencing is installed along the creek to restrict access,unless otherwise waived by City Council. All irrigation ditches crossing the site are required to be piped with development unless used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. Floodplain: A portion of this site is currently located within the floodplain. The Applicant's narrative states that once the improvements on Lake Hazel Rd. are complete which will include a larger culvert,the projected floodplain will be within the banks of the creek. A floodplain development permit is required to be obtained for any development within the floodplain prior to construction. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6,11-3A- • All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.No fencing is proposed on the landscape plan. The Developer is required to construct fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 7A.7.Fencing in accord with this standard should be depicted on a revised landscape plan. As discussed above under"waterways", Staff recommends fencing is installed along the Ten Mile creek in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C,unless otherwise waived by City Council. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities shall be installed with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-21. Building Elevations/Perspectives: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the 2-story single- family detached units and townhome(3+attached) structures as shown in Section VIII.H; concept elevations were not submitted for the 2-attached units. Building materials for the single-family detached homes and townhomes consist of a variety of vertical and horizontal siding, stucco,brick/stone veneer accents with wood/timber design elements with gable style shingled roofs with metal accent roofing on some elevations. The 2-attached units will be the two end units of the 3+unit townhomes put together back to back—the end units have a kick out on the front corner as shown on Elevation 4. To ensure quality of development within the PUD,Staff recommends design guidelines are submitted for the overall development to be included in the Development Agreement that promote innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns of development in accord with UDC 11-7-1.To ensure compliance with these guidelines and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual, Staff recommends all structures,including single-family detached,are subject to design review. A Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for these structures. Page 11 Page 39 Item#2. Perspectives of the built-out development and of the entry of the development are included in Section VIII.H. C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD) A PUD is proposed to enable the development of a mix of single-family detached, attached and townhome units on the site at a gross density of 8.23 units/acre(excluding undevelopable areas)while preserving the natural topography of the property and the Ten Mile Creek. This property has significant topography which prevents development of over 25%of the property for buildable lots. The Applicant states there is a 28' height difference between the valley floor and the rim with an average slope of approximately 40%. Analysis of Compliance with PUD Standards(UDC 11-7-4): A phasing plan and site amenity plan were submitted as required and are included in Section VIII.B &E. Concurrent review of the preliminary plat is requested in accord with UDC 11-7-3C. All of attached and townhome units are subject to the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)to ensure quality of design. Staff also recommends design guidelines are submitted for the overall development to ensure consistency and that promote innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns on development in the PUD in accord with UDC 11- 7-1. The uses within the PUD area are interconnected through a system of roadways and pathways. Buildings are clustered to preserve scenic and environmentally sensitive areas in the natural state (i.e. hillside and creek). Eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space is proposed to be provided for each unit in the form of a front stoop or porch. A variety of housing types is proposed consisting of single-family detached and attached,and townhome units. The proposed gross density is 8.23 units/acre,excluding undevelopable areas(i.e. hillside, creek and ROW of Lake Hazel Rd. to centerline). Deviations from UDC Standards: As part of the PUD,the Applicant requests deviations from the following standards: • UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district-certain dimensional standards as follows (see exhibit in Section VIII.I): R-1 5 SETBACKS LOTTYPE 'A LOTS HAVE CAR GIAAGES IN REAR FROM— y.ARAGE SIDE TREETSIDE REAR R $IM[LE FAMILY ATTACHED 2"-0' V-0' INT GARAGE ACCESS CN 3'-4` �'-D' W-01 3'-01 24'SIREET (YEW) EMD BLDG SINGLE FAMILY ATTAOHEp U-U' INT CAME ACCESS OM 3'-D' 10'-0' 20'-D' ALLEY + 2 00'PAO END BLDG SMILE FAMLY ATTAGHEO X-o" ❑'—Y, IN COGARAGE -4" 9'-U' 10'-0' SHARED C Y (MEW) END BLDG R-0 LOPS - STANDARD R-a FZT0AW$APPLY Page 12 Page 40 Item#2. No deviations to the setbacks are requested or approved to the setbacks along the periphery of the planned development in accord with UDC 11-7-4A.1. The Applicant's justification for the reduced setbacks is that the front of the homes face a mew and the common lots provide pedestrian access to the front of each residence. The rear setback varies by the type of access to the garage—33' street,24' street,20' alley or 20' common/shared driveway.No reductions are requested to side setback(zero side setbacks are allowed for attached units) or to living area from the street. The reduced rear setback for attached units accessed by 24' wide streets and common/shared driveways provides for a utility easement and precludes parking across the garage access on each residence [parking pads are not required for these units as the two(2)required spaces for each unit will be provided in the garage]. The proposed utility easements effectively become setbacks(see note#7 on the plat). The minimum home size will be in excess of 2,000 s.£, including the 2-car garage. Staff is amendable to this request. Note:All lots in the R-8 district comply with the required dimensional standards as proposed. • UDC 11-3A-17D -Sidewalks are required to be provided on both sides of all public streets. Sidewalks are only proposed to be provided along the east sides of the 24' wide street sections (i.e. Roads 4, 6 and 7) adjacent to the parking areas as depicted on the Pedestrian Connectivity Plan in Section VIII.G. ACHD is requiring the sidewalks be extended on the east sides of Roads 4 and 6 along the entire common lot/parking area. The Applicant's justification for the request is that their housing product type is not a street facing design and the narrow streets are not intended to be pedestrian zones and will create a safety hazard to pedestrians with vehicles backing out of garages. Pathways are provided through mews for pedestrian access to the front doors. Staff is amendable to this request and believes it preserves public safety. • UDC 11-3B-12C -Landscaping is required along both sides of all pathways. Landscaping is not proposed along the concrete pathway in the unimproved hillside/slope area. The Applicant's justification for not providing landscaping along the pathway in this area is that the hillside is not proposed to have irrigation due to plant material requirements and erosion concerns. Many trees(27 extra along pathways alone)are proposed in excess of UDC standards in common areas within this development. Staff is amendable to this request. • UDC 11-6C-3B.4(cul-de-sacs)and 11-6C-3F (block face)—No streets that end in a cul-de-sac or a dead-end shall be longer than 500' unless approved by Council in the case where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope,railroad tracks or a large waterway that prevents extension; and where a pedestrian connection is provided from the street to an adjacent existing or planned pedestrian facility. The cul-de-sac measured from Road 7 exceeds 500' at approximately 510'. In residential districts,no block face shall be more than 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided in which case it can extend to 1,000'. Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by site conditions such as an abutting arterial street or highway, a limited access street,railroad tracks, steep slopes in excess of 10%, an abutting urban project with no adjoining alley or street connections,a public or private education facility or park, a large waterway and/or a large irrigation facility. The face of Block 8 on the east side Road 3,when extended in the future with redevelopment of the property to the south will measure approximately 1,050' in length without a pedestrian connection. Due to the topography and significant slope in this area along with the location of the Ten Mile Creek,the design options are limited for this area. Therefore, Staff recommends the proposed design is approved with the PUD as an exception to the dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. Page 13 Page 41 Item#2. In approving the planned development,the Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, additional conditions,bonds, and safeguards in conformity with this title that: 1. Minimize adverse impact of the use on other property. 2. Control the sequence and timing of the use. 3. Control the duration of the use. 4. Assure that the use and the property in which the use is located is maintained properly. 5. Designate the exact location and nature of the use and the property development. 6. Require the provision for on site or off site public facilities or services. 7. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required in this title. 8. Require mitigation of adverse impacts of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts,which provides services within the city. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation,Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development applications with the provisions in Section IX per the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on(continued from August and September 3ra) September 17, and October 22,2020.At the public hearing on October 22n1 the Commission moved to recommend approval of the project to the City Council.Revised plans were submitted for the hearing on October 22"d at the request of the Commission from the previous hearing that included a larger more consolidated central common open space area in place ofsome of the guest parking resulting in an increase of 0.36 of an acre of common area to 19.92%; additional site amenities consisting of a tot lot with children's play equipment& () work-out stations in deferent spots along the perimeter pathway; architectural design guidelines to ensure a consistent design theme and quality of development; landscape solutions for the hillside and a fire prevention plan; and the addition of(2) new product tykes for the 24'wide lots between the hillside&Road 3 (2-story&3-story). 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jay Gibbons,Applicant's Representative b. In opposition: Annette Alonso representing the Southern Rim Coalition c. Commenting d. Written testimony: Jennifer Loveday e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen,Bill Parsons f Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Opinion that existing roadways in this area cannot support additional traffic without improvements&the schools can't support the influx of children this (along with other) developments approved in this area will bring; b. Concern pertaining to the density proposed(i.e.too high) and lack of a buffer to adjacent rural property where a horse facility is located; C. Preference for more/larger open spaces to be provided(which was addressed with the revised plan); d. Connectivity between the upper and lower portions of the development; e. Protection of the southern rim area and preservation of the natural hillside. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. The plan for wildfire prevention on the unimproved hillside area; b. Timing for development of the R-8 portion at the southwest corner of the site; Page 14 Page 42 Item#2. C. The desire for fencingtprovided along the creek for public safety; d. The capacity of existing area schools to handle additional children and the new schools planned in this area; e The desire for more/larger usable common open spaces to be provided(as addressed with the revised plan),the upper&lower portions of the development to better integrated, and would like to see a better plan for the hillside. f. In favor of the 3-story product and usable roof area and location of the units against the hillside; g In favor of the fitness loop amenity and trail system between the upper and lower portions of the development; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. In favor of the 3-story—product We with the flat roof but wanted the design to tie in better with the other units—updated elevations should be submitted prior to the Council hearing. 5. Outstandingis for City Council: A. The Applicant requests Council approval to not construct fencing along the Ten Mile creek as the UDC doesn't typically require fencing along natural waterways and actually states fencing shall not prevent access to the waterway—except in limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by City Council(if Council doesn't feel fencing is necessary to preserve public safety, condition#3d should be deleted); b. The Applicant is submitting revised elevations for the 3-story units prior to the Council hearingand nd requests approval to submit design guidelines for the overall development after the hearing for inclusion in the DA. C. The Meridian Citv Council heard these items on December 1,2020.At the public hearing.the Council moved to continue the project to the January 5.2021 hearing in order for the Applicant to draft a phasing Dlan to address concerns pertaining to fire access and school enrollment. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Jay Gibbons,Applicant's Representative b. In opposition: None C. Commenting.None d. Written testimony,None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Concern pertaining to density roposed—if it's too high for this area: b. Possibility of requiring a phasing plan that will coincide with the construction of a new fire station to better serve the development and lessen the burden on area schools: C. Whether or not fencing is needed to restrict access to the creek to preserve public safety. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 15 Page 43 Item#2. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description&Exhibit Map for Annexation Ili T,AND SURVtf nNO PLLC I ZA , Pure Vida Ranch 5uddlvAlon Date;041f W020 Job No,;8619 PURE VIDA RANCH SLIBD[VISION ANNMTION DESCRIPTION The following Describes a Parcel of Land being a pardon of Govemmem Lot 3 of Section 4, Township 2 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian.Ado County Idaho,and more particularlydescribed as follows- COMMENCING at a found Aluminum Cap Marking the Northwest Corner of seid Section 4;From which, the North 114 Comer of said SKIlon 4 bears, North 89'43'34" East, 2651.67 feet which is being Monumented with a found 'Tlegrble" Aluminum Cap; Thence along the Northerly Boundary Line of tha NVV 114 of said Section 4, North 88°43'34" East. 1325.81 feet to the Northwest Comer of said Ci vemment Lot 3, the POINT OF BEGINNI KIG- Thence continuing along sold Northerly Bcundary Line, North 89°43'W East, 382.86 feet to a found 1f2"Iron PifieWIllegible Gap"; Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Lime, South 3416215"East, 1648.37 feet to a found 518' Iron Pin"PLS 780": Thence, South 29°05'10' Easf 83.15 feet to a Oaint an the Southerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3; Thence along the Southerly Boundary Line of said Govemmertt Lot 3, South 89'43'59" West, 1300.U6 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Government Lot 3 which is heirig Monumented with a found 518"Iron Pin"PLS 645"as Shawn on Record of Survey No.1485, Records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence kmving said Southerly Boundary, and along the Westerly Somiidary Line of said Government Lot 3,North 00'1211'East, 7356.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING- The above Described Parcel cf Land contains 26.34 Acres,more or resa. sill -flfa/70 zd $ 51 0 623 11th Aye.Swath,Nampa,11)S1651•T_(208)442-0115-C.(208)608-25I0-rgay.cls@gmail.cam Page 16 Page 44 Item#2. ANNEXATION EXhIBtT I`®'I A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTION 4, TOWN5hlF' 2 NORTH, RANGE I IrA5T, 15015E MERIDIAN, A❑A COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 UMIS OF BMING: N 89°43'34'E 2651,67' 32 33 E.Lake Mnal Road n N 89°43'34'F T_3N R1E. 33 r114Oamer 5 4 1325.81' NWGvmer "IllegiLXs" - MIX, T.2N. R 1E. Illeglae" 4431' 1300 00 POI N b 'RS 64T BEGINNNIN,,4 G D V Tex Parcel Na.S14Q4212550 do V1. Ct Ten �17 G r M:Ve Greek � � 4 I \ R Tax Parcel No.S1404212750 sr ti�p,L LAND cavl Lata sw c�,e< Gaut LOO z1.m ,�'pL51355P' "PLS 645' iJ 'S5 89"54 "E 1321 A2 Q �5 89°43'S8'W 1300.06' ` — — BE Comer 82501 S 89'43'59'W 1321.09' ��3 COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC TLs4347' '*A' F of 623 11th Avenue South Nampa,ID 83651 JN 6619 Df b---'(208)442-0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 17 Page 45 Item#2. PA LAKD SUPVFY NG PLLC Pare Vida Ranch Subdivision Eats:041101'2020 Job No,_6619 R-8 ANNEXATION AREA DESCRIPTION The following Describes a Parcel of Land being 8 portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 4. Township 2 North,Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ads County Idaho, and being Tax Paul No_8 1 4042 1 2750,more particularly clescrl bed as follows: COMMENCING at a found Aluminwrn Cap Marking the Montt st Corner of said Section 4; Frorn which, the Norlh 114 Corner of said Section 4 beers, Nora: 89043'34' East, 2C81,67 feet which is being Monurnented with a found '1llegible" Aluminum Cap; Thence along the Northerly Boundary Line of the NlV 114 of said Section 4, North 89'43'34' East, 1325.81 feet to lt7e Northwest Comer of said Government Lot 3; Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Une, and along the Westerly Boundary Line of said Ggvamment Lot 3, South OD-12'11"West, 803.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,- Thence leaving said Wastedy Boundary Line,North 900DD'00"East,227.21 feet to a point. Thence,South 60°35'33'East,280_04 feet to a paint; Thence,South 32019'11"East,299.15 feet to a point; Thence, South 0'11'513° East, 159.31 feet tv a point on the Southerly Boundary Line of said Govemrgnt Lot 3; Thence along the Southerly Boundary Line of said Government Lel 3, South 89'43'59" West, 633,61 feet to the Southwest Corner of sale Government Lot 3 which is being Munumented with a hmirid 5f8'Iron Pin"PLS 645"as Showrk on Record of Survey Ni?.1485, Records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence leaving said Southerly Boundary Line, and along the Westerfy Boundary Llne of said Govemment Lot 3,North 00'12'11" East,552.57feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: The above Described Parcel of Lend conlains 6.84Acres,more or less. 623 11 th Ave.South,Nampa,ID 93651 -T_(W8)442-0115 •C.(208)603-2510•rgray.cls; gmail.cran Page 18 Page 46 Item#2. Rff24NE * ANNEXATION EXHIBIT IIBII A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTiON 4, TOWN5F11P 2 NORTH, RANGE I EA5T, 5015E MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 BASIS OF BEARING: N 88°43'34'E 2651.67' 32 33,E.L ke Hazel Road °432"E Lam. RI,E, 33 N 114 Comer § 4 TLS 132581' U NWCarne 'Illegible' ~94Tk T.W. RIK 4 "111"IbW 4431" Oovt La13 POINT OF V "L8645' BEGINNING m ryR LINE TABLE I __LINE BEARING DISTANCE Scale,1"=250' An+e J Tax Parcel ' L1 N 9a°ODW E 2277-21 uy s No.51404,2I2550 ' L2 s 60135'33'E 2&P.43 Ed L0 s 32"10'11-E 2%.15 L4 500°11'S0'E 199.3f � 14-15 Total Parcel Area I9.B9Ac. '1 + 0 957,696 Sq. Ft. LLJ a F+� MAe Crack o I o L1 ---Q ` I rn s POkJY OF r n7 SEGINN04G R—B r-7 Tote) Parcel Area 8.64Ac. I� 289.2as sq-FL \ Tax Parcel \ rr, p�KL IAN40 Na.3I40d2I276Q � '$ `� GM 5WComer I� 784" I& I& �� � Gavl Lot 27.01` O &56 o $�IW 20 p 'c �S�3��tY� o'LSd45'` _ 633.$1' _ 66�8'45 _ 8257 Q 1 N BB°54'55'E 1321,Q2 S 89°43 3DrW SECamer COMPASS LAND SURVEYING, PLLC ses'43'59°w 1321.09' can,Lola T � � `o � ��>" r� r OF 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 �FNCE H YIQ IN 6619 OffLe:(208)4-42.0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 19 Page 47 Item#2. P � i LAND SURVEYING FLL f ' Pure Ufda Ranch SuWivislan Datfa: Q411=020 Jab hto-;5619 R-15 ANNEXATION AREA DESCRIPTION The fottowing Describes a Parcel of Land being a portion of Govemment Lot 3 of 5ectlan 4, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County Idaho, and being Tax Parcel No.5140421 550,and a portion of Tax Parcel No. 51404212750, more particularly described as foflows= COMMENCING at a found Aluminum Gap Marking the Northwest Corner of said Section 4; From which. the North 114 Corner of said Section 4 bears, North 8904TU� Fast, 2661_67 feet which is tieing Monumented with a found "Illegible" Aluminum Cap; Thence slong the Northerly Boundary Line of the NW 114 of said Section 4, North 80°43'34' East, 1325.81 feet to the N arthwest Comer of said Government Lot 3, the POINT OF BEGINNING, Vence oontinuing along said Northerly Baundory Line, North 89'43'34' Eastr 382.86 feet to a found 1J2" Iran Pine w)"Il leg ible Gap', Thence leaving said Northerly Boundary Line, South 34°15'26' East. 1548.37 feet to a faun 518' Iron Pin"PLS 780"; Thence, South 29'05'10" East, 83.15 feet to a paint on the Soultherly Boundary Une of said Government Lot 3.- Thence along the Southerly Boundary Line of said Gcwe! merit Lot 3, South 89°43'59" West, 666.45 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Governrent Lot 3 which is being Mon umented with a found 518" Iron Pin "PLS 645`as Shown on Record of Survey No.1485, Records of Ada Cauchy, Idaho.- Thence leaving said Southerly Boundary, North 0011150"West, 159.32 feet to a point; Thence,North 3 '19'11"West.299.15 feet to a point; Theneer North 813°35'33'West,280-04 feet to a point; Thence, South 90'00'00" West. 227.21 feet to a point on the Westerly Boundary Lire of said Government Lot 3; Thence along the Westerly Boundary Line of said Government Lot 3, North OW12'11" East, 803.83 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, The above Descrlbed Parcel of Laced contains 19.69 Apes.more or less, 41) 82 623 111h Ave-South,Nampa,H)83661 -T_(208)442-0115• C.(208)609-2510•rgray.clsf g il,corn Page 20 Page 48 Item#2. REZONE * ANNEXATION EXH151T IIP" A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF 5ECTiON 4, TOW115HIP 2 NORTH, RANGE i EAST, B015E MEiRI©fAN. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 RAW OF 6EARM; N W4nV E 2651.67' 32 33 T Iake Hazel Road 11 j89'43'34"F_,t2.B6' TON. 121E. 33 N 19Unner 5 4 "PL5 1325.A1 NwComer "Illagible" 943A10' "N. R.IE 4 Teglhw 4431" GoH.Lola PGINTOF ty 'PL9 645' BEGINNING � LINE TAKELINE BEARING I L7157AI4CE Scale:1"=2W w , Li N 9D°no'oo"E 22t21 I Ter Parcel C� No.SI404212550 , L2 561y°3533'E 266.04 US L3 S32 Vl1'E 299.15 L4 S 00'17'56'E i59.31 w C R-15 Total Parcel Area 12,88Aa. 0 957,898 Sq,Ft v W W crL Tee` , ¢o MIN Creek r' � z kPO1NTOF BEGINNING F_ TOW Parcel Area ci S.64Ac. 289,235 Sq.Ft- Tax Parcel \ atapL CA�O SW Comer No.S1404,21�2750 5r'1 15 r � 6°r GovL LLot 3 A 21.6t780" �_ _ 0PL.'. _ _ s3s.sr _ _ 825 1 N 89"54'55"E 1321.0Z �5 SB°43 3fi{3 w SE Comer o COMPASS LAND SURVEYING,PLLC sas�a3'Ss"w 1321,99' Govt.�T OF 623 11th Avenue South Nampa, ID 83651 JN 6619 Office.-(208)442-0115 Fax:(208)327-2106 Page 21 — Page 49 Item#2. B. Preliminary Plat(date: 8/'^�2011/23/20) &Phasing Plan �..----- ------- ---- ��yy i'------'.__-.-...-.-.--....--..E LKE n� :L'_.__._.._._.__. 1 1 •-^ 1 BLS _ ����-- �_�=-��.'.'_�1�G-_'���:���'..f�i'�•�F.'F 11�1 -- ,=rtr - ���.;-t Tom_.=.. --_. -.� . .� •�{ 7 rx-iuiu WW UJ ILIL'll4JLJ PAN I nl it i If�rN MIMa L.W.W i jji FWr ------ — 6 Frill L 1�.��'� ��- .•-��'_ s2 ......... ..._. �. 1"_• --. '� .. _ � -, - Ate, ".:.��' �7:'.. ....,...�.,......d�.W,..w ter - a';k'• ._ _ �.....�d, kip ear V 71� PP.4 Page 22 Page 50 VA6 F—LAKE KA?ELRCIAD WCEMM *3�67 STAKI)AM LOCAL MEO 2TM+2710 MNM URUM LOCAL ZHUffr k 27191+271,.l MMOR"M LOCAL S= SF Ir ALLEY SIWJH:)DRRdEWAY pp.2 Page 23 Item#2. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS TO E.LAKE-HA &RD. x BUILDING PERMITS WILL NOT BE ISSUED FOR PHASES 2 OR 3 UNTIL A STREET CONNECTION, MEETING MERIDIAN FIRE DEPT.REQUIREMENTS. IS CONSTRUCTED EITHER THROUGH THE ADJACENT CHURCH PROPERTY TO E. LAKE HAZEL RD_,OR THROUGH THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH TO S.EAGLE RD,OR BY SOME OTHER PHASE 7 SECONDARY ACC ES S AGREEA13 LE TO TH E MERIDIAN FIRE DEPT. BRIDGE TO GN URCH PROPERTY WITH FUTURE CONNECTION TO E,LAKE HAZEL 110, PHASE 2r* 13UI LE)ING • PERMf S YVILL NOT + DE IS SUED FOR PHASE d UNTIL PUBLIC STREET CONN ECTION IS PROVIDED PHASE 4** PHASE * THROUGH THE , ADJACENT THE PROPERTY TO THE S OUTFL STUB STREET TO THE SOUTH WITH FUTURE CON IIECTK)N TG S.E.AGL E R0, N Phasing Plan 0 300 Bm Page 24 Page 52 Item#2. C. Landscape Plan for Subdivision (date: 4�2n�20 10/12/20) AA Itt II �� — - - - "x--- - + - - - - - - LL 3 ram . r �.,. dMMMV.L,. I _Y a, 3r-5;LT= YY6CHt PIJIF `:��' Y � -IiY�i�..i FT.i Lti{� PLMT SCE RIE _ _ - . r J. �i �'�+#r'i�x-'L.a.. � � y � O'er"_—•— Page 25 Page 53 Item#2. PLW 8GhED Y_E -� I __-____-_ ___-_.__-____-_._._- _ Yak ••-• �H �L n: M1 101 +rar APIAT - YI�IWYIIII I-II ��•,"••- �11 zn ffKANLI z IIF- 51 1'. k � �•� - Page 26 Page 54 Item#2. !y � �-- �• — — RI,Wf JO�LIi INK - ilOf 5R!Ar •` I _. '�••�—ice-_ am T LEA 1-•k1.L I1d ClIld Cl�--! PLik75CW' DAE F.t .�II Z=ME �! Page 27 Page 55 Item#2. u� i L+xoFF4F f W h,.r�r r �•• ip- L1.15 LIM Ali I fill "I write I ..1 lOR■YiJ11Y■ Y11 Qi■ s` II■liS�L■GOi7■„r �. Page 28 Page 56 Item#2. ~ .41ML 6 t { 5 YH, �r tih f.rt f .. . . . . . . . . MLU Nj=��Ijl�zmlt "L'=:tom S'_F L ram.,_, :n.�xs,iG►,vTM�• �..,... �� 'r: �=—L��'',�t�+'..3Y . ll!ji �'8'4 u�nazrri I LffL.i Page 29 Page 57 Item#2. I kjk. . I �^ OM.4i4LiN— c{ — s - - LT--T 0i �x� �fix-- ■� �;��— .-. DRUG Page 30 Page 58 Item#2. D. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(REVISED) � F-1 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE 1"".8-1A) 01JALIFIED OPEN SPACE I 3G-3.B-1.E) 71 NON-GUALIFiED OPEN SPACE NONLQUALIFIED OPEN SPACE RIDGE FACE \ ® COM DN-SFLARED ORNrEWAY �. BUILDING tOT ® RIGFFT OF WAY L x OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS COMMON LOTS&BUF#EI45 QUA►JFK0 QUAUPIE0 OPEN OPEN ACTLIAL SPACE SPACE AREAigi CREDFf A EA(5F� FPAtF OF 35-FORE E.TAKE HAZEL RD.PUFFER BA) 6,3m 101% 6,3m 211-FOOT 11NEAR MEWS(11-3G3-R-LE} SM55 100% SE173 OPM SPACE(5CrR 1WMIN.)(S135,3,RMAI 155A3,8 1001A 155,87E ❑P€N 9PAU RIDGE FACE-NONQLKIJFIEp 154A94 0% - OPEN SPACE-OTF£4l NON QUALIFIED 5919Z2 0% SHAUDDRPfEWAn 3:1,744 9% - TQTALOPENSPACE E69Ai9 SF 22Q-077 SF QUAUFIEOOPENShACi PfE0vIfPW: 22$dllr SF m7,aLmw SPACE PR41IPM! 40AAW V 4 35% '. Opera Space & Siteoverage Plan Page 31 Page 59 Item#2. E. Planned Unit Development Site Amenities Plan(date: 4/3WO20 10/12/2077 Ih- i I it XV &RA�PLAIN a rou ri- Page 32 Page 60 Item#2. .r---:_-----_ --_-_-- d � ,r ---_—_------_----------------- +Ji� Page 33 Page 61 Item#2. i will VN ------------- .F Page 34 Page 62 Item#2. „ I ecwooa�l 1 1 1r L I _—_—J,LC�p _ �. P - 1 r 1 1 Lb77, 1 Dam Jh.i1 I Page 35 Page 63 Item#2. F. Parking Exhibit(REVISED) i ; � t T•� ���imuwuuica�w.'4�wwy. — ' errMIT .3 9 r _• •_,___ "•. _ k A#ached Housing Parking Summary r �I � j �•.�•�r . 1-_\`.� � caRea�MRXTYG =si a riue �.'. `-•---•- - - - �� , , � on eTwerr Rareaxo ]o er.' - .I. ,-fl_ _ _I yam' .� _ k fpTirL Mi111'IG RRTTlCrO +If bflliix - .. '1 IorA�ATT�eMm uuTe-�xr a,Tru Mt�Xnxes f I 1 i -, - m •. a'ouRm iM X116 Rars eeoamwua�Irtf-a�i errua ' OLIO TT ED%T+" -410-M-a eTA (T L MEN> MEM l All AmTXWFL Y i-1 amm RARX eTAL lINLL ee k 14 � �' 1' AYALLS IIe AXTFaRl1MTIr13 Wi91X TAR Ae•]Ve CXRFC+6 RUT wr s RUT Ft-Fr i -- -- - i �. A'Y , • i *. AL 45 1 Page 36 Page 64 Item#2. E.LAKE LIAZEL ROAD -Ed —E° PURA VIDA RIDGE RANCH J - SUBDIVISION II R-15 PARKING BY - BUILDING TYPE LOT TYPE ALL LOTS HAVE 2-W& QUA"T_ PARKING 11MOMS IN REAR 9NUE FANLY ATTACHED I "AROM AMM 9N ALLEY R GS 9S2 #'RDADS+W.20`PIE] 9NGLE MALY ATTACHED aIRAE *ECM ON AV fi• 1� � sIEn piYE'M.4Y L'+a�+n1 R--6 LOTS- 6TANCAO PA§MW +FWLIES Sri \ lk RL f 1 r• - l x } x Page 37 Page 65 Item#2. G. Pedestrian Connectivity Plan(dated: 11/23/20)-REVISED ...�" - ,ht�."�- ,r s ..-r�-���r^.—�r���r�a":�7+=ti-�Ss:.•���a's=ems• . PLR -� ---- ----- �i IOJT -- I�r �-`\ 41 . rncaovnnerrm FkUT tart Fur GONIE TMU EXHW •' gff - 5 5 I Page 38 Page 66 Aw It LJ AIMAM LOW IN r t k Item#2. Single-family detached units: Mr 111 NO ,� N ; �� Ln 4 �m lip F 14 fill w sioll a Page 40 Page 68 Item#2. Townhome units: 14 a r w 3 b s F t j€ o € a °a rr 4 OUR rY a Page 41 Page 69 Item#2. EiC Ird #i ' r AWP tti 2y ;s �, i� 0r1 I ` HIMrFA Id �mirn — y ikb ilia i [ } j,4 MIN *3 o � I MIN Note: No elevations were submitted for the single-family 2-attached units—the Applicant states they will look like two end units of the 3+unit attached buildings put together back to back. The end units have a kick out on the front corner as shown on townhome elevation#4. Page 42 Page 70 J _� :I F M r=r-MENGGH �rrA ir -�iE�iire� r� .ire:� r� � r�. .� �� • 1���:! � �_ NEW HOME PRODUCT NEW - - - � FRONT CL€WAIIQN 1 ❑ a REAR fL�YATION ' r ' 'WffH 2 CAR GARAGE MUMMER HOME i i 1 ' r PRODUCT - _ �. I. Reductions to Dimensional Standards in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 District E.LAKE HAZEL ROAD PURA VIDA RIDGE RANCH SUBDIVISION R-15 SETBACKS ,Np LOT TYPE kI L w�llf,H"Isarlf"I o FRONT GARAGE SIDE STREErzim REAR 11 -4,11 F"Mr-HU -C.2. O-0 INT N_f ja-r MD ELCC FAWLI ln l_ 0'-17 WT C­ E A=M 13-4, zj�a' Y W-Cr' zj•-a, _LL r+2y'�n P., EkM ELM ';0 .CVL 41�FIWL, , ­cr 14T I,"�M. Em Cr S IF— L ROAD LEGEND 33ROAD 2TROAD SHARED DRIVEWAY ti 1 41 PARKING i OTHER Page 44 Item#2. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION To ensure quality of development within the PUD, Staff recommends design guidelines are submitted for the overall development to be included in the Development Agreement that promote innovative design that creates visually pleasing and cohesive patterns on development in accord with UDC 11-7-1; these guidelines shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Annexation & Zoning: 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, site plan, qualified open space exhibit, site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The design of all structures in the subdivision shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM).An application for Design Review shall be submitted and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. The Ten Mile Creek shall remain open as a natural amenity and shall be improved and protected with development of the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-6. d. A wildfire safety plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to approval of the first final plat for the subdivision. A copy of the approved plan shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the subdivision. Preliminary Plat: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VIII.B, dated August 4 November 23,2020, is approved as submitted. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VIII.C, dated April 9 October 12, 2020, shall be revised as follows: a. Depict bushes within the buffer along E. Lake Hazel Rd. in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.3. b. Depict fencing abutting pathways and common open space lots to distinguish common from private areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7; include a detail of the proposed fence. c. Depict a minimum 30-foot wide(may be increased to account for steep topography)defensible space extending out from any part of adjacent structures to the hillside in accord with Fire Dept. comments in Section IX.C. Hazardous and fire-prone vegetation shall be prohibited in this area and only fire resistant plants should be utilized for landscaping in this area. d. Depict fencing along the Ten Mile creek to prevent access and preserve public safety in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C,unless otherwise waived by City Council. 4. The existing home shall be removed prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for the phase in which it is located(i.e.Phase 4). Page 45 Page 73 Item#2. 5. Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along the east boundary of the site ad j acent to the Ten Mile Creek to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature as required by the Park's Department. 6. For lots accessed via common/shared driveways, an exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren't taking access from the common driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer. 7. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s)is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment.A copy of the easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat. This easement(s) may be depicted on the final plat with a note rather than as a separate recorded easement. 8. All common driveways shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. 9. All alleys shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. 10. The Applicant shall coordinate with Terri Ricks,Land Development, and Joe Bongiorno,Fire Dept., for addressing lots accessed by alleys and common driveways without frontage on a public street. Address signage for wayfinding purposes shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed by alleys and common driveways. 11. A floodplain development permit shall be obtained prior to construction for any development within the floodplain. 12. "No Parking" signs shall be erected on both sides of the 24 27-foot wide street sections (i.e. Roads 4, 6 and 7) and at the alley/street intersections(i.e. Roads 9 and 10). 13. A recorded copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions that includes a copy of the wildfire safety plan approved by the Fire Dept. shall be submitted with the first final plat application; a note referencing such shall be included on each final plat. Planned Unit Development(PUD): 14. The dimensional standards in the R-15 zoned portion of the development shall be consistent with the exhibit in Section VIII.I. 15. A minimum of 80 square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each dwelling unit; this requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks and enclosed yards as set forth in UDC 11-7-4B. 16. The parking pads for individual lots shall be revised to be 20' x 20' in accord with UDC Table 11-3C- 6. 17. An exception was approved to UDC 11-3A-17D,which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of all public streets,to only require sidewalks along the east sides of the 24 27' wide street sections (i.e. Roads 4, 6 and 7) adjacent to the parking areas as depicted on the Pedestrian Connectivity Plan in Section VIII.G and as required by ACHD(i.e. extend the sidewalks on the east sides of Roads 4 and 6 along the entire common lot/parking area). 18. An exception was approved to UDC 11-3B-12C,which requires landscaping to be provided along both sides of all pathways,to not require landscaping along the concrete pathway in the unimproved hillside/slope area on Lot 8,Block 5. Page 46 Page 74 Item#2. 19. An exception was approved to UDC 11-6C-3B.4(cul-de-sacs)and 11-6C-3F (block face),to allow the face of Block 8 and the cul-de-sac (Road 3)to exceed the maximum length standards as proposed. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Sanitary sewer and water mainlines are not allowed in the common driveways serving three or fewer lots. In these cases, service lines shall be extended from the mainlines in the adjacent public roadway. If the common driveway serves four or more lots, a sewer mainline will be allowed in the driveway,however it shall be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain. A manhole will be required at the common drive property boundary with the word "Private"on the lid. 1.2 Remove services located along"Road 7" and add sewer main. 1.3 Do not extend the sewer main to the west property boundary, as parcel S 1404223251 is in a different sewer service area. 1.4 The water mainline at the southwest corner must be connected at the bottom of the hill to the rest of the subdivision. 1.5 The secondary water connection must be completed in phase two, either through the adjacent church property to E. Lake Hazel Rd, OR through the property to the south to S Eagle Rd. This condition reflects MFD's requirement stated on the phasing plan submitted with this record 1.6 Manholes cannot be located in landscaped areas unless they are located within an access road per City standards are provided. 1.7 A Floodplain Development Permit is required to be in place for this development. A flood study has previously been completed. Culvert at Lake Hazel must be replaced as designed before building on lots in floodplain. Structures will require floodplain permits until LOMR is effective. 1.8 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. 1.9 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by MTI(Materials Testing&Inspection)dated July 16,2019,and updated April 1,2020, indicates some fairly shallow groundwater and soils concerns, and specific construction considerations and recommendations. Groundwater monitoring of the Northeastern(lower)portion of the site indicates that the groundwater levels fluctuate due to influence of Ten Mile Creek. For these reasons,homes constructed in the northeastern(lower)portion of the site shall be slab on grade construction. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of the MTI considerations and recommendations to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils,and that groundwater does not become a problem for the new homes. 1.10 Due to the elevation differentials in this development,the applicant shall be required to submit an engineered master grading and drainage plan for approval by the Community Development Department prior to development plan approval. This plan shall establish, at a minimum; the finish floor elevation for each building lot,the finish grade elevations of the rear lot corners,the drainage patterns away from each building pad,the drainage patterns of the overall blocks, and any special swales or subsurface drainage features necessary to control and maintain storm water drainage. Applicant's engineer shall consult the 2012 International Residential Code when establishing the finish floor elevations and drainage patterns away from the building pads. Page 47 Page 75 Item#2. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. Page 48 Page 76 Item#2. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 49 Page 77 Item#2. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=194384&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191277&dbid=0&repo=Meridi4acity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT h yps://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=194261&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=192101&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity G. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=l 92042&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy H. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL hllps://weblink.meridianci. .org,/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191332&dbid=0&repo=Meridi4ECil y I. NEW YORK IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=190971&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT hllps://weblink.meridianci. .org,/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191387&dbid=0&repo=Meridi4ECil y K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=191392&dbid=0&repo=MeridigaCity L. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianci , .org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=194214&dbid=0&repo=MeridigRCity M. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=194048&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity X. FINDINGS A. Annexation & Zoning(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed annexation with R-8 and R-15 zoning and proposed development is generally consistent with the MHDR FL UM designation in the Comprehensive Plan. (See section V above for more information) Page 50 Page 78 Item#2. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute toward the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed medium density residential uses should be compatible with adjacent existing rural residential and future medium and medium-high density residential uses. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. The school district submitted comments stating that the enrollment capacity at the middle and high schools is currently at and over capacity respectively; elementary school students can be accommodated at Silver Sage until a new school is built to eliminate overcrowding at Hillsdale. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat with Staffs recommendations is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section Mfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Page 51 Page 79 Item#2. The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission finds the proposed development preserves the natural topography (i.e. hillside) and Ten Mile Creek on this property. C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(UDC 11-7-5): Upon recommendation from the Commission,the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant a planned development request,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The planned unit development demonstrates exceptional high quality in site design through the provision of cohesive, continuous,visually related and functionally linked patterns of development, street and pathway layout,and building design. The Commission finds the proposed PUD demonstrates a high quality of design through cohesive design elements and design guidelines for the development and the many pathways and roadways link the development together. 2. The planned unit development preserves the significant natural, scenic and/or historic features. The Commission finds the proposed PUD preserves the natural topography (i.e. hillside) and the Ten Mile Creek on this property. 3. The arrangement of uses and/or structures in the development does not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. The Commission finds the proposed use and development of this property will not cause damage, hazard or nuisance to persons or property in the vicinity. 4. The internal street,bike and pedestrian circulation system is designed for the efficient and safe flow of vehicles,bicyclists and pedestrians without having a disruptive influence upon the activities and functions contained within the development,nor place an undue burden upon existing transportation and other public services in the surrounding area. The Commission finds the internal local streets should provide for safe internal access to homes within the development and proposed pathway network will provide a safe bicycle and pedestrian route to adjacent residential developments and the Hillsdale elementary school and YMCA to the north. 5. Community facilities, such as a park,recreational, and dedicated open space areas are functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways. The Commission finds the proposed common areas and multi-use pathway amenity along the creek are functionally related to the site design and accessible to all residents through the many pathways and sidewalks provided within the development. 6. The proposal complies with the density and use standards requirements in accord with chapter 2, "District Regulations",of this title. The Commission finds the proposed residential uses and density complies with the guidelines for PUD's and the MHDR FL UM designation for this site. Page 52 Page 80 Item#2. 7. The amenities provided are appropriate in number and scale to the proposed development. The Commission finds the proposed pedestrian amenities as well as the shade structures, tables and benches are appropriate for this development and will facilitate an active lifestyle for area residents. 8. The planned unit development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The Commission finds the proposed PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 53 — Page 81 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 20-1911: An Ordinance (H-2020-0006—Teakwood Place Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the NW % of the NW% of Section 29, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, 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 7.35 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 Page 82 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-002153 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 01/06/2021 09:42 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1911 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0006 — TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NW '/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 29 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, 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 7.35 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: Charles and Vickie Richardson. 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. Item#3. 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 5th day of January APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,this 5th day of January '2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 5th day of January 2021 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. am L.M.Nary, Ci orney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1911 An ordinance (H-2020-0006 Teakwood Place Subdivision) for annexation of a parcel of land as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from RUT zoning district to R-8 (medium density residential) zoning district; 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.] Item#3. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION FOR TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION A parcel of land located in the NW 114 of the NW 114 of Section 29,73N.,R.1 E., B.M„Ada County,Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the NW corner of said Section 29 from which the N114 corner of said Section 29 bears North 89°59'41"East, 2,680.68 feet; thence along the North boundary line of said Section 29 North 89°59'41"East, 620.22 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing along said North boundary line North 89°59'41"East,328.84 feet to a point on the approximate centerline of Eight Mile Lateral; thence along the approximate centerline of Eight Mile Lateral the following 2 courses and distances: thence leaving said North boundary line South 04°36'20"East,80.22 feet; thence South 39°10'20"East,71.96 feet, thence leaving said centerline South 00°11'29" East,781.92 feet to a point on the northeasterly boundary line of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision No.2 as filed in Book 94 of Plats at Pages 11,351 through 11,354,records of Ada County, Idaho; thence along said northeasterly boundary line North 73'13'33"West,420.37 feet to the northerly most corner of said Tuscany Lakes Subdivision No.2; thence along the East boundary fine of Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1 as filed in Book 106 of Plats at Pages 14,594 through 14,596,records of Ada County,Idaho and the southerly extension thereof North 00°11'26"West,263,65 feet to the NE corner of Lot 6, Block 2 of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1, said point also being on the South boundary line of Lot 5, Block 2 of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1; thence along said South boundary line North 89°59'41"East,21.79 feet; thence along the East boundary line of said Tradewinds Subdivision No. 1 and the northerly extension thereof North 00"11'29"West,532.67 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 327,836 square feet or 7.53 acres, more or less. WS �sG ch a 772 �i 2�251t�2`'o OF: 4Y G.C Teakwood Place Subdivision H-2020-0006 Page 86 Item#3. EXHIBIT B E. VICTORY RD. BASIS OF BEARING 5.19 S.20 sag, 59'41"W 2680,68' 1/4 S_20 S.30 5.29 620.22' N89759'41'E 328.84'— 17431{.6p 2' g,29 RP06 S4'36'20'E BLOCK 1 80,22' � S39'10'20"E 71.96, I \ F z o k IN F I`D I BLOCK 2 man i IJ i O I 1835 E. VICTORY RD. I I 327636 s.f. 7.53 a. ILA c. d I I q m O* I z -1 Ip a Im n E z � Im a w 0 dv N89-59.41-E ,� �tc5 NSF rfi� 21.79' 7729= o p `o N� r° I N II 9 P I� Y G C A� � � J m < i C> (D a V) I I I a °err 1 `' 73 i3 SCAN Y 4A® �&• r 3 .w 4zQ 37 - o-ea4 JOB NO. IDAHO EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR 161-32+ SURVEY ovssw.EAeaAaer TEAKWOOD PLACE SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION 1No. 1'01�URH¢R17d1 �+ M6J lAbEfO GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE NW%OF THE HW 9 OF SECTION M 1.3N.,RAE..S.M.. 0W6 DATE AOA COUNTY.IOAHO 2/26/2020 Teakwood Place Subdivision H-2020-0006 Page 87 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 20-1912: An Ordinance (H-2020-0085 Ada County Coroner) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being Lot 2, Block 2 and the Adjacent Right of Way, Seyam Subdivision as Recorded in Book 108 of Plats, Ages 15674-15676, Records of Ada County, Idaho, Located in the SW % of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 1.77 Acres of Land from I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail And Service Commercial) 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 Page 88 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-002521 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 NIKOLA OLSON 01/06/2021 01:44 PM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO.20-1912 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT,BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0085 ADA COUNTY CORONER)FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL OF LAND BEING LOT 2, BLOCK 2 AND THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY, SEYAM SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN BOOK 108 OF PLATS, AGES 15674-15676 RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY. LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 1.77 ACRES OF LAND FROM I-L(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO C-G(GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL) 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: Ads County. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from I-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) 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 b. All ordinances,resolutions,orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled: Item#4. 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 5th day of January 2021. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 5th day of January 2021. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 5th day of Janujary 2021, 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 RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—ADA COUNTY CORONER-H-2020-0085 PAGE 2 OF Page 90 Ifem#4. CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L.M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho,hereby certifies that the summary below is true and omplete and upon its ublication will provide adequate notice to the public. C� -{ L. M.Nary, 901forney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1912 An ordinance (H-2020-0085 Ada County Coroner) for the rezone of a tract of land as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) 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—ADA COUNTY CORONER-H-2020-0085 PAGE 3 of Page 91 Item#4. Rezone Legal Description Exhibit"A" REZONE DESCRIPTION-LOT 2, BLOCK 2 -5EYAM SUBDIVISION A parcel of land being Lot 2,Black 2 and the adjacent Right of bWav,5eyarn Subdivlsion as recorded in Book 108of Plata,Pages 15674-15676 records of Ada County_ LoCoted inthe 5W 1/4 of5'ectioin 9,T,3 N M E.,5.M Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more pa rticula rly descrl bed as follows; Cornen#rrtirrg at thr$eOcio Corner cow moo W Sections 0.9,16,and 17 of said T,3 N.,AA E.from which the 1/4 Corner common to Sections 9 and 16 of said T_3 N.,R_1 f. bears N 89°11'46'E a distance of 2706-25 feet;Thence N 89*11'46"E a distarKe of 1464.22 feet along the$00th Jinn of said Section 9 to a point;Thence N O(Mr14"W a distance of465,00 feet to the southwest Garner of Lot 2,Block 2 of Seyam Subdivision also being the Point of Beginning. Thence following the westerly boundary line of said Lpt 2 and the northerly extension thereof N 0XV 14"1N a distance of 224.74 feet to a point at the centerline of Z.Lanark Street; Thence following said centerline 5 89`56'19"E a distance of 342.41 feet to a poi nt at i ntersectlon of E_ La norkStreet and N_Touch rnark Way; Fallowing the centerline of N.Tauchmark Way the following 3 calls; Thence 5I?OW41"W a distance of 157.97 feet to a point ofcurvature; Thence 47.83 a lcFng t h e arc of a cu rve to the right said curve havi ng a radius of 300.00 feet,a centra l angle of 9'GW05"and a long chord of S 04°37'52 W,47,78 feet to a point on a tangent; Thence 5 09'11'46"W a distance of 23.71 feet boa pointy Thence leaving the centerline of N.Toucbmark Way and fallowing along the south boundary like of said Lot 2 and the easterly extension thereof N 99*11'46"W a distance of 331.48 feet to the Point of Beginning_ Said pa reel contains 1.77 Acres 177,113 Sg Ft)more or less_ This description 6 based on data of Record,no field survey was candurted. SMN IV q g� Q 't}r 141' P. M — Ada County Coroner's Office H-2020-0085 Page 92 Item#4. IT B Rezone Exhibit Map L E G E N D EXHR T '9 B 99 ® CALCULATED POINT ---- BOUNDARY LINE SECTION LINE TIE LINE TERl1HE E.UJlMIf ST. RIGHT OF WAY CENTERLINE l T REZONE AREA L_ —� SD'03'41"W 157.97 NO'48'14"W 224.74—\1 I LOT 2C PLOCC��CC 2 CMMWNE N.TO".ARK'NAY LOT 1 $EYAM Sl1B�IV(SION 1 N89'11'46 S911'45"W 0' 100' 20tr I 331.48 1 23.71 I LCT 3 I I r ! Curve Table 1 Curve f Length Rodiue Data Chord Direction Chord Length III 01 47.83 300.00 9'08'05" S4'37'52"W 47.78 L(ii-co -110 wiz 1 >Fof Ib� I w I z I DESIGN:NA I 9 DRAWN:HIW g g _ 1464.22' �1242.CIS � _ CORNER CHECKED:DIA j — E. Franklin Rd. �1 15 DAM7/08/2020 ADA COUNTY 187 16 1 CORONER'S OFnrF N 89'11'46"E 2706.25 SCALE: 1"-100' APPROVED: APPROVED BASIS OF BEARING COUNTY DIRECTOR DW Uvom Sub Lot 82 SHEET 1 OF 1 Ada County Coroner's Office H-2020-008.5 Page 93