Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-01-12 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, January 12, 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/82391655679 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 823 9165 5679 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion to adopt the agenda as published made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 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 Volante Investments (H-2020-0118) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 2700 E. Overland Rd. Tabled A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016- 060157) to include a conceptual development plan for the subject property. Motion to table to a future date to be heard concurrent with a future application made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 2. Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. Approved A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 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, Councilman Cavener 3. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer. In to Executive Session: 7:35 pm Out of Executive Session: 8:23 pm ADJOURNMENT 8:24 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council January 12, 2020. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:06 p.m., Tuesday, January 12, 2020, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Jamie Leslie, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader X Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call our meeting into order. For the record it is Tuesday, January 12th. 6:06 p.m. And we will begin tonight's regular City Council 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: Pastor Enos, can you hear us now? Enos: Yeah. I can hear you. Simison: Okay. There we go. I think we got it ready for you now. Enos: Are you ready for me? Simison: If you want to go ahead and -- and -- we are ready for you. Enos: Okay. Well, thank you so much, Mayor Simison and Council Members, for the privilege of praying for you in this meeting and let's go to the Lord in prayer. Father, we just thank you for your great grace to us, Lord, as a community and, Lord,just the blessing that we have experienced as a city. Lord, thank you for each member of this Council and, Lord, their dedication in what they give to our city in serving and leading. Lord, we ask, Page 21 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 2- — Lord, just your blessing on this Council meeting tonight. We pray, Lord, that you would grant them your wisdom and your mind on each and every item that they will discuss. We pray, Lord, that there would be just unity and being able to come to creative solutions for any challenges they might face and, Lord, we pray, Lord, your blessing upon our city and our nation as we are living in very tumultuous times right now and we need your grace that would unify our hearts and bring us together and, Lord, we continue to be against the Coronavirus that it would be seized and would -- we pray your protection over each member and family of our city and we just thank you, again, for the privilege to be in this community, in Jesus' name, amen. God bless you all. Thank you. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Appreciate it. Our next item is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as presented -- as published. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under the public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, for that portion we did not. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Volante Investments (H-2020-0118) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 2700 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-060157) to include a conceptual development plan for the subject property. Simison: Okay. Then we will move into Action Items. Our first item is the public hearing for Volante Investments, H-2020-0118. Do I -- Mr. Nary, based on the actions that are requested do I need to open the public hearing? Page 22 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 3 of— Nary: Mr. Mayor, yes, we would need to open it. Simison: Okay. Then I will go ahead and open this public hearing or turn it over for staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item before you is a development agreement modification for Volante Investments. The applicant is requesting this project be tabled in order to submit concurrent applications for a conditional use permit and a subdivision and I believe the applicant is online if you have any additional questions. Simison: Okay. Thank you. I don't have the full list, but do we have the applicant--would they like to make any comments at this time? Tamara, would you like to be recognized for 15 minutes? Can't hear you. You're muted. We don't -- nothing we hear yet. Tamara, if you would prefer -- to have you just call in on a cell phone if you would prefer to do that and, clerk, could -- Allen: Mr. Mayor, perhaps I could answer any questions if the Council does have any on this request. Simison: I don't know if Council has any questions. Just giving the applicant their opportunity to make their comments. Thompson: I'm -- I'm okay. I don't need to make anything. Simison: Okay. We can -- I heard very faint audio that says she was okay. So, I will assume that you are okay with no comments. Okay. Council, based on what you heard would you like any further action or comments or do I have a motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I guess maybe a question. I know we have got -- I don't -- I know we have got some attendees in the room. I guess I would want to make sure that whatever date that we were proposing to continue that the public would be able to attend that meeting as well. Allen: Mr. Mayor, the applicant is not requesting a date certain. This project has requested to be tabled until such time as they can submit those additional applications, which will require a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission before it gets back to Council. Nary: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I was going to add --we are simply tabling it, because it will catch up to that and they will all be noticed for a future meeting. Page 23 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 4 of— Simison: Okay. I have never heard of tabling a public hearing. That's why I was wondering if we were to open it or not. So, how do you table a public hearing -- Nary: So, the motion would be to table the -- the matter and allow, then, the new application and -- I don't remember if it's a CUP or it's just the plat. Allen: Yes. Nary: New application to be submitted and go through the Planning and Zoning process and then -- and, then, marry it up to this application at a future Council meeting and all of it would be noticed to the public. Simison: Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: One second, Council Woman Strader. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody that signed up for this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did. Bill Schuler, who is on now, did sign up. Simison: Okay. Mr. Schuler, if-- if you would like to provide any comments on this if you can use the raise your hand function at the bottom of your screen and we can bring you into the meeting for any comments. It looks like he does. So, we will recognize you for three minutes once the clerk gets you in and, then, when that happens if you can state your name and address for the record. Johnson: He should be able to speak now, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. Schuler: Can everybody hear me first of all? Simison: Yes, we can. Schuler: Thank you. My name is Bill Schuler. I live at 2103 South Weimaraner Way, which is in the Sportsman Point Subdivision at the corner of Locust Grove and Overland. I have been a resident here for 17 years and for full disclosure I am the secretary of our homeowners association and I'm also precinct committee person for 2021. 1 don't know if it makes sense for me, but I object to the permit -- or this -- building in this area. My experience of living here and having lived here is that Overland through this stretch of road is overburdened as is. In the morning there are times where I have to wait 20 minutes just to get outside of my subdivision and in the evening coming back it can be anywhere from five to ten minutes to turn back into the subdivision. During the morning, Page 24 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 5—— the rush hours, with Mountain View High School and Dutch Brothers, believe it or not, causes great backup. There are times that there is backup at Locust Grove and Overland all the way to Millennium and, then, once again, at Eagle Road for traffic trying to turn left onto Eagle that could take five or six cycles for people to actually make that turn and, in fact, Overland becomes a single lane road, because the traffic in the turn lane is backed up all the way to Wells. In the evening it's even worse. With all the people coming off the interstate that are trying to get to their homes within this area, plus all the businesses, call centers, that are at the Silverpoint strip mall I guess what I would call it. I'm not sure. And with all the traffic that's coming off the interstate the traffic is often backed up all the way from Eagle Road to Locust Grove and at the stoplight at Millennium and, then, once again, that same traffic is backed up all the way from South 5th to Meridian Road. Overland Road is -- is well overburdened at this point in time and adding an apartment complex or multi-family subdivision in there will even burden it more and we still don't even know what the impact of the road is going to be for the new office buildings that are going up at Idaho Central Credit Union and Harris CPA. I mean we -- those buildings aren't even built out yet and there is going to be an impact to Overland in this area and we don't even know what that is and now we are just trying -- talking about adding an apartment complex. I can tell you as a resident Overland cannot handle anymore burden at this point in time with the infrastructure we have and that's all I have to say, unless there is questions. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Schuler. Council, any questions? Thank you. Was there anybody else online on the Zoom call that was wanting to provide testimony on this item? If you can indicate by using the raise your hand feature. I see no one else looking to raise their hand. Council Woman Strader, you had wanted to speak. I don't know if that was what you were referencing was the public. Okay. With that, Council, do I have any motions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes. Question for Bill. I -- we would probably follow the same process of closing a public hearing, making a motion for that first, and, then, tabling the issue? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I would just leave it open and just table it, because, again, we are going to add it to the additional application. I don't want any question about whether that's applicable or not. So, I think leaving it open is fine. Hoaglun: Thank you, Bill. Cavener: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I move we table Item 1, H-2020-0118, to a future date. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Page 25 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 6- — Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to table this item to a future date. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and this item will be tabled to another day. Thank you. Sorry for the technical difficulties. We are going to take some of that blame, so, Tamara, don't worry. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 2. Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. Simison: Next item is a public hearing for Southridge South, H-2020-0083. We will open this public hearing with staff comments and I will turn this over to Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item is a request for a rezone and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 84 acres of land, zoned R-2 and R-4, located on the south side of West Overland Road east of South Ten Mile Road and is part of the larger 291 acre Southbridge development currently in the development process to the east. Southridge encompasses land on the south side of Overland Road from this property to the east to Linder Road and to the south to Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions and this property has got quite a bit of history on it, so I'm just going to go into that for a moment here. This property was annexed back in 2007 with a development agreement that was later replaced a couple of times with a new development agreement. The existing agreement requires a minimum of one thousand and a maximum of 1 ,286 residential units, consisting of a mix of apartments and single family residential homes to develop in the overall Southridge development, unless otherwise specifically approved by Council through subsequent applications. Subsequent development agreement modification applications were approved that removed the two apartment projects east from the overall Southridge development agreement and placed them in agreements of Page 26 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 7—27 their own, which no longer tied them to terms of the original agreement. With the 640 units anticipated to develop in Southridge Apartments, 336 units in Linder and Overland apartments, 221 single family residential units in Southridge phases one through five, and 254 in the proposed development, that's a total of 1,451 units, which is 165 units over that originally anticipated in the development agreement. Mostly the difference is in the apartment units, which were approved through subsequent applications, i.e., 848 were anticipated and 976 were approved. The single family residential units were anticipated to consist of 438 units for a balance to total 1,286 total units, with the apartment units. The total number of single family units in the overall development, if this development is approved, will be 475, which is approximately 37 over that originally anticipated. Because the subject plat is considered a subsequent application, as described in the development agreement, staff finds the proposal in compliance with the agreement without a modification to that agreement. A preliminary plat was approved with the annexation that included the subject property, as mega lots for future resubdivision. The existing development agreement does not include a concept plan for this site and only governs the number of lots anticipated for future development, which can be modified through a subsequent application approved by Council. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designations for this site are low density residential, which is approximately five and a half acres, and medium density residential, which is approximately 78 acres. A rezone of 7.15 acres of land is proposed from R-4 to the R-2 zoning district. If you can see that here, that -- that's along the southern and western boundaries of the site and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the development of 254 single family detached homes at a gross density of three units per acre, consistent with the density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 254 buildable lots, 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,369 square feet, with an average lot size of 8,053 square feet. The plat is proposed to develop in four phases as shown on the phasing plan on the right. Staff worked with the applicant to modify the phasing plan prior to the hearing to include the large 3.8 acre common area where a clubhouse, pool, and tot lot is proposal to develop in the second phase, along with the bridge and extension of a stub street to the east, instead of with the first -- fourth phase as originally proposed and that is this area right here and the street we are talking about with the bridge is right here, if you can see my pointer. There is one existing home on this site that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision and that is the Rice parcel, which is right here where my pointer is. Access is proposed via one public street and one emergency access via Overland Road. Stub streets are proposed to the west, south and east for future extension. Off-street parking will be provided in accord with UDC standards on individual lots. On-street parking for guests can also be accommodated on both sides of public streets. Public streets and three common driveways are proposed for internal circulation and access to lots. Detached sidewalks with the landscape parkways are proposed throughout the development. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the northeast side of this development and is a large open waterway that is required to be piped and left-- left open and improved as a water amenity or linear open space. The applicant requests a Council waiver to this requirement to allow the canal to remain open and proposes to construct six foot tall chain link fencing along waterway to preserve public safety. The Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline bisects the Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 8- — southwest corner of this site within a 75 foot wide easement and that is that hatched area right here and is containment within common lots. A 35 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Overland Road, an entryway corridor. Ten foot wide multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with the pathways master plan on the site within the street buffers along Overland Road along Ridenbaugh Canal and along the Williams Pipeline. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent or 8.38 acres is required. A total of 24 acres or 29 percent is proposed consisting of half of the street buffer along Overland Road, linear open space and open grassy areas of at least 50 by 100 feet in area. A minimum of four site amenities are required. A clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot with children's play equipment, three different segments of multi- use pathways and additional qualified open space above the standards are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for each of the different lot widths proposed for 40 foot, 50 foot, and 60 foot wide lots and the commission did recommend approval of these applications and I will just go through a summary of the hearing. Tamara Thompson and Jason Densmer from The Land Group, they are the applicant's representatives, testified in favor. There were several folks -- well, actually, only like a couple of folks that testified -- commented on the application and that was Scott Nichols. He testified on behalf of himself and his neighbors, the Eltons, Prizybos, and Voglemores and, then, Michael Voglemore also testified. Written testimony was received from Tamara Thompson, The Land Group, the applicant's representative. Ken and Sherry Fawcett, Scott and Jennifer Nichols, Curtis and Naomi Elton, Steve and Susan Przybos, and Michael and Brenda Voglemore. Key issues of public testimony were as follows: The neighbors to the south in Val Vista Subdivision would like their view shed preserved with development. Mr. Nichols is agreeable to the location of the stub street to the south to his property. They would like a condition placed on this development and the associated housing to only allow dark sky compliant lighting, so that it doesn't encroach on their properties. Preference for the two lots east of the stub street to the south, Lots 1 and 2 -- 10 and that's these lots right here. If you can see my pointer down at the southwest corner. To be shifted to the common area and that's the Lot 3, Block 10 to the northwest. This area right there. They would like the height of the residential vegetation adjacent to Val Vista Subdivision fence to be limited to ten feet above ground level, so views aren't obstructed. They would like suitable drainage for irrigation and runoff to be maintained from the west and of the Southridge fence northwest toward Overland Road. And the Fawcetts are against the proposed R-8 zoning and would like the stub street to the south shifted further to the west between Lots 4 and 5, Block 10. And that is in -- I believe it's this area right here. Key issues of discussion by the Commission are as follows: The majority of the Commission did not feel another housing type was necessary to be provided within the development as originally recommended by staff. They felt the variety of lot sizes, along with the apartments to the east, is sufficient. Their request for a ten foot limit on the height of residential vegetation on lots abutting Val Vista Subdivision and the difficulty of enforcing such a requirement. They would like to see the common open space better distributed near the smaller R-8 zoned lots. Most of the common area is near the larger lots and, finally, they weren't in favor of the proposed common driveways providing access to the six lots on the east end of the development and that's these lots right here. They preferred a restriction and no more than four lots accessed via the common driveways. The Commission made the following changes to the staff Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 9 of— recommendation. The Commission recommended the applicant consider replacing a few of the buildable lots in the R-8 area with common area and this was not a recommended -- this was only a recommendation, not a requirement, and the Commission also recommended the applicant consider reducing the number of units accessed from the common driveways and the Commission did not require another housing type to be provided within the development. The only outstanding issue of Council tonight is the applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B to allow the Ridenbaugh Canal to remain open and not be piped. So, the last hearing the applicant did submit a revised plat, landscape plan, and qualified open space exhibit that includes an approximate half acre park in Lot 15, Block 4, in the R-8 portion of the development and that's this area right here where smaller lots are probably in response to the Commission's recommendation. Written testimony has been received since the Commission hearing -- actually, just a hour or so ago from Jim Jewett. He owns the one hundred -- or, excuse me, 1.25 acre property at the northwest corner of the development and that's this property right here. He is concerned that with the proposed phasing plan that sewer service won't be available to his property for development purposes until the fourth phase and he would -- he's trying to work with the developer of this property to see what they could do and he would prefer it happen with the first phase. That's all staff has, unless the Council has any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? All right. Thank you very much. It looks like we have -- Tamara is still with us. I don't know if you got your audio fixed -- figured out. Thompson: Mr. Mayor, can you hear me? Simison: Yes, we can. Thompson: You can -- you can hear me? Simison: Yep. Thompson: I didn't change anything. So, I'm not sure-- it was just Gremlins or something, so -- Simison- And you are recognized for 15 minutes. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, my name is Tamara Thompson. I'm with The Land Group. We are at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. And tonight with me is Jason Densmer. He is the engineer for the project. And if it's okay I will share my screen. Let's see here. All right. Are you seeing that? Yes. Perfect. All right. Before you tonight is the Southridge South Subdivision. This is a rezone and preliminary plat application. As Sonya mentioned, the property is located south of West Overland Road, east of South Ten Mile Road, and the property was annexed in 2007. It has a development agreement that has been in place since 2012. The current version since Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 10 of 27 2012. A rezone is necessary to clean up the zoning boundaries and I -- I colored that up for you so it was a little easier to see the -- with the R-8 zone for the majority of it and the R-2 to the south. The zoning boundaries are consistent with the proposed lot configurations and the proposed zones are consistent with the development agreement and the future land use map for the area. And this just shows you -- this is the concept plan that is with the development agreement. So, one of the things we wanted to show here is just the overall master concept plan and the variety of residential product types. That was a topic of conversation with the Planning and Zoning Commission, but they -- with the entire development there is a considerable amount of variety with apartments and patio homes, both alley loaded, narrow lots -- there is an elementary school site nearby. So, this -- this -- the Planning and Zoning Commission decided that the -- the variety was there and we are providing three product types with this development. So, this is the -- the layout of the preliminary plat. Two hundred and fifty-four single family lots. They are proposed in four phases and services are readily available to serve the site. The -- this is a colored plan, showing you the -- the various open spaces and we are at 23.96 acres, which is 28 percent open space within 29 common lots. The amenities include essentially located clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot, play equipment and the one thing that was added from what Planning and Zoning thought is we added a pocket park in the R-8 zone, so that it wasn't so far -- the other areas we had different parks and it wasn't a condition of approval, but we decided to add it, because it was a topic of conversation and it -- it definitely made sense. And just so you can see, I just added this here, so you could see this -- this is what Planning and Zoning looked at and it did not have that pocket park. The other areas that we have added to this -- to -- of note are the amenities. We have a multi-use pathway that runs along Overland Road. The multi-use pathway also continues down the Ridenbaugh Canal and it crosses over to the east and you can make it to Linder Road with that -- that multi-use payment. We also have the multi-use pathway that runs underneath this -- or runs in this gas -- gas line corridor as well. All of the units are single family residential and there is three different product types. Sonya went through these quickly. We have 60 foot lots and these are the home styles proposed for those lots. Fifty foot lots and these are the home styles for the 50 foot. And, then, the 40 foot lots. And I will let Jason speak now. If -- Jason, did you have anything to add here? Is he in? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Jason is coming in now. Thompson: Okay. Densmer: Thank you, Tamara. This is Jason with The Land Group. I have the same address and I don't have anything to add at this time. Thompson: All right. Thanks, Jason. So, with that we have -- we have read the staff report. We agree with staff's analysis and the recommended conditions of approval and we respectfully request your approval tonight with the addition of the Council waiver to allow the Ridenbaugh Canal to remain open. And we are available for questions. Thank you. Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 11 of 27 Simison: Thank you, Tamara. Council, any questions for the applicant? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Borton: Councilman Borton. Borton: Thank you. Tamara, did you have an exhibit which shows the -- the properties adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal and that open space? I didn't see anything in the materials, but when you showed the open space exhibit it -- the property boundary looks like it -- it juts into the canal and probably didn't give it a fair appearance. It looks like along that north boundary -- I don't know if it goes into it across the Ridenbaugh or what's going on there. Thompson: So -- Densmer: Council Member Borton, this is Jason Densmer with The Land Group. I can answer that question. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Densmer: There are portions of that northwest -- or northeast boundary of this project, the -- the common lot goes both -- I guess the full width of the Nampa-Meridian Easements and other portions of it, just the way the mega lots that Sonya mentioned earlier, were laid out, the boundary line is the centerline of the canal. So, in some cases it's on the centerline of the canal and on other segments it's on the north boundary. Borton: Okay. Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: So, looking at this, the green space north of the blue line, which must be the centerline of the Ridenbaugh, isn't actually green space, open space necessarily, is it? Densmer: Correct. It is common lot -- or common area within the project, but it's not included in the calculated qualified open space per the UDC requirements. Borton: Okay. One last follow up on that topic. There was reference in the staff report -- and I think Sonya mentioned it -- that on these properties along the north and the northeast -- clarify for me the -- the property -- the property fencing, open space, and a pathway and, then, there is reference to chain link fencing which might be utilized before the -- the canal. Does that -- does that describe it correctly? Densmer: Yes. I will do my best to paint a mental picture verbally. The -- the rear lot -- the rear line of the residential lots would be fenced with an open style metal fencing and, then, the city multi-use pathway would be constructed within Nampa-Meridian Ridenbaugh Canal easement and, then, separating the pathway from the actual canal Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 12—— would be a chain link fence and, then, the canal happens and, then, on the north side of the canal is the irrigation district's access and maintenance road. Borton: So, I guess one last question on this point -- I guess a quick question for the applicant or maybe it's for Sonya, but I recall in other areas of the town where chain link is utilized and it really is an unattractive eyesore. And the canal, you know, by it's nature is oftentimes weedy, unkept and, you know, this is a big facility. So, the chain link, coupled with weeds, adjacent to a pathway is not the most attractive element for a community that looks as nice as this. So, I don't know if the chain link is common. The staff report sounds like it is maybe around here, but there is nothing attractive or appealing about chain link, other than its cost, which I understand. So, if this is how it's always done let me know, but it seems to seem a bit odd for something this nice. Densmer: Council Member Borton, we don't disagree necessarily and we would be happy to look at that within the context of Nampa-Meridian's approval for the fence material, because it is occurring within their easement. We may be restricted by their requirement. Borton: But if not there might be other fencing styles that could be utilized here? Densmer: Possibly, yes. There is also, of course, the desire to remain consistent with the prior phases of the Southridge Subdivision, which are just to the east. So, we would want to keep all of that in mind. But we are -- we are open to looking at the fencing type. Borton: Thank you. Simison: And I know we have Mr. White on the line from the Parks and Rec Department. If he does not know the answer perhaps he can reach out. My familiarity with the area along the Ridenbaugh is chain link in south Meridian. Or whatever that -- White: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I'm not sure if it's chain link or if it's just a basic metal open fencing. I can reach out real fast and see if I can -- Simison: If you could do that while we are taking public testimony that would be great. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Question. Right there in the lower right, number 11 with --with the arrow, it looks like to me that the common driveways are providing access to six homes. Is that still how it's planned to be? I know that was a discussion with the Commission and they recommended reducing that number. What -- what -- what's the plan for that particular setup? Densmer: This is Jason with The Land Group. I think I can speak to that again. The P&Z Commission did express some reservations about six lots access from a common Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 13 of 27 driveway, which does comply with the UDC requirements. The particular construction and the layout of those lots there is -- it's quite steep topography to the south. Those -- the main street from east to west is quite a bit lower than the adjacent properties in the Val Vista and Aspen Cove Subdivisions across the property line and the topography to some extent is really governing the available options that we have to lay out the lots and streets. That configuration that we have proposed with the six lots access from single common drive has already been used for other common driveways within the existing Southridge Subdivision just to the east and has been very successful in providing access to the homes, meeting the fire department requirements and really coming up with a little enclave of six homes that really can be constructed as a small neighborhood. So, thank you, Tamara, for sharing a picture. That's an example of one --of very similar construction of a common driveway, just say about 800 feet to the east within the project. Hoaglun: Okay. Mr. Mayor. Jason, that photo is very helpful. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Afollow-up question for you, Jason. How -- how wide is the common driveway. I think that would help me wrap my head around it and it -- the picture -- this picture -- this example looks like it's pretty wide and there is room to maneuver, but do you widen the use to make it more accessible for the fire department or provide more parking or how do you sort of get ahead of these logistical issues that come with common driveways when you have this configuration? Densmer: Yeah. The fire department requirements are really integral to the designs and so the width of the driveway is 20 feet to meet their standards. The common lot that the common drive is inside of is 30 feet wide. So, there is actually five feet of common space beyond the paved surface on either side and, then, the length of the driveway is established by the maximum amount that the fire department would go in without having a turnaround at the end. So, those various parameters --the aspects of what's happening we have laid out those two common driveways in the project. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, one last question. I apologize. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, in the staff's presentation they mentioned that the original amount of single family residents were -- units were 438 and it's been increased hopefully by 40. Is there a reason for the increase of -- in density in the project? Allen: Mr. Mayor. I'm sorry, were you asking staff or the applicant? Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 14—— Bernt: Whoever -- probably the applicant -- applicant. I was just referencing that I heard that in your presentation. Allen: Yes. I thought you were asking the applicant, but I wasn't sure. Thank you. Densmer: Thank you. I wasn't sure either. The increase in total lot count was really centered around what makes a practical layout for the project. The original development agreement and the master concept plan that was attached to it was a -- was a suggestion the property might develop at the time that that development was last modified in 2012. Since then there has been a, you know, a rethinking of that master plan and although we are largely consistent with the original layout in terms of streets and blocks and the overall feel of the development, there have been some adjustments in the placement of lots and the numbers and it just so happens that that redesign ended up just kind of the most suitable configuration of lots, being a total of 37 more than the original concept plan had been. Simison: Council, any further -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. Just a question for the applicant. In the staff presentation they said that the average lot sizes are running 4,369 square feet to 8,053 square feet. Is that an average over the R-8 and the R-2 as a total or is there -- do you have separate averages for-- I guess I'm trying to understand a couple of things. One is is there -- there is tradition being accounted for between the south side of the property and the neighboring subdivision to the south, but is there a good transition existing, you know, within the lots -- in the lots within the subdivision itself, so what are your average lot sizes in -- you know, in the R-8 section or can you kind of give us an idea I guess of where the 40 foot, 50 foot and 60 foot lots are in relationship to the larger lots to the south, something like that? Densmer: I don't think that we have parsed the lot statistics quite at the level that you were asking about. The 4,369 square foot lot is the smallest lot within the whole project and it's one of the R-8 lots. It's in that block of lots that's indicated by number four on the screen. There are also some lots that are quite large and just trying to find what the largest is. The 8,000 square foot figure that you referenced is actually the average lot size across all of the lots, but there are lots that approach I believe a half an acre in size or more along the R-2 properties in the -- next door to the property in the south, Aspen Cove and Val Vista Subdivisions. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 15 of 27 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: If -- maybe just to ask if the applicant would like to comment on any items they can do to address concerns of the neighbors that were made at this point. Densmer: I think maybe we would prefer -- we did respond to the neighbors' comments at the time of the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and rather than assume what they might say this evening, I think I would rather withhold any response to their comments until after we have had a chance to hear them. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think that the tricky thing is there is one neighbor specifically that just -- just submitted a letter and can't attend because of COVID. So, we will have to find our way through that issue, but that's just -- you may not have seen that letter, so -- that's okay. I'm sure we are going to try to tackle that. White: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. White. White: I just spoke with Kim Warren, our parks, pathways manager, and she basically said that, you know, she doesn't recall any other chain link along that pathway or along that canal, although to Councilman -- Councilman Borton's point, we typically don't approve the chain link, we typically approve the wrought iron type of looking fencing and with that -- I don't know if Sonya has anything to add regarding code with that, but that's typically the answer we got. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council, I did ask the applicant about the choice of fencing. I was not in favor of it either. They did say that that was the type of fencing that they had constructed in earlier phases and I don't remember off the top of my head how many phases have been developed right next to the Ridenbaugh where it has been constructed, but to ensure consistency I didn't include a condition of approval for a different type of fencing. Our code doesn't specify type of fencing, only open vision or -- or such that, you know, maintains public safety adjacent to the waterways. Stewart: Mr. Mayor, this is Warren. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Mr. Stewart. Stewart: Yeah. Having had to work with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for public works facilities on a number of irrigation ditches and canals and so forth in the city, at least in the past chain link fencing has been a requirement of Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. They want something that they aren't going to damage if they spray it, burn next Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page ——— -- against it and things like that. So, that has been a Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District requirement of the Public Works Department before, so that wouldn't surprise me if that was the case, but it's been a while, maybe they have changed their opinion. I don't know. Allen: Mr. Mayor. My experience with that in the past has been that they will allow wrought iron fencing as well. I'm not sure if Mr. Stewart considered that, but -- then that's safe if they are burning ditches and whatnot. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: As we move on to the -- kind of the next topic, I think an example of that type of fencing, which can be looked at as we continue on, is -- is where the Ridenbaugh crosses Locust Grove is an example of what Sonya is talking about. It's open vision metal, but it's -- it's not chain link. It's just a much more attractive design. So, we can probably pull that up at some point down the road and give that a look and see if the applicant likes that. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Speaking on the density question that I had earlier, I don't know, looking at my screen, these numbers -- if they are phases or not, so I'm not quite sure -- I'm assuming that they -- that they might be, but what would make these numbered phases or these numbered areas that I'm looking at on the screen -- what would make these areas and type of product planned for built -- for building -- for these phases different from other areas in this development and also maybe even the development to the east? Is there something unique in there that's requiring -- I guess what I'm asking is there something unique there that's requiring this much density? Densmer: Mr. Mayor, Council, I may be able to answer that question if I could jump in. The majority of this property is within the medium density residential future land use map designation, which requires a density between three and eight units per acre and I believe they are right at three units per acre with what is proposed. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe a follow up to Councilman Bernt's question. How do you look at that when most of the properties are within a certain designation? Do you like prorate -- I mean if you -- do you say, okay, 90 percent of this would be three to eight units per acre, maybe ten percent is another density? Do you, then, like adjust it that way or-- based on the space or how do you look at what we would target? Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 17—27 Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I assume that was a question for staff. You know, it's kind of all those things. In this case the low density residential designated area was not very much of the site and they are providing larger lots and zoning that transition to the neighboring larger lots. So, that's something the staff really looks at that -- I don't know if the applicant has a breakdown of the density of just the low density designated area, but, yeah, the density that I gave earlier, the three units per acre, was overall. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: It sounds like in your opinion it's more of an art than a science. Do you have a rough guideline of what the percentage was that would have been low out of the total? Or the applicant. Allen: I believe it was like five acres of the site, approximately, that's designated low density residential. The reason it's not an exact science, Council Woman Strader, is because the Comprehensive Plan is a guide. It's -- it's not a standard. Strader: Yep. I got it. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Just to -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I apologize. Maybe one more shot at-- is there any update on just the discussion with Mr. Jewett and his sewer concerns from the applicant's perspective? And, then, would ask staff if -- if those concerns were something we needed to address from a city perspective. Densmer: This is Jason at The Land Group. I joined a pre-application meeting with Mr. Jewett today with the city staff where we talked at some length about sewer availability to his parcel. The -- there is sewer available to him from Overland Road, although reaching it in the middle of Overland Road is certainly more complicated. There will be with construction of phase one of the Southridge South project -- anticipating your hopeful approval of the project this evening, there will be additional sewer available with the phase one portion at the east side of the Williams Gas Pipeline, which puts it within say a hundred or 150 feet of Mr. Jewett's property. The developer and I spoke about that briefly this evening and understanding that phase one will certainly happen before the other phases, if Mr. Jewett needed to access that sewer prior to the construction of the phase four portion of the project that would actually physically deliver the sewer along Mr. Jewett's property frontage, the developer would be willing to make an easement available for Mr. Jewett for the cross -- through the phase four portion in an alignment that would allow him to access that sewer sooner than the project would normally build it in its normal Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 18 of 27 sequence. So, that I think would at least provide Mr. Jewett the ability to reach the sanitary sewer without being held -- held up by the fact that this project wouldn't bring it to his project until phase four. Strader: Thank you, Perreault: Mr. Mayor? You're muted. Simison: Oh. Council Woman Perreault. I couldn't tell who said it, so -- Perreault: What's that? Simison: I couldn't tell who was asking to speak. So, Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Oh. Sorry. Along those same lines, a follow up question on -- on that -- for the applicant. So, I briefly scanned the letter that Mr. Jewett sent in and it doesn't really specify his concerns about receiving access in phase one or phase four. Did he express to you the reasoning? Is he concerned about not -- not receiving access at all or is there a timing concern for him that -- did he express specifically what that issue would be? I know you can't speak for him, but just in relationship to the conversations that you have had. Densmer: I believe all of those things would be of concern to him. Certainly he wants access to sewer ultimately, but also as early as possible to facility -- facilitate his development. So, I think there is both a timing and just an overall accessibility question. Certainly we understand and have anticipated that sewer would be provided to him. I would say that his primary concern is just timing related. Simison: Council, just to -- or the comments I made earlier about the Ridenbaugh Canal, I can confirm that there is two types of fencing in south Meridian related to this. There is a black chain link, as well as a black wrought iron at least along the road from Locust Grove up to as far as Stoddard along city pathways. So, multiple types. Four foot, black fencing. Don't know what Nampa-Meridian is -- you know, those were Reflection Ridge and, then, a lot older subdivisions. So, things could have changed, but that's what is -- at least there are multiple types. So, with that, if there is no further questions for the applicant from Council, Mr. Clerk, I assume we have some people signed up to testify on this item this evening. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we had one person sign up in advance and that's Scott Nichols and he's available to turn on his microphone now. Simison: Okay. Mr. Nichols, you are recognized for three minutes. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Council, thank you for allowing me to speak this evening. I represent four owners along the south side of Southridge Subdivision. I hope I have a few seconds over three minutes, but my address is -- Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 19 of 27 Simison: We will recognize you for ten minutes. Go ahead. Nichols: Okay. Thank you. I live at 2730 West Val Vista Court, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. First I want to say thank you to the Council and thank you to The Land Group for continuing this collaborative discussion to the City Council meeting. We have been discussing this with The Land Group and the developer for I think about 14 years now and I just want to say thank you to Jason Densmer and his team and the developer for the concessions that they made. We -- we started out 14 years ago with the idea that the entire parcel in question was going to be covered in houses and we at that time recognized that the neighboring land uses of this rural residential, supporting horses, cows, mules, goats, whatever, there could be some conflicts. We also recognized that we had some view lots and while we didn't object to the development, we have always wanted to pursue some avenue to retain some semblance of the view lots that -- that we all purchased along the north side of the subdivision. We have never ever considered the fact that this parcel wouldn't be developed and we are certainly not opposed to that tonight, but we hope that this collaborative process can continue, at least with some -- one last discussion on what we might be able to do to address this last concern that we have. At the Planning and Zoning meeting the neighbors and I had talked and they had encouraged me to ask for the farm, when we all knew that we might get a -- you know, a portion of it and I -- if we can -- Tamara, are you available to pull up your screen? Thompson: Yes, sir. What would you like to see? Nichols: If you can just go down to that south edge of Val Vista -- or the north edge of Val Vista and the south edge of Southridge where the development is, that would be great. I think you might have the -- the area in question that we talked about with some lot adjustments up. I don't know if you have that available or not. But for the -- for the record I would like to just make it known for the Mayor and Council that we originally went into this planning with the idea that there were about 14 -- what is it, 1,296 family units out here on this lot, from Linder to Ten Mile, from Val Vista and Aspen Cove north to Overland. Through a series of modifications --and I don't know how the development process works, but I can tell you that the community feels a little bit -- we are not objecting, but the community does feel a little bit -- I want to say misled, that we have now gone to -- I want to say 165 additional units on the whole parcel and so we don't object to that, we can work with that, but we have been trying to retain, as you can see where my property is, Elton, and, then, to the east of me we have two more properties that have viewsheds there that look to the northwest. Me to the north. And all that we have asked is that one of -- for the record declare we are not worried about trees, probably not worried about dark sky for the amount of development that's already going on in the area, but we are worried about the ability to retain some semblance of -- of this view shed to the east, northeast and northwest for those three or four properties. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting we simply asked that those two lots be moved to the northwest and that instead of being a -- I want to describe it as a pocket park, one large land mass that that park would wrap around that -- that circular turnaround to the north of my place. You know, if my place were ever developed that would, then, provide access for the developments to the south to access the park system off of the street system that could Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 20 of 27 potentially be extended. That being said, that's --that's really the only thing we are asking for and with the increase of a -- what, 165 units from the original planned development here, we feel that there is really no concession on the part of the developer in terms of revenue. We wouldn't ask that they be removed, just moved, and that would provide -- really it would allow us to retain the view value that the designation of a view lot for Elton, Nichols, Voglemore and to the east is Przybos. So, with that I would, again, just thank -- thank Jason for the work that he's done on the house heights, the single story 22 foot roof heights. The wall that they put in and the other concessions that have been made. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. I'm not sure I was totally following the request. If you wouldn't mind, Mr. Nichols, just -- if you could specify -- is it -- kind of which -- which lots have you like moved or -- if you could explain. Nichols: So -- thank you, Council Woman Strader. The two lots we are talking about -- Tamara, can you highlight those two lots? Or put your cursor over them. Thompson: These two? Nichols: Go just to the north. That lot and the lot to the east -- that diamond shaped lot that -- those two we actually just asked that they move those two lots to the northwest and utilize a portion of the park that is to the northwest and simply allow that park to wrap around the half circle that exists. Does that make sense, Council Woman Strader? Strader: Thank you. It does. Nichols: Okay. And, you know, the reason -- the reason for that is, again, the ability to retain some semblance of the view. We understand there will be trees planted. We understand that it's going to be maintained. There will be kids playing back there. But, again, if anything were ever developed to the south that would provide an access right off any development to the south to go north on that road into that circular area and access a wrap around park. This was discussed at Planning and Zoning and -- and we would ask that you consider that again. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: This is Brad. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Nichols, you know that land very well. Having lived there for quite a while what -- what is the slope comparison to Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 21 of 27 what they are proposing the houses to be versus where you would like them to move the houses? Is there a lot of difference in slope variation in those areas? Nichols: Commissioner Hoaglun, there is actually no difference in slope and -- and, to be honest with you, I think it puts those houses on a little bit higher a view shed. Those are still very nice view lots that overlook the remaining development to the east and -- and to the northeast of the -- of the pipeline there. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Nichols. We did have a few other people in the room. If anyone else would like to provide testimony on this item, if you can, please, indicate so by using the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the screen. I'm not seeing anybody raise their hand at this point in time. So, with that, I will turn it back over to the applicant for any final remarks. Densmer: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. We appreciate the opportunity. In responding to the public comments from Mr. Nichols, I would echo his sentiment in his appreciation to us for having worked with him all this time. We certainly appreciate his engagement with us over those 14 years and -- it might actually be 15 now, Scott. Not to correct you. But it's certainly been a long time and he's been a valuable contributor to the planning of Southridge throughout that time period. Just to go back, for the Council's benefit, to the original development agreement for the property. It included some requirements specific to the portion of Southridge adjacent to Val Vista and Aspen Cove in order that we respect, through the ongoing planning that we have been doing, agreements that were made previously. The pre-plat does reflect all of these commitments that were part of the development agreement, some of which are already complete, things like construction of a six foot tall masonry fence along the shared property line at the south. Restrictions on the heights of the homes for all of the lots that were to the south. Those restrictions on -- on height of the homes were driven directly in response to Scott and his neighbors' comments about maintaining their viewsheds. The total number of lots that are along that property line is restricted -- is restricted to the development agreement and that restriction is reflected in the -- in the proposed layout of the project and, then, I guess specifically with regards to Scott's comments about the two lots to be relocated, we have -- we have talked about that in the past, both with him and in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the developers perspective and it's one that I share is that the location of those lots is -- is really better where it's been designed, because it maximizes the available open space and the portion of the project that's indicated there with the number three on it, by putting the two lots along the south property line we are able to create an open space amenity both for the project and -- and for others that is really cohesive. So, that -- it's a little bit tough to tell scale, I realized that, but that -- that park land, number three there, is large enough to hold a football field, which provides a really active amenity to the subdivision in terms of open play area. It can support a lot more uses than it would be able to if those two lots were relocated to the north side of the cul-de-sac, which really kind of chops up the open space and makes it less useful as an amenity. That's been our perspective and I certainly understand Scott Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 22 of 27 and his perspective, but, respectfully, we would request that the Council approve the vision that we have and the plan that we have presented this evening. With that I think that closes our portion of the presentation. I'm happy to stand for any questions that you may have. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Yeah. As a follow up on that fencing topic, with the remarks about open vision, the black wrought iron fence being utilized along the -- between the pathway and the Ridenbaugh Canal, is that something that you would be willing to do in lieu of chain link? Densmer: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Borton, we would prefer not to -- the number that Sonya was looking for was four. There have been four previous phases of the Southridge project already constructed along the Ridenbaugh and that provided an open metal style fencing. We would like to continue the same paradigm that has been used for those four prior phases. That would -- I guess that would be our preference. Borton: Okay. What gives me some pause -- quick follow up, Mr. Mayor, is -- Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: -- if -- if it's a preference of doing it because it's how it's been done before, it's maybe not the most compelling argument if -- if one versus the other-- if the wrought iron fencing is a more attractive, appealing perimeter between the multi-use pathway, that we hope over the generations is used to a great degree and this is the one and only time that chain link can be removed as the permanent boundary and, then, this is the only shot you get to make it right and the fact that it might not be attractive elsewhere isn't probably the most compelling reason to make it not attractive here as well. That's kind of the reason why I was sort of pressing on it. Otherwise, we will just have chain link everywhere, because it was chain link at the start. So, as to why some of the questions came up on it and hoping that there might have been a more attractive alternative and, then, others might follow your lead on this issue adjacent to the Ridenbaugh with a more attractive safety barrier. That was just an explanation for the questions. Densmer: Thank you. I understand that and certainly if the Council were to condition a different fence we would -- we would comply. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much to the applicant. We will let the Council contemplate their -- their thoughts on how they would like to move forward. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 23 of 27 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will just make some quick first remarks. Tamara, thank you for the presentation. I think it's a good presentation and a -- quite frankly, an attractive yet moderate pivot from what was originally annexed and platted back in '07. 1 think the presentation that described that region and the mix of housing that's available -- maybe not necessarily all in this specific plat, but really in the -- in the vicinity, helps describe that diversity of housing that we like to see. Jason, I think your explanation with regards to the open space in that southwest portion of the project, the trade-off there, your explanation seemed to make sense and it-- and it really does, as platted, preserve usable open space down there. It's a large -- large open space and it doesn't seem to make sense that -- the way it's platted allows this development to utilize it better than if those two properties were moved across the street. So, the school capacity seemed to be sufficient to handle it. We certainly have public safety services nearby as well. So, I'm supportive of the project. Really, the only -- and Ridenbaugh by being open is fine as well. I wouldn't have any concern with that. The only thing that I think -- maybe I'm just being a stick in the mud, but that wrought iron fencing -- I think that's just an appropriate pivot. I know -- and I appreciate the applicant is willing to do so if that's what it takes. I just think that should be part of this. It's such an attractive product, especially those properties -- there is a pathway, we want people on this pathway for generations to come. One shot to do it right, make it look attractive for the public. So, I would hope that fencing could be --could be wrought iron. But beyond that I'm supportive of the project and the rezone request. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, I want to bring up the discussion about the schools, because it should always be a conversation that we have and the information that the district provided us does make it look like there is currently additional enrollment. However, in the staff report Miranda on our staff did an evaluation of the lots that have already been approved, lots that have been entitled in this area, in addition to what would be -- will be approved on this application and it does put all of those schools over one hundred percent capacity. So, I don't know if that's a factor that we want to discuss, if that -- they are not significantly over one hundred percent capacity, I think it was like 102, 104, 107, something like that. I don't-- I know there is an elementary school that has already been in the planning stages off of Linder somewhere around Victory. I don't know if that will affect elementary school enrollment for this application. So, just wondering if any of my fellow Council Members have thoughts on that. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks for bringing that up, Council Woman Perreault. I wanted to compliment Miranda as well, just specifically on the school impact table. I don't think we have seen Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 24—— anything like that before. It's so detailed. I think it gives us a really clear picture. It gives me pause. It didn't look like it was dramatically overcapacity and the fact that the West Ada School District has now committed to us to continuously redraw their boundaries, it sounded like based on the Mayor's comments last week, it makes me feel a little bit more flexible, you know, but it's still an issue. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Just to touch on a few points. One of the things I asked about was the common lots and the six homes and appreciate that photo and how it's laid out. One of the things that makes this a little different than some of the others that we have seen is the fact that they are larger lots that these driveways go into and that -- that makes a big difference on the space and the ability to move and it just-- it's just a better-- better layout that way. I do appreciate the Planning and Zoning Commission with their recommendation that there is no need for higher density. There is a lot when you look at that whole area, there is a lot of apartments and I think going to the lower-- lower densities is a good move and there is still three housing types, so there is a good variety. The open space versus moving the lots, you know, I -- I sympathize with Mr. Nichols, having been on a rural property and a subdivision comes in and being able to work with the developer on that and, you know, making sure houses are lower and different things like that, but, you know, in the end we did -- did lose our view and -- and it's just that open space priority in -- in something like this to allow -- because of the densities there is a lot more people there to provide open space for activities and kids is very important. So, yeah, I feel for Mr. Nichols, but it's just one of those competing priorities that it's -- it's hard to -- hard to satisfy both and, in fact, you can't. So, I'm good with leaving that -- that open space. I do appreciate the applicant working with the property owners and trying to mitigate as much as possible. Leaving the Ridenbaugh open is -- is perfectly fine. It's -- it's that way elsewhere. And to Councilman Borton's point, I agree, at what point do you start going to that higher standard, instead of continuing what has been that really is -- doesn't fit anymore. I think if we were to go back and do over it would be nice to have a nicer fencing all along that pathway. It's going to be a great pathway. It's very lengthy. There are some choke points as I have learned on -- on park tours of our pathways along the Ridenbaugh, but we will figure something out down the road. So, I have no problem with supporting a black wrought iron fencing option for -- for this development and continuing that requirement as -- as things move to the west. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I share similar thoughts on the fence and, in general, I think this -- this is a nice fit for the area. I'm a little concerned about schools. I don't think we have totally put that to bed. If we approve this one and, then, we have more on Overland, maybe that number is not 106 percent, 110 percent pro forma for what we have approved, maybe that hits Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 25 of 27 120 percent and, then, my view might evolve pretty quickly. But it doesn't feel like it's too far at this point. Generally supportive. I just want to make sure that we -- I guess if we have to specify it would be good of staff to let us know if we need to specify that the neighbor will get an easement to access the sewer in phase one. I think that was important that they made that concession. I might have preferred to lose two lots to create some kind of a regional park if that lot to the south were to develop, but I think it's a lot of open space and that to me is what sort of sets this one apart and maybe gets us across the finish line. Simison: Just to note, West Ada is discussing the proposed boundary adjustments this evening and this area is slated to be moved into Peregrine, which is very un -- has a very low enrollment. But, of course, by the time everything gets built you have no idea where any of this is going to be anyways. But food -- food for thought as you contemplate the -- yes, West Ada is making efforts to adjust the numbers, but they will -- they are taking public feedback and you never know what's going to happen. Strader: Great point. Simison: Council, any further discussion or motions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I didn't hear any additional discussion, so I'm going to make a motion that we close the public hearing on H-2020-0083. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: In light of the comments and discussion that has just happened during deliberations, I will make a motion that we approve H-2020-0083, the rezone and the preliminary plat, as presented in the staff report of January 12th. That includes the provision that the Ridenbaugh Canal remain open. That requires the black wrought iron fencing along the Ridenbaugh Canal adjacent to the public pathway. That the -- the easement concession that Council Woman Strader had referenced -- she may be able to clarify for me, but that's included as one of the conditions as well and that the plan as presented is otherwise approved. Lots aren't being moved on that southwest side. Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 12,2021 Page 26 V,27 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Do I have a second? Strader: Second -- I will second the motion. Simison: Have a motion and a second. Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess I would ask Mr. Nary how much more specific we need to be in the motion. Do we need to specify that Mr. Jewett will get an access to the -- an easement to access the sewer in phase one? Is that sufficient? Nary: Mr. Mayor-- Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Woman Strader, I think that's adequate, because they are going to have to still determine specifically where it is before they can finalize it. So, I think at this point for findings that it's totally adequate. Strader: Thanks. 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, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Thank you very much, everyone, for your attention to the details in this one. Next on the agenda is future meeting topics. Do we have any items? EXECUTIVE SESSION 3. Per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a) To deliberate on a labor contract offer or to formulate a counteroffer. Simison: If not, Executive Session. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 74-206A(1)(a). Page 46 Meridian City Council January 12,2021 Page 27 of 27 Hoaglun: Mr. Second, 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, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes and we are recessed -- or adjourned into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 7:35 p.m. to 8:23 p.m.) Bernt: Move we come out of Executive Session. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: Motion and second to come out of Executive Session. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Bernt: Move we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:24 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 1 / 26 / 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 47 Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active Land Use/Development Application. By Law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that a topic be added to a future meeting agenda for more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: January 12, 2021 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 1 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 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings Changes to Agenda: Item #1: Volante Investments (H-2020-0118) – Development Agreement Modification Applicant requests to table this item in order to submit concurrent applications for CUP and subdivision. Item #2: Southridge South (H-2020-0083) Application(s): Rezone Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 84+/- acres of land, zoned R-2 & R-4, located on the south side of W. Overland Rd., east of S. Ten Mile Rd. and is part of the larger 291 acre Southridge development currently in the development process to the east. Southridge encompasses land on the south side of Overland Rd. from this property to the east to Linder Rd. and to the south to Val Visa & Aspen Cove subdivisions. History: This property was annexed in 2007 with a DA that was later replaced (a couple of times) with new DA’s. The existing DA requires a minimum of 1,000 and maximum of 1,286 residential units consisting of a mix of apartments & SFR homes to develop in the overall Southridge development, unless otherwise specifically approved by Council through subsequent applications. Subsequent DA modification applications were approved that removed the two apartment projects to the east from the overall Southridge DA and placed them in DA’s of their own which no longer tied them to the terms of the original DA. With the 640 units anticipated to develop in Southridge Apartments, 336 units in Linder & Overland Apartments, 221 SFR units in Southridge phases 1-5 and 254 in the proposed development, that’s a total of 1,451 units which is 165 units over that originally anticipated in the DA – mostly, the difference is in the apartment units which were approved through subsequent applications (i.e. 848 anticipated, 976 approved). The SFR units were anticipated to consist of 438 units or a balance to total 1,286 total units w/the apartment units – the total number of SFR units in the overall development if this development is approved will be 475, which is 37+/- over that originally anticipated. Because the subject plat is a “subsequent application” as described in the DA, staff finds the proposal in compliance with the DA without a modification to the agreement. A preliminary plat was approved with the annexation that included the subject property as mega lots for future re-subdivision. The existing DA does not include a conceptual development plan for this site & only governs the number of lots anticipated for future development, which can be modified through a subsequent application approved by Council. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (5.5+/- acres) & MDR (78+/- acres) Summary of Request: A rezone of 7.15 acres of land is proposed from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district & 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 & R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the development of 254 SFR detached homes at a gross density of 3 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the Comprehensive Plan for this area. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 254 buildable lots & 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the proposed R-2 & R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,369 square feet (s.f.) with an average lot size of 8,053 s.f. The plat is proposed to develop in 4 phases as shown on the phasing plan. Staff worked with the Applicant to modify the phasing plan prior to the hearing to include the nd large 3.8 acre common area where a clubhouse, pool and tot lot is proposed to develop in the 2 phase along with the bridge and th extension of a stub street to the east, instead of with the 4 phase. There is one (1) existing home on this site that is proposed to remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision. Access is proposed via one public street & (1) emergency access via Overland Rd. Stub streets are proposed to the west, south and east for future extension. Off-street parking will be provided in accord with UDC standards on individual lots; on-street parking for guests can also be accommodated on both sides of public streets. Public streets & (3) common driveways are proposed for internal circulation and access to lots. Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are proposed throughout the development. The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the northeast side of this development & is a large open waterway that is required to be piped unless left open & improved as a water amenity or linear open space. The Applicant requests a Council waiver to this requirement (UDC 11-3A-6B) to allow the canal to remain open and proposes to construct 6’ tall chainlink fencing along the waterway to preserve public safety. The Williams NW gas pipeline bisects the southwest corner of the site within a 75’ wide easement and is contained within common lots. A 35’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Overland Rd., an entryway corridor. 10’ wide multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with the Pathways Master Plan on the site within the street buffer along Overland Rd., along the Ridenbaugh Canal and along the Williams pipeline. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards – a minimum of 10% (or 8.38 acres) is required; a total of 24-acres (or 29%) is proposed consisting of ½ the street buffer along Overland Rd., linear open space, and open grassy areas of at least 50’ x 100’ in area. A minimum of 4 qualified site amenities are required – a clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot with children’s play equipment, (3) different segments of multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space above the standards are proposed in excess of UDC standards. Conceptual building elevations are proposed for each of the different lot widths proposed, for 40’, 50’ and 60’ wide lots. Commission Recommendation: Approval 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Tamara Thompson and Jason Densmer, The Land Group (Applicant’s Representatives) b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Scott Nichols (on behalf of himself and his neighbors – Elton’s, Przybos’ and Voglemore’s); Mike Voglemore d. Written testimony: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group (Applicant’s Representative); Ken & Sherry Fawcett; Scott & Jennifer Nichols, Curtis & Naomi Elton, Steve & Susan Przybos & Michael & Brenda Voglemore 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Neighbors to the south in Val Vista Subdivision would like their view sheds preserved with development; b. Mr. Nichols is agreeable to the location of the stub street to the south to his property; c. Would like a condition placed on this development & the associated housing to only allow “dark sky” compliant lighting so that it doesn’t encroach on their properties; d. Preference for the two (2) lots east of the stub street to the south (i.e. Lots 1 and 2, Block 10) to be shifted to the common area (i.e. Lot 3, Block 10) to the northwest; e. Would like the height of residential vegetation adjacent to the Val Vista subdivision fence to be limited to 10’ above ground level so views aren’t obstructed; f. Would like suitable drainage for irrigation & runoff to be maintained from the west end of the Southridge fence northwest toward Overland Rd.; and, g. The Fawcett’s are against the proposed R-8 zoning and would like the stub street to the south shifted further to the west between Lots 4 and 5, Block 10. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. The majority of the Commission did not feel another housing type is necessary to be provided within the development as recommended by Staff – they felt the variety of lot sizes along with the apartments to the east is sufficient; b. The request for a 10’ limit on the height of residential vegetation on lots abutting Val Vista Subdivision and difficulty in enforcing such a requirement; c. Would like to see the common open space better distributed near the smaller R-8 zoned lots – most of the common area is near the larger lots; d. Not in favor of the proposed common driveways providing access to six (6) lots on the east side of the development – prefer restriction to no more than four (4) lots accessed via common driveways; 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. The Commission recommended the Applicant consider replacing a few of the buildable lots in the R-8 area with common area; b. The Commission recommended the Applicant consider reducing the number of units accessed via the common driveways; and, c. The Commission did not require another housing type(s) to be provided within the development. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant requests a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B to allow the Ridenbaugh canal to remain open and not be piped. Note: The Applicant submitted a revised plat, landscape plan and qualified open space exhibit that includes an approximate half-acre pocket park in Lot 15, Block 4 in the R-8 portion of the development where smaller lots are proposed in response to the Commission’s recommendation. Written testimony received since the Commission hearing: Jim Jewett (he owns the 1.25-acre property at the NWC of the development) – he’s concerned that with the proposed phasing plan, sewer service won’t be available to his property for development thst purposes until the 4 phase and requests it’s provided instead with the 1 phase. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0083, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of January 12, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0083, as presented during the hearing on January 12, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0083 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) City Council Meeting January 12, 2021 FLUM 14332 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Volante Investments (H-2020-0118) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 2700 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-060157) to include a conceptual development plan for the subject property. Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: January 12, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1 PROJECT NAME: Volante Investments (H-2020-0118) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO i 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:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 12, 2021 Public Hearing for Volante Investments (H-2020-0118) by The Land Group, Inc., Located Topic: 2700 E. Overland Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-060157) to include a conceptual development plan for the subject property. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 4 Item#1. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 1/12/2021 Legend LF DATE: L-Oc.!.G—L 0 Project Lacfltan TO: Mayor&City Council UT R FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 '+ - T SUBJECT: H-2020-0118 -R1 =- �4 Volante Investments(aka Seasons at $ �` Meridian) L7� LOCATION: 2700 E. Overland Rd.,in the SE 1/4 of 17,_ C-C T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcel#S1117438451) _R_ ERR R.4 iTI-R- -1v I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification of the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2016-060157)to include a conceptual development plan for the eastern 15.89-acre portion of the larger 34.62-acre property,zoned C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District). II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Tamara Thompson,The Land Group, Inc. —462 W. Shore Dr., Ste. 100, Eagle, ID 83616 B. Owner: Greg Goins,Winco Foods,LLC—PO Box 5756,Boise,ID 83705 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in 12/25/2020 newspaper Radius notice mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/22/2020 Page 1 Page 5 Item#1. Public hearing notice sign posted 12/28/2020 Next Door 12/22/2020 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). This property is part of a larger 660+/-acre area designated MU-R that lies south of I-84 on the north and south sides of E. Overland Rd. and the east and west sides of S. Eagle Rd. The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D (pg. 3- 17). This site is located near a major arterial intersection(i.e. S. Eagle Rd. and E. Overland Rd.). A conceptual development plan is proposed for a multi-family development on the eastern 15.89-acre portion of the subject property that will contain a total of 360 apartment units at a gross density of 22.6 units per acre. The approved conceptual development plan for the western 18.75-acre portion of the property is for an 85,000 square foot grocery store(Wino Foods)which will provide a regional draw and anchor this development with the proposed residential as a supporting use. The proposed plan depicts future retail uses on the property to the south of the grocery store between the future extension of Cinema Dr. and E. Overland Rd.where"vacant land"was previously depicted. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-15): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." Overall, the 34.62-acre site subject to the Development Agreement is proposed to develop with commercial(retail, restaurant, etc) and high-density residential uses. A variety of uses have already developed in the larger MU-R designated area to the west, south and east, including but not limited to, medical and dental offices,financial institutions, restaurants, multi family residential, entertainment venues (i.e. movie theatre and shooting range), hotels, corporate offices, call centers, schools, and civic uses (i.e. Gordon Harris park, an ACHD park and ride lot and a library). • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69." This project is near S. Eagle Rd., which extends south from SH-SS. There are many employment uses in this area with larger employment destination centers in El Dorado/Bonito and Silverstone subdivisions at the southwest and southeast corners of Eagle and Overland Roads and Rackham subdivision currently in the development process at the southeast corner of Eagle Rd. &I-84. The proposed multi family development will provide high density housing Page 2 Page 6 Item#1. options in close proximity to employment destination centers in this area where few currently exist. • "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed-Use designation." A conceptual development plan is proposed with this application which will be incorporated into an amended Development Agreement to ensure future development is consistent with the Mixed-Use designation. • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space." A development plan isn't included for the area depicted as `future retail". To ensure this area develops as desired with buildings arranged to create some form of common, useable area,Staff recommends a provision requiring such is included in the amended DA. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." The proposed multi family development will provide a transitional use between the existing low-density 1-acre residential lots/subdivision to the east(i.e. Overland Way Subdivision) and the future Winco Foods grocery store to the west.A 25 foot wide landscape buffer, landscaped per the standards in UDC I1-3B-9C, is required to be provided on C-G zoned property along the east boundary of the site to residential uses per UDC Table 11-2B-3. Three-story buildings in the multi family development are proposed to be set back over 100'from the shared property line; existing homes are set back an average of 250'from the property line, which will create an approximate separation of 350'between uses. • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." Many such uses exist in the larger MU-R designated area, including but not limited to, medical and dental offices/clinics, schools,parks, a daycare, and a library. St. Luke's hospital and medical center exists to the north on S. Eagle Rd. within approximately a mile of the site. • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count." As previously mentioned, a park, library and schools exist in the larger MU-R designated area. Staff recommends some form of common, usable area such as a plaza or green space is provided in the future retail area. • "Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi- public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered." No such public spaces or design elements/amenities are proposed in this portion of the Mixed- Use designated area. However, quality amenities such as a clubhouse, swimmingpool, BBQ area,playground/park with seating area, outdoor fireplace with seating area, and a pedestrian loop are proposed in the multi family portion of the development for private use by Page 3 Page 7 Item#1. its residents. Pedestrian connections will assist in providing integration with the future commercial development. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." A residential neighborhood exists directly to the east but there are no pedestrian or vehicular connections to this site. Interstate 84 borders the site to the north and commercial uses exist to the west. The proposed multi family and commercial development is accessible by vehicle from Cinema Dr.from the west and S. Wells Ave. via E. Overland Rd. and by pedestrians from sidewalks along these streets.A pedestrian loop is proposed around the perimeter of the multi- family development, which provides connectivity to the existing and future commercial uses to the west. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." The extension of S. Wells Ave.from Overland Rd will provide a transition between the planned commercial retail uses and proposed multi family development. • "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed-Use standards listed herein." The subject property is not located in Old Town, therefore, this provision is not applicable. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. The multi family portion of the development consists of 15.89 acres and comprises over 10% of the overall development area of this site at a gross density of 22.6 units/acre. The overall MU-R designated area contains very few residential uses. There are no non-retail commercial uses proposed at this time. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. The western 18.75-acre portion of the site is planned to develop with retail uses; other commercial uses such as restaurants,professional/personal services, etc. are provided in the overall MU-R designated area which should be consistent with this guideline. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. Page 4 Page 8 Item#1. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. This guideline is not applicable as public/quasi-public uses are not proposed. Staff believes the proposed conceptual development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the MU-R designation in the Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant complies with Staffs recommended conditions noted above.High-density residential uses are needed in this overall MU-R designated area. V. STAFF ANALYSIS History: This property along with the abutting property to the west,formerly known as the Thomas and Wurst properties, were annexed in 1994 and zoned C-G(Ord. #661, 661A &665). These properties were part of a larger 167-acre area which included the interchange and the St. Luke's property to the north and northeast; this property and the interchange area provided an annexation path for St. Luke's medical center and hospital. A Development Agreement(Inst. #2016-060157, H-2016-0056 Volante Investments) was recorded in 2016 for the abutting parcel to the west, which requires modification to the agreement prior to development of the subjectparcel to include a conceptual developmentplan that is consistent with the Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)future land use map designation in the Comprehensive Plan. A conceptual development plan and building elevations were approved for the abutting parcel to the west that depicts an 85,000 square foot single-story retail building for Winco Foods on the northern portion of the property, the extension of Cinema Dr.from the west to the east boundary, vacant land on the southern portion, and the north/south extension of S. Wells Ave. along the east boundary of the site (see Section VIA below). An amendment to the existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2016-060157,Volante Investments—H-2016-0056) is proposed to include a conceptual development plan for the eastern 15.89-acre portion of the property governed by the DA, as required. The proposed concept plan depicts a total of 10 multi-family structures containing a total of 360 dwelling units arranged around internal common open space areas with associated access driveways and parking(see Section VI.13). A mix of studio and 1-, 2-and 3-bedroom units are proposed ranging from 488 to 1,328 square feet at a gross density of 22.6 units per acre. The main entrance driveway to the multi-family development aligns with Cinema Dr.,planned to extend from the west boundary of the abutting Winco parcel to the future north/south extension of S. Wells Ave. from E. Overland Rd. along the southern portion of the subject property's west boundary. Another access is proposed at the north end of the west boundary of the site. An emergency only access is proposed via Overland Rd.; direct(public)access via Overland is not proposed. Staff recommends as a provision in the DA that a cross-access/ingress-egress easement is recorded between the two parcels subject to the DA(i.e. 51117438626& 51117438451).A copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division with the first development application for the overall property subject to the agreement. Page 5 Page 9 Item#1. A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was completed in 2016 for the Winco development and an updated TIS submitted to ACHD that includes the proposed multi-family development. An initial review of the TIS was completed by ACHD with comments/recommendations provided to the Applicant. A traffic signal is planned to be constructed with the Winco development at the Wells/Overland intersection. Because traffic is already congested in this area and at the Eagle/Overland intersection and Eagle/I-84 interchange,Staff is concerned additional traffic generated from this development will over-burden existing roadways and intersections.Therefore, Staff recommends a DA provision that the TIS demonstrate additional traffic generated from this development can be accommodated on existing roadways/intersections; and that the traffic signal at the Overland/Wells intersection and any other improvements required by ACHD such as a right- turn lane,and the extension of Cinema Dr. be installed prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the multi-family development. The multi-family development will not be allowed to develop if the TIS doesn't support traffic generated from the development. A total of 673 parking spaces, including 360 covered spaces are depicted on the concept plan. Based on(180) 1-bedroom units and(180)2-and 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 630 parking spaces are required with 360 of those being covered. The proposed parking exceeds the minimum standards by 43 spaces,which should adequately accommodate guest parking. A total of 3+/-acres(19%)of common open space is proposed,which exceeds the minimum requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27C. Based on 15 units containing 500 square feet(s.f.)or less, 315 units containing between 500-1,200 s.f. and 30 units containing 1,200+ s.f., a minimum of 2.1 acres would be required. A clubhouse with meeting rooms, a fitness facility,kitchen and gathering spaces,a swimming pool, an outdoor fireplace with seating,BBQ area and park with seating; dog owner facilities; a children's play structure; and a 0.5+/-mile perimeter pedestrian pathway loop are proposed as amenities. Based on the number of units proposed(i.e. 360), Staff is of the opinion the proposed amenities meet and exceed the minimum requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27D.2. Noise abatement is required to be provided for residential uses adjoining state highways(i.e. 1-84) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. Future plans submitted for this development shall demonstrate compliance with these standards. A Conditional Use Permit(CUP)is required to be submitted for the multi-family development per UDC Table 11-213-2.At that time, Staff will review the details of the proposed project for consistency with the dimensional standards of the C-G zoning district listed in UDC Table 11-213-3, specific use standards for multi-family developments in UDC 11-4-3-27 and other applicable UDC standards. All structures are required to be designed consistent with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. The site plan submitted with the CUP should depict the ultimate expansion of Overland Rd.to 7-lanes. Verification that the subject parcels are"original parcels of record" as defined in UDC 11-1A-1 is required.If determined not to be original parcels of record,the property is required to be included in a subdivision plat to create legal parcels for development purposes.Verification of such should be submitted prior to the City Council hearing for the subject application. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA with the amended conditions,new conditions and exhibits in Section VI.B. Page 6 Page 10 Item#1. VII. EXHIBITS A. Existing Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property and Conceptual Development Plan(dated 4/12/2016) in Development Agreement Proposed to be Amended(Inst. #2016- 060157,H-2016-0056 Volante Investments) 4. USES PERMITTED 13Y THIS AHREEAUNT. This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement, S. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. OwnerlDeveloper shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. All deveIoptnent shall comply with City of Meridian ordinances and the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Development of the west parcel located at 2600 E.Overland Read property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibits A.4 and A.5. 3. Prior to development of the east parcel located at 2700 E. Overland Road, the Development Agreement shall be modified to include a conceptual development plan that is consistent with the MU-R FLUM designation contained in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. With development of the subject property,the developer is required to extend sewer &water mains to and through the property. 5. Future development shall comply with the design standards contained in UDC 1I- 3A-14 and the Architectural Standards Manual andfor any updated versions thereof. Page 7 Page 11 Item#1. _ = SITE DATA DATE 04H2M2G16 _-_ - _ --" `- --------------- L071 1835 ACRES 85,000 S.F. MAJORA 485 STALLS 5.7611000 LOT 2 s LOT 3 TOTALS PA RCEL BCE LEGEND NUMBER OF STANDARD PARKING SPACES MAJOR A ® CART CORRAL 115,0110 S.F. SINGLE STORY I #TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PER PARCEL PROPERTYlPARCEL LINE i BUILDING LINE -----_- - EASEMENT I CONCRETE SIDEWALK FrEEE-FFIv BICYCLE PARKING i APN,S1117438626 m I FAR:24% O _ o MAX,BUILDING HEIGHT',32'-0" ZONING:GG-GENERAL RETAIL AND DESTINATION PLACE SUB. SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TOTAL SITEARFA:816,213 SE.118,75 ACRES W TOTAL PARKING AREA: 129,388$,F. 0�c TOTAL PARKING LANDSCAPE AREA:35,517 S.F. y��o PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE PROVIDED,27% op o w 4 TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA:58,589 S.F, O 0 ��LLUuK PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPE,12% w S W IJ PARKING STALLS REOV I RED:170 O V' i PARKING STALLS PROVIDED',485 G'r wntiew.� 1 a - CINEMA DR. I PARKING STALL SIZE',9.5'x20' I I ADA STALLS REQUIRED:9 :a ADA STALLS PROVIDED',19 BICYCLE SPACES REQUIRED,20 f" •� BICYCLE SPACES PROVIDED:32 �.".A W WwN>:a arecicANT�wncFEr�cT. O BLOCK 2 \\} I ro FooMONG ORs2 s Q bSUN.1 817MOT'G PLACE ]0]NOkDM371}ISI'ItP,ET J WISE,1081-37 BGIBE,IGAII031 VACANT LAND FAX:ElIO 23"3 74110 PRON GO—t-20&3190]T] W ��I ''' �� FAX:ACT:G-Wig CONTACT:6AN].IMMk0.MAN Q 'rf✓ "�'a" OGNTACT,GREG GGMS FIAALL:dsimmnman�lah,mm y I E-MAII.,gc6_Kcia®wivcoFouda.com 1 O I CIW= li SCr A1.L[Arvc[ I'I BYIOT ,W LN.NE,S77200OL� 0 MOVE A.W3 502 2-146 PHONY:T REA- : r E-N :T.ea.j O".0xNSPN,aE e-NAIL,�ao�r.ian�aw®arl.ir-e,�m ^'°''- ---_-___ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: : ------ -�_:__________________v_ _____ �„a _ ------------- BEING A.PORTION OF PARCEL 1.LOCATED IN THE SW%OF THE BE Yq OF SECTION 17,T.3N.,R,1E„ SHEET TITLE aw O E OVERLAND RD as B,M.BOISE,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO G PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN NOR P SITE PLAN °"EET SCALE:1—4V-0" 6° C-1 Page 8 Page 12 IIl � , , , ii MEN =- Item#1. B. Proposed Modified Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property and Conceptual Development Plan and Building Elevations Modifications to Existing Conditions: 5.1.2 Development of the west parcel located at 2600 E. Overland Road pr-ope t�-and the east parcel located at 2700 E. Overland Road shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Exhibits A.4 and A.S. 5T3 Prior-t6zr2v "'cnt-9rthe-cirsc pc'lr-Eel loea4ed at 2700 E. Over-land ,the Development Agreement shall be modified to inelude a eoneeptual development plan th Staff recommended new conditions: • "If multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed in the area depicted as "future retail"on the conceptual development plan,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space in accord with the Comprehensive Plan for development in Mixed-Use designated areas." • "The updated Traffic Impact Study(TIS)that incorporates the multi-family development shall demonstrate additional traffic generated from the development can be accommodated on existing roadways/intersections in order for the multi-family development to be approved." • "The traffic signal at E. Overland Rd. and S. Wells Ave. and any other improvements required by ACHD to Overland Rd., such as turn lanes, and the extension of Cinema Dr. shall be installed prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy within the multi- family portion of the development." • "A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be recorded between the two parcels subject to this agreement(i.e. 51117438626 & Sl 117438451).A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the first development application for the overall property subject to the agreement." • "Noise abatement shall be required for residential uses adjoining state highways (i.e. I- 84) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D." Note:All other conditions shall remain the same. Page 10 Page 14 Item#1. Replace the existing conceptual development plan in Exhibit A.4 with the following: M&MR A � �• r �INGLE9TO0.Y I � � � �� 1 •r ti } I - - k: 1 r I I CNEIIVl,G4 � • C r `. LLhh r al , FI1TLIRF RFTAIL I .r =� i4 [Q4Yf1�JNl]NG \51 r '' IX SITE PLAN s.c+L I'r Page 11 Page 15 Include the following elevations in Exhibit A.5 along with the existing Winco elevations: op Fr Wr 71 I 17dTV�F Lj 1� a•'�_ � 1 . , � r �� - •'' ..tip �. j 1 - 1 (7t Page 12 L. y i g 13 - Item#1. C. Boundary of Property Subject to Development Agreement 2600&2700 Overland Road Property Description A parcel of land located in the SViV 1t4 Of the 5E 114 Section 17,'Tovwnship 3 N01h, Mange 2 !rest, bobw Meridian, Maddian.Ada County, Idaho haing maie partieulara�d+escrihad as fallaws: Carrimenaing at the S1?4 corner of said:action 17 hvm which the SE comer of said Section 17 bears N"h 80"415'W'East, 2555,8E yak; nrA Nmlh 00'24tr East,45.00 fast to ttm SE corner of Oosfxnatian Place SubdlwlsiGn fled in Doak 93 of Plats at Rages 11190 through 11192,records oFAda Cauity, Idol-vo, isWd point tramp the REAL POINT OF BEDINNINO; thence Amig the East boundary lkw of Bald Deshnaflon PUM Subdlyislk)n No h 00°24'05"East. 1.181.25 feet to s poarrt r)n the sDutherlly rigIA-01-way Rne!of imerstaw 8 ' thence along said south"right•of-waX Mne The fallowing 4 cou�s*s and diatar,Qes- Vvhce Nero 81"35'27"East, 1 Se.I3 Feet, thence South 66'1 B2Y East,471.33 feet; thence 696.48 `eel akNV the arc of a non-tangent curve to to right, Said cur+re heivin a radlus i+f 1,8D9.88 IM, a c ontrel angle of 22°02'56" and a long Chord of O92.19 feet whlch bears South 75'U@'1:5"EiS1, Chance South 64'07.4f"East 23 82 feet to a point on the 4'Iresi boundary tine u, Arland VVey SubdivIslon f i in Gook 4$of Plats al Pages 3798 and 3799, reaxds of Ada OnLinty, Fdaho: thence along said Walt boundary line South 00'W32" East,980.133 feet to a point on the NDdh tight-aF y fine of E.Overland Road; Thence along said North right-of-way line the falbvAng7caur&es acid drstainrea- thence EDurth 89'46'00"West, 600.41 feet lhunu Nofth 4V°30'26"West,29.30 feet; thence North 00°24'06"East, O.10 feat; thurice 5vuth P}f] SOV"W&sk 00.OG feet, 19 � ttrenc-a South 00°24'05" 51, 11.59 f�ai, OF%O 61 . � thence Soulh 45"33'34" VVest, 2l8.60 feet; — them*South 89'46'00"West OS7.70 feet to the REAL POaNT OF E EGINHIMG. Contalning 34 62 eras,more or ie65 Page 14 Page 18 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. Page 19 Item#2. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 12, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Southridge South (H-2020-0083) by The Land Group, Inc., Generally Located South of W. Overland Rd., East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 20 i i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: January 12, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 PROJECT NAME: Southridge South (H-2020-0083) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 ' 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING January 12,2021 Legend DATE: --- �__ Iff Praject Lac tm TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 4 b SUBJECT: H-2020-0083 - Southridge South—RZ,PP ' LOCATION: South side of W. Overland Rd., east of S. - Ten Mile Rd., in the north 11/2 of Section 23,T.3N.,R.1 W.) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Rezone of 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district; and Preliminary plat consisting of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the proposed R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 83.77 Existing/Proposed Zoning R-2,R-4&R-8 existing/R-2&R-8 proposed Future Land Use Designation Mostly(78+/-acres)Medium Density Residential(MDR) (3-8 units/acre)with a small(5.5+/-acres)portion Low Density Residential(LDR)(3 or fewer units/acre) at southeast corner Existing Land Use(s) One(1)single-family home(Rice property)and vacant/undeveloped land. Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 254 buildable lots/29 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 4 phases Number of Residential Units(type 254 SFR detached dwellings of units) Density(gross&net) 2.98 units/acre(gross); 5.4 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 22.3 acres(or 26%)overall common open space— 15.55 [%]/buffer/qualified) acres(or 18.5%)of which is qualified open space Pagel Page 21 Item#2. Description Details Page Amenities Clubhouse,swimming pool and tot lot with children's play equipment Physical Features(waterways, The Ridenbaugh Canal runs along the northeast boundary hazards,flood plain,hillside) of the site and is a large open waterway;the Williams Northwest gas pipeline also bisects the west portion of this site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 4/14/20; 8 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-06-031 (DA#107074205—overall Southridge);PP-06- 031;PBA-08-014(ROS#8550—Parcels#1 and#7);RZ- 11-002;PBA-14-012(ROS#9982);MDA-08-004(Inst. #1 1 1 102269—replaced DA#107074205);MDA-12-009 (DA#113077158—replaced DA#111102269). CUP-10- 015;MCU-12-003;MCU-14-001 (Southridge Gravel Mining) B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(draft) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access One public street access and one emergency only access is proposed via (Arterial/Collectors/State Overland Rd.,an arterial street. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"E"(Overland Rd.)which is an acceptable Level of Service (LOS).This site is estimated to generate 2,398 vehicle trips per day.A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required with this application as it was included in the original&revised TIS for Southridge Subdivision. Stub Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties to the west, south and Street/Interconnectivity/Cross east;no stub streets exist to this site. Access Existing Road Network Overland Rd.exists along the north boundary,no internal streets exist Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers exist along Overland Rd.,an arterial street Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)!Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements • Ten Mile Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-ianes from Overland Road to p Victory Road in 2022-2023. • The intersection of Overland Road and Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6- lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2036 and 2040. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 0.9 of a mile • Fire Response Time Falls within 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 87%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. Page 2 Page 22 Item#2. Description Details P • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service • Distance to Police 4 miles Station • Police Response The average emergency response time in the City is just under 4 minutes(meets Time target goal of 3-5 minutes) Meridian Police Department-5outhridge South Location of new development- 50uth of W Overland Rd&East of S Ten Mile Rd Time Frame- 11/0112019.10I31J2020 Level of Service(LoSi-Delivered By Reporting District(RD-M757) Calls for Service iCFSi: Response Times: Dispatch to Arrival(all units) Average Response Times by Priority: 'City of Meridian' Priority 3(MPDGovI is within 3to 5mmutes) 3:40 Priority fMPO GM;is Wthm 8 to 10 mfnures) 7:11 Priority1 (MPDGoaliswithin!5to70minuten) 11:01 Average Response Times by Priority:'M757' Priority 3 0:00* Priority 2 8:10 Priority 1 8:52 Calls for Service(CFS):Calls occurring in RD'M757' CFS Counr Total 513 %of Calls for Service split by Priority in'M757' %ofP3 CFS 0.0% %of P2 CFS 70.8% %of PI CF5 29.0% %of PO CFS 0.2% Crimes Crime Count Total 57 Crashes 'Crash Count Total 8 West Ada School Enrollment Ca aci Miles (Dev t W-11 District Mary McPherson Elementary 477 675 3.9 • Distance(elem, Victory Middle School 874 1000 2.3 ms,hs) Meridian High School 1887 2075 3.0 • Capacity of Schools **Due to the abundant amount of growth in the area,West Ada is actively building new schools,and boundaries are • #of Students always changing. These future students could potentially attend Owyhee High School." Enrolled • #of Students Predicted from 178 school aged children predicted from this development. this development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Page 3 Page 23 Item#2. Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend Legend Prayed Laca-non Axe I P•oiec4 Luca-R4n Emp'0 /R1 Hi h D C .• ity 4Is •� _ W Rend essid ntiai Page 4 — Page 24 Item#2. Zoning Map Planned Development Map (fLegend �� (fLegend Project Luca Sun I Project Lucafian i RUT arty Limit R1 + a — Pu n re Paoce's d a + TW C R 1.5 - R 8 TW R C.CC R-8 R. RUT R1 A. Applicant: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group—462 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 100, Eagle, ID 83616 B. Owner: Tim Eck,Endurance Holdings— 1977 E. Overland Rd., Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Tamara Thompson, The Land Group—462 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 100, Eagle, ID 83616 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 11/27/2020 12/25/2020 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 11/23/2020 12/22/2020 Applicant posted public hearing 12/7/2020 12/28/2020 notice on site Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 12/22/2020 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates 5.5+/-acres of this property as Low Density Residential(LDR)and 78+/-acres as Medium Density Residential (MDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and Page 5 Page 25 Item#2. resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces,and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. The proposed development consists of a total of 254 single-family detached homes on 83.77 acres of land at an overall gross density of 3.03 units/acre,which is at the low end but consistent with that desired in the MDR FLUM designation. The gross density of the LDR designated area is 2.55+/-units per acre consistent with the LDR designation; and the gross density of the MDR designated area is 3.08 units/acre consistent with the MDR designation. Larger lot sizes (i.e. 0.32 to 0.78-acre) and zoning(i.e. R-2)are/is proposed as a transition along the southern and western boundaries to existing 1-to 5-acre rural residential properties. There is also a grade difference east of the Williams gas pipeline along the southern boundary between the site and abutting lots in Aspen Cove and Val Vista subdivisions that increases toward the east to a maximum of 27'+/-at Lot 12,Block 10 and then decreases on the four lots to the east of that to around 15'-18' below the neighboring properties. This grade difference will assist in buffering existing rural properties from urban development,preserve view sheds and provide a natural transition. The Development Agreement also restricts building height along the southern boundary,which will assist in preserving view sheds as well(see DA for more information). The existing roadway(i.e. Overland Rd.)abutting this site and the proposed street network within the subdivision is consistent with the Master Street Map and the South Meridian Transportation Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one (1) housing type, single-family detached, is proposed. A variety of lot sizes are proposed with larger lots along the southern and western boundaries providing a transition between existing rural residential estate properties in Ada County and proposed smaller urban lots. Although a variety of lot sizes will provide options for different styles of homes, Staff recommends another housing type(i.e. single-family attached or townhomes)is provided in the R-8 zoned area to accommodate the various financial capabilities of future residents. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Where feasible,encourage large transmission and pipeline utility corridors to function as transitional buffers,parkland,pathways, and gathering spaces within and adjacent to their right of way." (3.07.01E) A multi-use pathway and large common open space/gathering area is proposed within and along the Northwest gas pipeline corridor/right of way. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) Only one housing type(i.e. single-family detached) is proposed in this development and in earlier phases of Southridge to the east; multi family apartments exist and are in the Page 6 Page 26 Item#2. development process directly northeast of this site. To provide more diversity in housing types in this area,Staff recommends another housing type(Le. single-family attached or townhomes) is provided in the R-8 zoned portion of this development. • "Support Valley Regional Transit's(VRT)efforts to construct multi-modal transit centers in areas of high commercial activity and employment as well as areas with transit-supportive residential densities." (6.01.01B) Transit services are available to serve this site via Routes 40 and 42. A Valley Ride park and ride lot is located within '/mile of the site to the west at the intersection of Ten Mile and Overland Roads. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed residential development should be compatible with the abutting rural residential uses to the south as they are both residential in nature. The proposed site design with larger lots transitioning to estate-size properties, combined with the grade%levation difference that exists along the eastern portion of the southern boundary will assist in providing a natural buffer that should minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The Police Dept. is currently providing service to this property as it's within the City. The Fire Dept. can provide emergency services and fire protection within established response time goals as the nearest fire station is only a mile away to the east. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed along the frontage of the site adjacent to W. Overland Rd., along the west side of the Ridenbaugh Canal and along the east side of the gas pipeline consistent with the Pathways Master Plan. These pathways will assist in providing a safe route to the future school(i.e. Blue Valley Elementary) on the east side of the larger Southridge development along Linder Rd. and to the common areas proposed in this development. Usable open space is proposed consisting of pathway corridors and(2) large 4-and 5.3-acre common open space areas. Quality amenities are proposed consisting of a clubhouse with a swimming pool and tot lot with children's play equipment. Residents of this development will also be able to use common areas and amenities in the larger Southridge development to the east. Page 7 Page 27 Item#2. • "Evaluate open space and amenity requirement and criteria for consistency with community needs and values."(2.02.01B) A total of 22.3 acres (or 2601o) of common open space is proposed within the development with 15.55 acres (or 18%) meeting the standards for qualified open space, which exceeds UDC standards. Two (2) large common areas of 3.8-and 5-acres in size accessible from multi-use pathways and several other smaller common areas are proposed within the site. Quality amenities consisting of a clubhouse, swimming pool, tot lot and multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with UDC standards. Staff is of the opinion the proposed open space and amenities will meet the community needs in this area. Residents of this development will also be able to use the common areas and amenities in the larger Southridge development to the east. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits." (4.05.03B) This site was annexed into the City in 2006 but has yet to be developed. Development of this vacant/underutilized property is preferred over fringe area development. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)." (3.01.01A) The TIS estimates this development will generate 2,398 vehicle trips per day. The PMpeak hour level of service for Overland Rd. is "better than E", which is an acceptable level of service per the ACHD report. WASD submitted comments stating that approximately 178 school aged children are estimated to be generated by this development; enrollment at Mary McPherson Elementary School, Victory Middle School and Meridian High School is currently under capacity(see Section VIII.I). According to the Community Development's school impact analysis, enrollment at all of these schools will be slightly over capacity at build-out of building permits already issued in this area at 10501o, 108%and 109%respectively (see Section VIII.J). The closest City Park to this site is an 18-acre park in Bear Creek Subdivision to the east, midway between Overland and Victory on the east side of Stoddard Rd.A future City Park is designated on the FL UM within a mile of this site to the south in the vicinity of the northeast corner of S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Victory Rd. Two (2) large 4-and 5.3 acre common areas are proposed in this development for use by residents. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are proposed as required with this development. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan if an additional housing type is added as noted in the above analysis. Page 8 Page 28 Item#2. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Rezone: History: This property was originally annexed in 2006(AZ-06-031) with the larger Southridge Subdivision annexation. A Development Agreement(Inst. #107074205)was required with annexation which was later amended and replaced with a new agreement(Inst. #H 1102269— Southridge MDA-08-004). That agreement was then amended and replaced with a new agreement which currently governs development of the property (Inst. #113077158—MDA-12- 009). The proposed rezone is for 7.15 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-2 zoning district and 28.89 acres of land from the R-2 and R-4 to the R-8 zoning district,which includes adjacent Overland Rd.right-of-way to the section line.A legal description and exhibit map of the rezone area is included in Section VIII.A. A total of 254 residential dwelling units are proposed to develop on the site at an overall gross density of 3.03 units per acre consistent with the associated LDR and MDR FLUM designations for the site. Existing Development Agreement(Inst.#113077158): The existing Development Agreement(DA)requires a minimum of 1,000 and a maximum of 1,286 residential dwelling units to be constructed in the overall 290.87 acre Southridge development, unless otherwise specifically approved by the City Council through subsequent applications. This calculation includes 598 apartment units in the R-15 zoning district directly to the east of the subject property(Southridge Apartments fka DBTV Southridge Farm Property); a maximum of 250 units in the TN-C zoning district at the southwest corner of W. Overland Rd. and S. Spanish Sun Way(Beacon at Southridge); and 438 (or balance to total 1,286 units)in the R-2,R-4 and R-8 zoning districts. Since the DA was approved,the R-15 and TN-C zoned portions of the site have been removed from the DA and developed separately under subsequent DA's [Southridge Apartments—Inst. #1 1 1 09962 1 (RZ-11-002), amended as Inst. #2015-112096 (MDA-15-010); and Overland and Linder Apartments—Inst. #2017-096818 (H-2017-0093). The conditional use permit(H-201 7- 0077)for the first and second phases of Southridge Apartments approved a total of 476 units; an amendment to the DA is currently in process to include an updated conceptual development plan for the third and final phase, which is proposed to contain a total of 164 units. The DA for Linder and Overland Apartments approved a total of 336 units, currently in the development process. Previous phases(1-5) of Southridge contain a total of 221 single-family detached units,which added to the number of units proposed in the subject plat(i.e. 254)total 474 units. This number exceeds the number of units originally anticipated in the R-2,R-4 and R-8 districts by 36 units; however,reducing the number of lots would decrease the density in this area to below that desired in the MDR designated area. Therefore, Staff recommends Council approve the number of lots proposed with the preliminary plat(i.e. "a subsequent application') in accord with the DA. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. Because Staff deems the proposed development to be in substantial conformance with the existing DA, Staff does not recommend a new DA is required with this application,nor any modifications to the agreement. Page 9 Page 29 Item#2. B. Preliminary Plat: History: This property was originally included as mega lots in the preliminary plat(PP-06-031) for the larger Southridge Subdivision to be re-subdivided in the future but a final plat was never recorded for the subject property. Record of Survey No. 9982 created the current configuration of the property(Parcels I and 7). The proposed preliminary plat consists of 254 buildable lots and 29 common lots on 83.77 acres of land in the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed is 4,369 square feet (s.f.)with an average lot size of 8,053 s.f.;the gross overall density is 3.03 units/acre with a net density of 5.4 units/acre. All of the 254 buildable lots are proposed to develop with single-family residential detached dwellings.As noted above in Section IV, Staff recommends another housing type(i.e. attached or townhomes)is provided in the R-8 zoned portion of this development to accommodate the various financial capabilities of future residents and provide diversity in housing choices in this area in accord with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to the City Council hearing,the plat should be revised accordingly(i.e.depict zero lot lines on lots where attached product is proposed) and conceptual elevations of the proposed housing type(s)should be submitted. Phasing: The plat is proposed to develop in four(4)phases as shown on the plat in Section VII.B below. The first phase will include the entry road and emergency access via Overland Rd. and the land adjacent to Overland Rd. The second phase is directly to the southeast and includes a large 3.8- acre common open space park area where a clubhouse, swimming pool and tot lot are proposed in accord with the DA,which requires these amenities to be constructed prior to occupancy of the 300t'single-family residential dwelling. A bridge over the Ridenbaugh Canal is also proposed to be constructed with the second phase as recommended by Staff which will provide another access from the east once a subsequent phase of Southridge to the east is developed. The third phase will encompass the area at the southeast corner of the development and the fourth phase includes the area at the southwest corner and west side of the development and includes another large 5-acre common open space area.Note:Planning and Fire Dept. Staff worked with the Applicant to amend the phasing plan from that originally submitted to ensure adequate access, timing of open space/amenities and interconnectivity with the second phase rather than the fourth phase as originally proposed. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing single-family home on Parcel#S 1223131250(Rice property)that is proposed to remain on a lot in the subdivision(i.e. Lot 64,Block 1). This home is required to hook-up to City water and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available.Any existing structures that don't conform to the dimensional standards of the R-8 district in UDC Table 11-2A-6 should be removed prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat in which they are located. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted uses in both the R-2 and R-8 zoning districts per UDC Table 11-2A-2: Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2A): Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R- 2 district in UDC Table I1-2A-4 and the R-8 district in(UDC Table 11-2A-6), as applicable. The minimum frontage required in the R-8 district is 40 feet; street frontage dimensions aren't depicted on the plat. The final plat should comply with the minimum dimensional standards of the applicable district. Page 10 Page 30 Item#2. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. There are three(3)common driveways proposed, depicted as"A","B"and"C"on the plat on Lots 18 and 26,Block 19 and Lot 41,Block 1. Such driveways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D.A common driveway exhibit is included in Section VII.0 but is not approved-some revisions are needed to the exhibits in regard to the building envelope/setbacks for homes at the ends of the common driveways (minimum 20' wide driveway access needs to be provided to all lots outside of the required parking pad area); updated exhibits that demonstrate compliance with the setback,building envelope and lot orientation standards in UDC 11-6C-3D.7 should be submitted prior to or with the final plat application.Because the placement of homes on Lots 17, 19,25 and 27,Block 10 will likely be beyond the required"hose lay"standards of the Fire Dept.,homes on these lots shall be sprinklered,unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall. A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveways should be filed with the Ada County Recorder,which should include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D; a copy of the recorded easement should be submitted to the Planning Division with the final plat for City Engineer signature.As an alternative,the easement can be graphically depicted on the plat with a note including the aforementioned information. Access(UDC 11-3A-31 One public street access (W. Timberwood Dr.)is proposed via Overland Rd.,an arterial street; an emergency only access via Overland Rd. is also proposed on Lot 1,Block 1 between Lots 18 and 19. Stub streets are proposed for future extension to the west to Parcel#51223233905,to the south to Val Vista subdivision, and to the east as depicted on the plat in accord with the Development Agreement. A bridge is proposed to be constructed over the Ridenbaugh Canal with Phase 2 for connectivity to the east. The stub street to the south is proposed to the Nichols property(Parcel#R8954840110). The Applicant has indicated that the Nichols' have no plans to redevelop their property in the near future. Staff recommends the Applicant coordinate with the adjacent property to the west of the Nichols' property(Parcel#R8954830350,Elton's)to determine if a stub street along the east boundary of their property might be a better option for future development if they plan to redevelop their property sooner than their neighbors. If so,the plat should be revised accordingly prior to the City Council hearing. A 50-foot wide ingress-egress easement(Inst. #107123370) from Overland Rd. is noted on the plat that has been terminated(Inst. #2019-089220). There is an existing blanket access easement across the Southridge property to the Rice Parcel(Inst. #2019-089221); once public street access is dedicated/provided to their property,the easement goes away automatically. Bulb-outs are proposed on Rio De Plata Dr. for traffic calming. ACHD is requiring many of the streets within the subdivision to be redesigned to reduce the length of the roadways or to include the use of passive design elements (not to include stop signs, speed humpsibumps and valley gutter). The plat should be revised in accord with ACHD's requirements. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Page 11 Page 31 Item#2. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot. Staff is of the opinion sufficient parking can be provided for this development. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): Ten-foot wide multi-use pathways are proposed on this site within the street buffer along W. Overland Rd.,along the east boundary adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal and along the Northwest gas pipeline in accord with the Pathways Master Plan and the Development Agreement. A 14- foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted for these easements prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat(s)in which they are located. If the pathway along Overland will be located entirely in the right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is not needed. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Where multi-use pathways are required,the pathway may take the place of the sidewalk. Detached sidewalks/pathways are proposed throughout the development. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Parkways (9.5' wide)are proposed along all internal public streets and should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W. Overland Rd., an entryway corridor, as proposed. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require buffers to be planted with a mix of trees and shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative groundcover. Just lawn and trees are proposed; Staff recommends a mix of shrubs and other vegetative groundcover is provided. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. At a minimum, one tree per 8,000 square feet of common area is required to be provided along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Landscaping is required along pathways per the standards in UDC 11-311-12C.Five-foot wide landscape strips are required on both sides of pathways planted with a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover.A minimum of one(1) tree per 100 linear feet of pathway is required.No landscaping is proposed along the pathway adjacent to the Ridenbaugh Canal.If trees are not allowed within NMID's easement, an additional minimum 5-foot wide area shall be provided outside of the easement in a common lot(s)for the required trees; bushes and vegetative groundcover should be provided in accord with UDC standards on either side of the pathway as required. A minimum of 5-feet of landscaping needs to be provided between Lot 41,Block 1 and the adjacent pathway. Landscaping is proposed within parkways as shown on the landscape plan. Because 9.5-foot wide parkways are proposed,trees within parkways are restricted to Class 11 trees as proposed. There are no existing trees on the site except for those on the Rice property; therefore,mitigation is not required. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G�: A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required for developments over 5 acres in size;because this property is 83.77 acres, a minimum of 8.38 acres of qualified open space is required. A total of 22.3 acres(or 26%) of common open space is provided within the overall development, 15.55 acres (or 18.5%)of which is qualified per the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B,which exceeds UDC standards(see open space exhibit in Section VII.E). Qualified open space consists of half Page 12 Page 32 Item#2. the street buffer along Overland Rd., linear open space, and open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area. Parkways along local streets also count toward the qualified open space requirement if they comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.5;parkways were not included in the open space calculations. This development will also be able to use the common open space areas in the larger Southridge development to the east as they will be governed by the same HOA. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1. A minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required for developments over 5 acres in size with one(1) additional amenity required for each additional 20 acres of development area. Based on a total of 83.77 acres of development area, a minimum of four(4)qualified site amenities are required. A clubhouse, swimming pool,tot lot with children's play equipment and three (3)different segments of multi-use pathways are proposed in accord with UDC standards and the Development Agreement. This development will also be able to use the site amenities in the larger Southridge development to the east as they will be governed by the same HOA. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Stormwater Drainage Rgport for the subdivision. Williams Northwest Gas Pipeline: The Williams Northwest gas pipeline crosses the southwest corner of this site within a 75-foot wide easement in common lots. Landscaping(grass) and a portion of the multi-use pathway is proposed within the easement(trees are prohibited). All construction and maintenance activities within the easement/right-of-way shall comply with the Williams Developers' Handbook and any other associated requirements. The Applicant shall include Williams in the initial planning stages to avoid project delays and so that safe development practices in the vicinity of the pipeline can be attained. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-0- The Ridenbaugh Canal is a large open waterway that runs along the northeast boundary of this site. The Irrigation District(NMID)has a 140-foot wide total easement for the canal with 60 feet being on this property(Inst. #800640). The easement does not encroach on any of the proposed buildable lots. The UDC allows waterways such as this to remain open when used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UC I I-IA-1; otherwise,they are required to be piped or otherwise covered per UDC 11-3A-6B. The decision-making body may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The Applicant is not proposing to improve the waterway as a water amenity or linear open space and requests Council approval of a waiver to leave the waterway open; fencing (6-foot tall open style metal to match existing fencing)is proposed to preserve public safety along the multi-use pathway.Because the Ridenbaugh Canal is a large facility and is mostly open throughout the City and because fencing is proposed between the pathway and the canal to preserve public safety, Staff recommends approval of the request. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C for fencing along waterways and the general fencing standards in 11-3A-7. Six-foot tall open style metal fencing(i.e. chain link)to match existing fencing is proposed between the multi-use pathway and the Ridenbaugh Canal to preserve public safety. Six-foot tall Page 13 Page 33 Item#2. solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas that are visible from the street in accord with UDC standards. The existing 6-foot tall solid masonry fencing along the southern boundary of the subdivision was required to be constructed as a provision of the DA and is proposed to remain. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manuan: The Applicant submitted sample elevations of the homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.F. A mix of 1-and 2-story homes are proposed in a variety of finish materials and colors; lot dimensions are depicted indicating the style of homes proposed on different lot sizes within the development. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The Development Agreement limits the height of homes in this development along the southern boundary shared with Val Vista and Aspen Cove subdivisions to a maximum height of 22 feet [measured from either the mid-point of the front of the lot at the top back of curb,or the mid- point of the rear of the lot(whichever is more restrictive)],to the average height of the highest roof surface. In the event the maximum height of the home as so measured is lower than the top of the 6-foot tall masonry fence,then the maximum height may be increased so that the maximum height is equal to the elevation of the top of the fence at midpoint of the rear of the lot. The lots along this boundary are also required to provide a minimum 50-foot rear setback and are limited to no more than 14 lots as proposed per the approved conceptual development plan. The Development Agreement requires the Applicant to submit and obtain Design Review approval prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for each phase of development; or submit and obtain City Council approval(or a development agreement modification)of plans that propose specific and detailed architectural guidelines for this development and that address(at a minimum)variety in structures within a block,building mass,building materials,rooflines,colors and architectural styles(provision#6.3.13). Staff recommends the rear and/or side of 2-story homes that face W.Overland Rd.incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for this facility.The design of the clubhouse shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on December 17,2020. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject RZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Tamara Thompson and Jason Densmer,The Land Group(Applicant's Representatives) b. In opposition: None Page 14 Page 34 Item#2. C. Commenting: Scott Nichols (on behalf of himself and his neighbors—Elton's, Przybos' and Voglemore's); Mike Vo lei d. Written testimony: Tamara Thompson,The Land Group(Applicant's Representative);Ken& Sherry Fawcett; Scott&Jennifer Nichols, Curtis&Naomi Elton, Steve& Susan Przybos&Michael&Brenda Vo leg more e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Neighbors to the south in Val Vista Subdivision to the south would like their view sheds preserved with development, b. Mr.Nichols is agreeable to the location of the stub street to the south to his ro e c. Would like a condition placed on this development&the associated housing to o only allow "dark sky"compliant lighting so that it doesn't encroach on their properties; d. Preference for the two(2)lots east of the stub street to the south(i.e. Lots 1 and 2, Block 10)to be shifted to the common area(i.e. Lot 3,Block 10)to the northwest; e. Would like the height of residential vegetation adjacent to the Val Vista subdivision fence to be limited to 10' above ground level so views aren't obstructed; £ Would like suitable drainage for irrigation&runoff to be maintained from the west end of the Southridge fence northwest toward Overland Rd.; and, g_ The Fawcett's are against the proposed R-8 zoning and would like the stub street to the south shifted further to the west between Lots 4 and 5,Block 10. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The majority of the Commission did not feel another housing typeis necessary to be provided within the development per Staff s recommendation—they felt the variety of lot sizes along with the apartments to the east is sufficient; b. The request for a 10' limit on the height of residential vegetation on lots abutting Val Vista Subdivision and difficulties in enforcing such a requirement; c. Would like to see the common open space better distributed near the smaller R-8 zoned lots—most of the common area is near the larger lots, d. Not in favor of the proposed common driveways providing access to six(6)lots— prefer restriction to no more than four(4) lots accessed via common driveway 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. The Commission recommended the Applicant consider replacing a few of the buildable lots in the R-8 area with common area; b. The Commission recommended the Applicant consider reducing the number of units accessed via the common driveways; and, C. The Commission did not require another housing type(s)to be provided within the development. 5. Outstanding issue(s)for City Council: a. The Applicant requests a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B to allow the Ridenbau h canal to remain open and not be piped. Note: The Applicant submitted a revised plat, landscape plan and qualified open space exhibit that includes an approximate hal-acre pocket park in Lot 15, Block 4 in the R-8 portion of the development where smaller lots are proposed in response to the Commission's recommendation. This change results in an increase of qualified open space to 5.71 acres for the overall development. Page 15 Page 35 Item#2. VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Descriptions& Exhibit Map L EGAL DESCRIFnDN { THE Page Iof2 9 LAND anhw—dGROUP September 1.Or 2020 Project No.:116165 5OUTHRIDG E SO UTH SUBDIVISION R-Z,AREA 1 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land bcated in the Northwest gtuarter of section 23.Township 3 North,Range 1 west,Boise merid ian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particula rly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner OfSection 23 of said Township 3 North,Range 1 west; Thence south OW56'19"westr 2629.46 feet on the west line of said Section 23 to the'Nest one quarter Corner of said section 23; Thence5outh 89'04'17'Eastr a distance of 934.55feet on the east-west midsection line of said Section 23 to the Southwest corner of Parcel"6"as shown on Record of Survey No.10035 of Ada County Records; Thence North 22'09'32'west,a distance Of 5213.19 feet on the westerly boundary I ine Of said Pane I B; Thence leaving the waste Hy Line of said Pa rce I B,5o trth 89°16'08"East,a distance of 151.97 feet; Thence North&B'17'27"East,a distance of 30.49 feet; Thence south 21'20'10'Eastr a distance of 1.60 feet to a point o nthe westerly boundary line of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No_10035,said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence on the westerly boundary line of Parcel B ofsaid Record of survey No.1D035 for the following courses and distances: Thence south Sg'16'08"East,a dicta nce of 0.68feet to a paint of curve; Thence 25.41 feet on the arc of a curve to the left*said curve having a radius of 20.43feet,a central angle of 71'15'53",a chard bea ring of North 54'13'05'East,and a chord length of 23 E0 feet to a point of reverse Eurve; Thence 184.71 feet an the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having radius of 233.34feet,a central angle of 45'21'22",a chard bearing of North 41't 5'S0'Eastr and a chard length of 179.93 feet; Thence North 47`39'35"West,a d istance of 213.39 fear a portion of sa id line being on the exterior boundary line of said Parcel"B"of Record of survey No_10035,to a point on a curve on the Eenter ine of west overland Road; Thence 179.99feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 10MUC feet~a central angle of 10'18'45",a chard bearing of North 56'49'41'East,and a chard length of 179.7d feet on said west oveda nd Road Eenteriine; Thence leaving said centerline and westerly boundary line of Parcel Br south 27'49,21"East;a distance of 127.95 feet to a point of curve; Thence 7.12 feet On the a rc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 200M feet,a central angle of 02'02'19",a drard bea ring of South 29'50'30'East,and a chord length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; 462 East Shore Dive,SuIL 100.Ease,Idak 85616 206.MJ a641 thNandgroupinc.[am Page 16 Page 36 Item#2. Septem her 10.202D Page Z Thence 7012 feet an the arc of a cur`+e to the Iek said curve having a radius of 2W.Oa fee-.a cemr-al arrle of 2#07'01',a chard bearing of South MP 55'1W East,and a chard lensth of M.56 feed Thence Soj-h 49`59'40'Easy a distance c f 639.24 feet tc a point of cure; Thence 2C4 63 feet on the arr of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 3COGO feet'a central argyle of W G'54',a chord bearing of South 69'31'07' East and a chard lergh of 2W.f 9 fret; Thence South B9`03'34'Easy a di=nce of M.M feet to a pnirrt of curve; Thence 119t 31 feet on the ars of a curve to the right,said curve haying a radius of 15D.D0 feed,a cerrtral arr.lr cif 45'36T 23',achord bearing of South W09'IX Wes#,and a rfpnrd leVhof 116.19 fret; Thence North 89`03'34'of n2,a dL=nrs of MIX feet to-a pant of cure; Thence 175L 15 fret on the arc of a curve to the right,said curoe haying a radius of 150.D0 feed,a central angle of fpF 5T 0Z",a chord blearing of North 55'36 33'{blest,and a dtiord lertgth of M5.M fret; Thence North 21'20'10'WeM a di=nce of ZM.25 feet to the PUNT OfBEGINNING. The above described parcel contains SM 2 rres more or less. PREPARED BY: The Land Group.Inc- I-Aist Jr116 mes R.' :sh bum TA Sine Peer tiro F La x=m Arditcdkure 4 Cial Er&eenrra i 05 462 E.Shore Orire,SLto!MwEngle,Idelhn23-Y6FPZ09.939A*414www.thz!hrqyoupinCoom Page 17 Page 37 Item#2. LEGAL DESCRIRTION :, on#2. THE ry Page 1OF2 LAN GROUP September 10,2020 Project No.:116165 SOUTHRIDGE SOUTH SUBDIVISION R-2,AREA 2 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Comer of Section 23 of said Township 3 North,Range 1 West; Thence South 00*56'19"West,2529.48 feet on the West line of said Section 23 to the West One Quarter Corner of said Section 23; Thence South 89*04'17"Fast a distance of 834.55 feet on the east-west mid-section line of said Section 23 to the Southwest oorner of Parcel"B"as shown on Record of Survey No. 10035 of Ada County Records; Thence North 22*09'32"West,a distance of 520.19 feet on the westerly boundary line of said Parcel B; Thence leaving the westerly Line of said Parcel B,South 99' 16'08" East a distance of 151.97 feet,- Thence North 88*17'27" East a distance of 30.48 feet; Thence South 21*20'10" East:a distance of 1.40 feet to a point on the westerly boundary lime of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No_10035; Thence on the westerly boundary line of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No. 10035 for the fol lowing courses andi distances: Thence South 89' 16'08"East,a distance of 0.68 feet to a point of curve, Thence 25.41 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 20.43 feet,a central angle of 71'15'53",a ch o rd bea ri ng of North 54'13'05"East,and a chord length of 23-80 feet to a point of reverse curve,, Thence 194.71 feet on the arc of a curve to the right'said curve having a radius of233.34 feet,a central angle of 45'21'22",a ch o rd bea ri ng of No rth 41'15'50" East,and a chord l ength of 179.93 feet; Thence North 47*39'35"West,a distance of 215.39 feet a portion ofsaid line being on the exterior boundary line of said Parcel"B"of Record of Survey No. 10035,to a point on a curve on the centerline of West Overland Read, Thence 179.99 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 1A00.00 feet,a central angle of 10°18'45",a chord bearing of No rth 66°49'41'East,a nd a c ho rd length of 179.74 feet o n said West Overland Road centerline; Thence leaving said centerline and westerly boundary line of Parcel B,South 27*49'21"East,a distance of 127.95 feet to a point of curve, Thence 7.12 feet on the arc of a curvets the left,said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 02'02'19",a chard bea ring of South 28'50'30"East,and a cho rd length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; Thence 70.22 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 20'07'01",a chord bearing of South 3T 55'10"East,and a chord length of 69-86 feet; Thence South 49°58'40" East,a distance 4539.24 feet to a point of curve; 462 East Share orlwt,su1te 104.Eagle, Idaho 83616 208 939.4041 thelandgroupinc cam Page 18 Page 38 Item#2. September 11,2020 Page 2 Thence 204.63 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said cu rve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle of 39'04'54",a chord bearing of South 690 31'07"East,and a chord length of 200.69 feet; Thence South 89'03'34" East,a distance of 399.44 feet to the POINTOF BEGINNING,- Thence continuing South 89*03'34"East,a distance of 305.17 feet to a point of curve; Thence 69.16 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said rurve having a radius of 55.00 feet,a centra l a ngle c f 72*02'44 a chord b eari ng of No rth 54*55'04" East,a nd a chord le ngth of 64.59 feet; Thence North 180 53'42" East,a distance of 27.05 feet; Thence So uth 000 14'06" East,a distance of 52.66 feet to a point of curve, Thence 87.52 feet on the arc of a cu rve to th a right,said curve having a radius of 55.00 feet,a central angle of 91*10'32',a chord bearing of South 45'21'10"West,and a chard length of 78.58 feet; Thence North 890 03'W'West,a distance of 204.56 feet to a point of curve; Thence 111.97 feet on the arc of a cu rue to the right,sai d curve having a rad i us of 149.19 feet,a central anglecf42*59'57',a chord bearing of North 67*40'52"West,and a chord length of 109.36 feet, Thence North 46'10'53"West,a distance of 7.55 feet to the PUINT OF BEG INNING The above described parcel contains 0.35 acres more or less_ PREPARED BY: The Lard Group,Irrc. �'L L4 + 7880 1 19�-1103--202 UO 1� James R.Washburn Site Planning■Landscape Architecwre■CM ErtIffineerings Surveying 462 E_Share Drive,Suite IN■Eagler Idaho 83616+P MI 939.4U41•www.th a an dgmupinc.com Page 19 Page 39 Item#2. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE L A N D Page 1 OF 2 �= GROUP September 10,2020 Project No.:116165 SOUTHRIDGE SOUTH SUBDIVISION R-8 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23,Township 3 North,Range 1~blest,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particulariy described as follows: Commenring at the Northwest Corner of Section 23 of said Township 3 North,Range I Vilest; Thence South 00*56'19'West,2629.48 feet on the West line of said Section 23 to the West One Quarter Corner of said Section 23; Thence South 89*04'17" East,a distance of 834.55 feet on the east-west mid-section line of said Section 23 to the Southwest corner of Parcel"B"as shown on Record'of Survey No. 10035 of Ada County Records- Th en cc North 22*09'32"West,a distance of 520.19 feet on the westerly boundary line of said Parcel B; Thence leaving the westerly Line of said Parcel B,South 89° 16'08" East a distance of 151.97 feet; Thence North 88*17'27"East,a distance of 30.48 feet; Thence South 21*20'10" East,a distan ce c f 1.40 feet to a point on the westerly boundary line of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No_10035; Thence on the westerly boundary line of Parcel 6 of said Record of Survey No. 10035 for the following courses and distances: Thence South 89' 16'08" East,a distance of0.68 feet to a point of curve, Thence 25.41 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 20.43 feet,a central angle of 71°15'53",a chord bearing of North 54D 13'05'East,and a chord length of 23,90 feetto a point of reverse curve, Thence 184.71 feet on the arc c f a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 233.34 feet,a central angle of 45°21'22",a chord beadng of No rth 41D 15'50'East,a nd a c ho rd length of 179.93 feet; Thence North 47*39'35"West,a distance of 215.39 feet a portion of said line being on the exterior boundary line of said Parcel"B"of Record of Survey No- 10035,to a point on a curve on the centerline of West Overland Road, Thence 179.99 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 1000.00 feet,a central angle of 10°18'45",a chord bearing of North 66D 49'41'East,and a chord length of 179.74 feet on said West Overland Road centerline; Thence leaving said centerline and westerly boundary line of Parcel B,South 27*49'21''East,a distance of 127.95 feet to a point of cu rve; Thence 7.12 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet, a central angle of 02'02'19",a chord bearing of South 28'50'30"East,and a chord length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; Th en ce 70.22 feet o n the arc of a cu rve to the left,sai d curve having a radi us of 200.00 feet,a ce ntral angle of 20°07'01",a ch o rd bea ring of South 39°55'10"East,and a chord length of 69-86 feet; Th en ce South 49°58'40" East:a distan ce c f 360.48 feet to a poi nt of curve,sa id point being the POINT OF BEGINNING, 462 East Shore Orlwe,Suite 104.Eagle, Idaho 83616 2118 939.4041 thelandgroupinc cam rage/-u Page 40 Item#2. September 11,2020 Page 2 Thence 276.80 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 275.00 feet,a central angle cf 57'40' 15",a chord bearing of North 79'53'16" East,and achord length of 2-65.26 feet; Thence North 51°03'09" East,a distance of 575.25 feet to a point on a curve; Thence 201.33 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 850.00 feet,a central angle of 13'34' 16",a chord bearing of North 44'11'50"West,and a chord length of 200.96 feet; Thence North 39"Di'02" East,a distance of 75.06 feet; Thence North 14"38'"' East,a distance of 106.48 feet; Thence North 860 33' 13" East,a distance of 101.99 feet; Thence South 25"35'04" East,a distance of 45.73 feet; Thence South 39'58'55" East,a distance of 85.38 feet; Thence South 67'35'34" East,a distance of 112.36 feet; Thence North 20"11'27" East,a distance of 103.27 feet; Thence South 72°17 28" East,a distance of 172_81 feet to a point of curve; Thence 77_62 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 80.00 feet,a central angle of 55'35'25",a chord bearing of North 79'54'50" East,and achord length of 74.61 feet; Thence South 15"07'20" East,a distance of 122.50 feet; Thence North 86'31'43" East,a distance of 190.50 feet, Thence South03"28' 17" East,a distance of3.59 feet to a point of curve; Thence 31.15 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 70.00 feet,a central angle of 25'30'01",a chord bearing of South 16° 13'19" East,and a chord length of 30.90 feet to a point of compou nd cu rve; Thence 136.24 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 70.00 feet,a centra l angle c f 111'30'41",a ch a rd bea ring of So uth 84"43'39"East,and a c hard length of 115.73 feet; Thence North 39'31'01" East,a distance of 141.01 feet to a paint cf curve; Thence 232.80 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 130.00 feet,a central angle of 102°36'12%a chord bearing of South 89"10'53"East,and a chord length of 202.92 feet; Thence South 37"52'47" East,a distance of 369.31 feet to a paint of curve; Thence 389.27 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle cf 74'20'42 a chard bearing of South 00°42'26" East,and a chord length of 362.53 feet; Thence South 36'27 55"West,a distance of 34-82 feetto a paint of curve; Thence 62.73 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet,a central angle of 23'57'38",a chord bearing of South 24°29'06"West,and a chord length of 62.27 feet; Thence North 89"02'41"West,a distance of 60-88 feet to a point of curve; Thence 98.42 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle cf 18'47'49",a chard bearing of North 79°387 46"West,and a chard length of 97.98 feet to a point of reverse curve; Site Planning■La ndscape Archite-m e■Civil Engineering■Surwying 462 E.Share Drive,Suite IN.Eagle,Idaho 83616■P 2D8.939.4041■www.the4arvdgri3upinc.com Page 41 Item#2. September 11,2020 Page 3 Thence 98.42 feet on the arc of a curve to th a left,said cu rve having a radius of 300.00 feet a central angle cf 18*47'49',a chord bearing of North 79*39 46"West,and a chord length of 97.98 feet; Thence North 89'02'41"West,a distance of 252.39 feet to a,point of curve, Thence 305.36 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 850.00 feet,a central angle of20'35'00 a chord bearing of North 78*45'11"West,and a chard length of 303.72 feet; Thence South 18"53'42"West,a distance of 177.29 feet to a point of curve, Thence 69.16 feet on the arc of curve to the Fight said curve having a radius of 55.00 feet,a central angle of72*02'44 ,a chord bearing of South 54'55'04"West,and a chard length of 64.69 feet; Thence North 890 03'34'West a distance of 704.61 feet to a point of curve; Thence 204.63 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle of39*04'54 ,a chord bearing of North 69*31'07"West,and a chard length of 200.69 feet, Thence North 49'58'40"West,a distance of 278.76 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING_ Th a above described parcel cor ta i ns 29-89 a ores m o re or less_ PREPARED BY: The Land Group, Inc. L Ar ' 888 9-10-2020 Of James R.Washburn IVIL Site Planning■Landseape,4rchiru--=re■Civil Engineering■Surveying 462 E_Share Drive,Suite 1W■Eagler Idaho 83616*P 2AN.939.4041■www.thelandgrDupinc.com Page 42 Item#2. oca W=O 1.- -1co Wei xm[XlCR2 `_ 'ti •� � _ � � r •�" xm�x�mae � t Sheet 1 of 1 Page 23 Page 43 Item#2. B. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 12/7/2020) Updated 115121 =Bog CD r �� rarr i ...... ,. t� ------Jrrrr' 1 r _ • r ¢ I ... '............. PreirrInag Het-PrDjed Overview sip ppi �_ -- r •uw..- w �vRUYL Page 24 Page 44 Item#2. d =ate ---------------------------------- 7 ... Mp r•_ _ - -� - ---------- ------- 1pP�IImIImInBIT PIet-!Veal — r— $$$$ PPP.1 d �9 ---- ✓ r, VI. I <'- 711, �. �.—..�. -_ r 1 Y-i � `yam y�,• '�h _ .� --.. � f ___='-_ ' _ - _ '' � •'���'�!_ ,. -1. � '^a W�PI mma7 Plat-/veaY — — `_2 1 PPss Page 25 Page 45 Item#2. IC6 u x O r rl G �90wln _a +are R r s.r Prellmnery Pre1-Propma Zoning summry O L t --- '►PPelimrn rrr Prat-Pr000sea Pinig summary PP3 Y Page 26 Page 46 »m#2 C. Common Driveway Exhibits—NOT APPROVED a& --Lu Mc • || ��■ � ml §R9ll■dk VAac -gmq humeAlicNmw0 | � � W ©mgg4 q, a&!pn■S | _ !| , | , /� • > �| t�° z :% ¥- i / � � . #|; ■� �- all �& m , � a c— �z g.:� � i � ■. � � � . �. �— � . . . . a � I -- � Page 2 Pqe� »m#2 �& _- LU � jmjiDJd w e Acma Mm - qqm Amu @au0mm0Q ; ! W uq q M mkiS mn,Se■PNq©S , L---___- p --- » & E O + so M@ a! '` §■ r \ _¥ /}\ t, . ---- _ - - ] , --�� AFL-- $ 46 ___ JL6 to �-.a-- � /JR : ------ ------------ , a § Page 28 Pqe# Item#2. 06 u.ro nruw7 r e°Ca fold Alcuiuli�aid „ 3 Acmimiao - s;jgjq 3 I�uminiaa uouaul03 w gLu uoisiAipgnS N#nog B5pu4;nos I I I I Joe I II Ce2 As y� ` f 14 ram` 1 I' j I I�1 I + k I I F I I I 1 1 J J J { 4 - `� I y /FF 5 uw��u�41 wu Page 29 Page 49 Item#2. D. Landscape Plan (date: 5/17/2020) Updated 114121 o� Wes.» pp., 'w g R � Area I - Area 3 - - i = I Landscape Gp dear ....-..._ L1.00 ms PreliminaryPlal Lantlscape Plan-Area 1 u.oi Page 30 Page 50 Item#2. d �a J 4 f . ' .. its ss:at iistst ian: 4 ru.ar unr rrrua.r �� A'�PAR ImrnnryPlat LnnefCepe gelF�Ua&f LI_02 I 1 ` - -__i _ .1 --- ��- ---------- 1„• — I , > F } f H _ J L I _. 1 � r / 17 xT r i N Or Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan-Area 3 L1.03 Page 31 Page 51 Item#2. E. Open Space Exhibit— Updated 115121 3 �,�1 Areal Areal AfN] Arca4 Area] Area6 Areal ' 16.M8 a2-656 23,Nll 113,wq I 1A,174 113203 25,9fi4 Area 6 Area 9 Aree F0 Area 11 A1ea 12 Area 13 Area 14 3a2.d6: 63.134 12.83] U.512 3130i 2: 25 1i-0105 -------------»--- uea Alae ..1 5 et 11.1:3 *ri �_�`��--^-~-� r � � Rolesle Fe 23.96 all IIII � C r �E 1 14 - ` � r as 1p �� ` _ f � ■ \� -. ■ �h 4 ■ ; 3: a ° ■ 13 i s` 5 A 3 11 11 V MrF LAND WE G R 0 U P Pr,lrblb- To �• ,ar Page 32 Page 52 Item#2. F. Conceptual Building Elevations +60-ftLot Width +60-ft Lot Width mm law. lilt- K.r +6o-ft Lot Wi&h +SQ-ft Lot Width Or�kz MINE oil oil jNE 3,= Page 33 Page 53 Item#2. +Soft Lot Width +SO-ft Lot Width � • iYie1 0.. r •_••r A&Z.. am 1: ■ �u � _- - -��.� _'ter•. 1 •... .... .... .... JA , . +44ft Lot Width +44ft Lot Width 7. --=- =--- ---= 1 - - 00 Page 34 Page 54 Item#2. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION A minimum of 10 days prior to the City ro,,neil hearing the preliminary plat(and landseape plan) shall be FeViSed to inelude aMthff hOUSiHg type(S) (i.e. Single famil attaehed OF tOWHhOMeS)in the R 8 portion of the development; and eoneeptual elevation the additional housing type(s) shall be submitted.Zeiw Unes shag be depieted on the plat or The Commission did not recommend another housing type be provided. 1. Development of the subject property shall comply with the terms of the existing Development Agreement(MDA-12-009, Inst. #113077158),unless otherwise amended. 2. Development of the subject preliminary plat shall be consistent with the phasing plan included in Section VII.B. 3. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access via W. Overland Rd. other than the accesses approved with this subdivision. b. Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R-2 district in UDC Table 11-2A-4 and the R-8 district in(UDC Table 11-2A-6), as applicable. 4. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict shrubs along with the required trees within the street buffer along W. Overland Rd. as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.3a.A minimum 35 foot wide street buffer is required. along W. Overland Rd., an entryway corridor. b. Landscaping shall be depicted along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; include a mix of trees(minimum of 1 per 100 linear feet of pathway), shrubs, lawn, and/or other vegetative groundcover. If landscaping(trees)is not allowed within NMID's easement for the Ridenbaugh Canal,an additional minimum 5-foot wide area shall be provided outside of the easement in a common lot(s) for the required trees. c. Include a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping between Lot 41,Block 1 and the adjacent pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. d. Include a calculations table that demonstrates compliance with the standards for street buffer(11-313-7C),pathway(11-3B-12C)and common open space(11-3G-3E.2) landscaping; include required vs. provided number of trees. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district and UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. An exhibit for the common driveways shall be submitted with the final plat application(s)that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures in accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.7. All common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. 8. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for all common driveways,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface Page 35 Page 55 Item#2. capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. This may be accomplished through a separate recorded easement submitted to the Planning Division with the final plat for City Engineer signature; or,the easement may be graphically depicted on the plat with a note including the aforementioned details. 9. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 10. Ten-foot(10')wide multi-use pathways shall be constructed on the site as depicted on the landscape plan. Fourteen-foot(14')wide public pedestrian easements shall be submitted in accord with Park's Department requirements per the Pathways Master Plan for all multi-use pathways within the site that are outside the public right-of-way. Coordinate the details of the easements with Kim Warren,Park's Department. 11. All existing structures that don't conform to the dimensional standards of the district shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer on the phase in which they are located. 12. All construction and maintenance activities within the 75-foot wide Northwest gas pipeline easement/right-of-way shall comply with the Williams Developers' Handbook and any other associated requirements. The Applicant shall include Williams in the initial planning stages to avoid project delays and so that safe development practices in the vicinity of the pipeline can be attained. 13. The Ridenbaugh Canal shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B,unless otherwise waived by City Council.Note: The Applicant requests a waiver to this standard to allow the canal to remain open and not be piped. 14. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for this facility. The design of the clubhouse shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 15. In accord with the Development Agreement(Inst. #113077158—MDA-12-009),the height of homes along the southern boundary of the subdivision shared with Val Vista and Aspen Cove subdivisions shall be limited to a maximum height of 22 feet [measured from either the mid- point of the front of the lot at the top back of curb,or the mid-point of the rear of the lot (whichever is more restrictive)],to the average height of the highest roof surface. In the event the maximum height of the home as so measured is lower than the top of the 6-foot tall masonry fence,then the maximum height may be increased so that the maximum height is equal to the elevation of the top of the fence at midpoint of the rear of the lot. The lots along this boundary are also required to provide a minimum 50-foot rear setback. See provisions #6.3.8 and#6.3.10. 16. In accord with the Development Agreement(Inst. #113077158—MDA-12-009),the Applicant shall submit and obtain Design Review approval prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for each phase of development; or submit and obtain City Council approval(or a development agreement modification)of plans that propose specific and detailed architectural guidelines for this development and that address(at a minimum)variety in structures within a block,building mass,building materials,rooflines,colors and architectural styles(provision#6.3.13). 17. The existing home on Parcel#S 1223131250(Rice property)that is proposed to remain on a lot in the subdivision(i.e. Lot 64,Block 1) shall be required to hook-up to City water and Page 36 Page 56 Item#2. sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. At such time,the septic tank shall be abandoned and the well solely used for irrigation purposes. 18. The address of the existing home on Parcel#S 1223131250(Rice property)that is proposed to remain on a lot in the subdivision(i.e. Lot 64,Block 1)shall be changed with development to the street from which access is taken(S.Rio De Oro Pl.); coordinate with Terri Ricks,Land Development on the new address. 19. The homes on Lots 17, 19,25 and 27,Block 10 shall be provided with residential fire sprinklers,unless otherwise approved by the Fire Marshall, as they appear to be beyond the required"hose lay" standards of the Fire Dept.If the location of the home does not require a "hose lay"exceeding 150 feet from the nearest point of fire truck access (i.e. the end of the shared driveway) to reach the most remote portion of the structure, the Fire Marshall may waive this requirement. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The farthest north connection in Overland currently is connecting right at an existing PRV. This connection needs to move south of the T that connects to the PRV. If the water main connection is moved south by one lot it should provide enough distance to connect outside of the PRV. 1.2 There needs to be a water valve between the two connections on Overland for redundancy purposes. 1.3 The City does not want public sewer lines in common driveways as shown for Driveway C. Either reroute sewer line or place road over top of sewer line. 1.4 Locate Infiltration Trenches to eliminate sewer service line crossings.No sewer mainlines in common drives, only sewer services(reminder that a maximum of three services are allowed into a manhole,with a minimum 30-degrees of angle separation). 1.5 The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by STRATA, dated 12/26/2007,which was prior to the termination gravel mining operation. Once the operation ceased,the site was reclaimed in preparation for the proposed subdivision in accordance with Dept. of Lands and project geotechnical engineer requirements. The existing soils consist of well-graded sands and gravels which are extremely well-suited for the proposed development as a subdivision according to Jason Densmer,PE,project engineer. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 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 Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. Page 37 Page 57 Item#2. 2.3 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. 2.4 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 14A. 2.5 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.6 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian.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. 2.7 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, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years.This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing 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. 2.8 In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life, non-safety and non- health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 2.9 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. 2.10 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. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.12 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.13 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-I 4B. 2.14 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. 2.15 The 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. 2.16 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 Page 38 Page 58 Item#2. 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. 2.17 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. 2.18 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 2.19 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 signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.21 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 Water Department at(208)888-5242 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. 2.22 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). 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 development plan approval. 2.24 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. Page 39 Page 59 Item#2. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218082&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=217080&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217426&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WeUink/DocView.aspx?id=217744&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217149&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianci0y.org,/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218116&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218003&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty K. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT No comments were received. L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.ory/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218126&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Page 40 Page 60 Item#2. IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-2 and R-8 and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of single- family detached homes on various lot sizes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This Findings is not applicable as the application is for a rezone, not annexation. 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 is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) Page 41 Page 61 Item#2. 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 VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 42 Page 62 Southridge South Subdivision Meridian City Council Rezone and Preliminary Plat January 12, 2021 o Ti 6 rAin THE LAND GROUP Vicinity Map , 1 7 i 3 parcels — highlighted in blue , 85.27 acres A ae�la � d ro } The properties are annexed, and a Development Agreement exists which l governs development. J F f; r W 0,-- as r { ��= THE LAND GROUP C17-1 % L19-r C16 L17 • • C15 , C18 i, L18 !f.. 017h'HLd KD /ROAD —, i� L22 - REZONE R8 �.° AREA:±63.02 AC C20 \, Q' co l POB:REZONE R8 N ?s - • • - • C5 ` LU L26 N • � � M) c 031 �a 1 L11 N PARCEL"B" I C10 i1-, ` v L4 C3 ROS#9982 C9 I i --L28 - - — lop L8 CB,� f' C12 REZONE R2 i--L12 AREA:±22.25 AC L C13 L13 Li L14 W1/4 SEC.23 . POB:REZONE R2 �r CIA SEC.23 �Y _ Exhibit T" a 5ao� loon' ��\\ �/firy�s� `�y�!.%ice _r �i►. � I f /PROPERTY FARM (EXH C) Development ♦ ♦• ■ ��i� ,;� � !� - ♦ ♦ ♦ � /�r 1 ♦ ♦ � � /�_ IIIIIli1 ♦ ♦ ♦ % ♦ O � III Agreement �� ���� 1♦ � � ♦ �����o � �� � ������ liiiiiii� ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ �� Master �� �� � ����♦ ��� s ♦ �� gulllll Concept Plan ��/��� ���� ���� . ■�■ 111 �� ri• ►. `��������•i��i■� ■ fir �fj�■■s■■�j�/� ���i goal THE �r - `'; LAND GROUP v -------- _______�___ ��nd Road _CIS OF YEIUIYB&—______�n Yal-A-Part _ __��'�� `\\ M I Sauthridge n..�.�s ...... / J m o art __ —_ _ Apart me Y I•A-P -_ _�_�--- 11 �� aJc nw ` Not-A-Part` I T ImO�aut l t £ o `\ R aw j I li 4o Part No.5) Preliminary Plat 254 Single I �`L "'/ � 1`'► / � non �-� � ' �� � , .,�� r`` � t ;� i l r.ol ll + H , Family �~ � • acresof open Y• in 4rir in TW { N Na/ NI•I1n r / Y I� YN-AIall 1 •ml w rw� , rlu :J 1 __ R .�-�—__ s_3nq• a. LANI �� v Val Vista Subdivision Val Vista Subdivision No.2 1 "� ..�nr...l... � I � HNw. / — �){♦ dwm N I Y I•IiroN. Awn Caw iidialk om Preliminary Plat-Project Overview ""= / Open Space Calculations s fl Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area i Area 8 Area 7 16.358 14Z655 123,2911 13,309 114,174 113.203 25,954 �f— ir Area 6 Area 9 Area 10 Area 11 Area 12 Area 13 Area 14 342.857 50,134 12,837 34,612 31,307 25,42E 1174,705 -- —————— Total Area - - -r- P M Square Feet 11.043,753 / Acres 123.96 �.._ I � ftw jj Preliminary Plat 14 - 10 23.96 acres of open space � 3 + \\�\ j 12 � \m� 11 THE -_ _ . _. . . . . . _ . . . . . LAND GROUP IP i *,r 0� 50, 100, i� Previous a Preliminary Platr i 22.3 acres of open space N z' THE LAND - GROUP Conceptual Building Elevations 60 Lots s THE ;. LAND GROUP Conceptual Building Elevations Lots R y MY�V �L r LAND GROUP Conceptual Building Elevations - - 40' Lots - - elk r� ------ ..... �%A. TH E LAND u GROUP 1 • W% or Mw - 10- LAND GROUP Preliminary Plat Phasing Plan C � 11■1 � .� THE LAND �! GROUP I ■ Stub Streets 1, rL - G Mr � y - �Ya�V:�a� - .:i. , WValVistaG F _ W Val Vlsta 6t ._ THE #� t LAND ��': GROUP - h • • Final Plat m'"°"'" Southridge Subdivision Phase 3 Southridge Subdivision Phase 2 FIE.SSxWR516216 Located in the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, Located in the Southeast One Quarter of Northeast One Quarter of Secti . .Rs7mo Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, Township 3 North, Flange 1 West,Boise Meridian, EsrarRSPFFo Meridian,Ada County,Idaho Meridian,Ada County, Idaho 2020 2017 rawoxulxuNcw wsTNsl.w lonsrssls EaLwe auuxuN cry 5.14 crul�sF xP.11weiSw rrer a510.No.IIo9689,0 __ ser,auE E651.7r 5.14 5.13 cPar e�NO.lan5AIs N1 S.2S W.Ovedand Rd. --—-- ——_ 4.�9 &24 .14 58BIY41'E 2681.75 S.14 $.13 S23 w — VV aePWd Rd —————— ——— g,23 8.24 5aW5719r511'E r / 5719899E / r°G 18.9Y ]J}OEaRLENF , 9y /'. /SOUTRRIDGE SUBDIVISION ' Nsi NP nlam,a '� °fJ I P N A SIE I saWiaeiNSEei i 3� 0 .� El 'L_l I I I I I I I xmT932+e eoo• �C f IIBB'.14']811 �� r J3,1.2V 101.18' 1 O I 70 I,y Cll BLOCK 8 ndLb, a}.�I FNTxR pF lJ ,40 //A/I{l�Ir O � ♦!/��// I I � tK �9 I (DO 1x 1 16 16 TE O O 11 ;y i BECrMNi y O O j =_ _ —W-1NOxtICtipS -- 7 JV l L4 $611 J�¢ // $LOOK O 8 O ES wi %�/ /j fts RN r � "\, POUUT OFEECIN`NIN6 I O i 1 190� 17 1n to ® la i I Ib SS9' 89.7 m 1 y�$,I 1 1e BLOCX 5 I 4 a i O — 85 RS REo'• K I I w 1 Q O I nil ,9F TE 1 I Le O 7 1 1 I Ing2 lB uo sLII W.Ilwxys Fak G. \ a , R 112 A \\\ !'O e —O O O 51 RE NOTE I I 113 ® u 0 0. : I : O lI MF'h LLMG1N R!W5 DCLr 1n \J I 1 I c2 M17S MW 1Tt6 l , 1 NFPPYOF pa b y O BLOCK 5 nSSs laelSr �i J I r se l 1$ a n.oC 12W In4 91w 167.48 1461—5g156'4`/`N _ I J$ ® I ® rt I a ]0.S6' tea' He,u Ne/°59'I7YI ~ 1 m SEEN02 1 1 CT 161.J(C 76.4¢U 12b 5029 .AEI 61 7fi �C 11 .'�j3}J/. 4 BLOCK B w1 .�A 5FE NBB 0 1 1 1 itl ce 24.5Y 22.ar 69'5P a c9 Q /• I I I C10 1>Za' 765.ar xoa suaovLwx l ® 75 O 1 L 1KM.--T II B9 \ r d1 ,526 5non r4, xlsrmrnsl,w9:' 1 BLDCx B °m 1 I �� ,Q V 2auo,IE Fnsrw II 1 TBaO 306' 2eAeWE ' 89'19' BSNN TI �1 Ea4.1pi1RR YIq maw` \ 0 \®1 J 10' I 56902'S5t iG 9i 6B,1P+�EawoO" � C1 512'S/'/3'W ' U N P L A 7 i E 0 `\�� ` I O j I 4e.00' P.�s IPosammu6x leas. N/D`56'2Tw 1 — 1°53`'455w 389.81' — Ba.O!' Em I y — I 1 6732' C 1/4 MAR SEC M \ 78VIO 5/9'RE R KS 57iO PN35160q 11PLIIxI Ie117. --__— \\ FOUND 5/9'RHiNC rear 1411L NC 9liazw \ IIEY'0L36ti 8 EPaF wtk No.ee555 5.24 I , _ — W.Ae Cow Rd Sf R '�6ul. �EeeNL Ll4FNem ``� Existing _ Common Drive ' I � THE • LAND GROUP �