Loading...
2021-02-09 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, February 09, 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/89994601213 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 899 9460 1213 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Liz Strader PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion to adopt the agenda as amended (Vacate Item 6) made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener PROCLAMATION 1. Black History Month PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15 minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a Homeowner’s Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented homeowners who have consented to yielding their time. After all public testimony, the applicant is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote. 2. Request for Withdrawal of Application for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020- 0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Withdrawn Motion to accept withdrawal made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener Voting Nay: Councilwoman Perreault 4. Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R- 15 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 5. Ordinance No. 21-1915: An Ordinance (H-2020-0083 Southridge South) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 36.04 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to (7.15 Acres) and from R-2 (Low Density Residential) and R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District (28.89 Acres) in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION Vacated 6. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(f) To communicate with legal counsel for the public agency to discuss the legal ramifications of and legal options for pending litigation, or controversies not yet being litigated but imminently likely to be litigated. ADJOURNMENT 8:16 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council February 9, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 9, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, and Brad Hoaglun. Members Absent: Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, Mark Ford, 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, I will call the meeting to order for the record, February 9th, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. We will begin this evening's agenda with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item is the community invocation, which tonight will be given by Vinnie Hanke with Valley Life Community Church. If you all would, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Hanke: Mayor, City Council Members, it's good to be in the building with you for the first time. Thank you for your hospitality in allowing me to come and pray for you and for our city. God, we thank you for the opportunity to be meeting in this place. We thank you for the way that you continue to govern and sovereignly rule over all of our lives. God, we lift up the City Council Members to you this evening. We ask that you might continue to protect them. You might grant unto them wisdom and discernment as they consider the items on their agenda. Each of them consider it a privilege and a humble blessing to serve the city. We pray for its citizens, for its teachers, for its students, for its healthcare workers, God, for all those who have suffered and endured during this pandemic. We Page 22 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 2 of— thank you for the steadfast leadership of the City Council and pray that you might continue to bless them in it. We ask these things through Christ, amen. Thank you. Simison: Mr. Hanke? Mr. Hanke, do you have a City of Meridian pin? I don't think so. Hanke: I do not. No, sir. Simison: We would like to --just a small token of our appreciation. Thanks for showing up in person. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item is adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: We got our business covered in our workshop Executive Session, so I move that we take off Item 6, our Executive Session. With that I move that we adopt the agenda as amended. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PROCLAMATION 1. Black History Month Simison: Next item is a proclamation for Black History Month and I will go down to the podium and as President Taylor with the Treasure Valley Chapter of the NAACP to join me there. So, Council, this is Black History Month and to my knowledge this is the first time we have celebrated in Meridian with a proclamation for Black History Month. But during the actions which occurred during this last year it was an opportunity to open doors for several of us here at the city and create relationships with members of our community, specifically President Taylor, and so we are going to read a proclamation and, then, ask him to say a few remarks in celebration of this month. So, whereas during Black History Month we honor and celebrate the many achievements and contributions made by African Americans to our economic, cultural, spiritual and political development and whereas Black History Month grew out of the establishment in 1926 of Negro History Week by Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of African American Life and History Page 23 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 3 of 40 and whereas the 2021 national theme for the observance is The Black Family Representation, Identity and Diversity, and whereas the observance of Black History Month calls our attention as a community to the need to have a society that stands up and supported the lives of all of its citizens and lives up to our democratic ideals and whereas we are all able to live better lives and have a brighter future thanks to the contributions that have been made of African Americans in our community, state and nation. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim February 2021 as Black History Month in the City of Meridian and encourage the residents of our community and communities across the country to learn more about and celebrate the diverse heritage and culture of African Americans to continue our efforts to create a world that is more just, peaceful, and prosperous for all. Dated this 9th day of February 2021. So, thank you very much for being here and would love to have you say a few words. Taylor: Thank you, Mayor. It is, indeed, a pleasure that you invited me to this meeting tonight and I have a few comments that I want to make concerning that -- you know, as we talk about Black History Month, the thing is the black family. So, you know, the story -- the history of the Black History Month begins in 1916, a half a century after the 18th Amendment was written abolishing slavery in the United States. But by the 19 -- by the late 1960s, thanks to the civil rights movement, then, President Gerald R. Ford officially recognized Black History Month in 1976. The 2021st Black History Month theme is black history family representation, identity, and diversity, is a theme which emphasizes just how abstract a notion of family can be -- that the experience of black families in particular are not a monolithic history visualized in film study by psychologists, anthropologists, and social policy. A representation, identity and diversity has been referenced. They are attacked, vilified from the days of slavery to our own time. The black family knows no single location, since family reunions and genetic ancestry such as testified to the split of family members across states, nations, and even continents. Not only are the individual black family disparate, but Africa itself has been portrayed as a black family a lie. That's why the rules of the black family has been described by some as a microcosm of the entire race, it's complexity in the foundation of African American life and history can be seen in numerous debates over how to represent the meaning and typically from an historical perspective as a slave or a free person as a single headed family or a dual headed family -- as extended or nuclear, as kin or blood, of legal or common law and as black or interracial, variations appear in discussion on the nature and impact of parenthood, childhood, marriage, gender norms, sexuality and incarceration, the family offers the rich tapestry of images for exploring the African American past and present. But despite the negative pathological images of black families portrayed in the 1950s, the justification for slavery in the 20th century, government policy reports, the march of time has proved that the black family best represents the source of perseverance, resilience that brought African America through centuries of enslavement, Jim Crow Law, black cause and glaring racial inequalities that continues to this day. I am particular heartened by the fact that the City of Meridian make this some would say a small step, but I will say this is a giant step forward. It being the first time that in our memory that this has happened. It tells me that there is a change coming. People realize that there is a change. And I am so thankful that you, Mayor, and to the City Council, for taking your time out and trying to show the African American community the community of color, that Page 24 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 4 of— you recognize their contributions to our society. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the time and the effort that you put into this. Thank you very much. Simison: Just thank you, President Taylor, for those kind remarks, as well as the sharing some of the history for us here. That's what this month is really about, educating, taking those small steps, long overdue steps. So, also a little City of Meridian pin for you real quick and, Chris, could we get one more quick picture, because -- just with the proclamation in front. Bernt: President Taylor, before you leave, thanks for coming. Let Vic and Willie and -- and the others know how much we appreciate what you guys do. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Okay. Council, moving on. Public Forum. Do we have anyone signed up under the public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. ACTION ITEMS 2. Request for Withdrawal of Application for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Simison: Okay. With that we will move on to Action Items for this evening then. Our first action item up is a request for withdrawal of the application for -- we will just say H-2020- 0108 and I will turn this over to Joe. Mr. Dodson, you are muted. We need you to get closer. It's hard to hear you. Joe, we can't -- can't hear you. Try harder. Joe? Joe, are you there? Joe, did you just unmute yourself? Dodson: Yes. I apologize. I was muted. Simison: All right. There you go. We are good to go. Dodson: Thank you. I apologize, I missed what was happening right now. Simison: I just turned it over to you to discuss the request for withdrawal of H-2020-0108. Dodson: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes. The applicant, after discussion with staff and following the Commission hearing of -- and recommendation of denial, they are hoping to withdraw their application, so that they can kind of go to the drawing board with myself and the rest of the Planning Staff, especially long range and economic development, and try to develop a site plan and overall Comprehensive Plan of this area to the north and west of the Walmart on Ten Mile and bring a better plan forward to Page 25 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 5—— Planning and Zoning. Rather than a remand they -- they want to withdraw it, so that they can have more open conversations and not be tied to what has already been presented. Simison: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? Okay. Is the applicant's representative present or do they want to make any comments? I don't see them. Dodson: I do not believe they are present. Okay. They are -- they are not present. Council, do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: When we withdraw this application do we -- is there a date that we need to use or do just -- is a withdraw sufficient? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you just need to accept the withdrawal. Bernt: Okay. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we accept the withdrawal of application for Vicenza North Subdivision, H-2020-0108. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to accept the withdrawal. 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, absent; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is withdrawn. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. Page 26 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 6 of— B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Simison: Next up is a public hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision, H-2020-0112. We will open this public hearing with staff comments and I will turn this over to Alan. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mayor and Members of the Council. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner, with the City of Meridian. This is an annexation, zoning, and a preliminary plat. The property is a little more than seven and a half acres. It's zoned RUT in unincorporated Ada county. It's located northeast of North Linder and West Ustick Road. West of the property is zoned C-C. It's currently vacant. It's also R-15 to the west. And the Eddington Commons, which I will talk about in a minute, is what you see as the R-15 there to the west. Recently approved. It's vacant to the east. Vacant to the north. There is three parcels to the north. Both -- or all three of them are owned by the same person. Those are all vacant and it's about four and a half acres. To the east there is two different owners. Those properties -- one of them is in the city directly adjacent and, then, on the other side of that is still within the county. Those are approximately three and a half acres. A little bit of history on this. There was a previous proposal to annex this and rezone it to R-8. This was in 2006. It was to allow 35 single family lots. This was subsequently denied by Council. Most -- probably the biggest reason is because at the time it was believed that it was piecemeal development, which it was, they didn't have much infrastructure in place and the other thing hadn't developed at that time. At this time, however, city property has been annexed to the south, to the east and to the west of the property. The property directly to the north yet has not been annexed. The property is recommended for medium density residential, which is eight to 12 dwelling units per acre. Again, this is a proposal for annexation, rezoning to R-8, and a preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and eight common lots. Probably easier to see the color pictures, which is why I put this one up here. Talk about access. The development proposes five points of access. There is three stubs. There is a stub to West Woodpine here to the west. There is a stub to the east here. And there is a stub to the north here. Two points of these accesses are from existing streets. That would be West Woodpine -- I just lost my cursor -- which is here. There is also an existing point of access -- access from West Ustick Road. The present access from West Ustick occurs at llama Lane, which you can't really see here. Llama Lane is more over towards the middle and that's existing right now and there is curb cut -- or, excuse me, there is an access there. North Llama Lane is going to be closed as part of this development and the new access, which is the one you see here, Northwest 12th, this is going to be pushed over to the east and it's going to line up with Northwest 12th, which is down here to the south. ACHD supports this access. Usually they don't support accesses occurring off of arterials, but in this particular case -- first of all, this will be lining up with an existing access across the street, which is a better situation. Also the roads are being pushed further to the east. So, it's increasing the intersection spacing from what it already was. So, it's -- it's not ideal at the 1,320, but ACHD supports this, because it's taking a not good situation and making it better. West Ustick is already improved with five travel lanes, bike lanes, vertical curb and gutter and five foot wide detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site. The applicant will be required Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 1 of— to construct all roads -- the internal roads to 33 foot templates per the ACHD standards. Again, like I said, five -- five foot sidewalks are proposed on all sides of this development and there is one common driveway that's proposed with this development and that's what you see down here to the southwest. The development proposes 15 percent open space. This includes several small landscaped sections, which are on either side of this northern stub. There is a 25 foot buffer along West Ustick. Some of that can be credited. There are several pathway common lots. One of those lots you can see here. There is another pathway common lot here and there is two pathways at this central open space. Thirteen and a half percent of this space would meet the requirements for qualified open space. This includes that central park that you see there at the middle. Again, half of the buffer and this pet amenity and seating area, which is here. In addition, they have included an extra pathway connection. They are only really required to provide some along the streets. In this particular case they have tied into a ditch, which is at the east. I will talk about that very quickly. So, this central open space is just slightly less than an acre. It has a playground and two pathway connections. This meets the minimum requirements of 50 by 100 feet, which -- it's actually much larger than that. So, it is quality open space. It's a recreational amenity. And, then, the additional 20,000 square feet -- because this is much bigger than what's required. That additional 20,000 square feet is credited as an additional amenity. The central park, like I said, exceeds the minimum landscape requirements and also it exceeds the landscape requirements of one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet. It also contains two pathways that connect to an existing pathway along an existing ditch. So, here to the east running along this ditch is an existing pathway and that is owned by the HOA to the east. This ties into that pathway and this pathway, then, connects to a regional pathway that is north from there. Because the pathways meet the minimum landscaping requirements, they are not required sidewalks and they connect to the existing pedestrian pathway and the bicycle routes, these would also be credited as an amenity. So, they are actually proposing twice as many amenities as they would be required. There is existing trees that meet the requirements for -- for preservation or mitigation, particularly in the vicinity of the ditch, which you can see there. The city arborist has noted that there are some preliminary discussions going on about which trees should be preserved. Although we have not yet received a tree mitigation plan, this will be required with the final plat. The applicant has submitted sample building elevations with this proposal. These single family homes are depicted as two story structures with two car garages and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials, including gabled roofs, dormer stone wainscotting. Some of these houses will be very visible from West Ustick. Staff recommended a condition on the development agreement that the rear and sides of two story structures visible from West Ustick would incorporate minimum architectural requirements. The Planning Commission heard this item on January 7th. At the public hearing the Planning Commission moved to approve the subject annexation. There was one citizen that showed up and identified himself as Rick Wagner, who is the owner of the property directly to the east. He had really was more informational questions. He wanted to make sure that the ditches were not going to be interrupted or impacted. He also requested that the applicant construct some kind of barrier along the eastern property line. The Commission -- one of their comments -- and I will sort of back up here if I can. One comment of the -- or question of the Commissioners was whether or not this open space backed directly to adjacent houses Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 8 of 40 to the east. It does not. There is a common lot that is to the east. It's owned by the HOA and, then, the houses. So, there is some space between where this open space is going to be and where existing houses are. Probably the -- the biggest -- well, let me -- I will come back to that. There was also some discussion in regard to the property owner to the north and what kind of impacts this would have. The applicant's representative talked to the property owner to the north and they agreed to keep houses to one story on the northern lots. So, that would be Lots 2, 3 -- 2 through 5 on Block 2, which is what you see here to the north. So, the development agreement would limit these only to one story to reduce impacts to the north. There was also a condition by the Planning Commission that was added to add vinyl fencing along the border. So, the vinyl fencing would basically come from where the park is south and, then, from -- where the park is north. I believe the applicant is amenable to that. Probably the biggest issue of discussion or with the Planning Commission was how this property interacts with the property to the west. If you remember I mentioned that there is a property that's zoned --well, there is Eddington Commons to the northwest. Then there is a commercial zoned property that's directly to the west and at one time there was a townhouse project that was proposed there. That project ultimately did not happen, so it's still a vacant property. There was quite a bit of this gushing about this. The -- the Planning Commission wanted the Council to know that this was an issue that they had significantly discussed. They were concerned about what kind of development potential would be on this western lot if there was not a connection provided -- provided from this lot to the subject property. The applicant, after Planning -- so, they wanted that to go to the Council, so the Council knew that they had a concern about that, even though they really didn't make a recommendation, other than the Council -- they wanted the Council to know they had a concern with that. Following the Council meeting, the applicant held a meeting with ACHD to talk about that issue. ACHD did not want to see a connection to this western lot. They had issues with cut-through access. Originally I know there was some discussions about self storage and some other things there, but ACHD is not amenable to that connecting. Also there was a development agreement that's already in place for the property to the west and that development agreement does not require an access to the east, so --so, again, staff does acknowledge that Council -- or the Planning Commission had some issues. The applicant also understands that the Planning Commission had some issues and they did have quite a lengthy meeting with ACHD and it is our opinions that -- as well as ACHD's opinion, that that should not be connected. With that staff recommends approval of this annexation, zoning and preliminary plat, with the conditions that are listed in the staff report. And I will stand for any questions if you have any, Council. Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Well,Alan, where do I start? I heard -- I have heard applications on this corner, both when I was a Planning and Zoning commissioner and I have heard two I think with City Council, something like that. Each and every time we have a conversation this --we Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 9 of 40 do have discussions about what's happening with the surrounding properties. So, my question for you is -- is -- if I remember correctly, the residential development that was approved that's currently in development to the northwest does have a stub street that would allow the commercial development directly to the west to exit; is that right? Because I don't think that ACHD was allowing any kind of exit from that commercial piece onto Linder Road at any point. Tiefenbach: That's my understanding. The connection wouldn't come directly from this property, the connection would come through the Eddington Commons into this property. That's that stub that you see to the north and the west. Perreault: So, if ACHD -- perhaps I'm not understanding their concern about pass- through traffic in a neighborhood, whether it comes through the east or whether it comes to the north, we have pass-through traffic in a neighborhood from that commercial piece. Tiefenbach: I'm not sure if I have a quick answer to that question, Council Person. Simison: And we do have -- Kristy is here from ACHD. Perhaps that would be a question better suited for her to answer. Perreault: Thank you. Simison: Kristy, if you are with us. I don't know if you have any comments. Inselman: Sorry about that. I'm making dinner while I'm also attending your wonderful City Council meeting. So, the question was the access to the east, because that goes into a residential development -- Tiefenbach: To the west, ma'am. Inselman: To the west. Tiefenbach: Yeah. Whether or not the Eddington Commons would allow access from the commercial lot and why that's not an issue versus the pass-through traffic from the property to the west directly. Inselman: That is likely something I would have to touch base with the planner on this application. I wasn't involved in those conversations with the developer on this one, so -- and there is nothing in the staff report that talks about that. So, that's something, I apologize, I would have to get back with you guys on. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I think Council Woman Perreault just won the game. Stump ACHD for the evening. Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 10 of 40 Inselman: Good job. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Not to get too lengthy with this, but this -- yeah. I mean -- and Councilman Bernt can testify how many times have we -- I think -- you know, I think you also were still on Planning and Zoning when we were hearing this, too, and so I -- just to put this out there -- I know we are not in deliberation yet, but I have great concerns about what this does to the surrounding property. So, yeah, if -- I don't know if there is a -- there is probably unlikely a possibility we will get a response to that this evening, but I think that's a really critical piece to this decision this evening, so -- and one more question for Alan if I may. So, the -- in the file, there was a -- like a possibly way out for some residential lots with the property to the north. There was -- it was like a -- here is a potential design that we could have and it sounds like the applicant has had conversations with the owner to the north. Is there any additional information you can share with us? Because I didn't see any comment --written comments in the file. That would -- where the property owner to the north said, yeah, I am in the -- you know, I am in agreement or -- or I approve or hopefully we have some of the neighbors here this evening, I really would like to hear directly as well. Tiefenbach: Sure, Council Person. Yes, there was a concept plan that we asked the applicant to consider when they did this about how the property actually could develop to the north. I would have to defer to the applicant for any additional information about the -- any communication they did have with the property to the north -- to the north. I'm not aware of those, no. Perreault: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: To continue the discussion about the property immediately to the west and the commercial area that was approved, if my memory serves right, they had an access off of Ustick Road, because it was very very close to the turn lane where you turn to go south on -- on Linder. But you had enough room just to clear that to access to that commercial area. So, they had their own access point and I think the question was does this then -- you have almost like an interconnection, which ACHD does not want to have and -- and, Alan, I don't know if you were here for -- for that on that development, but that's my recollection that they had their own Ustick access point and, then, they had an exit out of when -- to -- to Linder. Any -- any -- I don't -- like I said, I don't know if you were there for that. Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 11 of 40 Tiefenbach: I wasn't there for that. I'm looking at the plat right now for Eddington Commons to see if I can come up with an answer for you. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. I happen to be privy to a little bit of information on that corner, because I pre-app'd on that corner probably six times now with different projects. So, Councilman Hoaglun is correct that there is an access to Ustick. It would be a limited access, right- in, right-out, that ACHD has given preliminary approval for and it was approved as part of the existing development agreement. However, there -- they show an access to Linder, but it is my understanding as -- as other Council Members have said, that the access to Linder is not guaranteed for that corner parcel and that they are required to end the stub from Eddington Commons on their site in some way. My discussions with the applicant -- or potential applicant for that corner is that they need to discuss with ACHD whether any access to Linder will be allowed or they will have to use the -- go through Eddington Commons. But minimally I am under the understanding that they will have an access to Ustick. So, hopefully, that helps out Alan and the rest of you guys on your project here. Hoaglun: Thank you, Joe. Dodson: You're welcome. Simison: Council, everyone clear on this as much as me? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, clear as mud. Simison: Exactly. Council, any further questions for staff at this time? Okay. With that would ask the applicant to come forward and state your name and address for the record and be recognized for 15 minutes. Mokwa: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Tim Mokwa with Hayden Homes. 1406 North Main Street, Meridian. 83642. And I think I can shed a little bit of light on both of those issues that we were talking about earlier. I believe Alan's pulling up a PowerPoint that I had put togetherjust to show a couple of exhibits. I'm going to try to be brief here. I think a couple of the points that have already been raised are things that I wanted to highlight as well. So, I don't think there is any reason to go back through the entire staff report. We are in agreement on all of the conditions of approval. There has been quite a bit of communication with the neighbors on this project, both the HOA to the east, as well as the -- Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to the north. And here we go. Touchy. But let me -- let me first show you this aerial photo. One of the -- one of the items that was questioned just now -- and I wanted to ask if you guys have the ACHD Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 12 of 40 memo e-mail that sort of characterizes or summarizes our meeting with ACHD following Planning and Zoning Commission. Was that entered into the packet? Tiefenbach: It was. That meeting -- that correspondence was in the case file and it was linked to the staff report. Mokwa: So, just paraphrasing, ACHD does not support extension of this -- of what we have as a shared driveway and a pathway. I don't know if I can point with this -- I can't point at a screen with my laser pointer and this thing is really sensitive. But this shared drive here -- it's a shared drive to three lots and there is a pathway and landscaping along there. ACHD does not support that as an extension. We do not support that either. This is an in-fill site, seven and a half acre size, and we have already got one, two, three, four, five access points in that seven and a half acres. In our -- from our perspective I -- while I understand some of the concerns of this property to the corner, it's not -- it should not be our sole responsibility to ensure that -- that a property that doesn't even have an application in place right now is developable. I do understand your concerns and that that is a difficult property. To answer one of the questions, there are currently two -- and if I -- I can't really zoom in, but where my cursor is right now is that showing on your screen? There is an existing curb cut approach there and there is an existing curb cut approach here, as well as the Eddington Common stub here. In our meeting with ACHD following Planning and Zoning Commission, they -- you know, they are not going to be totally committable -- committed to the long term, you know, staying I guess of these two approaches until they have seen a layout and application. But in the ACHD memo e-mail they mentioned that one of those accesses may have to be closed at some point in the future. So, depending on what they submit they have got two approaches that ACHD is going to honor, depending on what -- what they submit. They have also got this other access through Eddington Commons. So, I guess that's my summary or how I would respond to those questions. If there is a follow-up question on -- on that I would be happy to try to answer it, but that's kind of where we stand and it seems, you know, from our meeting and from the e-mail that ACHD submitted that they are -- they are in agreement that bringing this -- this traffic through this smaller area of residential here is not a -- is not a good mix. The other question was the property to the north. I assume that we -- we had done a very quick layout just on how that could potentially be developed. In our meetings with Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd, who are the property owner of these three parcels, their house sits roughly right where my cursor is now. They have also got a shop in this area. Some of their concerns were their not wanting to have to -- to traverse through this existing subdivision to the east. So, they were pretty -- pretty committed or adamant to us getting this approach out to Ustick Road and in order to do that we had quite a few meetings with ACHD where we talked about alignment of this new approach here and a stub street here, so that if 11th -- I think this is 11th here -- ever were extended it could be tied to this stub as well and it's consolidating some potentially more access points on Ustick into one that is aligned with this subdivision to the south, creating a better scenario than -- than what we have existing, like Alan mentioned. So, in meeting with the folks to the north, their desire was that our stub street meet where their current driveway enters their property. Doing that allowed us to save their -- their berm and landscaping and Willow Tree back in this corner. We also agreed that we would provide an additional Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 13 of 40 easement on this lot -- I believe it's Lot 5 at that northwest corner for tree preservation and we would hold our fence for this lot back further to preserve that tree and stay out of the tree canopy and the tree roots. We also agreed, as staff mentioned, to make these four lots single story. Another bit of the communication and coordination we had on this project was our proposal is to tile this private drainage ditch along our east boundary. There is currently an existing chain link fence along the east top of slope of this ditch. Through working with the HOA management group in here and the developer or declarant of the -- the CC&Rs over here, we were able to get agreement that we could remove that chain link fence, tile this ditch, and clean up the landscaping through here, making a much more seamless common area between the two subdivisions. There will be some tree removal and we had -- I have met with the forester on site. He flagged up for us the trees that would require mitigation. So, we are doing what we can to maintain as many of those trees as possible. I don't really have more, other than I guess the main thing is just that I can answer any of your questions. Like I said, we are in agreement with all the recommended conditions of approval and ask for approval of our annexation, zone, and pre-plat. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you for this -- this graphic. This is helpful. Regarding the property to the north, would they -- if that were to develop -- I saw the concept plan. It looks like it would just be three lots. Of course that's just a concept plan. But would they, then, be -- their only access would be through this property as well? Is that right? Mokwa: Council Member Perreault, that -- that is correct. And I should mention. Well, first of all, that layout was just a very quick conceptual just to show how, you know, schematically a subdivision or a division of that property could occur within the city. They are remaining in -- in the county. We do have on file with the title company a signed agreement by both us, as well as Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd to the north, that they agree with what we are proposing to do here and the vacation of that existing Llama Lane and so, like I said, that -- that agreement has been executed. The -- I can't think of the official name. I think you have -- have a copy. Alan, should have. That's an agreement to terminate that Llama Lane private road easement -- or private drive access easement. So, I meant to mention that earlier to answer one of your earlier questions as well. But, yes, long way about -- long -- long answer, but, yes, that is their access point and I think it's about three and a half -- three and a half acres. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, did we have anybody signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody's signed up in advance of this hearing. Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page —of 40 Simison: Okay. The last time I checked we did have a few people in the attendees section of this. If there is anybody who would like to provide testimony on this item in the Zoom call, if you could do so by using the raise your hand feature and we can bring you in to provide testimony. We have nobody here in the room in addition to Mr. Mokwa, so we will just give it a second. Seeing no one raise their hand -- I don't know if the applicant would like to make any final comments or just open up for questions in case Council has anything more further discussion. It looks like that's the direction we will go. So, Council, I will turn this over to you for comments, questions, motions. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just a comment. As to the -- excuse me, the roadway access stubbing off to the west, not connecting to the commercial, the letter that's been referenced, the January 14th letter from ACHD, I think does explain that pretty well as far as the reasoning behind the layout is as proposed and -- and not having that connect through. So, the applicant's comments and the remarks from ACHD in that e-mail in the packet seem to support the current layout, at least as I see it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And somewhat further on the connections, I appreciate the fact that they are planning ahead and -- and connecting into 11th Street when that property just to the east develops and allows that to happen, because another access is going to go away and -- and it can create one -- one single point instead of having multiple, which ACHD I think is looking for, and also it does have enough access points or other locations and pass- through areas for people to get from one place to another. So, appreciate their diligence in working on that and working with adjacent property owners and planning ahead. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: If there isn't anymore discussion, I move that we close the public hearing. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page —of 40 Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Are there any -- before I make a motion, are there any -- is there anything I need to add to the motion specifically? Alan? Tiefenbach: Not unless you have anything that hasn't already been addressed in the staff report, sir, no. Bernt: Okay. With that said, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to approve file number H-2020-0112 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 9th, 2021. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion 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, absent; Perreault, nay. Simison: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11 .42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. Alan, appreciate it. With that we will move on to public hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision, H-2020-0099. We will open this public hearing with staff comments and I will turn this over to Mr. Dodson. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Good evening again. You might be bored of my voice, but I'm going to talk to you some more. So, keep this chugging along. First item as noted for me is going to be Mile High Pines. It is a request Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 16 of 40 for annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C and R-15 zoning. A preliminary plat consisting of five building lots and one common lot and a conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units within the R-15 district. The proposed land uses are multi-family residential in the form of detached cottages, townhomes, and vertically integrated structures and so the land uses are multi-family and commercial and they are consistent with the land use types noted in the mixed use community summary. Of the 135 residential units, 87 are the detached single story cottages and 42 are the townhome units. There are also an additional 60 units within the two vertically integrated structures, 30 in each. The proposed product type is by definition multi-family, which is just more than two units on a single building lot. The applicant has designed units to emulate single family attached and detached structures that share pedestrian pathways and open space, rather than public streets. This, if you recognize it, is the sister project to the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat, a development that was approved fall last year. As shown the project is approximately eight dwelling units per acre, which means the six to 15 dwelling units per acre range for the mixed use community designation. The proposed residential area of the site incorporates MEWs, private streets, common open space and different housing designs within the same parcel. Furthermore, the applicant is proposing two story townhomes along the southwestern boundary, along here, and on part of the eastern boundary along Ten Mile, with the rest of the site being a majority of single story structures. Staff believes placing the commercial along Ten Mile offers an appropriate buffer between the busy arterial and the single story structures that make up the center of the development. The applicant is also proposing a segment of multi-use pathway along the southern boundary as required with the master pathways plan. This segment will connect to the existing arterial sidewalk along Ten Mile and to a proposed micro path that traverses the entire western boundary of the site and connects to the detached sidewalk along Pine Avenue. In addition, the proposed sidewalks within the development are essentially micro paths and connect throughout the entire site. The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the residential portion of the site and overall they comply with the architectural standards manual. The applicant also submitted elevations showing additional color options for the detached structures in relation to a couple of my comments in my staff report. In addition, the applicant has provided conceptual commercial elevations, which also appear to show compliance with the architectural standards manual. Because this is a multi-family project and a commercial, both residential and commercial lots will be required to obtain administrative design review prior to building permit submittal. These are just some of those designs. This applicant and the applicant for the proposed project to the north and west of this project, they have entered into a legally binding agreement that outlines the options for how Pine Avenue will be constructed -- Pine Avenue extension will be constructed. In addition, ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension and road improvements can occur. At a minimum the applicant will construct the intersection improvement as half of a three lane street section. One westbound receiving, eastbound left turn, and eastbound through and/or right turn. In addition, the applicant is, at a minimum, required to extend and construct Pine Avenue outside of the area of influence of the intersection as half of a 36 foot wide street -- 36 foot wide collector street, plus 12 additional feet of pavement to total 30 feet of pavement and, then, also with five foot detached sidewalk. In addition, the applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 11 of 40 for the required signal improvements at the Pine and Ten Mile intersection. Staff appreciates the forethought of the agreement that the private property owners have come to sign and are legally bound to -- should help the extension and construction of Pine Avenue go a lot more smooth. Access is proposed via one private street access off of West Pine shown here and, then, one driveway access to Ten Mile. The Ten Mile access that is proposed is proposed as a full access. ACHD is requiring that the applicant construct a southbound right turn lane on Ten Mile Road for safer southbound access into the site. You can kind of see the line work here, which was a revision following the condition meeting. The applicant is also proposing an emergency only access through one of the private drives to connect to a cul-de-sac in the adjacent subdivision. That is scheduled to come before you in the future. No gates are proposed with this development to improve the integration and connectivity in line with the mixed use policies and goals. The private streets are proposed to be at least 25 feet wide with detached sidewalks at varying widths on both sides throughout the site. Both open and covered parking is proposed along the private streets. Staff had some concern with the street layout at the main entrance of the development off of Pine where there is a three way intersection. The applicant revised this intersection following the first Commission meeting and is now shown as your standard T intersection. Staff believes this design is a lot more efficient, safer, and I -- you know, we appreciate the applicant decided to redesign that. Off-street parking is required in accord with the standards listed in the UDC for multi-family developments based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The latest parking plan shows a total of 429 spaces for the entire development. Three hundred and twenty for the residences, eight reserved for the clubhouse, and 20 for the vertically integrated units and, then, the remaining 81 are for the proposed commercial. The proposed parking does exceed the minimum UDC requirements. The proposed landscaping for the required street buffers and common open space meets UDC requirements as proposed. The proposed C-C zoning district does require a 25 foot landscape buffer to any residential district. The submitted plans do not show them in compliance with this is requirement, because this is a mixed use development. There is the presence of landscaping, a sidewalk, and a street between the residential uses and commercial. Staff does not have particular concern over this discrepancy because of the mixed use nature and integrated nature of the site. However, in order to comply with the UDC, the applicant does have to request a waiver from the City Council to reduce this buffer--to the buffer shown on these -- on the landscape plan. Based on the proposal plat of 16.4 acres, a minimum of 1 .665 acres of qualified open space should be provided. In addition, common open space standards for multi-family developments also apply. So, they should be combined. Combined the required amount of minimum qualified open space that should be provided is 2.56 acres. According to the open space exhibit, Daphne is proposing a total of 3.62 acres of qualified open space of that area 2.47 is proposed to meet the overall minimum ten percent requirement, the 11-3-G requirements that equates to approximately 15 percent. This qualified open space consists of the multi-use pathway segment, the required street buffers and two large common open spaces, the central one and that adjacent to Pine Avenue. The remaining 1.15 acres is intended to meet the multi-family open space requirements. These areas of open space consist of the MEW between the units and the attached products, areas of open space that meet the minimum 20 by 20 multi-family open space dimension and, then, two plazas that are shared between the Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 18 of 40 commercial and residential portions of the site. Here and here. The plazas also help with the mixed use policies and integration of the site. The proposed open space also exceeds the UDC requirements. In addition, the applicant is required to provide amenities. For the 11-3-G requirements one amenity should be provided and the multi-use pathway is -- satisfies that UDC requirement. The rest of the amenities are proposed to meet the specific use standards for multi-family development. A minimum of four amenities are required and -- but the decision body is authorized to consider additional for developments containing over one hundred units, which is the case here. The following amenities are proposed with this application. A clubhouse with offices. A fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, pool, a tot lot, two shared plazas and pedestrian bicycle circulation plan. Those facilities. Therefore, the applicant is proposing seven qualifying site amenities, which also exceeding the UDC requirement. This application was heard by Planning and Zoning Commission twice, in December and earlier in January-- earlier this year in January. The Commission did move to recommend approval of the subject site following the second meeting. The main issues of discussion were the amount of commercial versus residential zoning and the square footage -- also the viability of staffs recommended conditions and layout changes, which I will briefly go over here. The timeline of the Pine Avenue extension from Ten Mile to the existing section of Pine. The importance of the Public Works standards for the utility mains within private easements and whether their plan can actually work. The Public Works Department did provide a memo before the second commission hearing offering their preliminary support. Again, the Public Works does not review these in detail or they cannot give a formal approval of the engineering plans, because they are only conceptual engineering at this stage. The Commission decided to change my staff report and revise all of my recommended conditions by striking them, except for the one regarding the T intersection, the three way intersection near the north part of the site. I did note in my outline that there is an outstanding issue that they did not submit a parking plan, but that is incorrect. I missed that originally. So, as I saw here this was their submitted parking plan and I did not see that. So, there are no more outstanding issues. The specific layout changes that I had proposed previously that Commission did not follow through -- it's easier to show it here. I will briefly go over them. I had proposed to remove the singular unit here to give this some open space. I proposed to replace the townhome units along Ten Mile with one of the vertically integrated buildings and parking. Recommended move four units that were behind the vertically integrated here -- that would have been here. Move those closer to the east and open up this area and, then, recommended replacing all of the detached units along Pine with townhome units in order to help the transition between a busy collector street and the interior of the site. Those are my main issues. Commission and the applicant did not agree with many of them, again, except for the T intersection so those did not get moved forward. No harm. No foul. Nothing personal, just didn't work out that way. One thing I will say that wasn't noted in the staff report is that when they did some revisions to the site to accommodate the intersection they did actually find some extra room in the central area to widen some of the open space between the buildings, so that the utilities can fit better and Public Works has noted that as well and they appreciate that. Following that I do recommend approval to the project applications and I will stand for any questions. Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 19 of 40 Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Hey, Joe, thanks a lot, but one quick question. Which -- which conditions, again, did the applicant not agree to? Can you specify those one more time for me? Dodson: They have all been stricken from my staff report -- or at least in the Commission recs and I don't have that in front of me. But there were a number of them that were removed from the staff report. Let me see if I can find those for you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think they are on page 46. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Perhaps maybe while Council President is reviewing that I -- Joe, I do have a question just in how -- I missed this. The emergency access that connects to this proposed cul-de-sac, do we have an application that's coming before us that has a cul- de-sac located there? It just seems odd to me and I'm trying to track where that decision came from. Dodson: Councilman Cavener, yes, sir, there is -- there is an application that is in -- they will -- I'm writing the staff report right now for the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, they -- they do have an active application that is moving forward and there is a proposed cul-de-sac there, yes. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, a follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: And, Joe, I'm just -- I'm having flashbacks to a hearing that we had maybe earlier in 2020 about cul-de-sacs and emergency access. So, perhaps I'm being ultra sensitive to it, but when I -- looking at the site plan that's before us, it looks like there is some -- you know, trying to designate, okay, here is where I -- a residential unit is going to be and so my assumption is that the bulk of this cul-de-sac -- it looks to me like open space. Is that your recollection? Dodson: Surrounding the cul-de-sac is what you are referring to? These kind of-- Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 20 of 40 Cavener: Correct. Yeah. Dodson: That -- the recesses of my mind from earlier today. I would say that they are not open space. I think they are buildable lots. Cavener: Okay. Dodson: But, again, that -- that has not been moved forward yet. Cavener: Okay. I may want to come back with Council and chat a little bit more about this later on tonight. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: Mayor and Council Member Cavener, that emergency access is not required for this project. It's actually required for the other project, the one that Joe was talking about. So, they -- they have been -- they are well aware of the requirement and that's why they -- the emergency access is there. So, it's -- it's -- it's a bonus addition for us to be able to get to the backside of this development, but that emergency access is required for the other project. So, if that helps any. Cavener: It doesn't, but I mean it's good for us -- it's good I think for both developments. I just -- I have got some hesitation about its location coming up to a cul-de-sac. So, give me some time on that. Like I said, apologies, I missed that in the staff report or the discussion at Planning and Zoning. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: While we got Joe Bongiorno queued up there, chief, I just wanted to double check on -- on the emergency access with just this development, because it sounds like the other one is a future development and just wanted to make sure that you have all available access, because it looks like there -- you can come in off of -- the Pine and the Ten Mile and I guess you have gone over and can access everything either one way or the other and everything is good; is that correct? Bongiorno: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, that is correct. And the other -- the other thing that we will also have is once Joe is finished with the project to the west, Pine, as part of that project in their first phase, is they are punching Pine all the way through. So, we will actually be able to access it from Black Cat as well. Hoaglun: All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Joe. Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 21 of 40 Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. Thank you. I didn't hit on that enough I guess. I just wanted to reiterate that this applicant, as well as the applicant for the future -- or proposed project to the west and north, are working very closely. They have -- they already have the binding agreement to extend Pine, then, like Chief Bongiorno said, they are -- this applicant is being nice enough to offer that emergency access to their property as well, so -- oh. And I didn't mention the connection along the north here. This is going to be a public road on the other property, but it will be a private street connection to there to help with the integration between uses and between the residential and this property and the commercial with this one. So, I didn't iterate that they are working together very heavily. I didn't hit that point enough. So, I just wanted to reiterate that. Simison: And, Joe, just a follow up. Is the reason why there has not been recommended a regular access because it's onto a private street and that only an emergency access at that cul-de-sac? Dodson: Mr. Mayor, that -- that's a loaded question. With some of the history that has been discussed with this -- how do I answer that? There -- this applicant doesn't want cut-through traffic as much as possible. They are -- the discussions that I have had is they are afraid that if that were a public access they would just go through this site in order to get out to Ten Mile, rather than going up to Pine. So, that was the major concern by the applicant. But that has been discussed multiple times of having a public road connection through the site. Simison: I might have known it was loaded, so -- Dodson: Thank you, sir. Simison: -- I think it's -- I think it's worth part of the conversation for this consideration. Dodson: Yes, sir. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, Joe, you were talking about conversations about ratios of residential to commercial and whatnot and I was just pulling up the cut sheets for MUC and was trying to remind myself uses in that -- and so it's my understanding this property to the west is also zoned -- or future land use is designated as MUC. So, I know we don't have a -- you know, I know we don't have a hearing yet on this property to the west, but what would be the ideal ratio of residential to commercial for both of the properties together, this -- this subject property here and the property to the west? Is this primarily an intention for that Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 22 of 40 whole property to the west to also be residential? It seems to me that would be a -- not be exactly what the MUC has in mind. Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, great question. With the cut sheets, unfortunately, there aren't more empirical numbers when it comes to the ratios. There is a minimum amount of residential that's been proposed, which I believe is 20 percent nonminimums for commercial, which as staff, frankly, I wish we did. It would make some of these easier in that way. But, nonetheless, all of these projects are very fluid. This whole property is mixed use community, whereas the one to the west is -- has both medium density residential and mixed community -- mixed use community and as has been noted before the future land use designations are not parcel specific. They -- they can be floated, they can be, you know, massaged a little bit. So, I -- and for this project I think it's -- it's adequate. Especially with the commercial is going to be vertically integrated and that is adjacent to the residential and this percentage wise is better than the previous renderings for the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat, the sister project. But the ratio is better on this site. The applicant's found that being on Ten Mile and closer to the freeway was going to offer them better opportunities for the commercial, as well as the commercial that already exists across Ten Mile. So, I -- in this case I think that it -- it is good. I don't want to get into any details with the one to the west, because we haven't yet heard that or seen that, so -- Perreault: Follow up? Mr. Mayor? Simison: How was that? Sorry. Is someone -- Perreault: Yes. Simison: Okay. You were frozen. Yes, Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. So, Joe was there any conversation with the Commission -- and I apologize I didn't get to go through everything that they deliberated on, but was there any conversation there about, you know, having more commercial use than this? Did they discuss that and make a recommendation to that? Personally I think that there could be more commercial in here. I would like to actually see the commercial run all the way down the east -- east side of this myself. Was there a conversation about that and, then, also to follow up with Councilman Hoaglun's question, if those two lots there directly to the west off the cul-de-sac are buildable lots, I mean it seems like that's a pretty heavy transition there. So, if you would comment on that as well. Dodson: Absolutely. Thank you, Council Woman Perreault. The Commission did not discuss the amount of commercial on this in -- in the sense of increasing it. They did actually not discuss that in very much detail. They -- I believe the discussion was more about the leasable square footage and the three buildings here and not just one, like on the previous project. In addition, the vertically integrated that has -- I believe roughly 2,500 square feet of each and each one of them is commercial space, so I know the applicant is going to talk about the offices that are inside the clubhouse that are also for Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page——40 rent for -- within the subdivision, those types of things. But your -- your comments are taken very seriously. I understand that -- especially in the mixed use community and especially on Ten Mile. Understood. And, then, when it comes to the -- the homes or the transition, that did -- that question was asked at Commission as well and I can see your point there. Really, there is a lot of units abutting the single lots, but because they are facing perpendicular we determined that that was -- you know, with the pathway and the open space there and, then, the buffers that are going to be -- the homes are not going to be directly adjacent to that, but there was adequate space between those single family homes and, then, these townhome units, especially because there are -- they are only two stories, they are not three story units, which is, obviously, a benefit as well. Simison: Council, any further questions for staff at this time? Okay. Then we will go ahead and ask the applicant to, please, come forward and I will turn this over to Deb Nelson for 15 minutes. Nelson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm going to share my screen here if that's all right. My name is Deborah Nelson. My address is 601 West Bannock Street in Boise and I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant Baron Properties. I have also got members of the development team and Baron Properties with me and they are all available to answer your questions and I wanted to say thank you to Joe. We have been working with staff for more than a year on this project to come up with a site plan that everybody supported and -- and, then, yes, there were a couple of issues that came up right before the Commission. We worked through those successfully with Joe and the Commission and, then, we are able to say that we are in full support of the entire recommendation and every condition of approval coming out of the Commission and we have -- are also in support of every agency comment that has been provided and all of the recommended conditions of approval and there has been no public opposition. So, we feel like we are bringing to you a very well developed site plan. I would like to walk through that and some of our products, but also address some of the questions that you have begun to raise this evening. Starting with the vicinity, I want to point out a couple of features. Obviously, Joe noted the Pine Street extension that this project, along with the development to the west, is going to provide that much needed connectivity over to Black Cat Road. Also we have got quite a bit of mixed use and commercial development around us. Immediately across the street there is a bank and a gas station and office uses. We have got just to our south the Ten Mile specific area plan area that is quickly developing, as you know well. The Gateway At Ten Mile has high density residential, mixed use office and retail plans there. You have also got developments just south of that with a similar mix. You have got great employers here with FedEx and Amazon and, you know, Baron Properties is really interested in this site, because this 16 acre site, like the project that you approved up at Black Cat and Chinden, is a great location to provide housing that's in demand with folks in Meridian that can work at these employers that are just down the street at FedEx and Amazon. Also these young forming households, retiring baby boomers that are looking for a turnkey lifestyle, professionals, teachers, nurses and so it's great housing for -- to serve your residents. It's -- the additional commercial that will be added will complement the commercial and existing uses around us as well. The site plan -- this shows the split between the zones and as Joe walked through, this is Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 24 of 40 consistent with the designation of the MUC in your Comprehensive Plan. We have got a mix of uses and both vertical and horizontal integration between the residential and the nonresidential uses with the two vertically integrated buildings, we will have 10,800 square feet of commercial, 5,400 in each. These uses will support a variety of commercial interests to support our community and others with pedestrian connectivity to them and, you know, such as a coffee shop or a yoga studio. The commercial business area along Ten Mile and that wraps the corner up -- up to the Pine access on the north side will accommodate approximately 17,800 square feet of commercial and mixed uses with possible uses of restaurants, retail, office, medical office, daycare -- again, serving a larger area than just our -- our neighborhood. Our centrally located clubhouse includes over 500 feet of work from home office space and private offices for the residents use, as well as community meetings space. The 135 residents are -- are in a variety of detached and attached building types, which enables this for rent community to live, feel, and appear like a neighborhood, rather than an apartment complex. The residences are connected to the clubhouse amenities and to this commercial through landscapes and hardscape pathways and decorative crosswalks, really achieving that integration that's called for your Comprehensive Plan. Turning to some of the architecture. This is -- these are the attractive entry monuments on Pine. Our clubhouse. And inside the clubhouse residents can enjoy those workspaces I mentioned. The coffee bar. Indoor gathering and seating area. The kitchen and fitness area. Outside the clubhouse is a community pool with a large deck, covered gazebos and grill areas. The vertical integration buildings that have been mentioned -- these provide that commercial space in the ground floor and six residential units on the second floor with studio and one bedroom units. This is really a unique product type that we introduced at Black Cat at staff's suggestion, has been integrated again here and we are excited to provide that vertical integration in your MUC areas. Some other colors and orientations. The residential in the R-15 portion is going to include a mix of housing. There is one, two and three bedroom offerings in detached homes, duplexes, and six-plexes, some with attached or tuck under garages. This slide shows a one bedroom duplex with different roof lines. All of the residential units will provide private outdoor space, mostly private backyard. The residential units include modern finishes, with stainless steel appliances, in-unit washers and dryers. Great living spaces with open floor plans and nine to 12 foot ceilings. All of the buildings use quality materials, including stone and stucco and wood tone siding. The roof lines provide variety with some single slope and some hip roofs. You can see those illustrated here. We have four color palettes to provide variety, but also cohesiveness and some of the color schemes. To show a few more of the products, we have got two types of the two bedroom, two bath. Here is the second. There is the three bedroom and two bath and here is the six-plex townhomes with the tuck under garages and the front and the back view. Multiple color palettes on these as well. The six-plexes have four two bedroom units on the interior and two three bedroom units on each end. This slide really helps to illustrate the unit type variety. The different products, rooflines, colors, create this distinctive community that lives and feels like a neighborhood. Now, most of the residential development is single story with the duplexes detached in two and three bedroom units intermixed and each of the two and three bedroom units will come in a variety of these layouts with the different roof types. Showing the roofline. The color palette variety. And here is a close up of those color palettes. During the Planning and Zoning Commission's review they actually Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page—of 40 did ask for this fourth color palette that was added. So, now between the two roof lines, the three facade finishes, and these four color palettes, each one of our unit types, whether that's a one bedroom, one of the two bedroom styles or three bedroom, has 24 different variations. So, there is going to be a lot of distinctiveness from unit to unit and visual interest throughout the neighborhood. Joe already walked through our parking. I just want to emphasize that we are well over parked, which is great, especially when you have got the commercial uses, we want to make sure -- have all the parking they need. We have got 429 spaces, where only 294 are required. Quite a bit of covered spaces and garage enclosed and tucked under spaces. We have storage that's available through our self storage lockers and five parking spaces. The project is designed with a -- a more open space and is required to, as Joe already walked through, and there is really a great connectivity, especially east-west to connect to our west -- new western development that's happening to our borders, so that they can also walk through and get to the commercial areas. In addition to all of the public open space, common area open space, we have private open space with an average of almost 400 square feet per residence. I would also note that Fuller Park is not far to the north. The project amenities -- Joe walked through those and emphasized that we have got more than is required and -- and, really, again, trying to integrate them centrally and provide some community connections between our commercial and our residential areas. That connectivity is -- is really shown here through these pathways. You can see the significant east path -- east-west pathway through the middle. The multi-use pathway along the southern border and the pathways create a loop, a walking loop, as well as connections to all of the focal points with amenities and commercial. All of our service providers have provided positive comments. So, we don't have any concerns. We are within all of the appropriate response times. We have capacity in all of the schools that our children would be attending. There is a limited impact on schools from this development. Based on West Ada's calculation there would be 14 students from our development. We are seeking, as Joe mentioned, a waiver between the zones. Your code does require a waiver, really, when it's -- it's expected that you are adding a commercial zone or development next to property that someone else owns and operates and so they want us to create that buffer area. But as we discussed in Black Cat and this Council agreed, that does not really make sense where you have got a single owner and operator --will be owning and operating these vertically integrated buildings and clubhouse that are immediately adjacent to the residential uses and so that separation is -- is not required. There is, in fact, physical separation there between the buildings of approximately 25 feet for this net, but we just don't want to create an artificial boundary within the development when they really intended to operate together. We want to keep that integration -- keep those pathways closed and keep everything flowing and connected. We have provided the commercial concepts as Joe mentioned and, you know, I guess I want to just address a few of the comments we heard about the commercial. Council Member Perreault, you asked specifically about, you know, extending the commercial all the way down Ten Mile. We explored that layout when we were meeting with staff initially at the very outset and actually they encouraged us to instead wrap it up around Pine and take it further west and so that's why it now is further -- our vertically integrated brings that across Pine to the west of it and you can see if you really look at that TC area, it's sort of a circle, you can see all the buildings kind of face each other, creating the open plazas and connectivity in between, rather than having a Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page—of 40 line commercial down Ten Mile that felt separated. The idea that staff really wanted us to achieve with this integration and -- and the Planning and Zoning Commission really liked that as well. They liked the arrangement. And so when there were some comments in the last minute before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Joe mentioned he had some other conditions we didn't accept, he had been suggesting to rearrange a few things and as we understood it from Joe, he was concerned that there was some question from Public Works about whether our utilities would fit as planned and so he suggested rearranging. We were able to work through everything we needed with Public Works and substantively we preferred the layout we had been working on with staff for months to keep this -- this layout, keep the vertically integrated where it is, keep the townhomes where they are and not flip them, because we like the integration here and Planning and Zoning Commission agreed. They also, as Joe mentioned, did not have any concerns with the amount of commercial. They thought it was sufficient and they liked the mix. They liked the rooftop supporting the commercial. They liked the integration. They liked the way that we have everything flowing together from east-west to connect to other properties as well and so they did not have additional concerns. In fact, they really liked the layout. At the end of the day they -- they approved this with conditions that, as Joe mentioned, the only thing we rearranged that they wanted was the intersection with Pine and, then, we are in complete agreement. So, with that I would like to share a fly through if I can quickly. I will see if this works. Just to show you the overall development together. (Video shown.) Simison: Deb, we lost you on the very last comments. Nelson: Can you hear me now, Mayor? Simison: Yes. Nelson: I think I'm out of time, but I would stand for any questions that the Council has. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Deb, appreciate the presentation and the work you and your team have put into this. I know you guys have been working on this project for a long time. Just a couple of clarifying questions for me. As you know we always are concerned about impacts on the schools and clearly as proposed this doesn't seem like it's got an impact on -- on the neighboring schools. I also know that probably in the time you have been working this project West Ada has put together a proposal to redraw some boundary lines and move kids from one part of town over to some of those schools that impact your project. I'm just curious how recent those numbers are and if they are based on current enrollment or projected future enrollment. Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page— of 40 Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener -- Simison: Deb, we are having a hard time -- try again. Nelson: Hi. Can you hear me now? Simison: Yes. Cavener: Great. Nelson: Okay. Sorry. I don't know why the microphone is not picking up well. Council Member Cavener, those numbers are -- should be very current. Now, I do know -- I do understand that West Ada is looking to redistrict and pull our elementary--we understand our elementary kids, although they were previously slotted for Peregrine, will now be attending the Chaparral, which is great, because that's right across the street and it has more capacity is what we have been told and so our understanding from West Ada that, if anything, the capacity is getting better. Cavener: Perfect. Mr. Mayor, an additional question if I may. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Deb, I really like this project for a lot of reasons. I think it's really really creative. I like the live-work. I think you guys have been really thoughtful in how you are laying things out. My one hiccup -- and I even hate to call it that -- is the roof lines on your -- on your six-plex and you see it play out in that video that you showed. It -- you kind of -- it creates this like -- these giant like ramps on the roof lines and it reminds me a lot of what we see over there on Eagle between Fairview and Ustick behind the Commercial Tire and the Jimmy John's, you have got this kind of like sea of the same style of roofline and because you guys have been so thoughtful and kind of the architectural design, I guess I don't know if there were any conversations about that internally, if staff had brought up any -- any thoughts about that. To me I think it's -- it is such a little thing, but it's -- to me it's kind of like the cherry on top to really make this project look -- really stand out and be unique and so I just give you an opportunity to respond if you had any thoughts or questions. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, we have gotten a lot of compliments for the architecture -- I have not heard of that particular comment. But certainly as we, you know, focus in on the final layout and now -- it's a good comment that will certainly take into account and try to address that to see in the arrangement that -- that we can try to avoid your concern. So, appreciate the feedback. We heard it, yes. Cavener: I think you guys have done a good job of differentiating the -- kind of the architectural styles that just -- I think that shift when it comes to rooflines would -- would really make it stand out. So, I have got some other questions about the private roads, but Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page—of 40 I think that's best addressed with staff. Really appreciate you bringing this project and your diligence throughout. Nelson: Thank you. And, Mr. Mayor, if I could I would be happy to address any questions about roads as well. Cavener: Well, Mr. Mayor, if I may -- Simison: Councilman Cavener, keep going. Get your questions answered. Cavener: Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it. Deb, what -- what conversations have you and your team had about these -- these private roads? And I guess my questions are kind of two-fold. One, if this development is going to be, you know, a single owner, is the plan, then, that, you know, as the roads deteriorate -- deteriorate that the maintenance will be handled by -- by a single entity or if that falls onto a -- you know, a condo association or a neighborhood association of some sort and, then, my other question is just about the connectivity. Again, I don't have an issue typically with private roads. I get a little worried when they start connecting with other neighborhoods and other developments about the ability to block that intended access in the future and I'm just curious what provisions you guys have explored to prevent that from happening in the future. Nelson: Well, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener -- Simison: Your mics not picking up again, Deb. Nelson: See, if I can arrange my laptop. Does that help? Cavener: Great. Nelson: Okay. Thank you. Please do tell me if you can't hear me. We have explored the -- had a lot of discussions with both ACHD and the staff about the roads within the development. They will be all maintained by the operator, which is the owner and developer. They are going to continue. So, you -- it will be barren property, but it's continuing to own and operate this and they will maintain all of the roads within the development. It is a comment, of course, and appropriate within a multi-family development that you would have private drive aisles. But they have also really worked hard with staff to create -- despite the fact that you would normally just have private lanes within a development like this, to create that additional connectivity and so initially we did that by proposing gates to allow the emergency access up in that northwest corner, but staff asked us to remove those so we have accommodated that. We are worried about, you know, drive cut-through and -- and, you know, dangerous road conditions. ACHD does not support that northern driveway being a public street at all. So, they don't support that. They want the trips from the development to the west to go up to Pine and out to the light and we hope that most of them will. That is -- that's where we would like them to go, too, so that they are not driving through our development and creating any -- any Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 29 of 40 safety concerns. But the connectivity does exist and so they can --there is an opportunity if they want to come and, you know, drive through to get to the commercial -- we hope they will walk through, but -- so, the connectivity exists, the functionality exists, but truly it's so close to Pine we hope that people are going out to Pine to access the signal that way. Simison: So, Deb, I'm going to piggyback off that question just a little bit. Or your comments, because it's -- I guess help me understand safe -- you say safety for cut- through. My subdivision has neighboring subdivisions that are connected and cars drive by all the time. Nelson: Uh-huh. Simison: What is the challenge -- is it that the roads are not wide enough to allow other traffic through? What--what is the--or you just don't--they don't want it to drive through? Nelson: Mr. Mayor, that's a great question. Yes, it is -- it's a lot to do with the size of the roads and the facilities there and, actually, our engineer is probably the best person to answer that question and so I'm going to let Dave Bailey address that. Bailey: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Hoaglun, my name is David Bailey. I'm with Bailey Engineering. Office address is 1119 East State Street in Eagle. The -- the drive lanes within this project are actually just like apartment drive lanes. They have parking that backs into them and they are the place that -- you know, that our -- our tenants move around in and so they would be exactly like you would have in any apartment complex from that direction. So, the reason for naming them and actually calling them private streets is twofold. One is so that we can have the appropriate sewer and water easement within those streets that the city can maintain their--their facilities and, secondly, because the Fire Department wants to have those private streets named so that they can address the buildings in a -- in a more organized manner. Otherwise, we would be addressing these buildings throughout the site off of Pine or off of Ten Mile through that direction. So, they are not intended to actually function as private streets from the direction that say your subdivision, whether it has public or private streets, has traffic and connectivity, we certainly want to have connectivity -- pedestrian primarily and -- and secondarily, you know, the vehicular, you know, just the way to go, you know, to get there, but for the size of this project and the project next door, the intent is certainly for all traffic to go to a collector street and, then, go from there to the arterial. So, people traveling to the commercial within this project from the project to the west, could come through this way, but we don't see that as a -- it's not a -- it's not a travel route, it's a way for people within the apartments to get to there -- within the complex get to their apartments and the fun -- the traffic, you know, functions just fine from that perspective. So, hope that answers that a little better. Simison: It's an answer, I will give you that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 30 of 40 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, I have lived in this area for a number of years. Very familiar with this whole quadrant and just -- just a couple of things that I wanted to share and maybe you can shed some light on. You mentioned that you hoped that people will walk to those commercial areas. I assume you mean from within the development, because in my opinion this area is not pedestrian friendly in any way, shape, or form, nor is it friendly for bicyclists. So, if you have someone that's renting in your community and they work down in the Ten Mile interchange area, that's not, in my opinion, a pedestrian or bicycle friendly area. So, just curious your -- kind of your thoughts around that and that doesn't -- that's not specific to your development, other than it sounds like you are hoping that there -- you know, there will be a pedestrian element to it or you are trying to encourage that. And, then, the second thing I wanted to say is -- this is more of a comment, but I always love the -- the -- you know, the video renderings, for lack of a better term. I don't know exactly what you call them. But one thing I noticed about this one -- and maybe it's just the coloring used in it -- is all I saw was blacktop. Like I'm going through there and all I see is like -- is just asphalt everywhere and that was the thing that struck me so significantly and so I -- you know, we -- we already discussed this quite a bit here and that is, you know, we know that Meridian is -- is suburban and we have struggled to become more urban in a lot of ways, but it's necessary that we do that, and so I see this as a really suburban feel and that's not necessarily a comment that you need to -- that I'm saying that needs to be changed, I just -- this -- this whole -- this whole area has a lot of rentals, a lot of apartment complexes. I know that was designed on purpose by the Ten Area -- Ten Mile area specific plan for there to be a lot of opportunity for folks to live in this area and work in this area. I would have loved to -- I know the concepts that your company does, I would have loved to have actually seen these be owned, instead of renting, but that's not the concept that's here. So, I just -- you know, I have concerns this whole area 20 years in the future, that we will be out of ratio for homes that are owned versus homes that are rented. But also -- and I know it's allowed, so this is not -- again, this is just something I'm kind of throwing out there. But the commercial -- this is -- the reason I'm bringing all this stuff up is because it really links into the commercial in the sense of we have had a lot conversations as a city about our ratio of commercial to residential and it's -- it's -- it's not a ratio that I'm satisfied with personally as a Council Member. I would like to see us have more commercial. I know commercial is a general term for a whole host of different uses, but we already have a lot of multi-family in this location. So, I know we are here, I know you have already done your plan, you are not likely to change your plan because of my desire per se, but I really would have liked to have seen actually some additional commercial use, because we need that in our city in my opinion, so -- before we close the public hearing I wanted to give you a chance to respond to those comments. Nelson: Thank you very much. Mayor, can you hear me all right? Simison: Yep. Nelson: Okay. Thanks. Council Member Perreault, thanks for the -- the questions and comments and I will try to answer and, then, just provide some responsive comments as Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 31 of 40 well. Yes, I was talking about pedestrian access to our commercial and I think that's one of the great things of what this development is offering is all of these pathways that lead to a neighborhood commercial feel, plus there is a little more draw of the regional commercial with the corner opportunity. I mean the site does -- does still have, you know, somewhat constrained access, but there could be some drive-through opportunities at the corner for, you know, folks going off to work, would be -- we would love to have an active commercial corner there and so there certainly is enough space for it. I mean with our vertical integration and what we have laid out, just in concept at that commercial, we are over 28,000 square feet of commercial for only a 16 acre site. So, that--that's actually quite a bit and in -- because of the willingness of the developer to really work on that vertically integrated project to pull that commercial into the site and to really find ways to even have, you know, these smaller commercial uses that are a little more likely to site there right away, so we do hope that there will be additional connectivity and use between our rooftops that support the whole Ten Mile specific area plan, you know, to help that connectivity that you say is missing here. We are improving our frontage. Hopefully all these new detached sidewalks will help people walk down there. It certainly is a very short walk to work at the Amazon facility or FedEx to get there from our development and so we hope that that -- that actually will support this and this -- this, you know, slightly denser development style is what's needed to support both connectivity from a pedestrian standpoint and commercial, which I hear you, is -- is a very important aspect of this. So, we hope we are actually helping to further the vision that you have for this area with this project by doing that. So, I think one more comment and you -- I think maybe the -- the aspect of the fly through just being kind of high, it looks like -- and we were actually trying to show -- we went down the streets to show the feel as if you were between them and I do think it over emphasizes the street, perhaps, as you noted. It was -- it was a trying to give you the feel of it inside of it. But, truly, if you think about the fact of our prior discussion about how narrow these driveways are, it's not all asphalt. We have asphalt as needed to serve the commercial, but we have really broken it up with those two plazas that are in between that have the decorative pathways that connect right across the parking lots and the street, so it really does I think pull it in and break it up maybe more than that was evident from that. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, I see -- we have nobody in the audience and no one online. I assume we have no one signed up to testify. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. I will still throw it out there in case there is anybody in the room would like to testify or make comments, you can use the raise your hand feature. And seeing no one, I will turn this over to the applicant for any final comments. Nelson: Thank you, Mayor and Council Members, for your consideration of this and for your thoughtful review and comments. We appreciate your insights on it. It has been a long collaborative process for more than a year of working with staff and -- and through the Commission with two hearings and we feel very proud of what we are bringing to you Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 32—40 tonight. I hope that you can see it will be a nice addition to your city to offer the -- the opportunities of the vertical and horizontal mixed use integration and this, you know, in demand housing type that can serve so many of your residents. So, with that thank you. Simison: Thank you. Borton: Hey -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Deb, I will ask you one question about the commercial and I guess one of -- one of my concerns might be that this is so successful and so popular that this area becomes -- and the commercial in particular becomes really crowded and maybe an unfair comparison that leads to the question is the -- I think it's Locust Grove and Chinden, totally different development, but you have got where the -- I'm drawing a blank on the -- on Homestead and a bunch of popular commercial adjacent to residential and it's -- the parking there is a disaster and -- and I wonder-- as I look at -- at what you are proposing, perhaps there is fewer commercial pads than -- than what's over at that example. But is there any concern that even though it might be technically adequately parked that if you throw some establishments it might become extremely popular and create that type of problem that they have got over there with parking? Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, we can only hope to have a wild -- a wildly successful commercial development. But as for the parking concerns, we -- we should have ample parking. We have 429 parking spaces on site, where only 324 are required under your code -- meet our residences, our clubhouse, the vertically integrated and the commercial. So, I think we have got that flexibility already built into the site plan with those counts to accommodate any -- you know, if there is a restaurant that's particularly successful that would -- that would be nice. Borton: Okay. Mr. Mayor, just to comment on the -- Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: -- on the question that one of the things I think you have done really well is encourage that pedestrian connectivity for these diverse housing opportunities and the residents there, encouraging them to walk or bike to these establishments and leave their car behind. So, I think that's really well done. Simison: Council, I will just take a second to at least say -- say my peace. We -- I think we have heard a lot about Council's concerns over shared driveways in projects recently, so I'm -- I won't try to be a broken record, but it is a little concerning to me to have a project this size that does not really have what I would consider cross-access to neighboring properties. You know, when you look at those last public hearing we really talked about -- we talked about cross-access and how it interacts with adjacent residential. No idea what's being planned for that site, but I go back to Dashwood, I go back to a lot of other Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page"—40 conversations and when we limit cross-access, even with an emergency access -- heck, let's go talk about the stuff we heard last week. The emergency access -- cross-access, it just -- it creates more challenges than generally I think if we upfront created real cross- access and accommodated that. That's just a general comment. You know, I don't know if -- if multi-family gets a pass from needing to have cross-access, because it's all supposed to be self contained and not connected to others. I don't -- I don't know the answer to that. But I think from a general standpoint for me, looking at things when you don't allow for vehicle cross-access, that creates challenges or problems and things I think that we should generally take another look at and how we apply them. So, food for thought, whether it's for today or for the future. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Appreciate you waxing poetic on that, but I'm also curious do you have a suggestion for an improvement to this particular application that you would like to see implemented to address that concern of yours? Simison: Yes and no. I mean I would make a full public street access connected to the south up through the project, but that would require some, you know, significant modifications to this project in ways that I don't -- can't sit here and tell you here is the way it would work or how it would best be implemented, but, yeah, that's -- I would make that a full public street through there and modify the entire development to allow for that to occur, if I was going to be very serious about recommendation. I have no idea what the impacts of that would be to the design, the layout, and I agree it's a very attractive project, a lot of great mix components, but it does feel like it's its own little island and I don't know if own little islands are what we support and advocate for from development. That's what it feels like to me. I have been trying to really think about other multi-family developments around the valley and if that's the approach that makes sense, as compared to not -- so, again, it's a general comment as much as it is something else. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I think this is an interesting project. I think it looks nice. My only concern is I would have liked to have seen more commercial on Ten Mile. We have one shot at commercial and I agree with Deb, you know, 20,000 square feet is not a small amount. That's -- that's -- that's just what I'm thinking right now. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 04 of 40 Hoaglun: Just to go back to your comments -- and I think they are a good point that -- that you make. I think we have to look at it, though, as a site by site basis. The location of this being at the corner of Pine and Ten Mile, I think if we put something further to the south would be a right-in, right-out only and where this is located so close to the -- I call it the half mile mark and you are going to have a light at Pine, ACHD and other developments should be going to that light and not coming up from other locations and, again, it would be a limited -- I think right-in, right-out, otherwise, it's -- with that light that close it makes sense for this site, but to your overall point I do think we ought to take a look at -- at developments as they occur and where they occur and how those things are put together and what type of easements or accesses are there for the --for that situation. So, it's just one of those where for this -- I do think it's -- it's well designed. Yeah, you would like to see more commercial. I appreciate the Commission going through this -- Planning and Zoning Commission had two meetings on this and really worked through a lot of-- a lot of the issues and -- and -- and worked very hard, along with staff, to -- to put together -- and kudos to the applicant for working with them and making some changes and -- and putting together a site that I think is -- is good for this particular location. Other comments notwithstanding, that can we always look for improvements? Probably. But it's -- it's -- it's well done. So, I think this is something that we can move forward with. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Yeah. Thank you, sir. I just wanted to comment on that a little bit. I guess to put it bluntly, a lot of the concerns that have come up are things that staff has relayed to the applicant from the beginning. I might get thrown under the bus for that, but that is something that has come up -- especially the public road access that I did mention and that you had asked about, Mr. Mayor. When that was brought up I was vehemently told no and not a big discussion point and I understand their reasonings to some degree. I do know one of them would be where that could connect if it were to connect to Ten Mile or to Pine, that location is going to be largely dictated by ACHD and I don't know where that would be, because that has never been presented to ACHD from my understanding. But I just wanted to reiterate that staff does understand where Council is coming from and a lot of these concerns were brought up in pre-app meetings and other non-official pre-app meetings. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Joe, for sharing that. I always appreciate the staff's perspective on those things, because when we get these packets it's just, you know, frequently a huge amount to -- to go through and sometimes it is nice to just hear it, instead of trying to read through dozens of pages of it. But-- so, I wanted to comment on what you shared, Mayor. I think for me it's not so much the element -- I mean it is the private streets, but -- because we see that a lot in apartment complexes; right? We see just -- just like Mr. Bailey Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page——40 mentioned, it's the -- it's the integration of the private apartment complex type idea with a commercial, which is what you don't see frequently happen, and so that's -- it's not as much the fact that it's isolated and there isn't cross-access, wouldn't, in my opinion, be as much of a challenge if this was just a residential piece, but when you tie the residential piece in with the commercial and, then, you don't have cross-access that's where the issue comes in. That's just my opinion. So, if the residential piece was separated from the commercial, then, that might be a different conversation. On a corner I wouldn't love it to have that -- if this commercial were isolated from the residential on a corner I don't think that would make sense. But I -- if I understood you correctly, I believe you suggested that there be a public street that comes up from the south and exits -- that goes all the way up to Pine or are you suggesting that it exit out onto Ten Mile there to the east? Simison: All I would be suggesting is that where it currently is connecting through that the emergency access, that that somehow be a public street that connects -- it could connect back out to where the current exit is. Again, it would -- it would likely require a redesign for a lot of reasons. You can't make those corners. There is all those -- I -- I get it. I understand it. I like the project. I just do ask the question, you know, we create a lot of winners and losers when we talk about connectivity in these situations and, you know, I go back to some of the most contentious conversations that I have seen before Council over the last three years have been, you know, where connections are going to occur and where they are not going to occur and when we create a situation where we have two projects coming in, maybe roughly at the same time, and we -- we basically show a connection, but we don't want to make a connection, I have to ask the question of why -- you know, what is the value to whom and why. What is appropriate. What is not appropriate. And this is one where we don't have the benefit of the other application, so we don't know exactly what it's going to look like and why it should or shouldn't connect. So, that becomes my question when I look at this. We seem like we want a connection, but we really don't know why. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, would it be appropriate to provide any responsive comments on this topic? May I respond? Simison: Does Council want -- sure. Nelson: Just briefly to make sure you have the full benefit of what we are trying to balance here and in a lot of discussions with staff and with the Commission about this, we are trying to balance that we want this to be a pedestrian friendly neighborhood and so we have got all these pathways and crosswalks where we have got, you know, everyone walking, including potentially children to the amenities, and enjoying the play areas and enjoying the pool. So, we want to balance, you know, their -- their safety and pedestrian access. At the same time it's exactly as you pointed out, Council Member Perreault, because of the commercial is why staff asked us to open up that northwest corner and we did and so there -- there is that opportunity. But truly the expectation from -- and what ACHD has asked for is that our users, the neighbors to the west, and, really, everyone down Pine Street -- because this is all going to be open now -- use Pine as that collector to get out to the intersection and including to our commercial that way. So, those were Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page——40 the things we were trying to balance and so we do have it open, it does provide cross- access, but it's not intended to be the collector that Pine is. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: I do have the plat available for the Fox Cross Sub, which is the sub to the west, if you would like to see it. Simison: I would not. I don't want to confuse the conversation -- Bongiorno: Okay. Simison: -- more than it does. I think we saw a little bit in the flyover of what the road configuration next door likely looks like. I noticed that. But thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I would just like to -- to comment -- it seems like our applications this evening -- and frequently we have conversations about what's happening surrounding the subject properties that we are considering and not --you know, in -- in -- in addition to the property itself and -- and as you know elected officials making decisions on behalf of an entire city, we have to take those into account no matter how fantastic a project might be and so just --just wanted to say it's never -- I understand how it can -- it can appear to be a reflection of the application before us, but truly it's that we -- we are obligated to have this bigger picture decision making as we consider each of these and so it's not to be just -- I want to kind of put this out there that it's not because we are making a decision about the subject application based on the neighboring property, but that we -- I mean we do -- we have to take that into account as we look to plan the city as a whole and so I wanted to say that, because it's -- it's frequently a frustration of applicants. Now, you do this for a living, so it may or may not be yours, but it's frequently a frustration and, unfortunately, sometimes there are effects on the decisions that we make because of what happens in the surrounding area and that's just what we have to do. So, maybe it wasn't necessary to say that, but sometimes I feel an obligation to put that out there if we have members of the public who are listening and trying to understand how -- you know, all the different variables that we take into consideration. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I -- I appreciate the discussion. I will just give you a snapshot of where I'm at, if we are deliberating a titch before closing the public hearing. To start with, with the comp Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page— —40 plan and the future land use map. I mean it's mixed use community. It hits exactly what's intended there and with the C-C and the R-15, hits what's intended in that description of the comp plan. In this circumstance -- and Councilman Hoaglun mentioned it -- referenced it well. I think in this circumstance the directive of traffic to Pine and -- and to Ten Mile is appropriate. I thought the way it's laid out and not connecting with the public street to the west made sense in this circumstance and Deb referenced the pedestrian connectivity and the desire to -- to have this try to be self contained and encourage folks to --to be able to easily walk to the amenities or walk to the commercial for a cup of coffee or a restaurant or go to the bank. I think all of that is -- is encouraged by this design and it's something that -- that we like to see. The parking it's -- it's more than adequately parked. I think the answer on the parking concerns was spot on. The open space and the amenities I think are really nice for this and we talk often about diverse housing options, not only in the design, but in the -- in the opportunities for residents to have options and this clearly provides a lot of that. I think that is pretty creative and the -- the -- the connectivity, which I -- which I referenced earlier. So, I'm just looking through my notes. I think it's a great project. I really do. I don't think it needs to be redesigned. I think it's going to be extremely popular and it puts traffic where it should, utilizes Pine and Ten Mile well. I think the -- the waiver that's requested for the buffer, seeing that it's kind of a self contained project between the C-C and the R-15 is appropriate in this particular circumstance. We are not abutting commercial next to some different projects that's not related to it. So, in this circumstance that waiver seems to be appropriate. So, I'm supportive of it. Ready to move forward as designed with all of the conditions within the staff report, including that waiver of the reduced buffer between the two zones. Simison: Any additional comments? Motions? Questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: If we don't have any further comments or questions, I would move that we close the public hearing on H-2020-0099. Cavener: Second. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the good discussion on -- on this project and also on -- on issues that we have to consider in future projects. We have a big responsibility here. Our community is growing and growing rapidly. There are things that-- and it will continue to grow and we just have a lot to consider when these things come before us and Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page 38 of 40 sometimes we can impact them and direct them in a way that--that makes improvements and there is other times where there are things there that we just have to do the best we can with what we can do within the constraints of the law. So, as has been mentioned this is a thoughtful project. A lot of work and effort has gone into it to make it a very good project. I know our-- I saw some statistics today I was reading about the for rent and why it's so popular and because of wages versus what was needed for a down payment from a conference that was held about housing in the Treasure Valley and -- and this is why these are things that are coming forward, because there is a great demand for it and the better quality it is that's -- that's fantastic and understand why they are doing some of the things they are doing and I think going forward that we just have to continue discussing -- discussing and debating the issues for each -- each development as it comes before us for those important items that we talked about tonight. So, I'm ready to make the motion, unless other folks have a comment. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve H-2020-0099 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 9th, 2021, and with a modification that with the waiver to reduce the buffer to what is shown on the submitted landscape plans. Cavener: Second. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: It was brought up a moment ago, at least during the discussion, and it -- I just think it's important to reiterate that part of the process that was done really well here is -- is our planning staff pressing particular issues that they thought -- Joe, you did a good job in -- in raising concerns. Not code compliance necessarily, but thoughtful planning considerations. We really appreciate it when you and our entire planning staff brings those things up and has just good discussion with our applicants. That got vetted well with Planning and Zoning all of that, it just leads to a better outcome and a better product and it may be challenging at times for an applicant to go through those discussions and perhaps challenging for our staff, too, but you all have a lot of professional experience and I know our P&Z -- and we certainly appreciate it. Some things come through and make projects better and some things don't become part of a project, but the discussion is really important and we all, in review of these applications, look at how those are discussed, how P&Z may or may not have addressed it, how the applicant may or may not have addressed it, so really appreciate the thoughtfulness in the staff report, Joe, in raising specific areas of your professional concerns. So, keep up the good work. Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 9,2021 Page——40 Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Borton. I appreciate that. It means a lot coming from Council. Sometimes it feels like bashing my head against a brick wall. So, I appreciate it very much. Simison: So, any further comments? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. Thank you very much and, Joe, you and me both, we will go bash our heads against the wall together latter. Dodson: Thank you, sir. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 5. Ordinance No. 21-1915: An Ordinance (H-2020-0083 Southridge South) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 36.04 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to (7.15 Acres) and from R-2 (Low Density Residential) and R- 4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District (28.89 Acres) in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Up next is ordinance. Action Item No. 5 Ordinance -- Ordinance No. 21-1915. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2020-0083, Southridge South, for rezoning a parcel of land in the northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada county, Idaho; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 36.04 acres of land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to (7.15 acres)and from R-2 (Low Density Residential)and R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District (28.89 acres) in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Page 60 Meridian City Council February 9,2021 Page 40 of 40 required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like to read it in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 21-1915 with the suspension of rules. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to and the ordinance is approved. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Okay. Item 6 was taken off the agenda, so it doesn't exist. So, with that do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and we are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:16 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 2 / 23 / 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 61 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 : February 9 , 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 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. E Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic I i i City Council Meeting February 9, 2021 FLUM City Council Meeting 2021February 9, FLUM Proposal for annexation, rezoning to R8 common lots. 8, and preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and - •correspondence that they did not support this connection. meeting with ACHD to discuss this issue. ACHD submitted written Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant scheduled a •.westo the access to the commercial property -Recommended Council to discuss cross•Rd. Usticksouth to W. the property from the common area to the north, and the common area to the Add requirement that 6’ vinyl fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of •story.-5 of Block 2 be limited to one-Added requirement that Lots 2•west. Discussed at length whether access should be provided to commercial lot at •to single family residences.Commission discussed whether open space in Lot 1, Block 6 backed directly •whether it would be affected. Requested fencing along eastern property line. and UstickOne citizen testified regarding concerns about a ditch along E. Changes to Agenda: Item #2 – Vicenza North Subdivision – Applicant is requesting to withdraw application following Commission recommendation of denial and associated comments from Commission. Item #3: Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) Application(s):  Annexation, zoning and preliminary plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 7.58 acres of land, zoned RUT in Unincorporated Ada County, located NE of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: West – C-C and R-15 (vacant and Edington Commons – approved in November), North - vacant unincorporated, East – R-8 (Woodburn West No 2 Subdivision), South – R-8 (Creason Creek Subdivision). History: There was a previous proposal to annex and rezone to R-8 to allow 35 single family lots in 2006. This was subsequently denied by the Council (AZ PP H-06-030). Significant reason was listed as “piecemeal development.” At the present, City property has been annexed south, east, and west of the property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Summary of Request: Proposal for annexation, rezoning to R-8, and preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and 8 common lots. Notes: Access Development proposes 5 points of access.  Three are stubs – W. Woodpine to the west into Edington Commons, one north and one eastern stub.  Two points of access are from existing streets – W. Woodpine St (Woodburn West Subdivision) and W. Ustick Rd.  Present access from W. Ustick Rd occurs at N. Llama Lane. th  N. Llama Ln will be closed and new access (NW 12 Dr) will occur slightly to the east.  ACHD supports this access because it will line up with an existing street and will slightly increase the intersection spacing from what presently exists.  W. Ustick is already improved with 5-travel lanes, bike lanes, vertical curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site.  The applicant will be required to construct all internal roads to the 33’ ACHD template.  5’ sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all internal streets.  One common driveway is proposed with this development. Open Space and Amenities  Development proposes 15.12% of open space.  This includes several small landscaped areas on either side of the northern stub, a 25’ buffer along W. Ustick Rd, several pathway common lots, a central open space, and landscaping at the northeast side of the property adjacent to the ditch.  13.46% of this space would meet the requirements for qualified open space. This includes the central park, ½ of the buffer, a pet amenity and seating area, and pathway connections to the existing pathway along the ditch.  One qualified site amenity is required.  Applicant proposes: o 33,457 sq. ft. central park with a playground and two pathway connections. o This meets the requirement for a minimum of 50’ x 100’ to be credited as qualified open space, a recreation amenity and the additional 20,000 sq. ft. required to be credited as an additional amenity. o The central park exceeds the minimum landscape requirements of one deciduous shade tree per eight thousand (8,000) square feet and lawn. It also contains two pathways that connect to an existing pathway along an existing ditch, and these two pathways are landscaped with at least 5’ landscaping on either side and 1 tree per 100 linear feet. o Because the pathways meet the landscaping requirements, are not required sidewalks and connect to existing pedestrian and bicycle routes outside of the development (pathway along the ditch), these pathways would be also be considered an amenity. Trees There are existing trees that meet the requirements for preservation or mitigation, particularly in the vicinity of the ditch at the northeast portion of the property. The City Arborist has noted he has had preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding which trees should be preserved versus may be removed, although staff as of yet has not received a tree mitigation plan. This will be required with the final plat. Building Elevations  The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project.  The single-family homes are depicted as two-story structures with two-car garages, and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs, dormers, stone wainscoting, lap siding, exposed timber, and scalloped wood shingles.  Some of the houses will be very visible from W. Ustick Rd. Therefore, staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of the 2-story structures visible from W. Ustick Rd incorporate minimum articulation requirements. Planning Commission  The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on January 7, 2021. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject annexation and preliminary plat request.  Citizen identified himself as Rick Wagner, the owner of the property directly to the east of the subject property. Expressed concern regarding potential obstructions to the ditch along E. Ustick that he uses for flood irrigation, and the road that is proposed to stub at his property. Requested applicant construct a barrier along the property line, such as a fence.  The Commission inquired into whether the proposed open space in Lot 1, Block 6 adjacent to the ditch backed directly to existing single family residences, and whether open style fences would be used in this area to preserve visibility.  The Commission had significant discussion regarding whether access should be provided to the commercial lot at the west and their concerns that if access was not provided, it would further limit commercial viability for this lot.  Added a requirement to the development agreement requiring Lots 2-5 of Block 2 to be limited to one-story.  Add a requirement to the development agreement that 6’ vinyl fencing shall be installed along the perimeter of the property from the common area to the north, and the common area to the south to W. Ustick Rd.  The Commission recommended for the Council to discuss cross-access to the commercial property to the west as it had been a significant issue of concern for them.  Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant scheduled a meeting with ACHD to discuss this issue. ACHD submitted written correspondence that they did not support this connection. That correspondence has been included in the agency comments section below. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject annexation, zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions listed in the staff report. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0112, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 9, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0112, as presented during the hearing on February 9, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0112 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Mile High Pines (H-2020-0099) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning; Preliminary Plat; Conditional Use Permit (Director has approved Private Street and Administrative Design Review applications) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 15.95 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at SWC of Pine and Ten Mile. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: - C-C and commercial to the east across Ten Mile Road; - C-G and self-storage to the south across railroad tracks; - County residential to the west; - Vacant land and R-15 zoning to the north across Pine Avenue extension History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community Summary of Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.02 acres) and R-15 (11.44 acres) zoning districts; Preliminary Plat consisting of 5 building lots and 1 common lot; Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units in the proposed R-15 zoning district. The proposed land uses are multi-family residential (in the form of detached cottages, townhomes, and vertically integrated structures) and commercial and are consistent with the land use types noted in the Mixed-Use Community summary. Of the 135 residential units, 87 are the detached single-story cottages, 42 are the townhome units, and there are 6 units within the two vertically integrated structures. The proposed product type is by definition multi-family (more than 2 units on a single building lot) but the Applicant has designed the units to emulate single-family attached and detached structures that share pedestrian pathways and open space rather than public streets (this is the sister project to the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat development). The proposed project as shown is approximately 8 du/ac, meeting the 6-15 du/ac range for the MU-C designation. The proposed residential area of the site incorporates mews, private streets, common open space, and different housing designs within the same parcel. Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing two-story townhomes along the southwestern boundary and on part of the eastern boundary along Ten Mile with the rest of the site being a majority of single-story structures. Staff believes placing the commercial along Ten Mile offers an appropriate buffer between the busy arterial roadway and the single-story structures that make up the center of the development. The Applicant is also proposing a segment of multi-use pathway along the southern boundary as required in the Master Pathways Plan. This segment will connect to the existing arterial sidewalk along Ten Mile and to a proposed micro-path traversing the entire western boundary of the subject site that connects to the detached sidewalk along Pine Avenue. In addition, the proposed sidewalks in this development are essentially micro-pathways and connect throughout the entire development. The Applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the residential portion of the site and overall, they comply with the ASM. The Applicant submitted additional elevations showing additional color options for the detached structures. In addition, the Applicant has provided conceptual commercial elevations which also appear to show compliance with the ASM. Both the residential and commercial lots will be required to obtain design review approval prior to building permit submittal. This Applicant and the Applicant for the proposed project to the north and west of this project have entered into a legally binding agreement that outlines the options for how the Pine Avenue extension will be constructed. In addition, ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension and road improvements can occur. At a minimum, this Applicant will construct the intersection improvements as half of a 3-lane street section (one westbound receiving lane, eastbound left turn lane, and an eastbound thru/right turn lane). In addition, the Applicant is, at a minimum, required to extend and construct Pine Avenue outside of the influence area of the intersection as half of a 36-foot wide collector street section plus 12 additional feet of pavement to total 30 feet of pavement with 5-foot detached sidewalk as well. In addition, the Applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the required signal improvements at the Pine/Ten Mile intersection. Staff appreciates the forethought of this agreement to ensure correct construction of the Pine Avenue extension. Access is proposed via one private street access off of W. Pine Avenue and one driveway access to N. Ten Mile Road – the Ten Mile access proposed as a full-access at this time. ACHD is requiring the Applicant construct a southbound right-turn lane on Ten Mile Road for safer southbound access into the site. The Applicant is also proposing an emergency only access through one of the private drives (N. Side Creek Lane) along the western boundary. No gates are proposed with this development to improve integration and connectivity in line with the mixed-use policies and goals. The private streets are proposed at least 25 feet wide with attached sidewalks of varying widths on both sides of the street throughout the site. Both open and covered parking is proposed along the private streets. Staff had concern with the street layout at the main entrance to the development off of Pine Avenue where there is 3- way intersection. The Applicant revised this intersection following the first Commission meeting and it is now shown as a more standard “T” intersection. Staff believes this design is more efficient and safer and appreciates the redesign by the Applicant. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in the UDC for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The latest parking plan shows a total of 429 spaces for the entire development. 320 are proposed for the residents, 8 are reserved for the 3,500 square foot clubhouse, 20 are shown for the vertically integrated units, and the remaining 81 are for the proposed commercial sites. The proposed parking exceeds the UDC minimum requirements. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on December 17, 2020 and January 2, 2021. At the public hearings, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject The proposed landscaping for the required street buffers and common open space meets UDC requirements as proposed. The proposed C-C zoning district requires a 25-foot landscape buffer to any residential district; the submitted plans do not show compliance Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit requests. with this requirement. Because this is a mixed-use development and there is the presence of some landscaping, a sidewalk, and the street between the residential uses and the commercial, Staff does not have particular concern over this discrepancy. However, in 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: order to comply with the UDC, the Applicant will have to request a waiver from City Council to reduce this buffer to the buffer shown on the submitted landscape plans. a. In favor: Deborah Nelson, Applicant Legal Rep.; Dave Bailey, Applicant Engineer Based on the proposed plat of 16.46 acres, a minimum of 1.65 acres of qualified common open space should be provided. In addition, the common open space standards for multi-family developments also apply. Combined, the required amount of minimum qualifying b. In opposition: None open space that should be provided is 2.56 acres. According to the open space exhibit, the applicant is proposing a total of 3.62 acres of qualified open space. Of the 3.62 acres, 2.47 acres is proposed to meet the overall minimum 10% requirement (2.47 acres equates c. Commenting: Deborah Nelson; Dave Bailey to approximately 15%). This qualified open space consists of the 10-foot multi-use pathway segment, the required street buffers, and two large common open space areas. The remaining 1.15 acres of common open space is meets the multi-family open space d. Written testimony: None requirements. These areas of open space consist of the mews between the attached products, areas of open space that meet the minimum 20’ x 20’ multi-family open space dimensions, and two plazas shared between the commercial and residential portions of the e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner site. The proposed open space exceeds UDC requirements. Based on the area of the proposed plat (16.46 acres), a minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided. The f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor applicant proposes a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the southern boundary, satisfying this UDC requirement. The rest of the amenities proposed are meant to meet the specific use standards for MF development. A minimum of four amenities are required but 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: the decision making body is authorized to consider additional amenities for developments containing over 100 units, as is the case. The following amenities are proposed: a clubhouse with offices, a fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and a pool; a tot-lot, two shared a. None plazas, and pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing 7 qualifying site amenities, exceeding UDC requirements. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval of the subject applications. a. Amount of Commercial versus Residential in both zoning and commercial square footage; Viability of Staff’s recommended conditions and layout changes – Staff and Commission b. went through each recommended change and discussed items with the Applicant following testimony from the Applicant; Timeline of Pine Avenue extension from Ten Mile to existing section of Pine; c. Importance of Public Works standards for utility mains within private streets and whether d. proposed plan can work – Staff received a memo from Public Works before the second Commission hearing for this project outlining preliminary support of utility plans; Discussed the changes made by the Applicant following the continuance and any Staff concerns – no concerns by Staff. e. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Revise the staff report to reflect the changes and strike specific conditions as outlined in the Staff Memo to the Commission dated December 31, 2020 – i.e. remove all of Staff’s recommended changes except for the one regarding the revised internal 3-way intersection off of Pine Avenue. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant did not submit a parking plan in line with a condition of approval. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0099, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 9, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0099, as presented during the hearing on February 9, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0099 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Request for Withdrawal of Application for Vicenza North Subdivision (H- 2020-0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Page 4 Item#1. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: February 9, 2021 Topic: Request for Withdrawal of Application for Vicenza North Subdivision (H-2020- 0108) by Bridgetower, LLC, Located in the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Page 5 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Page 6 Item#2. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: February 9, 2021 Topic: public Hearing for Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H-2020-0112) by Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC, Located Northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.58 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 13.99 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : February 9 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Tetherow Crossing Subdivision ( H - 20 M112 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 T lM N G �vv � v, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#2. STAFF REPORT E IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 2/9/2021 Legend � DATE: Prajec!Lacfliiar TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach 208-884-5533 ---- Bruce Freckleton,Developments Services Manager - 208-887-2211 4 ' SUBJECT: AZ,PP H-2020-0112 i OEM Tetherow Crossing Subdivision I � LOCATION: The site is located northeast of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation,zoning from Ada County RUT to R-8, and preliminary plat to allow 46 building lots and 8 common lots on 7.58 acres of land. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 7.58 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 46 building lots,8 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 46 of units) Density(gross&net) 6.07 Open Space(acres,total 15.12%total, 13.46%qualified open space.This includes [%]/buffer/qualified) '/2 of 5,134 sq. ft.of buffers. Amenities 33,457 sq. ft. open space with playground,trash,and pet station. Physical Features(waterways, A ditch parallels the property on the east perimeter. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 15,2020—4 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) There was a previous proposal to annex and rezone to R-8 to allow 35 single family lots in 2006.This was Page 1 Page 8 Item#2. Description Details subsequently denied by the Council(AZ PP H-06-030). Significant reason was listed as"piecemeal development." At the present,City property has been annexed south,east, and west of the property. B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Direct access from W.Ustick Rd. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Greater than E Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross 5 points of access—3 stubs,one southern connection to W. Access Ustick Rd and eastern connection to W.Woodpine St. Existing Road Network No existing internal streets,W.Woodpine St.to the east and W.Ustick Rd to the south are existing. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ W.Ustick improved with 5 lanes,bike lanes,curb,gutter Buffers and 5-foot detached sidewalk. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant will construct all internal roads to 33' in width. Distance to nearest City Park(+ .5 mile to Settler's Park,a 60-acre Regional Park. size) Distance to other key services Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.7 miles to Fire Station 2 • Fire Response Time <5 minutes • Resource Reliability 85% • Risk Identification 2,resources are adequate • Accessibility Yes • Special/resource needs Aerial device will be required • Water Supply 1,000 gpm required • Other Resources None Police Service—No Comments • Distance to Police Station 4 Miles Ada County Schools Impacted Schools Hunter ES— 1.6 Miles Sawtooth MS—.5 Miles Rocky Mountain HS— 1.6 Miles Capacity of Schools Hunter ES—675 Sawtooth MS— 1,000 Rocky Mountain HS— 1,800 #of Students Enrolled Hunter ES—504 Sawtooth MS—905 Rocky Mountain HS—2,412 Estimated#of students generated by development Hunter ES— 15 Sawtooth MS—8 Rocky Mountain HS— 10 Page 2 Page 9 Item#2. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14 • Project Consistent with • Additional 88 gpd committed to model WW Master Plan/Facility • Piping coming in/out of SSMH#2 needs to have a Plan minimum angle of 90 degrees. • Since property to the north is not a phase of this project Road number 4 sewer line needs to end in a manhole at the northern end. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Water connection to the west must line up with layout of Edington Commons Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend Praject Laca�an � Proiect Luc a=or _w l ?ei r� W.i-�;tial S U Da IQUJJ t �' identia�l Page 3 Page 10 Item#2. Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend � Legend waml 01 F*o"e�- Lxa=or Priect Lncalior� _i City umils R-4 — P1or�a3ed Pflrt�ls T RUT U EEO 1 1C RUST UT 4 RUT �� RUT UT RUT µme'.8� ® Rr " X Applicant Information A. Applicant Representative: Hayden Homes Idaho, LLC— 1406 N.Main St. Ste 114,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Dennis Creek—770 E. Clear Creek Dr,Meridian,ID 83646 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1/22/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 1/19/2021 Nextdoor posting 1/19/2021 Sign Posting 1/25/2021 Page 4 Page 11 Item#2. IV. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Annexation: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridianciu.orglcompplan) This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The annexation area is near existing public services and is surrounded on three sides by the City limits. The proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the FL UM designation. The proposed project has a gross density of 6.07 du/ac, meeting the required density range listed above. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-8 zoning district to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section IX.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): • Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) The proposed single-family detached homes will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the City; however, there is no variety in housing types proposed within the development. There are other housing types, multi family and attached single-family within the subject square mile. The FL UM recommends densities of between 3 and 8 dwelling units per acre. Given this density recommendation, likely any resulting housing would be single-family. • With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The proposed plat depicts 5'sidewalks on both sides of all local roads.A 33,457 sq.ft. open space with playground and seating area is toward the center of the development.A 5'wide pathway connects from the primary internal north—south street(NW 13`h St) across this open space and connects to an existing pathway which runs along a ditch to the east. This pathway is shown to connect to a future pathway to the north of the property that provides access to Sawtooth Middle School. There is also a micro pathway across a common lot connecting to the vacant commercial property to the west. There are multi-modal routes proposed both to the development and within the development. Page 5 Page 12 Item#2. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) Attached sidewalks are proposed on both side of all streets. Sidewalks will be completed to the terminus of all stub streets which would connect to any future development. As mentioned, there is a walkway which connects to a pathway along the existing ditch pathway to the east, and another pathway which stubs to any future development to the west. "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) Water will be provided from a connection which is available at each end of W. Woodpine St. Water will be stubbed to the vacant parcel located to the southwest of the site. Sewer will be extended from an existing sewer stub located within the W. Woodpine St.and from an existing gravity sewer located in W. Ustick Rd. • Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction. (2.02.02F) To the northwest of the subject property is Edington Commons, a subdivision of 92 lots averaging 3,700 sq.ft. and zoned R-1 S (single-family attached and detached)which was approved in November 2020. To the east of the property is the Woodburn West Subdivision, zoned R-8 with lot sizes in the 5,000—6,000 sq.ft. range. The property southwest of the subject property is zoned C-C(recommended for Mixed Use Community) and was proposed for townhouses in 2018 but was subsequently withdrawn. This development proposes architecture consisting of one-and two-story homes with pitched roofs, stone bases and/or lap siding with gabled roofs and dormers comparable to what has been approved with the Edington Commons Subdivision to the west. Staff believes the proposed average of lot size of 4,000 sq.ft. would provide an appropriate transition from the 6,000 sq.ft. lots to the east(Woodburn West), the 3,700 sq.ft. lots to the west(Edington Commons)and the property at the northeast corner of W. Ustick Rd. and W. Linder Rd which is recommended for Mixed Use Community (meaning higher density and commercial uses could be appropriate). In order to ensure compatibility and quality of design with existing and approved residential uses surrounding the property, staff recommends a condition that rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 15-22 of Block 3 and 2-3 of Block 4 that face W. Ustick 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. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. • Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. (6.01.02B) The proposal includes five points of access. Three of these are local stub streets, with two connections to existing streets-one of which is W. Ustick Rd, an arterial.An access from W. Ustick Rd to this property already exists via Llama Ln. This proposal would eliminate Llama Ln. and create a new public street, NW 12`h Dr which will align with existing NW 12`h Dr. on the opposite side of W. Ustick Rd. (to the south). ACHD supports this as the road alignment Page 6 Page 13 Item#2. would be better than what exists, and there would be slightly better intersection separation from the intersection of N. Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. (See Access, Section G below for more information). D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. E. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district.All lots proposed meet the minimum 4,000 sq. ft.requirements,and future structures should comply with the minimum setbacks of the district. UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 feet, although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided. The longest block length(Lots 2- 12,Block 3)is 440 feet. All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. This includes property sizes,required street frontages of at least 40', and required road widths. 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. One common driveway is proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided a common drive exhibit which demonstrates 3 units are served whereas a maximum of 6 units are allowed. The common driveway meets the minimum width of 20' and does not exceed the maximum length of 150'. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited,unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer. The landscape plan does reflect a 5' wide buffer to the north separating the common driveway from a 4' high solid vinyl fence with 2' lattice top. North of this fence is an approximately 18' wide common lot containing a pathway to the west. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4): This development proposes five points of access. Two points of access are to existing streets. There will be a connection to existing W.Woodpine St.which serves the Woodburn West Subdivision to the east,and there will be a connection to W.Ustick Rd(arterial)to the south. Access from W.Ustick Rd presently occurs via N. Llama Ln,which runs north-south. This proposal would eliminate N. Llama Ln. and construct a new north-south road slightly to the east which would align with existing NW 12t1i Dr. on the south side of W. Ustick Rd.Although the new access for NW 12'Dr.will not meet ACHD spacing requirements of 1,320 ft. from the N. Linder Rd./W. Ustick Rd. intersection,ACHD supports an exception from this policy. This is because the new road would align with an existing one, and the distance from the intersection is slightly more than what is existing. All internal roads in this development are proposed to be built to ACHD standards with 33-foot wide local street sections with curb,gutter, and 5-foot wide Page 7 Page 14 Item#2. concrete attached sidewalks. W. Ustick Road is already improved with 5-travel lanes,bike lanes, vertical curb,gutter, and 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site. Three internal stubs are proposed. One stub is proposed to the north to unincorporated vacant property, one stub is proposed to the west to connect to W. Woodpine St. in Edington Commons (final plat approved Nov 4,2020), and a third stub is proposed to the east(existing single-family home and telecommunications equipment which will likely redevelop in the future). The preliminary plat reflects an access easement across to a northern property which is not part of this subdivision, and notes it is unknown whether or not this access easement is granted or recorded.As this northern property is essentially landlocked, as a condition of approval, staff recommends that prior to signature of the City Engineer on the final plat,a new temporary access easement be granted to this property until such time as W.Woodpine St. and N. Llama Way is constructed to the property and dedicated as public right-of-way. ACHD has reviewed this proposal,notes it will generate 434 vehicle trips per day, and supports it as proposed. ACHD requested a note to the plat prohibiting direct access to W. Ustick Rd,which has been added. H. 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.Future development should comply with these standards. The preliminary plat reflects an additional 30 on-street parking spaces. These would not be used in the calculations for required parking. I. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): Three micro-pathways are reflected on the landscape plan. A 110' micro-pathway is proposed from the internal road to the C-C zoned property to the west., and there are two micro-pathways connecting from the central park amenity(Lot 1,Block 6)to an existing pathway along a ditch to the east. The ditch pathway is shown to connect to a future east-west regional pathway to the north. All proposed pathways meet UDC 11-3A-8 with at least 15' wide easements (or common lots), at least 5' of landscaping on either side, and one tree per 100 linear feet. Fencing along these micro-pathways is shown to be 4' solid vinyl with 2' lattice open top. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 No parkways are proposed with this development. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The landscape plan reflects 15.12%of total open space. This includes several small landscaped areas on either side of the N. Llama Way stub, 25' buffer along W. Ustick Rd, several pathway common lots, a central open space, and landscaping at the northeast side of the property adjacent to the ditch. UDC 11-3B-7 requires street buffers with detached sidewalks to be measured from back of curb. As measured from back of curb, approximately 13' of the required 25' landscape buffer along W. Ustick Rd is located within ACHD right-of-way. Per UDC 11-3B-7-05,the applicant shall be Page 8 Page 15 Item#2. required to obtain a license agreement with ACHD prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. There are existing trees that meet the requirements for preservation or mitigation,particularly in the vicinity of the ditch at the northeast portion of the property. The City Arborist has noted he has had preliminary discussions with the applicant regarding which trees should be preserved versus may be removed, although staff as of yet has not received a tree mitigation plan. This will be required with the final plat. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): 13.46%of qualified common open space is proposed. This includes a 33,457 sq. ft. central park feature(Lot 1, Block 6), %2 of the 25-foot-wide buffer along W. Ustick Rd., a 3,867 sq. ft. pet amenity and seating area(Lot 1, Block 3) and a 1,970 sq. ft.pathway common lot(Lot 13 Block 3). N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(7.58 acres),a minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3. The applicant proposes a 33,457 sq. ft. central park with a playground and two pathway connections. This meets the requirement for a minimum of 50' x 100' to be credited as qualified open space, a recreation amenity(playground),and the additional 20,000 sq. ft. required to be credited as an additional amenity. The central park exceeds the minimum landscape requirements of one deciduous shade tree per eight thousand(8,000) square feet and lawn. It also contains two pathways that connect to an existing pathway along an existing ditch, and these two pathways are landscaped with at least 5' landscaping on either side and 1 tree per 100 linear feet. Because the pathways meet the landscaping requirements,are not required sidewalks and connect to existing pedestrian and bicycle routes outside of the development(pathway along the ditch),these pathways would be also be considered an amenity. The proposal exceeds the requirements of UDC 11-3G-3 and is a located in an appropriate location taking advantage of being central to the development and adjacent to an existing ditch and pathway. O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): A ditch is adjacent to the property at the NE. This ditch will need to be piped per UDC 11-3A-6. P. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The landscape plan reflects existing fencing along the northwestern perimeter of the property. New 6' solid vinyl fencing is proposed along most of the remaining perimeter of the property. 6' vinyl lattice top fencing is proposed along both sides of pathway Common Lot 13,Block 3,most of the periphery of Central Park Lot 1,Block 6 except for the eastern portion adjacent to the ditch, and Common Lot 1,Block 3 (the dog station). The fencing appears to meet the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Q. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Water is available from W. Woodpine St. Sewer is available from W. Woodpine St. and from a main in W. Ustick Rd. Water and sewer will be stubbed to the vacant property located to the southwest. Pressure irrigation will serve all lots. The system will be owned and operated by the homeowner's association. Surface water is delivered to the site at the southeast corner of the property along W. Ustick Rd. Page 9 Page 16 Item#2. R. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project(see Section VI.F below). The single-family homes are depicted as two-story structures with two-car garages, and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs, dormers, stone wainscoting, lap siding, exposed timber,and scalloped wood shingles. The submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes but do not include elevations of the sides or rears of structures. As noted in the Comprehensive Plan section, some of the houses will be very visible from W. Ustick Rd. Therefore, staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 15-22 of Block 3 and 2-3 of Block 4 that face W.Ustick 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. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation,zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VII.per the Findings in Section VIII. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on January 7,2021.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject annexation and preliminary plat request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Tim Mokwa,Ross Erickson b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Tim Mokwa. d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Citizen identified himself as Rick Wagner.the owner of the property directly to the east of the subject property. Expressed concern regarding potential obstructions to the ditch along E. Ustick that he uses for flood irrigation. and the road that is proposed to stub at his property. Requested applicant construct a barrier along the property line. such as a fence. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: Page 10 Page 17 Item#2. a. The Commission inquired into whether the proposed open space in Lot 1,Block 6 adjacent to the ditch backed directly to existing single family residences, and whether open style fences would be used in this area to preserve visibility. b. The Commission had significant discussion regarding whether access should be provided to the commercial lot at the west and their concerns that if access was not provided,it would further limit commercial viability for this lot. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Delete condition lc regarding the temporary easement,as this easement has already been recorded. b. Add a requirement to the development agreement requiring Lots 2-5 of Block 2 to be limited to one-story. C. Add a requirement to the development agreement that 6' vinyl fencing shall be installed along the Perimeter of the property from the common area to the north,and the common area to the south to W.Ustick Rd. 5. Outstanding issues for Council: a. The Commission recommended for the Council to discuss cross-access to the commercial property to the west as it had been a significant issue of concern for them. Following the Planning Commission meeting,the applicant scheduled a meeting with ACHD to discuss this issue. ACHD submitted written correspondence that they did not support this connection. That correspondence has been included in the any comments section below. Page 1 1 Page 18 VI. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 11/9/2020) 33 L 4. PAUT cC_IL LG r-w-K LM L C I'I I-r .YM I T RM -Ell T-U., 44 brWER—F!WILON W-Is rGrI.IUM1.mo;�Meam� ;L wex.;, RAS hw- whd� 'MAOMMM., 38 ......... iLqql IG r F c— I IL l L E E -7 �T —E r Ir 1. LQL � l I i r A, cm3m RALIAMV CH &-r fo-cli, Page 12 Item#2. B. Landscape Plan(date: 11/9/2020) u h •• L NPee ,• Ex 511Hq I I I 11 II ?M1.'+' '-- LOCATION 4 H-Li II[.J{NL. 6OHMON AREA WAL HJFBER OF I X I•I 114� II � K kkH HNb mTkil.t ,ID-W-rxr m olrul L:er i. :`ram,,.•. 5} 111 J i - - TILE.AREA TO LC '4 fLIP ;�, O[57L7O1+Fk-1 TrT'r F',b.,Fk1►71C: a-a g. ;,f •-r3 ;{,STwL'4kl'k rr VIRil Pt Df*%T STS rEH 4-1 0-3 I ! '—' +-a I ,II- wWk:,r!J4 I I 0M 11zIII 13 .• I1I 1 r.mw S =4 II J- - .-3 EEII FH IYI I I: 1,,yyIY/rFl $ZfLltHII V�}f-4- r•L- "; r ate. fs• L ., Ell Hi •ram •"C - ' ,��may'--o-•— - — — —„—`•:�"�— — — —— — � — __ _____________________ �-s[. ro-����=sue.......... }___. Page 13 Page 20 Item#2. C. Color Landscape Plan(date: 11/9/2020) I� - - r ± barnwffi5ETAwhm W'.+.TiCK bPF5 4� e-7 -7 I T-2 I Y i kllanotFm. 11. III =.-L F&R* R EV TTI'M7. _ _ _ SI •6LAS a I TRES Fk%:YO EO r 1 �•�.� E*&nl6 MEES YZ5 TPTI }L TL2:.AMMA TO R t," ` 5"frl k1tG€ —FBCF T To , W HALL Ti?Tr :a 1 {T7'Pl D*FAW4%rA ITr'' May � I 8Ar1 _ FrATMA y MP �Adl _ f+i1,T7Yi1,.Y 3YSTCFI n. G.7.'.IG-OIYS ' 5_3 45 I i k i �•� __ I F S-M1 1 *_1 i 9-0 I w4 y ; s-5 a-a I 4 f ItWct em" -e• 1 ,t.. 12-3 '-7 FF tTTf'TT if-r I i':S I 14s I IF-S I i6-.3 I ,1-3 I m'S I 3-5 I 12-3 1 3-4 I 1 ' evmPwNm=h U-FMd1PM i -TIML�I v'; t`' 17i Ira I --BiFFEQ t'r*� i Pe USFDf ...........Y.a..... .Lila.r.LL..��.u!■!�l4..aal TL[[�- 1. ----------------------_-v_-___ -- ■l L..._.. falL•a_.+..}.!!!].Y..�.T7 Page 14 Page 21 Item#2. D. Open Space Exhibit(date: 11/6/2020) TETHEROW CROSSING SUBDIVISION F7QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE(11-3C'r3.B.4) F-1 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE(11-3C'r3-B-1 A; (59XIIDd'AND PLAYGROUND AMENITY) --- QUALIFIED OPEN SPADE-1 MICRO-PATH- WAY(11-3G-3.1) F-1 QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE SEATI NO, PET STATION AMENITY(11-3G F-1 NON-QUAUFIED OPEN SPACE F7COMMON-SHARED DRIVEWAY F-1 BUILDING LOT RIGHT OF WAY IT] COMMON KnS&6UFFEFtS QUAIJ FIED QUAUFI E D ACTUAL OPEN OPEN AREA SPACIE SPACE 35F) CREDIT AREA(SF) HALF OF 25•FOOT W.USTICK RD_BLUFFER(11.3G•3,1141 51134 10D% 5,134 PLAYGROUND&OPEN SPACE LOT 1-6(SO'X 100'MINI{11-3G-3_B_1.A] 23,457 10M 32.457 OPEN SPACE BENCHES,TRA$H,PET STATION-LOT 1-3 3,K7 lbo% 3,857 MICRO-PATN1WAY5 LOT 13-3 1197D 100% 11971) OPEN SPACE-OTHER NON QUALIFIED 3,057 IYA SHARED DRIVEWAYS 2,409 09A TOTAL OPEN SPACE 4%a-94 SF 44,42a $F QUALIFIE OOPE N SPACE MDVIDM 44,428 13-46% TOTAL OPEN SPACE PROVIDED- 49,894 SF 1$-12% Page 15 Page 22 Item#2. E. Common Driveway Exhibit(date: 11/6/2020) 13-3 F CONCRFTF TRA,.SH"AD * 14-3 31�4 IF CONXRETE&MED DRIVEWAY # . 4: ft F. ---- ------- FROKU FRONT FMNT I � • I I I I �—euLDINGSETBACKC I I—DUI_DI%-SSETHACKS I I� BUILDING sEr ,cs I x I f�: •F I +}:17 :F I I . 70,0 S.Du' I I 5,DU 5,41 i FAQ' S.UQ I I I I I r I -FNGE( YR.) I I I I I I I I_ I ?•. I I I I I I I IL _ I .%.•I �2.C•,. I r -5 F Page 16 Page 23 Item#2. F. Building Elevations Y� ems® Ego I Y Eb A 0 o ar Page 17 Page 24 Gm#2 Q. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit. ƒY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION TETHEROW CROSSING SUBDIVISION 22 LOCATED IN THE SW]¥ OF THE SW ]« OF SECTION : TAN, ]�v , E V. y CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNY, IDAHO 41 � � ��- | � � k � � ) @ � 9i#F r Sym'f k - - � . / PROPOSED ANNSAIION z , %9 ACRES |� � �_ % �� �� w o \ ] ] S ®��� � RIOT 7 2 \ BEGINNING & a d W. USTICK RO, 2E4,3'Q-W gl3g w (/' . . .. �#0EKz& .�S «A«' - ... @ 7! 150' 3DY U n d 4o l ut@ o n s UM Sumyingand GwouI#m ». mom A _M&mDm o�2 _ Page 18 PgeS Item#2. Legal Description Proposed Annexation Tetherow Crossing Subdivision A parcel being located in the SW' of the S'JV'/, of S ectian 36. Township 4 North, Range 9 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada Coumy, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the southwest corner of said Section 36, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SW' of said Section 36 bears S 88043'02" E a distance of 2662.34 feet; Thence along the southerly boundary of said SW'. S 88043'02" E a distance of SUM feet to the POINT OF RECINNING; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N O'll T23' E a distance of 48,00 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of W. Ustick Road; Thence continuing N O'lT23' E a distance of 787,24 feet to a point- Then ce N 89'51754" E a distance of 274.59 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of Woodburn West Subdivision No. 2 as shown in Book 111 of Plats on Pages 16040 through 16044, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said westerly boundary of Woodburn West Subdivision No. 2 the following described courses, Thence S 14'45'42" E a distance of 356.68 feet to a point; Thence S 81'01'42" E a distance of 125.46 feet to a point; Thence leaving said westerly boundary 8 0'02'28" A a distance of 434.45 feet to a point on said northerly right-of-way of W, Ustick Road; Thence continuing S W02'28" W a distance of 48.00 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of the SW' of the SW' of said Section 36; Thence along said southerly boundary N BV43`02"VV a distance of 493,39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, This parcel oontains 6.12 acres and is subject to any easements o �k- LA&,,)s existing or in use. s 7-6,� Clinton W. Hansen, PLS Land Solutions, PC (Z4 October 6, 2020 ' 0 1 Page 19 Page 26 Item#2. VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family dwellings included in Section VI and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-story structures on Lots 15-22 of Block 3 and Lots 2- 3 of Block 4 that face W.Ustick Rd. shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. pfepeAy to the aat4h. Said easement shall exist tinfil sueh time as W.Weedp+iae St. fflfl_�_ N. Llama Way are eanstfueted to the pr-opefty and dedieated as publie r-i& of way. d. Lots 2-5,Block 2 shall be limited to one story in height. e. A 6' tall privacy fence shall be constructed along the eastern property boundary, except for areas along common open space that must have visibility per the fencing requirements of UDC 11-3A-7. L That City Council to consider cross-access to the commercial property to the west as it was a large concern for the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VI, dated 11/9/20,is approved as submitted. 3. With final plat submittal,the Landscape Plan included in Section VI, dated 11/9//20, shall be revised to reflect a tree preservation and mitigation plan that is approved by the City Arborist as required per UDC 11-3B-10. 4. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 5. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 6. The applicant shall comply with the sidewalk and parkway standards as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-17. Page 20 Page 27 Item#2. 7. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13. 8. The ditch to the east shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches,laterals,canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. 9. Pathway and adjoining fencings and landscaping shall be constructed consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A7, 11-3A-8 and 11-3B-12C. 10. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to driveways, easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 11. 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. 12. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-613-7. 13. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Additional 88 gpd committed to model. 2. Piping coming in/out of SSMH#2 needs to have a minimum angle of 90 degrees. 3. Since property to the north is not a phase of this project Road number 4 sewer line needs to end in a manhole at the northern end. 4. Water connection to the west must line up with layout of Edington Commons 5. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by GeoTek, Inc. indicate some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report, groundwater was encountered in all of the excavated test pits,ranging from 4.8' to 6.9' below ground surface. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. General Conditions of Approval 6. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. Page 21 Page 28 Item#2. 7. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 8. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms.The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes.Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review.Both exhibits must be sealed,signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor.DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,and approved prior to development plan approval. 9. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3).The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required.If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 10. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 11. 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. 12. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190. 13. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 14. Street signs are to be in place,sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 15. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping,amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 16. 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 Page 22 Page 29 Item#2. performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 20. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 21. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 22. 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. 23. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 24. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans.This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 25. 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. 26. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans.Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 27. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature.This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 28. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years.This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for Page 23 Page 30 Item#2. surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https:11weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=217408&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOLS REPORT https:11weblink.meridianciV.org1WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218948&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr--I E. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217397&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218091&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iu G. ACHD COMMENTS ON SHARED ACCESS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219871&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCi ty H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancioy.orgIWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218390&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu I. SETTLERS IRRIGATION https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217508&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty J. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218520&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iu VIII. 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. hi order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-8 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property, if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section V11. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Page 24 Page 31 Item#2. Commission finds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that housing opportunities will be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Commission recommends the Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section VII. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-611-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. Page 25 Page 32 Item#2. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The applicant will be required to submit a tree mitigation plan that is approved by the City Arborist prior to final plat. Otherwise, Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. Page 26 Page 33 Applicant Presentation Tetherow Crossing Subdivision February 9, 2021 Meridian City Council 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Page 57 Item#3. C� fIENZ AHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: February 9, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Mile High Pines Subdivision (H-2020-0099) by Baron Black Cat, LLC, Located in the Southwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave. A. Request: Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 acres) and R-15 (11.42 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 3 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 58 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : February 9 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : Mile High Pines Subdivision ( H = 2020 - 0099 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 � 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#3. STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 2/9/2021 Legend DATE: Project Location ®®� TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner I 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0099 ® �� Mile High Pines LOCATION: The site is located in the southwest corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Pine Ave., in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section . 10,Township 3N.,Range 1 W. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Annexation of 17.46 acres of land with a request for C-C (6.04 6.02 acres) and R-15 (11.442 acres) zoning districts; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 35 building lots and 1 common lot on 15.95 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts; • Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 135 residential units on 11.42 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district,by Baron Black Cat, LLC. Note: The Applicant is also applying for private streets and administrative design review. These applications are reviewed and approved by the Director, Commission action is not required. Analysis of the building and private street design are provided below in section V. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 17.46(R-15— 11.42 acres;C-C—6.04 acres) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Community Existing Land Use(s) County residential and farm land Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-Family Residential and Commercial Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 4 total lots- 1 multi-family residential;2 commercial;and 1 common lot. Pagel Page 59 Item#3. Description Details Page Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one phase Number of Residential Units(type 135 for rent units(detached single-family style cottages, of units) townhome style units,and vertically integrated development with all units on a single lot). Density(gross&net) Gross—8.2 du/ac.;Net— 10.68 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total 3.62 acres of qualified open space overall(approximately [%]/buffer/qualified) 22%)—2.47 acres for 11-3G requirements(approximately 15%); 1.15 acres(49,928 square feet)proposed for 11-4-3- 27(Multi-Family)standards. 1.22 acres of private open space is proposed(53,028 square feet;approximately 393 square feet per unit)to meet specific use standards. _ Amenities 8 qualifying amenities— 10' multi-use pathway,pool, clubhouse,picnic areas,tot-lot,fitness facilities,enclosed bike storage,and a edestrian/bicycle circulation system. Physical Features(waterways, N/A hazards,flood plain,hillside) i= Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 16,2020—2 attendees; attendees: History(previous approvals) F N/A B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via one private street connection each to Hwy/Local)(Existing and W.Pine Avenue(future collector)and N.Ten Mile Road Proposed) (arterial).Pine will be extended by this Applicant and the adjacent Applicant on the north side of Pine from the intersection of Pine&Ten Mile west to the Tenmile Creek. Traffic Level of Service Ten Mile Road—Better than"B"(1.474/1,540 VPH) Pine Avenue(existing section only)—Better than"D" (182/425 VPH) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing private streets throughout the Access development with one stub street connection proposed to the west property line in the northwest corner of the site to offer a frontage road from the proposed development to the west to the commercial on this site.No other vehicle connections are proposed as the subject site other than an emergency only access near the southwest edge of the site. Existing Road Network No(Ten Mile Road abutting the site is only existing road) Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is no existing buffer to Ten Mile Road(the abutting Buffers arterial street)but there is existing attached sidewalk along the property's entire frontage on Ten Mile Road.The required landscape buffer will be installed with this project. Proposed Road Improvements The Applicant,in conjunction with the Applicant of the property to the north,is proposing to extend Pine Avenue west from the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile to the Ten Mile Creek.This Applicant is only responsible for the Page 2 Page 60 Item#3. Description Details I Page construction of Pine that this property abuts(approximately 885 feet). Distance to nearest City Park(+ 0.9 miles to Fuller Park(21.9 acres in size)by car; size) approximately 0.5 miles to Fuller Park via existing and Tanned pathway and sidewalk connections. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.2 miles from Fire Station#2 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 86%. • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(multi-family and railroad tracks) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds;Fire has signed off on Private Street layout. Addressing for project is very important for emergency responses;Applicant shall work with City Addressing Agent and the Fire Official to have lighted maps wherever necessary. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4-minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 11/1/2019- 10/31/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,244 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. The crime count on the calls for service was 112. See attached documents for details. Between 11/l/2019- 10/31/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 32 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) No comments have been received from West Ada School District • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services NA • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.05 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 1,332 gpd of flow is committed •Provide to-and-through to 3515 W.Pine Ave and 3513 W Pine Ave. •Light poles cannot be located inside utility easement. •In multiple areas it looks like the sewer and storm drain lines are too close together.Please provide 4 ft separation between center of storm drain and sewer. This enables repair/replacement of manholes and sewer lines in the future. Page 3 Page 61 Item#3. Description Details Page Water • Distance to Services 10' • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •See the attached water markup for more detail •The water main in Pine Ave needs to be extended east and tied into the existing 12"near Ten Mile.Also,the water main in Pine Ave needs to be extended west to the west property boundary.This will fulfill the to-and-through requirement. •The water main in W.Little Lane needs to be extended to the west property line. •Install water main in N. Side Creek Lane and stub at the property line to provide a future connection to the west parcel. •End the water main in N.Rangeview Lane(at the southeast corner of development)in a fire hydrant •There is an existing water main stub off of Ten Mile at the southeast corner of the development that either needs to be used or abandoned COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 3,710 Jobs w/in 1 mile 1,350 • Ratio 0.4(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio)indicates an employment need. Nearest Bus Stop 0.8 miles Nearest Public School 0.6 miles Nearest Public Park 0.8 miles Nearest Grocery Store 0.5 miles Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Section VIII.F Page 4 Page 62 i 1 1 - . - ERRY �Im .n„ _■ - . - RR�Ygill, ills NONE �� 1► ILr■ ���Ll:i� �� .r alone no'IE NINEIII ■ ■ 1 1 sonEEI W son INIMINNER � :Earl EEI■ �_.■ _ ■■ __ .,�' � - i_. in millig ■ 1�'.'. :III _ - I ■ nu■rr I 9 I EI ~ 11 11111111111►�1�- Man I O��a, a ul■■IIIIIIIIII- ,,��- 'PINE -- � —P IN E� 1=' ===:mn ���.. - III I� � � • ' ��iMl� � •� IE■III 11111111111111111111111 ,c f,- ���- .i-. ':�• '# - yy `{ ?aY4r gg Ui LL 1 { FRAN1%,- FRANKLIN' '�nnunnm �riunm■1-II■m■..... a� ram■,•1„ _ IIIIIII _=111 1 � VIIIIII -11f1.? el���w�C�-. --- I _ mill �11 EEE■- o I�r ■■.■■...�``pp oil - . - . -Aom �� ■lil■ E RR�Y . � li��lunn n nm 1■� ■ Inu�E,auil�a iiin '" Er - =:nuunnn■nu ■_ =:nunum■nu _� mnnnn mm r _� nunuu■nnu ■ w + ■ ■ - nlnnum nun �� ■ - nlnnum nun t- rIr11O Guln9i EIIEEEIIEEE IEEn■ ' • -• '• - p iw nu■9i EIIEEnuEIIEmEE IEEn■ � p■nunum Ilnun v1 I Elnnn Gnu ■:'�\- nu■■■ -:�\pAc :_ ►�� mum ..■:III I«,91 n nnn -■nl r p■u■■ n nnn �rl - louun■i Ic ■ IIII pm u■ ■` '► � ■■■ ■ ■■ Noon:■�.� ■■ ■■nun■. S,-.==''-a `�� , p'�� �m _� 11 111111111 /]h'�- • IN IIIIu11111► 1� �IT�� 11 „■n_l:-*-•�-CC A 1�iA. ■■I■■1 : IIIIIIYYMI PINE ••�•■1�illlllllll* -�IIIIII ' P-IN G =�11 - ��■ - ?I� _- =�■1111 I '=��G=�==■1111 "� =IIIIII-'� y- - IIIl\Ar III=----■-IIIAIAIIIIE � �,� III-=����-1111111111 9�■III[.� , �I� '"O Ilil E ,� 1��I11--nn1lAlAq■I IIIE11 I r` 1�� � L�- um - a,+ 1_om nnnn■nnullnn' ■.e�� I /don � 1 •• r 1 Z f'- r mu■ n1u111111 oil 11Elu1mn■1■ ■■M=■■■■■ 11 Ron Item#3. IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/27/2020 1/22/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 11/23/2020 1/20/2021 Site Posting 12/7/2020 1/18/2021 Nextdoor posting 11/23/2020 1/19/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Mixed Use Community—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community- serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N)areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU- R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The subject site has existing City of Meridian zoning and development to the east and north of the property. Its directly borders to its north and east are or will be streets and the southern boundary abuts the railroad easement for the historic Oregon Short Line RR. Directly to the west of this project is another project that is currently under review by City staff. Across Ten Mile Road is existing commercial zoning and uses as well as a Church use;south of the railroad tracks is a 15-acre self-storage facility. The proposed land use of multi family residential(in the form of detached cottages, townhomes, and vertically integrated)and commercial are consistent with the land use types noted in the Future Land Use Map (FL UM) designation definitions and preferred uses. The proposed product type is by definition multi family(more than 2 units on a single building lot) but the Applicant has designed the units to emulate single-family attached and detached structures that share pedestrian pathways and open space rather than public streets (this is the sister project to the Modern Craftsman at Black Cat development). The proposed unit types also provide more private open space than traditional multi family development,furthering its feel of single family residential. In addition, certain densities are required to be met for residential projects within the MU-C future land use designation. The proposed project as shown is approximately 8 du/ac, meeting the 6-15 du/ac requirement(see community metrics above). Therefore, Stafffinds the density proposed with the annexation and plat is consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Mixed-Use Community (MU-C). Mixed-use designations also require at least three (3) types of land uses. When analyzing projects within the MU-C future land use designation, the approved and/or developed land uses nearby must be considered. Therefore, Staff has taken into account adjacent land uses that can be traveled between with relative ease. The closest development to this property is a commercial development containing a gas station, a bank, and other office uses. East of this commercial node are detached single-family homes and north of it are some attached single-family homes. All of these uses and developments are also part of the MU-C designation abutting and encompassing this site which add to the diversity of uses available within this designated mixed-use area. Page 6 Page 64 Item#3. The subject development offers 6 acres of commercial zoning according to the proposed rezone exhibit. However, the proposed C-C zoning does not truly reflect the commercial area as it does not reflect the plat boundary. Staff cannot support dual zoning on a property and so the Applicant should revise the rezone exhibit and/or plat boundary to have only the R-1 S zoning district on the area of the site containing residential and remove commercial zoning that goes beyond the proposed commercial lots. With revisions requested by Staff within this report, the Applicant will have to make adjustments to the rezone boundary as well; all of these changes should occur prior to the City Council hearing to ensure transparency on the true amount of commercial zoning being proposed. Regardless of the zoning issues discussed, the proposed commercial areas should accommodate multiple future uses, including the two Vertically Integrated Residential buildings that contain additional leasable commercial area. The commercial acreage of this property is proposed as two commercial lots; one in the very northeast corner of the site containing one building and one more lot that contains the remaining area and buildings, as seen on the submitted preliminary plat. The submitted plat shows two of the three commercial buildings as containing drive-thrus which Staff does not support. Staff supports the use of a singular drive-thru establishment located at the hard corner of the commercial. Despite this opinion, Staff is not willing to specifically limit the number of drive-thru establishments with this application because each drive-thru will require a conditional use permit to implement this use. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that through our existing process is the best route to determine whether any drive-thru is warranted on this site. Staff notes that the Applicant has taken experiences from the process of obtaining approval of their project that is of the same type of design here in Meridian by incorporating pedestrian connections between shared open spaces and outdoor plazas between the residential and commercial portions of the site. The incorporation of these elements provide a clear answer to a mixed-use goal: `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 place-making opportunities considered."Staff finds that with the pedestrian connections and easy access to integrated plazas, the Applicant is meeting this goal. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "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).Mile High Pines (the sister project to Modern Craftsman at Black Cat) is offering a unique type of development within the City of Meridian by proposing single-family attached and detached homes within a multi family setting. A vast majority of the housing that exists around this development are traditional detached single-family homes. The Applicant hopes to add an additional housing type in this area that will delineate a unique living opportunity in the City and add to the housing diversity available. Page 7 Page 65 Item#3. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A). The proposed site design incorporates mews,private streets, common open space, and different housing designs within the same parcel. The area directly adjacent to subject site is undeveloped land but is requesting approval for a mix of housing types to include traditional multi family and detached single-family at a lower density than this project. Despite being in a mixed-use designation, the Applicant has chosen to propose a development that is made up of mostly single- story structures instead of 3 or 4 story apartments. The Applicant did this in order to be more compatible with other nearby residential development and create a sense of place by not having multi-story buildings throughout the site. In regards to site design, the Applicant is proposing two-story townhomes along the southwestern boundary and on part of the eastern boundary along Ten Mile with the rest of the site being a majority of single-story structures. The only other two-story structures proposed are those vertically integrated structures located closer to the proposed commercial zone. With the majority of the two-story structures and the commercial being along the periphery of the development, the single-story structures and largest open space areas will be buffered by these structures and landscape buffers. In addition, the townhomes along the western boundary will abut a cul-de-sac and only a few of the larger lots proposed with the adjacent subdivision to the west. These aspects of the site design and buffering are notwithstanding the pedestrian and bicycle pathways that line the entire edge of the proposed project, offering additional recreation opportunities and more buffering from adjacent subdivisions and the adjacent roadways. The Applicant is only proposing one access to Ten Mile Road that will be a restricted, right- in/right-out only access for safety reasons. The only other direct access proposed is to the proposed extension of Pine Avenue near the northeast corner of the site—this access has been approved by ACHD as a full access because it aligns with an access proposed by the application to the west and north of this project. Reducing access points to arterial streets is a major goal within the City's Comprehensive Plan and helps funnel traffic in appropriate manners. Staff believes placing the commercial along Ten Mile offers an appropriate buffer between the busy arterial roadway and the single-story structures that make up the center of the development. However, Staff does not agree that placing townhomes along Ten Mile is the best site design practice. Instead,placing the vertically integrated structures along Ten Mile, in place of the two townhome units, may offer a better transition. The Applicant could then re-orient the townhomes along Pine rather than the single-family style cottages as currently proposed, offering a better buffer and transition from Pine Avenue and future development to the north. The townhomes along Pine would front on the large green space proposed here and have the garages facing towards the inside of the site, eliminating the need for parking stalls on side of the northern most east-west street and helping to alleviate some of the utility issues presented by Public Works and discussed in more depth below. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks" (3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing arterial network abutting the site to the east,per Public Works comments. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal. Ten Mile Road is currently built at its final width abutting the site (S lane arterial) and is within one (1) mile of Interstate 84. West Ada School District has not offered comments on this project at the time of writing; the school districts standard ratio of potential school aged children would estimate 95 additional school aged children in this development. Chaparral Elementary is the closest school to the subject site and is within walking distance. Staff understands that school enrollment is a major Page 8 Page 66 Item#3. issue to be dealt with but some relief appears to be on the horizon with new schools opening up soon. Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for adequate levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the unified development code (UDC). The Applicant has placed a large area of open space in the center of the development that all units have almost equal access to which improves the overall project. Adjacent to this central open space is the proposed clubhouse and pool and to the east of the residential part of the project are two plazas with outdoor seating that is shared between the residential and commercial areas of the site. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to construct a segment of required multi-use pathway along the south boundary and then tying that into their own pathway system as a continuous loop around the project—these pathways are proposed with multiple connections to sidewalks along streets and those interior to the site offering additional usable open space and areas for recreation. See further analysis in Section V.E and V.L. "Explore development and implementation of architectural and/or landscape standards for geographic areas of the City."(5.01.02F). The proposed project site is not within a specific area plan for the City but because it is a multi family product, it is subject to design review. The Applicant has submitted a concurrent administrative design review application for the residential structures that accompanies Staffs review of the conceptual elevations. The architecture proposed throughout the residential portion of the project offers modern design elements that include shed roof combinations and are combined with stucco and stone sidings,finished wood as a siding and accent material, and metal as an accent material. Staff not only finds the submitted elevations to be in compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual but also finds this type of architecture as unique and a welcome addition to the neighborhood. "Establish distinct,engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use centers through design standards."(2.09.03A).As discussed above, the proposed product type and architecture would make Mile High Pines a distinct area within this part of the City. The Applicant has worked with Staff to offer a site design that provides some integration between the commercial and residential product types. In addition, there is a similar look and feel in the development created largely by the inclusion ofpedestrian facilities throughout the site and large amounts ofprivate open space provided for multi family development. The Applicant, as noted above, is incorporating two shared plazas in the development that Staff anticipates will be widely used and helps engage both the future residents and commercial patrons. Therefore, when considering the surrounding area of development, Staff finds that the proposed development meets a majority of the mixed-use policies and objectives. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a majority of the mixed use policies. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The site currently houses two single-family homes and associated accessory buildings.All existing structures will be removed upon development of this site. The Applicant will be responsible for maintaining the existing arterial sidewalks along Ten Mile Road during construction. Page 9 Page 67 Item#3. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is multi-family residential and commercial;the commercial area makes up roughly 1/3 of the site area,approximately 6 acres compared to 11.5 acres,respectively. Multi- family residential is a conditional use in R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Staff is unaware of any tenants being in place for the proposed commercial building suites. Because no tenants are currently known of, Staff cannot review those uses for compliance in the C-C zoning district. However,the submitted site plan depicts two drive-thru establishments next to one another—drive-thru establishments require a Conditional Use Permit when they are within 300 feet of a residential district, as is the case for this commercial area. Commercial buildings require Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)and Design Review so at that time Staff will evaluate uses for compliance with code. The multi-family development is proposed to be constructed in one phase and incorporate both detached and attached structures, as noted; of the 135 multi-family units,42 units are townhomes proposed along the western and southeast boundaries of the site and 6 units are part of the vertically integrated structures. Therefore,the remaining 87 units are the single-story cottages that vary in sizes form 1-3-bedroom units. As discussed previously,the multi-family buildings are subject to design review and the Applicant has applied for this concurrently with the conditional use permit application for the residential structures. The Applicant did not provide elevations for the future commercial buildings;upon submittal of the required CZC,the Applicant will be required to submit concurrent design review for the commercial buildings. The Applicant has provided conceptual elevations of the Clubhouse and it shares in similar architecture with the proposed residential units as required by the specific use standards. The proposed use is not a traditional type of single family or multi family development, it is a hybrid of the two. The Applicant could have chosen to plat each one of these buildings individually; the Applicant could also have proposed traditional 4-story garden style apartments. Both potentials have their positives and negatives and the Applicant is proposing a unique product type to the City of Meridian. The proposed units are a majority of single-story one, two, and three-bedroom detached units without garages. The Applicant is proposing more traditional apartment style parking to accompany the units but some units do have attached one-car garages. All of the townhome units also have attached two-car garages on their .first floor. Largely, the proposed buildings in this development look like detached single-family homes but have on-street parking and less private open space than a standard 4,000 or 8,000 square foot lot. However, the Applicant is proposing vastly more private open space than is required by UDC for multi family development. UDC requires at least 80 square feet per unit and the Applicant is proposing an average of almost 400 square feet per unit via small private yards for every single unit. The design of this can be best seen on the open space exhibit(see Exhibit VII.C) and the fencing plan shown on the last page of the landscape plans (see Exhibit HID). To be clear, the main proposed use is single-family detached structures combined with on-street parking that all reside on one single building lot, making it a multi family development by definition. There are also traditional style townhome units but are also on the same building lot, making the whole residential product type a multi family development. Staff has some recommendations regarding the overall site design to better transition from the busy streets and spread out some of the units for better utility delivery—Staff notes that all of the following recommendations are made with the overarching recommendation that no more units be added to the proposed development even if room is available within the site. First, Staff recommends losing the singular unit near the northwest corner of the site, south of the 4 units along the east/west street to open up this area and remove the potential for CPTED issues created by this odd unit placement. Secondly, as noted within the Comprehensive Plan analysis, Page 10 Page 68 Item#3. Staff recommends the Applicant replace the townhome units shown along Ten Mile with the Vertically integrated structure proposed near the center of the project. Because of the commercial component of these structures, Staff believes fronting onto Ten Mile will activate the commercial within this building and offer a better buffer along the arterial roadway. The Applicant should replace the vertically integrated structure with the four units currently proposed directly the west of it in order to then spread out the remaining units in this area. By spreading these units out, utility service lines will have more room to be placed and alleviate some of the concerns presented by Public Works in regards to the proximity of buildings in this area of the site. In addition, this recommendation could add additional common open space for the site depending on how the Applicant redesigns this area. Along Pine Avenue, Staff recommends replacing all of the detached units with townhome units— this would be where the two 6 plexes from the southeast corner of the site could be re-oriented. The townhomes would front on the large open space area proposed along Pine and have the garages face internally to the site. This removes the single-family style product from being adjacent to a major street and removes the need for parking spaces along the north side of W. Littleton Lane (the internal east-west private street). With this recommendation, the entire northern area of the site could be pushed further north to open up the site and allow for more room within the site to accommodate the required utility easements and possibly some additional traffic calming. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed multi-family development use is subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and subject to specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3- 27 and below: 11-4-3-27—Multi-Family Development: A. Purpose: 1. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. 2. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. 3. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties.Proposed project shall comply with this requirement. 2. All on-site service areas,outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures that are only visible from the private streets; all proposed transformer/utility vaults shall also comply with this requirement. Page 11 Page 69 Item#3. 3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. The private, usable open space provided for each unit varies with each unit type but each one provides more than the required amount.According to the Applicant's open space exhibit, the minimum private open space provided is 80 square feet(for the vertically integrated structures as balconies) and the maximum for any one unit would be approximately 830 square feet with an average size of approximately 400 square feet. Again, this proposed design offers private open space that is more akin to single-family developments but is still a multi family product and the type of housing that Baron Ten Mile is aiming to provide. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 5.No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. See analysis in staff report below. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail)that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) Per the submitted plans, the Applicant appears to meet these requirements. Where it is not clear on the submitted plans, the Applicant shall comply with these requirements at the time of CZC submittal. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict these items. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. Page 12 Page 70 Item#3. Note: Open space standards found in UDC 11-3G AND those found in these specific use standards shall apply to this project.Please see the applicability section of both code sections. Staff analysis for both open space requirements is in Section Y.L of this staff report instead of splitting the analysis into two parts. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20').Proposed open space submitted as meeting this requirement has been reviewed.All area labeled as qualified common open space on the open space exhibit complies with this requirement except for portions of the areas labeled as `Area 7"and `Area 2."The pieces of these areas that do not appear to meet the 20'minimum width requirement are negligible in the overall site and amount of open space proposed. 3. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. This project is proposed to be developed in one(1)phase. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4') in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff.retroactive to 2-4- 2009). The buffer along W. Pine Avenue, a collector street, and the buffer along N. Ten Mile Road, do not count toward the common open space requirements for the multi family specific use standards. However, those areas along the arterial and collector roadways do count towards the minimum 10%required open space for the residential development as a whole. D. Site Development Amenities: 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2)Fitness facilities. (3)Enclosed bike storage. (4)Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100')in size. (2) Community garden. (3)Ponds or water features. (4)Plaza. c. Recreation: (1)Pool. (2)Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. Page 13 Page 71 Item#3. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two (2) amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20)and seventy-five (75)units,three (3) amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five (75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Based on 135 proposed units,a minimum of four(4) amenities are required,however, the decision-making body is authorized to consider other amenities in addition to those provided per the standards listed above in 2.d. The following amenities are proposed from the quality of life, open space and recreation categories:a clubhouse with offices, a fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and a pool, a tot- lot,two shared plazas,pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and a segment of multi-use pathway. Therefore,the Applicant is proposing 8 qualifying site amenities.In addition to these amenities, the Applicant is proposing self-storage lockers(each locker is approximately 12 square feet)spread throughout each of the garage buildings so that residents may store small amounts of personal items onsite and near their units. This is also not a qualifying site amenity but Staff finds that these will likely be heavily used even though not all residents will be allowed to participate in it due to the difference in unit count and available lockers. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches (24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan provided appears to meet these specific use standard landscape requirements and shall be verified at the time of CZC submittal(see Exhibit VII.D). F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The commercial and multi-family residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. In addition,all private streets appear to meet the minimum UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plans. In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans Page 14 Page 72 Item#3. appear to meet the UDC requirements of this section except for subsection 3.e regarding easements—this is of great concern to Staff. The proposed project must comply with the separation requirements for all utilities and storm drainage lines while not having any permanent structure encroachments or overhangs within the easement.Public Works has raised concerns regarding whether the Applicant can comply with their easement requirements. Staff is adding a condition of approval to obtain Public Works approval of their utility plan prior to City Council to ensure any revisions required to the overall site design can be analyzed by Planning Staff for compliance with the UDC. In response to Staffs initial discussions with the Applicant regarding this concern, the Applicant has provided a specific exhibit(see Exhibit VIII.L) to address this issue. Staff has done an initial analysis of this exhibit and it does not comply with all of the Public Works requirements.Planning staff also has concerns on whether an alternative compliance request may be needed in order to further revise the utilities for this development.As further revisions occur, the Applicant should also revise any other relevant plans and ensure they maintain compliance with all UDC requirements. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4) &Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Access is proposed via one private street access off of W. Pine Avenue and one driveway access to N. Ten Mile Road. The Applicant is also proposing to stub a private street(shown as W. Littleton Lane)to the western property line in the northwest area of the site for added vehicular and pedestrian circulation between the two properties. The two proposed access points have been approved by ACHD but typically access to Ten Mile is limited by the City in accord with UDC 11-3A-3 which is why the Applicant is proposing a driveway access meant to better distribute traffic to the future commercial area.ACHD is not limiting the access to Ten Mile to a right- in/right-out only access in order to help alleviate the future traffic load at the Pine/Ten Mile intersection. Commission and Council should evaluate whether they support this access to Ten Mile as a full access located approximately 400 feet north of the railroad crossing.No other direct lot access is proposed or allowed to Ten Mile Road. The Applicant is also proposing an emergency only access through one of the private drives (N. Side Creek Lane)along the western boundary—this access will be accessed via knockdown bollards in line with Meridian Fire preferences. Due to the nature of the proposed use, Staff believes private streets are appropriate in this development. In general,multi family projects do not typically have private streets and instead have drive aisles. However,because of the nature of this development,private streets are being used for the purpose of having better addressing for the site. In a project like this adequate and simplified addressing is important in case of an emergency response.Drive aisles cannot be named and addressed which does not lend itself to a development of this kind. Therefore, the private streets will function as drive aisles but incorporate the ability to have street names and better addressing for first responders and should not be analyzed in the same sense as other private street applications, according to Staff. City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a mew or gated development and this Applicant has proposed mews between the townhome units. In addition, there are sidewalks and open areas between each detached unit that could also be considered mews. The Applicant did propose gates in the project at one point but at the request of Staff, they removed the gates to improve integration and connectivity to and help the project meet more of the mixed-use policies. Private streets are also required to comply with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. The proposed private streets are mostly 25 feet wide with attached sidewalks of varying widths on both sides of the street throughout the site. In order to help with some of the Page 15 Page 73 Item#3. easement issues already discussed the Applicant has widened the private street to 31 feet in width in one small section of the site near the northwest corner. Both open and covered parking is provided along the private streets. Further parking analysis is discussed in the next section, Section V.H. In addition,private streets are required to be on their own common lot or within an easement per UDC 11-3F-3B.3 standards. The submitted plat appears to show compliance with this requirement. Staff has concern with the street layout at the main entrance to the development off of Pine Avenue where an uncommon 3-way intersection is shown. Albeit the intersection is internal to the private streets, all three roadways that converge on this point allow traffic in both directions and Staff(including Police) have concerns over how traffic will flow and navigate this intersection, especially in inclement weather(i.e. when snow covers the lane striping). This intersection should be redesigned in such a way that traffic can safely and efficiently navigate between the residential and commercial areas of the site from all three directions that converge on this point. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: The proposed project proposes more than 100 units and therefore requires a Traffic Impact Study(TIS). The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and specific conditions of approval are outlined in their staff report(see exhibit VIII.J). Despite ACHD analyzing and discussing the TIS in their own report,Staff finds it necessary to highlight the main points of discussion and road improvement requirements,specifically those related to the extension of Pine Avenue. This Applicant and the Applicant for the proposed project to the north and west of this project have entered into a legally binding "Dedication and Development Agreement"that outlines the potential options for how the Pine Avenue extension will be constructed(see Exhibit VIII.L). In addition,ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension and road improvements can occur.At a minimum,this Applicant will construct the intersection improvements as half of a 3-lane street section (one westbound receiving lane, eastbound left turn lane, and an eastbound thru/right turn lane) with vertical curb,gutter, and sidewalk abutting the site.In addition, the Applicant is, at a minimum, required to extend and construct Pine Avenue outside of the influence area of the Pine/Ten Mile intersection as half of a 36 foot wide collector street section plus 12 additional feet of pavement to total 30 feet, vertical curb, gutter, and 5-foot detached sidewalk. The Applicant's agreement discusses that whoever obtains City approval second is required to dedicate the required amount of right-of-way to ensure Pine Avenue is constructed centered on the section line dividing the two properties. Staff appreciates the forethought of this agreement to ensure correct construction of the Pine Avenue extension. Therefore,Staff recommends a condition of approval in line with this agreement. In addition, the Applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the required signal improvements at the pine/Ten Mile intersection.ACHD is also requiring the Applicant construct a southbound right-turn lane on Ten Mile Road located 580 feet south of the intersection for safer southbound access into the singular access allowed to Ten Mile. H. 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 multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The submitted plan named "Conditional Use Plan"appears to show the proposed parking clearest. This plan shows a total of 442 total spaces for the entire development. 319 are proposed for the residents, 12 are reserved for the 3,500 square foot clubhouse, 30 are shown for the vertically integrated units, and the remaining 81 are for the proposed commercial sites. For the 319 for the residential units, Page 16 Page 74 Item#3. a certain number are required to be covered spaces but the numbers shown on the submitted plan do not add up correctly. Staff has counted the proposed covered spaces and they appear to be at 218 covered spaces exceeding the minimum required amount of 123 covered spaces. The Applicant should verify their parking counts prior to the City Council hearing to ensure transparency but initial analysis shows the proposed parking counts exceed the minimum UDC requirements. The commercial area proposed along Ten Mile Road is shown with three separate buildings totaling approximately 12,441 square feet according to the submitted Conditional Use Plan; the Vertically Integrated structures contain 10,140 square feet of commercial space. For commercial uses, the parking requirement is one space for every 500 square feet and the proposed commercial area requires a minimum of 52 spaces.As noted, the Applicant has proposed 81 spaces for the commercial area, exceeding the minimum amount required by the UDC. Two of the commercial sites show a drive-thru and one appears to be for a restaurant use. Per the UDC, restaurant uses require a parking ratio of I space per 250 square feet. Staff cannot fully analyze the commercial parking because uses are not yet known. However,for the standard ratio, the Applicant is proposing parking in excess of the minimum requirements and each commercial pad site will require CZC and Design Review approval prior to obtaining building permit approval. Therefore, Staff will handle these calculations at the time of those submittals. The Applicant did not submit a separate parking plan for review. I. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required and proposed along the property's boundary abutting the railroad easement along the southern boundary. The proposed pathway will be approximately 100-feet from the existing railroad tracks due to the easement width and will be a segment of approximately 480 feet in length and connect to the existing arterial sidewalk along Ten Mile. This section of multi-use pathway will connect to a proposed micro-path traversing the entire western boundary of the subject site that eventually connects to the sidewalk along Pine Avenue. These connections would allow further safe pedestrian connection along the railroad corridor and will directly help connect this development to Fuller Park should the subdivision to the west also obtain approvals. The proposed sidewalks in this development are essentially micro-pathways. These pathways connect throughout the entire development and traverse through every mew as well. They offer increased pedestrian connection and give future residents the opportunity to walk rather than drive within the project site to the commercial within this development and the nearby commercial on the east side of Ten Mile Road. J. Sidewalks(UDC II-3A-17): Attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal private streets as part of the overall pedestrian circulation, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the project including to and from the commercial portion of the site. The proposed large open space area in the center of the development is easily accessible because of these sidewalks. The sidewalk along Ten Mile is already existing with 7-foot attached sidewalk per ACHD standards for arterials. With the extension and construction of W. Pine Avenue, the Applicant is required to construct a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk within the required landscape buffer. The submitted landscape plans show a 5-foot detached at least 4 feet from the edge of future right-of-way, meeting UDC Page 17 Page 75 Item#3. standards. Staff supports the sidewalk and pedestrian circulation plan for this development. See Exhibit VII.F. In consideration of pedestrian safety as well as traffic calming for the site, Staff is recommending that all pedestrian crossings and any main sidewalk that traverses the perimeter of the streets and/or that goes east-west through the main central open space area be constructed as raised crossings out of brick pavers, stamped concrete, or equal. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to N. Ten Mile Road, an arterial roadway, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide common lot is depicted on the plat starting at the back of the existing attached sidewalk along Ten Mile,meeting the UDC requirements. There is also a required 20-foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to W. Pine Avenue, a residential collector roadway; the submitted plat also shows compliance with this requirement. The submitted landscape plans appear to show the correct amount of landscaping per the UDC standards for the landscape buffers. Landscaping is required along all pathways (including micro-pathways) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of all pathways with the required and proposed number of trees are NOT included in the Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans, sheet LA. The table contains this data for the multi-use pathway but not the micro-path along the west perimeter of the development and there does not appear to be trees located on both sides of either pathway segments.The addition of this data in the calculations table and the required trees located on both sides of the pathways will be required as a condition of approval.In addition,there does not appear to be the minimum 5 feet wide planter width on the south side of the multi-use pathway.The submitted landscape plans appear to show an area wide enough for the pathway and 5 feet of landscaping on both sides; the Applicant should revise the landscape plans to show compliance with these standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC II- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is NOT included in the Landscape Calculations table. The addition of this data in the calculations table will be required as a condition of approval. The proposed C-C zoning district requires a 25-foot landscape buffer to any residential district; the submitted plans do not show compliance with this requirement.Because this is a mixed-use development and there is the presence of some landscaping, a sidewalk, and the street between the residential uses and the commercial,Staff does not have particular concern over this discrepancy.However,in order to comply with the UDC,the Applicant will have to request a waiver from City Council to reduce this buffer to the buffer shown on the submitted landscape plans. L. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required. Based on the proposed plat of 16.46 acres,a minimum of 1.65 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy this requirement. In addition,because this is a multi-family development within a residential zoning district,the common open space standards listed within the specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27, also apply. Combined,the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 2.56 acres.The Applicant's open space calculations do not accurately depict the amount of qualified open space for the multi-family specific use standards.There are parts of"Area 2" and"Area 7" Page 18 Page 76 Item#3. on the submitted open space exhibit that do not appear to maintain the 20' minimum requirement to continue counting towards qualified open space.However, according to Staffs analysis,these areas are negligible to the overall calculations. According to the open space exhibit(see Exhibit VII.C),the applicant is proposing a total of 3.62 acres of qualified open space. There are a number of small areas throughout the development that are still green space but are not qualifying open space because of the 20' by 20' minimum dimensional requirement per the multi-family development open space standards. Of the 3.62 acres proposed,2.47 acres is proposed to meet the overall minimum 10%requirement(2.47 acres equates to approximately 15%). This qualified open space consists of the 10-foot multi-use pathway segment,the required street buffers, and two large common open space areas. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. The remaining 1.15 acres of common open space is proposed to meet the specific use standards for multi-family development. These areas of open space consist of the mews between the attached products,areas of open space that meet the minimum 20' x 20' multi-family open space dimensions,and the two shared plazas. The open space proposed to meet the specific use standards exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. As noted above, the common open space provided with this development exceeds the minimum amounts required by code.In addition, the Applicant is proposing private open space well in excess that is required by code. Staff appreciates the incorporation of the two shared plazas between the residential and commercial areas—the easy pedestrian access to these areas add to their usability overall placemaking. In addition, all of the pedestrian pathways throughout the site connect the main areas of open space to the residential units offering fairly equitable access to the proposed open space. Staff supports the pedestrian network and the connections to open space anchored by usable open space and amenities and the commercial area on the eastside of the site. All in all, Stafffinds that the proposed common and private open space are sufficient for a project of this size and proposed use. M. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(16.46 acres),a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The applicant proposes one(1) qualified amenity to satisfy the requirements in this section of the UDC, a 10-foot multi-use pathway along the southern boundary.All other site amenities (analyzed in an above section) are meant to satisfy the specific use standard amenity requirements. The proposed multi-use pathway meets the minimum UDC standards. N. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and meets UDC standards as proposed. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): As discussed in the comprehensive plan policies analysis, Staff believes most of the submitted elevations meet the required Architectural Standards. The applicant has submitted a concurrent design review application for the residential structures and staff finds the submitted architecture of the residential portion of the development complies with the ASM. Commercial elevations were not submitted with this application but future buildings should incorporate similar architectural features to ensure a cohesive design as envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan and ASM.A separate DES will be required for the Commercial portion of the development. Page 19 Page 77 Item#3. The ASM notes that no two multi family buildings should look the same. To ensure compliance with at least the intent of this requirement, the Applicant should create more differentiation between the units by providing different colors beyond the same earth tones. In addition, adding more of the accent materials (i.e. lap siding and stone)would help to make more of the detached units unique from one another. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to mitigate this. To help ensure the future commercial buildings integrate with the proposed residential, the Applicant should provide at least conceptual elevations for these buildings. Staff is providing a condition of approval to submit conceptual elevations of the commercial buildings prior to the City Council hearing. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested conditional use permit and preliminary plat applications per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. The Director approved the private street and administrative design review applications. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on December 17,2020 and January 2, 2021.At the public hearings,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning,Preliminary Plat,and Conditional Use Permit requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Deborah Nelson,Applicant Legal Rep.; Dave Bailey,Applicant Engineer b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Deborah Nelson; Dave Bailey d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. None 3. Key issues)of discussion by Commission. a. Amount of Commercial versus Residential in both zoning and commercial square footage; b. Viability of Staff s recommended conditions and layout changes—Staff and Commission went through each recommended change and discussed items with the Applicant following testimony from the Applicant; C. Timeline of Pine Avenue extension from Ten Mile to existing section of Pine; d. Importance of Public Works standards for utility mains within private streets and whether proposed plan can work—Staff received a memo from Public Works before the second Commission hearing for this project outliningspreliminary support of utility plans, e. Discussed the changes made b, t�pplicant following the continuance and and concerns—no concerns by Staff. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Revise the staff report to reflect the changes and strike specific conditions as outlined in the Staff Memo to the Commission dated December 31,2020—i.e.remove all of Staffs recommended changes except for the one regarding the revised internal 3-way intersection off of Pine Avenue. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant did not submit a parking plan in line with a condition of approval. Page 20 Page 78 Item#3. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 21 Page 79 Item#3. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps Revised Legal Description Modern Craftsman at Ten Mile Subdivision-Annexation An annexation parcel located in the NE of the SE of Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said NE%of the SE%, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SE'%of said Section 10 bears S 0*51'58"W a distance of 2646.23 feet; Thence along the easterly boundary of said SE '%S 0°51'58"W a distance of 899.42 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of the Oregon Short Line Railroad; Thence N 88°29'39"W along said northerly right-of-way a distance of 528-42 feet to a 518 inch diameter rebar; Thence N 42'27'06"W a distance of 659-08 feet to a 518 inch diameter rebar; Thence N 6°32'24" E a distance of 415.20 feet to a 518 inch diameter rebar on the northerly boundary of said NE'/of the 5E'/a; Thence S 89'11'05'E along said northerly boundary a distance of 939.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 17.46 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W-Hansen.PL NNL LA/VD 5�a f sG Land Solutions, PC 4ti October 2,2020 t0fatIZgp 5 0NW.H\ Lainatutio Pine Ave and Ten Mile Rd Property odea�.V">r.d cons+u.e Job N0.19.19 Page 22 Page 80 Item#3. ANNEXATION EXHIBIT MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE SUBDIVISION LOCATE© IN THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 10,T.3N., R.1W-. B-M- CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 589'11'05"E 1/4 W. PINE ST. 939.50' 10 11 ' POINT OF—/ BEGINNING N � M z 2 TOTAL ANNEXATION AREA 17.46 ACRES +�— CV T 01 _ ry [fl D N� 2 to N 6+S tr] 9� N88'29'39'W 528.42' ORESON SHORT LINE RR l�ap4 LA Aro T ER W. FRANKLIN RD. 1 0 17 15 14 I a 11118 Nero{�ztzgr�z n olutlons � q P 150' 320' Qry w NP���C. Land Surveying and Consulting 231 E.STH ST.,STE.A IA iERIOIAN IO 63642 MOM 2SB-2040 2081268,a57 lu www.landsdutions bR .os rro. - Page 23 Page 81 Item#3. Legal Description Proposed C-C Zone Modern Craftsman at Ten Mile Subdivision A parcel located in the NE'/4 of the SE'/4 of Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said NE '/4 of the SE '/, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SE'/4 of said Section 10 bears S 0°51'58"W a distance of 2646.23 feet; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NE'/4 of the 5E'/4 5 0°51'58"W a distance of 576.86 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary N 88°29'39"VV a distance of 129.67 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 31.60 feet along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve left,said curve having a central angle of 18'06'18" and a long chord bearing S 82'27'12"W a distance of 31.47 feet to a point; Thence S 73°24'03"W a distance of 20.16 feet to a paint; Thence S 87°30'58"W a distance of 103.99 feet to a point; Thence N 38'33'21"W a distance of 239.06 feet to a point; Thence N 0°48'55"E a distance of 198.32 feet to a point; Thence N 89'11'05"W a distance of 101.84 feet to a point; Thence N 0°48'55"E a distance of 208.77 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of said NE'/ of the SE'/4; Thence S 89°11'05"E along said northerly boundary a distance of 537.85 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 6.02 acres more or less. �loNp,L LANDS Clinton W. Hansen, PLS s r F Land Solutions,PC 1" January 5,2021 a 111 ,01 105 jet t l� 9 TF ,aP 5" �TQNW. 0- C-C Zone-Pine and 10 Mile L d bWtioris L� -19 Lane survaymg and C—long Job Page OF I of 1 1 Page 24 Page 82 Item#3. Legal Description Proposed R-1S Zone Modern Craftsman at Ten Mile Subdivision A parcel located in the NE '%of the SE %of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of said NE''{4 of the SE%,from which a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SE'/4 of said Section 10 bears S 0°51'58"W a distance of 2 646.2 3 feet; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NE%of the SE%S 0051'58"W a distance of 576.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said easterly boundary S 0°51'58"W a distance of 322.56 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of the Oregon Short Line Railroad; Thence leaving said boundary and along said northerly right-of--way N 88°29'39" W a distance of 526.42 feet to a point; Thence leaving said right-of-way N 42°27'06"W a distance of 659.08 feet to a point; Thence N 6°32'24" E a distance of 415.20 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of said NE'/4 of the SE 114; Thence S 89'11'05"E along said northerly boundary a distance of 401,65 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary S 0°48'55"W a distance of 208.77 feet to a point; Thence S 89°11'05"E a distance of 101.84 feet to a point; Thence S 0°48'55"W a distance of 198.32 feet to a point; Thence S 38°33'21"E a distance of 239.06 feet to a paint; Thence N 87°30'58"E a distance of 10 3.99 feet to a point; Thence N 73°24'03"E a distance of 2016. feet to a point on a curve; Thence a distance of 31.60 feet along the arc of a 100.00 foot radius curve right, said curve having a central angle of 18'06'18"and a long chord bearing N 82'27'12"E a distance of 31.47 feet to a point of tangency; Thence S 88°29'39"E a distance of 129.67 feet to the POINT 0 0,PL LA Nos OF BEGINNING. �tiU F This parcel contains 11.44 acres more or less. d ,�8 0 Clinton W.Hansen,PLS O1 [05Az1 z Land Solutions,PC January 5,2021 fij,T OF \ tiy`� DIU W �,P Lagl�olu� ono R-15 Zone-Pine and-1 Mile aaa Job ido.19-19 �__.. i.ene:una+'w•�tl conwrcns Page 1 of 1 Page 25 Page 83 Item#3. ZONING EXHIBIT MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NE 114 OF THE SE 114 OF 3ECTION 10,T.3N., R.1 W., B-M- CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO R-15 S8911'05"E 1/4 401.55' ^ 537.85' 1 q 11 N POINT OF BEGINNING C-C ZONE Q h � o o x Lglt'054 101.84' x z n C-C ZONE 6.02 ACRES C-C a R-15 ZONE 11.44 ACRES S73'24'03`W I 20.16' 188 29'39"W N x �— ��2 S87'30'58'W C1 129.67' a 103.99' POINT OF BEGINNING b e R-15 ZONE Sg �. R-T +1 I C-C L LA Iyp N88'29'39'W 528.42' tiG T4' L C-G OREGON SHORT LINE RR 9rE 0 F �aP��, 0' 80, 160, 320' roe w.N�'� W. FRANIQJN RD" ,fl „ 15 14 CURVE TABLE ��� �������� CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD Land Surveying and Consulting C1 31.60' 100.00' 18-W-18- S82'27'12-W 31.47' 231 a.5TH sr.STE A MERfDIAN-10 636a2 [268128B-28a0 [2w)2MB 7 fax vrxw.lendsoluliorw.6¢ . Page 26 Page 84 Item#3. B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 1 0/7 v 12/28/2020) __ all S31L2d3d02dd NO2jV9 UUYJ h NIM-d I DRIaaaNlBl(j III y '� IVOISIAlouns s3m i HJIH 31Iw 'aul'duylaau!8u3 ka1! o' e�;t .� w, �� � �d�d A�JIVPVIW �3Jd 05 IA y5 gs w pp g � E Y�. an_ _...._. .. _.� --- — ---�+' -- 71 — add_ as al. li j - _ _ w Ua M II tl jz yy.. I} R a� I I a II� I ;w �I1I1 < �,✓j/�/�q/�y �$� �/ �I� �I I ICI I I .,� �• �� �I II �I M t it � ��III + -mom -.1�III j��',/'' �,�a�•','! /./�f///�' � i I . \ w / - - I u k I a / I l� — i IFO'�a 6.a ajo oao Page 27 Page 85 C. Open Space Exhibit(date: 9,128/2020 12/28/2020) JIM NML -LIV NVNS13V210 NII:IaoW Y W., E El X Pq Pq< -vain 4 go -IJ5 z di, sa _ sg-r ..m mm__ k rM, - --------------- --- --- ... . .... ----- ... .... J L 47 If J, PI T T- 1—u Page 28 Item#3. �R I I y ��i '•Y'�I���I � -, �'�7 f�� .: � �. IIII r� ', J S 11 I i T Rai I I I f l l I I I IEI i'R� ;��I�III yI I A. � 'A F I Nr 7 I-'�. [ -I; fi — I•.�. _ 1- - o- .:I Y'I ",: �i' " • I �I : ,err-= I i �•�rl'.k'L I M II•I VA TI p 7- jr S rpd IIIYMY -` L oil I ' I I f Page 29 Page 87 Item#3. D. Landscape Plans(date: 9/''°�i0 12/30/2020) AT Yoo as � e de 5 - W - V W �. Z z V) — LLL oC �c w — p Z O Page 30 Page 88 Item#3. 3 3 � 0O n Z om I, II 'ry I I II z D = � Z mLl Zm �TLIxw i y ? 14 1 k o all, :I 4 Page 31 Page 89 Item#3. � � r �s q FjJ rn i f p .803'' a ` �. I fe �E i 'J. 4 Y �1"ft EO IA PAR�p�VAIEL Q r f 1 yl i Z m v $ d10 IF MODERN g I a MODERN CRAFTSMAN i 1'® a a _ AT TEN MILE a € e .e _ BARON DEVELOPMENT �� PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN ° a Page 32 Page 90 Item#3. � a d — -- — s" HT k > m ` J;I ' e a ai — _ U' n TEN MILE RD. I _ MI a P MODERN CRAFTSMAN �Z N AT TEN MILE Za BARON DEVELOPMENT m PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN & =� Page 33 Page 91 Item#3. IY IP Lis I, IL up Jl- a MODERN CRAFTSMAN ;a r = =0 3 AT TEN MILE a se rev 3 C7 W Nip F`, " Co �� a BARON DEVELOPMENT �� a .. a PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN ° a Page 34 Page 92 Item#3. q n s - u F Fr �s �W o > ' a � € pp' <€ gj€mi a ,a PIP 4 rff Pik a h mmy�bm � r€k z �_rr' F>zn vz >a� zsry s Q MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE P N ;` w m BARON DEVELOPMENT =N� PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN =� ^• Page 35 Page 93 Item#3. E. Pedestrian Circulation Plan f I � i - -,- r I { J II` -� 'z 3 9W ClJ H J , z F P A T H W A Y S E X 0—I I®O T o�n�* g�€ C Ailey Engineering,inn. �C—tl3 MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE Cm�Enamr�ainal�xnixolCA�G BARON PROPERTIES LLC Page 36 Page 94 Item#3. F. Conceptual Building Elevations MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE a� - COVERED PATIO-SHAVE STRUCTURE SOUTHEAST CORNER-MAILBOxES Clubhouse Elevations SODTHWESTCORNER-POOLOECKVEw - - � CLUBHOUSE NORTHEAST CORNER-MAIN ENTRY'J EW MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILC ��J;:Jjj NORTH MAIN ENTRYVIEW SOUTHOESTCORNER POOLEE� ❑❑ L] ❑❑ - - a r POOL DECK AREA L�2 �{ CLUBHOUSE FLOOR PLAN ., Page 37 Page 95 Item#3. MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE SEE EN SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONT NEW HIP ROOF-FRONT MEW ❑❑Y n=-xemo.i 1 .�i Il u] 1 -- - � r SINGLE SLOPE ROOF BAGK VIEW ❑❑ 1 BED 1 BATH-DUPLEX FLOOR PLAN HIP ROOF-BACKVIEW MODERN CRAFTSMAN ATTEN MILE E:1M SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONTVIEW HIP ROOF-FRONT NEW ■���n-..a-.�, TM � nr ❑■ SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-BACK VIEW — — I _ 2BE0 29ATH-A FLOOR PLAN HIP ROOF-BACKVIEW Page 38 Page 96 Item#3. MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE Elm�.e SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONT VIEW HIP ROOF FRONT VIEW �® ��j 71 SINGLE SLOPE ROOF BACK VIEW EIN k Lim 2EE0-2RATH-N FLOORPLAN HIPROOF-BACKVIEW MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT BLACK CAT mad FRONFVIEW GARAGE-STORAGE Bl11LCING FLOOR PLAN Page 39 Page 97 Item#3. MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE COLOR PALETTE MI �]Y�1 __. COLOR PALETTE i2 SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONT VIEW HIP ROOF-FRONT NEW COLOR PALETTE#3 ZF_ - � r � SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-BACK VIEW ❑� 36ED-2BATH FLOOR PLAN HIP ROOF-BACK VIEW Page 40 Page 98 Item#3. MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE FIRM FlEl FRONT ISO VIEW Jl. � = L= O I i _ VERTICALLY-INTEGRATED - �'� COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL O O O C I'1`.iLEVEL I-FLOOR PLAN-PRELIMINARY-GROSS AREA LEVEL;=5,1385E MODERN CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE DOLOR PP1LliCk r_ REAR150VIEW FFlj _a. VERTICALL-INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL LEVEL 2-FLOOR PLAN-PRELIMINARY GROSSAREALEVEL2=5,24251` Page 41 Page 99 Item#3. G. Conceptual Commercial Elevations BARON - TEN MILE & PINE SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS BARON TEN MILE & PINE «Te SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS TFIF CCUFFE UCUSE '40 yam, =i - IV : Page 42 Page 100 Item#3. BARON TEN MILE & PINE SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS F.. If Oise - "law BARON TEN MILE & PINE al COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS W- SCHEMATIC IiIM MUKKOU" n Page 43 Page 101 Item#3. BARON TEN MILE & PINE CHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved plat, site plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The 10-foot multi-use pathway along the south boundary shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development. c. The existing accesses onto N. Ten Mile Road shall be closed upon development of the subject site except for the access located approximately 580 feet south of the Pine/Ten Mile intersection—this southern access is the only approved access to N. Ten Mile Road. d. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct a dedicated southbound right-turn lane for the one approved access to Ten Mile, as outlined Page 44 Page 102 Item#3. by ACHD and the Traffic Impact Study; dedicate additional right-of-way for this requirement as needed. e. All pedestrian crossings within the site shall be constructed as raised crossings; crossings and the main pedestrian paths shall be constructed with brick pavers, stamped concrete, or equal. f. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct and/or dedicate the required right-of-way for the extension of Pine Avenue and the Pine/Ten Mile intersections in accord with ACHD requirements and in line with the signed"Dedication and Development Agreement,"as seen in exhibit VIII.L. g. The required landscape street buffers shall be constructed and vegetated along the entire perimeter(along N. Ten Mile and Pine Avenue)with the first phase of development. h. An entry feature is allowed and desired to create a sense of place for the development but no gates are allowed except for the emergency only access along the western boundary, labeled as N. Side Creek Lane on the submitted plans. i. Future Commercial elevations shall be generally consistent with the submitted concept elevations in size, form, scale, and roof lines; at a minimum, future commercial buildings on this site shall have at least one(1)field material and color that matches the residential portion of the site. 2. At least ten(10) days prior-to the City Couneil hearing,the Applieant shall provide r-evi 3. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated r�,.+o�T December 28,2020, shall be revised prior to final plat submittal: a. If any changes must be made to the submitted plans to accommodate Public Works easement requirements,the Applicant shall submit all relevant and revised plans to the City of Meridian Planning Division for review. a. Nlerif�,the submit4ed paf-kifig data fieted on the"Conditional Lse Pkan.'- c. Stamped and signed by the licensed land surveyor. 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated September 29,2020, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the Final Plat application: a. The Landsea-pe Galeula4ieas/Repir-emen�s table shall inelude the following: 1)the total lineaf feet ef all pathways and the required ntimber-ef tfees per-UDG 11 3B 12); the total s"ar-e footage of eemmen open spaee a-ad r-e"ked n--H�er-ef trees pe UPC 36 3E- b. Revise the landseape plans to add a 5 feet wide!a-ndseape btt�r-a4eng beth sides e pathway), Ta*dseaped in aeee with UDG 11 3B-1 c. Show the required 25-foot landscape buffer between the C-C zoning district and the R-15 zoning district as required by UDC 11-313-9C unless otherwise reduced by City Council waiver. Page 45 Page 103 Item#3. 5. The r-esidefftial elevations ineluded in SeetiefiVII.F, shall be revised as follows at least 10 days pfier-to the City Getineil heafing! a. Add additional area ef a seeendafy field ma4er-W to all r-esidet4ial sq=uetufes to help er-eate more unique buildings; OR, b. Create at least twe (2) more design paleffes for-t4e proposed detaehed Ha4s!a ifielude at the least di feat eeler-palet4es and field ma4efial eembinatiens, 6. The Applieant shall revise all appr-epr-i4e plans to eemply with the following ehanges to site layout M least to ( m days prior-to the City Couf ei he -ing.: ; b. Remove the singulaf iinit leeated within the labeled"Area 3" ef the epen spaee exhibit,near-the net4l,wes!eemer- f site-, e. Reafr-ange the eepAr-al detaehed iinits to be more spfead etit within this een+ffil area aecefumedate adequate building separ-Mien for-u*'�ysei=vieelifies; a*l 7. At least ten(10) days prior-to the City Couneil hearing,the Appheant shall obtain Publie Mlor-lks approval of their-utility plan to ensu I . . ins required to the over-all site design ean be analyzed by Planning Staff foF eomplianee with the UDC. 8. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7,UDC Table 11-2B-3, and those listed in the specific use standards for multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 9. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 10. With the Final Plat submittal,the Applicant shall correct the applicable plans to show all pedestrian crossings as raised crossings and show the main pedestrian sidewalks that traverse through the development to be constructed with pavers or colored and stamped concrete(or equal)to further delineate the pedestrian pathways. !I. At least ten(10) days prior-to the Gity Getmeil heafing,the Appheant shall revise the proposed 3 way ifftemal iffter-seetion between the residential a-ad eemmer-eial area in the tiet4heas!pei4ian of the site a-ad submit the r-elevan�revised pla-as to Planning Staff, The operate safely for-beth pedestrians and vehieles. 12. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 13. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the future commercial buildings with the submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the each commercial site. Page 46 Page 104 Item#3. 14. The Applieant shall pr-evide eeneeptual elevations for-the proposed eemmer-eial buildings-a4 least ten(10) days prior-to the City Getineil hearing. 15. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for the extir-e applicable(within the R-15 and C-C zoning districts)portion of the subject site prior to applying for any building permit in either zoning district. 16. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 17. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 1I- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 18. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall submit a parking plan for the proposed development to better show the proposed parking following any revisions made to accommodate Public Works easement requirements. 19. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 20. The applicant and/or assigns shall comply with the private street standards as set forth in UDC 11-3F-3 and 11-317-4. 21. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements,acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4. 22. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 23. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway along the southern boundary of the site to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. 24. Business hours of operation within the C-C zoning district shall be limited from 6 am to 11 pm as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4. 25. Any drive-thru establishment use shall require Conditional Use Permit approval in accord with UDC 11-4-3-11. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Provide sanitary sewer to-and-through to 3515 W. Pine Ave and 3513 W Pine Ave. 1.2 Light poles cannot be located inside utility easement. 1.3 In multiple areas it looks like the sewer and storm drain lines are too close together. Please provide 4 ft separation between center of storm drain and sewer. This enables repair/replacement of manholes and sewer lines in the future. 1.4 The water main in Pine Ave needs to be extended east and tied into the existing 12"near Ten Mile. Also,the water main in Pine Ave needs to be extended west to the west property boundary. This will fulfill the to-and-through requirement. Page 47 Page 105 Item#3. 1.5 The water main in W. Little Lane needs to be extended to the west property line. 1.6 Install water main in N. Side Creek Lane and stub at the property line to provide a future connection to the west parcel. 1.7 End the water main in N. Rangeview Lane (at the southeast corner of development)in a fire hydrant. 1.8 There is an existing water main stub to this property off of Ten Mile at the southeast corner of the development that either needs to be used or abandoned. 1.9 Sanitary sewer mainlines are not allowed within 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). 1.10 All sanitary sewer and water easement areas must remain free of any permanent structures, trees,brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for the easement. 1.11 Sanitary sewer and water service lines cannot run under carports. 1.12 Minimum distance between service lines must be maintained, 6-feet between potable/non- potable service lines, 5-feet between each sewer stub off the mainline. 1.13 Any sewer service lines greater than 100-feet will need cleanouts that are accessible for cleaning; contact plumbing inspector for specific details. 1.14 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A future installation agreement is required for the streetlights on Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road. Contact the Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator for additional information. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. Page 48 Page 106 Item#3. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals,laterals, or drains,exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be r-eeer-ded approved,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. Page 49 Page 107 Item#3. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215786&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216635&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancily.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217427&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216793&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=215839&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv Page 50 Page 108 Item#3. H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=215845&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216377&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217317&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty K. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216462&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 L. DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—BARON&VIPER https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218118&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with R-15 and C-C zoning districts and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for the development of multi family residential will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and within this area. Commission finds the proposed addition of commercial within the development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial district and consistent with the future land use designation of Mixed-Use Community. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Page 51 Page 109 Item#3. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because of the unique housing type proposed, the proposed addition of more commercial zoning, and the construction of a needed road extension, Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis but has not provided comments at this time. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 52 Page 110 Item#3. C. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Commission finds that the submitted conditional use plat appears to meet all dimensional and development regulations in the R-15 zoning district in which it resides. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds the proposed use of multi family residential and commercial are harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed-Use Community and the requirements of this title. 3. That the design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Despite the proposed use being different than the residential uses closest to the subject site, Commission finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Commission finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services as all services are readily available, the nearby arterial street is widened to its full width, and the Applicant is required to construct a new public road extension to accommodate additional traffic flow. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. Page 53 Item#3. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes,glare or odors. Although traffic will likely increase in the vicinity with the proposed use, all major roadways adjacent to the site are already at their full width and the Applicant is required to extend Pine Avenue as a collector street adjacent to their site. Therefore, Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170,8-30- 2005,eff. 9-15-2005) Commission is not aware of any such features; the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. D. Private Street Findings: In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The Director finds that the proposed private street design meets the requirements. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance,or other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds that the proposed private streets would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity if all conditions of approval are met. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan.(Ord. 05-1170,8-30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005) The Director finds the use and location of the private streets do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or the regional transportation plan because the proposed design meets all requirements. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010) N/A Page 54 Page 112 Applicant Presentation ■r■1.••■•1<■r■i�■��I'�����11+1 1I■.� •\�I 1Itl,1■'/•■ ..! aI1t1�1tai11ll 1/1lI1■.iI I��■I 1�■� �■.I�.ff_rs1 •■/Rrr�•.■.\ -:� r//-1�.:1I 1 r.: __ .mun • .�..�........_....-.�=It�=/•r�=D�—� :0611 . ��ii•i•�i-r nloll •�aCfSiiii / me *$ese ft ogles ._= ` ,. ce � s3 IRs\Rlls.. .� la •. 1�a •Ias +...� �..+1 ■ I■ l1■i „■���i`1 - - �- �.Ir s.\r.,•. •�\s='- �.���� ..r•r .: In 0 Big lot, as SH •.■�� lad■IfR■����� � �1�11Moo 1■F' At loll,, Sm • A/�////////�� r...•� ■=� // I� I�� raR• _ ...ter ,._« � ■...r.���..�. . o;1111111���11�11 111♦.�* , I�rlll �::il�� Iltllllll - - . - - �:+�:::::::•� 'a WON -� mill �lr��.�r-�+ , ...• Mill iiiiiii oo immemeal ■t::20 l:..c__ -- il::il�1■��11111l111i� /1/.I rar...n1i.R1.1 •r...r� _s�r•�1■1/■1.�■�1/�r:�fr�i� :.o• �_. • .� 1��*.�Illli 1il Il�i1■� sl.r r +*SMOGs_.l■■LI���go :::r a�� ��� ���11�' r 1=s��� �wfn1./•�•ar •IRSR■1S. mere �� •r• I —�,�1��� ��:.a�llll11� 1�1.�.■ ::���Ir11111/111�.+ ._ _-- ��_-�-�:�1....11 11.E .� �• �.■r.::� �iisiiiill��i� �..��■Il51i111111111`�Irl:;=: "gas r.. .R.l i.■ i-• sae 241016.01 •1 .R1 1 -•. east . -.• ii ..r\ •wr �// •• .aa rllt{4141116 /�_..+— �I ���" 1�1 �f�.� •■■• s>• son rlwr .*� % -• 1 ■�!1111 lilt ass.• Dd I��lll■■■ t�r���� _ ga1=�.•��11r�rit�111�11 �� ��I��C.1■�1��� ■��� ��I1111i 111■ I � MODERN CPAFTSMAN r.;HA PUN Bank, Gas station, Vicinity Map Office Ea ri Pine Street F —., I ;fl JI J �I' F `Tye _ Extension n i fk - _l' ��7-I-'lI _ III I :�' -� I ,^,'. -_�_-��.I �i•. .iT�ht�'..r*�.. Ill7TO -] ALE I: I• RI-T I-L I - [:-N I �_ .LLllLl.., i FRANKAN ' rl-., K Iu AIL - J Gateway at Ten Mile: High Density Residential Fed-Ex Amazon Mixed Use Office Mixed Use Retail ICI x�+LJLI"S IV r w/Site Plan Zoning IIL ee dip 44. Y 4 ' + 4* ' � �• r '� I Q r* l �- r MODERN F ii .. 4 MODERN �� FTfli�k, Clubhouse &MM&S7 cmr%m-po<�-OEX VEW E MODERN HA RUKI Clu --� bhouse 77 —Cal in 71- Now ----------- --------------- MODERN Vertical Integration : Commercial � I LI J i J MODERN �� FTfli�k, Vertical Integration : wr 1 1 1 _ = Residential # - k1v,Y"1:3 ER :M� IU�UII' IIIIIII�IIIIIIWI!�!!!!� n IIII��I'WUIIIL'!9!. - •- u: ... == == A A _ •� I -- -- lllllllllllllllluuiu�u����i- IImIITu "!! - = "„!' Illllllll.luuilhdl Il.liimiiulll,.11lllllll.l- IIIIIIIII uu�m,muu� ICuum uullul.11lllllll MODERN MODERN CPAFTSMAN Residential : 1BR Duplex CRAFTSMAN AT TEN MILE COIAR PlLEfIE f1 4y LNA RUKI IEEE COLOR PALEf1E 92 ' � umwmuwvrvx.ww�mw wa�m� SINGLE SLOPE ROOF•FRONT VIEW cP uz As SHOWN HIP ROOF•FRONT VIEW LP 62 A5 SHOWN ■�■ COLOR PALETTEi3 �I I -_� MEN SINGLE SLOPE ROC•F•13ACKVIEW CP#2A55HOWN CIXPRP/LERElI I;"'� I I M'� AaoF xcxecnw.iraxrr wxo�wwn.e.rm�� AN,tee. o II o o � o, LEA, ev _ itle0.1 BATH•DUPLEX FLOOItPLAW HIP ROOF•PACK VIEW cPazasSHOWN _ MODERN Residential : 2BR/2BA - Style A MODERN CRAFTSMAN CPAFTSMA � AT TEN MILE OOLORPlLEnE H mwsmnp MEN ,e r.Fmiar R'K� SIN GLG SLOPE ROOF•FRONT VIEW cP91asaHarM HIP ROOF-FRONT VIEW cP;elAsseowN CdARPILMEn3 ❑ MEN ❑0 a®" 4 5191GLE MOPE ROOF-BACK VIEW GP91ASSHOWN .,�m.•.m F!N © �7]m 2BEO.2BATH-A FLOOK PLAY HIP ROOF-BACK VIEW cP47A55HawN MODERN CPAFTSMAN Residential : 2BR/2BA - Style B CRY1rISI�IATN MILE COLOR PAlET1E M 4gNARUKI MEN � — mLu�PYETIE�.o -�+'�:� -��`•�ter_. SINGLE SLOPE ROOF-FRONT VIEW CP#2 AS SHOWN HIP ROOF-FRONT VIEW CP92 AS SHOWN &LIN 49LORPl1ETfE A r ❑� SINGLESLOPCROOF-BACY.VICW CP#2AS5H0WN mLoePu.errer .u, a 'I ip5i ��■ 2 BED.2 BATH•B FLOOR PLAN HIP ROOF-BACK VIEW CP AZASSHOWN MODERN MODEIR, Residential : 3 B R/2 BA COLOR PPL H CEf7E TE91 MANNM1LE MEL] �. CCIAR PALETTE R'y wn¢y �TM�1 SINGLE SLOPE ROOF FRONT VIEW CP#3ASSHCWN HIP ROOF-FRONTVIpm CP43ASSHOWN ELI MEW SINGLE SLOPE ROOF•BACKVIEW GP93ASSHOWN caLoxwLETrsrA o - AaaF .rH.r.�nr���..rwxa�mwA.aw maw 7-7 77 Y u r Lill L 3 BEG 2 BATH FLOOR PLAN HIP ROOF-BACK VIEW CP#3 AS SHOWN MODERN b�-NA PUN Residential : 6-plex1 Townhomes _ Wm with Garage . - — nTMTMTUM 4 L 4 4 \ ccwmrrlxl it:i 3 Ccumm ccmml pnrq ----------- ---- ..----- ----------- ' -----u---- sL!�& auc•-Mraars CDLMM a i c F=c :Lamcrml.pmwc WmmNYICmIL'L__ on" ars7MLMMLIM� CUM WCE 1 I I L - I 1 I 13 13 0 FLOOIL FLAN.LREL I MODERN �� FTfli�k., _ ' R 7■ l- Lq.9 PUN Residential : 3 a GarageTownhomes with ..c oLo m rbuimi; _ II■ 01 . ■ -- -- �� 011 -.Zfll :.m�.,JmEml � � ■. � I� - - - - 1 - - - - r �- r � ILA III IL'� �I Fc-, MODERN FT MA-( • �;ii;;;;;r- IN Ell � IN ■: � ro �IJ ��ElmNJ �� 1 1 Fc-, MODERN FT MA-( TA cr J4 J • y 1 J mmmmiuiuum F 4' ' h�IpERN R, FTf1f { ■iiiili■ ��� � ■ll�iil■�caca�u ■ - " - } WW.PIN I:AYFL Unit Type Variety 3 BED/2 BATH Wall TOWN HOME -� � MODERN CPAFTSMANSUE PLAK LEGBI6 -W.PINE AVE. - 4y HA RU KI Architectural r LIIIL�IIIJIILIII �l�I a�xaatH-d•[Ivlr Variety PH-1 xan xa�rn.urlssrr xa t NI'kWr r I pq Rglrq 3 rJ'L',GTn-�IIOI E b �Qa x�s>.e.l.l t War r.r •,ter..,-r-��' LSr—' ` ��._ � � nr•n_tr -- � � xeexrx er.Trl f SNI:lG6L�.l t War r r� -- ^ ■+ui anawrrRxr f �Irs;l.ex+x itYr rr �. N Moro �rx:l.esui Weer ����•1','� mine arnoe r I mine arfloe� FOR D�.,�� ti _ �s €rn itb�k mi sg}L[i4f Mfli�]IHI i.mmd Git4tH"'"�LMalfl Color 1Mum t ww"r.Fawy%bw4 l.USdRd ALU"-I KAe, !.Lt+�S iG Aauf�ll•1FSAia1 iOML Lam-CS dFt Y�4A C 1LAP3OHI: ALURA-IRAMOVALLP.LOWR {MFti i.9fmHe tul�ibiLFi•FiakRl19RPANWXL.MHE F9q tS1VML CLLINSDS7dli•FF:aFn 7FS A&LSW961OK�1RLN ! MOR OJY-j0IVLAAiASFtA.Ll 3kOvU.03LM:PLOO{ -Fri dF: K j-94ml SHka i Uk dR Fi" Pa I ettes 7T7 00MPtlEMK ODUMPUEMU t�W R:I �F MM V.N ELM 74 41 i t k in FaviFsA jSMFa� Li3W :i] 03PENSLLCISMIN ]tOWk al _.---FiOfTIISM7Ffl L SF]Md t4LLLRt;•7Rt4bFlifJFY4L LtM} �LdFtY�4Ri4 ]LAP:I[� 06LL1� -TRAM04ALLA}. WAX ildli CLLIRM gam-FijdFn 7dFMLMO961OK 91ik_ i S11iDL i3J LI LIR 1011ONL-pmFn I LRMNLLWUIdHEIr6l Mr4 S R" MUMnUR L tIa4KI& MCi!SMUO3{ F33dF AMWi0LI!0LOZ.PH06L1 SHMGLE I�1dR•F100C I I MODERN CRAFTSMAN mim IF IL • e 1.1■111111A ui ,C ■ ::... rr RJ ����« - Lin[T 7E Lam RAW jm E 'k 'f ■111111�CaC��CG� �� X a ma !1 w. Il mm u MODERN L7 - / — 4•,'NA k",k hJ � Li r-1� F�— I�� -71 Open Space iI .P 1 �� rl I J �. J� V iV- ; .J.1•. - y ..J +r, �., � -.•fJ � _:,'..;— �. _ ' , — � — . f is DoI s � ` hfI�DE RhJ RFTfI =•W5 HA RUKI Amenities I yf �f #Fitness Center; F • • Playground; Seating ,. ' r .a � ' Picnic/BBQ i' Plazas, Public � r Seating Areas r Fc-,AFTSMAN MODERN .. ps �Iliil��ccacac���„ � ■11111�■�,ccaca�� ■ � � _�*_ � 1 � �d6CIC�CsC�■ .. � I �� 1�. ffs jo7 H X r � lb I Al Al ■ 1111l�rca�����ci �F �� ■ u ■ OR � i . MODERN Services �-NApuN • Fire — 1.2 miles from Stn #2, less than 5 min target response time • Police — less than 4 min response time • Traffic — All ACHD conditions of approval are acceptable • Sewer — Meets Meridian Waste Water Master Plan • Water — Meets Meridian Water Master Plan • Schools — All WASD schools that serve the project have capacity . . Enrollment . . . Peregrine Elementary* 394 650 Meridian Middle School 1032 1250 Meridian High School 1914 2075 * The project is also served by Chaparral Elementary, a modified calendar school with an enrollment of 423 and a capacity of 700. ICI x�+LJLI"S IV r Waiver of r • BufferZones between dip L: 4 ' + 4* ' � �• r t � F Y �- r BARON TEN MILE & PINE ARCH TECTS, CHARTERED SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS Aw ski r No �"�"'• ;�o � ~ � ';• .ate _..� BARON PROPERTIES--- BARON TEN MILE & PINE A Nou srorveu�aT scN SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL ♦ CONCEPTS &;, 46 IV �F t. ucusr Inc : Ad I� •.! _ � lam' _ _ i I - fit' BARON PROPERTIES--- BARON TEN MILE & PINE Hp VSTVN 9UGATSCN COMMERCIAL TM. CHARTER SCHEMATIC CONCEPTS a a, K OntIII mill lam 5 90 W- ow df i .z• BARON TEN MILE & PINE ARCHITECTS, CHARTERED SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS One ♦ ti _ 1(( BARON TEN MILE & PINE ARCHITECTS, 'CHARTER E� SCHEMATIC COMMERCIAL CONCEPTS t t BARON PROPERTIES--- BARON TEN MILE & PINE HOLISTGN - 6LJGATSCH SCHEMATICARL;HITEQTS, CHARTERED COMMERCIAL . . CONCEPTS Fly-Through ■1... .. 1 all It 111 1�. /.1•■I.I�r��. �' •-• / /l.�a.\• • / ■ /..� III►� ./I��..r. OU Io 41 :__ ��� �_ --\-- l�=.Iar 1 �I�� 1 ■ \I! ill 1.�1� r.lf�l.1/.���fa.�- ...•�����■� �....��� �_ 1 � t.�_ /• � pl �� ..-• I�I�+� • �aa-._._� -ter-• •/� ff_./�I`[.IIj� r •._i I L�tla�i.``li I�Ir.l�l/r�•\••. tea .•. �r_.:I ..: -a.�lil/� ��.••ir�CS ■ •1<■�■ 1�111r�1 ,�l11111■ �.�fsrr.•...\ .. . ..........•.•sr* me *$ease ft ogles I■ V■ice •- / � ��_: - - , ���.11 .\\r. •. •.a.�:_ ����=� ..rr - to @a Glass SEE 1.70-MOM _ rr �. ..... �•..1,..1.1.... ANN "met { I = _...ram--r■i •rrl.f■���.� ,� 1� 1�■ � / ral.•1 r� _...ram__•+_-� •r.+rf_��..•r - Eel •\I.11 ' ..-- mm oil: GOP mill ...:.. ..... . ; �. ..__..__ __.__....."now �:.... _ •16a,.r� _s•�'rl.1/■sr�■rl/rlr��a•�i_��.•o• �_. • MCI pal ..I111! al1lla.■� •.r r _•ram..._..■■u�rl���l~-...r a�� .� ��I ���11�' r �s�.l /aa•=•/r •beefs� \.!'�I1�111�111��+ �_'=' •-_ �- .rrlrl$ 11�r>•1 No =� =...:::i iSiiiiiil4ir� M:: Well f;ii10lll11l`sI4010mm. seer�:;=: /,.r\ •w•r % CC.. .•• _� rl /� ..��1 it -.., I�Illlllll�rill /�sa .... ..� %C:: �r1 ■rill ��- 1 •was d .s• ���...� ,.11rl, • r`rr lrva Sop, ` 1�■ •ia�rr lull. fig New t�rr11\) ri1dsm_Iummosaw .•��1`r1111111111to _� ��� �I���c.l■�1���� ■��� SON mill I I 19 so, 111■ I � 1 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21-1915: An Ordinance (H-2020-0083 Southridge South) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land in the Northwest Quarter of Section 23, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 36.04 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District to (7.15 Acres) and from R-2 (Low Density Residential) and R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District (28.89 Acres) in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of This Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance, and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Page 159 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-022025 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=10 KRISTINA LOWRY 02/10/2021 09:47 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1915 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0083 SOUTHRIDGE SOUTH)FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 36.04 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-4(MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)ZONING DISTRICT TO R-2(LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO (7.15 ACRES) AND FROM R-2 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)AND R-4 (MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)ZONING DISTRICT TO R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT(28.89 ACRES) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Tim Eck, Endurance Holdings. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from R-4(Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District (7.15 acres) and from R-2 (Low Density Residential)Zoning District and R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential)Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District (28.89 acres) in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—SOUTHRIDGE SOUTH-H-2020-0083 PAGE 1 OF 3 Item#4. SECTION 6. All ordinances,resolutions,orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned,with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2)plus one(1)of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly,this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 9th day of February 2021. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 9th day of February , 2021. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 9th day of February , 2021, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing At: Meridian,Idaho My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022 RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—SOUTHRIDGE SOUTH-H-2020-0083 PAGE 2 OF 3 Item#4. EXHIBIT A REZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS { LEGAL DESCRI"ON in R.. THE Page 1 4F 2 1 ( LAND GROUP Septemberi0,202a Project No_:1ifi165 5OUTHRiDG E SD UTH SUE DI4rISION R-Z,AREA 1 REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Northwest Quarter of 5ection 23,Township 3 North,Range 1 west,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada Countgr Idaho,being more particula dy described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner Of Section 23 of said Township 3 North,Range 1 west; Thence South 00'56'19'West,2629.48 feet on the West line of said Section 23 to the West One Qua rter Corner of said Section 23; Thence South RV 04'17'East,a distance of 334.55feet on the east-west mid-section line of said Section 23 to the Southwest corner of Parcel"D"as shown on Record of survey No.10035 of Ada County Retards; Thence North 22'09'32'West,a distance of 520.19 feet on the westerly boundary I ine of said Parce I&; Thence leaving the wesne dy Line of said Pa rce 18,So Mh 89'16'08"East,a distance of 151.97 feet; Thence North 88'17'27"East;a distance of 30.48 feet; Thence South 2V 20'SO'East;a distance of i_4o feet to a paint onthe westerly boundary line of Parcel t3 of said Record of Survey ND_10035,said point being the POINT UF BEGINNING; Thence on the westerly boundary line of Parcel a ofsaid Record of survey Na.10035 for the following courses and distances: Thence South a9'IV OR"East,a disW nce of 0.68feet to a point of curve; Thence 25.41 feet on the arc of a ourve to the left,said curve having a radius orf 20.43feet,a central angle of 71'15'53 a dmrd bea ring of North 5W 13'05'Eastr and a chord length of 23 60 feet to a poitrt of reverse curve; Thence 184.71 feet on the arc of a€urYe to the W said curve having radius of 233.34 feet,a central angle of 45'21'22",a dmrd bearing of north 41°15'50'Eastr and a chard length of 179.93 feet; Thence North 47'39'35"west,a d istanee of 21539 feet a portion of sa id line being on the exterior bounds ry I ine of said Parcel W of Record of Survey No.100351 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 iwom feetti a central angle of 10'18'45",a d ord bea ring of North 6W 49'4V East,and a drard length of 179.74 feet on said Vest Oveda nd Road centerline; Thence leaving said centerline and westedy 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 a rc of a curve to the left,said curve hawing a radius of 2nom feet,a central angle of 02'02'19",a chard bearing of South 28'50'30`East;and a chord length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; 462 East Shore Dove,SuMr 100.EapLe,IdaM 85616 206.9494041 thNanbQroupinc.com Southridge South H-2020-0083 Page 1 S Page 163 Item#4. Septem her 10.202D Page 2 Thence 70.22 feet an the arc Df a curve to the left,said arMc having a radius of M.CkD fret:a central angle of 2#07'01'.a chord hearing of South Mr 55'1W East,and a chord length Df 69.96 feeat Thence South 49'58'40'Easy a distance of 639.24 feet to a point of curve; Thence 2C463 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 3C1 W feet a central angle of 39.04'W.a chard bearing of Smith 69'31'07' Emst and a cord length of 2W.f 9 fret; Thence South 69'03'34'Easy a distance of M4.0 feet to a pnirrt of curve; Thence 119.11 feet on the arr of a curve to the rigl rt,said curve haying a radius of 15D.D0 feet,a cerrtral 2rGleaf45'34'23',achard bearing ofSauth W09'14'West and a dwwd leVhof 11E.19 fret; Thence North 89'133'34'tifl rM a distanm of$81.37 feet to a point of curoc; Thence 175L 15 feet on the are of a curve to the right,said curve haying a radius Df 15D.D0 feet,a central argle of SE'5T 027.a chord hearing of North 55'36 33'West.and a chard length of ifi5.M feet; Thence North 21'W'10'Wt!sj,a distance ofM6.}5 feet to the PCHNT Of HEGI NNING. The above described parcel contains SAW ae-es more or less. PREPARED BY: The Lmnd Graup,Inc. Las 116 T�Jr mes R.W:.sh bum TA Sib!PWw n6.LwxLgmme Amfitedture 4 CheiI Er&ecrir a 4 nz%m--rrre5 462 E.Shore OrT:e,SLftt!i O w EnVr,Idal EVMS w P Zd9.9394O4.i 4 www.rhetarciffaupinr:oom Page 2 Page 164 Item#4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION T HE Page 1 OF 2 IS LAND M GROUP Septernber 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 Corner of Section 23 of said Township 3 North,Range 1 West; Thence South 00*5619'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 sai d Section 23 to the Southwest garner 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 3; 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"Easy,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 line 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 following courses andi distances: Thence South 89' 16'08"East,a distance of 0.68 feet to a point of curve, Th en cc 25.41 feet o n the arc of a curve to the left,sai d curve having a radius of 20.43 feet,a central angle of 71'15'53",a chord bearing of North 54'13'05"East,and a chord length of23-80 feet to a point of reverse curve; Th en cc 194.71 feet on the a rc of a curve to the right said curve havi ng a radius of 233.34 feet,a cc r tral angle of 450 21'22",a chord bearing of North 410 15'50" East,and a chord 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, Th en cc 179.99 feet on the arc of a cu rve to th a left,said curve havi ng a radius of 1000.00 feet,a centra I angle of 10°18'45",a chard bearing of No rth 660 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 bean ng of South 28'50'30"East,and a cho rd length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; Th en cc 70.22 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,sai d curve having a rad i us of 200.00 feet,a cc ntral angle of 20'07'01",a ch o rd beari ng of South 39'55'10"East,and a cho rd length of 69-86 feet; Thence South 49'58'40" East,a distance of 639.24 feet to a paint of curve; 462 East Share arlwe,su1te 104.Eagle, idahn aa615 208 939.4041 thelandgroupine tam Page 3 Page 165 Item#4. September 11,2020 Page 2 Th en ce 204.63 feet on the arc of a curve to th a left,said cu rve havi ng a radius of 300.00 feet,a central angle of 39'04r 54",a rhord bearing of South 69'31'07"East,and a chard length of 200.69 feet; Thence South 89'03'34" East,a distance of 399A4 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing South W 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 central angle of 72'02'44",a chord bearing of North 54'55'04" East,and a chord length of 64.59 feet; Thence North 180 53'42" East,a d istance of 27.05 feet; Thence So uth 000 14'06" East,a d istance 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 havi ng a radius of 55.00 feet,a central angle cf91'10'32",a chord bearing of South 45'21'10"West,and a chard length of 78.59 feet; Thence North 890 03'34r'West,a distance of 204.56 feet to a point of curve, Thence 111.97 feet an the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 149.19 feet,a central angle of 42'59'57',a chord bearing of North 67'40'52"West,and a chard length of 109.36 feet; Thence North 46'10'53"West,a distance of 7.55 feet to the PUINT OF BEGINNING_ The above described parcel contains 0.35 acres more or less. PREPARED BY: The lard Group,Inc. �,L LA 7880 1 9-10-202 Of 4D James R.Washburn Site Planning■Lands€ape Architemm■Gvi Engineering■Surveying 462 E_Share Drive,Suite 100■Eagler Idaho 83616■P 208.939.4041■wwrw.thelarvdgrDupinc.€om Page 4 Page 166 Item#4. LEGAL DESCRIPTION THE LAND 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 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest Corner of Section 23 of said Township 3 North,Range 1 West; Thence South 00*5619"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"Eas%a distance of 834.55 feet on the cast-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; 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 89° 16'08" East a distance of 151.97 feet, Thence North 88*17'27"Easy,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 line of Parcel B of said Record of Survey No_10035; Thence on the westerly boundary line of Parcel 0 of said Record of Survey No. 10035 for the following courses and 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 chord bearing of North 54'13'05'East,and a chord length of 23,80 feetto a point of reverse curve; Thence 184.71 feet on the arc of curve to the right,said curve having a radius of233.34feet,a central angle of 45°21'22',a chord bearing of No rth 41°15'50'East,a nd a c ho rd length of 179.93 feet; Thence North 47*39'35"West,a 6stance 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; Th en ce 179.99 feet on the a rc of a cu roe to th a left,said curve having a radius of 1000.00 feed,a central angle of 10°18'45",a ch o rd bea ri ng of No rth 66°49'41'East,a nd a chord length of 179.74 feet on said West Overland Road centerline; Thence leaving said ceriterline and westerly boundary line of Parcel B,South 27*49'21"East;,a distance of 127.95 feet to a paint of curve; Thence 7.12 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curare having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 02'02'19",a ch a rd bea ri ng of So uth 28'50'30"East,and a cha rd length of 7.12 feet to a point of compound curve; Thence 70.22fieet an the arc of curve to the left,said curve having radius of 200.00feet,a central angle of 20°07'01%a ch o rd bea ri ng of So uth 390 55'10"East,and a cho rd length of 69,86 feet; Thence South 49'58'40" East a distanceof360.48 feet to a poi ntoff curve,said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING; 462 East Shire ❑rive,Suite 100.Eagle, Idaho 83616 208 939.4041 thelandgraupine tam rage:) Page 167 Item#4. 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 265.26 feet; Thence North 51°03'09" East,a distance of 575.25 fee#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 440 11'50"West,and a chord length of 200.96 feet; Thence North 390 01'02" East,a distance of 75.06 feet; Thence North 140 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 200 11'27" East,a distance of 103.27 feet; Thence South 72D 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*547 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 South 03"28' 17" East,a distance of 3.59 feet to a point of Curve; Thence 31.15 feet on the arc of a cu rve to th a left,said cu rve havi ng a radius of 70_00 feet,a central angle of 25*30'Di",a chord bearing of South 160 13'18" East,and a chord length of 30.90 feet to a point of compound curve; Thence 136.24 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 70.00 feet,a central angle of 111'30'41",a chord bea ring of South 84°43'39"East,and a chord length of 115.73 feet; Thence North 39"31'01" East,a distance of 141_01 feet to a point of curve; Thence 232.80 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,sai d curve having a rad i us of 130.CC feet,a central angle of 1020 36'12%a ch o rd bea ring of South 89°10'53"East,and a chord length of 202.92 feet; Thence South 370 52'47" East,a distance of 369.31 feet to a point of curve; Thence 389.27 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,sai d curve having a rad i us of 300.00 feet,a central angle of 74*20'42',a chard bearing of South DO'42'26" East,and a chord length of 362.53 feet; Thence South 36"27 55"West,a distance of 34-82 feetto a point of curve; Thence 62.73 feet on the arc of a cu rve to th a 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 890 02'41"West,a distance of 60,38 feet to a paint 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 of 18*47'49",a chard bearing of North 79'38'46"West,and a chord length of 97.98 feet to a point-of reverse curve; jr Site Planning■Landscape Architecture■CiviI Engineering■Surveying 462 E_Share Drive,Suite 100*Eagler Idaho 83616■P 208.939.4041*wwrw.thelarvdgroupinc.€om Page 168 Item#4. September 11,2020 Page 3 Thence 98.42 feet on the arc of a curve to th a left,said cu rve haui ng a radials of 300.00 feed,a central angle cf 18*47'49",a chord bearing of North 79*35 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 vf20'35'00 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 right,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 03'34r'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 cf39'04'54 ,a chord bearing of North 69*31r 07"West,and a chord length of 200.69 feet, Thence North 49'58'40r'West,a distance of 278.76 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Th a above described parcel cor to i ns 29-89 a cres m o re or less_ PREPARED BY: The Land Grou p, Inc. Ar wP 880 OZ 9-10-2020 Of James R.Washburn W)k Site Planning a Lands€ape,4rchiwcure.Civil En.-ineering.Surveying 4fi2 E_Share Drive,Suite 100■Eagler Idaho 93616*P 208.939.4041■www.the and.-roupinc.€om Page 169 Item#4. EXHIBIT B REZONE EXHIBIT MAP = saw rim ma Q f i ♦ � ` &am od 120 r R-9 Eimop lg[D Sleet 1 al 1 Southridge South H-2020-0083 Page 1 Page 170 Item #4. CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L .M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . wC William L. M. Nary, City Attornej. SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 214915 An ordinance (1-1-2020-0083 Southridge South) for the rezone of a tract of land as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from R4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District (7 . 15 acres) and From R-2 (Low Density Residential) Zoning District and R4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R4 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District (28 . 89 acres) in the Meridian City Code ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] i I i i RE-ZONE ORDINANCE - SOUTHRIDGE SOUTH - H -2020 -0083 PAGE 3 O Page 162