Loading...
2021-02-18 E IDIAN HO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Thursday, February 18, 2021 at 6:00 PM MINUTES ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel Commissioner Bill Cassinelli (arrived at 6:41 p.m.) Commissioner Nick Grove Commissioner Andrew Seal Commissioner Steven Yearsley Commissioner Maria Lorcher ABSENT Commissioner Lisa Holland ADOPTION OF AGENDA-Adopted CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] -Approved 1. Approve Minutes of the February 4, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Human Bean (H-2020-0125) by A&C Ventures, LLC, Located at 3285 W. Nelis Dr. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Northpoint Recovery Center (H-2020- 0126) by Cole Architects, Generally Located East of N.Webb Ave. Between E. State Ave. and E. Pine Ave. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing Continued from February 4, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H- 2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. - Continued to March 4, 2021 S. Public Hearing for Ambles Run Subdivision (H-2021-0124) by HomeFound Group, Located 1/4 mile east of N. Locust Grove Rd. and 1/2 Mile South of Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with an R-2 zoning district. B. Request: A preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family residential lots. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for March 23, 2021 6. Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. - Recommended Approval to City Council, Hearing Scheduled for March 23, 2021 ADJOURNMENT - 8:51 P.M. Item 1. Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 18, 2021. Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 18, 2021, was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel. Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Andrew Seal, Commissioner Maria Lorcher, Commissioner Nick Grove and Commissioner Steven Yearsley. Members Absent: Commissioner Lisa Holland. Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Lisa Holland X Maria Lorcher X Andrew Seal X Nick Grove _X Steven Yearsley X Bill Cassinelli (6:41 p.m.) X Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman McCarvel: Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for February 18th, 2021. The Commissioners who are present this evening are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff from the City Attorney and City Clerk's offices, as well as city Planning Department. If you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are here and you may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen on screen and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please, e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply to you as quickly as possible. If you simply want to watch this evening's meeting we encourage you to watch this streaming on the city's YouTube channel. You can access it at meridiancity.org/live. And with that let's begin with roll call. ADOPTION OF AGENDA McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We do have Foxcroft Subdivision, H-2020-0113, which is currently open from the last meeting, is requested to be continued again to March 1 st--4th in order to have more time to work through the staff's conditions of approval in the staff report. So, that item will not be heard this evening. If there is anybody here to testify in that particular application we will not be taking testimony this evening. So, can I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 5 Page 2 of 49 Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the February 4, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Human Bean (H-2020-0125) by A&C Ventures, LLC, Located at 3285 W. Nelis Dr. 3. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Northpoint Recovery Center (H-2020-0126) by Cole Architects, Generally Located East of N. Webb Ave. Between E. State Ave. and E. Pine Ave. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have one, two, three items on the Consent Agenda. Approve the minutes of the February 4th meeting. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Human Bean, 2020-0125, and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Northpoint Recovery Center. H-2020-0126. So, with that can I get a motion to approve the Consent Agenda? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] McCarvel: So, at this time I will briefly explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and begin with the staff report and the staff will report their findings on how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff comments and they will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open the floor for public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during the public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who signed up on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 6 Page 3 of 49 Please state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously sent pictures or a presentation for the meeting, it will be displayed on the screen and our Clerk will run the presentation. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger group, like an HOA, where others from that group are not speaking, you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have spoken, we will invite others who may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic you may press the raise hand button on the Zoom app or if you are listening on a phone, please, press star nine and wait for your name to be called. If you are listening on multiple devices, a computer and a phone, for example, please be sure to mute the extra devices, so we do not experience feedback and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished if the Commission does not have questions for you, you will, then, be muted and no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember we will not call on you a second time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant has finished responding to the questions and concerns, we will close the public hearing and the Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make final decision or recommendation to City Council as needed. ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing Continued from February 4, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Ten Mile Creek A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. McCarvel: So, at this time we would like to continue the public hearing for item H-2020- 0113, Foxcroft Subdivision, and does staff have any comments they would like at this time or do we want to proceed to a motion? Dodson: Madam Chair, I have no other comments other than what you said for the -- the reason why. McCarvel: Okay. Great. Can I get a motion to continue Item H-2020-0113 to March 4th, 2021. 1 guess if the Commission doesn't have any other discussion on the item. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 7 Page 4 of 49 Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move to continue file number H-2020-0113 to the hearing date of March 4th to give the applicant more time to walk through the staff's conditions of approval in the staff report. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2020-0113 to March 4th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Ambles Run Subdivision (H-2020-0124) by HomeFound Group, Located '/4 mile east of N. Locust Grove Rd. and % Mile South of Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with an R-2 zoning district. B. Request: A preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family residential lots. McCarvel: Next item on the agenda -- and we did have -- there was a typo on the public agenda. It should be H-2020, not -- not H-2021 -- 0124, Ambles Run Subdivision, and with that we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for recognizing that minor mistake there. As noted, the first item that we are actually hearing tonight is for Ambles Run Subdivision, located about a quarter mile east of Locust Grove and South of Chinden Avenue. It is a lot and block within the existing county Dunwoody Subdivision. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 2.8 acres of land with a request for the R-2 zoning district and a preliminary plat for six single family residential lots. The property lies within the low density residential future land use designation, which allows single family dwellings at a gross density less than three dwelling units per acre. The proposed project meets both the allowed use and the density requirements of the requested zoning and future land use. The proposed density should function as a transitional density from the Vienna Woods Subdivision to the --on the south to the existing Dunwoody Subdivision surrounding it to the north, west, and east. Staff finds the proposed density as appropriate in addition to meeting our Comprehensive Plan. Access into the site is proposed via extending Chopin Avenue, which is abutting the site to the south and it's the only available point of access into the site. The applicant is proposing to provide parkways with street trees on both sides of Chopin. As currently proposed the project is proposing approximately four percent open space. That would be qualifying should it -- if any were Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 8 Page 5 of 49 required. This number is important, because if this property was required, if it was greater than five acres to be exact, the project would only be required to provide five percent due to the lot containing buildable lots or an ability to gain all building lots that are over 16,000 square feet. Providing open space for developments is a critical point within the Comprehensive Plan to help create a sense of place and add green space for residents to enjoy. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant revise the landscape plans to show ten foot wide parkways, instead of eight foot wide, to increase the open space for the project and meet that five percent threshold. Providing open space at this level is not required by code, again, to be clear, but staff believes it helps the project meet the spirit of the code and allows for even more of an identity for the small subdivision, because ten foot parkways, one, allow trees more room to grow and they tend to be healthier with that versus eight foot and with -- our code allows bigger trees within ten foot wide parkways versus eight. In addition to wider parkways staff is recommending a revision to the road layout to better comply with the Comprehensive Plan and help with future development in this area. The applicant should provide a stub street to their western boundary and preliminary conditions or discussions with ACHD have determined that this applicant would be required to construct a full street section. However, the applicant should work with ACHD on a reduced street section for the stub street to minimize the impact to this property. By providing a stub street to the north and to the west provides road connectivity and utility placement for future development in this area, which should create a more cohesive design. Furthermore, this recommended change does not create the need to lose any lots or change the request for R-2 zoning, as each lot would still meet the minimum dimensional standards for R-2 after reducing the lot widths along the western boundary. A submitted landscape plan also shows a raised berm with relatively full landscaping along the rear of the building lots. This landscaping on private lots is not regulated by code and, therefore, staff does not recommend adding any provisions regarding this landscaping. The applicant intends to maintain the berm and landscaped areas through the HOA and subsequent CC&Rs, Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, that the city does not regulate. Staff believes this is the appropriate way to regulate and maintain the proposed landscaping on the private building lots. I would like to circle back to my recommended changes to have a western stub street. The applicant did speak with ACHD following my staff report and ACHD will not allow them to do a reduced -- a reduced street section as a sub street to their western boundary, which is unfortunate. They only allow that in cases where there are site constraints, which usually means existing development, and because there isn't any they would like a full standard street section. Therefore, with that knowledge, as well as understanding that, whether this street is on this side of the north property line or the north side of the property line with a future project, it will not make or break this project and, therefore, I am in a -- I am expecting the applicant to request that that condition be waived and I'm amenable to that. I do not -- I prefer these six lots be approved, rather than denied, over a short stub street that will eventually be there with future development in this area. There was one piece of public testimony submitted as of approximately 4.30 p.m. this afternoon that's from the neighbors to the west that are in the Dunwoody Subdivision from my understanding, Mr. and Mrs. Rammell, and they were noting that they would like a stub street to their -- their eastern -- this western -- so, the shared property line on the west side for another access point to their lot. Other than that staff does recommend approval of this application as Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 191 Page 6 of 49 noted and I will stand for any questions that you guys have. Thank you. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? I do have one for you, Joe. What number is the item on the stub street that you are okay with us striking, if that's the direction the commission goes? Dodson: Madam Chair, there is multiple, because it -- it goes through the plat conditions, as well as the landscape conditions and things like that. McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: I don't have that in front of me. I apologize. McCarvel: So, are we -- we are probably good with -- if in the discussions and of just talking about there being no stub -- stub street? Dodson: Correct. I can easily go back through -- McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: -- and do that afterwards. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? Miller: Hi, there. Michael Miller. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Miller: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, my name is Michael Miller. My address is 1308 North 12th Street, Boise, Idaho. I have a presentation. Can I share that with you? McCarvel: Yeah. I believe so. Miller: Okay. So, I'm going to go here and -- excuse me. Okay. All right. So, give me a second here. Okay. Can you see that? McCarvel: We have a white screen right now. Miller: Apologies for the complications. McCarvel: No problem. There we go. Miller: Got it? McCarvel: We have it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 Flo] Page 7 of 49 Miller: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the Commissioners for allowing this opportunity to present our application. Big thank you to Joseph Dodson. We pre-app'd this application in August, almost six months ago, and he has been very communicative and helpful throughout this entire process. So, as you mentioned, our parcel here -- can you see my mouse? McCarvel: Yes. Miller: Okay. Our parcel here lies just outside of the Dunwoody Subdivision. Originally this was an open space lot connected to the Dunwoody Subdivision. Each of these residential lots were designated an open space lot and -- and two years ago in July during a purchase and sale agreement, this open space lot was separated from this residential lot and now has no access through Dunwoody. Our only access is through Chopin. As you can see here, the Dunwoody Subdivision is all county and Meridian has grown around us and our only option for utilities is to stub here through Chopin, the Vienna Woods Subdivision. Traffic will flow down Locust Grove and come through Strauss and up through Chopin. This is kind of a little image of what it will look like. It will terminate in a cul-de-sac. We have six homes planned with a fence along the border here. The highest and best use for this land is residential development. In our due diligence through this last six months we spoke with the neighbors who do have an intention to develop. It was important to staff that we show how a western interconnectivity could be possible and they provide -- provided us this plan and I don't know if this is what they are still doing, but this was an initial rough draft presented to us. They would go through here and, then, out through Dunwoody, stubbing to this northern property. They would stub west and, then, out and continue for the rest of their development. This is the idea of what we would want if we were controlling the entire 15 acres, but we only have the 20 percent -- the three acres -- 2.8 acres right here. So, we do not think that a western stub street is good for our project or for future development. As you can see, if we were to stub at any part of our western border here it would go directly into this property here. If we were to use up the full length of our parcel here these lots would be like 50 by 50 and the road would end right into this home and there will be double frontage. So, a western stub street almost -- along the entire length of our western border provides several complications to future development, but they do already intend to stub to the west here on this property and this will allow them to continue through and we open the door for that development. As Joseph said, we have six lots here. We originally started out with eight. My first impression was that we would need to be zoned R-4, which is contiguous with the Vienna Woods Subdivision -- Subdivision, but after our neighborhood meeting they requested that we lower our density and change our zoning request and so we were amenable to that and we changed it to six .4 acre lots. We also have in our landscape plan here you can see a three foot berm with -- I think like over 90 pieces of vegetation and landscaping, along with a six foot cedar fence to help provide privacy for the Dunwoody Subdivision. Those neighbors right here along our eastern border. We are also proposing that the homes be single level with a bonus room, so that the -- at least here on these three, so that Dunwoody would have -- maintain its privacy. Just like a couple quick facts. The last year in 2020 there were I think 13 -- 1,300 new construction sales on .4 acres or less and only 16 of those were .4 acres or larger. We just make that point to show that we think Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 Fill Page 8 of 49 this is going to be a great fit for Meridian, these large open size lots. Regarding staff's recommendation for the eight foot parkway to go to ten feet, we -- well, we are not in disagreement with that. The Vienna Woods Subdivision right here, their parkways are six feet. So, we thought it would be a good transition to just go two feet wider and -- yeah. So, as he mentioned with our open space and these parkways our open space is about four percent, which is close to what would be required for R-2 zoning and that's it. That's all I have for you. So, if there is any questions I will be happy to answer them. McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? There being none at this time, thank you, Mr. Miller. Miller: Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have some people signed up. The first of which is Jeff Wilding. Jeff is the HOA -- is representing an HOA tonight. McCarvel: Okay. Wilding: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and Commissioners. My name is Jeff Wilding. I'm the HOA president of the Dunwoody Subdivision and I live at 1842 East Dunwoody Court. I have prepared a small presentation that I would like to work through. Some of it a little bit of history and, then, some to the narrative that was provided by the Homewood Group. So, as you have learned, Lot 26 is the proposed Ambles Run Subdivision. Lot 25 is important, because during the sale of Lot 25 that was referred to before in 2019, that lot was allegedly split, but that violates our CC&R agreement and, again, I don't expect that you folks will have time to read through all this. I'm not going to read all of the details that are in the black, but it's information that I want you to have. So, the HomeFound Group suggested that there was an agreement from the Dunwoody Subdivision to split those lots in the sale. That was never done. No documentation. Multiple requests for alleged e-mails approving the lot split have not been produced and multiple requests --excuse me -- requests from Title One have also produced no evidence on agreement to split that lot. So, they still should be under one ownership. This is just a little bit of background for you. Also within our CC&R document, except for Lots 26 and 28, there can be no subdividing, but we do recognize that 26 can be subdivided and that's what we are talking about tonight, but the resulting lots must contain a minimum of one acre. The proposed Ambles Run Development, again, violates the CC&R document. And so moving on to the next piece -- and this now is -- I have taken the Ambles Run narrative and there is a few things that I would like to point out. The HomeFound Group claims that Lot 26 has been separated from Dunwoody Subdivision and we are wondering how that took place. Mr. Miller has -- did, in fact, meet with several residents requesting deannexation from Dunwoody HOA. That motion was presented to the Dunwoody residents, which there are 16, with 14 votes no and two in abstention. So, how did Lot 26 get separated from Dunwoody Subdivision? Our position is it has not been separated. In 2007 there was a lot line redraw due to Richard Price building a shop over the top of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F12 Page 9 of 49 the lot line between 25 and 26. So, it is recorded with the county that that lot line got moved. That's why it's 2.88 acres and not three acres. So, we recognize that that got moved. However, that does not separate the lot for purposes of selling or for subdividing and the CC&Rs are still in place. The HOA was not contacted by Title One requesting permission to split the lot. In fact, Dale and Lonnie Hope, who are here tonight, had their own title company working on the sale and when the issue of splitting lots came up they were suddenly told that Title One would now be handling that transition. Mr. Miller referred to me to Lisa Britt from Title One to get the alleged documentation and through several e-mails and phone calls to Lisa Britt, she informed me that there was nothing in the file, nothing in underwriting, no notes, no documents or anything mentioned about the CC&R stipulation of splitting that lot and when pressed Lisa Britt ceased to return my phone calls. The HomeFound Group also claims that a single board member may have granted split of the lot. So, when we first talked with the group they said this was a verbal agreement and the former HOA president has no knowledge of that verbal agreement, nor is there anything in writing, and so that never was -- there was never any business conducted that way. Mr. Miller claimed that I -- in his narrative claimed that I felt uncomfortable that the previous HOA president had allowed separation of lots and that's just not true. I never expressed that, because that never really happened. So, I really challenge Mr. Miller and the HomeFound Group and Title One to provide e-mails that they claim are in existence granting permission to split the lot. It's in his narrative, so I think it becomes very important. As I have stated before, Mr. Miller did approach the HOA with a proposal of deannexation of Lot 26 and a vote was taken with 14 votes of no. He also included that he was never asked -- or at least the homeowner -- not the homeowners, the owner of Lot 26 was never included in that vote. Short sighted on my part. They don't live there. Usually the votes just go to the people who live there. But it wouldn't have mattered even if they would have been there, the vote still would have been a no vote. I did suggest to Mr. Miller that he work with the developers of the rest of that area there, that 15 acres, and try to include acre lots at least along the Dunwoody lot lines for a higher density as it moves forward to Locust Grove, much in the same manner that Three Corners Ranch on the -- on the north side of us has done. All of those lots are one acre against Dunwoody and, then, they get more dense as they go and he declined to do that. Also there is a claim that the HOA has agreed to smaller than one acre lots for Lot 28 and he actually showed a diagram of that. We have not been approached by that homeowner. I have seen his plan, but we have not been approached to vote on that, nor has that been brought before this group and so there -- that has not been approved by the HOA. So, I'm not sure where he's getting that information. Just a few final points that I would like to make. Initially, the Hopes did not want to purchase that open space lot. The real estate agent representing Mrs. Miller informed them -- informed them that the space behind them would be subdivided in one acre lots. That helped them feel comfortable with what was going to go in behind them and so they moved forward with the sale -- with the purchase of their home. When they learned about the proposed Ambles Run development they offered a very handsome price for that 2.8 acres and that was declined. Point. Lot 26 has not been deannexed from Dunwoody Subdivision. That cannot be unilaterally done. The vote of the HOA was no. The split of Lot 25 and 26 was not done with any approval and nobody has provided information that would suggest otherwise. The narrative contains many non-truths and speculations. Under R-2 zoning one acre lots may be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F13 Page 10 of 49 constructed on that property and so when Mr. Miller first came to us he said I cannot develop it unless I go to R-4 zoning. We told -- we told him about R-2. Now he was going to go to R-2, that's great, but he can still put one acre lots on that property. So, my final point is that the Dunwoody Subdivision HOA opposes the plan is presented for Ambles Run and we would ask that the Commission consider our longstanding 30 year old CC&Rs and -- and help us with that piece of it. That is my presentation, unless the Commission has questions. McCarvel: Do we have any questions for the speaker? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just as a question of documentation here, do you have the -- the notes and the vote documents from the HOA meeting that you had? Wilding: I don't have them with me, but I do have all of the e-mails that I can provide that would show us that -- that -- that information. I can -- that can be retrieved and presented to you. Seal: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for Mr. Wilding? Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Madam Clerk. Weatherly: Next we have Jeff Thompson. He is online. Jeff, one moment, please. McCarvel: Okay. Mr. Thompson, please state your name and address for the record and right now it looks like you need to unmute your side. Thompson: Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff Thompson. I am at 1970 East Handle Court in the Vienna Wood Subdivision. My property touches part of the property in question, so I share a lot line and so, basically, just what I wanted to share was I -- originally my family was involved in -- in the development approved by the City of Meridian for Vienna Woods Subdivision and when we went forth with that project for Vienna Woods, Dunwoody Subdivision members were very concerned and so working through the process with the city, what we ended up having to do -- and which I think is a great thing -- is we had low density large lots placed along the east-west border on the north side of that 80 acres that constitutes Vienna Woods and that was done to -- for and behalf of the Dunwoody concerning -- to address those concerns from Dunwoody -- the Dunwoody homeowners and residents and -- and we also had specifics that were put upon us or that were agreed to I should say that we would do single levels, which is mentioned as part of Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F14 Page 11 of 49 this plan with this new Ambles Run, but we did single level on certain sections and, then, two stories were allowed only at certain locations and they were mandated a half acre at a very very minimum point. So, we had -- that was the smallest we could go along that stretch east to west and so I guess my point is living here now -- I have owned two homes in this subdivision along that border and have followed and complied with all those things and we did, of course, in the development as well. But my feeling is that that sort of set a precedence of the -- the graduation or the blending of the densities and seeing that Dunwoody also had that as -- that in their CC&Rs of one acre lots, it -- it totally -- it totally fits and totally coincides with what the history that's there, right, that we -- we had with the origination and the approval of the Vienna Woods Subdivision. So, my testimony is just that. I really believe that -- that either one acre or half acre or larger is sort of the precedent that was set by the board and the Commission in the past and I see that only as reasonable moving forward and not that I'm against development, I am not against the development of that property at all. I -- I am for that, but I think it should follow that precedent that's been set and I also think that that kind of density -- low density needs to be followed and if the CC&Rs are in place, in fact, of the one acre, then, I think that should be honored and that -- that's all I have. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Anyone else, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Robert Phillips also online. One moment. McCarvel: Go ahead, Mr. Phillips. You are -- you need to unmute your side and give your name and address for the record. Thank you. Phillips: I'm Robert Phillips. Can you hear me now? McCarvel: Yes. Phillips: Okay. Robert Phillips. 5576 North Chopin Avenue. So, my property is the property just to the -- the south of the proposed subdivision and, by the way, I'm very pro development. I think development is great. I do have one concern probably should be brought before Council on this matter, which is if -- if -- if the applicant goes forward with his proposed subdivision and -- which the Council or, you know, the Commission and Council has the right to approve, that doesn't remove the CC&Rs. So, you are going to have CC&Rs that restrict it one way and Planning and Zoning and the Council saying a different way, those CC&Rs don't go away, which means when a person buys the home their title policy will have excepted out the --the CC&Rs will be an exception to that, which means people may be buying homes in that subdivision without valid title insurance and that can create a real issue and so I just want to make sure that we are not creating future issues for the neighbors there as it relates to a violation of the CC&Rs that will -- that will stay in place after-- after this is approved. So, you are going to create an natural conflict there, which isn't resolvable unless this Dunwoody Subdivision somehow deannexes that. So, I just think that's a problem that you should make sure you consider when you consider this application. And that was it. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F15] Page 12 of 49 McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we -- McCarvel: Anyone else, Madam Clerk? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Susan Rammell. McCarvel: And is she online or -- Weatherly: She's in-house, Madam Chair. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Rammell: I'm Susan Rammell and I -- my address is 5690 North Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho. My husband Dale O'Brien and I have owned the five acres that is directly west of the property that's being developed. We have lived there for 31 years and have been involved with all of the subdivisions and things that have -- have gone on. I submitted a comment earlier and would like to read it into the record tonight. I just said the first sentence. My husband Dale O'Brien and 1, Susan Rammell, own the five acres -- I'm really not this scared. I sound like I'm going to cry, but I'm really not. Immediately west of the proposed development Ambles Run Subdivision. We ask that the Millers stub a street into the east side of our land. This is important because it will provide an alternate route to enter and exit -- exit our property and helps in the long term maintenance of a road that will connect us to Vienna Woods. A street stub into our acreage also offers an improved zoning and would better fit with Meridian's planning principles and we appreciate your consideration. It is not correct that if you put the stub there it would run into our house. So, that is incorrect. We have been working with three of our neighbors to try to develop the property that -- the five acres that we own -- have and so Mr. Miller knows about those, because we have contacted him. I would also like to ask that the development take steps to limit light pollution to the surrounding area, so -- and that's all that I have. McCarvel: Thank you, Ms. Rammell. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Dale Hope, who is in house. Hope: Thank you. My name is Dale Hope. I live in 1985 East Dunwoody Court. My wife and I purchased the home at -- at that site, which is on the map as Lot 25 and during the sales process we were informed that the area behind us was limited to one acre parcels, which Mr. Wilding expanded on. So, I won't go further into that. So, it was just part of the sales enticement that we thought was pretty nice about the neighborhood and we were kind of hoping that it would stay that way. Mr. Miller and his family have stated in their narrative that they are separated from the Dunwoody Subdivision as a result of me purchasing Lot 25 and the home from them --their family. Well, I don't see how that really makes any sense. We don't agree with that and the HOA has also said that that does not Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F16 Page 13 of 49 constitute a separation from the subdivision. So, just briefly I just wanted to say that, you know, the Mill -- Mr. Miller and his family lived in the home for 30 years, which he's conveyed in his message. He enjoyed all the benefits that the CC&Rs brought to the neighborhood, which brings a beautiful higher end type neighborhood with open spaces and very appropriate nice neighborhood. So, as they are living there for 30 years they are enjoying the benefits of the CC&Rs. Once they move out now they want to come to the city and to the neighborhood and the rest of our neighbors and HOA and no longer be bound by the CC&Rs which are clearly in place and I have talked and some -- my understanding the only way to get out of CC&Rs is either through a homeowner association vote, which Mr. Wilding has already done and the answer is no, and the only other option that I understand to get out of a CC&R is through a civil legal lawsuit, which has not happened yet. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. At this time I would like to let the record show that Commissioner Cassinelli has joined us at 6:41. Cassinelli: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, we have -- sorry, Commissioner Cassinelli. Madam Chair, we have Monte Moore, who is joining us online. Monte, one moment. Moore: Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Thank you. Moore: Okay. Hi. My name is Monty Moore and I live at 1921 East Dunwoody Court. live immediately north of Mr. Hope, Dale Hope, who just testified. I also own -- I own five acres and there is a three acre agricultural lot -- roughly three acre agricultural lot that I own immediately north of the Millers and I'm one of the neighbors who has been talking to Tucker Johnson about putting my property into a development. I have always felt like it would be better to have a one unified whole development, rather than piecemeal it, and here after 27 years I think we are getting close to it. I'm in favor of Mr. Miller developing his part. I am a member of the Dunwoody Subdivision and have been privy to discussions among the subdivision, owner -- people who are owners in the HOA, and I just think what I would like to come to is something that would be reasonable for everybody. I have tried -- went to Ada county two or three years ago and tried to bring in a road or a driveway from Dunwoody, so that I could develop my three acres. It would just be two -- two lots and -- and I was turned down, they said there is no way I can do that. So, the only way I can access -- if that's still true, the only way I can access my property would be through Mr. Miller's development and, then, out the other side onto the west end of Dunwoody, which is what we are talking about for our development right now. I have it on good authority -- there may be some who disagree, but I do believe that if -- if there is some compromise on the one acre issue, that there is a good chance that the Dunwoody Subdivision would let us out of the CC&Rs and disconnect -- disconnect that property from Dunwoody and allow it to be developed. What I'm doing is I'm going to have lots -- I'm going to have -- I would like to have four lots, three lots around three-quarters of an Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F17 Page 14 of 49 acre and, then, one other smaller lot, just because of the way the road would have to come through and so what I would hope the Millers would do is on the east edge where the Hopes are, take the three lots and bring them down to two lots and I think that the neighbors would, then, look kindly on this, you know, as -- that would be a compromise and I understand you have already compromised from eight down to six, but I would like to see you bring that down to two lots, instead of three, and my lots will -- will be of similar size, will be along the back of my property and the Fillmore's property, large lots -- not an acre, but close to it, and I think that we would have consensus at that point. Also appreciate our past discussions of -- of allowing me to have access through there -- through the Miller's subdivision into Vienna Woods, so that there is a -- there is a way for traffic to -- to get to my piece and some compromise on the access to the Rommell- O'Brien -- Rammell-O'Brien property, as Susan Rammell testified earlier. Any questions? McCarvel: Don't believe so. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's all that I show signed up in advance. McCarvel: Okay. And is there anyone else on Zoom or in chambers that would like to testify on this application? Okay. All right. Would the applicant like to come and address -- Weatherly: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Madam Clerk. Weatherly: We did have one person raise their hand in the online audience. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Dick Price. One moment, please. McCarvel: And, Mr. Price, you will need to unmute yourself on your side and, please, state your name and address for the record. Mr. Price, you are still muted. Weatherly: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Madam Clerk. Weatherly: It looks like Marissa Price also has their hand raised. I'm going to go out on a limb and say maybe they are together and if it's one having audio issues. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Let's try Marissa. One moment. McCarvel: Let's try that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F18 Page 15 of 49 Price: Well, I think I got it. McCarvel: Okay. All right. So, Mr. Price, are you and Marissa Price the same testimony here? Price: Yes. I'm one of the owners of the property. McCarvel: Okay. Price: And, first of all, I want to say I really respect Dale Hope. I think he's a real good guy and in our development I want to make sure that he's a happy camper, because he spent a lot of money on his home. When we originally applied for this we were looking at four lots on his side and I hope it's a compromise that they can live with. We are going to do half acre lots, which there are three, but I said in our development proposal I would only want those homes on his side of the street to be single level or single level with bonus rooms, because I want him to have privacy in his backyard. I don't want people to be staring at his backyard and I guess the last thing I would say is just how this has changed since we bought that property. I used to pheasant hunt in Vienna Woods. When Dunwoody was put in I mean it was so rural 30 years ago and it's just amazing what's happened over the last 30 years. Unfortunately, Meridian just needs a place for people to put their homes and this is just one of them and I'm just hoping you will take a look at it in that manner, especially where we are going to try and make Mr. Hope happy and -- and do nice homes and have them single level or single level with bonus rooms on nice size lots. So, that's all I have to say. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else wish to testify on this application? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward -- Miller: Yes, Madam Chair. McCarvel: -- and address any of the issues. Thank you. Miller: Yes. Thank you. Can you -- can I share my screen again? McCarvel: Yes. Miller: Okay. Thank you so much. Can you see this? McCarvel: Yes. Miller: Okay. Thank you. So, originally, our home here, Lot 25, was owned by Maureen Miller and Dick Price, my parents. They separated many years ago. She bought him out of title of that home. So, this lot here was hold -- held sole and separate by Maureen Miller. The lot we are talking about here, this open space lot, was held -- is held in title by Maureen and Dick Price. When Maureen went to sell her home she had no intention to sell the open space lot. She held title to 20 -- Lot 25 and she put just this up on the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F19 Page 16 of 49 market to be sold. The issue of the CC&Rs did come up during that purchase and sale agreement and title has cleared any issues with the HOA. They had to in order to get pro-rations for Dale Hope's purchase. We have several e-mails -- e-mails detailing that. At the time Mona Tippets -- I have blurred out her number. But Mona Tippets was the president of the HOA at that time and they had a conversation about the CC&Rs and it says here that Sandy Anderson and Mona Tippets reviewed the CC&Rs on their own and realized you are in compliance, because as you can tell this was a hot issue at the time. She could not sell both lots. She owned just the residential lot, Lot 25, and the HOA was aware of this. It was cleared and the lot was separated. Now that it has been separated there is no access through Dunwoody. We don't have access to their amenities and we are clearly not getting a vote -- vote in their HOA. We weren't contacted about that. I asked for them to deannex -- to just do that to approach this subject before we came before you. They were not in favor of that and, then, they did not include us in a vote in that. So, I don't understand how we can be part of a subdivision that we don't have a vote regardless. The best access comes from Meridian through Chopin Avenue. We have compromised on our lots. We went from eight to six and we think that that's a good compromise, a good transition, as staff mentioned. Before we had done any of this we had actually offered to sell this property back to Dale Hope. He declined. He didn't want it. And so we went forward -- we asked the county if we could develop on it. You can't develop on anything less than five acres. So, we are here presenting to Meridian in order to get utilities to develop our land, which is the highest and best use for this land. The western stub road -- it does run directly into their property. We would put, you know, two lots here, maybe, and one here and it would go directly into that house that it just -- it would not function to have lots here and, then, here and, then, double frontage here. appreciate the other neighbors wanting to develop. This is their plan. We did not have an agreement about that plan. There is an island here of homes, maybe 200 feet by 200 feet surrounded by asphalt. We don't think that's a good transition between Vienna Woods and Dunwoody. We think the best route is to go north directly into Monte's property, like he's proposed with his four lots. The transition looks good between these two. Then they can go west and, then, they could do an open space lot here. But at the end of the day we are here to present you our project, which we think is a good plan. We have decreased our density at the request of the neighborhood. We have been continually -- that's why it has taken us six months, we have continually tried to work this project to make sure that all of the concerned parties have been navigated. With that being said, we think that this is going to be a very good option, a very good plan for this piece, and we are opening the doorway by developing for the neighbors to continue with their options. Thank you very much. McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant? Okay. With that, then, can I get -- Yearsley: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Steven. Yearsley: This is Steven Yearsley. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F20 Page 17 of 49 McCarvel: Yes, Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Given that there is -- there is a struggle between the two subdivisions with regards to the CC&Rs, I wonder if maybe Andrea could respond to how -- I mean before we close the public hearing I wouldn't mind having the applicant to comment on this. But my concern is how do we proceed with this if there is a discrepancy in the CC --you know, with their CC&Rs, which is not by us, but is there -- is there an issue proceeding I guess with this? Miller: The issue would be with the title company who has insured the sale. We have cleared that. They cleared it through the HOA. That's part of their due diligence. On top of that, we have e-mails saying that the -- the HOA knew about it and they have reviewed it and we are in compliance and now two years later that we want to develop there is a different president and I appreciate Jeff Wilding's testimony, he -- you know, he was open working with us. We -- when he suggested R-2 we decreased the R-2 or changed our request to R-2. But the president at the time Mona Tippets and Sandy Anderson, who was on that board, knew about that and they allowed the separation of lots and now this parcel has been separated. The best use for it is development and there are no issues with the CC&R. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: I think we are wanting to hear from our legal counsel here with us this evening from the City of Meridian. Pogue: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, this is Andrea Pogue. Basically this is a private dispute. It doesn't involve the city. The applicant is acting at his own risk. He could choose to withdraw the application and deal with the dispute or he could proceed as he's doing tonight, indicating he wants to come in, if you approve it, and he could get sued and, you know, it will be -- it's a private matter. It's a private dispute with regard to the CC&Rs. So, Mr. Yearsley, the decisions before you -- this is an annexation. It's -- it's to you -- within your purview to decide if you are comfortable or not comfortable. If it doesn't seem like it's the right time given that there are other property owners looking to develop as well and maybe you -- you might want to consider the timing of this -- this parcel's development versus those. You might want to consider -- you know, there is just a lot of considerations for you. I think the least of which is this private dispute matter. Evaluate the -- the project on its own merits. It's the applicant's risk. It's -- I know in the past this Commission has decided with very simple private dispute amongst neighbors. You can continue the matter to try and give the applicant a chance to work through the dispute or come back with a resolution or further proof if you are concerned there is lacking in proof that the --the lot was successfully split or any other issues that might bear on the decision of the merits of this application. There might be grounds to continue to tonight, but if you are -- they are also -- you may want to make a decision and move it up one way or another to Council to review. So, that's my basic comments, Commissioner Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F21 Page 18 of 49 Yearsley. It's a private dispute. I can't give legal advice. I'm neither one of their attorneys. I -- I'm just learning of this for the first time tonight, so I can't say more than I have. Yearsley: Okay. And that's what I was just asking for is -- is -- you know, that's kind of what my thought was as well, that it's, first of all, between the two homes -- you know, the association and homeowner or the property owner and I didn't know if we had any legal standing on it as well. So, thanks for the clarification. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Yeah. I mean I would like to ask the same thing that I asked of the -- the current HOA president, which is the e-mail that was produced looked like it is of the former president of the HOA. It doesn't look like any voting statistics or anything were taken on that--or voting minutes were taken on that. Can either side produce the meeting minutes from that where that decision was come to? Miller: No, sir. Seal: Was that a no? Miller: Yeah. We just have the e-mails. There was no official documentation of the votes. We just have a-mails documenting the exchange between the HOA and ourselves and the allowance of us to separate. Seal: So, you can understand where the -- the limit is, where we have -- this is one person's word against, you know, an HOA and -- and I -- and I personally -- yeah. I was going to say, I personally take issue with that. After serving in HOAs and being met with, you know, powerless decisions sometimes in order to continue on because things like this take place, I think that there is some kind of burden to produce some kind of factual evidence that shows that at least a vote took place and something like that transpired personally. Miller: Sure. We have several a-mails documenting the exchange between us and the title company, so -- Dodson: Madam Chair? Seal: I understand that and that's why a title company does what it does. It's -- it's Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F22 Page 19 of 49 their -- Miller: Yeah. Seal: -- it's their bill to -- to burden -- Miller: Yeah. Seal: -- if something comes back on this. So, the legality of it is something that I don't think has been flushed out completely. Even if it is a private matter between homeowners. Dodson: Madam Chair? This is Joe. McCarvel: Joe. Dodson: No problem. To touch on this further and what our counsel has said, it is a private matter in the sense of whether the lot was legally split as far as land records that -- that occurred. There is a lot line adjustment record of survey that that occurred. Whether that happened and the HOA allowed it, that is a civil matter. That's not in the city's purview. What's before us -- whether or not the lot was legally split and can be developed separate of Lot 25, that exists and it has -- my understanding from previous conversations and previous decisions by counsel and legal determinations, again, not our counsel, because we can't make these types of decisions for civil matters -- is that it -- it is a civil matter and once the city annexes a piece of land those former county CC&Rs no longer apply to this property, it applies -- the city zoning applies. So, again, that -- the legal portion of that is not handled within the city realm. It should be handled in the civic realm. It's a civil issue, not a city issue. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Seal: I understand that and -- but I mean part of the issue that I have is we have Mr. Moore and Mr. Miller, Mr. Fillmore, Mr. and Mrs. Rammell and Mr. Price involved in this, who are either part of or have been part of the subdivision, who want to develop this entire thing and it all hinges on the subdivision that you are either part of or have been part of. So, I lack understanding as to why they cannot come to an agreement on how to develop this entire parcel and I think that that's something that we should -- as people that are going to see this come into the city -- foster in in good faith. McCarvel: Okay. Weatherly: Madam Chair? McCarvel: If there is -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F23 Page 20 of 49 Weatherly: Madam Chair, this is Adrienne. McCarvel: Yeah. Uh-huh. Weatherly: I did have one person identify themselves by raising their hand in the audience. I wanted to give you the opportunity to address that. McCarvel: How does the Commission feel on it? Do we want to hear more testimony or are we ready to move forward, as the applicant has already come back and spoken? Pogue: Madam Chair, this is Andrea. McCarvel: Yes. Pogue: I would recommend the Commission move -- continue to -- McCarvel: Move forward. Yeah. This is -- yeah. We can't keep debating this with the members of the audience. At this time I would recommend, since the applicant has already spoken, that we close the public hearing and move on to our discussions. And on that note, could I -- Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Seal: Move that we close the public hearing for Ambles Run Subdivision, H-2020-0124. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0124. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Okay. Now we will continue the discussion. Where would you like to pick up? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: My initial inclination is to move towards continuance to allow more time and see if further discussion among the neighbors and potential developing -- developers could come to a solution. If-- if not, then, you know, I think we could take another look at it, but that would be my -- my first impression of this. Similar to what we saw a while back with a subdivision development off of Black Cat and Chinden, just to allow a little bit more dialogue to occur. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F24 Page 21 of 49 McCarvel: Yeah. I think there has been a lot of dialogue, but I would hate to get in the middle of a civil matter when just annexing this part into the city could actually make the decision for them it sounds like, because, then, it would no longer be part of the county. Grove; Madam Chair, for me it's not just the CC&R piece, it's also the -- the other developing piece and making sure that they are on the same page with how they want to develop, so that it's more of a unified vision and less piecemeal. McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Other thoughts, Commissioners? Steven, you came off. Commissioner Yearsley and Commissioner Cassinelli are off mute. Yearsley: You know-- thank you. You know, I don't know how to --where to go with this. I think on its own merits I think it looks like a really nice subdivision. I like the size. You know, I don't think that the association is going to want to compromise the way it sounds from the applicant -- or from the -- the HOA president and I think, you know, maybe giving them a couple of weeks to talk to the other homeowners to see if they want to include in that development -- I do recognize that the developers current -- you know, has been working on this since -- since August and so he's probably anxious to try to get into this building season, so he can get his -- his lots sold and move forward. I would have a tendency to -- you know, he gave him -- you know, there is opportunities for them to come in and still meet, you know, lot sizes and -- and have a decent development through that property. I'm inclined to move it forward. McCarvel: Okay. And in moving it forward you like it as is? Yearsley: I do. I like the subdivision. I think it's a nice size. If it was south of the -- south of Meridian -- of the interstate I -- I would actually consider looking at one of the lots, but -- so, no, I think it -- I think it stands good on its own merits. McCarvel: Thank you. Commissioner Cassinelli, you are off mute. Cassinelli: Oh, I'm just off mute. I will say that I'm going to --just because I missed some of the dialogue here and I'm not totally up on -- on what was -- what was going on before I joined, I'm going to abstain. McCarvel: Okay. Cassinelli: But I'm just --just my thoughts on it. It's -- you know, I mean to go into R-2, I -- you are not usually going to get a complaint from me on R-2. I -- you know, things that I typically like to see are good transition, the way it's shaped and the roads got to go in, that's not -- you know, it's -- that thing could turn 90 degrees, but I -- again, I missed the conversation with the -- with the CC&Rs a little bit with that, but, you know, all in all I like it. I would like to see how it's going to future develop with the -- with the other parcels around it, but, as I said, I'm -- I'm going to have to abstain from -- from the vote on this. McCarvel: Thank you. Commissioner Seal? Commissioner Lorcher? Thoughts? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F25 Page 22 of 49 Seal: Madam Chair, I mean I have shared quite a few thoughts. I'm more with Commissioner Grove on this, simply because if it wasn't all the property owners involved in this that are all part of or have been part of the subdivision that's, you know, having the issue with this, I would say, you know, it would be more likely that I would want to move it along, but all of these people are part of or have been part of that same subdivision and, you know, again, I -- I hate it when HOA stuff gets stepped on, because HOAs are sometimes -- as much as they are the butt of a lot of jokes, they are often left powerless to do anything like -- against something like this, because of the movement or the wording or communication of one person. I have seen this happen in subdivisions I live in and I'm not a fan of it. I think that what Commissioner Grove reflected on as far as having a more complete vision for the entire area would be helpful for everybody involved. Instead of tearing everything apart, it would help things come -- come together a little bit more. As far as the project on its own, I'm with Commissioner Yearsley, I mean I live close to this, so, you know, I mean if my wife and I were looking for a piece of piece of property in Meridian, this is one of them I would look out for sure. I mean based on what it is and where it is if it were to go forward. That said, I just don't think that-- I think that they would be better off to have a more complete vision, a more complete plan of everything that's going to develop in here before it moves forward. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Lorcher? Lorcher: The only thing I'm uncomfortable with is what Andy said with CC&Rs and HOA. If we don't -- if we don't respect them, then, why should they be there in the first place. We just kind of pick and choose the rules that we want. So, I think until the developer and the HOA feel a little bit more comfortable with each other to be good neighbors, I would probably be more favored for a continuance. It has nothing to do with the subdivision. I think it's -- what their plans are is lovely. But it was also pointed out that it's going to be piecemeal putting it all together, too. So, how -- how will they all be good neighbors? McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I guess my thoughts are that I think on its own it's a nice subdivision. I think the through lots -- you know, you could do two or three there. I think that makes -- that's making a nice transition as it is. But, yeah, I agree, I would like some proof one way or the other on -- and not just one e-mail. Some title company proof or something, you know, before we move forward on this if they come forward with that would be helpful. Yeah. Because I don't think, yes, stubbing the street to the west if -- if we were just looking at this on its own, I think the layout that they have shown is good and would go forward in the future in a logical pattern. But, yeah, I'm -- I would say there needs to be some clarity on whether this is still part of the HOA or not. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Joe. Dodson: Thank you, ma'am. I just wanted to -- I don't -- obviously I assume the applicant would prefer a continuance over a recommendation of denial, but I don't know what a Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F26 Page 23 of 49 continuance will do in favor of the applicant or in favor of the application, just because I know they have already worked with the HOA for a while and I know that the HOA is, obviously, because of what they talked about, is going to want the minimum one acre lot sizes, which with Meridian zoning is not a requirement. So, we are still going to run into this issue of do the CC&Rs have legal power to limit them to one acre lots and so that's why -- I don't know if the applicant and the HOA will ever reach an agreement, as Commissioner Yearsley noted. So, I just wanted to point that out that -- that those discussions have already occurred. I don't know if the applicant would still like to try to continue it out and do that again, but from what I have understood that issue is still going to come up and we will be right back here talking about this again in a month or two weeks. Parsons: Yeah. Madam Chair, this is Bill. McCarvel: Yes. Parsons: I just -- I just want -- I just want to share some of the conversations that I had with the surrounding neighbors with you as well, because I met with the HOA president and we went through a bunch of different scenarios and I shared a lot of the same things that you had talked about. Joe and I shared the same concerns with Mr. Miller and I tend to agree with Commissioner Yearsley that we may not be able to get to a resolution in two weeks or even a month. So, I don't -- I don't know what it gains us to continue the project. But, again, that's still -- that's within your purview. But I do know that everyone -- at least speaking with Mr. Miller and speaking with the HOA rep, they are very amenable to working together and trying to get this resolved. At some point at the end of the day they may not get to that point, but they do --the applicant does have 30 days from tonight's hearing to City Council and I know you guys have always been -- I don't know if generous is the right word, but at least acknowledge that there may be an opportunity for them to work that out as they transition towards a City Council hearing. So, if you -- if you continue the project two more weeks certainly you may not have a resolution, but if you kicked it -- if you moved it along to City Council with the applicant and the HOA working together, hopefully, again, everyone wants a nice development around them and that's the impression that I have got in my discussions with both parties. So, I think they are mature adults, I think they can get to a consensus and work this thing out. So, I would -- you know, if it's your purview, certainly, you have the option to include in your motion that they continue to have that resolved as they transition to City Council. But that's -- at least wanted to give you some commentary that you have the ability to do that, to move this on with them working that out, because I'm with you, it's -- from my experience with the city we don't get a lot of R-2 lots and that's what I'm just going to share with the Dunwoody residents out there, is this -- there has only been one R-2 development that -- or maybe two since I have been with the city in 14 years and this is potentially the third -- number three. So, it is -- it is something that a lot of developers don't take advantage of and know past mayors and past council members have wanted to see more of that, particularly in south Meridian and north Meridian. So, again, I have to commend the applicant for even coming -- at least trying to make that attempt, losing some lots of coming in with the .4 of an acre -- almost half an acre lot size next to -- to county residents. We typically Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F27 Page 24 of 49 don't see that type of transition. And, then, also restrict it to a single story, which is also I think another win for Dunwoody. So, I would just encourage them to continue working this out as they move through the hearing process and if-- if either side has any additional questions of staff they can certainly reach out to us and we can have those further discussions with them. McCarvel: Thank you. Yeah. So, with that I'm not sure if we are ready for-- if somebody was to take a stab at a motion one way or the other. I -- I tend to agree, I think with as much discussion as was brought to us, it's -- I think it's obvious that the applicant and the neighbors have had numerous discussions and I think at this point to move it along and -- but with notes to City Council that -- of what our thoughts are as far as being respectful of the potential HOA's -- but that's -- I mean we will take a motion and a stab at it. I will give you a few minutes to see who wants to make the motion and what motion that would be. Yearsley: So -- so, Madam Chair? This is Steven Yearsley. McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: I'm trying to remember -- was there a -- from staff recommended -- changes to the staff report that they recommended? I can't -- I remember him talking about that, but I can't remember what it was. McCarvel: I believe he was -- Joe was in agreement to strike the road stub to the west. So, that -- it would -- it would be just basically the picture that we got. Yearsley: Okay. Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Give me a second and I will make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0124. If I'm right. Yeah. 124. As presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 18th, 2021, with the following modifications. That the -- to strike the condition to connect a road stub to the west. McCarvel: Okay. Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Commissioner Yearsley, could we add in a condition that the applicant continue discussions with the neighbors concerning future development to the north and west? Yearsley: Absolutely. I would be agreeable to that. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F28 Page 25 of 49 Grove: In that case I second. McCarvel: Okay. It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2020-0124 and I believe we will take a roll call vote. Roll call: McCarvel, yea; Holland, absent; Cassinelli, abstain; Seal, nay; Grove, yea; Yearsley, yea; Lorcher, nay. McCarvel: Okay. Well, motion passes and I believe City Council will have all of our notes and we will move on from there. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A- Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E.Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. McCarvel: In that case we will move on to the public hearing for H-2020-0100, Compass Pointe Subdivision and we will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As noted the next one is Compass Pointe Subdivision. It is located in the southwest corner -- right. Yes. Southwest. Southwest corner of Locust Grove and Victory Road. The site consists of 7.69 acres of land and the project was first heard by Planning and Zoning Commission in December 3rd of last year. The Commission recommended denial of the project at that time. Following this recommendation the applicant made a request to the Council to be remanded back to P&Z with a revised plat and open space pursuant to the comments made within the staff report, as well as by the Commissioners. The City Council agreed with this request and remanded the project back. That's why we are here tonight. The main changes made by the applicant following that recommendation of denial related to the number of units, the road layout, the amount of usable open space and the applicant is also no longer requesting a planned unit development. Therefore, the applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for R-15 zoning, a preliminary plat consisting of 38 lots -- building lots and ten common lots on approximately 4.69 acres and, then, private streets for the road access for the development. That also Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F29 Page 26 of 49 requires an alternative compliance request, because the private streets will connect directly to an arterial street. The proposed uses are all single family residential, but in multiple forms. Attached townhomes, which are triplexes, attached duplexes, and four single family detached homes as well. The project is proposed with a density of 4.94 dwelling units per acre and a net density of 9.8 dwelling units per acre, which is lower than the previous submittal. The applicant is proposing to construct private streets within the development of 24 feet wide, with five foot attached sidewalk on at least one side of the street throughout the project. As seen the main thoroughfare through this site has sidewalk on both sides of the street, which is not required with private streets. At the north end of the main street within the development, which is Compass Lane, the applicant is proposing an emergency only access out to Victory Road. This access is required if more than 30 homes are to be constructed. The proposed access for this development is to Locust Grove and lines up with East Coastline Street on the east side of Locust Grove, which was the access into the Trade Winds Subdivision and a future subdivision further east of that. Yes, the access point into the development does not meet ACHD's district policy, but they are modifying their policy to accommodate the access, as this is the only place that they can take access to the -- I should say if they took access off Victory it would be even less compliant with ACHD policy as to the acute triangle we have here. Therefore, again, ACHD is modifying their policies to allow this access as that is the most logical and safest place for an access to Locust Grove. There are no other public street stubs to this property from anywhere, mostly because the abutting site constraints, which are the two arterial streets and the Ten Mile Creek, which there is no bridge or even a pedestrian bridge over the creek. The site, as I noted, is a triangle shape, bordered on two sides by the arterial streets and the Ten Mile Creek. As noted, again, there is no opportunity for future road connectivity and that's why ACHD and the city find it applicable for private streets to be used within the development. City code requires that private streets are going to be used in either a MEW or gated community. The applicant has proposed a gate, which can be seen here, sort of, that meets code requirements and exceeds the distance away from the right of way as required. Code requires minimum 50 feet and this is well within that -- well beyond. There is a gray area here. Staff did recommend changing this to a turnaround, instead of the parking. So, basically, remove the parking and allow this area to be a turnaround area in case people accidentally pull into the subdivision, pull into this access and cannot turn around adequately on the private street and they can't get through the gate, because they are not part of the community. The applicant did submit revised plans showing this, which staff does appreciate. The proposed private streets are not wide enough to accommodate any on-street parking, as they are only 24 feet wide. However, the applicant is proposing to construct additional off-street parking along the main street as seen on the plat. There are no multi-use pathways proposed or required with the development. However, the applicant is proposing a five foot wide pathway on this side of the creek and behind the proposed homes. This pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project and to the common open space a lot in the center of the development, as well as north closer to Victory. Staff recommended an additional pedestrian connection to the sidewalks, the arterial sidewalks, specifically that on Locust Grove, be constructed from this -- the revised layout, which is here, this new loop. Connect those sidewalks there. Which as seen the applicant has done that with their revised plans. There is no existing Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F30 Page 27 of 49 sidewalk along Victory or Locust Grove. Both arterial streets are scheduled to be widened as part of -- sorry. As a part of the roundabout project at this intersection beginning this year. According to ACHD with the roundabout project the applicant is required to dedicate additional right of way for the intersection and future widening of both roads. ACHD is requiring the applicant to enter into a road trust for the sidewalk improvements -- the arterial sidewalk improvements that are adjacent to the site, since they will be constructed with the widening project and with -- if they were constructed with this project they would end up being torn out and, then, we would be spending duplicate money. I wanted to show you this map here, which I usually don't show for Commission, but just to show when the timeline is for all this. It has also come to my attention that the intersection project for the roundabout at Victory and Locust Grove does extend all the way south to the bridge, which abuts -- the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek, which abuts the property directly to the south and that bridge will also be widened, which should help with a lot of different pedestrian safety issues along the bridge there. That gets very skinny. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting UDC standards is required. According to the property size, the applicant should supply at least .77 acres of qualified open space or approximately 33,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3.9 acres of open space, of which 3.4 is shown as qualifying on their submitted open space exhibit, which is, obviously, vastly more than the minimum requirement. However, some of the areas listed on the open space exhibit by the applicant as qualifying does not meet UDC standards due to their not being the -- those areas not being at least 5,000 square feet or not being anywhere near the 50 by 100 dimension. So, staff does have some discretion as to whether we need every single qualified open space to be exactly 50 by 100 at least or if there are some odd shapes allowing those to be qualified if they are greater than 5,000 square feet. For example, the open space lot surrounding this is not very usable, because it abuts an arterial and has parking and homes. So, staff finds that that area is not qualifying, but this area is, because it is over 5,000 square feet and is more usable and a safer area for residents. Once the areas are removed from the qualified open space exhibit that are not qualifying -- the qualified open space is approximately 2.97 acres. More importantly, the open space for this development is largely made up of the Ten Mile Creek, which is over two acres in size, and the arterial street buffers, which are 19,000 square feet of qualifying area. All of this area is qualifying, but the Ten Mile Creek will be left natural and will be a buffer and more of a visual amenity than usable open space. Abutting the creek and generally mid block with a micro path through it, the applicant is proposing an open space lot that is approximately 5,700 square feet. It contains one set of the amenities and the micro path as noted and connects to the private street -- well, the sidewalks, as well as to the open space lot directly east of it as noted before here. The 3,700 square foot open space lot is the most active and usable open space lot within the development. In general the applicant has increased the usable open space areas throughout the -- throughout the site following the Commission's recommendation of denial. With the reduction in unit count and additional centralized open space, staff finds the proposed open space not only in excess of code, but also as an improvement from -- from previous layouts. Applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the proposed attached single family homes for both the duplexes and the triplexes. They are not required for the detached single family homes. They do not require design review. The submitted elevations show all two story attached structures with two car garages and Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F31 Page 28 of 49 finishing materials of wood and stone, as well as stucco. In addition, the elevations show modern architecture with shed roofs, secondary -- second story patios with glass railings and stone accents that go from grade all the way to the roofline, which is actually pretty uncommon. Attached single family homes do require design review prior to obtaining building permits. Therefore, staff will ensure compliance with the architectural standards manual when those applications are submitted. Since the previous meeting the applicant has provided conceptual elevations of the proposed units offering different designs and color combinations than previously seen. There were 41 pieces of written testimony submitted for the project the first time this came through and the general concerns were regarding the proposed density, the amount of open space, school overcrowding, and traffic issues with additional homes in this area. The neighborhood also had issues with the proposed access to Locust Grove and there only being one access for the development, which I hope I answered sufficiently due to there not being any other place to access this. After I sent the outline there were a few pieces of public testimony that outlined some of the same issues as well from neighbors. With all these comments and notes, staff does recommend approval of the subject applications with the conditions listed and with the inclusion -- the requirement I should say of a DA and those provisions within the staff report. And I will stand for questions. McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Grove: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Grove. Grove: Joe, with the revised plan -- I hadn't seen that until just now. Did that significantly change anything in your report? It does look like, you know, a bit different with the -- that central Island and, then, some of the open space that they have used. Dodson: Commission Grove, as far as numbers and data, no. Nothing that's going to make them noncompliant that's for sure. All of the proposed lot sizes still meet the minimum dimensional standards and it did reorient the lots in the center, which, frankly, I think is an improvement and kind of breaks up the monotony of all of that. They are not all going the same direction now. It did reduce that central open space lot here just slightly, but I didn't touch on this enough the first time through, but there are no fences between any of these homes, so it will look and function a lot more like a multi-family project in the sense that there is -- none of this area -- I can't find my pointer. None of this area will be fenced off. They will just have the open patios. So, all of this area will still technically be out there and open with landscaping. But I guess -- sorry, I'm rambling. In short, no, it shouldn't affect anything and they actually responded to all of my conditions of approval. McCarvel: Any other questions? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F32 Page 29 of 49 McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: Joe, does the -- does the density fit with a -- with the current R-8 in there? Is this -- or does it fit with R-15? Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, the density is tied to the future land use, not the zoning, and it is three to eight dwelling units per acre and it's actually on the lower half of that now with the reduced lot sizes at least in gross. Again, that's what our densities are based off of. The net density once you take out the creek and you take out the roads and the arterial buffers, it does bump it up to 9.8 or so I think I said, which is still significantly less than what it was, which is in response to a lot of the comments received the first time through. Cassinelli: Okay. But the gross density is what that's -- it's tied to the gross, not the net? Dodson: Yes, sir. Cassinelli: Okay. And, then, I also had another question. You were mentioning on the private -- with the private streets, the MEWs. Can you -- can you reiterate those comments and how those tie together? Dodson: Yes, sir. Commissioner Cassinelli, Members of the Commission, so when you have a private street application, they -- the code requires that the development be either a MEW development or a gated community. This applicant chose to go with the gated community as a private street development. So, they meet the code and at the director level are approved for the private streets. The MEWs, for those who do not know, are like paseos or vistas through units. Theoretically you could say they have a MEW here, but usually there is -- they are wider and more active than this. But other than that they don't have MEWs and that's okay, because they have the gate and that makes them compliant with code. Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. McCarvel: Okay. Would the applicant like to speak? Arnold: Yes. Can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. Arnold: Yeah. I'm going to share my screen real quick if I may. It says I can't start screen share. McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we need to give him extra permission for that? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F33 Page 30 of 49 Weatherly: We just stopped screen sharing on our end. It should update now. McCarvel: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead and try again. Arnold: Can you see my screen now? McCarvel: Yes. Arnold: Okay. My name is Steve Arnold. I'm with A Team Land Consultants. Business address is 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise. 83709. 1 would kind of like to -- I will go into some of the larger elements of our redesign and, then, I will get into a lot of the specifics of what we did change up. It was stated that we are asking for 38 lots, but when we made this change here -- I'm assuming you can see my arrow. McCarvel: Yes. Arnold: Once we did this -- this was a staff recommendation to get rid of the two dead- end streets here. So, as soon as we did that it -- it caused us to lose a lot. So, what you have before you tonight is 37 lots. So, this was probably -- this was the main change after we submitted to the city and we agreed with staff to do that, along with turnarounds, the gate, and, you know, all the additional sidewalk changes. That was probably the most significant, along with dropping down from 48 to 37 lots. Again, this was the original that the Planning and Zoning Commission denied, and, again, we went to City Council and asked to be remanded back to staff. This -- I know one of the concerns was that we -- we were going to get a lot of massing of buildings along the front. So, one of the things we did is basically wiggle or make S curves in the road and that really changed the -- the -- the massing of the buildings and, again, you know, as -- as Joe stated, this project will come back before the Commission -- excuse me -- the Council has a design review -- or I believe that might even be staff level. So, this is at the entrance off Locust Grove looking north. To give you an idea of the -- the way it's going to look with the -- the massing and notice we got rid of the ugly orange. So, that's not the proposed -- actually, that was a mistake that we had submitted. All of the earth tones will be used in here. This is an image from the northern side looking south and this also gives you another representation of how our building orientation is going to look and you can see that one of the things that staff was looking for was -- is our crosswalks and that there is a condition in there that Joe and I spoke about earlier that we are looking to get modified. This is a view just kind of looking north kind of in the center of the project. Give you an idea of the park and how it is going to orient. But, again, it also gives you some feel of how the buildings are and how the massing is going to change with the different meandering of the road. Here is in the park looking east towards the -- the opposite side of the park. Again, you can see the -- the raised crosswalks that we will have and, then, the -- the -- the different massing of the buildings. Excuse me. We have read through all the conditions of approval and we have concurred with staff and, actually, the revised map that got sent to staff today has incorporated all the requested changes. One change to the -- a couple conditions and it's -- we are not asking that they be deleted, but I think they were -- after talking with staff these were the changes that we have kind of agreed to. The top condition states, you Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F34 Page 31 of 49 know, all sidewalks and -- and -- well, I think was a mistake or maybe not intended that -- so, in speaking with staff we are requesting that it be all pedestrian crossings within the subdivision be constructed with either pavers, stamped concrete, or raised striped asphalt or similar to clearly delineate. So, it's, essentially, we are going to do normal sidewalk and, then, at the crossings we will have something that delineates them and, then, it's also stated in this other condition. So, again, we are just asking that it be associated just with the crossings. Basically all the modifications to the map from the last time that you guys reviewed this -- our building lots went from 48 to 37 lots. The density -- again that's the gross density -- went from 6.24 to 4.8 and in doing so we eliminated the need for a PUD. We also increased the housing variety, so when we wiggled the road around we got rid of the majority of the triplexes on the east side of Compass Lane. So, we increased with some single families and some towns throughout the --the entire project and actually there is a place where I think we can actually include, without losing anything, two more single families. So, we are going to probably end up breaking up one of the duplexes. And one of the things that was brought up at our original meeting it looked like a couple of our lots were an afterthought or I guess the buildings were an afterthought. So, we got rid of those odd shaped housing units. If you don't mind I will scroll up real quick. So, these -- these areas here and right here we eliminated. So, we got rid of those types. We increased our open spaces, like Joe said, and it went from 35 to .68 percent with nearly three acres of qualified and which is 44 -- we went from 35 to 44 percent. With the increased open space we did add the dog park to the north and an additional central park as noted by staff. Roadways. We will eliminated the two ends and created a lollipop or what is also known as a loop roadway design and, then, again, we added the S turns in the -- the north-south road and breaking up the massing. Sidewalk, which was -- we went from 2,094 feet to 3,205 -- point five feet, which I have stated before in front of several commissions sidewalk is your most used amenity in any subdivision. So, we really focused on our connectivity. The sidewalk along the Ten Mile Creek, which, by the way, you know, is -- we had concerns -- or neighborhood concern about the safety of children. Well, as you can see we are going to put four foot open vision fencing on the west side of that pathway to decrease those concerns. Then, again, as noted we added the gated entry and added a turnaround at the gate as requested and added pedestrian crossings, so that we can get clear pedestrian circulation throughout the development. So, basically, all the requested changes from staff in the staff report we have met. There are maps that were sent out today. I guess in conclusion you guys have seen this project once before. We believe it conforms to the city code and the comp plan and we basically made all the staff recommended changes. We have taken in the neighborhood concerns about the density and greatly reduced it from 50 to 48, now down to 37. Something to keep in mind -- and I know Joe's touched basically -- a little bit on it -- that the zoning request is not for the density. We are kind of at the low end of the R-8 zoning designation density, but the zoning is mainly so that we can create smaller lots and still have an open field with the adjacent landscaping, but go down to those reduced dimensional setbacks, so that we can get this product type that we are putting there. There has been I know -- and the neighbors at our last meeting there was a lot of discussion about multi-family housing. Well, the whole idea of why we are doing this -- the way we are doing it on their own -- their own lots -- so each home will be on their own lot and have the ability to be sold off. So, these aren't multi-family. These are for sale. We believe it to be compatible, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F35] Page 32 of 49 especially with the Ten Mile Creek being a divider and all of the adjacent roadways around us. We have -- I believe we got most of your concerns from our previous meeting and made the changes -- the maps accordingly. One of the big one was open space. That was a concern back in December and we have -- as stated by staff, it's been very greatly increased. And something to keep in mind, you know, the -- the developer here is the builder and will be building the units for sale. So, it behooves them to build a quality product, because they are in this until the unit sells. So, I -- we plan on putting a nice quality home. As you have seen by some of the images, minus the color, but our plan is to build nice quality. The square foot of the homes will actually be very compatible with what is in the surrounding area. The only thing that is different is, again, we are putting it on a smaller lot and that smaller lot will be owned and maintained by the HOA. So, we will have conformity of landscape maintenance, et cetera. This is -- you know, again, we are providing a mix of housing type, which is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. We got single family, town -- townhomes and triplexes, which we believe is in huge demand. Our housing market right now -- we also work in the field of real estate, but our housing market -- the real estate and the demand that's occurring right now is -- is kind of scary, because we are actually pricing all of our local people out and it's because there isn't a demand. So, we believe that this product type is in a huge demand and the area needs it. We are dealing, as staff has stated, with a very difficult site. It's got a lot of constraints with the roundabout, the Ten Mile Creek, and -- and the -- the other arterial road. We believe we have hit the highest and best use for it. We have tried to meet all of staff's recommendations and we have tried to meet all the -- the Commission's concerns in our modification. In that we will ask for approval and I will stand for questions. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Can we see the -- the amendments that you wanted to make to the staff report? I would like to see that slide one more time. Yep. If you would just leave that up that would be perfect. Thank you. McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yeah. Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: I know -- I want to see those. Hopefully every -- everybody has had a chance to see that slide. I wonder if, Steve, if you could put a plat map up or if you don't have it, staff, do you have that? Arnold: I can pull this -- this up. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F36] Page 33 of 49 Cassinelli: Okay. Was there -- the Fire Department was okay with turnaround access. I'm looking at that -- at the -- at the dead end there to the upper right. What about --what about trash access there? Is there a central trash or is it individual cans? Arnold: They are going to be individual cans. Cassinelli: Is that -- is there going to be a -- that's not a turnaround, that's parking up there; is that correct? That little -- that little cut out? Arnold: Yes. That is proposed as parking. Cassinelli: So, trash, will they have -- will they be able to maneuver up in there? Arnold: They will back up a maximum of 150 feet, which is the same with Fire, and that's what we have got here. We also could require these homeowners to bring their garbage out over -- over on this side, if it's the Commission's direction, to lessen the distance that they back. Cassinelli: And, then, finally, if I could, how much -- the -- those parking cut outs, it looks like there is two of them. How many spots total do you have set up for that remote parking? Arnold: Boy, it's on my plat. Let me -- Dodson: Commissioner Cassinelli, it should be nine with the removal of the ones outside of the gate. Arnold: Correct. Cassinelli: Nine -- nine spots interior? Okay. Thanks. Arnold: Madam Chairman, just -- but there is -- was a staff requirement and I -- I apologize, I think we missed one of your requirements, Joe, that -- I believe you asked for additional parking in here. Dodson: That is correct. We are at the one further south. I said you had room to add more along that. The one that has the six, you can add at least two more. Arnold: And we will comply with that. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Lorcher: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Lorcher. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F37 Page 34 of 49 Lorcher: Mr. Arnold, along the Ten Mile Creek, just so I'm seeing this right, so are those backyards with a fence going across it or is that the front of the house with landscaping and that -- so, the -- are the driveways in front? Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner, yes, the driveways are in front. Our thought here initially would be just to have a fence on the west side of this pathway and it would be an open field and a backyard. Lorcher: And would it be a solid fence or what -- I think you said it was going to be like a wrought iron fence, so they can see through or not see through? Arnold: See through. Lorcher: Okay. So, they will be able to see through to whatever this space is that the irrigation company maintains in Ten Mile Creek; is that right? Arnold: That's correct. Lorcher: And, then, just out of curiosity what's on the other side? Are those -- are those existing homes? Arnold: These are existing homes. That's correct. Lorcher: And do they -- what kind of -- do you know what kind of fencing they have? Is that solid or is it -- Arnold: It's a wooden fence here and a chain link fence here. Lorcher: Okay. Arnold: And it's -- this is six foot here and I believe this is about a five foot chain link. Lorcher: Thank you. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. Thank you. Commissioner Lorcher, just to give you a little more background on that, too. There is a -- the code requires that the fencing along the creek be open vision, so that there is added safety to -- you know, if somebody falls in or anything like that that you can see, as well as the -- it's what the irrigation district wants as well. They don't want any kind of six foot fence abutting their easement. So, they -- that's why our requirement is four foot wrought iron or open vision -- Lorcher- Thank you. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F38 Page 35 of 49 Dodson: -- whatever that might be. Material that -- Lorcher: Okay. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this application? Weatherly: Madam Chair, we do. In house we have Rhonda Unruh. McCarvel: Okay. Please come forward and state your name and address for the record. Unruh: Thank you. My name is Rhonda Unruh and I'm at 3246 South Murlo Way. McCarvel: Okay. Unruh: Wrong one. Sorry. McCarvel: The floor is yours. Unruh: Rhonda Unruh at 3246 South Murlo Way. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Unruh: Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chairman and the rest of the Council Members. I did not see the new plat map that came out. I have printed out a previous aerial -- aerial map before they changed and I was going to make the point, but that's been changed a little bit that when you look at this aerial map and the old -- the previous plat map, it looks as if this is the last piece of property in Meridian and we are trying to cram as much as we can, so that we can accommodate the growth of Meridian and by doing that I don't know if any of you have ever driven that -- through that intersection in the morning or in the afternoon, but that is a very high traffic area. It's backed up on all four roads and the thought of putting this many more cars on one exit and entryway trying to get into traffic that's sitting there already doesn't make sense to me and that's not even mentioning the northwest corner that has a proposed development there. That one I don't have a problem with, because for the acreage that's there and the proposed amount of residential units that are being built there, it makes sense and it works with the future planning of a circle. But by jamming all of these here in an area and as the developer was mentioning himself, now what do you do with trash? What do you do with the fire trucks if there is an emergency? Well, they have to go in and they got to backup. I don't see the safety being addressed here. And several points -- I have many others, but no time. With this new proposal he's just showed tonight I do have a question. Does this bring this down from an R-15 high density to what we are calling a medium high density? If it's still considered high density, I went onto the City of Meridian -- their premier community -- the website that describes what a premier community -- community is and what we would like for the City of Meridian and, yes, we do want diversity in our neighborhoods, but it does state immediately after that description -- and I quote: High density housing must be Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F39 Page 36 of 49 strategically located to public transportation, community services and employment areas. End quote. If this is still considered a high density housing, when you look at the map of this area we don't have any of that in this vicinity. So, to me this says an R-15 doesn't fit here according to what is written in your own premier community site. Thank you. McCarvel: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody else signed up to testify? Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is Stan Unruh. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. S.Unruh: I'm Stan Unruh. Address is 3246 South Murlo Way in Meridian. You might have guessed I'm related to the previous person. I just wanted to touch on a point that she made about the traffic and I wondered if you can -- if it's possible to put the plat back up there. And I just wanted to -- to revisit the concern. There it is. Yes. ACHD has already acknowledged the difficulty of this location and I want to just touch on that a little bit more and ask the Planning Commission to query them further about the difficulty of traffic entering in and out here, because we have potentially two car -- probably, you know, in the neighborhood of 70 vehicles being parked in this development and with only one exit it will come out right where the road narrows down -- after the roads are widen -- after Locust Grove is widened it will --the exit will come right out where it narrows down. This is already a high density, high traffic area. The traffic is already backed up in the mornings probably to where that exit is. Our house looks toward that circle -- our back -- our backyard faces that circle and we can see the traffic backed up there every morning and so what I believe likely will happen is that residents coming out of this development will find it very very difficult to cross and head north on Locust Grove and so naturally what I would do if I were them would instead turn right and, then, do an additional right turn and come down Murlo Way and so I believe likely what will happen is by approving this development what we are doing is -- is creating a situation where it will be most natural and easiest for the traffic to flow through our neighborhood, where we have kids on the corner of Ascaino and Victory waiting to get on buses. So, there is kids all over that neighborhood. The neighbor -- it's a quiet neighborhood now and I believe what we are actually approving is to have traffic just blazing through our neighborhood and so my -- my request is just that the Planning Commission revisit this with ACHD and have a look at that and make a --try to understand that intersection a little bit better, because I believe we are going to create an unsafe situation in that neighborhood. Secondly, I would just point out that through this whole process there has been a lot of resistance to this development from the neighborhood. It is not anti-development, it is just asking for a reasonable zoning for the -- for the development and with the changes it appears that they have reduced the density down to what the neighbors have asked, but I think -- if I understand right really what is going on is that this developer owns the canal area, which is -- increases the size of property, so by math it appears to be a lower density than what it really is. The fact of the matter is this is very high density housing that does not fit any -- the neighborhoods in any direction from there. However, because of the property that's owned with the canal -- it appears to be low density and I appreciate your listening. Thanks. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F40 Page 37 of 49 McCarvel: Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next is John Buckner. McCarvel: Thank you. Buckner: Good evening. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for having me here, Planning and Zoning Commission. I just want to restate -- well, I'm sorry. McCarvel: Mr. Buckner, could -- yeah. State your name and address, please. Buckner: John Buckner. I'm at 3877 South Picasso and I am not related to the two previous speakers. Just to reiterate, I am pro-development. I'm not anti-development. I am just for pro-development that makes sense. As has already been reiterated many times, sticking up for R-15 zoning density right in the middle of R-4s and R-8s and low to medium density zoning just does not make any sense. I would like to see the application changed for rezoning to no more than R-8 and a redesign of the apartment style townhomes that doesn't fit in with the rest of the character of the community. I want to thank the support of the Planning and Zoning Commission during December for just your words. This includes especially Steven Yearsley, who said the developers do their work and, then, leave the community to pick up the pieces. Also Bill Parsons, who acknowledged the 45 e-mails sent by members of the community, as well as you, Mr. Seal, and Lisa Holland and as well Mr. Grove, who said that he wants to like it, but it's isolated from the neighborhood. The members of the P&Z Commission unanimously and with -- with agreement of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, that while the designs look nice they do not fit the character of the neighborhood. This conflicts with Action Item 5.01.02E that to support and protect the identity of the existing residential neighborhoods. The apartment as conjoined units differ drastically from the surrounding neighborhoods. This also conflicts with 3.07.00, which says to encourage compatible use and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land and as stated by the P&Z staff, quote: The proposed development is not like any of the detached single family homes adjacent to the subject site. Like Commissioner Grove said, it's not like the configuration of the surrounding density. The design does not allow for safe and efficient access by public services as commented by Mr. Seal. It conflicts with 3.08.01A that states -- or that says to require the development projects have planned for the efficient provision of all public services as was recently just being discussed, the concerns about vehicles being able to navigate properly throughout the private streets. The applicant has also failed to meet the requirement for off-site parking. This conflicts with UDC 11-3C-6, which requires off- street parking required and according to the application this was not met and I have not seen any evidence to date to show that they have satisfied this requirement. Related to this is also the fact that the conceptual designs look nice, but the parking garages, if you look carefully, they only allow for two cars and the character and general combinations of the diverse homes that are already in our community allow at least four trucks and SUVs. This development will not. This also further compounds the issues brought up previously by the Planning and Zoning Commission that if people use their garages for storage that will compound the issues of mass and traffic. Again I want to state that I'm pro- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F41 Page 38 of 49 development that is reasonable and that makes sense and I would like to address you, Mr. Arnold. You said earlier in January that we are in it for the long haul. I respectfully would like to say, Mr. Arnold, no, you and Butler Realty are in it for the short term. We are in it for the long haul, because we will be stuck with the consequences. Please work with us and let's do this together. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, next we have Julie Edwards online. Julie, one moment, please. Edwards: Hi, can you hear me? McCarvel: Yes. Thank you. Edwards: Can I go ahead and start? McCarvel: Yeah. Please state your name and address for the record. Edwards: Okay. My name is Julie Edwards and I live at 1310 East Mary Lane, about a mile and a quarter south of this location, and I -- some of the things have been addressed with what the developer spoke about, but I just wanted -- I had written this up a little before, so I just wanted to address everything. According to the city's future land use map Compass Pointe Subdivision falls within a zone of medium density, yet they are requesting R-15 zoning. I'm confused by this request, despite the time and effort put into creating and designing a future land use map by P&Z and a number of public meetings and others involved, why so often do the developers push the limits of what has been planned zoning wise for a particular area and, then, they seem to be approved most of the time. What's the point of the master plan if it's not followed? If it were an old plan would understand, but this plan is just a few years old. Also in the adopted Comprehensive Plan there is a table in there, Table 2.1, regarding housing goals, objectives, and action items and one of the items 2.01.01 H says locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit, downtown, and in proximity to employment areas. None of which are in this vicinity. I also understand that this development -- at that time it was 13 units per acre. I see that that has been reduced. I'm also curious about what the distances are between the duplexes or between the triplexes, just because some of the window designs on the homes, if you are standing in your living room -- living room it looks like the windows are floor to ceiling and you may be standing right next to your neighbor in their living room looking right at them. Also not sure if this would pertain to you, but as far as impact fees, are duplexes and triplexes -- this is just a question I have -- counted as a single dwelling or are those two and three dwellings. He did partially answer the question about the fence along the canal and he had mentioned that it was going to run along the length of the pathway. I'm wondering should it be extended or will it be extended the entire length of the canal, so that, you know, it's not just a fence along a path with an open space at either end where it meets the roadway. Also pertaining to -- let's see. It's unfortunate, I think, that the usable land is taken into consideration in the gross density for zoning. So, therefore, I think this is the way that it is right now, even though it reduced to 37 lots, it still is quite dense for the area, Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F42 Page 39 of 49 especially with R-2 across the street and -- and, then, the other surrounding, homes what they are zoned. Also has future widening of the road. I know that Victory is going to be widened. Locust Grove -- Grove to the south I'm sure will be widened, since it's going to be widened down at Lake Hazel and Locust Grove and, then, already from Overland to Victory on Locust Grove, five lanes up, three lanes to the south, so is this showing -- it seems at the entrance to the subdivision, is that eventually going to get eaten up a little bit more once that road is widened? And in that respect as far as landscaping and those kinds of buffers along those main roads, is that something that, you know, they will put in trees, they will do all this stuff and, then, you know, three years down the road the road gets widened -- is widened and, then, all of those trees are wasted, all of the concrete sidewalks are wasted and -- McCarvel: Julie, could you wrap up your comments, please. Edwards: Yep. McCarvel: You have had your three minutes. Edwards: Okay. I'm good. I'm done. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Weatherly: Madam Chair, that's all I know of indicating a wish to testify. McCarvel: Okay. Is there anyone in the audience that did not sign up that wishes to testify, either in person -- in chambers or on Zoom, please, press the raise your hand. Seal: Madam Chair, we have a gentleman that wants to testify -- McCarvel: Okay. Seal: -- in chamber. McCarvel: Okay. Please come forward. Mooso: My name is Galen Mooso. I live at 687 East Forest Ridge Drive, which is to the west and slightly north of this proposed development. This -- and we have lived there for 13 years. This development does not fit the character of the neighborhood, of the surrounding area. There is no public transit as has been mentioned. I travel through this intersection on a daily basis. It is always busy. I cannot imagine the thought of putting in such dense housing. This is a little little triangle -- triangular lot and I just cannot imagine 37 units on this little triangle. And, frankly, the Ten Mile Creek is ugly. I mean I don't know who owns it, but it is ugly and it needs to be cleaned up. It's not aesthetically pleasing and I just see this as a disaster. Thank you. McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. If we have no one else wishing to testify, would the Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F43] Page 40 of 49 applicant like to come back? Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. I would like to address a few of the comments before, since they probably are more related to some city stuff, rather than the applicant. McCarvel: I was thinking the same thing. Dodson: No worries. McCarvel: Go ahead. Dodson: First of all, I mean if you want to come and write my staff reports -- that other guy -- that would be -- you can come do that anytime. You were very good and I appreciate that. I -- I understand that there are -- there are many conflicting Comprehensive Plan policies. There are. I want to note that the density -- there is some confusion. I need to start an education series with this about the zoning and, then, the future land use map. The zoning has nothing to do with density in the City of Meridian. Not anymore. The new Comprehensive Plan is what dictates the zoning. So, this site is zoned -- or is noted as medium density residential, which allows densities at three to eight dwelling units per acre. You could do R-40 here. It doesn't matter. That zoning is for the dimensional standards. So, the lot sizes, setbacks, height, that stuff, not for the density. So, R-15 is noted as I believe medium high density residential is the word that we use for it, but it's still for the dimensional standards. R-8 is medium density residential. As noted, the gross density for this, including the creek, is 4.8 or so, which is in the low end of the medium density. If you even remove the creek it still does meet the medium density. It's about 6.6. Even if you remove that area it's still in the medium density residential. So, the project is not a high density development. High density would be over 15 dwelling units per acre for our Comprehensive Plan and this is not even medium high, which would be eight to 12. So, I just want to -- again, this is something that comes up a lot in subdivisions and between the difference of our Comprehensive Plan and our zoning this happens quite a lot and there is a lot of confusion. But, again, the density is going to be tied to the zoning and -- or tied to the Comprehensive Plan and not the zoning. I apologize. The points regarding access, again, it -- if you -- this is the furthest away you can get from the intersection on this property. So, that's why ACHD is allowing it and that's also why they don't want a public street, because there is not going to be any future road connectivity. No one's going to give up a building lot in your subdivision in order to have a bridge across, which would be, obviously, beneficial probably more for the whole community, but no one's going to do that. It's unfortunate, but that's just the way this goes. Building bridges over creeks is not cheap. I understand your comment, sir, about the Ten Mile Creek being not aesthetically pleasing. City again -- this -- this is a -- one of the creeks that is specifically noted in our code to leave natural and natural is natural, ugly or not ugly. That's just one of those things noted in there and the irrigation district Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F44 Page 41 of 49 maintains that, not the city. The road widening and the roundabout project is slated to begin this year. Locust Grove north of the intersection should be at five lanes all the way up to -- whatever is north of Victory. Overland. That's right. And, then, south of it it will be -- it will remain the two lanes or three that it is, except for outside of the -- within the sphere of influence of the intersection, which the roundabout project will widen that, as said, and widen the bridge as well, which is good for pedestrian safety. The -- I do also believe Victory is slated to be widened again at some point. It's not in their CIP that I know of right now, which means that it probably won't be for the next five years or so. But all of that should help and that's the point is to fix the traffic problems here. So, the city and ACHD have worked diligently on that to try to address that for now and well into the future. So, I just wanted to address those comments from the city's perspective, especially the density stuff, because that's a big misconception and a lot of the comp plan policies regarding high density do not apply here, because this is not a high density development. Not by our standards and not by our definitions. McCarvel: Thank you, Joe. I had made those -- those exact same notes almost word for word from him. So, would the applicant like to come back. Arnold: Yes, Madam Chair. If I can share my screen again if I might. McCarvel: Sure. Dodson: You should be good now, Steve. Arnold: There we go. So, I was taking some notes, because -- there we go. So, I think what I would like to do is just kind of go through one by one. I think I can hit them pretty quickly based on some of the comments that I heard tonight. So, traffic -- I used to work at ACHD and it has always been kind of the main concern with most developments and typically, you know, it's -- you are building a -- a subdivision and, then, they will come. They do an ACHD and they widen the roads. Well, in this case we are actually working with ACHD ahead of time on winding the road before the development is actually approved. So, the concern with traffic -- you are going to have some -- you know, a five lane arterial to the north with Locust Grove, you know, and --and south and east-- excuse me -- west will be a three lane minor arterial. So, we have got -- and it will be improved with the roundabout. So, the backing that the -- the neighbors are seeing -- they are correct, I have been out there at 5.00 o'clock and it backs up quite a bit, so -- but that will all go away by the time we finish our project -- before we get it built, so -- and, then, density just -- again, I think Joe did an excellent job explaining that. The whole reason we are coming in with that zoning is not so that we can get high density, it's just so that we can meet dimensional standards for the product type that we are using. If I met the R-8 dimensional standards that wouldn't meet what our intent is on the product type. So, it's only to fit our product type in there. It's been said several times -- they are concerned about apartments. I have done a lot of apartments and these are not apartments. I don't put apartments on their own lot. These are, again, for sale, which we are hoping to market for the developer. So, again, I'm here to reiterate to the Commission it's for sale, they are not apartments isolated from a neighborhood was another thing that brought up that we Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F45] Page 42 of 49 are -- somehow we are not a part of the neighbors or the neighborhood. Well, there is no way we could ever be a part. We have got arterials and a hundred foot canal right of way separating us from -- so, there is really no way that we can integrate physically and I think from a product type we have -- we have got a very nice product that we are proposing. I didn't really touch much on it, but in our previous discussion -- let me go to the site layout. It was stated are we providing enough parking. Well, we have got additional parking here that we are doing and we are going to add some as staff recommended. Plus we got two parking stalls in front of each unit with a two car garage. So, essentially, both -- all of the units will have four -- four car parking ability, if you will. So, I think we are well adequate in the parking arena. I tried to not take this too personal, because it was stated that, you know, I'm not in it for the long haul and I -- you know, I'm going to -- as soon as we are done here we are on to -- we are out of here. Well, I have been doing this for 25 years. We have done a lot of nice projects in Meridian, few to state are the Tuscany Subdivision, Bear Creek, Scentsy Campus, Lochsa Falls,just to name a few, and I have probably done another 15 to 20 more. Unfortunately, city, I'm -- I'm here, I'm stuck, my family's here. I'm not -- not in it for the short haul. Something came up about window designs and I don't know why it was important with the neighbors, but -- unless they are planning to move there, but the -- for the Commission standpoint what we typically do is we stagger the windows, so that, one, you are not looking right into the next one and -- and so the windows will be staggered, but the other part of that is the Commission should know that they are all fire rated because of our setbacks. Impact fees was brought up. Just for the record, again, I worked at ACHD and I worked on the impact fee ordinance, but those -- those are the same as single family towns. For that matter, a four-plex which is multi- family, typically pays four times the rate of a single family. So, the impact fees will be the same. Question came up about the fence at the back of the walk. Yeah. Our plan would be to extend it and connect it into our fence that we are going to have along Victory Road. Landscaping. It was brought up about our stuff getting ripped out along ACHD. We are not going to do that. We are not going to put anything in in their construction easement. We will likely bond for that and, then, install it after the roundabout is done. That is correct, there is no public transit adjacent to the site. We anticipate as growth occurs that we will get a transit out there. So, a mile north of us we do have transit along Overland Road, but, you know, it's a -- transit is a Catch 22. If you want it you got to get density. Now, again, we are at 4.8 units per acre. We are not dense. So, this development alone won't drive the need for density, but that is correct, there wasn't any transit. Ten Mile Creek does get a little bit ugly and that was stated, especially in the wintertime. But in the -- in the spring and summertime when the water is flowing you have got ducks, you have got all sorts of wildlife that goes in there and, you know, I guess pretty is -- pretty is in the eye of the beholder, but it's a -- I think a great natural area that will be a great amenity to this site. Just to sum up to the Commission, you know, we -- we heard your -- your concerns back in December. We are trying. With that I will end my rebuttal. McCarvel: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Any questions -- any further questions for the applicant? Are we ready to close the public hearing? Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F46 Page 43 of 49 McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just a quick -- on the no public transit there for the busy intersection and all that stuff, considering the uniqueness of the layout of the sub there is -- have you worked with anybody to put in possibly a bus stop or a park and ride or anything along those lines? Arnold: Madam Chair, Commissioner, no, we have not, but I have in other projects we have -- behind the sidewalk is put little, you know, shelter areas or a pad or a shelter area that can come. That is something we can do on this site. Seal: And that might just alleviate some of the public transit piece of this. I mean any opportunity that there is to have that I think should be taken advantage of and I think the uniqueness of the -- of the layout there provides for that to possibly happen. So, without getting too crazy about it, especially with the road construction that's coming your way very very soon. Arnold: What I might suggest on that, so that -- if we poured concrete it might deteriorate, you know, because it could be several years, maybe what we do is we provide an easement for it in the future. McCarvel: Okay. Seal: A follow up to that. Who would you provide the easement to? Arnold: It could be an easement stated on the plat that it's for a future bus stop and not necessarily call out specifically, because there is a good chance there may be another public transit that comes in. Seal: Okay. Thank you. McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? If not, can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2020-0100? Seal: So moved. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2020-0100. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT. McCarvel: Who wants to jump off? Seal: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 4 F7 Page 44 of 49 McCarvel: Go ahead, Commissioner Seal. Seal: Just looking at the improvements that they have made -- well, I will start before then and I have said it before, it would be nice if this was going to be, you know, a small area with some shops and stuff like that in it. That said it's not zoned that way and that's not the way that it's being presented here. So, everything that's being presented within the confines -- it works within the rule set of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as -- as code -- city code. So, we kind of got to work with what's in front of us. With that said I think that the applicant has worked to provide everything that they can in order to work within this -- this spot. So, the density seems to be the real -- the rub with a lot of folks here, so with the product type that's there and ownership part of it. I think it's going to be a more welcome addition where people are going to come in -- it's probably going to be their starter home, more like a condo type, you know, piece of property that they can own and, you know, eventually move into a bigger -- bigger piece of property. So, that tends to mean that people are going to try and take care of it, because they know that's not their forever home that might, you know, fall down around them. I do like the changes that they have made where they put the loop in. I'm happy to see that they are willing to put more parking in without taking away too much usable open space. The emergency access I think takes care of any kind of safety issues as far as a firetruck being able to get in there. Instead of them having to back in they will be able to use the emergency access. Unfortunately, that won't work for the trash service and things like that. So, hopefully, they can work to make that easier for the trash service -- you know, recycling service to be able to pick up the receptacles as they take them out. You know, kind of like when we have common driveways we have the same kind of issues in some of the bigger subdivisions. So, I don't see that as a huge issue, just something that they need to be aware of and hopefully work to improve upon that. Other than that I think it's -- it's unique and I -- I personally have a son that's looking for something like this in this area, especially something that's very low maintenance as they said, where, you know, essentially, you are going to live there, you are not going to have to mow the lawn or own yard equipment or anything along those lines. So, I think it's a good product for Meridian. I wish it fit a little bit better into the piece of property that it's in, but I think they have done a good job on trying to work it in there. McCarvel: Okay. Commissioner Grove, you came off mute. Grove: Yeah. I would echo a lot of what Commissioner Seal said. I appreciate the work that they have done to reconfigure and rework this site and working to incorporate the staff recommendations, especially with this revised plat that they have shown tonight. The loop does improve the flow within this development and I really like the S curve, so that we don't end up with a wall of homes. It-- it gives a lot more character to this general layout and the -- that central section with the MEW in the middle, it -- it hits some of the things that I had problems with the site when we first saw in December where it didn't have a sense of community, it just felt very blah, for lack of better description, but I like what they have done with this. I know the architectural elements of it are not necessarily for everybody, but I happen -- I think it-- I like it. It adds a different character to this corner and, you know, will create a new identity for this area that, you know, will help -- help it -- Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F48] Page 45 of 49 help the entire area to kind of stand out and have a different sense of identity, as somebody put it, but probably flipped on what they were intending. Looking at the surrounding area, the number of homes in here dropping down to 37 is almost identical to the street directly to the west of this with the number of houses, so I'm not concerned with the density as presented and I appreciate the changes that they have made and I think that this works for me going forward. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Any other Commissioner comments? Commissioner Cassinelli -- Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: -- you have come off mute. Cassinelli: I have come off mute. I wasn't here in December for -- for the first go around on it. I do like the -- my comments here would be I like the loop. Just to address the design, that's a tough one. It definitely doesn't fit. I mean everything nearby seems to be craftsman style and this is definitely modern, so it would definitely stick out. However, you know, that's one side and the other side says it's -- you know, to have everything looking the same gets boring. So, it's a -- that's a tough one. What -- what bothers me on this one -- and I have already brought it up once tonight -- is that transition and not necessarily from a -- not on this for a density standpoint, but the transition with all the homes that line up against the -- against Ten Mile Creek there were essentially two to one from what I counted. Nineteen to ten from one end to the other there going up to the -- to the homes on the other side of the creek. I would prefer maybe cutting that down a little bit, just to spread that out, if they could do that somehow. And my other thing is I -- I do not -- I do not think that there is enough parking off -- off-street parking, if you will, the nine spaces for 31 -- it's for 36 homes or whatever it is. It's -- it is -- it's not nearly enough. I think that's going to be a big issue. You get -- you are going to get some visitors, you know, you drive in any subdivision and probably every other home has a car on the street. People use their garages for storage. Park the cars on the lot. They want to pull the car out to -- you know for kids to play in the driveway or whatever it is, it's -- I don't -- I'm really concerned about the parking. Some of these neighborhoods like that it's always an issue. Parking is always an issue. That said, an in-fill project like this, tough to do anything. It -- most -- most -- I like most of it in there. I'm not crazy about the design, but it is nice to have something different, but my issue is parking and the transition along the creek. I just -- I can't get behind it yet with those two issues. But as far as trying to get something in that corner where most things won't fit, I -- I would commend the applicant on what they have done here. They have -- I don't know what else you can do in there and -- and, you know, if I saw more parking and cut maybe two lots out of that backside to bring the -- the transition down a little bit, I might be -- I could probably get behind it, but as it stands right now those -- those -- those things I just can't get behind it. McCarvel: Okay. Dodson: Madam Chair? Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F49 Page 46 of 49 McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley. Yearsley: Madam Chair, thank you. I have to commend the applicant for coming back, making the changes that we have requested. I -- it looks -- I know I'm going to get heat for this, but it looks amazingly different to me with the more open space and this space. I do agree with Bill Cassinelli that -- Commissioner Cassinelli, it would be kind of nice to maybe spread out -- I don't know if I have problems with the --the triplexes, the duplexes, but having maybe a little bit more space in between the different units might be a little bit more nice to try to break up that -- that plain a little bit. With regards to the density, Tuscany, which is across the street, has a section of homes very similar to this within our subdivision and -- and -- and next to the school. There is townhomes would be -- or attached products as well. So, it's not unfamiliar with the area that we -- that's there. I know it's a challenging site with the limited access to it and how small it is. I think they have done the best that they can. So, like I said, I prefer to see a little bit more spacing along that frontage against the canal. But other than that I think it looks amazingly better. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Is that Joe? Dodson: Yes. Sorry. McCarvel: Okay. Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: I just wanted note on the -- the parking, a lot of these units -- I don't know the ratio. Steve, obviously, you know that better than me, but I would -- at least a portion of them are two bedroom, so the parking pad in front is not required. So, that all is extra parking according to the parking counts. I just wanted to note that for everybody. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Cassinelli: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli. Cassinelli: One other thing I wanted to address that I didn't was the applicant was -- was looking for a couple of exceptions there on a couple of the conditions and I am -- I'm behind staff's recommendations on -- on those that have to do with the sidewalks and -- and the crosswalks and such. I would like to see the pavers that staff is -- is requesting. I think that would give it a nice touch. So, I wanted to add that in. Thank you. Dodson: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Joe. Yeah. Joe. Dodson: I should have touched on that earlier. I apologize. The recommendation I have Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F50] Page 47 of 49 in my staff report regarding that was more of a precaution, because some of these private street developments when they have sidewalks they claim it's sidewalk, but it's just like an extension of the asphalt street and we didn't want that, so that's why I made that comment, knowing that he is going to construct them as concrete I would not have written my condition that way. I should have asked the applicant to be specific, but I'm okay with the sidewalks just being general concrete and the crossings being the way that the applicant has proposed them as raised -- I guess they are known as tabletop crosswalks. We will verify with Fire that they are okay with that, but it is my understanding that they usually are. But in general the crossings will be delineated. If Commission still preferred my condition that's also in your purview to keep it as is. McCarvel: But your original condition was there, because you didn't realize he was going to do curb and concrete sidewalk, you thought it was going to be asphalt; right? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. That's correct. McCarvel: But that's --okay. So, you are okay with it being stripped the way the applicant has written -- has requested? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. I would say -- this is night -- I think it's drastically different from what we saw last time, especially the revised one that showed up today with the loop. I think that takes away a lot of that just, you know, driving in and the feeling that you can't get out and I think the odd shape it just calls for -- calls for some creative thinking and I think they have done that. I don't think it seems near as crammed in and -- let's see. Oh, yeah. I really liked the rock features going all the way up. You know, you usually see that just a few feet. The decks and everything look really nice. I think for the product that this is it's got some kind of nice features and I think, you know, they -- I think they have done just exactly what we asked from the last time we saw this right down to I think Commissioner Yearsley asked them to reduce it by at least ten, which I think it looks like it's come down 11 units and, yeah, the density it -- I know it's sometimes hard to understand --we call it-- it's R-15, that doesn't mean we will take 15 units, it-- it's really in that medium density range and at the lower end of it. It's just with the attached units we need the setbacks that are described in an R-15. So, I would be in support of it. Commissioner Lorcher, did you want to add any comments or are you good to -- Lorcher: Madam Chair, I -- I actually like the product that they have. I wasn't here for the December meeting. Because it's behind a gated community it doesn't seem -- I know that's a busy corner. I drive it all the time from Cole and turn down Locust Grove to get over to southwest Meridian on a regular basis, especially during Snowmageddon when Overland and the freeway where -- were compromised. It's a very challenging corner. I think with the roundabout going in that's going to change the whole dimension of that corner as far as traffic is concerned and the way traffic is going to flow, which is the concern for the residents in the area it is going to be a hundred percent different and roundabouts are a blessing and a curse all at the same time. It takes us a while to get Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F51 Page 48 of 49 used to them. First, the design that the -- the developer is suggesting is -- if somebody didn't say it before, it's in the eyes of the beholder. If everything is exactly the same, then, we are all the same color beige. But to be able to invite young families or professionals to live in a small starter house in a neighborhood that they couldn't usually afford, now this builder is offering that product. The Ten Mile Creek behind it -- I live behind Ten Mile Creek as well and there is parts of it that are super nice and in the winter, of course, it's kind of barren and so it is what it is because the city doesn't have any control over that. So, I'm -- and they have -- and the builder has done everything that -- from the conversation I have heard, everything that you have asked them to do -- McCarvel: Okay. Any other comments? Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Commissioner Yearsley, could you mute. Thank you. Seal: Touched on it a little bit earlier, but the -- one of the major problems that I had with it was just the entrance and access and it didn't seem like the road -- basically the planning and the -- and the rebuild of the road was going to happen for-- it sounded like five years, if I remember right from the December meeting that we had, but it's actually starting in this year will be finished by the end of next year, which coincides with when, you know, they will break ground and start to have people take residents in here. So, with that out of the way, you know, we are kind of -- again, we are stuck with what's in front of us and does it -- does it fit, does it work. The other comment I will make is I would really like to thank the gentleman that very very concisely quoted all of us. A lot of times I go home from here scratching my head wondering if anybody ever listens to anything that we say at all. So, I want to thank that person and hopefully anybody else that's listening, bring that with you, because it does actually help when we make our decisions, especially if we know that we got to pay attention to what we are saying and stick with our guns. So, thank you. If there is nothing else I can take a stab at a motion. McCarvel: Please do. Seal: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2020-0100 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 18th, 2021, with the following modifications: That A-1- E and A-3-F be modified to strike sidewalk and replace with pedestrian crossings and to include raised paved pathways. That the applicant work to provide an easement for a mass transit stop and that they provide more parking along the existing common areas. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded -- seconded to recommend approval of H- 2020-0100 with modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. Cassinelli: Nay. Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 18,2021 F52 Page 49 of 49 McCarvel: Okay. Motion carries. And, Madam Clerk, did you need roll call on that or did you get them? Weatherly: Commissioner Cassinelli, I heard you as a nay. Cassinelli: That is correct. McCarvel: Okay. I think all others were yea. Okay. With that I will take one more motion. Seal: Madam Chair? McCarvel: Commissioner Seal. Seal: I move we adjourn. Grove: Second. McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. Good night. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:50 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED RHONDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 1. 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the February 4, 2021 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item 1. February 4,2021 F54 Page 51 of 51 Yearsley: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn. Cassinelli: Second. McCarvel: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed. Motion carries. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:45 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVED 2 118 12021 RHONDA McCARVEL DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Item 2. 55 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Human Bean (H-2020-0125) by A&C Ventures, LLC, Located at 3285 W. Nelis Dr. Item 2. F56 CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN;�-- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND iDAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Through Establishment on .59 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District,Located at 3285 W.Nelis Dr. Northwest of the W.Ustick Rd/N. Ten Mile Rd.Intersection,by Colby Halker,A& C Ventures LLC. Case No(s).H-2020-0125 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of. February 4,2021 (Findings on February 18,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 4,2021,incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 4,2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 4, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 4, 2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. It-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2020-0125 Page I Item 2. 57 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of February 4,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 4, 2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of February 4,2021. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2020-0125 Page 2 Item 2. F58] By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 18th day of February,2021 COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 2-18-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2020-0125 Page 3 irem2. EXH I BIT A STAFF REPORT C�WE IMAM-' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT _j A H 0 HEARING 2/4/2021 ` Legend DATE: p�� 1 Pro*c#Lccafiar% TO: Planning&Zoning Commission -+- FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-489-0573 SUBJECT: H-2020-0125 Human Bean CUP L5 E �a LOCATION: 3285 W.Nelis Dr $ I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is an application for a conditional use permit(CUP)to allow a drive through coffee shop to operate between the hours of 5 AM to 10 PM. The subject property is located at 3285 W.Nelis Dr.,northwest of the W. Ustick Rd/N. Ten Mile Rd. intersection. The subject property is zoned General Retail and Service Commercial(C-G) and is .59 acres in size. The property is bordered by a pawn shop to the south(with other retail uses beyond), Idaho Power Sub-Station and industrial uses across W.Nelis Dr to the north, single family across N. Ten Mile Rd. to the southeast, and is located directly across N. Ten Mile Rd. from parking associated with Reta Huskey Park and the Five Mile Creek pathway. The property was originally annexed in 2004 and zoned to C-G as part of the McNelis Subdivision. The Development Agreement that was associated with this annexation(Inst. #104093293)required all uses on the subject lot to be approved by conditional use permit. In 2011,the subject property was part of a larger rezoning, comprehensive plan amendment and DA modification(CPAM-10-002,RZ- 11-001,MDA-11-002,Instr. # 112054621). As part of this,the allowed uses on the subject property were relaxed to allow all uses in the C-G Zone District,but hours of operation were limited from lam to 1 Opm,unless approved by a conditional use permit. As the hours of this drive through establishment are proposed to begin at 5am,the conditional use permit is required. Page 1 Item 2. F60 II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 0.59 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Non-Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Drive-through coffee shop(restaurant) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1 building lot Neighborhood meeting date;#of December 2,2020 attendees: History(previous approvals) Annexation and Preliminary Plat AZ,PP 04-004,FP 05- 047,DA Instr.4104093293,Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment CPAM 10-002,RZ-11-001,and DA Modification Instr.#112054621 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District No site-specific comments submitted Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access will occur from W.Nelis Dr.a local street.There Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) will also be an internal connection with the property to the south at 3393 W.Nelis Dr(pawn shop) Existing Road Network Yes Fire Service No comments submitted Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed Ten Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.06 • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Comments • Flow has been committed • No proposed changes to public sewer infrastructure within record.Any changes or modifications,to the public sewer infrastructure,shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 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 Page 2 1 1 • 1 ' ;t, - '-'I llll 1 Illll� � - �— � 111• III III� • ""I IlN• lull 1 � � �-I - ... r 1 IINmILi� �.�, '',�.ir• . F,� uu •. ■■! ills!!mum ---NONLLJ - ■■E - r ' .... 111 1111 — TY�Z■. ll ■ gy� Iml ! — -- �--'� — ■■■ NII1111111 ■ 1■■■■■ ■■■ i 1 ■x , ■on : = ll; ' '7 _ - No ..■1 !! ■l ��� � ' sun.. _ �.u■■ lu mill!!!!! rands -2. mni? ■ ■u■ ■ ■u■R Nil soon sold on l �g1 IN Ills ■■ No. gN _ •o■ Sol ~�11 111 1 1 1�oil 1111 1 1 I Wl�llm IINm llmll C I�NY■J m mY 'SSii Mill ll Im! 1 11��11 r 1 lllallai� r I ouoa 1 IIIHII 1ff 11111IMPI ■�� moll I mmll I hill. :l'l•m:/ In ■m mlmmlmmN■ llllmllNu ■m mNmmlmm�+ mNllmll i1 ■m Ilmmlml.■ Imllmlr i llll N■■■■ _ lm N■■■■J� '�11 ■■■■ 1•... ■ m ml • 1ml l ■n■■r 11111l111 ■ ■ ml l • 1.1 l ■■■ 1 l ■■■"��' �i�± I ■N ■■■ Ii11.I'i FI�1-II! ■■■u ■■�� ' m,fn .64 INN ■u■ i n■ ■ NEE -i�■' f., ■7■R�li a■:- on 1 lm s■ :: r ei: l `■��:: ■ a lm a■■ i■:� ■ u■ !• ■ J■:: ■ ■- on .: a■o No, . ■r. ■' u .�!• .�:ion■ ■• ++++■■ '1911m1�11�1111� '' "x " �Ib+s 11�11�1 lm ■ mm x N■ l I g-l■■■n■. ■1■■ ■■ IYYa ImY ■■■n N■■■■ N■ m J I p i■■ii■�11 ■ ■■ ' ■u■1 x I. ? ■ ml� ml ■lollgll .. lm I. J lam=== l■u:11 a uoQ='== Moro =: ml 1 xu soon olil - - - - xnn ■■■■_ Item 2. F62 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jerrod Wallgreen,JGT Architecture— 1212 12`h Ave South,Nampa, ID 83651 B. Owner: Edward McNelis,Ten Mile Investments—621 N. Robinson Blvd,Nampa, ID 83687 C. Representative: Colby Halker,A&C Ventures LLC—855 W. Broad St, Ste 300,Boise, ID 83702 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1/15/2021 Radius notification mailed to 1/12/2021 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 1/25/2021 NextDoor posting 1/12/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /g compplan) Mixed Use Non-Residential-The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example, MU-NR areas are used near the City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential. Sample uses, appropriate in MU-NR areas would include: employment centers,professional offices, flex buildings,warehousing, industry, storage facilities and retail, and other appropriate non-residential uses. The subject site is zoned General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G). This allows a broad range of commercial uses. The property is directly adjacent and north of a pawn shop, is across W. Nelis Dr(south) of an Idaho Power Sub-Station and industrial uses, and is across N. Ten Mile Rd. (west) of a parking lot, Reta Huskey Park, and the Hartford Subdivision to the southeast.A drive-through coffee shop and restaurant is a use determined to be appropriate in this zone district as well as the existing Development Agreement, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 and restaurant specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-49. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /ccoompplan): Goals, Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): Page 4 Item 2. ■ • Encourage infill development. (3.03.01E) The Comprehensive Plan defines infill as "development on vacant parcels, or redevelopment of existing parcels to a higher and better use that is surrounded by developed property within the City of Meridian." The subject property is a vacant lot surrounded by existing development on all sides. As mentioned above, this includes a pawn shop with additional retail uses to the south of that,power sub-station, industrial uses,parking lot and City park, and residential area across N. Ten Mile Rd. The property has available water and sewer. This project would be considered infill development. • Preserve private property rights and values by enforcing regulations that will prevent and mitigate against incompatible and detrimental neighboring uses. (3.05.01 C) The conditional use is a process to ensure any impacts associated with a particular use are mitigated.All uses directly adjacent to the subject property are commercial and industrial. Restaurants and drive-through establishments are principally permitted uses in the C-G zone district. • Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods. (5.01.02D) A landscape plan has been submitted with this application that appears to meet the requirements of UDC 11-3B. Building design and landscaping will be reviewed as part of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and administrative design review that would follow this proposal if it were approved. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject property is presently vacant. The 25' landscape buffer that is required along N. Ten Mile Rd. and 10' buffer that is required along W.Nelis Dr. have already been installed, as are the sidewalks. D. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2B-1): The proposed use is a drive through coffee kiosk(restaurant)that will operate between the hours of 5AM and 1 OPM. This use is allowed by right per the development agreement and within the C- G zone district, although the earlier opening time of 5AM requires conditional use permit approval as required in the recorded development agreement and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-11 and UDC 11-4-3-49. E. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): A"Drive-Through Establishment"is subject to specific use standards as outlined in UDC 11-4-3- 11 as follows: 1. All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane,menu and speaker location(if applicable), and window location on the certificate of zoning compliance or the conditional use permit. The concept site plan submitted with this application identifies the location of the stacking lane, and window location. There are no outdoor speakers associated with this proposal. Page 5 Item 2. 64 2. A site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and circulation on the site and between adjacent properties.At a minimum the plan shall demonstrate compliance with the following standards: a. Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of driveways, drive aisles, and the public right-of-way by patrons. The concept plan shows the stacking lane is a separate lane that does not obstruct driveways, drive aisles or public right of way. The site has also been designed to allow egress from the pawn shop to the south into the subject property without interrupting the stacking lane. b. The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access and parking,except stacking lanes may provide access to designated employee parking. There is a separate drive aisle to the north of the stacking lane for parking and access. There is also a separate divider provided to prevent cars from pulling out of the parking lot into the stacking lane. c. The stacking lane shall not be located within ten(10)feet of any residential district or existing residence. The stacking lane is more than 250'from the closest residential district or residence. d. Any stacking lane greater than one hundred 100 feet in length shall provide for an escape lane. The stacking lane provides an escape lane which allows access to and from the lot to the south (pawn shop) as well as merges to an exit lane to W. Nelis D. e. The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for surveillance purposes. The site is designed with the drive-through window oriented to the east to be visible from N. Ten Mile Rd. 3. The applicant shall provide a six-foot sight obscuring fence where a stacking lane or window location adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. The stacking lane does not adjoin a residential district or existing residence. A"Restaurant"is subject to specific use standards as outlined in UDC 11-4-3-49 as follows: 1. Parking a. At a minimum, one(1)parking space shall be provided for every two hundred fifty(250) square feet of gross floor area.Upon any change of use for an existing building or tenant space, a detailed parking plan shall be submitted that identifies the available parking for the overall site that complies with the requirements of this title The site plan indicates 5 parking spaces whereas 2 are required. The site plan contains a detailed parking plan. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): Dimensional standards in the General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) include a 25'landscape buffer adjacent to arterial roads, 10'buffer adjacent to local roads and a Page 6 Item 2. 65 maximum building height of 65'. There are no front, side or rear setbacks in this zone district. The proposed drive through facility meets these dimensional standards. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to this development will occur from W.Nelis Dr. (two points) and run along a one-way drive-aisle in a counter-clockwise direction. Cars will enter the site and will either park in a lot or continue along a"u-shaped" 12' drive aisle to the coffee kiosk and exit back to W.Nelis Dr. There is also a point of access through the property at the south(the pawn shop). This access will serve as an escape lane for cars that have entered the drive-though aisle, and will also allow cars from the pawn shop to merge into the drive aisle past the coffee kiosk and leave the development at the same northern exit point. A curb will be provided between the parking lot and the one-way drive aisle to separate the lot from the drive aisle and prevent cars from backing into the drive aisle when leaving the site.However,the drive aisle between the parking and the stacking lane is shown to be 24' in width whereas UDC 11-3C-5 requires 25'. Staff has added this as a recommended condition of approval. This proposal was referred to ACHD,who responded in a January 8, 2021 letter that there were no concerns and no required improvements to the adjacent street(s). H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): The subject property is within the C-G Zone District. Per the specific use standards for a restaurant(UDC 11-4-3-49),parking is based on one(1)parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area. With a square footage of approximately 500 sq. ft. for the kiosk,two parking spaces are required whereas 5 parking spaces are required. The site plan reflects at least three bicycle spaces. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17) Sidewalks along both the N. Ten Mile Rd. and W.Nelis Dr. frontages have already been constructed. As required by UDC 11-3A-19,the applicant is providing a 5' wide pathway at the northeast portion of the site connecting to the existing sidewalk along W.Nelis Dr. to allow better pedestrian access.However,there is a regional trail on the east side of N. Ten Mile Rd. which is 10' in width to accommodate bicyclists. Staff recommends the pathway from the perimeter sidewalk to the kiosk building be widened to 10'. I Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2C-3 requires landscape buffers of a minimum width of 25' along arterial streets and 10' along local streets. Both these buffers as well as 6' wide attached sidewalks exist along the site. The landscape plan reflects the buffers meet the minimum landscape requirement of one tree per 35 linear feet of frontage. UDC 11-3B-8 requires a five-foot-wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas. The landscape plan shows the 25' wide arterial buffer along the northern perimeter of the drive aisle, 10' wide landscape buffer along the southern perimeter of the drive aisle, and as much as 60' width of landscaped area between the eastern drive aisle perimeter and the sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Rd. There is also approximately 15' of landscaped area between the parking lot and the northern drive aisle. The proposed landscaping significantly exceeds the landscape requirements of UDC 11-3-B.No existing trees are shown to be removed with this proposal. Page 7 Item 2. 66 The site is highly visible from N. Ten Mile Rd,the existing residential to the southeast and the pathways along Ten Mile Creek and N. Ten Mile Rd. In order to ensure the design of the development 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, staff requested the applicant screen the drive-through aisle that is visible from N. Ten Mile Rd. The applicant proposes an approximately 40' long vehicle headlight screen wall of an unspecified height directly at the NE corner of the development. Although staff supports this feature, staff believes there should be additional measures to soften the visual impacts of the vehicles in the drive aisle. As a condition of approval, staff recommends additional length of screen wall,berming, or evergreen shrubs along the entire eastern perimeter of the drive aisle to the south property line sufficient to soften visual impacts of the drive through as viewed from N. Ten Mile Rd and the nearby residences. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): The site plan and landscape plans do not show any other fencing other than the screen wall. Any fencing would be required to comply with the fence standards in the UDC 11-3A-7. L. Utilities All utilities for the proposed development are already in place.No additional services are needed. A Building Elevations The applicant submitted conceptual elevations with this conditional use application. The elevations show architecture similar to most of the kiosks in this franchise,with materials consisting of weathered wood plank and ribbed metal siding and three pitched standing seam metal roofs. Overall,the proposed architecture is good quality. If staff s recommendation regarding extending the landscaping,walls and/or berming along the entire eastern perimeter of the drive aisle to the south property line is followed, it would increase the visual quality of the project. The proposed elevations will be reviewed in detail at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DES) submittal. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on February 4,2021.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use permit request. I. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Colby Halker and Jerrod Wallgreen b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Colby Halker and Jerrod Wallgreen 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. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. Page 8 Item 2. ■ a. Discussed whether there could be any additional safeguard to prevent cars leaving the Pawn Shop at the south from attempting to go into the drive through lane the wrong direction. b. Discussed whether there are any properties east of the subject property that would be impacted from headlights from the drive through establishment. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Added recommendation for staff and the applicant to ascertain if any additional design such as curbing, could be added to the southern access to prevent cars from the pawn shop from turning west and driving into the drive aisle the wrong direction. Page 9 Item 2. F68 VII. EXHIBITS A. Conceptual Site Plan(date December 16, 2020) lip Gf f I f .k,-,,; W. NELIS DRIVE t, k!J n Lf W❑SChPE —_- _-- _ L}W❑SChPE PL^4 �g S44'05'31-E 28 z o tTLrrt +a� NEW rQmneaT ICYC!E PALING LA'LBEAFE lE7G a a I ACE-- . S PE TC❑ELIkL4T= L?RIL'=l��L4H= —� —EXISTING PAWN ONE SITE ti II CONCEPT SITE PLAN Page 10 Item 2. ■ B. Conceptual Landscape Plan(date December 16, 2020) Y rDm l}I THE 45,x IF ' ICI T` -r- I • om' — 10.T �yiniG pp I + I *40P,%wL _ -_ - - - - ••--_k-f ' S 77 T _- I t + y i_f F +�+_I t 1 � rr_I � � • F. - •, F• iI j • "" �. Ii-SY I k + i ` I ., rum l F 1 • • i it - -• 'x' _ I' J��� '' CLY1101T 1 •4 C tiRT:Im Nrrrf r'P aft I' —hT" ar-�r-orwr a 60TU X.L d eK M YCJLr.:JI it T�WG, WORM ��6PTW 71=5 r-Mm 72MM. C. Conceptual Screen Wall(date: December 16, 2020) _ � I - •yl _-y�4 k—`�j �� . I y PROPOSED PROJECT TO BE SIMILAR TO STORE ON CHERRY LANE PING MERIDM RD_ Page 11 Item 2. F70 D. Conceptual Elevations(dated: December 16,2020) a I ' a�¢c r:rx nA-n ccwc - NORTH ELEVATION 1 E�A$T ELEVATION 3 I��� -w LLfi.;MAY + 11LAlCKGWOG] . R,kw 11��"IITl WIiL _ �I SOLffH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION wig �u II - 41 r-f *4" bl7r�hl TO IY4YCN rrw T116df ORL Af RlXI CW1 GH]CMLRXY LJN! Page 12 Item 2. ■ VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning 1. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative design review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. The applicant will either meet all architectural requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)or apply for a design exception as part of the CZC submittal. 2. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two(2)years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC I 1-513-617. 3. Hours of operation are limited from 5AM to 1 OPM. 4. The plans shall be revised to increase the width of the drive aisle between the parking and the stacking lane to 25' as required per UDC 11-3C-5. 5. The plans shall be revised to increase the width of the pathway from the perimeter sidewalk to the kiosk building to 10'. 6. The site plan prepared by jgt architecture, dated December 16, 2020, is approved with the revisions as listed in 4& 5. 7. The landscape plan prepared by jgt architecture, dated December 16,2020,is approved with the following revisions: a. The drive aisle and pathway shall be widened as listed in condition 4& 5 above. b. The landscape plan shall be revised to incorporate a combination of screen walls,berming, and/or evergreen shrubs to a height of 4 feet along the eastern perimeter of the drive aisle to the south property line. It should be sufficient to soften visual impacts of the drive through as viewed from N. Ten Mile Rd and the nearby residences while still providing visibility of the drive-through window. 8. The architectural elevations prepared by jgt architecture, dated December 16, 2020, are approved as submitted. 9. Parking requirements associated with the drive through coffee kiosk shall comply with the commercial parking standards; 1 per 250 square feet of gross floor area. 10. The Applicant shall comply with all bulk,use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. It. The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12. 12. The Applicant shall comply with the structure and site design standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual. 13. The applicant shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-313-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-313-13. 14. The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards for a drive through establishment and a restaurant as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-11 and 11-4-3-49. Page 13 Item 2. 72 15. The project is subject to all current City of Meridian ordinances and previous conditions of approval associated with this site(AZ, PP 04-004,FP 05-047, DA Instr. #104093293, CPAM 10- 002,RZ-11-001, and DA Modification Instr. #112054621). B Public Works 1. No proposed changes to the public sewer and/or water infrastructure are shown within this record. Any changes or modifications shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. 2. There is an existing water service stub near the northwest corner of the property off of Nelis that either needs to be used or abandoned. 3. A fully functioning streetlight is required on W.Nelis Dr. at the west property boundary. Streetlight shall be installed and functioning prior to occupancy. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219444&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky IX. FINDINGS A. Conditional Use Permit 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. The site meets all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. The site already contains landscape buffers,parking is adequate, and the parking area will be landscaped as required by UDC 11-3B-8. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed drive through coffee kiosk will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis in Section V of this staff report. 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. The subject site is within a commercially zoned area. Directly south of the site is a pawn shop and other commercial retail.Across W. Nelis Dr. to the north is an Idaho Power Sub-Station and industrial uses. East of the parking(across N. Ten Mile Rd.) is a parking facility, regional pathway and Reta Huskey Park. Single family residential is approximately 250 feet to the southeast. The site will be landscaped beyond the minimum requirements, and architecture will be required to meet the Architectural Design Manual(ASM) at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC). If staff's recommendation regarding additional screening of the drive aisle is followed, staff would find the proposed use should not change the character nature of the 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. Page 14 Item 2. ■ If staffs recommendation regarding additional screening of the drive aisle is followed, staff would find the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties 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. The proposed use will be served adequately by all public facilities and services. 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. Staff finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 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. This proposal is for a drive through establishment that will operate between 5AM and IOPM in an area zoned for commercial uses, at a minimum of 250 feet from the nearest residential zone district, and on the other side of a major arterial street. Also, there are no outdoor speakers proposed with this establishment. The proposed facility is appropriate in this location. 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,ef£ 9-15-2005) Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site; thus, Staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 15 Item 3. 74 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Northpoint Recovery Center (H-2020- 0126) by Cole Architects, Generally Located East of N. Webb Ave. Between E. State Ave. and E. Pine Ave. Item 3. F75 CITY OF MERIDIAN V IDIAN;--- FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ! DAHO DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Residential Care Facility on 3.86 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning District,Located East of N.Webb Ave.between E. State Ave. and E.Pine Ave.,by Cole Architects. Case No(s).H-2020-0126 For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: February 4,2021 (Findings on February 18,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 4,2021,incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 4,2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 4, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 4, 2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2020-0126 Page 1 Item 3. 76 upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the hearing date of February 4,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11- 5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of February 4, 2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-513-6F.1. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of February 4, 2021 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2020-0126 Page 2 Item 3. 77 By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 18th day of February ,2021. COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE VOTED COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED Rhonda McCarvel, Chairman Attest: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: 2-18-2021 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER CASE NO(S).H-2020-0126 Page 3 Item 3. ■ EXHIBIT A C� E IDIAN�-- STAFF REPORT f D A H 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 2/4/2021 Legend DATE: Iff Project Lflcfl�iar TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 11 mill I I - FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0126 lE _ Northpoint Recovery Center—CUP, DES y LOCATION: East of N. Webb Ave.between E. State Ave. &E. Pine Ave.,in the NW 1/4 of Section 8,Township 3N.,Range 1E. III Jill I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Conditional use permit for a 30,000+/-square foot residential care facility on 3.86 acres of land in a C-G zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 3.86 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Residential care facility Current Zoning General Retail and Service Commercial District(C-G) Proposed Zoning NA Lots(#and type;bldg/common) NA Amenities NA Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/8/20;2 people from the public attended the meeting attendees: Page 1 Item 3. ■ EXHIBIT A History(previous approvals) ROS#6734(2004);portion of Lot 3 and Lots 4-5,Block 3, Gemtone Center No.2(1997);Pinebridge(AZ-07-006; RZ-07-010;PP-07-008—DA#108022893);H-2017-0058 (Pine 43—AZ,RZ,PP,MDA—DA#2018-000751);ROS #11291 (Parcel 4)(2018);A-2020-0182(PBA,"parcel B" tentative) approved) A. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend A � Legend ff s IProject Laca-non id letP-ojeot Loco-or '1YI j M1 7 Tw Reitial F+ �hIJ.C R - u ; a Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend IR1 0 Legend ! Prc'eo- Lmou-non L L-0 C. IetProjeat Luca-ion U , City Limit 1 - — Planned Parcels 1=L .40 Ri- R y RUT „ FM -x JJJ I L Page 2 Item 3. F80 EXHIBIT A III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jennifer Mohr, Cole Architects— 1008 W. Main St.,Boise,ID 83702 B. Owner: Robert Quinn,TQ Flagstone, LLC—811 N.W. 13'St.,Fruitland, ID 83619 C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. STAFF ANALYSIS A Conditional Use Permit(CUP)is proposed for a new 30,000+/-square foot single-story residential care facility on 3.86 acres of land in a C-G zoning district, as required by UDC Table 11-213-2. The facility will be an in-patient/out-patient addiction treatment provider with 48 beds with administrative and treatment uses. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of Mixed Use—Community(MU-C)in that it will contribute to the mix of uses in this area and the variety of healthcare options available in the City. It will provide for the physical and mental health care needs of the community in relation to addiction recovery and is in close proximity to housing, arterial streets and businesses. The use should be compatible with residential uses to the north as well as the industrial use to the east and future commercial uses to the west and south. A segment of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed along the eastern boundary of the site between State and Pine Avenue as a public amenity,which will connect different land use types. Only the eastern 315'+/-portion of the property is proposed to develop with this application; the western 70'+/-wide strip of land is proposed to develop at a later time. Two(2)building pads and associated parking are depicted on the site plan for future development. That portion of the site is not approved with this application and will require future submittal of an application for review and approval by the Planning Division. Measures shall be taken so that the undeveloped portion of the site isn't unsightly or a fire hazard. Existing Development Agreement(Inst.2 01 8-0 0 0 751): The existing Development Agreement (DA) approved for Pine 43 in 2018 contains conditions that govern future development of this site. The conceptual development plan approved for this site included in the DA depicts 4 buildings and associated parking on this site. Staff has reviewed the DA and finds the proposed site plan and use in substantial compliance as required. Staff has included recommended conditions of approval in Section VII in accord with the DA as noted below. Specific Use Standards: The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11- 4-3-29: Nursing or Residential Care Facilities, as follows: A. General standards: 1. If the use results in more than ten(10)persons occupying a dwelling at any one time,the applicant or owner shall concurrently apply for a change of occupancy as required by the building code in accord with title 10 of this Code. 2. The owner and/or operator of the facility shall secure and maintain a license from the State of Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, facility standards division. B. Additional standards for uses providing care to children and juveniles under the age of eighteen (18)years: Page 3 Item 3. F81 EXHIBIT A 1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by a minimum six-foot non-scalable fence to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting properties. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with title 10 of this Code. 2. Outdoor play equipment over six(6)feet high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard. 3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts or uses adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk. C. Additional standards for uses providing care to patients who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, dementia or other similar disability that may cause disorientation. A barrier with a minimum height of six(6) feet, along the perimeter of any portion of the site that is accessible to these patients shall be provided. The fencing material shall meet the swimming pool fence requirements of the building code in accord with title 10 of this Code. Site Plan: A site plan was submitted, included in Section VI.A,that depicts the footprint of the proposed structure with parking on the north side of the building adjacent to E. State Ave. The western 70'+/-of the subject property is not proposed to develop with this project. A property boundary adjustment application has been tentatively approved for the boundary of this site depicted on the site plan(A-2020-0182,Parcel`B"). Additional items associated with the tentative approval must be submitted in order to finalize the PBA prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application for this site. Access: Access is proposed via E. State Ave. with an emergency only access via E. Pine Ave. A temporary turnaround is proposed on the west side of the site that has been approved by the Fire Dept. Because a driveway is ultimately proposed between the subject property and the property to the west as depicted on the plans,Staff recommends a recorded cross-access easement is submitted granting cross-access/ingress-egress to the property to the west(Parcel#51108244538)with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.If the Applicant is unsure where the cross-access will ultimately be provided, the access may alternatively be granted in the future with the subsequent development application for the western portion of the site. Parking: Off-street vehicle parking is required at 0.5 space per bed for residential care facilities as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and should comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-5. Bicycle parking is required at one space for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G and should comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Based on 48 beds,a minimum of 24 vehicle spaces are required;43 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards resulting in 19 extra spaces. Based on 43 vehicle parking spaces,a minimum of one (1)bicycle parking space is required; four(4) spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards, resulting in three (3)extra spaces. Landscaping: A 10-foot wide street buffer is required along E. State Ave., a local street, and a 25- foot wide street buffer is required along E. Pine Ave., an arterial street,landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Parking lot landscaping is required as set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C. A landscape plan was submitted, included in Section VII.B,that depicts a 30'+/-street buffer along E. State Ave. and a 40'+/- street buffer along E. Pine Ave. Landscaping exists within the street buffer along E. Pine Ave.;tree locations are depicted on the plan but no vegetative groundcover is depicted. Vegetative groundcover should be depicted on the plan in the street buffers and parkways that complies with UDC 11-3B-5N and the width of street buffers,lineal feet of buffers and the required vs.provided number of trees should be included in the Project Calculations table for Page 4 Item 3. F82] EXHIBIT A the street buffers along E.Pine Ave. and E. State Ave.that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. The western 70'+/-portion of this property is not proposed to develop with this project; because it's part of this property,Staff recommends the street buffers along Pine and State along the full width of the property are constructed with this project. Perimeter landscaping is required along the east boundary of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Landscaping is required in planter islands at the ends of rows of parking in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.2.Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4" caliper or greater that are removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- IOC.5. An existing 16"caliper black locust tree is depicted on the landscape plan;the Applicant should contact Matt Perkins, City Arborist,to determine if mitigation is required. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should comply with these standards. Sidewalk: An existing detached sidewalk(and curb and gutter) exists along the frontage of this site adjacent to E. State Ave. and E. Pine Ave. in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Pathway: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City's regional pathway system along the eastern boundary of this site between E. State Ave. and E. Pine Ave. The Applicant proposes a 10' wide pathway from the north end of the emergency access driveway to the perimeter sidewalk along Pine Ave.;the emergency access driveway is proposed to serve a dual purpose as a pedestrian pathway. Landscaping is required along the pathway in accord with the standards listed in UDC H- 3B-12C. As a public amenity in the MU-C designated area, Staff recommends a bench is provided adjacent to the pathway along the east boundary of the site in close proximity to a shade tree for a rest area. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along the eastern boundary of the site should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that meets the requirements of the Park's Department(coordinate with Kim Warren). The DA requires pedestrian connections to be provided between buildings in the form of pathways distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks. The site/landscape plan should be revised to comply with this requirement(i.e.provide pedestrian connections to the future structures to the west). The pathway connection from the perimeter sidewalk along E. State Ave.to the main building entrance should also be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface as noted and required by UDC 11-3A-19B.4. The sidewalk in front of the building should be extended to the east to the emergency access driveway/pedestrian pathway. Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown in Section VI.0 that incorporate materials consisting of horizontal fiber cement siding and stone with vertical wood siding and exposed wood beam accents and standing seam metal roofing. The design of the proposed structure is proportional to and should blend in with the architectural style of the residential development to the north as desired in MU-C designated areas. The square footage of the structure at 30,000 s.f. complies with the provision in the DA that limits the building size to a 30,000 s.£building footprint(provision#5.1.7). The DA requires windows, awnings or arcades totaling at least 30% of the length of the fagade to be provided for facades that are viewable from other structures (provision#5.1.4f); final design shall comply with this requirement and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Page 5 Item 3. F83 EXHIBIT A A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application to ensure consistency with UDC standards and design standards and conditions noted in Section VII. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions included in Section VII per the Findings in Section VIII. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on February 4,2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Ian Hoffman, Cole Architects (Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition:None C. Commenting. None d. Written testimony: Jennifer Mohr,Cole Architects(APplicant's Representative) e. Staff presenting gpplication: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Hours of operation. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 6 Item 3. F84 EXHIBIT A VI. EXHIBITS A. Proposed Site Plan(dated: 12/22/2020) 1 !role:[Inlorme[lun: COLE ARCHITECTS ri IL M-1 . _ NOT FOR FUTURE WNSTRUCT*N --7 1 NOT APART J Fj �I �J �i.i.r: ; THE .......:. . LAN D IMEGROUP 11 L LI I "�1,- .` .ram t• �,—.e - • PROPOSm .. eunElc RMME eEtl aOABIT- }..�•t •�. _ ry'�yQ7Ql� RQTAPNTr 1 ED ❑ NOPTHPOINT- — �. a ,u 9 VI R Mrt�i�•+� l7FAME �r..w�l�.��a _R a Coddw!al Ilse PermR-O Plan CONFWMYAL USE PERW-WE PLAN C1.00 Page 7 Item 3. F85 EXHIBIT A SITE PLAN/ SCALE NTS TOTAL SITE.3.68 ACRES DEVELOPED SITE.,2.57 ACRES ■TATEAY UE BUILDING AREA:27659 SF MAX BUILDING HEIGHT:2T-4" REQUIRED PARKING:24 STALLS nrr--- - - � BIKE PARKING:2 I.. �JJ I k 1111.11 ! I I b I ruruNE I OEVELOPENEW . OIfr OF SCOPE ' - - -, - --- PINE STREET r NaRTHPOINT- COLE/ARCH I T CCT c o r c x r— NORTHPOINT RECOVERY I PAGE 103 Page 8 Item 3. F86] EXHIBIT A B. Proposed Landscape Plan(dated: 12/22/2020) COLSUWAME :k?k#k;Stif!7�; ,: 'ii::Fit.�S: •t.,ea+s:, J�RCH �. ITE 'SYf C! GTS ili ��17�{'.'. b�.•r COIIB1Itl1CT18N Sx• k ,. .�..y.. THE k:;k: •-- � ,- LAND GROUP xy�l RII.p11G:� R - R� ram. Y Te • i l� h• �+ y'{��■ NORTHPL7IN7 �;S'�h Fx-J � k�$SF�f:�S'��• :?�55!� —•�r o-v e••— �io.'A::i:YY i:i:, �i:i;�' i::id�'-i.: �:�5$kdSa:�S;� �4eu• NORIMOM RECCVEt Mff1t! FTEAIMW p} anal use Perwuanasrape Pia n FfRMrr 3H6L E PERMR- LANO W:AFE PLAN L1.00 Page 9 Item 3. EXHIBIT A [87 C. Proposed Building Elevations (dated: 1/4/202 1) MATERIAL LEG ENU I lilt 114 --il - COLE ARcHITECTS T -T:�:mlll 0 A---------- - ----------- CCFBTNICTIQN "Al—-—-—-—-- -—-—- -—-—-—-—-—-—-—---- --— -—-— on lu I][] 11U ------- --- - ----------T= moym i ra NT, NORTnI REQDYMVQEN'ER ---------- Woo ----- ------ LU A4.00 Page 10 Item 3. F88] EXHIBIT A VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING 1. Future development of this site shall comply with the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2018-000751,H-2017-0058). 2. The tentatively approved property boundary adjustment application(A-2020-0182) shall receive final approval prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications for this development. 3. Continued compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-29: Nursing or Residential Care Facilities is required. 4. The site plan and landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict pedestrian connections to the future structures to the west as required by the Development Agreement(provision#5.1.4b). Pathways shall be distinguished from vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks. b. The pedestrian walkway connecting between the perimeter sidewalk along E. State Ave. and the main building entrance shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surface through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete,or bricks as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 19B.4. c. Extend the sidewalk in front of the building to the east to the emergency access driveway/pedestrian pathway. d. Depict landscaping in the street buffers and parkways along E. State Ave.and E.Pine Ave. along the full width of the property,including the portion not proposed to develop with this project, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and 11-3B-5Nrespectively. e. Include the width of the street buffers, lineal feet of buffers and the required vs. provided number of trees in the buffers in the Project Calculations that demonstrate compliance with the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. f. Depict perimeter landscaping along the east boundary of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.1. g. Coordinate with Matt Perkins,City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements for this site. Depict mitigation information on the plan if required by the City Arborist in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. h. Depict a tree in the planter island at the west end of the row of parking on the east side of the entry driveway in accord with UDC 11-3B-8C.2d. i. Depict landscaping along the emergency access road/pathway along the east boundary of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. j. Depict a bench adjacent to the pathway along the east boundary of the site in close proximity to a shade tree. 5. All of the site work required above and depicted on the landscape and site plans shall be completed with development of the residential care facility. 6. Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along the eastern boundary of the site with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that meets the Page I I Item 3. F89 EXHIBIT A requirements of the Park's Department(coordinate with Kim Warren). 7. The maximum building size is limited to a 30,000 square foot building footprint as set forth in the Development Agreement(Inst. #2018-000751,H-2017-0058). 8. Windows,awnings or arcades totaling at least 30%of the length of the facade shall be provided for facades that are viewable from other structures as set forth in the Development Agreement (Inst. #2018-000751,H-2017-0058). 9. A recorded cross-access/ingress-egress easement should be submitted granting cross- access/ingress-egress to the property to the west(Parcel#51108244538)with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. If the Applicant is unsure where the cross-access will ultimately be provided, the access may alternatively be granted in the future with the subsequent development application for the western portion of the site. 10. Maintenance of the undeveloped portion of the site shall regularly occur so that the area isn't unsightly or a fire hazard until such time as it's developed. 11. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved for the proposed use prior to submittal of a building permit application. The design of the site and structure shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 12. The conditional use permit is valid for a maximum period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the Applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6.A time extension may be requested as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F. B. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219869&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty C. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222011&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=220033&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty VIII. FINDINGS Conditional Use(UDC 11-5B-6) 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. Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed development and meet all dimensional and development regulations of the C-G zoning district. Page 12 Item 3. 1 EXHIBIT A 90 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Staff ,finds the proposed residential care facility will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with applicable UDC standards with the conditions noted in Section VII of this report. 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. Staff finds the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed use will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood, with the existing and intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the essential character of the 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. Stafffinds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity if it complies with the conditions in Section VII of this report. 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. Stafffinds the proposed use will be served by essential public facilities and services as required. 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. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not create additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 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. Staff ,finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by the reasons noted above. 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) Staff ,finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any such features. 9. Additional findings for the alteration or extension of a nonconforming use: a. That the proposed nonconforming use does not encourage or set a precedent for additional nonconforming uses within the area; and, This finding is not applicable. b. That the proposed nonconforming use is developed to a similar or greater level of conformity with the development standards as set forth in this title as compared to the level of development of the surrounding properties. This finding is not applicable. Page 13 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Hearings Changes to Agenda: th  Item #4: Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) – Applicant requests continuance to March 4 hearing in order to have more time to work through Staff’s conditions of approval in the Staff Report. Item #5: Ambles Run Subdivision (H-2020-0124) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning, Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.88 acres of land, located on Lot 26, Block 1 of the county Dunwoody Subdivision, approximately ¼ mile east of N. Locust Grove Road and a ½ mile south of Chinden Boulevard. It is at the terminus of Chopin Avenue within the Vienna Woods Subdivision to the south. Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:  North – County residential;  East – County residential;  South – R-4 zoning and detached single-family residential  West – County residential History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential Summary of Request: The Applicant is requesting AZ of 2.88 acres of land with a request for the R-2 zoning district and a preliminary plat for 6 single-family residential lots. The property lies within the Low Density Residential future land use designation which allows single-family dwellings at a gross density less than 3 du/ac. The proposed project meets both the allowed use and density requirements of the requested zoning and future land use. The proposed density should function as a transitional density from the Vienna Woods Sub. to the existing Ada County, Dunwoody Subdivision. Staff finds the proposed density as appropriate in addition to it meeting our comprehensive plan. Access into the site is proposed via extending Chopin Avenue into the site from the south; this is the only available point of access into the site. The Applicant is proposing to provide parkways with street trees along both sides of the Chopin Avenue extension. As currently proposed, the project is proposing approximately 4% open space that would be qualifying open space if any were required. This number is important because if this property was required to provide open space by code, the project would only be required to provide 5% open space due to the project only containing buildable lots and each lot being over 16,000 square feet. Providing open space for developments is a critical point within the comprehensive plan to help create a sense of place and add green space for residents to enjoy. Therefore, Staff is recommending the Applicant revise the landscape plans to show 10’ wide parkways instead of 8’ wide to increase the open space for the project and meet that 5% open space threshold. Providing open space at this level is not required by code but Staff believes it helps the project meet the spirit of the code and allows for even more of an identity for this small subdivision. In addition to the wider parkways, Staff is recommending a revision to the road layout to better comply with the comprehensive plan and help with future development in this area. The Applicant should provide a stub street to their western boundary and preliminary discussions with ACHD have determined this Applicant would be required to construct the full street section. However, the Applicant should work with ACHD on a reduced street section for this stub street to minimize the impact to this property. By providing a stub street to the north and to the west, this parcel can set up road connectivity and utility placement for future redevelopment in this area creating a more cohesive design. Furthermore, this recommended change does not create the need to lose any lots or change the request for R-2 zoning as each lot would still meet the R-2 dimensional standards after reducing their lot widths. The submitted landscape plan also shows a raised berm with relatively full landscaping along the rear of the building lots. This landscaping on private lots is not regulated by City code and therefore Staff does not recommend adding any provisions regarding this landscaping. The Applicant intends to maintain the berm and landscaped areas through the HOA and subsequent CC&R’s that the City does not regulate. Staff believes this is the appropriate way to regulate and maintain the proposed landscaping on the private building lots. Written Testimony: One (1) – Mr. and Mrs. Rammell discussing a desire to have a stub street to their eastern property line (this project’s western boundary). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject applications. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0124, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 18, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0124, as presented during the hearing on February 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0124 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #6: Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) Remanded back to P&Z Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, Private Streets, and Alternative Compliance Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 7.69 acres of land, currently zoned RUT, located at 3247 S. Locust Grove (SWC of Victory and Locust Grove intersection). Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: County Residential to the North (Application is in process with the city for low density residential project); Single-family residential and R-8 zoning in all other directions. History: None Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (3-8 du/ac) Summary of Request: This project was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 3, 2020 and the Commission recommended denial of the project to the Meridian City Council. Following this recommendation, the Applicant made a request to the City Council to be remanded back to P&Z with a revised plat and open space pursuant to comments made within this staff report and by Commissioners. The City Council agreed with this request and remanded the project back to P&Z. The main changes made by the Applicant following the recommendation of denial are related to the number of residential units proposed, the road layout, the amount of usable open space, and the Applicant is no longer requesting a Planned Unit Development. Annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district; Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 residential building lots and 10 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district; Private Streets throughout the development; Alternative Compliance to connect a private street directly to an arterial street. The proposed uses are all single-family residential but in multiple forms: attached townhomes (triplex), attached duplexes, and detached 4 single-family homes as well. The project is proposed with a gross density of 4.94 du/ac and a net density of 9.82 du/ac, lower than the previous proposal. The Applicant is proposing to construct private streets that are 24’ wide with 5’ attached sidewalk on at least one side of the street throughout the project. At the north end of the main street within the development (labeled as Compass Lane on the landscape plans) the Applicant is proposing an emergency only access to Victory Road. This access is required if more than 30 homes are to be constructed. The proposed access for this development is to S. Locust Grove and lines up with E. Coastline St. on the east side of Locust Grove, the access into Tradewinds and the future Teakwood sub. The access point into the development does not meet ACHD district policy but they are modifying their policy to accommodate access into the development because this is the best place for an access to a residential development on this site (furthest access point available away from the Locust Grove/Victory intersection). This is largely because of the site constraints that exist for this parcel. The site is a triangle shape, bordered on two sides by arterial streets and on one side by the Ten Mile Creek, there is no opportunity for road connectivity to any adjacent site and so ACHD prefers private streets within the development. City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a mew or gated development and this Applicant has proposed a gate meeting these code requirements. Staff recommended removing the parking spaces before the gate to ensure there is an area for vehicles to turn around should they enter this street on accident. The Applicant has shown this revision with the revised plans. The proposed private streets are not wide enough to accommodate any on-street parking and the Applicant is proposing to construct some extra off-street parking along the main street as seen on the proposed plat. There are no multi-use pathways proposed or required for the development. However, the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide pathway on this side of the creek and behind the proposed homes. This pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project and thru the common open space lot located midblock on the west side of the site. This pathway also continues north and connects to the required sidewalk along Victory Road. In addition, Staff recommended an additional pedestrian connection to the sidewalks along Locust Grove From the revised street layout. The Applicant has submitted revised plans showing compliance with this recommendation as well. There is no existing sidewalk along Victory Road or Locust Grove; both arterial streets are scheduled to be widened as part of the roundabout project at this intersection in 2021-22, according to ACHD. With the roundabout project, the Applicant is required to dedicate additional ROW for the intersection and the future widening of Victory and Locust Grove adjacent to the site. ACHD is requiring the Applicant enter into a road trust for the arterial sidewalk improvements adjacent to the site as they will be constructed by ACHD with the roundabout and widening projects. A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting UDC standards is required. According to the property size of 7.69 acres, the Applicant should supply at least 0.77 acres of qualified open space, or approximately 33,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3.91 acres of open space, of which 3.4 acres is shown as qualifying open space on the submitted open space exhibit, vastly more than the minimum requirement. However, some of the area listed as qualifying open space by the Applicant does not meet UDC standards due to their size not being at least 5,000 square feet or being near the dimensions of 50’ x 100’. Once this area is removed, the qualified open space proposed is 2.97 acres. More importantly, the open space for this development is largely made up of the Tenmile Creek easement (2.12 acres) and the arterial street buffers (19,158 square feet of qualifying area). All of this area is qualifying but the Tenmile Creek will be left natural and will be a buffer and more of a visual amenity than usable open space for the development. Abutting the creek and generally mid-block, the Applicant is proposing an open space lot that is approximately 5,700 square feet. This open space lot contains one set of the amenities and a micro-path that connects the private street to the pathway along the creek. This open space lot and micro-path offers a clear connection to the attached sidewalks throughout the development and an additional open space area centrally located within the development. This 5,700 s.f. open space lot is the most active and usable open space lot within the development. In general, the Applicant has increased the usable open space areas throughout the site following the Commission’s recommendation of denial and comments. With the reduction in unit count and additional centralized open space, Staff finds the proposed open space not only in excess of code requirements but also an improvement from previous layouts. The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the proposed attached single-family homes, both the duplexes and the triplexes. The submitted elevations show all two-story attached structures with two-car garages and finishing materials of wood and stone. In addition, the elevations show modern architecture designs with shed roofs, second story patios with glass railings, and stone accents that go the full height of the proposed homes. However, attached single-family homes require design review approval prior to building permit submittal and at that point, Staff will ensure compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual. Since the previous meeting, the Applicant has provided conceptual elevations of the proposed units offering different designs and color combinations. Written Testimony: 41 pieces of written testimony were submitted for the project the first time thru – The main concerns regard the proposed density in comparison to adjacent subdivisions, amount of open space, school over-crowding, and the traffic issues already existing in this area. Neighborhood has issues with proposed access to Locust Grove and there only being one access for the development. No public testimony has been submitted for the remand. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the subject applications with the conditions and DA provisions noted in the staff report. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H- 2020-0100, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 18, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2020- 0100, as presented during the hearing on February 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0100 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) FLUM FLUMPLANNED DEV. Item 4. 91 E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from February 4, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H- 2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Item 4. F92 (:�N-VE IDIAN:-- IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: February 18, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from February 4, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020- 0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing i 1 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET a DATE: February 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify 3 { YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 4. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 2/18/2021 Legend DATE: ��Proect Location s TO: Planning&Zoning Commission II�� i FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0113 Foxcroft Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located directly west of Ten ; '�. Mile Road, on both sides of the proposed ; Pine Avenue extension, and east of the ' SR Tenmile Creek, in the E '/2 of Section 10, �® Township 3N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lot on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district; and • Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district,by Gem State Planning,LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 35.7 acres(R-15— 12.74 acres;R-8—23 acres) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential&Mixed Use Community Existing Land Use(s) County residential and farm land;vacant R-15 zoning Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-Family Residential and detached single-family residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 116 total lots—9 multi-family residential;76 single-family lots;and 31 common lot. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as three(3)phases Number of Residential Units(type 292 total units—76 single family;216 apartment units of units) Density(gross&net) Gross(overall)—8.17 du/ac.;Net—18.3 du/ac. Gross per area:NW Block—3.35 du/ac.;SW Block— 3.28 du/ac.;NE Block(apartments)—16.95 du/ac. Page 1 Item 4. F94] Description Details Page Open Space(acres,total 6.88 acres of qualified open space OVERALL [%]/buffer/qualified) (approximately 19.2%)—5.31 acres for 11-3G requirements(approximately 15%); 1.57 acres(69,123 square feet)proposed for 11-4-3-27(Multi-Family) standards. 18,360 square feet of private open space is proposed (approximately 85 square feet per unit)to meet specific use standards. Amenities 7 qualifying amenities— 10' multi-use pathway,pool, clubhouse,picnic areas,tot-lot,fitness facilities,and a pedestrian/bicycle circulation system. Physical Features(waterways, Tenmile Creek abuts the property along the entire western hazards,flood plain,hillside) boundary; some floodplain exists on site due to creek. Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 14,2020— 13 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) R-15 portion of property—Ellensburg Subdivision,AZ-05- 051;PP-05-052;CUP-05-047.CUP and plat have long expired but zoning ordinance was approved. 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 connections to the extension of W. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Pine Avenue west from N. Ten Mile Road(arterial).Pine Proposed) will be extended by this Applicant and the adjacent Applicant on the south side of Pine from the intersection of Pine&Ten Mile west to the eastern boundary of the southern portion of this site.Access is proposed as 3 public street connections for the SF portion of the site and 2 driveway accesses for the multi-family site. Traffic Level of Service Ten Mile Road—Better than"E"(1.474/1,540 VPH) Pine Avenue(existing section only)—Better than"D" (182/425 VPH) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No public stub street connections are proposed.Applicant is Access allowing adjacent property to southeast to connect one of their private drives to a proposed public street connection on the south side of Pine Avenue.Applicant is also allowing an emergency only access near the southeast corner of the site for the benefit of this project and the adjacent project. Existing Road Network No(Pine Avenue exists on the west side of the Tenmile Creek) Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Existing sidewalk along Ten Mile but no buffer. Buffers Proposed Road Improvements The Applicant,in conjunction with the Applicant of the property to the southeast,is proposing to extend Pine Avenue west from the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile to the Ten Mile Creek.This Applicant is responsible for the construction of Pine that this property abuts(approximately Page 2 Item 4. F95 Description Details Page 1,650 feet)and construction of the vehicular bridge over the Tenmile Creek along the western property boundary. 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 Approx. 1 mile 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 85%. • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(multi-family and waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Proposed phasing plan shall be adhered to;any changes in the phasing shall be approved by the Fire Department. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4.5-minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 12/1/2019- 11/30/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,209 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. The crime count on the calls for service was 111. See attached documents for details. Between 12/1/2019- 11/30/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 35 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) 0.1 miles to Chaparral Elementary 2.4 miles to Meridian Middle School 1.0 mile to Meridian High School • Capacity of Schools Chaparral Elementary—700 students Meridian Middle School—1,250 students Meridian High School—2,075 students • #of Students Enrolled Chaparral Elementary—423 students Meridian Middle School—1,022 students Meridian High School— 1,852 students Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services NA • Sewer Shed ` South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.02 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 16,555 gpd of flow committed to model. •Per minimum city requirements,all sewer mainlines and manholes outside of a paved roadway shall have at a minimum,a 14-ft wide compacted grave access roadway centered over the mainline. This condition can also be satisfied with a 14-foot wide paved surface.The pathway shown over the existing sewer along the north properties is Page 3 Item 4. F96 Description Details Page subject to this requirement,as well as manholes SSMH A2, SSMH A3,and SSMH A5. •Please redesign the sanitary sewer routing to eliminate the sewer mainline passing through the common driveway labeled as Lot 20,NW Block 1. Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Applicant shall be required to construct 12-inch water main in W.Pine Avenue to comply with"to-and-through" requirements.This new mainline shall connect to existing water mains at the west and east ends. •The water main in N.White Leaf Way near SSMH G5 needs to connect to the proposed water main to the east(Mile High Pines Sub). •The water main in W. Sugar Pine Ct.that currently dead- ends needs to connect to the proposed water main to the east (Mile High Pines Sub)in N. Side Creek Lane. Currently this dead-end does not meet fire flow pressure requirements. •There are a few water mains in the multi-family area that may have an opportunity to be eliminated. See Exhibit Section VII(L)Water Markup for Areas of Possible Water Main Elimination. COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 3,801 Jobs w/in 1 mile 1,454 • Ratio 0.38—Indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio) Farmland Consumed? Yes Nearest Bus Stop 0.8 miles Nearest Public School 0.1 miles Nearest Public Park 0.1 miles Nearest Grocery Store 0.5 miles Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Page 4 m 1 1 1 ■ rll�ll nln i • . - . . .HER'RY'ts" �� _ � (�• . - . . ;;RR�Y ...: ... m - • - ■ ��■■ ��i■■ ■ W All :nnunnn nn u iiii- � 1 q h�1•nm�hi■iJhJ� -nunnm nnn 0.nm�-nu■■■.nn nnn n u■ A F•I � ■i nw nnn nnn ��.,- ■■::r� •i'.■�'.'.��:III c-SSdrZS• -._�. 1 •�no�■� �E'• LU ....-1%L■IIII■1■�11111:IIId7i P IN E- •••,, P IN E ■III um �liiiii'--3==-= nm � T�.`- i�:mmiwunl►� R\�ll::11 ll�11111111111111 IIYIIII, i o - • Id" FRANKLIN ` FRANKL-IN I - IIIIIIIIIIIIIn11a6d6, — 1 nIW1YY - =Lau n;••snnnll==nn loll - � R'Y .pn...n , .. 'nnu 1 .IH :u ;■m ♦ n■■■nl u ;■m ♦ 6•■■u n■ 1 p •Illnrl Dunn nn�nn ■�IIIUW Dunn...ii.. ■■.L 1 n 1. n r m_I u.nnnn n■ . f :m: ....uuun n. ■■.. -�: In■■?Mn y •o � nu.nn■1■O■11 •o-■ -" nu■numonsoons n. �� ♦ ■■ y•r -: lnunnn mn • -■ •• - ■ :nnunnn nu. ■ �1 • ..ulmmn nnn • - •nl.omn unn ■■■ h wnm��1 nm�h1� ICI m • q1 .mi:■nnnuu■nnn il.ni:nunnnn nnn ■■ n ann m■■■■Inn �.... a••1 a n.n m.■■■Inn n���.�'•• .a► �::.-::■guano n..•� . ■ �.m �::.-:i■guano . ..-=ter :::1�1�'" . ■-.-. .- ■h. _ _==a__ •J - N:�.1�6n - nl■.■ _ � 1�■I nln■ : ': •■ ■:-::III � .it IFI mn■ :::'- ■ ■'-::III QI tr �Vmm�I�_-. IIII � mn■ ■.:�:-�Il..0 nm.A:-un: � � S ,,�. ■::�:_I ll..0 nm.d:-u1.: �e ► `� - _ ■. :mm�n u1 s+ � �• n■.. ■■ :,ninon anon■■ 1_ ♦ nl.� •° � �LI�J .�■S■._■ un: nnlnn numni:�2i_ r �ji��_-� �'•___■: .■. ....: 011llll■�I 1; :.t, f -.:u minuir ' -- 4, �_, �'.-'--- - ■Ill ..—.II...LL111 IIII 11111111•.,•. ® - �N.=• �.■—..I...Lull, ..,In 1111111 ,..; J����Cl_` �--p IN EirL un �J = �::°►I:a"s ^ ■ uni �liiiii€�.-■:_:9 mu �:`.. t' W m u I �nnn= _■---u.ui�nl ''. ��• a••1 .innmuu nlll @-`j.11.111.111 • 'ni�+`�'L� I IIn\VII::II�IIIILInlllI1111111111�_, -'E\ �� i IILN�•f ■nm\Vnc:mtun.nuunnnnnn� -- 111111 11111111111111111�I11..16. — . ;•,unmet i • _ Item 4. 98 C. Representative: Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning—9840 W. Overland Road, Ste. 120,Boise, ID 83709 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1/15/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 1/12/2021 Site Posting 2/3/2021 Nextdoor posting 1/12/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridianciu.or /g compplan) The subject project area contains two future land use designations,Mixed-use Community(MU- C)and Medium Density Residential(MDR),with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, 12.1 acres and 23.6 acres,respectively. 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. Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject project is located west of Ten Mile Road near the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile and its western border is the Tenmile Creek. The project has existing City of Meridian zoning and development to the west and north of the property consisting of R-8 zoning and detached single- family homes and R-4 zoning containing Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. South of the southern section of the project is the railroad easement for the historic Oregon Short Line RR; south of the railroad tracks is a 15-acre self-storage facility. Directly to the east/southeast of this project is a project that recently received approval by City Council for a mixed-use development consisting of 135 multi family units and three commercial pad sites. Across Ten Mile Road is existing commercial zoning and uses as well as a Church use. The project to the south/southeast has the MU-C designation which is also on a portion of the southern section of the subject project. The majority of the subject project contains the MDR designation. Future land use designations are not parcel specific and therefore, when a project contains more than one designation the Applicant has the opportunity to float the designations and propose a project that may fit with both or only one of the designations. In this case, the Applicant has not chosen to include any commercial uses with the subject project and instead has proposed a project that is entirely residential, corresponding with the MDR designation. The Applicant is proposing detached and attached single-family residential and multi family Page 6 Item 4. 99 1 residential which are also recommended uses within the MDR. Despite intentionally not proposing a project consistent with the MU-C designation, the Applicant understands some integration of uses and incorporating adequate transitions between uses is still important. Thus, this Applicant and that of the project to the east have worked together to allow cross-access between the projects located on the south side of the Pine Avenue extension so both vehicles and pedestrians of this project can have easier access to the commercial approved on the west side of Ten Mile. Commission and Council should determine if this sole connection is enough integration. Other than integration, the density of the project also comes into play when discussing the future land use designations. MDR allows projects with densities in the range of 3-8 du/ac and overall, this project is proposed with a gross density of 8.17 du/ac which is rounded down to 8. The MU- C designation allows gross densities of 6-15 du/ac but Staff finds this range to be generally nonapplicable because the Applicant is largely not proposing a mixed-use project; in short, it would not be appropriate to allow an overall higher density based in a future land use designation that is otherwise not apart of the project in any other aspect.A potential issue arises when the density is broken out into the segments of the plat that happen to coincide with the proposed phasing plan—the southwest block, the northwest block, and the northeast block, according to the Applicant. The Applicant breaks the density of the project down into these three areas on the submitted preliminary plat. The single-family portion of the project is proposed with a gross density just above 3 du/ac with the apartments being proposed at a gross density of 16.95 du/ac. The same difference in the numbers is also revealed when looking at the number of units proposed within the requested zones; 216 multi family units on 12.7 acres versus 76 single-family units on approximately 23 acres. If the Applicant was only requesting approval of the apartments, the proposed density would not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the only reason it is compliant now is because of the single-family portion of the project. Despite this fact, Staff agrees that apartments make sense on the R-15 piece abutting a collector street, adjacent to a school, and across from a mixed-use development to the south and more commercial to the east across Ten Mile. However, Staff does have concerns on how the apartments transition to other development and the impact that the proposed number of units will have on the transportation system in this area. To help in these regards Staff is recommending the Applicant lose some apartment units in the form of reducing some of the buildings to two-story structures instead of three. Specifically, Staff recommends that buildings on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 9, NE Block I (as shown on the submitted plat) within the multi family portion of the site be no more than two stories. This would help with the transition of multi-story structures abutting the backs of single-family homes to the west and to the north (Moshers Farm Subdivision) and reduce the number of units by approximately 32 units. Reducing the number of apartment units by 32 would revise the total number to 184 units and change the density of the apartments to approximately 14.4 du/ac which would fall within the allowed range of the MU-C designation. Again, this designation is generally not being analyzed by Staff but because part of the project does contain it and the adjacent project south of the proposed apartments also has the MU-C designation, Stafffinds it appropriate for the higher density portion of the site to not exceed the allowed density within the MU-C because it makes for a more cohesive density between the proposed apartments and all adjacent development, both existing and approved. 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 owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council Page 7 Item 4. ■ and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. The Applicant's submitted Annexation and Zoning exhibit does not appear to match the parcel lines shown on the submitted plat in the very southwest corner of the site. The COGO provided by the City's GIS department shows this in the clearest way: x 5LiiQ417�2�a ; 1�f04f7 1 Sf21041.7919 51s21041 Si�il141•l 4a s• r 1 r As seen by this blue area,the red line of the submitted Annexation and Zoning Boundary missed this small area. The aims to minimize leaving small slivers of county land whenever possible. So, prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant should provide revised legal descriptions and exhibits to include this small sliver of land. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridianciU.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"(2.01.01G).Foxcroft Subdivision proposes multiple different types of housing within the project to include single-family attached(duplexes), alley- loaded single-family homes, as well as traditional detached single-family and garden style, walk- up apartments. Staff finds the proposed housing diversity would offer new types of housing for this immediate area. "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 some transitional densities and pedestrian facilities within open space to act as buffers between the subject parcels and existing development.As noted above, Staff does have concern between the transition of the apartments to the detached single- family homes abutting the project to the northeast. The project also abuts the Tenmile Creek on its entire western boundary which is a natural buffer between this subdivision and those to the west. Within the site the Applicant is proposing alley-loaded units abutting Pine Avenue on the south and duplexes on the north side of Pine Avenue abutting the apartments. Both of these choices offer a good transition from a busy collector street to the more traditional detached single-family homes. In addition, Stafffinds placing attached units next to the apartments in order to transition from a higher density to the existing Creekstone and Castlebrook Subdivisions to the west is appropriate. Page 8 Item 4. 101 1 "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing network abutting the site to the east and to the west within the existing section of Pine Avenue,per Public Works comments. The Applicant will be extending Pine from Ten Mile Road all the way to the west and constructing a bridge over Tenmile Creek to complete this segment of Pine. Subsequently, all public utilities will also be extended at the Applicant's expense in order to connect to the existing services within the right-of-way. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal. West Ada School District has offered comments on this project estimates 73 additional school aged children in this development. Chaparral Elementary abuts the subject site directly to the north and the Applicant is extending the multi-use pathway network to incorporate pedestrian connection to Chaparral. 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, especially with Staffs recommended revisions. "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) because of the preservation of the Tenmile Creek. This creek is one of the natural waterways specifically noted within the UDC that should be left natural and unimproved in order to provide for conservation of historic waterways. Other than the creek, the Applicant is proposing open space areas that exceed the minimum 50'x 100'dimensional standards that should allow for usable open space in all areas of the proposed project. The Applicant is also proposing multi-use pathways along the creek and adjacent to Chaparral Elementary and Fuller Park which provides more usable open space and additional pedestrian connections in this area of the City that is currently lacking in connections to Ten Mile Road. "Coordinate with developers, irrigation districts,and drainage entities to implement the proposed pathway network along canals, ditches,creeks,laterals and sloughs." (3.08.02B). The Applicant is proposing a large extension of the multi-use pathway network with this development adjacent to the Tenmile Creek. The Applicant has coordinated with the irrigation district to ensure adequate access for maintenance as well as allowed landscaping. In addition, the Applicant is proposing segments of the multi-use pathway along the north boundary to be wider than the 10'requirement to accommodate adequate access for public utility maintenance. This also offers additional room for pedestrians and cyclists to travels safely from the east and west of the site to Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together and to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system." (6.01.01H).As discussed above, the proposed development is constructing large segments of the regional pathway system which helps connect multiple areas of the City to Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. In addition, there are proposed connections to the required detached sidewalks along the Pine Avenue extension.All of the proposed pedestrian improvements would improve the access and safety for pedestrians and cyclists in this area of the City. "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.03B).Pine Avenue is a collector street east of Ten Mile Road and west of the adjacent Tenmile Creek but the segment of Pine that bisects the property is only a dirt-road,private access at this time. With the development of these parcels and the recently approved project to the southeast, Pine Avenue will be constructed as a collector street as noted on the MSM. This will make a much needed connection for the overall transportation network of Meridian and especially within the immediate area of the development. Page 9 Item 4. 102 Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject development consists of 7 parcels and on three of them are existing homes that are proposed to remain. Access to all of the existing homes is currently via Pine,a private street that connects to Ten Mile Road but is required to be constructed as a public collector street with this development.No other site improvements are currently known. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The Applicant is proposing multiple types of residential uses within this development—detached single-family, attached single-family,alley loaded single-family, and multi-family residential. Multi-family residential is a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. All other proposed residential uses are principally permitted uses in the R-8 zoning district. Multi-family developments require Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)and Design Review so Staff will have additional opportunities to review this portion of the site. The Applicant has provided a phasing plan notating the project is to be constructed in three phases with the single-family south of Pine being first,the single-family area north of Pine second, and lastly the multi-family development in the third phase. The Applicant is required to and has proposed to construct a vehicle bridge over Tenmile Creek and extend Pine Avenue from Ten Mile Road over the creek with the first phase of development. The proposed residential uses and how they are laid out provide for a transition from Ten Mile Road to the existing detached single-family subdivisions on the west side of Tenmile Creek despite not including the 16 acres abutting the development to the east(a different owner that has received approval for a multi family development). Abutting the creek, the Applicant is showing traditional detached homes that front on a north-south local street that connects to Pine Avenue. East of this local street, and on the south side of Pine, the site transitions to alley loaded homes that front on Pine. South of the alley loaded units are two of the three existing homes that are to remain and they are proposed to take access from the new local streets proposed within the development. These homes abut the developments eastern boundary along a long segment but are somewhat removed from the boundary by the existing yards. The Applicant has provided an exhibit showing how this are of the plat can redevelop in the future should those existing owners relocate or choose to redevelop. Stafffinds it appropriate to incorporate this exhibit into the Development Agreement because it shows a logical extension of the single-family development within the project for future development. East of the local street on the north side of Pine the site transitions to single-family attached homes inform of duplexes. These homes abut the proposed apartment complex within the existing R-1 S zoning district. According to the Applicant, these homes are proposed as single-story structures which is a major factor in Staff's recommendation to limit the centrally abutting apartment building(Lot 9, NE Block 1) to a two-story structure to offer a better transition within this area of the project. The apartments are proposed with five buildings along the northern boundary abutting Chaparral Elementary and an existing subdivision.As noted, Staff believes the three buildings adjacent to the existing subdivision should also be limited to two-story structures to offer a more appropriate transition regardless of the approximate 80 foot buffer between the apartment buildings and the back of the single-family lots. Staff finds the centrally located clubhouse and open space for the multi family units to depict good site design and should offer adequate opportunity for use by everyone within the multi family development. Page 10 Item 4. F103 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. 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.According to the revised open space exhibit, the apartments are proposed with approximately 85 square feet of private open space in the form of private patios and decks for each unit, commensurate with traditional garden style apartment buildings. 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: Page 11 Item 4. ■ 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. 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 V.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. 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. The multi family portion of the project is proposed to be developed in one (1)phase. However, all pathways and required landscape buffers to Ten Mile Road and Pine Avenue will be required to be constructed with the first overall phase of development. 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: Page 12 Item 4. Fo5l 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. 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 216 proposed units or the reduced amount of 184 units recommended by Staff, 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. It is not entirely clear what amenities are proposed only for the multi family portion of the development. Therefore, the following amenities are what are known by Staff to be proposed from the quality of life, open space, and recreation categories:a clubhouse, a swimming pool, pedestrian and bicycle paths, a segment of multi-use pathway, and open space that is at least 5,000 square feet. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing S qualifying site amenities to meet the multi family standards. Staff is not in full support that the proposed 5 amenities can adequately serve nearly 200 apartment units.At the Commission hearing, the Applicant should clarify Page 13 Item 4. 106 what other amenities are proposed for the multi family portion of the development to ensure compliance with code. 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 submitted landscape plan appears to meet these specific use standard landscape requirements and shall be further verified at the time of CZC submittal(see Exhibit VII.D). F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed building lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards except for Lots 3-8,of SW Block 2 (some of the alley loaded lots),per the submitted plat;these lots do not meet the minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. The Applicant is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the requested zone so the noted lots must be enlarged to meet the minimum lot size requirement. To do this, the Applicant will likely have to reduce the open space lot directly south of these lots and push the alley further south. Note: The alley that is shown on the plat does not meet ACHD policies for an alley. Therefore, this alley must instead be constructed as a minor urban local street which is a minimum of 24 feet wide with curb and gutter and no parking is allowed on either side. Staff is recommending a condition of approval in line with ACHD's condition to ensure this street segment is revised. In addition,all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). The Applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac that is over the permitted 500 foot length and therefore must be approved by City Council,per the UDC standards. The submitted preliminary plat depicts this cul-de-sac to be approximately 710 feet in length and ends in a cul-de-sac that has an emergency access to the adjacent Mile High Pines subdivision directly to the east. This Applicant needs the emergency access in order to maintain Fire Department approval. The adjacent subdivision was recently approved with maintaining this access but Commission and Council should determine if the overall site design of this southern section of the site is sufficient for 26 homes to take access from when developing around existing structures. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed local street connections to the W. Pine Avenue extension for the single-family portions of the development;the multi-family development is proposed with two driveway access points to Pine Avenue that line up proposed accesses on the south side of Pine (one within this development and one within the Mile High Pines project on the south side of Pine). There is no access to N. Ten Mile Road except through the collector street,Pine Avenue. Because of the Tenmile Creek and other easements along the boundaries there are no other stub streets that exist to this development. Subsequently,the Applicant is not proposing any stub streets to adjacent subdivisions. The proposed public streets and driveway access points have been approved by ACHD despite the easternmost driveway not meeting district policy. ACHD has recommended a Page 14 Item 4. F107 25%modification to their standards to allow this access so that it aligns with the one approved for Mile High Pines to the south and to allow overall traffic circulation in the multi-family development. As noted,the Applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac over the permitted length. Please see previous section for analysis and requirements on this issue. 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.K).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 approved project to the southeast 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.0). In addition,ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension and road improvements can occur. 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. At a minimum, this Applicant will construct Pine Avenue west of the Pine/Ten Mile intersection as % of a 36 foot collector street section with vertical curb,gutter, and detached sidewalk on the north side. This half street section is proposed and has been approved by ACHD for approximately 890 feet into the site from Ten Mile because the Mile High Pines development will construct the southern half the street section abutting their site. West of this line, this Applicant is required to construct Pine as the full collector street section to the west boundary and construct the vehicle bridge over Tenmile Creek.In addition, the Applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the required signal improvements at the Pine/Ten Mile intersection. 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 and multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The single-family portion of the site must comply with these standards and will be confirmed at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant has provided data regarding the multi family portion of the site to show compliance with the parking requirements. Based on the number of bedrooms, the minimum parking required for the multi family development is 415 spaces; according to the submitted preliminary plat, 429 parking spaces are proposed. This amount exceeds the minimum requirements by only 14 spaces. Pine Avenue will be a collector street which does not allow on- street parking so there are only 14 extra spaces for guests to park within the apartment complex. Staff has major concerns regarding the proposed parking which is an additional reason why reducing the number of units as previously discussed is recommended. By losing 32 units, the parking requirement will be reduced by 48 spaces if they are all one-bedroom units and will be reduced by 64 spaces if they are all two-bedroom units. Staff recommends a reduction in apartment units but not a significant reduction in parking spaces. Following the reduction in Page 15 Item 4. Flo] units, some of the parking could be removed in order to move Lot 11 or Lot 9 away from the single-family homes to the west;some parking could also be removed to increase the amount of open space within the apartment complex. Staff recommends that no more than 20 of the excess spaces are removed to accommodate the above options. 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 western, northern,and southern boundaries. The Applicant's submitted plans show compliance with this requirement in line with the Master Pathways Plan(MPP). The Applicant will continue the new segment of pathway from Mile High Pines to the east along the southern boundary and abutting the railroad easement. This section of multi-use pathway will then connect to a segment along the east side of the Tenmile Creek that will be shared with the irrigation access road.Approximately 425 feet north of the southern boundary, the pathway turns west and crosses the creek at an existing culvert to end up behind the Chesterfield Subdivision. This juncture of the pathway also turns east to become a micro path and connects to the attached sidewalk along the internal local street.Along the creek the pathway continues north to Pine Avenue and will connect to the sidewalks along the collector street and allow for access to the existing multi-use pathway on the north side of Pine that continues further north to Fuller Park and the Castlebrook Subdivision. Per the MPP, the Applicant is also proposing to construct another large segment of multi-use pathway along the northern boundary that starts at Ten Mile Road and continues all the way to the western boundary with a new pathway connection to Fuller Park from this development. This new connection will allow residents of this development, the future Mile High Pines residents, and those of existing developments to the west to use the sidewalks and this new pathway segments to access Fuller Park further east than what is currently existing within Castlebrook Sub. In addition to the required multi-use pathways, the Applicant is proposing a micro path between the apartment complex and the northwest block of single family homes that connects the detached sidewalks along Pine to the multi-use pathway along the norther boundary. This is yet another pedestrian and bicycle connection to increase the pedestrian circulation in this area. Despite all of the proposed pathways within the development, there is one additional connection that could tie together even more paths and add a quicker way for children to walk to Chaparral Elementary, if it can be done. Staff believes adding a new micro path connection to the open space and pathway within Moshers Subdivision to the northeast would be a great benefit to this development and the recently approved Mile High Pines.Adding a new connection to the school is not preferred by either the school district or Police because it creates another access point to monitor for safety reasons. Mosher Subdivision already has a dedicated micro path connection to Chaparral so if this Applicant can work with the Mosher HOA and tie into their existing network, the overall pedestrian access to the school will be increased. Overall, this Applicant is proposing to construct approximately 4,500 linear feet(approximately 0.85 miles) of pathways with this development, which does not include the detached sidewalks along Fine Avenue. This is an abnormally high number for one project to construct so Staff is appreciative of the proposed pathways that are required and not required. Staff is in full support of the proposed pathway plan for the subject development. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal private streets and 5-foot detached sidewalks are proposed along Pine Avenue, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Page 16 Item 4. ■ The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the project including to and from the multi-use pathway segments surrounding the development. All open space areas also appear to be directly adjacent to sidewalks which add to the accessibility of these areas. Staff supports the sidewalk and pedestrian circulation plan for this development. See Exhibit VII.E. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W. Pine Avenue, a collector street,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. At least a 20-foot wide common lot is depicted along both sides of Pine Avenue and the submitted landscape plans appear to show landscaping in excess of code requirements. There is also a 25-foot wide landscape buffer required adjacent to the small area of the site that abuts N. Ten Mile Road, an arterial roadway; the submitted plat and landscape plans also show 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 included in the Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans, sheet LA. The correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted plans.However, the required 5 feet of landscaping and trees on both sides of the pathways is not shown at any point throughout the site. Staff understands the pathways are encumbered by the Tenmile Creek to some degree. Therefore, at a minimum, the Applicant should apply for Alternative Compliance at the time of Final Plat submittal to show an adequate alternative to the required landscaping on both sides of the multi-use pathways. Prior to the City Council hearing though, the Applicant should revise relevant plans to reduce the depth of the lots along the southern boundary to include the required landscaping on both sides of the pathway in this segment. In addition, the segment that runs along the east side of the creek should widen the landscape area adjacent to the pathway to at least 5 feet;the submitted landscape plans show only a 3-foot wide area of landscaping. The lots adjacent to this segment can accommodate a loss of at least 2 feet in lot depth to include 5 feet of landscaping on at least one side of the pathway. The segment of multi-use pathway along the north boundary and proposed apartments is also encumbered by irrigation and sewer easements as well as the required dimensional standards for drive aisles and parking spaces. Because of this, the Applicant has proposed trees and landscaping on the buildable lots abutting the pathway that exceed UDC minimums.Staff agrees with this decision but this alternative should also be included in the alternative compliance request required at the time of final plat submittal. For the segment of pathway along the north boundary but behind the single-family lots, no landscaping is shown beyond grasses. This does not meet code and at a minimum, these lots should be reduced to accommodate at least 5 feet of landscaping(including trees) between the pathway and the buildable lots.As discussed previously, the lack of trees on the drain side of the pathway should be part of the required alternative compliance request. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is included in the Landscape Calculations table and meets UDC requirements. Page 17 Item 4. 1 10 L. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): As discussed previously,the open space standards for both the standard 11-3G-3 and the multi- family specific use standards are analyzed in this section. A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the overall development, including the multi-family portion of the project. Based on the proposed plat of 35.72 acres,a minimum of 3.57 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy the requirements of 11-3G-3. In addition,because there 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. The minimum amount of open space required to satisfy the specific use standards is 1.24 acres of common open space. Combined,the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 4.81 acres. The Applicant's revised open space exhibit shows a total of 6.9 acres of qualifying open space.5.31 acres meet the 11-3G-3 standards (approximately 14.9%) and the remaining 1.59 acres meet the common open space requirements in the multi-family development specific use standards(see Exhibit VII.C).The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers,the Tenmile Creek,and other open space areas throughout the site. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. The 1.59 acres of common open space proposed to meet the specific use standards for multi- family development consist of the clubhouse/pool with some adjacent open space,two areas that are at least 5,000 square feet, and other smaller areas of open space that meet the minimum 20' x 20' multi-family open space dimensional standards. The open space proposed to meet the specific use standards also exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. As noted above, the common open space provided with this development exceeds the minimum amounts required by code. Despite proximity and ease of access to Fuller Parkfor this development, the Applicant proposed open space in excess of UDC standards. In addition, the Applicant is not counting a majority of the multi-use pathways as open space because they know they cannot accommodate the required landscaping adjacent to them. Staff appreciates the amount of open space proposed and even though it is not centrally located, Staff believes there is adequate open space within Fuller Park to engage in larger activities. In addition, the Applicant is proposing private open space for the multi family development that complies with code requirements. Staff appreciates all of the pedestrian pathways throughout the site; these pathways and sidewalks 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(35.7 acres),a minimum of two (2) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The applicant proposes three(3)qualifying amenities to satisfy the requirements in this section of the UDC; 10-foot multi-use pathway segments, children's play structure, and a gazebo. All other site amenities(analyzed in an above section) satisfy the multi-family specific use standard amenity requirements. Page 18 Item 4. F-1111 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 submitted landscape plans and appears to meet UDC requirements. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual renderings and elevations only for the apartment buildings. Attached single-family homes and multi-family structures require Administrative Design Review(DES)approval prior to building permit submittal. The submitted multi family elevations show traditional, walk-up garden style apartment buildings. The buildings appear to have at least three field materials of stucco, lap siding, and stone and incorporate adequate roofplane variation along the roofline. The buildings all share the identical color palette which does create a singular identity. The ASM notes that no two multi family buildings should look the same.At the time of DES submittal for these structures, the Applicant should create more differentiation between the units to ensure compliance with the ASM. This could occur by adding variation in the amount of accent materials and/or accent colors. Staff will ensure compliance with the ASM at the time of design review submittal for both the multi family units and the attached single-family dwellings. 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. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 19 Item 4. F112 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps Description for R-8 ZONE Foxcroft Subdivision November 19,2020 A parcel of land located in the Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4 and the North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 10 from which the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 10 bears, North 89°36'02"West,2655.68 feet;thence on the East-West centerline of said Section 10, North 89136'02"West,939.50 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said centerline, South 06°07'28"West,415.20 feet; thence South 42152'02"East,798.04 feet to the centerline of the Oregon Short Line Railroad; thence on said centerline, North 88°51'42"West,703.34 feet; thence leaving said centerline, North 33°15'25"West,241.17 feet; thence North 48°32'21"West, 101.97 feet; thence North 43°57'49"West, 144.27 feet; thence North 88°52'12"West,50.71 feet to the Easterly boundary line of Chesterfield Subdivision No.4 as filed in Book 112 of Plats at Pages 16216 through 16218, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence on said Easterly boundary line the following seven(7)courses and distances: North 45°26'50"West, 1.76 feet; North 39°43'48"West,89.05 feet; North 39°20'28"West, 100.02 feet; North 25°23'24"West, 125.16 feet; North 19'21'27"West,94.89 feet; �- •µ... s 11779 Page i of 2 Page 20 Item 4. 113 4 ' North 22°44'42"West,83.44 feet; North 17'25'33"West, 198.22 feet to the East-West centerline of said Section 10; thence on said centerline,South 89136'02" East,39.48 feet to the Easterly boundary line of Ten Mile Creek as described in Easement Deed recorded on March 15, 1946 in Book 121 of Deeds at Page 23, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence on said Easterly boundary line the following three(3)courses and distances: North 17'27'31"West,530.79 feet; 120.85 feet along the arc of curve to the left having a radius of 176.00 feet, a central angle of 39°20'32"and a long chord which bears North 37'07'47" West, 118.49 feet; North 56°48'03"West, 118.30 feet to the North boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10; thence on said North boundary line,South 89'37'19" East,765.14 feet to the Northeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10; thence South 00°03'48"West, 663.57 feet to the Southeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10; thence on the East-West centerline of said Section 10,South 89'36'02" East, 388.34 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 24.567 acres,more or less. End of Description. ti OFPage 2 of 2Y;�` Page 21 Item 4. Fl 14 4 150 600 0 300 SCALE: 1" = 300' .] L C-S-NE 1/64 S89'37'19"E 765.14' S.10 <g - Ln Ki Z ( MOSHERS co FARM SUB 13 o o I W 0 I BASIS OF BEARING ........... •N89'36'02"W 2655.68..........................-589'36'02_"E 1/4 C 1/4 --- C-E 1/16 388.34' N 89'36'02"W 939.50' --- 5.10 N1T25'33"W S89'36'02"E S.10 --198.22 39.48' 1.3 OFABEG BEGINo NING NT S.1 D 5.11 R-8 ZONE Nf CO N22 4 83.44' ±24.567 ACRES f o I ti N19'21'27"W Z 94.89' N 25-23'24"W 125.16' N88'S2'12"W \� 1 N39'20'28"W 50.71' I S 100.02' S45'26'50"E 1.76' \ I N43'57'49"W �� %.o 144.27' \ p�pL LANp _ N88'51'42'W 703.34' \ 4�C ENS F i1G�G — I OREON SHORT LINE RAILROAD 11779 n N�'J�y��sZsPs rF of do per' LINE TABLE orM McCk LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N33'15'25"W 241.17 CURVE TABLE L2 N48'32'21"W 101.97 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BRIG. CHORD DIST. L3 N39'43'48"W 89.05 Cl 120,85 176.00 39'20'32" N37'07'47"W 118.49 L4 N56'48'03"W 118.30 .e too w Fnvc.ok a :5 P IDAHO EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR roB no. 19-133 9955 W.EMERALD ST. CITY OF MERIDIAN R-8 ZONE SHEET NO. SURVEY 8018 4"5HO 70 6 FOXCROFT SUBDIVISION 1 GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 AND THE N 1/2 OF THE SE DWG.DATE 1/4 OF SECTION$0,T.3N.,RAW.,B.M.,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 11/19/2020 Page 22 Item 4. 115 Description for R-15 Zone Ten Pine Park Subdivision October 27,2020 A parcel of land located in the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 10 from which the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 10 bears, North 89°36'02"West,2655.68 feet; thence on the East-West centerline of said Section 10, North 89°36'02"West, 1327.84 feet to the Southeast corner of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10; thence on the East boundary line of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10, North 00°03'48" East,654.55 feet to the centerline of the Ten Mile Drain; thence on said centerline the following seven(7)courses and distances: South 85'32'14" East, 126.24feet; South 65°24'02" East,49.70 feet; North 89°34'58" East,23.00 feet; South 66°39'02" East,357.40 feet; South 67°30'53"East,357.19 feet; South 66°01'35"East,448.10 feet; South 50°13'59"East,22.66 feet; thence leaving said centerline, North 89°59'52" East,48.00 feet to the East boundary line of said Section 10; thence on said East boundary line,South 0°00'08" East, 158.64 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 12.942 acres,more or less. End of Description. R-x1 fn Page 1 of 13 Page 23 Item 4. Fl 16 150 600 0 300 SCALE: 1" = 300' S85'32'14"E 126.24' S65'24'02"E - -- 49,70' T66 i 3S3g0,2E 1N89 ,40 S6). MOSHERS r 23.00''58"E 30S3 FARM SUB 23.00' 3S j� E' � w� S6B 07 3S�. I w R--15 ZONE o f ±12.942 ACRES ` 48�� z S50'13'59"E L1 22.66' REAL POINT N OF BEGINNING 1/4 C 1/4'' N89'36'02'W 1327.84' S.10 5.10 5.11 Z N89'36'02"W 2655.68'••""""• i w BASIS OF BEARING ~ I iz G � I � I OREON SHORT LINE RAILROAD ��5y\ONPGENS�eo sG�� C� 779 LINE TABLE 1 `p �7 7 9 LINE BEARING LENGTH �0 9TF `pQ = L1 N89'59'52"E 48.00 O OF o Y� McCAM� L2 SD'00'08"E 158.64 EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR mD Ho. I DAHO 19-133 SURVEY 9955W EMEMLDST. CITY OF MERIDIAN R-15 ZONE S EET ND. (M)86-8Hoe37oa TEN PINE PARK SUBDIVISION 1 GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION m OWG GATE T.3N.,R M,U.M..ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 10/27/2020 Page 24 Item 4. 117 s65°32'4"e sg�3go2h S a e sgs 3053 e 7 m h� m SBB a735B `9 10 G �C m GL m G aQ 1327.64 n89 36'02"w Ir h 1 ,k� 1p 10/27/2020 Scale: 1 inch= 171 feet File:Ten Pine Park Sub R-15 Zone.ndp Tract 1:12.9416 Acres,Closure:s62.4340e 0.01 ft.(11686231),Perimeter-3573 ft. 01 n89.3602w 1327.84 10 n89.5952e 48 02 nOD.0348e 654.55 11 s00.0008e 158.64 03 s85.3214e 126.24 04 s65.2402e 49.7 05 n89.3458e 23 06 s66.3902e 357.4 07 s67.3053e 357.19 08 s66.0135e 448.1 Page 25 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 11/11/2020) Fl 1-9 1 -13A3C3 AC>0-MJ-L -Lt-J3VqdO 'MOURQ901203 fall -J-'IV &-Z-A V, I VN I MMMC4 MM El nmR�Am mm, mm"m -mm MOI �55 AIA FIN I 1 9 R Im. M M'.MoM —iM 5 H MMM w M M m i0l� ol L I �p b .......... 6.1 Page 27 Item 4. F120] C. Open Space Exhibit(date: 11/11/2020) ONI '1N3Wd01313❑ h`J011Li1 _ a aa3iaxixxndixuiurini�rr3iiii� rd':i '� No I rl 1^108 n s ?121Yd 3NI6 N31 W I •aul JuuaaulPlr�Aap §xF^ .�- o "�� _F^ NOIS IhIO9fl5 1-=I0L10X0-=l 'W.4„o wm LLc7 `83y_�.... vw m `6w QMwaa w� m wLL w H O d 6 MK n 12 � m K mm eUiQ Ism � , �Rz �❑ �LL �a UZ OF UU UW Uw a 69- °wLL w N 6 w o U U w u 'i� r oo_ a ao<� oaro aoa� cro�� ozr� w � � I 4 ; ! I I iU9g rr ❑ IWIII// ! NJ �• �j � y � � 3 g / / t r-T "gym c � �� ..g ma r I� •����aM;��''� '� O InO III 6 atl slam pes` � � � � © O O O III •�._ _ U O�J F,Q- ,.'i IC-D� ¢ o D O a � � Qua�a € ��� ���g��� �y € aPt e�'ssa�aa x �sF $� .� 4 Page 28 Item 4. Fl 21] OPEN SPACE EX91DIT ------ FOR FOXCROFT ST-13XVISION F F-, LIFIE OU I IE DC 66& QUALIFIED UDC 1 -3'7,3 1 -B.1-a-7,339si QUALIFIED UDC &-lFIE1)UDC QUALIFIEDMIDC ---------------------------- -3G-3.B.a.40.215 i4 QUAY D-UD INW LI FI ED UMC 5.58 QUALIFIED UDC 11-3G-3-B-1..- OPEN SPAC E NO DRAINAGE 50x1(10 MIN 45.763 SF I-D5 ACRES 7 wa— QUALIFIED UDC 11-3G-3-13-1e .1 PATHWAYS WITH LANDSCAPE _3�LIFIED Ua 19.308 SF C)l % N B.'-3.E53sf 0.42 ACRES QUALIFIED UDC 11-3G3133. (02) COLLECTOR BUFFERS 45.450 0 04 ACRES QUALIFIED UDC 11-3G-3-6A. ONE HALF ARTERIAL BUFFERS 2,503 sf ce 05 ACRES QUALIFIED UDC 11-3G-3-B-7 QUALIFIED UDC NATURAL WATERWAY IL 11-&G-SEL-1-1 1.732 sf 119.722sf 235 ACRES Page 29 Item 4. 122 D. Landscape Plans(date:11/11/2020) .� Wo f:Y7,; r N o �IL � 14 1�L7- 1� y P — 1 z '� ��� C Q LU LL ^3 ue' � G\ O �} LU Lj- � Page 30 Item 4. Fl 23 SwAM . E � o � I ®l Y. L3 i �N� � � � iv it �;� � � �✓ ���� � � — Q m Q LL a w L.L � Page 31 Item 4. ■ 'I4 I I ^ r a % - I I �0 „ IL II .:__-a-niePao ave ,/ Ci C7n x 3 .-O /, \ � N � _-N.-MIR•••mm-v.ccrF Aim 0 .. ... .. EDIII m I N rlr 1, � 4 1 I I II�� 4 I IA m= � ® F ° 0 � 9 e O uumuuk r€o i 7 My•' 1 r A a ' PRF_IPIINAR" PLAT LANDSCAPE FLAN ev'sEo am � e Riley Engineering,Inc. r— n FCDXCROl-7- E�u�3L7IWI�ICJ� � �IYIL NGINEENINGIPaNNING�A� TRILOGY -DEVELOPh/ENT, INC. Page 32 Item 4. Fl 25 ii,In �A f - 101K� r. 3 lw w a € f YI 11 L. i. S`7Y✓ '..5 d F ti 1/ L� �o I �lEN MILE pq, I Z x 10 ET 1 S O r Sim 10 D { m PRLLMINARY PLAT LANDSCA'L FLAN �o.x Sk. �, '"��� � dailey Engineering,Inc. 1—OXC�F2O 1---T ICJ Bd I\/ISI C71V�� CIVIL ENGINEERING I PLANNING I CAUU —RILOCY D-VIELOPV-I',T, INC_ n �` Page 33 Item 4. 126 �k /P X' \ / r nln mlm y o e( - 1 - ' i f 11 / 10 m U Ado ; C z IM rn j r � s F II b� Sinn_ PRIT—WINAR" PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN aevlsEo Iley Engineering Inc. FCDXC�ROF� 51�1 L9 L-DI V IS1�?I�i �3 ' Cm�!.NwmeER!Nu!Pum mcICADD T-RI LOGY DLVLLOPN LINT, IIN C. Page 34 Item 4. Fl 27 1. t y FrT a OAR a - P � � m IT ins•.. � a S �' �� �� e � �� � ��a � &��� � '"��^,� rn i a k i A 8£t A - z 50 o r z : Y nn � c r - z m b k T dr ra PII a ° 51, gz_ PREL MINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAY U., d 3 � Y � ileyEngineering,Inc. ®XC FRC�I=T SUE?E7IVV��O?�I ��� �.-� CIVIL FiraixmnxulPuxxixolCAou T ICI LC GY CEV E LO PM TNT, INC. d;;; •„ _ .-.�.. Page 35 Item 4. 128 E. Pathways and Pedestrian Circulation Exhibit 1 � j I O = a-- � I• ^ III 0_ o b O Al o � IIFo ^ O I /0 CQ Oa III m� i I UP II fJ /l I i o� I O I•�' ran p rn'a k m f o m j ° a H - PATHWAYS EXO-iOBOT s ,�y„r*�, 9 w.i °_ Ilry Endneetln&lnc. �-3 FOXCFZO FT SUl3OIVISION � Cm�EnowEntixclPunninal CRUn T F21L0 GY DEVELOPMENT. INC Page 36 Item 4. F129] F. Proposed Phasing Plan PR ELIMINARY FORFOXCPOVTSUBDIVISIO................ .......... v 77 fio 1"w 211 ARM Z L) 0 z J Ld LZ ID L Sm > 0 w (L L Page 37 Item 4. 130 G. Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for lots containing existing homes to remain in the"SW Block" - 2r ,`:' .� FO}{CROFT SUBDIVISION i_; i_C REDEVELOPMENT PLAN �N.. _ .• FOR LOTS 2 AND 6 ` — '' BLOCK 4 SW ----------------- ---------- - ----- -- 8,392 s 1 , — i 1 - aj,sls SCALE 1"=60' II//II�YH.�//.YrS�YIIIIIHI/IIIrI/y� r S U + - 8,558 14,777 10.434+/ 1 r.�� � � +' � I ar0➢s +� Z4b82 y+� + SW BLOCK 4 Page 38 0 -9 : • � ., 1 "r el '4Y r b In Idw ' q i i' a'• .r' x Page 40 •� �_ III }�. r ......,� ,y.,,. r - -3� •.�. -- Page 41 Page 42 Item 4. 135 I. Water Markup for Areas of Possible Water Main Elimination oy - 7 i 9 �4 SSh1H l .� Y-SSM H`'. water loop SSW 0.... .needed? �� �yIP/P• ASS .$ 1 � ` ... a _ r P/PipE� .'�i.°rp PlPpr 1+�I '_ �p v;P" �- + 3jrp R ` � IP!`I w -Y I'•p P PIP��_ Pl iA "w, • 1P 2 NE OCI[•1 p,W,•,� 1 ��_ Pl p /P! Ss�i H — P I .If water loop is needed, - - this section cT water �,1.. /P •, can—eliminated P!Pj P!R' 1 P .` R Ph r�y}R+P�ai P�P•P far better circulation ` •_P SSMH _ p-- p 7_-g P iv__`._x Pfr+Ir_ _�_�_ _ _ P~tP_P IPI� s this water mom 1- -a_ P - _P `p SIP needed? I PI dl°I ' - P 1:.' P -t P P' , rrP, * -tom- # � _ 1 a P r-- — P/ _I IPT�I #CLUBHOUSE/ 1 1 ---r-- SSMH El--:�. _ MH F1r c,� p< OFFICELL LL pI PI PI NI HI rl rl nl PI PIP Plr� P'rl ;r ��» „ t /^r .ir �v_� p ...� 1 c I f _ _ I_ NE BLOCK I 14 r .,... _ ❑ I P 1ll Do P—IP P SSMH E2 }r _ 7'I T-TF&UH D5 L 11 "-a _� �L �' }P' 15 L -- —� P 6ILPIFI PI PIP L-- - =vwr n. .,. .. 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,conceptual building elevations,conceptual redevelopment plan,pathway and pedestrian circulation exhibit,and the proposed phasing plan included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. Page 43 Item 4. F136] b. The 10-foot multi-use pathway segments surrounding the development shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development. c. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct the extension of W. Pine Avenue,vehicle bridge over Ten Mile Creek 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. d. No building permits shall be submitted until the final plat for the associated phase is recorded. e. The required landscape street buffers shall be constructed and vegetated(along N. Ten Mile and W. Pine Avenue)with the first phase of development. f. The multi-family development shall be constructed with no more than 184 units with buildings on Lots 4, 5, 6,and 9,NE Block 1 (as shown on the submitted plat)to be no more than two-stories in height;proposed parking shall not be reduced by more than 20 parking spaces following the reduction in units. 2. With Final Plat submittals,the Applicant shall provide relevant revised plans to depict any minor revisions shown on the revised open space exhibit. 3. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated November 11,2020, shall be revised as follows at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the proposed alley between SW Block 2 and SW Block 3 to be a minor urban local street constructed at a minimum of 24 feet wide with curb and gutter,no sidewalks, and no parking on either side. b. Relocate the minor urban local street further south to allow Lots 3-8, SW Block 2 to meet the minimum lot size in the R-8 zoning district of 4,000 square feet. c. Reduce applicable building lots in the single-family areas of the site to accommodate at least 5 feet of landscaping and trees along the multi-use pathway segments (Lots 12-19,NW Block 1; Lots 16-24, SW Block 1; Lots 25,28, 29, &34, SW Block 1). 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated November 11, 2020, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the Final Plat application: a. Revise the landscape plans to add a 5-foot wide landscape buffer along both sides of the pathway segment located along the southern boundary of the site, landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. b. Show at least 5 feet of landscaping on the east side of the pathway segment on the east side of the Ten Mile Creek and landscape in accord with UDC 11-3B-12 c. Show at least 5 feet of landscaping on the south side the pathway segment abutting Lots 12-19,NW Block 1. 5. The Applicant shall apply for Alternative Compliance with the first Final Plat submittal to propose an adequate alternative for all of the required pathway landscape requirements,in accord with UDC 11-513-5. 6. If an agreement can be made with the Mosher Subdivision homeowner's association,the Applicant shall construct a micro-path into the Mosher Subdivision and tie into their existing pathway network generally located in the location of the existing culvert over the Ten Mile Sub Drain along the northern property boundary with the first phase of development. Page 44 Item 4. F137] 7. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6,UDC Table 11-2A-7, and those listed in the specific use standards for multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 8. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family and multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 10. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval entire multi-family development with the submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the entire site and for the attached single-family dwellings. 11. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for the entire multi- family development prior to building permit submittal. 12. The Applicant shall provide conceptual elevations for the proposed single-family attached dwellings buildings at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing. 13. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 14. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 1 1- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. The Applicant shall adhere to and maintain all standards as set forth in the Multi-family Development specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27. 19. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 20. The Applicant shall record a maintenance agreement for the multi-family development that states the maintenance and the ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27. 21. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit public access easements for all of the multi-use pathways within the development to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. Page 45 Item 4. ■ B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Per minimum city requirements,all sewer mainlines and manholes outside of a paved roadway shall have at a minimum, a 14-ft wide compacted grave access roadway centered over the mainline. This condition can also be satisfied with a 14-foot wide paved surface. The pathway shown over the existing sewer along the north properties is subject to this requirement,as well as manholes SSMH A2, SSMH A3,and SSMH A5. 1.2 Please redesign the sanitary sewer routing to eliminate the sewer mainline passing through the common driveway labeled as Lot 20,NW Block 1. 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). 1.3 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. 1.4 Sanitary sewer and water service lines cannot run under carports. 1.5 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. 1.6 Any sewer service lines greater than 100-feet will need cleanouts that are accessible for cleaning; contact plumbing official for specific details. 1.7 Applicant shall be required to construct 12-inch water main in W. Pine Avenue to comply with"to-and-through"requirements. This new mainline shall connect to existing water mains at the west and east ends. 1.8 The water main in N. White Leaf Way near SSMH G5 needs to connect to the proposed water main to the east(Mile High Pines Sub). 1.9 The water main in W. Sugar Pine Ct.that currently dead-ends needs to connect to the proposed water main to the east(Mile High Pines Sub)in N. Side Creek Lane. Currently this dead-end does not meet fire flow pressure requirements. 1.10 There are a few water mains in the multi-family area that may have an opportunity to be eliminated. See Exhibit Section VII(I.)Water Markup for Areas of Possible Water Main Elimination. 1.11 A Floodplain Development Permit and updated hydrology and hydraulic model are required for the W. Pine Ave bridge and pathways. 1.12 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. 1.13 The geotechnical report submitted with this application(prepared by SITE Consulting, LLC, dated November 16, 2020)indicates that they had begun the geotechnical exploration and recommendation report. This initial investigative report does not contain the final determinations. Applicant shall be required to submit the completed geotechnical report/recommendations prior to this application proceeding to the Meridian City Council for consideration. 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 Page 46 Item 4. F139] 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. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services.Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. Page 47 Item 4. F140] 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,landscaping,amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 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 proj ect. 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. These 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 Page 48 Item 4. 141 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:llweblink.meridiancily.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218795&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218971&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=217427&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219143&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky G. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=220017&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218921&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridiancily.or /WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218258&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Ry J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.or /WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=221010&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity K. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancily.or /WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=218397&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv Page 49 Item 4. F142] L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219 777&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=221015&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty N. PUBLIC WORKS MEMO—RESPONSE TO PRELIM CIVIL PLANS https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220311&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty O. DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—VIPER AND BARON https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222672&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC Ry IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-8 zoning district 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; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for different types of residential dwelling types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and within this area. Staff finds the proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Staff 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 proposed addition of differing dwelling types and the construction of a needed Page 50 Item 4. F143] public road extension, Stafffinds 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; Staff 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; Staff 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, Staff 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; Staff 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, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the subject roads and road improvements. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Staff finds that with preserving the Tenmile Creek, the development meets this finding. 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. Staff finds that the submitted site plan and preliminary plat appear to meet all dimensional and development regulations in the R-I5 zoning district in which it resides. Page 51 Item 4. F144] 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Stafffinds the proposed use of multi family residential, with Staffs recommended revisions, is harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Medium Density Residential and the requirements of this title when included in the overall project analysis. 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, Stafffinds 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, so long as the Applicant complies with Staff's recommended revisions. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Stafffinds 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. Stafffinds 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 Stafffinds 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. 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 is sure to 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, Stafffinds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare. Page 52 Item 4. F145] 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) With the preservation of the Tenmile Creek(a natural waterway), Staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 53 Item 5. L146 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ambles Run Subdivision (H-2021-0124) by HomeFound Group, Located % mile east of N. Locust Grove Rd. and % Mile South of Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with an R-2 zoning district. B. Request: A preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family residential lots. Item 5. F147] (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: February 18, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Ambles Run Subdivision (H-2021-0124) by HomeFound Group, Located 1/4 mile east of N. Locust Grove Rd. and 1/z mile south of Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with an R-2 zoning district. B. Request: A preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family residential lots. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing I PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 i PROJECT NAME: Ambles Run Subdivision (H-2021-0124) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify 4 YE OR NO J 1 cx-VA 2 4 / 5 x t (( fC-JC9� v 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item 5. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 2/18/2021 Legend DATE: I�l U Project Location TO: Planning&Zoning Commission FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 _ SUBJECT: H-2020-0124 Ambles Run Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located on Lot 26,Block 1 of the county Dunwoody Subdivision, ® �� approximately /4 mile east of N. Locust e Grove Road and a'/2 mile south of �� __ _ OEM Chinden Boulevard, in the SW 1/4 of the �® NW 1/4 of Section 29,Township 4N., Range 1E. ®� � I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation&Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with an R-2 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family residential lots, by HomeFound Group. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.88 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(0-3 du/ac) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 6 residential building lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one phase Number of Residential Units(type 6 single-family units of units) Density(gross&net) Gross—2.08 du/ac.;Net—2.49 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total N/A—property is not at least 5 acres in size [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities N/A—property is not at least 5 acres in size Neighborhood meeting date;#of November 9,2020— 10 attendees; attendees: History(previous approvals) No history with the City Page 1 Item 5. F149] 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 Chopin Avenue,an existing local Hwy/Local)(Existing and street stubbed to the southern boundary of the subject Proposed) property. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to continue Chopin Ave.through the Access project in its current alignment and stub it to their northern boundary,terminating in a cul-de-sac. Existing Road Network No Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ N/A Buffers Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements are proposed or required other than extending Chopin Ave.into the site. Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1.2 miles to Charles F.McDevitt Youth Sports Complex size (City of Boise Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.5 miles from Fire Station#3 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#3 reliability is 78%(below the goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 1 —Residential • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds;proposed landscape planter within cul-de-sac is not allowed and should be removed. Police Service • Concerns None Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services N/A • Sewer Shed North Slough Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.06 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Flow is committed •Since parcel to the north is not a phase of this project the sewer line needs to end at a manhole at the northern boundary. Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone F 3 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None Page 2 1 1 1 I CHI•NDEN CHIN DEN WOMEN ■ilrnl�l�■ �j .} �'1�' �, ■■oils■Irn 1111111■ IltLU iSO■■1■ W - - moons on m : p n �IIIIIIII I■ ♦ �: �'I us ti + :n -- .� 1 1 m � . G - �■ u1 ., nnn' - • - • �— owl �— t mrin ■■i rrri■■ -■ iir ■■nlrrlrir Li�'' • - • .. }. ��- nil nnu■ � �•�■■■■■ ■ � I ' � �- ■ ■■■■���w■�Vi ii is■■■rrrr ■rrr f: 3 L_(� i10 n■�■ '� ■ .■ ■■ nnu■:'i, i- 091 r_,' ' �w�■mq 0 ■ mmi:■ ��w 4 iii Irirril �i ■ yPP.1`� k a•• -F - �Ilrirril �: 1111 -� � 1:■n■ ■■ai L '�-�L..J �. �- � morn ■ ■■. e ..� � , on ■■■r =1 ■■as a�■ a U ■ ■ u■■■■:■ } J y ■■1 moll■ ■■ n■iini■Gwlrr irriiriiC� I . ems. ' ■ ■ t I _ IIIi molls '� ■■y � nnnu a ir rrr f :.._■ �� nnn ■nn■i -� a- it ir■■� ■ ■ -.a a ■ 1111 ■■I ! ' GHINDEN ,EN nnni��C1 O 1 nn nmi 1 111"■nn mn g now o M illlnn■■■1■1 M� I��_ n nn unnn nnu��li: I W E�7■J!r■''<�1�'�__, nnnu i1m11i 111111■IOIII � :a=nnu■Iliil� 111111■IIOIt,��� ��Gl�i ■noon.•n Nib 11�T p noon.•n ■�■is� � � �� w� �:■' ■�IIIIIIIIIIIIIR�� � �■. �. :w■ 1■ W ■ .■—w■a li I7��Illl�ltx r .■a a Irllllr Ir11rr1rU �1] ` �■� ■a 111111� IIIIrr1111■Y . �� ■ —nr■ nm m �■■n wl nr■ mn nui- _ ��■n■, irir rririi■■:■ �i iiir riirir■�� n nnl nnn■p.:�nnn nr O �■f■ mrl Irma■■..�nnn n1UH di ■�■n ,I url nn■■�� m n umnn �� 'I��■ �� �I nil nru Rom _Lr n uunnirit�� I ■ � �tl11 m nnn■ N■■�- ■■■\■ ■ m nnn n ��- 1 7CCL-- CGGOG ■ �...■�■�■ IR! ■ . ■unp m i .'...n� ram■= Ui:::�.■■unp m C ■ ■■a■ ml � . ■ ■ ■ ■■a n Inl nl ■ ■■ �■■w��]�:�ul�' n■ nnu'.■' ■ ■■ �■- � nn1 0'� i' ■■ nnu■ ■ rum 1■■ rumii In nnn ■C/7A711•.� di .� .■■■■ In nnn W �■:a 111 11�"Jfao n. :q I�rnn 3 • 1. :�I�nnn w/ mom ■ �' numi IN� r room � i ���n■. ■a1r� : � .■� r room � ■. ■a1r ♦ ■ a . an o■■= ■u Id ■I n � ani ■■o■■= ■■ Id ul iil rrrri ' 'w■% rr O�nnini■�rin irrririi�i iil rim ' 'r ■■ ■ J-[]C]_in ifirri irrrini m i nn■ r J Ali nnnu■nun■■i■ m i nn■ V rr III n■nu■nnnni� :■■� .nnn■■nm■i :o r� a■inu unn nl it rrri i ■••■ loll■s.�■.� it roil n ■••■ it ir■■� ■■■ • ■ u■■ai��:I it ■i■I1 ■::� ' :�■■■■ai��Y' iii iiil►�.■ h ■ nr■■■■■�I in iiil►M.■ I� ,-w ■■■■■■■■■■��I 1111 ■■I 1111 ■■I of Item 5. 551 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1/29/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 1/26/2021 Site Posting 1/27/2021 Nextdoor posting 1/26/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan) Low-Density Residential—This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces,and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. The subject site is somewhat of an outparcel of an existing county subdivision (Dunwoody Subdivision) that has no access except for the Chopin Avenue stubbed to its southern property boundary. Dunwoody Subdivision has large lots that are approximately an acre or more in size and the proposed subdivision aims to provide a transition from these larger lots sizes towards the existing R-4 lots to the south by proposing six(6) lots that are over 16,000 square feet in size. The subject site is less than 5 acres in size and therefore the requirements to provide open space and amenities do not apply. However, Staff is aware that the three parcels adjacent to the subject site to the west and north are also in discussions with City officials on their redevelopment—if those parcels were to annex and redevelop together with this parcel, this area may be able to provide a more cohesive development. The Applicants of both projects have been in detailed discussions with each other but no agreement could be made. Therefore, this property owner decided to move forward with the proposed 6-lot subdivision. This is unfortunate but the likelihood of this parcel being developed with anything other than the proposed layout is minimal. The proposed density is approximately 2 dwellings per acre which fits within the Low Density Residential future land use designation range of 3 or less per acre.As noted, this density would offer a transitional density from the county subdivision to the existing Vienna Woods Subdivision to the south. Despite the 2.88 acre parcel not being required to provide open space, the Applicant is proposing to provide parkways with street trees along both sides of the Chopin Avenue extension. As currently proposed, the project is proposing approximately 4%open space that would be qualifying open space if any were required. This number is important because if this property was required to provide open space by code, the project would only be required to provide 5%open space due to the project only containing buildable lots and each lot being over 16,000 square feet. Providing open space for developments is a critical point within the comprehensive plan to help create a sense of place and add green space for residents to enjoy. Therefore, Staff is recommending the Applicant revise the landscape plans to show 10'wide parkways instead of 8'wide to increase the open space for the project and meet that 5%open space threshold. Providing open space at this level is not required by code but Staff believes it Page 4 Item 5. F152 helps the project meet the spirit of the code and allows for even more of an identity for this small subdivision. In addition to the wider parkways, Staff is recommending a revision to the road layout to better comply with the comprehensive plan and help with future development in this area. The Applicant should provide a stub street to their western boundary and preliminary discussions with ACHD have determined this Applicant would be required to construct the full street section. Therefore, the stub street would be constructed as a full 33 foot street section within 47 feet of right-of-way if using attached 5-foot sidewalks. However, to align with what is already being proposed Staff recommends the stub street be constructed with 8-foot parkways and detached sidewalk further analysis is in the Access section (Section V.F). By providing a stub street to the north and to the west, this parcel can set up road connectivity and utility placement for future redevelopment in this area creating a more cohesive design. Furthermore, this recommended change does not create the need to lose any lots or change the request for R-2 zoning as each lot would still meet the R-2 dimensional standards after reducing their lot widths. With Staffs recommended changes, Stafffinds the proposed project and what it brings to the City of Meridian to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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 MI.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.meridiancioy.orglcompplan): 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). The proposed project offers a density that is directly in the middle of the adjacent estate lots the north and east of the Dunwoody Subdivision and the R-4 lots to the south of Vienna Woods Subdivision. Although the proposed subdivision is only six lots, this subdivision would lay the foundation for the appropriate transitional density in this immediate geographic area. "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 a transitional density from the existing 1-acre lots of the Dunwoody Subdivision. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to construct a berm with trees and other landscaping along the rears of each building lot to further screen the new and existing homes nearby. Code does not regulate landscaping on private property but Staff encourages the Applicant to include maintenance of these landscaped areas within the future CC&R's of the homeowner's association. Despite such a relatively small site, the Applicant is creating buffers and incorporating street trees within parkways to buffer and screen the proposed homes making them more compatible with what exists to the northeast and to the south. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing stubs abutting the site to the south within Chopin Avenue,per Public Works comments. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal.An additional 6 homes are expected to generate 4 school age children which can be easily absorbed into the school system, according to the West Ada response letter. Page 5 Item 5. ■ 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).As discussed, the project is below the minimum 5 acre size to require open space. However, the Applicant is proposing parkways with detached sidewalks that will add street trees and help create a sense of place for the development despite not having a large open space lot. Residents here will be within walking distance and easily within car and bicycle distance of a park to the southeast through local streets. In addition, with Staffs recommended changes to increase the width of the parkways to 10 feet, the trees should be healthier and beautify the subdivision even more. "Require all new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets,consistent with the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan."(2.02.01 Q. The Applicant is proposing to construct this project with detached sidewalks, street trees within parkway strips, and a road section wide enough to accommodate on-street parking. Staff finds the combination of these elements helps create a form of complete streets and should encourage future development nearby to emulate these features. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.0ID).Proposed project is extending the detached sidewalks from the south to allow easy access to the existing pedestrian facilities within Vienna Woods. "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing lot sizes that do not match those directly abutting the site but instead act as a transitional density. This proposed density and probable homes in conjunction with the proposed street trees should complement the design of the existing development nearby. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on site as this site is leftover pasture land. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential on larger estate lots. This use is a permitted use in requested R-2 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Due to the relatively small size of the development(six lots),the project is proposed to constructed in one phase but will still have a Homeowner's Association.According to the Applicant's Narrative,the future homes are to be constructed as approximately 2,400 square foot single-level homes with a second story bonus room as an option. The proposed use and style of homes should provide for a development that is cohesive with adjacent development. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. 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 appear to meet all UDC requirements. Staff will verify compliance with these standards following Staffs recommended revisions discussed in the next section. Page 6 Item 5. F154 F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via extension of Chopin Avenue, a local street stubbed to the southern boundary. The submitted plans show the extension of Chopin as a 36-foot wide street with 4-foot detached sidewalk outside of 8-foot wide parkways with street trees. The proposed street section does not meet ACHD policy and should be reduced to 33 feet wide. In addition,the sidewalks must be constructed as 5-feet wide to meet ACHD standards. The Applicant is proposing to terminate Chopin Avenue at the north boundary in a cul-de-sac in line with ACHD policy because the road section will be greater than 150 feet in length. The proposed layout is sufficient for the proposed 6-lot subdivision but Staff believes it does not adequately set the stage for future development to its north and west. Therefore, Staff is recommending the Applicant revise the plans to show a stub street to the west as discussed to meet more of the comprehensive plan objectives and policies. There are multiple placements of the stub street that would provide for better future circulation than only providing a stub to the north. However, Stafffinds it appropriate to recommend a location that minimizes the amount of wasted pavement should Chopin Avenue ever get extended further in the future. Staff recommends placing the western stub street along the northern property boundary as a full street section per ACHD requirements. However, the Applicant should work with ACHD on a reduced street section for this stub street to minimize the impact to this property.At a maximum, with 5-foot attached sidewalks and a 33 foot street section, the western lots would be required to be reduced by 47 feet to incorporate the required right-of-way.ACHD has reduced street sections if no on-street parking is desired which would reduce this area even further. With the maximum amount of right-of-way taken, the proposed lots would still exceed the minimum dimensional standards of the requested R-2 zoning district. Despite the recommended stub street being more than 150 feet in length, both Meridian Fire and ACHD have agreed to allow the stub street be constructed without a temporary cul-de-sac at its terminus to minimize the impact to this Applicant. In order to maintain adequate turnaround, Chopin Avenue will still need to end in the cul-de-sac, according to ACHD. The Applicant should still work with ACHD prior to the Council meeting to minimize the impact of this recommended change by Staff. G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. In addition,the proposed 33-foot wide street section accommodates on-street parking where no driveways exist and not within any part of the cul-de-sac at the end of the extended Chopin Avenue. H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 4-foot wide detached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets adjacent to landscape parkways as part of the extended pedestrian circulation of Vienna Woods to the south,in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. As discussed previously, the proposed 4-foot wide sidewalks do not meet ACHD standards and should be widened to 5 feet wide. The Applicant is aware of this but has not yet provided updated plans. Regardless, the sidewalks in this development will continue connections through the project from the Vienna Woods Subdivision to the south. These connections will allow future residents easy access to the nearby sports complex to the southeast. Page 7 Item 5. ■ I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The only landscaping that is regulated by code within the proposed development is within the proposed parkways along the local street extension(UDC 11-3A-17 and UDC 11-313). The Applicant is proposing 8-foot wide parkways with street trees along the proposed roadway extension into the site. The submitted landscape plan also shows a raised berm with relatively full landscaping along the rear of the building lots. This landscaping on private lots is not regulated by City code and therefore Staff does not recommend adding any provisions regarding this landscaping. The Applicant intends to maintain the berm and landscaped areas through the HOA and subsequent CC&R's that the City does not regulate. Staff believes this is the appropriate way to regulate and maintain the proposed landscaping on the private building lots. Staff is recommending the proposed parkways be widened to 10'to increase the amount of open space for the small development even though there is not a requirement to meet any minimum open space standard.As discussed within the Comprehensive Plan analysis section earlier, increasing the width of the parkways allows the project to provide at least 5%open space which helps meet the intent of the code and comply with the comprehensive plan. In addition, the wider parkway would allow for healthier trees and provide the Applicant the opportunity to use a wider range of trees within the parkways, including larger Class III trees if so desired. Staff recommends constructing the recommended western stub street with 8 foot parkway on its southern side to match what is currently proposed. This parkway should also be landscaped in accord with UDC standards. J. Qualified Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The subject site is less than 5 acres in size and therefore code does not require a minimum amount of qualified open space or amenities. See more detailed analysis by Staff in the Comprehensive Plan section and Landscaping section. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and meets UDC standards as proposed. L. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15. Despite the development being only six(6)lots,providing for pressurized irrigation with this project will allow for such irrigation to be continued as the surrounding area redevelops in the future. M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant did not submit conceptual building elevations other than the one elevation submitted with the Narrative. That elevation is an example of what the expected home builder constructs. Detached single-family homes do not require design review approval prior to building permit submittal and therefore Staff does not review these for compliance with any standards. However,the submitted elevation does depict larger homes commensurate with estate lots and shows varying rooflines with different building and accent materials that come together and show high-quality construction. Page 8 Item 5. F156 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 preliminary plat application per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. Commission: Enter Summary of Commission Decision. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 9 Item 5. 157 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps TEALEY'S LAND 12594 W.Explore Drive, Suite 150•Boise, Idaho 83713 SURVEYING (208)385-0636 a] Fax(208)385-0696 Project No.:4743 Date:December 22, 2020 ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED AMBLES RUN SUBDIVISION A parcel of land being a portion Lot 26 of Block 1 of Dunwoody Subdivision,as filed for record in the office of Ada County Recorder, Boise,Idaho,in Book 58 at Page 5482,as shown on record of survey No.7 83 7,as filed for record in the office of Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho under instrument No- 107033607,lying in the NW 114 of Section 29,TAN., R.1E..&M-,Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the West 114 corner of said Section 29, marked by an aluminum cap;from which the Northwest corner of said Section 29, marked by a brass cap,bears North 00°01'36"West 2656.61 feet;thence along the East-West centerline of said Section 29.which is also the North boundary of Vienna Woods No-2 Subdivision North 89'35'30"East 664.68 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 26,marked by a 518"iron pin, said point marking the POINT OF BEGINNING,thence along the West boundary line of said Lot 26 North 00'03'17"West 331,00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 26.marked by a 518"iron pin;thence along the North boundary of said Lot 26 North 89'35'30"East 379.11 feet to a 518"iron pin;thence leaving said North boundary South 00'04'37"East 331.00 feet to a 518"iron pin on the South boundary of said Lot 26-.thence along said South boundary South 89°35'30"West 379.24 feet to an iron pin marking the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Parcel of Land Contains 2.88 Acres, more or less. LANb , 3 4 rI o ;7J OF tp A. Page 10 Item 5. 158 DRMY39 -10 StS'd9 cs O 19'90Z M.9E.10.00 N O `� OVOa 3AON9 isnDo-1 HIaoN z N �Q 117, z z Mo 8 ? m a m x�( w VJ m m E:i] B o - - 00'IE£ M.LI1E0.00 N © 7J ------ ------- 2�m �► ------ I r---------- -I I C o ? A n flo I a�� LJ f azQ m fi I C X N.C14ORIN p� FT,RYENU5 I ��Yff���7 ,-i q II - s _. II II 1 I ----------IC N f5 00'09'37'E 33[.6.0'--'� iN l o I1rO - ff b--------. .. .- -- -- ---—————- ----__----———— I- GARDENµ � J I m N i EDSYWG HD1155 l i l r N .wino Rio 'c A t; 4---------b - o C4 C ixnao AaooMNna Isv3 4y I II a Page 11 Item 5. 159 TEALEY'S LAND 12594 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 150 • Boise, Idaho 83713 SURVEYING (208)385-0636 Fax(208)385-0696 Project No..4743 Date:January 6,2021 ZONE R-2 DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED AMBLES RUN SUBDIVISION A parcel of land being a portion Lot 26 of Block 1 of Dunwoody Subdivision, as filed for record in the office of Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 58 at Page 5482, as shown on record of survey No. 7637, as filed for record in the office of Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho under instrument No. 107033607, lying in the NW 114 of Section 29,TAN., R.1E., B.M.,Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the West 114 corner of said Section 29, marked by an aluminum cap;from which the Northwest corner of said Section 29, marked by a brass cap, bears North 00.01'36"West 2656.61 feet.thence along the East-West centerline of said Section 29,which is also the North boundary of Vienna Woods No. 2 Subdivision North 89°35'30"East 664.68 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 26.marked by a 518"iron pin.said point marking the POINT OF BEGINNING:thence along the West boundary line of said Lot 26 North 00'03'17"West 331.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 26,marked by a 518"iron pin;thence along the North boundary of said Lot 26 North 89°35'30"East 379.11 feet to a 518"iron pin. thence leaving said North boundary South 00°04'37"East 331-00 feet to a 518"iron pin on the South boundary of said Lot 26,thence along said South boundary South 89.35'30"West 379,24 feet to an iron pin marking the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Parcel of Land Contains 2.88 Acres,more or less. LAAb 34:z 4 Page 12 Item 5. Fl 60 DNI'dV39 -10 SISVO w 19 959Z Ai.9E,10.00 N O � VON 3AM9 isn0Q7 HiNON M IN o r n N m,oz � co Z M g m m •BOO IES AV D.EO.Op N ------------- A N 7J S^ -------- — [: I ➢ W C. I a�� z m )C + x Ioac C Z CD cn to uJ N.CHQPIN C AKNUF >E+ 9 - 0 —iVE ------y -- —i Lo ►r t} O 70 z II S 00'04'37'E 391-0. -- .- ------ -- -- ------------ ----------------- ------ — •-'-- GARDEN I L._.� m N EASTM HOUSE ICI o { � E i ��•j IIi �+�� x r _ I I PR OFF , Z �; ` �� ---- lir- J:L---- 4r� p -o----------o---- a G7 .3 m N p ianoo AGOOANna isd3 o m — L n 0 Page 13 Item 5. 161 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 12/17/2020)NOT APPROVED 6JH SIB 9COK 50 PAGE RlIGE 5A62 E � I u�u a,e ewx-orF SXI TO 0,SM. 'Wl f]R[I61eM-__. 1 I rr.,lo ww I _, __ --------------- oax51 ,w u 1 I I ti J -------------- - Sao 7� Y I n x�acr 3 l '� UwLq m " E I TpUKl I I 1 o 6n EI I1�y ,s.)I4ac yhh _ 1 :,!'�LI F. 1. _ �. li I,P415f .. O = I I 2 90.0' I 1 It081 7 I' _ L--_ Marx ------- Irt a wnr L----------------J_ ±i------ $ # ————————— - i I cull � s 1 .__...•'� �1 I I 9�I I so WTLW rut VICH xF.L'i`~ is WOILp PM MW 1 1 I Pncvasm•cr-Irt,-. � I 4l. l _roar salT,ou I I `+. .. _ _ ___ _____ __ ggg•35'30"4! 1 d14.1♦a' Ci711ER oc yEOTICN>9 1� DNMXT 70 !'E[YIQ Il.f1 d 0'wain L-L. ... p VENM WO(IL15 911B.NO.i BUOK es ME e.9" x Page 14 Item 5. 162 .._._,_...__...._.. wo'ttuu arry.. imq A..4 GBbL998I88L13NOHd rseeao„voeanvu woos iasv� �, ""'° �°'"°°" ^"' 2018681'3SI08 N�r HILL'N BOfL n = 9NIAMunS E a3�lIW 3bH0w vnlo.7namonais oseu IVId AMVNIW112Md - o- m NOISI osm Nnu smawtl -aNl'Saga NION3 .�. NOISIAIaBf1S Nf1TJ 53181Ntl 531tlI�OSSV'B LLI/�tl31 .,;� �' si g IF a• �a Jjf � sls -I �,s 5 12 a � I,' H #41�' ..� e14t r I t, ,� fl! o�I�a ��l� 0 A40 cn cn w � h as a :a \ Id�• s III -� a Ca U C] °I I g6 00 cn 1-4 0-4 8 / b N ocn M Y a IN" N� � � I i o ------------- ----- -- E qq £ pp ,00 IK MuLI,[O.di w so Ste` F°SC E G5 a R� E S Page 15 Item 5. ■ C. Landscape Plans(date: 12/18/2020)NOT APPROVED p '2 S !3 6 0r, �J� p; ............ LU 'Lu C, 7< it a r L----------------------- --------- ------------ ----------------- ----------E": ------------- IT-------- xi 3. �o Uo 0 -------------- IM ---------- ----------- A a_ Page 16 Item 5. Fl 64] BLOCK I rUNWOODY SUBDIVISION LOT 2 ------------- ----------- v av j 74 0 61 I • � J. z -45 Le (D (Do L f,--T I,,aVlErl[,A WOOQD'S' SJE LOT 15 LCT '7 LOT I rI IIEI..l llwpcas ZURE). NQ. L:)CK "IE,,, w0cos BLOCK 51 SL..2D- No. 2 Page 17 Item 5. 165 D. Conceptual Building Elevation MAL 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, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevation included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated December 17,2020, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the plat to show an additional stub street from Chopin Avenue to the western boundary along the northern property line—coordinate with ACHD on the width of the stub street section right-of-way. Page 18 Item 5. F166] b. Revise the plat to show 10-foot wide parkways with 5-foot wide detached sidewalks consistent with UDC 11-3A-17 and Staff s recommended changes. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated November 18, 2020, shall be revised as follows at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the plan to show the revised plat layout per conditions above. b. Revise the plan to show 10-foot wide parkways_ 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I I-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 6. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 7. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 8. 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. 9. 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 11-613-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Since parcel to the north is not a phase of this project the sewer line needs to end at a manhole at the northern boundary. 1.2 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. 1.3 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by Atlas Technical Consultants,LLC dated December 10,2020,indicates some specific construction considerations and recommendations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these considerations and recommendations to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils,and that surface runoff and subsurface seepage does not become a problem with home construction. 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. Page 19 Item 5. F167] 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. 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. hi performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. Page 20 Item 5. 168 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the proj ect. 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:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WeUink/Doc View.aWx?id=2191 78&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty Page 21 Item 5. F169] D. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT(SID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219200&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty E. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220963&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity F. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219133&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220007&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC Ry H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220032&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC Ry I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220252&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-2 zoning district 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; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and within this area, consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. Page 22 Item 5. F170] 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 Staff 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. Staff 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; Staff finds that the proposed plat, with Staff's 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; Staff 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, Staff 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; Staff 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, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has offered their support of the proposed development. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 23 Applicant Presentation WE Meridian City Planning an d Zoning Hearing Ambles Run Subdivision Purpose: Annexation and Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with a request for R-2 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat for 6 detached single-family residential lots. Applicants: Maureen) Miller and Richard Price Presented by: Michael Miller, HomeFound Group LL Legal Description Rn rco.Is Ilk, ETiffi? U Rl I undo ' 5 L } Ak I` I tf ElHande(TSt izi .. r Rll)l N AK CT co ~ y � � � car cLw r :5 -F SC U1W � T � Id . . _ -- - t V HAN Ft CT F MO NJ ST .E M[}/ART } CT R ATUR ,, _ _. . -The highest and best use for this - - piece of land is residential development. unMWM5Q r k -proposed: 6 detached single-family lots, each about .4 acres ' -Traffic will flow from Locust Grove, East along Strauss Dr and [North along _ Chopin Ave, ending in a Dul-de- ao. The ul-de-Sac satisfies ACHD and t Eire Department standards for turn < a `� around and will have "Fire Lane/No Parking" signs pasted along the oaarl W 4 _ roadway. ti * -The neighboring development plan will use our right-of-way * 4 through Chopin and exit w ; through Dunwood , if approved. 4 P ►^ NOW � � � k.j s ,+ **This image is a rough draft representative of the intended development plan for the unplatted land to the North and West of our property** F4 1 I�. 51 + H JL OF v I a I 111uWL TImp • BLC- OFT f FD.0 , !, CUAAQR IOI#wG CLASSIFICATION: RUT-- ►+E� P�O�ET} 74�FwG It h-2 LOWIw i_ CI€FOW Ai90CMNL AUER ANNENATKA. _-_-_m - ---- B� --------*--� 1�, - _ � rt Wr S4r swfR Sr#TE>,I �n 1 IFI r€A66NM€CT NT+, � C7T, iE+ERGm K.Sr$IE4 C . r�-=- --- ----- - -------------�I - a .IE.1� -' C"CFIN AW. I i / g � 3, IIATEIR FFVN VkL IWWRXNNEV wrm TK CTy wArEY[ wW N FL (*WIN me[. I #, siRIGATUN MV.TFR MLL W 9ULIEC Nv tFTrLfA5 II�rUUN MD DMINOMD Yk% I f # y L A PmMFE WLI nrELL F. P JWF STAT74H, L# A 5, ALL LOFS Hw+E A 5 rT)4'T ln1UT+' EHT ON THE 90E5, x 18 FT30T LITUTY II I I * # I kV r ,V A UMNEW W TIME REAR. A ,p rWT V LR'7' E M FM IN ONT AYE A ,r {EA y ra' r 1 LMLlfT FJ1SCW4 HT 9M THE 94Lw7Wff. 1 I 6. ,U1 Syr►rnE LOTS NqI SUBJECT TU SEW-M REWNEY€4T5 PERM 4R+' OF ilia1d4L--------,___�� I T7iM JML M4 TMNFIf: wF.iG1 rr11C*E FIEO,aM1EU 9r AaA cGut1fT nIGhWA'+ 6r51AICT. r---------y__—r `------ I d. THIS PRO&C r5 IM' A ZONE x (MMMirI FLWD wLLrAO) PER f'IR4 P&4EL I I 7' +' 1 i atpp7p6161d umerm o6f741M- UWPUCW I I a r yf, umum ispwt SIDE G zmu 9r wK FW. II 16XIa 3F I I I x7�d3i+f 3 � I 1- 1,11 I fw To A[ DVW.00 L----- ------J 3E4 (B" 74 d30 I I # L r�ewEe w.1 j I&W too, o MiloINi IS 1 PIP k ,.� I I ,7e-41* 1 # ,}e[ RED 1 vw emmu— ROLLM CIM s�,�iloloi- j 1*. ... . Ft116T Pt1PR .M NSPWA 4 QAn -WL +max+ [ MOM smw rrrnerr CUMECT 7b FiiIIFC Wr --G0I`ECr TO Fllr€m r h uw I-*AT"um L� I I I I PROJECT INFORMATION I I - r F+aSr.,{.. .N 3i J.I1• +v,er,�,sm L_____ _3___________r_____________ e _�_________,____ _ pggpE fElklFtEfU4ENT r ___________ �� _ _________ «�____ _ TfYFA.LppppEµTY yZEa 42&452.E LF.-IM AbPFi TOT,LL WUN8ER OF TFM%9 Sa ,r 'TDTd1.11,MEER 9F TREE 3'9DEl5 7,i9PFCIF9RFQURFD LANDV#WEIDUFFURICO41RDIDIT3 NEST MXMn V Q31 LF.i No wauffIEWE 1TIL I ` • 7 I j n FT_WOMB BUFFER FftDVE-D I 401"r LrrloeorrEeuFrM Waa.11RM I, +� FOOMOED TREE? ?E 1 i 1 , ." 4 •' •....u...wo� PFIDVOED SHFR O PEREMINL&-92 I ..raw ILMTIp1 rarr w-..a.wv� Hf)�krFl I _ �- r,..,.v,.w Nd Pf�llifYEhITS 3 ❑ I _ .-. I I CEDAR FE NC _ iK 1#Wuni vurr[R rnowivEo I o {aFT L4ND3C,PE EUFFCR p[OUI-P) ~ 1J ' PIL[7YIdED#F�416&PEpEr�IlrtiS-7Q ' '. w IE4UI�E11Bk1T3 RbAO Mh[>•1'U+0liJJl[17i�51'!FIlLburlWEirTS 4517 1..F F. �4 EOF ROAD V4AY ' i '.. -** 1 CLUIL II TREE P"IS LF "ob rl-ri niOlyKa TpICS 1 A Y4 MFKk}r LJ I +I -------------- Wr ' w vnoks mL f1E/irl YARD L+ LANDSCAPE .` PFOZI � .�. r + AA �� . � � . . . . . AMUT ma - 2� �, � . . .]..:c.i:.IL.__! H.M r: 9■niece M R A' 1070 27" ��r: S�f�&]T� w,5 r• 29 ' V^Iiw 1&rLprhlldL.d.,, Vwliw tdJ 1`�.• 02,379 lic,:: Ri2/ri7T rY sr i037'�M are 41'lpp 't M: PWillon SH•1FfIP - A2e1: Pli-MMr1 EE•JIM I— M.r�rn 1w-1D0O fir : Har�F..nw-lulu . ap.ltl F-3131 " An.'n11: 37M 4p.%:K:3244 Ep.":2M nwl.M. aFtl,: 4 Raua.2J1 urns 4 3.rr..3.0 1r4y s: ♦ 3d) SS 44be: S 5a#�SS 1.,.11 102IJ 1k is:OA4i *ter 1,F:2424 Acre,:0:12F lhl•e.R.IFIrF Aue1:•_4i5 I'err'.2E20 1.1:0_4J.L 1-p.-: i A1twh.J G,r.n, 3 R<ir..h d,RY Gtr-02e: 3 EpaLl[; 3 ALddMd ilnul.wJ Upata:a -A. SnYlr I� 3w97Lar1' Ir•'.' Two" i7rT 71 Ilar1'LF1 Port a. 1(o.W.w9R.n S707 SHJMFr hall Yla/ M'7&4 V11t FPrinpt Pr. 5320 M Fewdrh AL'e• 41r.i F..Lrn:EralNfaal Ear:Ohh,r�i..r.Ei4-A.I:4..n�A.n9. ��F.,r�.: AloL E.r.Eir...hw.LSi.ww1,earr61.4..n. 'Ro-Fca61'rs: VhFa-Fc�61[3.91 WLlrrt go.6hhXaulw.6hpo114 Dtl�li 6rtn, is 6F:,'r.l Vr Ld�Jlrlr��eW 6oIr�,J^rid.it^nrr.Jnl.[nun1- ,uA.�+Iri:.: Wsr[ffJ�S.I,uul bi n.lr�rr.nlbrfTJr,[Lunk^rw Irxl CtaraL Wtrl AJ6 4Lliwi DiAti.A rw1 0:.'Ial Vf..l 4d.SLI u1 D.1110 e'nik[n.R.11rr_ lrw lwrn w'on o-Ar to alr.d^r Rd,i on L r.R nn Arn. it --r rw I1,Rd S?T mnm Or W j%MOM,q,,WYJ A Munt,r T I i+:Irr' O..=r^ra.w, ':Iri•+. F.on•Trn F.a,w r..r Mr?,iMn,M nn J:.n Y4q Mon F1.h Pr,L4 Wo*41ra9p 6" WYf 9[n do9k Son Fnlan no 115155 +Y.i r P1752011 IFEN MSa 4: 122ILM H_5 r' ri Sta;L Sold sthtu: Few .AAhrx 0qw Vales -W Pr4L 4034.900 7M7 �Tu: 047)13 _ 'y4_ Prke: 176k"IL0 i h{e ibairl.Srr1 Arm. M HI. WW-L030 Arr,� IIYr1aYn HLT-SOW JNrw: NF�H-FF-l9uo � ' ±r r4' Mar*"40 10 4Fn SFR.Sled Al.,:y H: 74N r A.frgrk:#Tit er "I, l � 1!nw`q-k:ir11Ei u.m: F Dlth: ]A 11wN 5 drys:3.1 reds: # 3rJ's:YS 1..": 4 ti.s�S.15 YM n:iF 3000 A- UA3L .- +4rr M.F-a0a0 Arms:0.F33 vas-e-At 20M AR.c;.0.442 Yu.HAt.212/ Auer:0_447 Lr.1r: ] Akkwh.r G.i+I•' 1 JYH.�d .. raradc: 3 ALVd.ed Gaajc: 3 A[ 4dr RV L[ : Tk S%Dq �a+d: Two Sbwr Ir lanSpr ' ®i I- 7¢I)Y1 4433 T1LMUd 6ro1h M. 154E2 NA14W"N. 3931 F D"Drtax Pin" 2140E YR10F w1wo b<hc�Fe�h1[s:erFlmtitt tzar Dllh warlwr. Mkrrr.a.v. M1 rn Fina,ra EFFatFut 9rI,PFrkrrlFhtr,Eh11gqx4 PaUhla 411ry -ho-Falh1[s.DhhrralMr.Dkpc4�Uauhlt 0.4n.WrawavF; dLFrr Fa3W'rs;era111la.t Fr.DLhxwhlr,6hppdw�D.e.Jila OreII. Igo LXvr[L Uw. 1Flwrw Fn..Lrd^w.1.n .M Iwo ,Lrq�l}stir.. MiL.s.w.r..D..n)1.n..Euih In.UDO O. Jpnn Fr.nTh.dew.P.nln.Irnnd. FY 8.x.fitFnr.6.R�[n.Rrn n.inle d. taut Ara Sd, al D sh let West Oda 51110a1I)MI i[t d Dr4r+1 W,:.L A d. l.-I Ny iLt "IuLl Dwtl l f..I RJ.9Lhuul D a41L1 LL1i:'.. N Mn MiL,LY MLMrI.n.h S.n Yr6µ w G.ndnl..tih un h ]'L,_.u ►turn%n 141L..A,,,,N,Ndl,n,If S.n VA,.W.n I i�c hr k R mr w.rw r.r+F nn YIMnrF,S nn Rh rLtlriLg Tlmhwrr F m ':I..rrL Tra.MIr.P s..rlh nn r M RnaL1, I hh{'ri^+I I n I W. F«r.rw,LY Tw�ird rn.14.PT.1r..wY ory 1.M 1 a:nnnnlwrn nn r.narrk.r nn R.Yrrru bo A.Iw Sldl whiciNkuI n1 Inta 6■ ak Hu• 3LlbE7.l11an an Iirt North Sldr Mlwd.n ?Ah6 Id !wM: 5w !aa:rn Dnpuhllwwd Sam Saint U11puh111htJ 5u1J (r M-Wi n - �'dl ixe vn I1,.: SSl2,244 w D.b. ,i99 n..r: w.ldl.n lFV-toad R Arwx w.rwL,n x[-rood #m. M1r:Eitn iE 11C0 #a1�. dueF Sri Msri flan '4-SLR:1l Se A4..&4h: ]tea ApK li4q:336J fPK W.•. 2541 ' : 4 9a7a.25 H.J. r Wks.4.0 MX+' a Re s,3.0 a": F Re-s 2a Yw D.At 2p9P rear O, h44 J Ww k%ut a.:3939 Arn," 4y1 Tw pw'2M JCms:RFa9 _ Teer DU :•ti e t,Ai/ s:VJRM fsr.y: S AH6rh_1 {..I..11 1 AlAmamd ri...g: 4 AVI-twd,hV 1a.ng: 1 J r-dJrd Ln : S1n9Ia �'d. TY.a 9be r Law.: Q,qY. Llw.r: 5.3FS M EXETER WAY QM L FaFch Draw 25r4 E I-On.. 2*U E■- Itra1 Fwhrrs:Dr.l.wmhr,61.pu.a{MlrJawvL'4 O,r•.1rRrW vI Fmlrrat FrtaiElar Mr,DFitrwatH.r,blt w4 DaLLNl.4.ar4 rwh,'r.'D4hwwdw:PtivaFrL415a.WF a&..n,FYrrcr.L^ 9fr14r reebJ TS P4fnnd.r:PSowrll Ov9#I.O..n:M.r,c.r.hsr Y1 iHL,1n..,fl l d 44 Lk7tt� a•r, 5'saY IIdi9[haL'In6�.iLi�cL Ourh-In.k�arr_ir+.rd. D 01rnJ IlAIrd1 Fullt•Da Rwlkrr.711aIId.OranlElfTlll D 4nnFlM rrlA Euflt•L,EyMrr.7rl nJ.GrI�,.kt;Tilt n.rt Jw■%boat V110'i OL Il4R lea■FLIJOat rr�0•l0l :ri i Iri•'• F. Tr'.Milk W c MIT71Il,n,M m arnn Ylh4 W on J�•'•+m+ �7-rn.rling4 FrMh nn rayr.Rand,right v 1�wort i kl EAm h�Ai L.h.H6.W.H.n F..d..er.ra. �•t[li9rrt 1.41.IFo�Ai Lb.Ho{N.n F..dr.o er- FWJla,5G-MrIRo4WanFaMPaIEt•:txww 1flfXR1F F4H DIdE44VtdbYl1an OR FISH 1A14, - HS*: e4}44SEd MS r: tl27N1E w�. 9SFD05xR H': ' OR7SR7S7 1 Rffwc Sam SWA: SM '+.ln, dnauhli,h.d lnlr 'l.hn 2'.1d i*F hta fN1,P44 3:.x. "Jillid}w A.U. MaIrMlon VIE-LON Are1: Ewl-9994 #rn tn9ln-a140 4'.n: "1.-06" -_•r r: 'rlr 3e414 Ape V111: 3113 .EFr F,-P. 4440 1 4-SLp:475T kys S R.U. FS neds 1 Sdk..3.9 I4s1•: 4 sa-ts.SAS M.&: 4 9a7s 4.S _ Y11r 0,1t 3079 tires.§Aft I!m Eu F:MH Anne;:0:129 5ha'DLlt 2020 Aae1:1'_440 513s,HAt 2024 A=OSM I U"ir 3 A 1t 11 .u,r..l. 2 A#tok4d,411-or EFraLI'-: 'F ftlmd*d Eeral!; F AM04tl LJ r.-sum .:+Lt: Inn' T. atorK+.f a*&- �a I- iwn 11ory 295EEe.vDr;.. 44taWtali^Dr F7Nw$WINct. S,; 14F1 WWII;Qr. 1.1w,by Ilr.,:in..kr.,t ,61.I,.�.r.D.1 w4.[re.A,1.D..n, rwI Fwr'Jr.'^o hw r.urnFe..l,[b.rf.0-.Fire.,.m, ::• -r6361":Orulr�alt Bx,L7L hfraMrar.Dhpo-laL UwA4 bran, (hta-Fa1h1'M DMNMdJr.Dlrpa.aL DaYN4#.vn:M=[1i r•:1v L, yr I1rJ rr1 "4 � � Eu11r.Tn PSrnh..Id.M. .l l�Jnr Y4k.,y1;rd^�xrnhlMfri o�,trP -.T.1r.r.DnnlrwrTll« Iti J C:�:it Nleu'w....CU flLar...eu.lt.[[n.R.,&- 0...)IL.nee eu1llL.ln F.ntrr.1.a.nd.Cr I I•,111,. W.L.4Ja 9LIIoul Dir41Jt Wirt JAdo SalH.al D-xLrlLA 1krrlNrw TraMM4r4S FkrtFI4/r M'11�r]4M1 t1k6 HFlSI: l'�T+' Ff4T G hlr.pin,N7 FoI,n..n CAly w FR9rTAn9 PaIq I:+:I:r Fmnr[M d.nf N.�.ew F^rm�ir.w irM'M.> InP ':I.wr. Fmrw 16 M11gr WULflhYdrr.w Trw:F 1`rnM Gw^Frw 71nPIcu.4 EulRNya h�isn 19 HM;NtliJ Fall.M[allarr aar,w3FII^ Parkf W.Hlghllntl Fallf M.Ca14 FY E4arfi'r.Sa u AFX ,WCM4 Fy r,E• SF1Ia Prczl Ambles Fury Subdivision There were 16 new construction sales on .4 acre lots or larger in 2020. There were 1,264 new construction sales on .4 acres or less. No 6 of these homes in the same subdivision, nor were they adjacent to each other. Ambles Run is a spacious and sophisticated development that is meticulously landscaped. It will become a beautiful extension to the existing Vienna Woods subdivision and honor the adjacent Dunwoody community. iiiil From: Maria Van Der Aa Irra Seat: Wednesday. June 12, To: Maureen E. Miller cmaun Cc: Adam Benscoter<ABpn5: Subject: RE- HopeWiller 685372(Attached irl Re&Waro) &FXTFANAL EMA11,t Open linknla[tachmenmcaullpuxly. Apparently Sandy And arson " Mona Toppeis reviewed the CCRs or thelr own and realized you are in campllance_ Mona Tippets; 208- Maria darn Der Aa Escrow Other Pioneer Tithe Co 'rezi Public Presentations and supporting documents Adrienne Weatherly From: Jeff Wilding <jeff_wilding@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 5:40 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Documents for February 18th Meeting Attachments: Dunwoody CCR 1999 .pdf, Dunwoody lot 25-26 Proposal and documents.pdf; PlotLineAdjustmentSurvey.pdf External Sender- Please use caution with links or attachments. Adrienne, Thanks so much for taking my call today. I have attached three documents that I would like to review at the meeting on Thursday. I believe the public hearing is regarding the Amber Run (I think that's what its called) development. Attached are: Dunwoody Subdivision CCRs Plot Map for Dunwoody Plot line adjustment map Please send me the link so that I may sign up to speak. Thanks for your help. You can reach me by cell phone at 925-325-5396 Thanks, Jeff Sent from Mail for Windows 10 0 '` Virus-free. www.avast.com i ADA COUNTY RECORDER ���� rDuESt- - J, YARRO AMEN 4 �Ga DEPUTY i' 99 �� ` � �� DECLARATION9 9 0 3 9 2 2 7 OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION April 1, 1999 ARTICLE 1. RECITALS WHEREAS, the undersigned (hereafter collectively "Grantor") are the owners of certain land in Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Lots 1 through and including 31 of Block 1, DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION, according to the official plat thereof filed in Book 58 of Plats at Pages 5482 and 5483, records of Ada County, Idaho. Hereafter"Property"; WHEREAS, the Property shall be developed as a Non-Farm Planned Residential Development as defined in the ordinances of Ada County, Idaho, for residential, open space and agricultural uses and similar related uses allowed by law, under the name "Dunwoody Subdivision;" WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to subject the Property to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, reservations, limitations and equitable servitudes herein set forth to insure the proper design, development, improvement and use of the Property by the Grantor and all other persons or entities who may subsequently acquire an interest in the Property. ARTICLE 11. DECLARATION The Grantor hereby declares that the Property described on Exhibit A, and each lot, tract or parcel thereof(hereafter called "Lot," unless specified to the contrary), is and shall be held, sold, conveyed, encumbered, hypothecated, leased, used, occupied and improved subject to the following covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, reservations, limitations and equitable servitudes (hereafter collectively called "covenants and restrictions"), all of which are declared and agreed to be in furtherance of a general plan for the protection, maintenance, subdivision, improvement and sale of Dunwoody Subdivision and each Lot therein, and to enhance the value, desirability and DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 1 attractiveness thereof. The covenants and conditions set forth herein shall run with the land and each estate therein and shall be binding upon all persons having or acquiring any right, title or interest in Dunwoody Subdivision or any Lot therein; shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Grantor and each Owner; and each successor in interest of each, and may be enforced by the Grantor and by any Owner, as hereafter provided. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no provision of this Declaration shall be construed or enforced to prevent or limit the Grantor's right to complete development of Dunwoody Subdivision in accordance with the plan therefor as the same exists or may be modified from time to time by the Grantor nor obligate the Grantor to complete the development of Dunwoody Subdivision except as expressly provided herein, nor prevent normal construction activities during the construction of improvements upon any Lot in Dunwoody Subdivision. No development or Declaration by reason of noise, dust, presence of vehicles or construction machinery, erection of temporary structures, posting of signs or similar activities, provided that the same are actively, efficiently and expeditiously pursued to completion. In the event any dispute concerning the foregoing shall arise, a temporary waiver of the applicable provision(s) of this Declaration may be granted by the Architectural Control Committee, provided that such a waiver shall be for a reasonable period of time_ Any such.waiver need not be recorded and shall not constitute an amendment of this Declaration. As provided in Section 5.28 of this Declaration, Lot 16 of Block 1 may be excluded by the Grantor from the coverage of this Declaration. By accepting a Deed to a Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision, each Owner shall be conclusively deemed to have waived any objection to the exclusion of said Lot 16 of Block 1, and consents to the re- subdividing and development thereof in accordance with the zoning ordinances then in force and effect and applicable to Lot 16 of Block 1, including such re-subdividing and/or development as shall require that access to Lot 16 of Block 1 will be provided by the public right(s)-of-way within Dunwoody Subdivisions, and that the utility facilities located within Dunwoody Subdivision may be extended to serve said Lot 16 of Block 1, including a re-sub-division thereof. ARTICLE III. DEFINITIONS As used in this Declaration, unless the context otherwise specifies or requires, the following words and phrases shall be defined.as follows; ACC: The Architectural Control.Committee for Dunwoody Subdivision. Building: A structure constructed on a Lot on a temporary or permanent basis and unless specified to the contrary, shall include all other appurtenances and improvements thereto or used in connection therewith_ Declaration: This instrument as it may be amended from time to time. Development: The project to be undertaken by the Grantor resulting in the improvement of Dunwoody Subdivision, including landscaping, amenities, construction of roadways, utility services and other improvements as elected by the Grantor. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 2 Dunwoody Subdivision: The whole of the land described on Exhibit A. A reference in this Declaration to "Dunwoody Subdivision" shall include all lots shown on the Plat for Dunwoody Subdivision. Grantor: The undersigned owners of the land described on Exhibit A. Improvements: All structures and appurtenances thereto of all kinds and types, including but not limited to, Buildings, roads, driveways, sidewalks, walkways, walls, fences, screens, landscaping, poles, signs and lighting. Improvements shall not include those items which are located totally on the interior of a Building and cannot be readily observed when outside thereof. Lot: A portion of Dunwoody Subdivision which is a legally described tract or parcel of land within Dunwoody Subdivision or which is designated as a Lot orb any recorded subdivision plat relating to Dunwoody Subdivision or which is described in Section 5.01(c), below. As used herein, a reference to "Lot" shall include any Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision without distinction between the different types of Lots described in Section 5.01, below. Mortgp e: Any mortgage or deed of trust or other hypothecation of(and located in Dunwoody Subdivision to secure the performance of an obligation. Unless otherwise specifically provided, the reference to a "Mortgage" in this Declaration shall be limited to a "first Mortgage," including a "first Deed of Trust." Occupant: Any person, association, corporation or other entity who or which is an Owner, or has leased, rented, been licensed, or is otherwise legally entitled to occupy and use any Building or Improvement on a Lot whether or not such right is exercised, including their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. Open Space Lot: A Lot described in Section 5.01(b), below, the use of which shall be for agricultural purposes, as limited by this Declaration. Owner: A person or persons or other legal entity or entities, including the Grantor, holding fee simple title to a Lot in Dunwoody Subdivision, including contract sellers, but not excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation, but including any Mortgagee (of any priority) or other security holder, provided said Mortgagee or other security holder is in actual possession of a Lot as a result of foreclosure or otherwise, and any person taking title through such Mortgagee or other security holder.by purchase at foreclosure sale or otherwise. Plat: A final subdivision plat covering any real property in Dunwoody Subdivision, as recorded in the office of the County Recorder, Ada County, Idaho, as the same may be amended by duly recorded amendments thereto. Residential Lot: A Lot described in Section 5.01(a), below, the use of which shall be for single-family residential purposes and uses incidental thereto as limited by this Declaration. DECLARAT[ON OF COVENANTS - 3 i ARTICLE IV. PURPOSE Dunwoody Subdivision is hereby made subject to the covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration, all of which shall be deemed to be imposed upon and run with the land and each and every Lot and parcel thereof, and shall apply to interest, to each and every Owner and Occupant thereof and their respective successors in interest, to insure proper design, development, improvement, use and maintenance of Dunwoody Subdivision for the purpose of: (a) Insuring Owners and Occupants of Building of quality of design, development, improvement, use and maintenance as shall protect and enhance the investment and use of all Lots and Improvements. L (b) Prevention of the erection in Dunwoody Subdivision of Improvements of improper design or construction with improper or unsuitable materials or with improper quality and method of construction. (c) Encouraging and assuring the erection of high quality and attractive Improvements appropriately located within the Dunwoody Subdivision. (d) Securing and maintaining proper set-backs from streets and adequate free spaces between Improvements. (e) Designating and maintaining open space areas to maintain and enhance the rural environment. (f) Assuring that the residential uses within Dunwoody Subdivision are compatible with adjacent farm uses and do not materially interfere therewith. (g) Limiting the use of the Open Space Lots to agricultural purposes except as otherwise provided herein. (h) Requiring that any re-subdivision of a Lot must comply with the applicable zoning ordinances and regulations then in effect. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 4 s a ARTICLE V. PERMITTED USES SECTION 5.01. Use. The Lots within Dunwoody Subdivision shall be used for the following purposes: <i (a) Residential Lots. The following Lots shall be used exclusively for single-family residential purposes and such uses as are customarily incidental thereto (hereafter"Residential Lots"): Lots 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 30 of Block 1, DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof filed in Book 58 of Plats at Pages 5482 and 5483, records of Ada County, Idaho. f. (b) Open Space Lots_ The following Lots shall be used for agricultural purposes, subject to the limitations as provided in this Declaration (hereafter"Open Space Lots"): Lots 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26, 28, 29 and 31 of Block 1, DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION, according to the official Plat thereof filed in Book 58 of Plats at Pages 5482 and 5483, records of Ada County, Idaho, PROVIDED that Lot 29 of Block 1, which shall be owned by the Owners in undivided interests, may be improved and used as a community tennis court and related purposes. SECTION 5.02. Separation of Lots Prohibited. Each Owner of a Residential Lot, with the exception of Lot 9 of Block 1 shall, at the time title to said Residential Lot is conveyed to the Owner, also be deeded fee title to the Open Space Lot adjacent thereto. In addition, each Owner of a Residential Lot, including Lot 9 of Block 1, shall also be deeded an undivided interest in Lot 29 of Block 1. Thereafter, fee title to Open Space Lot and the undivided interest in lot 29 of Block 1 shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from the fee ownership of the Residential Lot and any attempted conveyance. to a third party of fee title to a Residential Lot and/or the appurtenant Open Space Lot and/or the appurtenant undivided interest in Lot 29 of Block 1, without a conveyance of all such interests is prohibited; provided that fee title to an Open Space Lot may be conveyed without the conveyance of fee title to the appurtenant Residential Lot to the Owner of an Open Space Lot which is contiguous to the Open Space Lot conveyed. A conveyance by an Owner of fee title to a Residential Lot, shall, without being specifically so stated in the Deed or other instrument of conveyance of said Residential Lot, constitute a conveyance of all right, title and interest of said Owner in an to the Open Space Lot and undivided interest in Lot 29 of Block 1 which are appurtenant to the Residential Lot conveyed, excepting only an Open Space Lot which has been previously conveyed to the Owner of a contiguous Open Space Lot as allowed herein. Notwithstanding any provision in this Declaration to the contrary,-Lot 5 of Block 1, which is above designated as an Open Space Lot, may be sold to a third party not an Owner of a Residential Lot and in such event, said Lot 5 of Block 1, shall be DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 5 r excluded from the provisions of this Section and, also, the provisions of Section 5.14 (Fences), below. SECTION 5.03. Approval of Use and Plans. No Improvements shall be built, constructed, erected, placed or materially altered within the Dunwoody Subdivision after the date of this Declaration, unless and until the plans, specifications and site plan =1 therefor have been reviewed in advance and approved by the ACC in accordance with the provisions of Article VI, below. SECTION 5.04. Prohibited Buildings. No trailer or other vehicle, tent, shack, garage, accessory Building or out Building on a Lot shall be used as a temporary or permanent residence. No Building shall be-allowed on an Open Space Lot unless (i) it is an agricultural building or, (ii) it is allowed by the applicable ordinances of the governmental entity having jurisdiction thereof and all required approvals are obtained as required by such ordinances, and (iii) the plans and specifications therefor are first approved by the ACC as provided in Article VI, below. SECTION 5.05. Setbacks-Residential Lots. Any Building constructed on a Residential Lot shall comply with the following minimal setbacks: Front Lot Line Fifty feet (50') Rear Lot Line Twenty-five feet (25') Side Lot Line Twenty-five feet(25) Provided, that these setbacks from the Lot lines shall not apply to any Building on a Lot on the date of this Declaration. As used herein and elsewhere in the Declaration, "front yard" shall mean that area on a Residential Lot from the right-of-way line of Dunwoody Court, as shown on the Plat, to a line created by the front of the residential dwelling on the Lot extended to each side lot line. SECTION 5.06 Setbacks-Buildings) for Animals. Any barn, shed or other Building for the housing or care of Animals (as defined in Section 5.09, below) shall comply with the following required minimum setbacks: Rear Lot Line Zero feet (0') Side Lot Line Twenty-five feet (25') Front Lot Line Seventy feet (70') Provided that no such barn, shed or other Building for the housing or care of Animals be located, in whole or in part, nearer than twenty feet (20) from the front yard of a Residential Lot. Notwithstanding the provisions herein regarding setbacks, if the applicable ordinances of the governmental entity having jurisdiction over Dunwoody Subdivision require setbacks different than those provided herein, the more restrictive shall control. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 6 F j 5 SECTION 5.07. Easements. There is hereby reserved for the use and benefit of the Grantor and granted for the use and benefit of each Lot, and for the use and benefit of each Owner and Occupant and their successors and assigns, for the purposes incident to such use, development and maintenance of public utility facilities of all kinds, including radio, television and transmission cables, the easements designated on the recorded Plat. SECTION 5.08. Commercial Use. No Lot shall be used at any time for commercial or business Purposes, except for agricultural activity and for such commercial or business purposes as shall be conducted and maintained solely within a residential dwelling unit located on a Lot, provided that no signs relating to said commercial or business activity shall be displayed where visible from any public or private road within Dunwoody Subdivision and, provided further, that the principal use of each Lot shall be as provided for in Section 5.01, above. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantor, or persons authorized by the Grantor, may use a Residential Lot(s) for development and sales activities relating to Dunwoody Subdivision, model homes or real estate marketing and sales. SECTION 5.09. Lighting. Exterior lighting and interior lights reflecting outside shall be placed in such a manner which will minimize glare and excessive light spillage onto neighboring Lots. SECTION 5.10. Animals. No animals, livestock or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on a Lot, except that dogs, cats or other household pets ("Pets"), horses, llamas, cows or other similar non-offensive pasture animals ("Animals") for the Owner's personal use may be kept, provided that such Pets and/or Animals are not kept, bred or maintained for any commercial purpose, and provided further, that where the total, combined area of an Owner's Residential Lot and appurtenant Open Space Lot is two (2) acres or less, no more than two (2) Animals (that is, two (2) Animals in the aggregate, whether horses, llamas, cows, etc. or one (1) of any two (2) of them) may be kept or maintained thereon. Where the said combined area of an Owner's Residential Lot and appurtenant Open Space Lot exceeds two (2) acres, such Owner may keep and maintain a number of Animals equal to the number of acres so owned, rounded to the next highest whole number. Any permitted Pets and Animals shall be properly restrained and controlled at all times they are outside the boundaries of an Owner's Lot. Each Owner shall be obligated to control the Pets and Animals on the Owner's Lot and such Owner shall be responsible for any damage caused by the Pet or Animal. In the event an Owner constructs or maintains a kennel or other restraining area upon a Lot, such shall (i) be located on a Lot in .a manner to avoid the any endangerment of or nuisance to adjacent Lot Owners and (ii) at all times be kept in a clean and oder-free condition_ Under no circumstances shall Animals be permitted in the front yard of a Residential Lot or an Existing Lot. Mules, jackasses, pigs, chickens or other similar agricultural animals whose habits and or odors are a nuisance or offensive in a residential neighborhood shall not be permitted on any Lot. If a permitted Animal gives birth, the exceeding of the limited number herein provided shall be permitted so long as reasonably necessary to allow for normal nurturing until separation is practical, not exceeding one (1) year. Any disputes arising or interpretations concerning the provisions of this Section shall be determined by the ACC whose decision shall be binding. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 7 SECTION 5.11. Drilling and Exploration. No oil exploration or development of any kind or nature or mining exploration, development or development of any nature, or any structures in connection therewith shall be permitted to be erected, maintained or used on any Lot and no minerals shall be permitted to be mined or extracted on any Lot. Nothing herein shall prohibit the drilling and use of a water well on a Lot. SECTION 5.12. Signs. No commercial billboard or advertising shall be displayed to the public view on or from any Lot. Owners may advertise a dwelling unit and Lot for sale by displaying a single, neat and reasonably sized sign on a Lot. Other temporary signs advertising the name of the builder or the name of the institution providing financing may be displayed on a Lot during the construction of Improvements. All lighted, moving or flashing signs for any purpose are prohibited. SECTION 5.13. Subdividing. Except as specifically provided in this Declaration to the contrary, no Lot, whether a Residential Lot or Open Space Lot, may be further subdivided, nor may any easement or other interest therein less than the whole be conveyed by the Owner thereof; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent an Owner from transferring or selling a Lot to more than one person to be held by them as tenants in common, joint tenants, tenants by the entirety or as community property or require the approval of the ACC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lot 26 and 28 of Block 1 may be subdivided, provided that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (i) such subdividing is in accordance with applicable ordinances and is approved by the governmental entity having jurisdiction thereof, and (ii) each of the resulting lots contain a minimum of one (1) acre. If so subdivided, each of the resulting lots shall be deemed to be "Residential Lots" as defined herein and shall be subject to the covenants and restrictions contained E in this Declaration, including the provisions of Article VI I, below. SECTION 5.14. Fences. No fence of any kind shall be constructed on a Lot unless the plans and specifications therefor, including the location, design, material and color thereof, have been approved in writing by the ACC prior to construction or installation. No fence or hedge located on a Lot shall have a height greater than six feet (6) above the surface of the ground upon which it is located_ The construction or maintenance of spite fences or spite trees or shrubs shall be prohibited upon all Lots. All fences shall be constructed in a substantial manner and shall be maintained in a natural finish and be maintained at all times in good repair. All new fences constructed as a boundary fence on an Open Space Lot, excepting Lot 16 of Block 1, shall be a wood pole (dowel end) or a split cedar fence as determined by the ACC, it being the intent of the ACC to require uniformity in new boundary fencing to the extent reasonably possible; provided, however, that as used herein, a boundary fence" shall not include a fence on the boundary of a Lot which is adjacent to property not within Dunwoody Subdivision, except with respect to Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1, on which Lots a "boundary fence" shall include a fence on the boundary between such Lots and all adjacent property, whether or not said adjacent property is within Dunwoody Subdivision. No fences shall be allowed in the front yard of a Residential Lot. It is the intent of the Grantor that the ACC shall have the authority to regulate all new fences within Dunwoody Subdivision to the end that the location, type and size of each fence and the materials used therein shall, to the extent reasonably possible, present a reasonably coordinated appearance and be appropriate in a rural atmosphere. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 8 SECTION 5.15. Domestic Water. The Grantor is under no obligation to deliver domestic water or furnish rights-of-way in connection with the delivery of domestic water to any Lot in Dunwoody Subdivision, each Owner to be required to provide such domestic water by the drilling and installation of a domestic water well on the Lot. Each such domestic water well shall be located a minimum distance of one hundred feet (100') from the private sewerage disposal facilities which shall be required to be installed on each Lot by the Owner and shall otherwise comply in all respects with regulations and health standards of any governmental entity having jurisdiction thereof. SECTION 5,16. Irrigation_ Water. The Grantor has no obligation to deliver irrigation water to the individual Lots in Dunwoody Subdivision, but each Lot shall be entitled to an easement necessary to convey irrigation water from laterals or head ditches across other Lots to a point of use on each Lot. Said ditches shall be so located as to not unreasonably interfere with the maximum use and enjoyment of each Lot, giving full account to unsightliness, danger to children and maintenance. Each Owner shall be responsible for the cleaning and the upkeep of the irrigation water supply ditches located on his Lot and for waste water courses crossing his Lot. In the event two (2) or more Owners use the same irrigation water supply ditch located on or near their common boundary line, they shall share the upkeep and cleaning of the same on an equal basis. Any driveway or landscaping constructed or installed on a Lot which crosses any irrigation water or waste water ditch or lateral shall enclose the same within a suitable pipe of such material and dimensions as shall assure continued uninterrupted flow of water and any such installation shall be approved by any governmental entity or irrigation district having jurisdiction thereof prior to construction and installation. No Owner or Occupant of a Lot shall place a pump or other device to divert water from any lateral ditch or canal located within Dunwoody Subdivision which is used to transport water to any location outside of the Property. In addition, no Owner or Occupant of a Lot shall deposit, place, dispose of or otherwise cause or allow any trash, garbage, refuse or other item of any kind in any lateral ditch or canal or other ditch within Dunwoody Subdivision_ The Grantor expressly authorizes the governmental entity and/or irrigation district having jurisdiction over a lateral ditch or canal with Dunwoody Subdivision to enforce the restrictions of this Section against any Owner or Occupant breaching the same. The costs and expenses incurred for the operation and maintenance of the irrigation system serving the Lots shall be paid as provided in Article VII, below. The failure or refusal of an Owner(s) to perform the cleaning and upkeep of the laterals or other irrigation water or waste water ditch located on such Owner's Lot or which such Owner(s) has an obligation to perform as provided above, shall entitle the ACC to perform, or cause to be performed, such cleaning and upkeep, and the costs and expenses incurred by the ACC in connection therewith shall be subject to a Limited Assessment under Section 7.09, below. Nothing herein is intended, nor shall be construed, as a representation by the Grantor that any or all of the Lots within Dunwoody Subdivision will be provided with irrigation water on a gravity flow basis, and each Owner of a Lot shall'be responsible to provide a pump(s) or other supplemental system to supply irrigation water to his Lot if required. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 9 SECTION 5.17. Sewer Disposal. Until public sewers serve Dunwoody Subdivision, all sewerage disposal for each Lot shall be in a private septic tank system which shall be designed, constructed and installed on each Lot in accordance with the requirements of the governmental entities having jurisdiction thereof. The Grantor shall have no obligation for the construction or approval of any sewer disposal system or the connection thereof. Drainage from a septic tank located on a Lot shall be kept within the boundaries of the Lot on which it is located. If so required by the governmental entity having jurisdiction thereof, each owner shall be required to install dry line sewer facilities at the time of the initial construction of the improvements. SECTION 5.18. Maintenance. The following provisions shall govern the maintenance of Lots and all Improvements thereon: (a) Each Owner of a Lot shall maintain all Improvements located thereon in good and sufficient repair and shall keep the Aprovements thereon painted or stained, lawns cut, shrubbery trimmed, windows glazed, rubbish and debris removed, weeds cut and otherwise maintain the same in a neat condition and shall not permit an unreasonable accumulation of rubbish and debris and shall keep all weeds and other growths cut- (b) In the event all or any portion of the improvements on a Lot are damaged or destroyed by fire or other casualty, including any damage occurring as a result of the exercise of the power of eminent domain, or any transfer in lieu thereof, the Owner of the Lot shall promptly restore the Improvements, or the remaining portion thereof, to an architectural whole in accordance with the requirements of this Declaration. (c) A Building which is vacant for any reason shall be kept locked and the windows glazed in order to prevent entrance by vandals. (d) All structures, facilities, equipment, objects and conditions determined by the ACC, in its sale discretion reasonably exercised, to be offensive or which creates a visual blight within Dunwoody Subdivision, shall be removed or enclosed within a structure approved by the ACC or appropriately screened from public view. SECTION 5.19. Nuisances. No rubbish, debris, dry brush or noxious weeds of any kind shall be placed or permitted to accumulate upon any Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision and no odor shall be permitted to arise therefrom so as to render any Lot unsanitary, unsightly, offensive or detrimental to any other Lot therein or in the vicinity thereof or to its occupants_ No noise or other nuisance shall be permitted to exist or operate upon or come from any Lot so as to be offensive or detrimental to ant other Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision, or in the vicinity thereof, or to its Occupants. Without limiting the generality of any of the foregoing provisions, no external speakers, horns, whistles, bells or other sound devices (other than security devices used exclusively for security purposes) shall be located, used or placed on any Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 10 q 3 SECTION 5.20_ Boats Campers and other Vehicles. Any trailer, mobile home, truck larger than a standard pickup, motor home, boat, tractor, vehicle (other than automobiles), camper and garden or maintenance equipment, when not in actual use, shall be kept at all times in an enclosed structure or screened from public view and at no time shall any of said vehicles or equipment be parked or stored on a public or private right-of-way within Dunwoody Subdivision. SECTION 5.21. Exterior Energy Devices/Antennae. No energy production device including, but not limited to, generators of any kind and solar energy devices, or exterior antennae or antennae dish greater than twenty-four inches (24") in diameter for the reception of radio, television or other signal, shall be constructed or maintained on any Lot without prior written approval of the ACC, except for heat pumps and similar appliances shown on the plans approved by the ACC. SECTION 5.22. Minimum Area/Cost. No Building intended for use as a single-family residence shall be erected, altered, placed or permitted to remain on any Residential Lot, which Building contains less than 1,800 square feet of living area and has an initial cost to construct the same of less than $100,000.00 based on 1990 construction costs, adjusted for subsequent years in accordance with reasonable increases in construction costs for residential dwelling units. In the event the Building intended for use as a single-family residence contains more than one story, the minimum square footage of living area shall be 2,300 square feet and the minimum square footage of the first floor shall be 1,500 square feet. The square footage of living area shall be based on the interior living space at or above the grade of the Lot, exclusive of basement, porches, patios and garage. No split level homes shall be permitted_ SECTION 5.23 Intentionally left blank. SECTION 5.24 Intentionally left blank. SECTION 5.25 Intentionally left blank. SECTION 526 Intentionally left blank. SECTION 5.27. Construction Standards. The following standards and requirements shall be applicable to the construction and/or installation of any Improvements on a Residential Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision: (a) Excavation. Any excavation shall be performed in a workmanlike manner and the Lot kept free from debris. Each Owner shall be responsible for the repairing of any damage which may occur during the construction period to any road, mailbox, utility facility or other on-site or off-site improvement caused by the Owner or contractors employed by the Owner. Unless an Owner otherwise notifies the ACC in writing prior to the Owner's commencement of construction on a Lot, all on- site Improvements shall be conclusively deemed to be in good working order and condition and any damages occurring thereto during the construction shall be the responsibility of the Owner. All such repairs required hereunder shall be made immediately following the occurrence of the damage. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 11 (b) Utilities. The connection to all utility facilities shall be underground and shall be inspected and approved by the appropriate governmental entity having jurisdiction thereof and the company providing the utility service, if required. Utility meters shall be placed in an unobtrusive location and concealed behind fences or landscaping where possible. An electrical service meter(s) shall be located within one hundred fifty feet (150') from an existing pad mounted transformer of one hundred feet (100') from a secondary junction box, as the same are provided for each Lot, unless otherwise approved in writing by Idaho Power Company. (c) Landscaping. As a general guideline for the landscaping of each Lot and as shall be shown on the landscape plan to be submitted to the ACC under Section 6.07c, below, the front yard area of each Lot shall be landscaped with trees, shrubs and ground cover, or utilized as entryways. Landscaped areas within the front yard shall include a minimum of five (5) one and one-half (1'/2.") caliper trees measured at twenty-four inches (24") above the ground plane and twenty-five (25) five gallon shrubs. All landscaped areas shall be irrigated with an automatic underground sprinkler system. Any plantings that do not survive transplanting or that do not present a healthy appearance shall be promptly replaced. Subject to weather limitations, all front yard landscaping shall be completed within sixty (60) days after initial occupancy of the Building on a Lot intended for residential use. (d) Driveway Culvert. In the construction of a driveway to a Lot providing access from Dunwoody Court, each Owner shall install in the borrow ditch adjacent to Dunwoody Court, and thereafter at all times maintain, a culvert having a minimum diameter of twelve inches (12")_ (e) Maintenance During Construction. The following requirements shall apply during the construction of Improvements on a Lot: (i) all debris shall be removed from the Lot prior to .each weekend; (li) no materials shall. be placed or kept on any adjoining Lot, except the Open Space Lot appurtenant to the Lot upon which the improvements are being constructed; (iii) vehicles belonging to workmen or used in the construction of the Improvements shall not be parked in front of occupied residential dwellings or interfere with traffic on public streets; (iv) utilities, including water, shall not be taken from any other Lot without the approval from the Owner thereof; and (v) a receptacle, including a dumpster, for trash and debris shall be located on the subject Lot and shall not be allowed to be over- filled. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 12 (f) Time of Work. Any work or other activity in connection with the construction or installation of the Improvements on a Lot shall be conducted on such days and at such times during the day as shall not constitute or result in an unreasonable nuisance or annoyance to the Occupants of neighboring Lots. f (g) Roofs. The roof of each Building on a Lot shall be covered with either wood shakes, wood shingles, architectural grade composite shingles, or file and shall be approved by the ACC under Article V1, below. (h) . Qualified Contractor. The construction of each Building on a Lot shall be performed by a qualified general contractor approved by the ACC and reasonably experienced in the construction of residential dwelling units and related improvements. No Owner of a Lot shall construct a Building on a Lot, unless such Owner is a qualified general contractor approved by the ACC and possessing the experience provided above. SECTION 5.28. Right to Exclude Lot. The Grantor (as hereafter specifically defined) shall have the right to exclude Lot 16 of Block 1 from the coverage of this Declaration, in which event the covenants and restrictions herein, including any amendments hereto, shall no longer apply to or be binding upon said Lot 16. If Lot 16 of Block 1 is to be excluded as provided herein, the Grantor, or the Grantor's successor in title to Lot 16, as the case may be, then holding fee title to Lot 16, shall record a Notice of Exclusion in the official records of Ada County identifying by instrument number of this Declaration and any amendments hereto and a statement of the said party's election to exclude Lot 16 from this Declaration. Effective upon the date of recordation and thereafter, Lot 16 of Block 1 shall no longer be bound by or subject to the covenants and restrictions of this Declaration. As used in this Section 5.28, "Grantor' shall mean and refer only to (i) Steven C_ Smith and (ii) Harold R. Bunderson, their heirs, successors and cessions. and shall not include any other person identified elsewhere in this Declaration as "Grantor." So long as either of the foregoing named persons own any Lot covered by this Declaration, such named person shall have the absolute right to approve the exclusion of Lot 16 of Block 1 hereunder and, such approval'is an express and absolute condition to exclusion of Lot 16 of Block 1 as allowed herein_ DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 13 ARTICLE VI. ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE SECTION 6.01. Members of the Committee. The Architectural Control Committee (ACC) shall be comprised of at least three (3) persons, all of whom shall be appointed as herein provided. A member of the ACC shall hold office until he has resigned or has been removed, but in any event, until said Member's successor has been appointed. Members of the ACC may be removed at any time, with or without cause. The members of the ACC shall be deemed the officers of the Dunwoody Homeowners Association. SECTION 6.02. Appointment-Removal. All members`of the ACC shall be appointed or removed by a majority of the Owners of the Lots within Dunwoody Subdivision. The ACC shall have the right, by a resolution in writing unanimously adopted, to designate one (1) of its members to take any action or perform any duties for and on behalf of the ACC_ In the absence of such designation, the vote of any two (2) members of the ACC shall constitute an act of the ACC. SECTION 6.03. Non-Liability. Neither the ACC, or any member thereof, or the Grantor, shall be liable to any Owner or any other person for any loss, damage or injury arising out of or connected with the performance by the ACC of its duties and responsibilities by reason of mistake in judgment, negligence or nonfeasance in connection with the approval or disapproval or failure to approve an application. Every person who submits an application to the ACC for approval of plans and specifications agrees, by submission of such application, and every Owner or Occupant of any Lot agrees, by acquiring title thereto or any interest therein, not to bring any action or suit against the ACC, or any member thereof, or the Grantor to recover such damages, SECTION 6.04. Approval R_eggired. No construction, alteration, modifications, removal or destruction of any Improvements of any nature whatsoever which materially alters the exterior appearance of the Improvements on a Lot, shall be initiated or be permitted to continue or exist within Dunwoody Subdivision without the prior express written approval of the ACC. SECTION 6.05. Basis of Approval. Approval by the ACC shall be based, among other things, on the adequacy of the Lot dimensions; conformity and use of external design with neighboring improvements; the effect of location and use of Improvements on neighboring Lots; the relationship of the Improvements to topography, grade, finished ground elevation and landscaping of the Lot to that of neighboring Lots; the proper facing of the main elevation with respect to nearby streets; and the relation of floor elevations to flood elevations as defined by government entities. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 14 a SECTION 6.06. Variances. The ACC may authorize variances from compliance with the requirements of any conditions and restrictions contained in this Declaration, or any prior approval when, in the sole discretion of the ACC, circumstances such as topography, natural obstructions, aesthetics or environmental considerations or hardship may so require. Such a variance must be evidenced by a writing signed by at least two (2) members of the ACC. If a variance is granted as provided herein, no violation of this Declaration or prior approval shall be deemed to have occurred with respect to the matter for which the variance was granted. SECTION 6.07. Application. To request ACC approval for the construction, alteration, modification, removal or demolition of any Improvements within Dunwoody Subdivision, the Owner shall submit a written application in a form required by the ACC which must be signed by the Owner and contain all information requested and be accompanied by other material hereafter provided. The ACC sh&ll have the right to require an Owner to pay a fee, not to exceed $250.00, to reimburse the ACC for any actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred by the ACC with respect to the review of an application, plans and specifications and/or its decision thereon. Ali applications must contain, or have submitted therewith, the following material (collectively called "plans and specifications") prepared in accordance with acceptable architectural standards: (a) Site Plan. A site plan showing the location of the Building(s) and all other structures and Improvements including fences and walls on the Lot, Lot drainage and all set backs and other pertinent information relating to the Improvements. l (b) Building Plan. A building plan which shall consist of preliminary or final blueprints, elevation drawings of the north, south, east and west sides, and detailed exterior specifications which shall indicate by sample if required by the ACC, all exterior colors, materials and finishes, including roof, to be used- (c) Landscape- Plan. A landscape plan for portions of the Lot to be landscaped which shall show the location, type and size of trees, plants, ground cover, shrubs, berming and mounding, grading, drainage, sprinkler system, fences, freestanding exterior lights, driveways, parking areas and walkways. (d) Contractor. Such information concerning the qualifications of the general contractor selected by the Owner to construct the Building and related Improvements on the Lot as shall be reasonably requested by the ACC to permit it to determine whether such a contractor is qualified and possesses the experience required by Section 5.22(g), above. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 15 i SECTION 6.08.. Decision. Unless extended by mutual consent of the Owner and the ACC, The ACC shall render its decision with respect to an application within thirty (30) days after the receipt of a property submitted application. The decision of the ACC can be in the form of an approval, a conditional approval or denial. A conditional approval shall set forth with particularity the conditions upon which the application is approved and a denial shall state with particularity the reasons for such denial SECTION 6.09. Other Responsibilities. In the absence of a homeowner's i association for Dunwoody Subdivision, the ACC shall have such other rights and responsibilities necessary, required or convenient to carry out and enforce the provisions of this Declaration, including the right to bring suit in its name or the name of one or all of its members. The ACC shall have the right to collect all sums payable under Article VI I, below, and use the same for the purposes therein specified. In addition, the ACC shall have the right to adopt rules and regulations governing the community tennis court located on Lot 29 of Block 1 of Dunwoody Subdivision, including the charging of a reasonable uniform fee for its use, if deemed necessary, to preserve and maintain it. The ACC shall have the right to purchase, with funds provided from the assessments levied under Article VII, below, and keep in force a public liability insurance policy in an amount deemed reasonable by the ACC, insuring the Owners and the ACC from any liability for bodily injury and/or property damage occurring on said Lot 29 of Block 1, provided that the failure of the ACC to purchase and/or keep in force such insurance shall not be grounds for the imposition of liability upon the members of the ACC. ARTICLE VII. ASSESSMENTS SECTION 7.01. Lots Subject to ASSESSMENT. The Lots which are subject to assessments under this Article VI1 are the Residential Lots, Each Open Space Lot shall not, for the purposes of this Article Vll, be subject to a separate assessment_ SECTION 7.02. Covenant to Pay Assessments. Each Owner, by acceptance of a deed to a Lot, covenants and agrees to pay when due the assessments provided for in this Article. SECTION 7.03. Assessment Lien. All assessments levied and assessed hereunder, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorney's fees which may be incurred in the collecting the same, shall be charged on the land and shall be a continuing lien upon each Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision and shall be a personal obligation of the Owner of such Lot at the date the assessment becomes due and payable. The personal obligation for delinquent assessments shall not pass to an Owner's successors in the total unless expressly assumed by them. The assessment lien created hereunder may be enforced in the same manner as provided in the statutes of the State of Idaho for the enforcement of liens and mortgages. The lien herein created shall at all times be junior and subordinate to the lien of the first mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Lot. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 16 SECTION 7.04. Annual Assessments. Each annual assessment shall be payable by an Owner to the ACC, or to such other party as the ACC shall direct, in advance or in arrears, and in such installments as the ACC shall determine. SECTION 7.05. Uniform Rate of Assessment. All annual assessments against the Lots within Dunwoody Subdivision shall be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots; provided, however, that as provided in Section 7.01, above, only the Residential Lots shall be subject to assessment hereunder. SECTION 7.06. interest and Costs. Any assessment against a Lot, if not paid when due, shall bear interest at an annual rate as shall be set by the ACC from time-to-time, or if none is so set, at an annual rate of fifteen percent (15%). Such interest shall commence on the date the assessment becomes due and payable. In addition to the interest charge, if an assessment is collected by the ACC with the assistance of an attorney, whether or not suit or action is filed, the°Owner shall pay to the ACC reasonable attomey's fees incurred by the ACC and such may be awarded in a judgment against the Owner. SECTION 7.07. Purpose of Assessments — Duty of ACC. The ACC shall use all funds from the assessments paid by the Owners for the purpose of. Maintaining, repairing, replacing and otherwise in all respects caring for the landscaping and related improvements, including but not limited to, the sprinkler system(s), water well and pumps which service Lot 29 of Block 1 of Dunwoody Subdivision. Maintaining, repairing, replacing, operating and otherwise in all respects caring for the irrigation water delivery system and the waste water courses within Dunwoody Subdivision including, but not limited to ditches, except where the obligation to maintain the ditches is imposed upon an Owner(s) by this Declaration. Maintaining, repairing, replacing, insuring and otherwise in all respects operating and caring for the community tennis court and related facilities located on Lot 29 of Block 1, including the payment of taxes and other costs with respect thereto. if an Ovvncr(s) fans to perform the cleaning and upkeep of the irrigation water supply ditches located on his Lot and/or the waste water courses crossing his Lot, the ACC shall cause the same to be performed and all costs incurred.shall be promptly reimbursed to the ACC by the Owner(s) responsible therefor. The ACC shall have the obligation to maintain, repair, replace and otherwise in all respects care for said landscaping and irrigation system, SECTION 7.08. Adiustments of Assessments. The ACC shall have the right to increase or decrease the amount of the annual assessments levied against the Lots within Dunwoody Subdivision based on the actual and anticipated expenses of the ACC in performing its obligations described in Section 7.07, above, including reasonable reserves for repairs and replacement. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 17 SECTION 7.09. Limited Assessments. The ACC shall have the right and the authority to incur costs and expenses for the maintenance and repair of any Lot, including the Improvements on a Lot, and for the cleaning and upkeep of the laterals and irrigation supply ditches and waste water courses located on a Lot. If such maintenance, repair, cleaning and/or upkeep is necessary, in the sole discretion of the ACC, to bring such Owner and/or Lot into compliance with the requirements of this Declaration, and if the Owner of said Lot has failed or refused to perform the same within a reasonable time after written notice of the necessity thereof has been delivered by the ACC to said Owner, the ACC shall have the right to perform, or cause performance of, the same, and to levy a Limited Assessment against the Lot owned by such Owner for the amount of the costs and expenses incurred by the ACC in connection therewith, including attorneys fees. The right of the ACC to incur costs and expenses with respect to a Lot, and to secure repayment thereof by the levying of a Limited Assessment, shall also relate to the correction of violations of the Declaration which an Owner fails or refuses to correct within a reasonable time after written notice delivered to such Owner by the ACC. SECTION 7.10. Non-Exclusive Remedy. The right of the ACC to levy a Limited Assessment as described in Section 7.09, above, shall not be deemed the exclusive remedy of the ACC, and it may, in its sole discretion, without waiver of any other legal or equitable remedy pursue enforcement of the lien of the Limited Assessment, collect the amount due directly from the Owner responsible therefor, and/or pursue any other remedy(s) available at law or equity. Nothing in this Declaration shall prohibit or limit the ACC or an Owner from pursuing any legal or equitable remedy for a violation of this Declaration. ARTICLE Vlll. MISCELLANEOUS SECTION 8.01. Term. This Declaration and all covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements contained herein shall run until December 31, 2015, unless amended as hereafter provided. After December 31, 2015, said covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements shall automatically extend for successive periods of ten (10) years each, unless extinguished by a written instrument executed by the Owners of at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the Lots in Dunwoody Subdivision and such written instrument is recorded with the Ada County Recorder. SECTION 8.02. Amendment. This Declaration may be amended as follows: (a) Bar Grantor. Until title to a Lot within Dunwoody Subdivision is conveyed by the Grantor to an Owner, this Declaration may be amended or terminated by the Grantor by recordation of a written instrument signed by the Grantor and acknowledged setting forth such amendment or termination. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 18 S 3 (b) By Owners. Except where a greater percentage is requited herein, the provisions of this Declaration, other than this Section, may be amended by an instrument in writing, signed and acknowledged by the Owners, including the Grantor, owning at least fifty-one (51%) of the Lots within Dunwoody Subdivision, and such amendment shall be effective upon its recordation with Ada County Recorder. Any i amendment to this Section 9.02 shall require the vote or written consent of all Owners. SECTION 8.03. Non-Waiver. The failure of the Grantor or any Owner in any one or more instances to insist upon the strict performance of any of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements or other provisions of this Declaration or to exercise any right or option contained herein, or to serve any notice or to institute any actions, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment for the future of such covenant, condition, restriction, easement or other provision, but the same shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 8.04. Enforcement—Costs. This Declaration may be enforced by the ACC or by any Owner (including the Grantor) of a Lot. If suit or other action is filed to interpret or enforce this Declaration, or any provision thereof, the prevailing party shall be awarded reasonable attorney's fees, in addition to the costs and disbursements allowed by law, including the same with respect to an appeal. SECTION 8.05_ Acceptance. Each Owner of a Lot, each a purchaser of a Lot under a contract or agreement of sale and each holder of an option to purchase a Lot, by accepting a deed, contract of sale or agreement or option, accepts the same subject to all of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements and other provisions set forth in this Declaration and agrees to be bound by the same. SECTION 8.06. Severability. Each of the provisions hereof shall be deemed independent and severable and the invalidity or unenforceability of any provision or portion thereof shall not affect the validity or enforceability of any other provision. SECTION 8.07. Interpretation_ The provisions of this Declaration shall be liberally construed to affect the purposos hereof and shall be construed) and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho. The singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular, and the masculine, feminine or neuter shall include the masculine, feminine or neuter. All captions and titles are intended solely for convenience of reference and shall not affect that which is set forth in any of the provisions hereof. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS - 19 arAn Of DAM)6 9 ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECORD OF SURVEY NO.-1&47_ COUNTY OF ADA I & �..A INSTRUMENT NO. _(-o�CL'• .S?!ZZ ON THS DAY OF ,W��a 20s6.-.SWORE AE A NOTARY PLOW FOR THE SUIT a DAM.PERSONALLY APPEARED RgIARD A.PROF.0001N OR VFKTF i0 AS.TO BE TMHEE PERSON VNOSE NAAE IS 91DSCR o io THE NTNN NSJJKIIIENi,AND A0114MEDCED TO At THAT HE EIECIRED THE SANE. N WITNESS WNLREW.E HAVE SET AT PAW AND SEAL THE DAY APO YEAR N THIS CERTIFICATE ADM MI TCH. AYEDAAONE>MEE' — PIRRR: N. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT SURVEY TRY FpR ONO AT ROSE,DAND - STATE of DAM) ACKNO EDGMENT FOR COIY OF ADA SS IN M ,a PRICE/MOORE PROPERTY co am THIS DAY S LSD i0 Af.TO EE 1TE MD190N YfgSE MME IE RDSWDEp TTO IiEATE OF NA «' T�r��' MOM �y WyFyy� Ey}pry �EryE ADOIDYIEDCED TO AE THAT HE LUCUTED THE SAFE +0 A4A' LOTS 25-28,MOM 1,OUNwOODY SUIIDIMSION, N WITNESS WHEREOF.i HAVE SET AT HAM AND SEAL THE DAY AND YEAR N THS CERTFNDATE ANK WRITTDN. lrarc IN THE NW 1/4,gctian 29,t.4N,,a.tE,e.>a., AY COAAESON DFR[D ,•h/'VD LLGpp - ,p;c ADA COUNTY,IDAHO ----- SCAM r*80' [JUNWnOOY :il1E3 nlVlul01.1 NB9.40'i6_E 337.26_�---��I-1�� t•r L \'�� SO CERTIFICATE OF OWNERS ------- --tr= _ —=------- -_ I I I WE.THE lSE [RSIOIED.D°IEREEr CERTIFY w THAT WE ARE THE OWNERS THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THS RECORD OF SVfl'IY AND THAT TIRE - LOT L AD.AK S TAENT ACCEPTANS. 1_ 5•_PADUC UTtES.DRAINAGE AND I A RNGATION EASEAENT 1 LOTS 25 1 LOTS 26 LOTS 227 AM 2828 II 1 O'P18LIC uTLEs.DRANACE ; , �1N G-IAA` a. 1/ND ERIGATI011 EASEAENT Ei '1 vwr•'..•• 1FW T 1 I AAIR[EN AR1iN OCIWD A.PRILE AONTE ADORE jr ADORE I R1 II 1i 'I 1 Gw 8 i tl fOm I LOT 2e li ; STATE OiCAM)M ACKNOWLEDGMENT = I m COUNTY OF ADA)11 i I ORENAL LOT 2E fA ON THIS V DAY OF 20Y/-EH7ME RE A NOTARY PUBLIC FOR THE STATE OF 0".PWOW"Y 3 AREA• 3.34 ACE FT i I LOT 27 N+N ~' APPEARED ADM AM-EN ADORE•HNOINN OR •'RD TO K,TO K THE PERSONS WHOSE NAAE'S ARE ROSCREFD TO '1 334 ACRES H I NI (CZ7 1 NSTRUADR.AND AC ONOWLDOCD TO At THAT THEY EXECUTED THE SAAE. fl n4 D.LJ I m I PQOPoSED ULOT 21O t7{SO FT F } H�^} ARIGNA.LOT 27 50 FT I I(1 N WITNESS VAKKOF,1 HAVE SET AT PAID AND REALM DAY AM YEAR N THIS CMTOVATE MOVE WRITTEN. �.•.''[A i a. !1 H 1 2.8E ACRES fi' II E IS2 ACRES I ,QO i ''''`� '(• € ` dxk 1 PROPOSED LOT 27 11 j Rr COAINSE01/EWHf,`' 07 ARY PURL-FOR DNiO \•�•�Y�S:�• S�pp q�NA7LIC UTLIES,ptANACE $ i.l AREA v IH5.763 I FT E I N- I $ " ; 86.ALRFS EE•Efi AT eNEE,DAND h AID out" OIE EASFAFNT = III ; I • CpC I {,T a.� ?'.. L--- A7.7f'.--.--------- •O9' �. 205.00•-----1 I••--•- ----N B9.35'30'E-A9.11'-------� �- 11-N 89.35'30'E-260.09• -I i CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR F7LOCK 1 'I i I I,PATRIDC A.TEALEY,DO HORMY CIMTFT THAT I AA A PROFESSIORAL LAM"YCYOR.LICENSED EY THE STATE OF DAAO.AND THAT THIS LOT LINE AD TRENT.ASOESFRED N THE CERTIFICATE OF OWNERS AM ATIA040 PUT.-ASORAWN FROA AN ACRIAL SURVEY AADE ON THE pp 1 UVNWOOD'i SU[3DIVI!;IOIG i 1 GROIIND IREDM AY DIRECT V"VISION AM ACCURATELY REPRESENTS THE POINTS PUTTED THEREON:AND.S N CONF A TY WITH THE STATE Fta J I OF DNq CODE MATNO TO RATS AM AAVEY3 AND THE CORNER PERKTWTON AM FILING ACT.VAIC COOL pI I^n• ' NOD. LOT 2 I 1 1 ti+/ •h PATRICK A.TEAL[Y.F.I.A.M. 347 L oT •,(; 3 Q I I 00. 10T n 1 uD IRRIGATION E'EASEDAAENENT A�rR(D i�wy�* COUNTY RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE 1 'I ARE • 70 30 FT `X A. ORDINAL LOT 26 g y. 1 1 ACRES 1 W STATE OF DAHO 1 AREA v 143.739 SO FT H P OSD LOT 2S I �. COUNTY OF ADA I SS I 3.30 ACRES I E 1 A• 88,345 SO R II m O Dl1RJ W OOO'i 1 MY CRTF INAT 7 6��pp�TRUN7IT YAS TIE REOUE$j qF AT NEPIES PAST 1 I AACAOSED LOT 26 2.63 ACRES i1 YO !i UE)OI VICi101•I > O'0.0CK ..THIS.> NAY OF .�.20SL-.MAY A/D Y,LS DLLY�Ulm MTRWENT NO. I AREA• 125.504 SO FT 1 tAB ACRES IO•PRRLC UTlAES,DRAINAGE _ryIlYl 11/ML/ywT,v AND RR T p HC.ATgN EASEAEN I•^^ c _ K_-_�' 0 OPFICIO RECORDER309 I Sa s as' S69.35130'1M 6 4.33' e.N• --- bv`• io''v"ciz'9:oR' S D9'YJ'30'V 66{b8' [EATER OF SECTION 29� VIE:NI.7A WOOOS NO. :. :iUBO. VIEiNNA WOOD-.i No. 4 Eil1DD. NOTES 1 SEE RAT OF SWWOODT SUBDIVISION FOR ADDITIONAL SURVEY NFORAATION.FLED LEGEND N TIE OFFICE OF THE MA COLWY RECORDER.MA COINTY.RAND.N BOOK 36 OF LINE TABLE __ 8IXdDARY LIE ATTENTION PUTS AT PACE 34E2. LINE I REARM LENGTH -- CENTER LINE THE ACCORDING of THIS RECORD°F SURVEY DOES NOT ENABLE THE 2.IDNNG FOR PROPERTY DEYELOPRENT STANDARDS IS RUT. N L-I 75'23'52'E OWNERS OF THE PARCELS TO CONVEY OWIEASIRP BASED SOLELY ON N 81•E•1•Y sL01' --_____-_-____ ORMAL LOT LINE THIS ALAP,A WRITTEN CONVEYANCE AL19T ACCOAAANY SUCH NODE N I OWNERSHIP.THIS RECORD OF SRRVEY DOES NOT SERVE AS A LEGAL ADJUSTED LOT LIE DESORPTION FOR THE PROPERTY SHOW N THIS MP. � B FOUND ALU"M CAP CURVE TABLE o FOUND S/8'RON PIN TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING ORVE RADD4 DELTA IENGTX BEAR►IG CNORD O FOUND 1/$•IRON PN IS?EAST 50%STREET CAADEN CITY.D.8370 C-1 210A>D' D'O'03' 30.56' S 71'43•D'6 SO.H' 200-3E5.0636 S- m.Do' 91•D'39 nxl' N 4o41'n•v E2.]4• • SET V2•R 24'IRON PIN /CAP -1 20g0• 49.39'4Y 17AS' N 4'SS'N'E 16.90' O CALCULATED POINT C-4 50.00' U9.59'46• 122.17' 5 20.04'49'E 93.97' DATET OKAYING NO.-. N•a o�-o-oT n:n:44 a,. RECORDING INDEX NO. 411-29-4-0-0-58-5482 S6T., 2006 3049 I i i ADA COUNTY RECORDER J.DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT 5.00 1 BOISE IDAHO 03108107 02:06 PM DEPUTY Cheche Fowler RECORDED—REQUEST OF I0703360*�t�����11�t Tealey s land Survey ng SURVEY RECORDING SHEET SURVEY NO. 7837 INSTRUMENT NO. 107033607 NAME OF SURVEY : Price/Moore Proper!y PLA SURVEY SURVEYOR : Patrick a Tealey AT THE REQUEST OF : TealeYs land surveying COMMENTS NW a Sec 29 T4N R1E t _ 14 n x Si y � �• � � aid � �� � -' r ax x —- ' •ram- .. in W �. -Irv= --_ - _ oat -''has EQ is r' Off{ CT � 4 ; CT- f — .. Q , Nlot a TLE wmms E, HANDEL 4 s 1 ' T _ �--_ . µ - E MTRT T z. _ Co Lo _ Z E STRAUSS ST w E STRAUSS ; RUT Zonin .(Rural-Urban Transition j OAH J , ■ I J" k, i ®m vlew Another Idaho Code 8 PWSy conractthe rnunlcoItyfor quesbons regarding regulations nty , AdaSou ,ID we pagg/(208)287-6840 ARTICLE B. RESIDENTIAL BASE DISTR1CTSt 826-1;PURPOSE; ¢-28-2_GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: -2B-3:ALLQWED USES: 6-2B-4•DIMENSIONAL STANOA &2"_ZERO LOT LINE SETBACK DEVELOPMENT: 8-28-6:RUT AND RSW CLUSTER SUBDIVISION: 6 2B-7:RUT AND RSW SUBDIVISION: The section Wow has beer affected by a recently passed ordinance,902-MISC ZONING AMENDMENTS.Go to raw ordinance. 8-28-1:PURPOSE:t"I The purpose of this article is to implement the applicable comprehensive plans within areas of city impact.These base districts are intended to provide appropriate density for residential development based on the availability of urban public facilities,the surrounding land uses,and the applicable comprehensive plan designation.The purpose statements of the individual residential base districts are as foflows: A.Rural-Urbar Transition(RUT)District: 1,Provide standards and regulations tot the development of properly w0tin areas of clty impact,consisterd with the goats and pol[cies of the applicable city comprehensive plan; 2.Allow agriculture and rural residential uses to continue within areas of city impact until urban public facilities are extended; 3.Provide design standards that shall permit redevelopment of property to higher densities when urban public facilities are extended;and 4.Limit new agricultural uses within the areas of city impact to those that shall not significantly impact nearby urbanizing areas with noise,odor,dust,or other nuisances normally related to more intensive farm uses.such as livestock confinement facilities with three hundred one(301)or more arimal units.This article,however,shall in no way preclude the continued use of properties within these areas for agriculture. Dimensional Standard RUT Minimum property sizel: F-1 Single-family detached dwelling 5.0 acres Single-family attached dwelling n/a Duplex n/a MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL Page I MDR.1 Future Land Use Map Designation i =111 Nap Color ❑ Zoning R-4 J R-S I TN-R Sample Use(s) Q Single-family detached residential, Single-family attached residential, and Duplexes General ❑ 3 to S dwellings per acre Standards ❑ 4,000 (R-8)to 8,000 (R-4) square foot minimum property sizes ❑ 35-foot maximum building height ❑ Design Review required for some uses; see Architectural Standards Manual Design ❑ Residential developments should orient to surrounding uses,including residential and non-residential areas,in Characteristics a way that encourages compatible development patterns, character, and appearances. ❑ Where appropriate,incorporate and enhance significant natural features as site amenities and/or design elements. © Appropriately address the critical issues of site layout that influence a compatible and integrated neighborhood character, including, but not limited to, vehicular access, pedestrian connectivity, building orientations, and common spaces. ❑ Limit street connections for residential developments off major roadways,including highways,principle arterials, and other designated mobility corridors,to mitigate development impacts on the roadway system. ❑ Site entryways,primary circulation patterns,and connections to adjacent uses should appear and function like complete streets rather than oriented to accommodate only vehicles. Q Strategically locate common and open spaces and site amenities to encourage and support pedestrian activity. Site Pattern I Note_ This information is a summary of the Comprehensive Plan designation and Unified Development Code standards. Please see those documents for complete information. Allowed zoning densities do not always directly correlate With target land use densities. One important consideration for zoning, is the transition from existing adjacent zoning designations. E IDIAN� U Questions?Contact the Planning Division at 33 E Broadway Ave,Suite 102,Meridian ID 83642 or 208.884.5533 PRELIMINARY L-07F LAYO U-F FOR M ICHAEL MILLER LOT 26, BLOCK 1, DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION, LYING IN THE NW 1/4, SECTION 20, T.4N., R.1 E., B.M., MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO i I I SHED - - En 10' PUBLIC UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT L — — — —S 89'35'30" W 367.72' — — — — — — — — 55.09, LI—.—_:s— — 205.00' — — _ 187.64' - — — — -- — — 191.47' - — — .�' — f-N 89°35'30" E 260,09' - _ O o l "r J Cr1 4- ✓ I� o O d w SUILDIMG HEIGH I 162.77' 166.37' �-` 28 FEET w, � Z I 0 a !1, POOL x -- . x I b 2.47` ~ n 166.70' BLOCK 2 - 13LOCK 1 a~`� o �. I cr rn >:A I 162.39' 166.81' I f9t I 00 ! I II o ( j a, Q J C6 I 162.32' S0.00' _Ib6.92' S5.09 _ O= S 89 °35 'S0�'W 664.33 ' 0DLLJ z¢ �2 Zo TEALETS LAND SURVEYING 12594 W. EXPLORER DRIVE. SUITE 150 208--385-0636 BOISE, ID. 83713 3049-suhd.dwg 08-19-20 1535 45 jcox u nv oHan el z ° � r E u r _ + M Han- el 'Cl :; 41 WX Strauss .Dr f DunwoodyLC Pt's � SECTION 5.02, Separation of Lots Prohibited, Each Owner of a Residential Lot, with the exception of Lot 9 of Block 1 shall, at the time title to said Residential Lot is conveyed to the Owner, also be deeded fee title to the Open Space Lot adjacent thereto. In addition, each Owner of a Residential Lot, including Lot 9 of Block 1, shail also be deeded an undivided interest in Lot 29 of Block 1. Thereafter, fee title to Open Space Lot and the undivided interest in lot 29 of Block 1 shall be appurtenant to and may not be separated from the fee ownership of the. Residential Lot and any attempted conveyance to a third party of fee title to a Residential Lot and/or the appurtenant Open Space Lot and/or the appurtenant undivided interest in Lot 29 of Block 1, without a conveyance of all such interests is prohibited; provided that fee title to an Open Space Lot may be conveyed without the conveyance of fee title to the appurtenant Residential Lot to the Owner of an Open Space Lot which is contiguous to the Open Space Lot conveyed. A conveyance by an Owner of fee title to a Residential Lot, shall, without being specifically so stated in the Deed or other instrument of conveyance of said Residential Lot, constitute a conveyance of all right, title and interest of said Owner in an to the Open Space Lot and undivided interest in Lot 29 of Block 1 which are appurtenant to the Residential Lot conveyed, excepting only an Open Space Lot which has been previously conveyed to the Owner of a contiguous Open Space Lot as allowed herein. SECTION 5.13. Subdividing. Except as specifically provided in this Declaration to the contrary, no Lot, whether a Residential Lot or Open Space Lot, may be further subdivided, nor may any easement or other interest therein less than the whole be conveyed by the Owner thereof; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be deemed to prevent an Owner from transferring or selling a Lot to more than one person to bo held by them as tenants in cornmon, joint tenants, tenants by the entirety or as community property or require the approval of the ACC. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lot 26 and 28 of Block 1 may be subdivided, provided that all of the following conditions are satisfied.- (i) such subdividing is in accordance with applicable ordinances and is approved by the governmental entity having jurisdiction thereof-, and (ii) each of the resulting lots contain a minimum of one (1) acre. If so subdivided, each of the resulting lots shall be deemed to be "Residential Lots" as defined herein and shall be subject to the covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration, including the provisions of Article Vll, below. Proposed Lot 26 Dunwoody DeAnnexation 1. Lots 25 and 26 have been separated pursuant to the CC&R's and Lot 26 currently has no access through Dunwoody Ct. 2. Lot 26 does have established access and right-of-way through Chopin Ave in Vienna Woods. 3. Section 5.13 of CC&R's state that Lot 26 must comply with current zoning jurisdiction AND that lots must be subdivided into 1 acre lots. It is not possible to comply with both stipulations under current Ada county zoning or future Meridian zoning. 4. Under Meridian zoning jurisdiction we will subdivide into the least amount of lots required by Meridian (3 per acre). 5. Homes will be of similar criteria and specifications as the surrounding neighborhoods in the mid to high end luxury market and will comply with agreements made during the neighborhood meeting to satisfy neighbor concerns. 6. Any possible Homeowners on Lot 26 will not have a vote in the Dunwoody HOA and would be required to pay dues for a subdivision they won't be able to access. 7. All streets, utilities and connectivity will flow through Vienna Woods and if De-annexed Homeowners on Lot 26 would be able to join the Vienna HOA or form their own. AMENDMENT OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS,RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION This Amendment of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements for Dunwoody Subdivision is made pursuant to the Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for Dunwoody Subdivision dated April 1, 1999, Ada County Instrument 99039227 ("Declaration"). WHEREAS, in 2007,per the Lot Line Adjustment Survey identified as Ada County instrument 107033607, the lot line between Lots 25 and 26 of Block 1 was adjusted; WHEREAS, the lot line adjustment resulted in the subdivision of Lot 26 of Block 1 from 3.30 acres to 2.88 acres pursuant to Section 5.13 of the Declaration; WHEREAS, as a result of the lot line adjustment, Lot 25 of Block 1 increased from 1.61 to 2.30 acres to incorporate the .42 acres subdivided from Lot 26 of Block 1; WHEREAS, per the Warranty Deed identified as Ada County instrument 107058682, Richard Price and Maureen Miller retained fee title to and are Owners of the remaining 2.88 acres of Lot 26 of Block 1; WHEREAS, Section 5.02 of the Declaration provides that each Owner of a Residential Lot may not separate its Open Space Lot from the fee ownership of the Owner's Residential Lot; WHEREAS, notwithstanding the provisions in Section 5.02, in July 2019, Maureen Miller received verbal permission from the Homeowners Association Board of Dunwoody Subdivision to convey fee title in Lot 25 of Block 1 and the subdivided portion of Lot 26 of Block 1 to third party Dale J. Hope and Lonnie Lee Hope without conveying fee title to the appurtenant remainder of Lot 26 of Block 1; WHEREAS, as a result of the separation of Lot 25 (and the subdivided portion of Lot 26 of Block 1) from the remainder of Lot 26 of Block 1, Lot 26 of Block 1 is no longer accessible through the Dunwoody Subdivision via Dunwoody Court; WHEREAS, the Owners of the Lot 26 of Block 1 desire to exclude Lot 26 of Block 1 from the Declaration and de-annex Lot 26 of Block 1 from Dunwoody Subdivision; WHEREAS, Section 8.02(b) provides that the Declaration may be amended by an instrument in writing, signed and acknowledged by the Owners, including the Grantor, owning at least fifty- one percent(51%) of the Lots within Dunwoody Subdivision; NOW THEREFORE, in accordance with Section 8.02(b),the Declaration is hereby amended to exclude Lot 26 of Block 1 as identified in Ada County instrument 107058682 from the Declaration identified as Ada County instrument 99039277 resulting in the de-annexation of Lot 26 of Block 1 from Dunwoody Subdivision. Upon recordation of this instrument, Lot 26 of 1 Block 1 shall no longer be bound by or subject to the covenants and restrictions in the Declaration. 2 Item 6. Ll 71 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R- 15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. Item 6. 172 (:�N-WE IDIAN IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: January 5, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the southwest corner of E.Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 residential building lots and 9 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Planned Unit Development for the purpose of reducing the rear setback of the R-15 zoning district for a portion of the development due to site constraints. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing IC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: February 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 6 PROJECT NAME: Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-2020-0100) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO X 2 X 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item 6. ■ STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 12�2zzr3,9020 2/18/2020 -- Legend _ � DATE: - Project Location ! TO: Planning&Zoning Commission ffl FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner L9 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0100 r ®' Compass Pointe Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 3247 S. Locust Grove Road, in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 30,Township 3N.,Range 1E. Ffi - I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This proiect was heard by the Planninz and ZoninP Commission on December 3, 2020 and the Commission recommended denial of the proiect to the Meridian City Council. FollowinP this recommendation, the Applicant made a request to the City Council to be remanded back to P&Z with a revised plat and open space pursuant to comments made within this staff report and by Commissioners. The City Council agreed with this request and remanded the proiect back to P&Z. The main chanPes made by the Applicant followinP the recommendation of denial are related to the number of residential units proposed, the road layout, the amount of usable open space, and no lonzer requesting a Planned Unit Development. In addition, the Applicant is no lonzer requesting a Planned Unit Development.All revisions are discussed and analyzed below in subsequent sections and delineated by strikethrogeh and underline changes throughout the staff report. • Annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 38 residential building lots and 9 10 common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district; • Alternative Compliance to connect a private street directly to an arterial street; • -Planned Unit Development to r-e"ee the r-ear-sethaek of the R 15 zoning dist-r-iet for-a pet4iffl Of the ao. elopme fft due to site e nst,aii#s,by A-Team Land Consultants. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage� 7.69 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Page 1 Item 6. 174 Description Details Page Existing Land Use(s) County Residential Proposed Land Use(s) Attached single-family and townhomes Lots(#and type;bldg./common) -5-748 total lots-48 38 single-family residential;and 910 common lots. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one(1)phase. Number of Residential Units(type 4838 total units-4934 single-family attached townhome of units) units and 4 single-family detached units. Density(gross&net) Gross-6-.24 4.94 du/ac.;Net-4-2.4 9.82 du/ac. Open Space(acres,total 3-18 3.72 acres total-2:84 3.4 acres of qualifying open [%]/buffer/qualified) space(or approx.35.6844.2%qualified according to the submitted open space exhibit)much of the qualified open space is the creek and landscape buffers Amenities 3 amenities-Climbing rocks for children,walking loop, and shaded picnic area. Physical Features(waterways, Tenmile Creek runs along the western property boundary hazards,flood plain,hillside) with most of its easement on this property.Portion of the property within the easement shows area of flood hazard. Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 8,2020; 1 attendee. attendees: History(previous approvals) N/A B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes Section VIII.H • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Proposed access is from S. Locust Grove,an arterial. The Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) proposed access is via a new private street and all internal roadways are proposed as private streets. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No stub streets are proposed due to site constraints. Access Existing Road Network E.Victory Road and S.Locust Grove Road,arterial streets, are existing with 2 travel lanes. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No Buffers Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements are proposed by the Applicant due to all abutting right-of-way to the subject site being scheduled for widening by ACHD. The intersection of Locust Grove and Victory is to be a roundabout in 2022-23 with Locust Grove Rd.being widened to 5 lanes north of the intersection and Victory Road being widened to 3 lanes on either side of the intersection by 2025. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.5 miles from Fire Station#4 • Fire Response Time Proposed development falls within the 5 minute response time goal. • Resource Reliability 77%(below the target rating of 80%) Page 2 Item 6. 175 Description Details Page • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards;current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project due to nearby waterway if a water emergency were to occur. • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths, and turnarounds. The project will be limited to 30 homes until the entire emergency access to Victory Road is constructed. Police Service • Distance to Police Station 2 miles • Response Time Estimated response time of 4.5 minutes(Goal of 3-5 minutes) • Accessibility MPD has no concerns with access into this development; the MPD can service this development if approved. • Additional Comments Between 8/1/2019 and 7/31/2020,MPD responded to 636 calls for service within one mile of this proposed development. The crime count on those calls was 79. Between 8/1/2019 and 7/31/2020,MPD responded to 30 crashes within 1 miles of this proposed development. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ins,hs) No comments submitted. • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 13.98 • Project Consistent with YES WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Additional Comments N/A Water • Distance to Water Services 0' • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with YES Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •See the attached water markup for more details; •Connect water main north to Victory Road; •At the end of Navigation Road provide a meter pit for a 1"service and a 4"sleeve to the northeast at the proposed edge of the future roundabout.This will be used for a future water service to the roundabout used by Parks for landscaping. Page 3 1 1 1 `:: ■ ' i� -:IN■'� ■11:::r Noll ♦ ♦ In unn ■ { ■■■■Wli�1\ -- ♦ �a-e no nion■NO o ■ * � ■■ E, pEii pnnu a L - ■ LLI■ILL I ■ ■■■■u■ ■ .. Nra� ■r nnm-' ■���_illfl� �! -::■== = IMINE . �illt••!' ~- � �■, iumll= r%��w - _ n■mn■ � ■�1 \`a.Yl al ,pnunnm a - Ity �'- A1111111= ■ . ___ .` ,V �� � UIIIIIII 3 - = nnnl nn■unE pr ml e QIN OIIf� NOIII115n FIIIII:11■ ■■Ill Ii � -- �noon■�IlIIIILIII -nnum - '` �/lnLIfLI1f J � - unn.IIIIIEInnI nnnm - u■unL■nI/im11; umin�ss■ ENIELI � mxn nnnm � - Ill II■n■r - ME so �Iji.•• vu nu ■lnnunm nnua �O ■ILIIIII■ -, 5 _ NIEII■■ .w - I IL■ I � I J 111' �. � \►um nmuuuN \ Si■O■ rl _ IIE!a��'' *' _ -� �' N■■■■I■■■■IN Illly 1111111111111■ LI■ ■ 1■■m - I } � ���� � � `� — m1 111►��i�� q�y '_-= Y��i � r=iiiin � _� c}" ` �• • -• -• • • • '�■■ E■E■n■■■i a�l I■IIII■LL IIII J u■n+�_■IV a-OIII Epson• ■I■■ 'i■i� � i ■■■■LLaG�1� --r ♦�♦i I�_ -_ n■EIr ♦� • �':-ee== ■n■EI �. no■�►E 4 :� n u IIII .� inm ion n u Illlii p nnu ion ' �■ NONE. a*.noon ■■••rl■■ oe1-I- •••rl'■ ��Nun■ i■nn ■ 11■n■n■■� ,r • -• •• - 1 ■ JI■mn■■�� ■■■PEE: �■■n■ n+ ■■■. nd inl ■•>t ■n. nNl_ ■m 11- it■m � 1 lilfll 11 Ei! :::� : ■ :�-1�.� ■14111111 Ems! ::::___= 111• �'+ II nm ��■ . �IIIr ~�i�. '" -- - ■��Ia■quum n.n r� � Innn r•�� III • V3GTORY- IIIIIIII■� �►� I�V'I ;� i�wYZi� - -- - -- -__- .�=� _UIIIIIII= ---- --=__ �':�I I�'-- YT=•AN�AIAA ==�e � --- - = IIIIIIII= EN�■INN -■NNNIII■IE rr 11■7 � � Illllnl ■nNNNI1INNE-r�11■- ._� - "� � QIN■NIIp��■IIIIIIII■�r11111 7111 QII■1111��EIII■111N■IIIIIIII�11■ - � �\ nuns_Gmm�n �p nnum - - noon_�i■nu nn O�nnum - i.11a_ ► mn.noon nq p noon 1 nm.IIIIIIIInq p nnnm t unnmm nnm - nm � � mmmn num - nnm m �Iwu nu-■nn■m EE I� �NOILNOLL■ I�t \I�•�w nu E•'mi■unn m - ��CL:C7:L7c ■non -nnnu ■ - • ..Enna a nu■- moon nIIIII • SO Enna •nnm � i ■■ � -mnni 5i m �■�■ ■■ p ■nm ln■ II ti '.lnu nnm nn ln■•� -`� �%�i� pNnunnn 1 �� ■ � �■ � �i�i .i�nunnn m �. r �■ 111 I �i ..��■■- �. �f I ryl�l" \IIN�1 I �QIII I 1. .. \nN .' + I..::7C:n:1 ■■ I 'y� pa I ilil;q � �'l,�,+��I..::..■n:n � � na 111 L. ►um nnnm NO■ ■■� 1111A\�V'ri� ►um nnl■1 Gf.l� 4_ nn■■■■m 1 Inm uumnl h nn HE nm - - n 1 111 � -:a �� ■ nun — n11 111 'y �' ■ nun ��� 6� __�o '• - Innn q��� � ��w - Innn II i ' - 1� ' -1 ••1 '� 11 Item 6. F177] IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1�'� 01/29/2020 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet "1�'� 01/26/2020 Site Posting 11/ 02/01/2020 Nextdoor posting 1�'� 01/26/2020 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services. The proposed annexation area is an undeveloped corner of land with existing medium density development to its west and east across Locust Grove. Specifically, this parcel of land is at the southwest corner of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road. There is existing City of Meridian zoning to the west, east, and northeast located at the northeast corner of the same intersection. All existing development most adjacent to the subject site is zoned R-8. There is a large county zoned parcel directly to the north of this site that has not yet received development approval but has two streets stubbed to its western property line so no access will be taken to Victory or Locust Grove. In addition, its future land use designation is Low Density Residential(LDR)dictating that it will likely have less density than this site. The proposed land use of attached single-family residential, and townhomes would be a new type of dwelling in this immediate area and is therefore consistent with policies noted in the Comprehensive Plan for all residential future land use designations, including Medium Density Residential(MDR), to contain different types of dwellings. MDR, as noted above, also allows gross densities of 3-8 units per acre; the Applicant haste revised this project to reduce the number of units wi4 and is now proposed with a gross density of 4-.24 4.94 du/ac. Staff finds that the proposed project meets the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651IA.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.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.oi-glcompplan): 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). The proposed R-1 S zoning and proposed land use of single family attached and townhomes would be a new dwelling type in the immediate area surrounding this development. R-8 zoning abuts the subject site to the south and west and across Locust Grove to the east. This policy, and the comprehensive plan, calls for a variety of Page 5 Item 6. 178 housing types in any one geographical area. So, adding 48 units of a different product type to the area shows congruency with this comprehensive plan policy. "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathways connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities"(2.02.01A). The Tenmile Creek runs adjacent to this property on its western boundary and the entirety of its 100'easement is located on the subject site. Because of this, the Applicant has proposed to utilize this area as a natural open space and place a 5-foot wide path adjacent to the easement. In addition, the Applicant is proposing sidewalks adjacent to the internal private streets with connections to the path along the creek and out to Locust Grove and Victory Roads. These connections create a continuous walking path through the development creating easy pedestrian and bicycle access within and out of the proposed development. Despite the Tenmile Creek qualifying as open space per the UDC, it is the majority of the proposed open space and is not an active open space area. The Applicant has not been able to enter into a license agreement with the irrigation district to beautify the creek but code glees allawfer this watet=wtfy to notes that this is one of the waterways encouraged to be left natural. There are other small pockets of open space within this development that the Applicant has enlarged since the first Commission meeting that can accommodate active uses and the Applicant has chosen to place them throughout the project to encourage use by all future residents;e* an three of these areas is are large enough to be qualified open space(meets the 50'x 100' requirement). Despite the inclusion of a large area of qualified open space in terms of percentage of the site, Stafffinds theme revised project and reduced unit count utilizes the laeking in usable proposed open space more than the previous layouts and is in better alignment with this op -—icy. "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).Due to the triangle shape of this parcel and its location being constrained directly by the Tenmile Creek and two arterial streets, strict compliance with this policy is not feasible. There are no streets (public or private)stubbed to this property and this parcel also cannot stub to any other parcel due to these constraints. The Applicant is only proposing one access for the development and is locating it as far away from the intersection as physically possible. Despite not being able to comply with this policy, Staff appreciates that only one access to an arterial is proposed. The access to Victory Rd. is for emergency access only. "Require all new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets,consistent with the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan."(2.02.01 Q. The Applicant is not proposing to construct complete streets with this development and therefore does not comply with this policy. Instead, the Applicant is proposing to construct private streets at their minimum standard width of 24 feet but with 5-foot attached sidewalk on en both sides of the street along the main access road, shown as Compass Lane on the submitted plans. Both ACHD and the Applicant believe private streets are the preferred street type in this development because there is no opportunity for road connectivity to adjacent parcels due to the site constraints outlined above. The Applicant is not required to construct private streets and public streets would be accepted by the highway district if proposed as compliant with their standards. However,public streets require more right-of-way than private streets and if this were to be constructed with public roads instead, a redesign of the project would be required and would likely result in a large reduction in building lots and usable land. "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is Page 6 Item 6. ■ provided." (3.03.03). The proposed development and use adhere to the vision established by the underlying future land use designation in that it should offer an additional housing option for the immediate area.Attached single-family and townhomes are permitted uses in the R-1 S zoning district. In addition, all infrastructure extensions will be paid for by the Applicant and not the taxpayers. "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00). The proposed development is not like any of the detached single-family homes adjacent to the subject site and this distinction is encouraged in the comprehensive plan in order to offer different housing options at different price points and to different types of home buyers. The open space within the development has been improved by being larger than previous layouts and should also be more usable due to the Applicant proposing ten (10)fewer units than previously. may leave seniethiffg to be desired but In addition, the development has landscape buffers oth natural and otherwise) on all three sides of the development to minimize any conflict that may arise from having an attached product in an area dominated by detached single-family homes. IW addition,4The Applicant is also proposing only one access to the development which should help minimize traffic impact on adjacent streets, especially once the arterial network surrounding this development is widened and improved in the coming years. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW A. Planned U-nit Develepmen4! The Applieant is r-e"estifig to eenstmet this subdivision as a Plafmed Unit PevelepmefA(PUP) in line v��UDG standafds a-ad findings (UDG 11 7). PUD's have speeifie puTese statements, should also be eamplied with; Stag analysis is in kafie-si A. The pwpese of the planned tmit develepmen4(PUD)r-e"ir-emeats is to provide 1. Preserves > ; The,4pplieant is ehoosing to leave this watempay in its natum!state to preserve ks 2. Allows for-iaaeva4ive design thm er-ea4es vistially pleasing and cohesive pa#efas e 8 units peF aeFe where design guidelines aFe in plaee fOF development aadwheFe gaFage property boundary of the subjeet site is made up of the Tempt& Creek and&easement. ereek easement to be non buddable and should be removedfrom the density eakula in generat Onee this a - .- - - -d-, the density is 8.6 units per aer,-, helping to inee this design mquirement-. The net density is higher than that of the immediately mitigate a presented by the hkher densitr. Page 7 Item 6. F180] As presented-, the overall site deskn &loekMg in innovation, in Staff-s 6pMion.AH of t tinit-s ore garage dentinate jMic-h does not meet thePLD staif Ms. However-,Staff ha sethaek request only appheable to five(5) units instead of 47 and agoo,these units to be pushed baek towards the stmet with a rear sethaek of no kess than ;Sfeet-, as o9owed in loaded-, they shouldf-pont wt the internal ntier-o path that is already proposed behveen the development offeiing more than adequate pedesWan aeeess to the at"al sidewo nei4por-k that will be in plaeefogowing the eoHstruedon of the roundabout 94th an add-kional hoHsiffg type in the development-, theAppUeant meets this objeetive by bei.n.Ig innovative in the PUD request and ovepaU design. In essenee, the proposed open sp- aee-. • 3. Creates funetionally integFated development that allows fof a mofe efficient and eost the reqHii-enient to offer adequate vehieHlar aeeess to the site-. As if oted-, the eonstrahit*severely lintit the point of aeeessfor this development to the one loeadon he. However-, this inter-seetion should be eonstrueted and improved with a multi these improvements are eomplete, this development should befunetionalty bitegmted Wo > > AppUeant states that this sethaek mlief is needed to pmvide the innovative produet t"e, Staff above, this mquest isfurffier Autinished beeause it would only apply to LoAq 2 it is if ot Bl^ The standards pr-eser-ibed within the PUP eode are as follows; Staff analysis is in itaues: A. Gener-al Use Staiidafd&-. Page 8 Item 6. Fl 81 the planned development, the applieable setbaeks as established by the distFiet shall not be posed units that Shtff eonsider-s to be the eentemiost lots in reeommended ehanges are ineluded-, this request jvig be redueed to 5 lots that a eeiffmi to the development allowed in the district be allowed as principal peFmitted use(s). TheAppUeant is no makiffg a reqffest in line with this staif dord so Stajqq7nd-s it not aff heable in this eas_eL. 3. ifitefeenneeted Uses! The uses within the plapmed unit development aFe ifiter-eet+Reeted thfough a system of roadways andlor-pathways as appropriate. Private streets and seFvice Regulations", of this title may be appFoved. The exception is that along the per-ipheFy o pen spoees to all msidendal units in the subiM,' pathm. However-, the amount of usable o pen spoee and housing"es with4i M subdivision ean be inereased if the eentral units front on the miero path as mom usable o pen spoee, an additional housing"e in theform of ofley loaded title. The sffbjeet site is proposed to be een stmeted with privafe streets that affear to eompUant with thig standard if Staffs reeomfliendo&ivs am adheiwd tor Sensitive afeas in the na4tifal state, Of to eonsolidate sffiall Open spffees into lafgef,M ofe inherendy elustetwd hi small bloeks. In addition, the AppUeont is preservMg the Ten pen spoe —B. Pr-ivate Open Spaee! in addition to the eammmon open spaee and site amenity Fe"if-ements of eighty(80) s"afe feet of pfivate,�tsable open spaee shall be pf Revi ded forr ea show eontp"if ee with this standard by gtwphieally depieting the dintensions of th pmposedpor,ehes with the Pequired Design Review submittalfop attaehed units. Page 9 Item 6. F182] QResidentia4 Use Standards-.- nDistfiet n title,multi family d-wellings may be an allowed tise when approved thfetigh a plafmed tinit 2. Housing T"es: A vafiety ef housing types shall be ineluded within a single planne homes)> > the site,provided th4 the over-all deasiVy limit of the distfiet is main�aified.As He theApplieant need-s to inelude an additional housing type that is more dominant than 12 units of difftrent type than the garage dominated townhemes eurmndy proposed-. types in this dewlVinent-. 3. Density Femiula: Residential densiVy in a planned develepmen�shall be ealeuWed by ffmitiplying the net r-esiden4ial area(gr-ess acreage less the afea ef nefwesidefifial uses)b leeated. There are no non residentialusesproposedwith this development but beeomes 8.6 dm4ie. This is above the agowed gross density 4the undepiying Ftuwe use designation but Staff is only using this ealeuladon to show eoinp- Uanee jvA th 4. Density Bei+us.! A fesideafia4 density benes may be given fer-dedieatiens ef land fe publie use sueh as >padE, for-that!a-ad. The benes shall be pr-epet4ieaa4 to the a-meunt of!a-ad being dedieated. Fe example, if ten per-eefA entity by dena4ien of at a eest less than, er-equal te,the apphea-at's pr-edevelepmen4 eest shall be ten per-eent 0 ). However-,in no ease shall the beaus exeeed twepAy f4ve per-eepA reeontinended by Staff. B. Private Streets/Access: Access for this development is proposed via a private street connection to S. Locust Grove in the southeast corner of the site aligning with E. Coastline St. on the east side of Locust Grove(the access into Tradewinds Subdivision). All private streets appear to meet UDC dimensional standards for width,number of units,and turnarounds. Because the site is a triangle shape, bordered on two sides by arterial streets and on one side by the Ten Mile Creek, there is no opportunity for connectivity to any adjacent site and so ACHD prefers private streets within the development. Consequently, because private streets take less right-of-way than public streets and most notably because of the constraints just noted,-i the Page 10 Item 6. F183] Applicant agrees with this assessment and has proposed private streets throughout the development. City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a mew or gated development and so this Applicant has proposed neithe to construct a gated entry into the development with the revised layout. beeente alle�, loaded garages eff ef the j9phwte street by reques-fiffg to elimkate the required paFkingl9ad thfough Me PC request, OHee MeApplieant does this, the unity ean be Igus-he P-rivate Street standards. The access point into the development does not meet ACHD district policy but they are modifying their policy to accommodate access into the development because this is the best place for an access to a residential development. This is largely because of the site constraints already outlined above. The Applicant is proposing to construct private streets that are 24'wide with S' attached sidewalk on one both sides of the main private street t'p effg out the rreje t and on one side of the other two private streets within the development. Staff supports the proposed men of-the sidewalk layout en ones to ensure adequate pedestrian access in the development except Staff believes an additional pedestrian connection to Locust Grove is necessary from near the center of development. Since the Commission meeting the Applicant has also revised the street layout to have the main street bend and meander through the site. This design offers some natural traffic calming and also changes where setbacks are taken from because setbacks are measured from the back ofsidewalk. On the submitted site plan (Exhibit VIII.E the Applicant has not appeared to take full advantage of these varying setback lines. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the Applicant vary the build-to-lines throughout the development to eliminate any monotonous wall plane; this should occur with every other structure showing a different wall plane. At the north end of the main street within the development(labeled as Compass Lane on the landscape plans) the Applicant is proposing an emergency only access to Victory Road. This access is required if more than 30 homes are to be constructed. Staff is not aware of the kind of emergency access proposed but Meridian Fire prefers bollard type accesses for added efficiency in emergency situations;Meridian Fire has approved the requested preliminary plat for fire access, turnarounds, and road widths. Page 11 Item 6. F184] Near the center of the development the Applicant is showing a hammerhead type turnaround because that dead-end street is longer than 150'and therefore is required to have a turnaround for emergency vehicles. Since the hammerhead does not take up the full length of a buildable lot, the Applicant is proposing the rest of that lot to be a small area of open space. WW �s beeentepartef the larger eemmen open Vaee niew let, Further ana[),�sis is belew iff the Open To remove the need for this hammerhead and the incentive to use this turnaround as parkin spaces, Staff recommends revisions to this area of the site. The Applicant should connect the two private streets shown as Galileo Road and Navigation Road along the eastern property line, as shown below. This requires the applicant to remove two building lots and revise I e the plat and all other plans to show this connection. However, if these two roads connect, there is no need for the hammerhead turnaround and the small proposed open space area at its terminus and the Applicant could then add a unit to that lot resulting in a net loss of one unit. Staff)ands that this recommended revision makes for a more complete road network and allows better circulation within the site for both residents and emer eenncy services. As noted, the Applicant is now proposing to construct this development as a,gated community to meet the Private Street Standards.According to the revised preliminaryplat, the Applicant is proposing the gate to be located approximately 130'into the private street access and after a set of guest parking�spaces. Staff appreciates the desire of the Applicant to add additional guest parking but these parking spaces should be removed in lieu of a turnaround area so that anyone who may pull into this private road on accident has the ability to turnaround safely. This is needed because private streets are too narrow to safely turnaround within its 24 feet of rLoht_of- way. The Applicant should remove these 3 guest spaces and show a turnaround area in this area instead. Page 12 Item 6. 185 C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There appears to be an existing home on the propertyi an&this building will be demolished at the time of development, according to the Applicant. There are no other site improvements known at this time. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is attached single-family and townhomes which are listed as principally permitted uses in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. There is one are four detached units proposed and a better mix of duplex and triplex style townhomes shown on the revised plans for elesest to the -en-M re-e _rthe development. As discussed in the comprehensive plan section above, the proposed use of attached single-family homes would be a new type of residential use within almost a square mile in every direction of this development. So long as the Applicant complies with the recommended conditions of approval, including those regarding the road layout Staff finds that the proposed use will be a welcomed addition to the City of Meridian and add more housing options in this area of the City. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed lots and the private streets appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. This includes property sizes,required street frontages,and road widths for the requested R-15 zoning district.Note: The City of Meridian does not have maximum lot coverage or floor area ratio requirements so proposed homes can theoretically more living area than proposed lot area or be close in area. proposed la�q withiH the subdivision. This is the only i�equest the ApplieaHt is makiffg that w adjust Me requiped dimeHsieHal staHdards-. #theP1,D request i-9 appreved-, theH all lets will be iH In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). Stafffinds the proposed project meets these standards. F. 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 and attached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.Future development should comply with these standards.No parking plan was submitted with the application. The proposed street sections(23 24 feet wide with attached sidewalks) of the private streets within the development,shown on the submitted preliminary plat, CANNOT accommodate parking on either side of the street. The entirety of the private streets will be required to be labeled as "No Parking,"per the Meridian Fire recommendations. Each unit will be required to meet the off-street parking standards and Staff encourages the developer of this site to include provisions within their HOA bylaws that prohibit garages being used as storage. This would help alleviate some of the parking issues seen throughout the City and especially in areas where no on-street parking is allowed. The PL�P-Site Map submitted by the applicant appears to show compliance with the parking standards with a two-car garage for each unit and a parking pad. iveuU lose their j9af*iffgj9ad through a PUD request to elintinate that requireniew as allowe Page 13 Item 6. 186 This weuk4 eliminate sente jqa4dng in Me subdivision but Me Appheant is also 19refles-ing to eens-truet gues-t1ga4ing eff the main private zq��et in three areas ef the develepment to total 12 addifienal spaees. Staff is ameHable te using some e)4he Other z9fliall epeH zSpaeeJ9eeket-Sf6'r The Applicant is also showing guest along the main private street to total 9 additional parking spaces (does not include the 3 spaces outside of the entry gate that Staff is recommending be removed in lieu of a turnaround area). Lot 3, Block 4 is proposing 6 guest within an open space lot that is not quali Being because it combines remnant areas that Staff does not find meets UDC open space standards. Because of this, Staff encourages the Applicant to add additional guest spaces in this area to better utilize the area. G. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): No multi-use pathways are proposed or required with this development because the required multi-use pathway is already constructed on the west side of the Tenmile Creek on an adjacent parcel. This Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide pathway on this side of the creek and behind the proposed homes. This pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project and thru the common open space lot located midblock on the west side of the site. This pathway also continues north and connects to the required sidewalk along Victory Road creating continuous pedestrian circulation path for the development. 'addifien, t 419plieant Leeust Greve. This path z9houN be kept and ineluded within the i�eeemmended mew te sei=�v aS H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along at least one side of all internal lee-al rb ivate streets. Sidewalks are not required when constructing Private Streets. There is no existing sidewalk along Victory Road or Locust Grove;and none are proposed with this project because both arterial streets are scheduled to be widened as part of the roundabout project at this intersection in 2021-22, according to ACHD, as stated above. Detached sidewalks are required along arterial roadways per UDC 11-3A-17. The Applicant has already agreed to dedicate additional right of way to ACHD for the roundabout and future widening of Victory and Locust Grove.ACHD is requiring the Applicant to road trust for the sidewalk improvements as the roundabout and associated improvements will likely be constructed prior to construction of this site. In addition, this will ensure any improvements made by the Applicant will not have to be removed to make the planned roundabout improvements. Therefore, Staff is recommending that the Applicant comply with the ACHD conditions of approval for the arterial sidewalks instead of constructing them with this project. As discussed, the Applicant is proposing 5-foot attached sidewalks on at least one side of the internal private streets to accommodate better pedestrian access through the development. Staff recommends that ghese all sidewalks and every expected pedestrian crossing be constructed with pavers, stamped concrete, or similar to clearly delineate the sidewalks from the driving surface and to subsequently help with pedestrian safety. In addition, Staff is recommending that with the recommended road layout changes the Applicant add an additional sidewalk connection to Locust Grove to improve pedestrian accessibility to the arterial sidewalks. Page 14 Item 6. F187] I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E.Victory and S. Locust Grove because they are arterial streets. This buffer should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and placed into a common lot that is at least 25-feet wide. In most cases this common lot should also contain the detached sidewalk required along all arterial roadways but in this case the sidewalk abutting this site will be built with the ACHD roundabout project. The submitted landscape plan and preliminary plat depict a 25 foot wide landscape buffer; the correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted landscape plans (see Section VIII.C). However, there is no landscape calculations table as required by code. The Applicant shall be required to submit revised plans that include a calculation table depicting the linear footage of the landscape buffers, the required number of trees, their common name and their scientific name, the class of tree, and the dimensions of the tree canopy at maturity; each type of shrub proposed to be used should also be included in the calculations table. Me paees S-hown abHo4ffg the inter-Hallgrivate st-Feet-s will be able�e beplaeed Mere. This eaHe stems-ftem theApplieantprepesing the water alld sewer mains near4,20feet apart withiH t right of way dietadHg that the everall easement wid4h will enereaeh into Meftawya4q ef4he the submitted laHd-seape plaHs ean be eeHz9i9, Feted Z-.-th e leeations shown OR revise the Igidepas water and sewer main laeations.te alleviate this issue h�,,faeAeing Me everall wid4h of A easeflient. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space is not included because there is no Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans demonstrating compliance with UDC standards. However, Staff can graphically see that the open space lots are vegetated according to UDC standards. Still, the Applicant will be required to add a calculations table with the recommendation noted above and revise the landscape plan to show the addition of the mew between Lots 2-14, Block 2 as recommended by Staff. The proposed pathway located behind the homes and adjacent to the Tenmile Creek is also required to be landscaped with a tree every 100 feet per UDC 11-3B-12. However, the Applicant did not include a 5-foot wide landscape bed on either side meant for the required trees. The Applicant will need work with the irrigation district to obtain a license agreement to include at least 5 feet of landscaping on one side of this pathway. Otherwise, the Applicant will need to apply for Alternative Compliance with the Final Plat submittal so show an equal or better means of compliance with this requirement. J. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. According to the property size of 7.69 acres,the Applicant should supply at least 0.77 acres of qualified open space, or approximately 33,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing IM91 acres of open space,of which 2-.84 3.4 acres is shown as qualifying open space on the s4mitte revised open space exhibit(see Section VIII.D). Some of the area listed as qual,fying open space by the Applicant does not meet UDC standards due to their size not being at least 5,000 square feet or being near the 50'x 100'dimensions. Once this area is removed, the qualified open space proposed is 2.6897 acres, awn en '. �; the Applicant should revise the open space exhibit to correctly label the qualified open space removing Lot 23, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 4, Block 3, and Lot 3 Block 4. Page 15 Item 6. ■ The open space for this development is vastly made up of the Tenmile Creek easement(2.12 acres) and the arterial street buffers (19,281158 square feet of qualifying area).All of this area is qualifying but the Tenmile Creek will be left natural(no improvements)and will be a buffer and more of a visual amenity than usable open space for the development. Abutting the creek and generally mid-block, the Applicant is proposing an open space lot that is approximately 5,4-30700 square feet. This open space lot contains one set of the amenities and a micro path that connects the private street to the pathway along the creek. This open space lot and micro path offers a clear connection to one of the at her miere aMs in the dei,elopment t'a' the attached sidewalks throughout the development and an additional open space area centrally located within the development. mew between Lots ' 14, Bleek '. In general, the Applicant has increased the usable open space areas throughout the site following the Commission's recommendation of denial and comments regarding a desire to have more usable open space. With the reduction in unit count and additional centralized open space, Staff finds the proposed open space not only in excess of code requirements but also an improvement from previous layouts. K. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat, 7.69 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 has proposed four(4)qualifying amenities in multiple locations: gazebos, seating around small plazas, climbing rocks, and walking paths. The proposed amenities exceed the minimum UDC requirements and Staff finds them to be applicable for a community of this kind due to the variety of activity levels they can accommodate. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is shown on the landscape plan along the subdivision boundary and around the central open space lot along the western portion of the site but no other fencing is shown.Fencing shown next to any open space shall be open-vision or semi-private fencing per UDC requirements. According to the Applicant, the exclusion of fencing between homes is purposeful despite the homes being a for sale product. The Applicant intends for the open areas between homes to be a more shared space than what is normal within a subdivision. to ff'Y r..,,,m,iena Lien.to inehide Fencing is not required in these areas so Staff has no conditions regarding this. However, there should be open-vision fencing along the western edge of the pathway adjacent to the Tenmile Creek to ensure the safety ofpedestrians, especially children. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to show this additional fencing. M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the attached,triplex, single-family homes for this project(see Section VIII.F). The submitted elevations show all two-story attached structures with two-car garages and ldenfiea finishing materials of wood and stone. In addition, the elevations show modern architecture designs with shed roofs, second story patios with glass railings, and stone accents that go the full height of the proposed homes. Staff has also not received elevations for the one Page 16 Item 6. ■ detached homes but detached homes do not normally require design review; if the Commission or Council determine design review is needed for these detached units, Staff recommends an added condition to require the entire property obtain design review as a blanket condition. nor the one duplexuni However, attached single-family homes require design review approval prior to building permit submittal and at that point, Staff will ensure compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual. The submitted elevations for the townhome units appear to meet the architectural standards but with the design review application for the site, the Applicant will be required show additional styles and colors for these units. In addition, Staff recommends the Applicant provide a different design for the units fronting on the recommended mew. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and the preliminary plat, and plamed tMit developffle with the conditions noted in Section VIILA per the fmdings in Section IX of this staff report. The Director has approved the private street and alternative compliance applications. B. Commission: Summary following Commission meeting. C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 17 Item 6. F-19ol VIII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map a DAVID EVANS AND ASSOC I ATES INC DESCRIPTION FOR COMPASS POINTE SUBDIVSION REZONE&ANNEXATION The following describes a parcel of real property lying within the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter(NE1/4 NE1/4),Section 30,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian, Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of said NE1/4 NE1/4;Thence,along the east boundary line of said NE1/4 NE1/4,South 00'14'11"West,1070.48 feet; Thence,departing said east boundary line,North 30"12'47"West,1235.02 feet to the nortFi boundary line of said NE1/4 NE1/4; Thence,along said north boundary line,North 89'42'20"East,625.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 7.69 acres more or less. l �w F 0 13 x sF r a 1oP e� P.SULL��P Page 18 Item 6. 191 1 625.91 n89°4220"e Title: Date:05-19-2020 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File:COMPASS POINTE SUB REZONE ANNEXATION.des 'tract 1: 7.690 Acres: 334998 Sq Feet:Closure—s72,0359w 0.00 Feet Precision>1/999999: Perimeter—2931 Feet 001=00.141 lw 1070.48 003=n89.4220e 625.91 002=00.1247w 1235.02 Page 19 Item 6. 192 EXHIBIT MAP OF COMPASS POINTE SUBDIVISION RE—ZONE & ANNEXATION A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30, T. 3 N., R 1 E., S.M., CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2020 E VICTORY RD N $9'42'20" E 625.91'7h PLS 8444 NE COR, SEC. 30 FOUND 1/2 REBAR FOUND BRASS CAP 28.95' WC I \ I 00 p O w� 2 � 7 O �p 7.69 ACRES± I O N. I FOUND 5/8 REBAR ILLEGIBLE 1"=200' DAVID EVANS o _ Q ANoASSOCIATES INC. a 1 4 6 ,u O 9179 W Black Eagle Dr 4p D Boise Idaho 7 ° Phone: 208-585-5858 s'tc9 F F►oP�e� qNP SU1L�`1P Page 20 Item 6. ■ B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 4 4 Q/20201/21/202 1)NOT APPROVED H" E i rd CL e. id "x" /�� \ � ���. III �� g s Sq. 1N Hh ---------------- Page 21 Item 6. F194 C. Landscape Plan(dated: ""�201/21/2021)NOT APPROVED ,R j 9 x o ¢"r -- � ntoain }iii a \ - n�� x \ S � \ \ \ 4 ------ , Page 22 Item 6. Fl-951 D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 1 1�201/21/2021)NOT APPROVED 1Fe 7. �Jr n p J � v` m �I flu 0 t z� w W U \\ / \` 6 w w a LU a d \ 0 ww O O A ❑ 4 \ U a 1 0 Q &"s -- U to U ha d 6�6 r I - Page 23 Item 6. 196 E. Site Plan—"PUD Map"(dated: 11/02,120201/21/202 1)NOT APPROVED - - - - - - - - - - - - - \ \ X A 22, 3 9H Ki WN- 2 0 -------------- Page 24 Item 6. F197 F. Conceptual Building Elevations WHITE CLOUD COLOR OPTION 1 - F' `4V'� STtDICS .�s ....._..��,..... MORE. w ll LL x QOw Rm,40)(YO COLOR OPTION 7 - _ -- - - V m k Q LU Ik- ■ d .c.�..m. - - Q~ Z IL COLOR OPTION 9 Mn COLOR OPTION 4 - 1p 3a f u3 AhTe6Mrm ■ n�v u.- COVER SHEET ■ - . tee WHITE C—D sTUDios xCLL Saw N wNo ip � P003: fL in al-4 N-_�tK W 13 j) 0 on In m r. �. 5, EL[VAYIONe 4 �01 Page 25 IT 5EDROOM 2112 eATH DUPLEX DUPLEX IMHIIIIIII HIIIEEH 4 AV IL �Iy+la- i it-ni - �._ SS f •.11 1 - F ` Item 6. Fl-991 WHITE CLOUD S TUD�IOS COMPASS POINTS COLOR OPTION 1 3 BFDROOM 2 112 BATHROOM - 1951 90 FT 2 BEDROOM 2 112 BATHROOM TRIPLEX - 1,555 SQ 1=T w 0 f ;0A z o T '�'• TAN STUCCO SIDING- Q jF - - LEDGE9TONE ROCK 17 I' , cove SWEET WHTE CLOUD 5TUDI L: d)J Q }ly OOP U TR t ELEVATbNB AA 201 u Page 27 Item 6. F 00 WHITE CLOUD 9ruDIOS COMPASS POINTE CONTEMPORY MODERN 3 BEDROOM 2 1/2 BATHROOM DUPLEX Me SQ FT. W - o - Qa OfjW 0 0 TEPM covm B"m 0�30> moo 1010 UHIrE CLOUD STUDILU G6 O iU O fj m z �}W U �. .. .-• ; wit.— -i •-- sELEYAYION6 Page 28 Item 6. F201] IX. 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 Preliminary Plat,PUB NUpailte Plan,Landscape Plan,and conceptual building elevations for the development, especially the attached single-family dwellings, included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. c. Direct lot access to E.Victory Road and S. Locust Grove Road shall be prohibited. d. The entire frontage improvements along E.Victory Road and S. Locust Grove Road shall be completed with the first phase of development except for the required sidewalks,per the conditions of approval by ACHD. e. All sidewalks and pedestrian crossings within the subdivision shall be constructed with pavers, stamped concrete, or similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian pathways throughout the development and to add to the character of the private development. f Lets z 14,Blee,z shall ha-ye i cdueea�'ar i3�ra 3aar zto ixxc1 ude only crequirement of the eg sb-7eet pafking sta*dar-ds(UPC 11 3C 6) for-Lots 2 r-equir-ed twe (2) gar-age spaees per-the Planned Unit Development fequest. 2. The Appheant shall revise their-Planned Unit Development request to! 1)r-edttee the lots being asked for-a r-ear- yar-d sethaek relief--,2)request an elimina4iea of the pafk4ng-pad >Bleek > and 3) ineltide a mew a4 least 20 feet wide between these lots to meet the PUD a-ad Private Str-ee staff 3. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the preliminary plat included in Section V111.13, dated 1�201/21/2021, shall be revised as follows: a. Revise note#4 to list the building lots thM have a r-edtteed feaf yafd setback per-the PUD request(Lots 2 6,Blee" b Revise the plat to remove the guest outside of the gated entry and instead depict a turnaround area. show Lot 71 Blee,2 as Lot Q Bleek 2 t , ee!a labeling lHist,,,o E Revise the plat to show Galileo Road and Navigation Road connect in the area shown as Lots 7 & 8,Block 3. show Lets 2 14 as alley leaded hemes tha4 front on the eea4r-al mew between them eemmenstwate with the revised PUD r-e"est. Page 29 Item 6. ■ d, Revise the plat to show Lot 4,Block 3 as a buildable lot instead of a common lot and hammerhead turnaround following the connection of Galileo and Navigation Road.-Let proposed w path.er-e e. Revise the plat to show the removal addition of the twe .,dd ti a pathway connections to Locust Grove from the new road se mg ent replacing Lots 7& 8, Block 3. t 1 south of the miefe path leeated i the mew between Lets i 2 1 A 1?leek 7 o ea ee , £ Revise the plat to show all sidewalks and expected pedestrian crossings to be constructed with pavers, stamped concrete,or similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian pathways throughout the development and to add to the character of the private development. g. Show additional guest parking on Lot 473,Block 24. 4. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the landscape plan included in Section VIII.C,dated 1111/�201/21/2021 shall be revised as follows: a. Include a landscape calculations table that includes the following information at a minimum: the linear footage of the landscape buffers,the required number of trees,their common name and their scientific name,the class of tree, and the dimensions of the tree canopy at maturity; each type of shrub proposed to be used should also be included in the calculations table with the same accessory information as is required for the proposed trees. b. Show open vision fencing on the west side of the pathway abutting the Tenmile Creek; all fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. c. Revise the landscape plan to show the recommended layout changes; any changes in landscape calculations shall also be reflected in the calculations table. d. The Applieaf4 shall gr-aphieally depiet the vegetation oft the submitted landseape plans ea-a be eenstfueted in the leeations shwA%OR revise the-proposed w4er-and sewer-Mai e. Show the required landscaping on the western side of the pathway abutting the Tenmile Creek per UDC 11-3B-12. 5. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the open space exhibit included in Section VIII.D shall be revised to accurately depict and label the qualified and non-qualified open space per the standards in UDC 11-3G-3 and per the revisions recommended by Staff. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the R-15 dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for all buildable lots exeept for-these lots given a r-edueed r-eaf sethaek wi the PUP r-equt-A. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit_exeept fer 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval as noted in Section IX.H. 9. The Applicant shall work with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to obtain a license agreement to include a 5-foot wide landscape strip and the required landscaping(including trees)per UDC 11-3B-12 prior to applying for the Final Plat application; IF the Applicant can prove this agreement could not be reached,the Applicant shall apply for Alternative Compliance at the time of Final Plat application submittal for the required landscaping. Page 30 Item 6. F203] 10. Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for single-family attached dwellings as applicable. 11. A miaiffmm of 90 squafe feet of private,usable apen spaee shall be provided for-eaeh dwelk*g unit;this r-equir-emen4 ean be satisfied thfough per-ehes,patios, deeks a-ad efielesed yards a €or4'� in T� 117 4B. Future homes along the proposed"Compass Lane" shall provide variation in building setbacks to provide for an attractive streetscape; a master-plan depicting varying building setbacks shall be submitted with the required design review application(s). 12. The Ten Mile Creek that resides along the western boundary of the subject site shall be protected during construction. 13. The Applicant shall comply with and maintain all applicable standards for the proposed Private Streets as outlined in UDC 11-3F. 14. "No Parking"signs shall be erected on both sides of the private streets throughout the development; coordinate with Joe Bongiorno of the Fire Department if you have any questions regarding this condition. 15. The proposed develepment shall have a t:edtteed r-eaf yafd sethaek ef ne less than ten(10) feet for-Lots 1 6, Bleek 3 per-the Plamed Unit Develepmen4 r-e"est. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Connect the Compass Lane water main north to the water main in Victory Road. 1.2 At the end of Navigation Road,provide a meter pit for a 1"service and a 4"sleeve to the northeast at the proposed edge of the future roundabout. This will be used for a future water service to the roundabout for landscaping. 1.3 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 streetlight future installation agreement will be required for the streetlights on Locust Grove and Victory. Locust Grove and Victory are scheduled to be improved by ACHD and streetlights will be installed during the improvements. Contact the Transportation and Utility Coordinator for additional information. 1.4 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting, LLC dated April 6,2020, indicates some specific construction considerations and recommendations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these considerations and recommendations to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils, and that groundwater does not become a problem with home construction. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. Page 31 Item 6. ■ 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. Page 32 Item 6. F205] 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216616&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky Page 33 Item 6. F206] D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) hygs://weblink.meridianciU.or,g/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216663&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216459&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216673&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=216532&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC fty H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217090&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Ry X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-15 and proposed residential uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all provisions of the Development Agreement and conditions of approval are complied with. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment will allow for the development of single- family attached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and especially in the area immediate to this site, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the purpose statement of the residential district. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,school districts; and Page 34 Item 6. ■ Staff 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. Staff finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City per the Analysis in Section VI. 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; Staff 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 analysis and other analysis in Section V and Section VI of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section IX 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, Staff 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; Staff 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 4VM for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and approves of the project with specific conditions of approval relating to the scheduled road improvements adjacent to the subject site. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. The Applicant is preserving the Tenmile Creek that resides on the subject property; therefore, Staff finds the Applicant meets this finding. C. 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; Page 35 Item 6. F208] The design of the proposed private streets complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F- 4. See analysis in Section VI for more information. 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 Staff does not anticipate the proposed private streets would cause any hazard, nuisance or other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity if they are designed as proposed and constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4B. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. The location of the private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the regional transportation plan despite needing Alternative Compliance for its connection directly to an arterial street. With the constraints detailed and analyzed for this development, Staff finds that local street access has been provided via a private street. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. If the eendifiens.of qppre+wl are adhered-�, The Applicant is proposing to construct the residential development as a gated community and so, Staff finds this development in compliance with this finding. D. Alternative Compliance: In order to grant approval for alternative compliance to allow Private Streets directly off an arterial,the director shall determine the following findings: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR Access to this development is provided by a private street and the UDC restricts access to both Victory Road and Locust Grove Road, arterial streets. There are no available local street connections to the subject property due to it being a triangle shape bordered on two sides by arterial streets and the other by the Tenmile Creek. Because the property is not served by public local street streets and any public street would not be able to be extended to any adjacent property, the Director finds strict adherence to the UDC is not feasible and approves the request for the private streets to directly connect to S. Locust Grove Road, an arterial street. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the development proposed by the applicant as a whole provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements in that it contributes to the unique character of the area and provides diversity in housing types available within the City. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative means will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use%haracter of the surrounding properties and will contribute to the character and variety of housing types in this area of the City. Page 36 Item 6. F 09 shall,E. Planned Unit Develepmen4-.- Upon meommendation f-Fom the eommission,the eouneil shall make a full investigation at the publie hearing, request, review the appliention.in order-to grant a planned development the a eil shall make the following fi„dings• 1. The planned unit development demonstrates exeeptional high quality in site design thr-ough the pFovision of >eontinuous, visually related and funetionally linked patterns of.1......1.....,,....E street and pathway layout, and building design; features;2. The planned unit development preserves the signifleant natural, seenie andior-hist natur-alfeatures.of the site are being IgreseF+,ed-. • , hazar-d9 or-nuisanee to per-sons or-property in the 7 development,4. The internal street,bike and pedestrian eir-eulation system is designed for-the ef-fiei and safe flow of vehieles,bieyelists and pedestrians without having a disr-upti-ve an undue buf!den upon existing tr-ansportation and other-publie serviees in surrounding nor-plaee • Community 9 9 9 and dedieated open spaee areas ffinetionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle pathways; units within the subdivisien, 6. The pFoposal eomplies with the density and use standards requirements in aeeor-d with It 11 f Regulations , of this title; Stafffinds the proposed develepmeHt eentplies with the density,and use standards of th Residential. 7. The amenities pr-oAded are appropriate in number-and scale to the proposed— Page 37 Item 6. F210] 8. The planned unit development;s; „for,...,.,,.,.with the comprehensive plan. with the eonTr-ehensA,,ejqkw*. Page 38 Applicant Presentation CURRENT LAYOUT ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL NORTH SOUTH VIEW COMPASS LANE SOUTH VIEW PARK VIEW PARK VIEW EAST RECOMMENDED REVISION TO DRAFT DA the private development. throughout the development and to add to the character of pathwayscrossingor similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian striped asphaltor raised crossings to be constructed with pavers, stamped concrete, , pedestrian all sidewalks and expectedRevise the plat to show IX.A3.f the private development.hroughout the development and to add to the character of tpathwayscrossings or similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian striped asphaltor raised pavers, stamped concrete, eithershall be constructed with pedestrian crossings within the subdivision sidewalks andAll IX.A1.e MODIFICATION TO THE Added pedestrian crossings13.12.Added a gated entry11.feet.-feet to 3206.5-Sidewalk: increased the linear length of sidewalk from 2094.10.North/South Road: added some “S” turns to help break up the massing along Compass Lane.9.turn eliminated the need for a fire turnaround.Roadways: eliminated the two dead end road and created a “Lollipop” or a loop design which in 8.With the increase of open space we added a dog park and an additional central park.7.amount of qualified open space.percent and increased the -percent to 44.2-acres or 35.68-acres to 3.72-Open Space: 3.286.Odd shaped housing: eliminated completely.5.along the roads.Increased the housing variety and decreased the triplex units which in turn helps with massing 4.PUD: eliminate the request for building setback reduction.3.Density: 6.24 lots/acre to 4.81 lots/acre.2.Building Lots: we went from 48 lots to 37 lots.1.MAP IN CONCLUSION We ask for your approval of the project.•with Comprehensive Planning policies. We are providing a mix of housing types that is in a huge demand and is consistent •call home and harmonizes with the greater Meridian Community.Continued commitment to providing a quality neighborhood that people are proud to •for the “long haul”Developer is the builder, therefore there will be a commitment to quality, they are in it •Open space greatly exceeds requirements.•have made the changes to the maps accordingly.We have recognized all the Commissioner’s concerns from our previous meeting and •it.We have taken in the neighborhood concerns about density and have greatly reduced •recommended changesThe project conforms with City Code, the COMP Plan, and we have made all the staff •