Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-03-09 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, March 09, 2021 at 6:00 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82412304847 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 824 1230 4847 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Luke Cavener PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. PROCLAMATIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week: March 7, 2021 through March 13, 2021 ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15 minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a Homeowner’s Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented homeowners who have consented to yielding their time. After all public testimony, the applicant is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote. 2. Final Plat Modification for Baraya Subdivision No. 5 (MFP-2021-0003) by Matt Schultz, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and East of S. Black Cat Rd. Continued to April 20, 2021 Motion to continue to April 20, 2021 made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault 3. Public Hearing for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. Continued to April 13, 2021 A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Motion to continue to April 13, 2021 made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault 4. Public Hearing for Chewie Subdivision (H-2020-0120) by Kent Brown Planning, Located at 2490 W. Franklin Road and the Lot Directly North Approved A. Request: Preliminary Plat for six (6) industrial lots on 43.87 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault 5. Public Hearing for Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) by The Land Group, Inc., Located Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. Approved A. A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved. B. A Rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from the M-E zoning district to the R- 15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment. C. A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2018- 079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. Motion to approve Item A made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault Motion to approve Item B made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault Motion to approve Item C made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 9:27 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council March 9, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, March 9, 2021 , by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Luke Cavener. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Joe Dodson, Jeff Brown, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader X Joe Borton X Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record It is March 9th, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. We will begin this evening's regular meeting agenda with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: The beauty of time delay from that standpoint. Next up will be our community invocation. It will be offered tonight by Pastor Mark Bryan of Harvest Church. If you would like to come forward. Absolutely. And if you all would join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Pastor Bryan, thanks for being here. Bryan: Our Gracious Heavenly Father, we thank you for the opportunity to be alive and to work together for the common good of our city and our state and our nation and this day that we live we pray for our Mayor and the Council, Lord, with all the issues that are before them. We pray for health. We pray for safety. We pray for peace in a troubling time. We pray for that wisdom that is from above, that is pure and gentle and wise in dealings and we pray that you would give them wisdom to order the events that are before them with discretion and honesty and the integrity of -- of the rule well. May we have peace and safety in our city and health and strength. We pray these things in the mighty name of Jesus, amen. Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9, 2021 Page 2 of 55 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you, Pastor Bryan. Next up is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: There are no changes to the agenda this evening, so I make a motion to adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, did anyone sign up under the public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there are no sign-ups. PROCLAMATIONS [Action Item] 1. Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week: March 7, 2021 through March 13, 2021 Simison: Okay. With that, then, we will go ahead and do our first item, which is a proclamation for Multiple Sclerosis Week. If I could have Katie, Rex and Ashley join me at the podium. Yes. Thank you. Just so people can see. So, we are here today to do a proclamation and people are not here to hear me talk about this, but I will go into the proclamation and, then, turn it over to whoever would like to make a few words. But, Council, just for the record, I am joined this evening at the podium by Katie Martin, who is the MS Society Development Manager. Rex Parker, who is with the board of trustees for the MS Society for Idaho-Utah-Nevada Chapter, and Ashley Ferguson, who is the Walk MS presenting sponsor and also the owner of The Griddle Restaurant. So, with that I will go ahead and read the Proclamation. Whereas multiple sclerosis -- multiple sclerosis -- I have a problem with my -- with my S's. MS is a neurological disease of the central nervous system affecting 2.5 million people worldwide. One million people in the US and the National MS Society has been committed for 75 years to a world free of MS, highlighting public knowledge about and insight into the disease and whereas in Idaho it is estimated that nearly 5,000 people are living with MS and the disease generally strikes people in the prime of life, between ages 20 through 50, and whereas the cause of course of MS remains unknown and no cure currently exists, even though more than 1 .06 billion Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 3 of 55 to date in ground base research has occurred to pursue prevention, treatments and a cure and whereas the Treasure Valley MS Walk brings together the community and raises funds to change the world for everyone affected by multiple sclerosis and this year's walk will be held on demand online at walkms.org on and after April 24th, 2021 , and this year the walk plans to raise more than 100,000 for those with MS and whereas stopping MS in its tracks, destroying what has been lost, and ending MS forever is the mission of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and one which all Americans and Idaho should support. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, do hereby proclaim March 17th through 13th, 2021 , as MS Awareness Week in the City of Meridian and urge all the community members to become informed and involved in the fight, so we can imagine a world without multiple sclerosis. Dated today March 2021 . So, thank you for being here today. I would invite any of you who would like to make a comment to do so and, then, we will do some pictures afterwards. Parker: Just quickly I would like to thank the City of Meridian for joining us in the fight against MS. We have enjoyed the support of the City of Meridian over the years. You may know that we moved our flagship event Walk MS, the in-person event out to Julius Kleiner Park a few years ago and we had two wonderful events there before the pandemic and we are looking very much forward to coming back out to Julius Kleiner Park -- hopefully next year. And there is several ways you can support Walk MS. As was mentioned, go to walkms.org. The event is on April 24th this year and we have several different virtual experiences. You can walk your way with family around the block, through a park, take a hike, where ever you would like to walk is great. Also a wonderful way to support Walk MS is to eat at The Griddle this month. The staff has come together to help support the MS Society with -- by collecting donations and a portion of the tips I believe. So, that's probably the funnest way to support the MS Society this month. And thank you, Ashley, and thank you, Kalee. Ferguson: As Rick said, my name is Ashley Ferguson. I own The Griddle restaurant with my husband, but the reason we became involved in MS and the MS Society is because I am impacted by the disease. I was diagnosed with it in 2009 and started doing Walk in 2011 . It's my tenth year this year and I want a cure. I want a cure for those like myself and I want a cure for the people that come behind me. It's really really important. Living with a chronic disease is pretty tough and it has been hard with it being virtual, because one of the best things for me about Walk is that those people are in your shoes and they may need a hug or you may need a hug. You can have the greatest support system in the world, but not being able to see people that are in your same shoes can be kind of difficult. I do want to piggyback off one thing that Rex said. The times we have had it at Kleiner Park I just want to let the city know that your staff has been so awesome to us and so helpful and -- I don't want to name names, but way better than where we had it before. Martin: I wanted to say thank you to the Mayor and the City of Meridian for welcoming us and having us here tonight. This cause is very near and dear to me as well. My mom has it and she was diagnosed when I was seven, so I don't really know my mom without MS. So, I am just really grateful that the nearly million people with MS still have a Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 4 of 55 community around them to gather -- whether it's in person or online, I'm very grateful to the Society and the opportunity that we get to have on this podium to just spread awareness. So, thank you very much for this opportunity. ACTION ITEMS 2. Final Plat Modification for Baraya Subdivision No. 5 (MFP-2021-0003) by Matt Schultz, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and East of S. Black Cat Rd Simison: Thank you, Council. Next item on our agenda is the final plat modification for Baraya Subdivision No. 5, MFP-2021-0003. I will turn this over to Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Do you see my presentation? Alrighty. The first application before you is a request for a final plat modification. This site is located south of West Franklin Road and east of South Black Cat Road. The landscape plan approved with the preliminary plat as shown there for this site depicts a wrought iron fence between the multi-use pathway and the Purdam Drain in accord with UDC standards 11-3A-6C3, which requires fencing along waterways, such as this, to deter access. The only exception to this requirement is if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the director that said drain or waterway serves as or will be improved as part of the development to be a water amenity as defined in UDC 11-1 A-1 . The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application did not depict fencing along the waterway as required, nor was the drain proposed to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to fencing. Therefore, staff included a condition of approval for fencing to be constructed between the pathway and the waterway in accord with UDC standards for public safety. The applicant does not wish to construct fencing along the drain and requests removal of that condition. The applicant believes the landscape architect erred by depicting the fence -- the fence on the plan originally and that the code in effect at the time may not have required the fence. Staff has verified that the same code was in effect at that time. Previous phases, one and three, did not show the fencing on the plans, nor were conditions requiring such included in the staff report. Staff missed it. No excuse. Therefore, fencing wasn't constructed along the drain in those phases. This is the last phase of development in Baraya that includes a pathway along the drain and would be the only portion of this development with fencing between the pathway and the drain and there is some site photos of phases one and five. A letter was submitted from Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District stating that they do not have parallel fences put at the top of a bank on drains and the approved license agreement for this phase does not include a fence. Therefore, a fence is not allowed. No written testimony has been received on this application. Staff is recommending denial, because the drain has not been improved per the required UDC standards to qualify as a water amenity for a waiver and this section of code is not eligible for alternative compliance or a variance. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 5 of 55 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Sonya, in most of these phases there is already subdivision fencing, is that right, and backyard fencing that -- that backs up to these drains. In general the residents aren't putting gates out to the back of their properties? Do you have any idea by chance if people are actually accessing that area very often? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, these areas are accessed from common areas. I'm not sure if individual lot owners put gates in their fences or not. Some may. These -- these areas are common areas. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: A question, Sonya. What would it take for the drain to be improved as a water amenity? What -- what would they have to do to make that qualified? Allen: There is a -- there is a standard for the slope of the drain. I believe it's a four to one. I would have to look at code. Just a moment. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor -- yeah. Sonya, I think there was a slope issue. I know on some of them they have to -- some put in rock down between the pathway to the water amenity. I have seen various things, but I wasn't sure what -- if we had a standard for that other than -- than slope. Allen: Yeah. So, the -- the -- I'm sorry here. The water amenity is defined as any body of water, either natural or manmade, which either exists or is proposed to be improved as part of a development, in which its banks in all places adjacent to and located on said development are no steeper than one foot vertical per every four feet horizontally and which has a depth and velocity in all places adjacent to and located on said development, such that the product of the maximum depth, feet multiplied by the peak velocity and feet per second, does not exceed four and they do have to submit drawings from an engineer to meet these standards. To my understanding, though, the applicant isn't interested in doing that. I already explored that option with them. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, follow up -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: -- on this -- and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for this situation they do not allow fencing. That was the letter I think that they submitted. Is that correct? Or e-mail. Allen: Yes. Council -- Councilman Hoaglun. Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 6 of 55 Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Council, any further questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess I'm curious if -- if a situation like this has happened in the past, do we have the ability to follow up with the irrigation district? It feels like there is a safety issue and they don't want it and it is sort of -- this is like stuck in the middle. So, just curious if we have succeeded in -- in convincing them to allow a fence before. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, to my knowledge it hasn't been an issue in the past and I'm not sure if it's just an issue because a license agreement has already been done for this phase or this subdivision, if that's why, or -- or if we have a conflict in our code that needs to be addressed. Our code is -- our code is a little funky on this. Creeks our code does not want fenced. We are not -- if we have a creek we don't want fencing to prohibit access to the creek, but all other waterways the code does require fencing. Simison: And I think there is always that question mark between whose definition of what, is it a lateral, is it a creek. Allen: Right. Right, Mr. Mayor. And we go off of our-- our mapping system and the labels there. The names. Simison: Yeah. Because this doesn't look any different than what I have in Tuscany and there is no fence on it. Allen: Yeah. And the applicant submitted some photos to that point in Warrick Subdivision and to Tuscany and Wells. They do look very similar. I'm not sure if there is any difference in the -- in the slope or not. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: It's hard for me to tell from the photos, but how deep is it? I guess like worst case scenario how deep is it? Maybe that's a question for the applicant. Allen: Yeah. I think you should direct that to the applicant. Strader: Okay. Simison: Council, any further questions for staff? Borton: No. Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 7 of 55 Simison: Okay. I know we do have the applicant on as well. This is not a public hearing, so we will see if the applicant has any -- any information that they would like to provide at this time. Mr. Schultz, if you are there you are welcome to -- Schultz: I think I'm here. Simison: There you are. We hear you and see you now. Schultz: You see me. Simison: As long as you are not driving. Schultz: I'm in my mobile office and I'm stopped. I pulled off, so I didn't freak you out, so I am stopped. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile here on behalf of Challenger Development on a project we have been working on now for 16 years now. I think this issue should have been addressed 16 years ago with the preliminary plat. I can't really remember back that far, although I was involved, as to how and why that got on there. It's probably one of those issues that -- you know, to Sonya's point, after going back and looking, sure enough there is a code that -- that lumps drains -- and this is called a drain on maps -- in with canals and laterals and other facilities that we certainly do fence off with parallel fencing for the pathway. We do fence off the Ridenbaugh Canal with corridor fencing. The Ridenbaugh Canal is very -- very deep and hard to get out of if you fall in and both Nampa-Meridian and developers and the city all want that fenced and we have fenced it. This particular stretch -- or this particular drain -- and I'm not saying all drains are created equal. It's a little bit of a vague term in my opinion, but this particular drain Nampa-Meridian considers a creek in terms of its characteristics. It's very -- it's -- it's -- it would be over my head in terms of the depth of the ditch if I was at the bottom, but the water itself varies from a few inches to a couple feet. Aquatic plants, cattails, ducks -- it's -- it's more of a creek and Nampa-Meridian looks at it as a creek in terms of -- they would like those open. They are interested in public safety, like we are interested in public safety, and I wouldn't want my toddler down in the bottom of this or a creek, you know what I mean. I -- you know, we -- all these things are dangerous to a point, but they draw the line that we put fences up against canals. We don't put fences up against creeks or this -- this drain and most drains is how Nampa-Meridian looked at it. So, we are kind of caught in the middle. In fact, we are really caught in the middle, because it's not the money. It's not the -- it's not anything other than it's what Nampa-Meridian wants and we are trying to walk the line here between the two agencies and we have built 1 ,500 feet of pathway to date. There is fence at the back of the adjoining lots. One side of the ditch has an access road. The other side of the ditch has a -- a ten foot paved pathway with some landscaping. Homeowners have not put gates in. You can still access it from either side from the public road and whether you put a fence up around it or not you still could get in there. So, we are not looking for violating the public safety. We think code may -- I don't know if it needs any tweaking or maybe it's one of those issues like -- like laterals that Council could grant waivers if it's over 36 inches if you fence it off and if it's -- this is one of those cases where if the Council could grant a waiver if it's shown to be very similar to say the Ten Mile Creek. In my experience in Meridian in the last 15 years has either Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 8 of 55 been on the Ten Mile Creek or the Purdam Drain and I have always thought of them as the same in terms of how we treat them with no -- no parallel fencing and certainly the Ridenbaugh Canal or any other dangerous facility we would put parallel fencing. So, I hope this is -- I hope that clears it up somewhat why we are here. We --we asked Nampa- Meridian would -- would you care if fencing went in and they are like, well, we really don't want it, but we haven't really went back and said are you sure, you know, but -- so if Meridian said, hey, we absolutely need it, we absolutely want it, I can certainly go back to Nampa-Meridian and say, hey, they really want it. Like I said, it's not a cost issue for us, I think it's more of a -- a standard of the industry in the area and I think if we can get our arms around the safety issues, I think it enhances the pathway experience to have it open myself. So, with that we ask for the -- the grant of a waiver, for the final plat conditions of approval and we are looking forward to finishing up the Baraya Subdivision that I have been working on for 16 years now and this year, with the exception of -- there is an elementary school site that's still planned just west of this -- this phase that's coming up in the next few years, I believe. So, with that I will stand for any questions and ask for your approval of this removal of the condition. Thank you. Simison: Council, any question for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a question. You just alluded to the school site. Just remind me how close is that school site to the -- I guess this -- the little creek, whatever we are calling it. Schultz: Yeah. It's probably -- is it a thousand feet? Is it 800? You know, it's in that range. It's a whole half of the site away. Probably, you know, 1,200 feet over toward Black Cat. It's a -- it will have some Black Cat frontage and it's about a quarter mile back to phase six. So, yeah, there is -- there is quite a distance. This isn't anywhere close really. Strader: Thanks. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: To confirm, Matt, and/or staff or whoever, the other phases of the subdivision has not had this fencing that we are talking about? Schultz: No. Mayor and Councilman Bernt, we did phase one and did phase four like Nampa-Meridian wanted, like the pathway. Parks Department agreed. We didn't even -- this issue never came up. We didn't think about it. We just kind of were -- you know, 2016 is when we did phase one. This thing, man, had several time extensions after the downturn to get going again. But nobody's ever -- now, I have never driven by and gone, Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 9 of 55 man, that looks really unsafe, we should have fenced that, you know, or nobody's pointed it out, anybody looked and said you should have fenced that. It's just -- it just looks like the Tuscany Creek. That's the one that came to mind, because I have done a couple nearby and it's very similar depth, similar size flow, similar -- similar function for the -- for the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District in that it takes seasonal runoff from fields and they both look like a -- they both look like a creek, but one is called a drain on a map and one is called a creek and the drain is subject to a different standard than -- than from the creek and so that's where -- why we are where we are. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: But what I'm asking, Matt, in other phases of this subdivision this fence we are talking about tonight is not in those phases; right? This would be the only phase that would have the fence that we are talking about; is that correct? Schultz: It would, but on the principal of it, if you turn this thing down, I would probably go put a fence on the previous phases, too. You know what I mean? If it was something you strongly said we needed and said no, then, we would --we wouldn't, you know, thumb our fingers at you and say, well, you didn't catch it on phase one and phase four, we would -- you know, it's -- it's one of those things. You just do whatever you think's right. Bernt: Thanks, Matt. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Matt, that type of remark is one of the reasons you are a really really good land planner in this valley and you are -- you are very well respected and to dovetail on what you said, I will give you my two cents on this and -- and I don't fault you for the ask, but I -- I think the way our code is set up trying to make it, you know, objective and consistent in the application of these types of rules, so it's not a case-by-case and inconsistent application, that's really hard to do, so I saw that -- that UDC provision. This is a drain. Requires it to be fenced. The plat had it and required to be fenced. Staff has acknowledged we missed it on a couple of others and I appreciate your remarks on fixing it, but, then, if our code doesn't allow it, there is not a provision for variances or waivers, we don't have that authority. I, quite frankly, can't even recall a modified final plat application like this, it's very unique, and we don't have the authority to do it and the code states that it was required and the pre-plat said it was to be installed and to your credit and the applicant's credit they are willing to go back to Nampa-Meridian, our code needs it, you may be stuck asking to -- to amend that license agreement to provide it and if you go back and do it to the other phases, hats off to you, that's -- that's really a good community neighbor participant, but I didn't see that we had the discretion to do it, quite frankly. I don't know if it would be appropriate to kind of wing it -- it even mentions here, Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 10 of 55 so I wasn't supportive of the request, I just understood it and appreciate your perspective and at least making the ask I understand, but I don't think we can get there in my eyes. Schultz: Well, I appreciate it, Councilman Borton and Mayor and the rest of the Council Members. We want to always do what's right and I guess thinking what you are doing is right and doing what's right are two different things. However, having said all that, the first thing we are going to do is go back and look at that subset of your code where it talks about depth and velocity and see if we can't meet that. The reason we can't meet the side slopes is,A, Nampa-Meridian doesn't want you going in and messing with their drains typically and flattening them out and changing grades. It's a long ways away, like it may be, you know, 160 feet wide instead of -- instead of a hundred feet wide, you know, an easement. So, I just -- the typography and everything just gets way blown up when you start talking about four to one and that. So, there is a conflict in your code with what Nampa-Meridian will allow within their exclusive easement. We put a pathway in there at their discretion. They have an easement that goes back to the beginning of time on that -- on that -- on that ditch and you guys worked out an agreement to -- we will let you put a pathway in there if you do this and you don't do that and so we are kind of at a little bit of a conflict. It is what it is now. All we can do is go back and ask them to put it in or meet your code or come back and ask to revise your code. I can't -- I don't know if that would go anywhere. And to me it's probably not worth -- we are not talking about a super duper expensive fence. I mean it's not a million dollars. It's probably about -- for phase five, 500 feet, it's probably 10,000. You know, there is another 1 ,500 feet that we have already put in, so that would be 2,000. The same standards we are talking about a 40,000 dollar fence to do -- to do the whole thing. And it's not small change, but it's not -- it's not earth shattering either. So, it's just something that Nampa-Meridian wants to know -- they wanted you to do what along the drain? Because they -- they -- they think it's a creek, we think it's a creek, but it says drain on a map and so there is some -- some semantics involved there. It's unfortunate for our situation, so -- Simison: Mr. Nary, can you just address Councilman Borton's comments. Is there no mechanism to really address this in our current process? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean Council Member Borton is correct, because we didn't create a waiver of this particular section of the code. So, he is correct in that regard. Here is -- here is what I believe. And, again, we don't have enough information really -- I mean, obviously, there is a -- there is a discussion on creeks versus drain and whether or not having the same standards apply to them. Now, in my experience in the -- in the Planning and Zoning arena, creeks are considered aesthetic most of the time. So, they tend to be left open because they are considered something you want to look at. Drains aren't something you intend to want to look at, because they look like that, and they have a tendency to look a little weedier and a little less -- a little less aesthetic value to it. So, fencing them off is pretty common. But -- but, again, drains are like Mr. Schultz said, they tend to be fairly shallow, they are just for runoff, they aren't for delivery, so, therefore, again, they don't move very fast. So, from a functionality purpose they are pretty similar to creeks. Creeks have a tendency to be deeper in a lot of places, too, like Nine Mile Creek and Ten Mile Creek can be a lot deeper. So, I don't Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 11 of 55 think we have enough information on whether or not we should change our standard yet. I think that's a question that maybe this Council may want to consider as we move forward, but we would want more data on whether or not we would like to do that before making a decision. Now, we haven't required it anywhere else a lot or we haven't enforced this requirement anywhere else along this, otherwise, you wouldn't have this conversation. So, I can't in good conscience, as Mr. Borton said, simply advise you to just ignore it. I can't do that now that it's been brought to your attention. I don't know what timing Mr. Schultz has to complete that and whether or not we could consider an alternative to the code in the interim. In the past we have allowed, in situations where there was not language to allow for a waiver or for a variance, we have granted them in the anticipation that we were going to change the code and we were in the actual processing of doing it. Here we are not that far along. So, I don't know when Mr. -- you know, I think you are going to probably have neighbors calling saying how come you are fencing this off now? I have been living here for five years and now there is a fence. It's going to look a little bit odd. So, I don't know -- really have a really good answer on whether or not to require it or not to require it. I don't know when you have to actually construct it. I appreciate, as Council Member Borton says, that Mr. Schultz is willing to just fence the whole thing. If he can make it match and look consistent I think that's wise, but it's not there now. I don't know we -- I know he probably wants this phase to get started, but this would probably have to be done by the end of the phase and if we have some opportunity in the interim to look at this issue and see whether or not the Council's directive is to the change that standard, then, he may come back and ask. He also could go to the irrigation district and they could say, no, we won't allow it and if they won't allow it we can't require it from them, so I don't have a really great answer, but I think there is still a lot of questions. Schultz: If I may jump back in here, Mayor, and thank you Ex-councilman Nary. I remember those days. We will go back to Nampa-Meridian and say, hey, look, we want to put this fence in, they really really want it, how bad do you not want it and I'm not going to lead them. Like I said, this -- it's a very clinical -- this is a very clinical exercise for me. It may look weird, but it is what it is. It is what it is and I'm going to do my best to see what they say and if they say, heck, no, we don't want it, because of this, this and this, and I will report back and maybe I will be back in front of you guys again. So, where we are at in the process is we are getting ready here with the weather changing, if it is curb and gutter, ready to pave here in the next month or two, we will bond -- we will bond for the fence to fill out the plat to move forward and, essentially, all of those items -- whether it be landscaping or fencing that you got, will have to be completed, have to signed off on and inspected before we can occupy any houses, if they are bonded for. So, that's where we are at and so that will probably be, you know, middle of summer, you know, June, July. So, looking at my crystal ball we will probably be putting it in, but let me go ask Nampa- Meridian because if I get caught in the middle and they want to go to war over it and, then, I'm going to go back ask for some relief. But if there is -- if they say, well, we really don't want it, we will allow it, okay, we are going to put it in. So, that's where we are at. I appreciate it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 12 of 55 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I might weigh in on this a little bit, just to give us hopefully some -- some understanding of the differences here. My father-in-law's former property in his dairy farm had -- all three had -- had Five Mile Creek, has a lateral and has a drain and -- well, they used to have that. Five Mile Creek -- that earlier picture that showed phase five is very steep sided, deep, weedy, has a few trees, but about that width and looks very very similar. The lateral -- lateral and canals, when -- in the offseason, in the non-irrigation season, those things are empty. Creeks and drains have water in them year round. A drain is what it does is it drains groundwater -- naturally occurring groundwater. There will be a little more water during the irrigation year, because there is more runoff and groundwater seepage, but a drain does have water year around and I'm completely blanking on the name of -- of the drain that was in the back of his property, because we go out there in the evening and jump ducks. We were up high like that and you could sneak up on them and up they popped and off you pop, so it worked out pretty well. But in our subdivision now, BridgeTower, where this is, the -- they did lower it a little bit in that picture that's in the lower left corner. It's about that -- it's more like the width of the one in the upper right, but the lower left the height is about down to there now and, then, they have a pathway and they put in rock and it's well used, well traveled. It's a nice water amenity year around and so we use that to walk and -- but I notice when you cross Ten Mile, when you go to BridgeTower West, it looks more like the one on the lower right. It's weedy, it's narrow, it's -- it's -- it's done a little differently, but the pathway continues and there is no fence and, again, this is a drain. So, I don't think we are being consistent necessarily in our -- in our standards, but yet it's an amenity, people walk on it, it's used all the time and it's very nice. Being that they are open water amenities, I mean we are in a semi-arid climate, I do like the fact that we have open water year around that we can traverse on. So, I think it's worth the discussion to say if it's a year around water supply, maybe we do look at it and to Matt's point, if Nampa-Meridian comes in and says, well, if you put up a fence and -- and drains, they do go in there and they dig them out from time to time. It's not every year, it's not every other year, but maybe every ten years, 15 years they will come in there and they can deepen them and make the water flow better. So, that -- that is one of the things about a drain that's different than the creek that I'm aware of. I know they cut trees along the creek. They have done that on Five Mile before, but it is year around water supply and something I think we ought to take a look at. Do we want to have that amenity year around and, like I said, the photo on the upper right with the steep banks, that's -- that's Five Mile Creek there at Ustick between Linder and Ten Mile. You -- you can slide down to the bottom. Dogs can run down. Kids are down there playing. But it is -- it is steep and no different than that. So, when we compare those types of things, I'm thinking maybe we ought to have a discussion about how we treat drains and creeks, maybe treat them the same, and as opposed to laterals and canals. So, that's just my thinking on that. But see what Council wants to do. I completely understand Councilman Borton's position that, hey, if we -- if we don't have a waiver we can't go down that route. So, if this is something we want to look at and kind of put this off and maybe that's -- that's an option. Simison: Thank you, Councilman Hoaglun, and -- and, yeah, I didn't realize that there Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 13 of 55 was this many differences and I live in an area where we have got a canal, a creek, and a drain. The only one that's actually fenced off is the Ridenbaugh Canal. Everything else is open and accessible. So, that's why I'm confused either by our code, by our application of the code, or our desired results from the code and really, you know, from -- from my perspective personally, not from code, is our relationship with Nampa-Meridian is important and we need to -- in my opinion what has worked well is we have worked with them and deferred to their wishes on these, because that -- that is going to protect the long-term value that we have for these drains and waterways in our community is working with them for their needs, so their needs can be met, so that we can also get the needs that we want to have met and so I would much rather have us work with them in this case and make sure that our code lines up with our agreement with them and they are not in conflict with one another. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: On that point is there any reason why -- it doesn't sound like we would need to take action right now. If there is a conversation and some cooperation that might be occurring, Matt might work his magic, create great progress and if this comes back in mid April to us, you know, it's well before any occupancy issues and we may know more on our side, as well as his, if he can get -- get them on board, then, maybe the issue solves itself. But in lieu of needing to debate and decide, might this just move 30 days to let him do that? Schultz: That would be great. Simison: And I'm going to -- to follow up, make sure that our code meets our agreement with Nampa-Meridian, so that they are in alignment. Borton: Yep. Simison: And if we need to change our code because they are not for what we want to have, then, we at least have that conversation with Council appropriately. So, with that I don't think we have ever seen a final plat take this long that I'm aware of. Do we need a motion officially to continue this conversation for 30 days? Bernt: Mr. Mayor, yes, that looks like what we are needing to do. Is there a date, Matt? Do you have a date in mind? Do we have a date in mind that -- that works best? Schultz: Whatever is convenient -- whatever is convenient for you guys. Thirty days sounds great. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9, 2021 Page 14 of 55 Borton: I will make a motion that we -- that we continue 2021-0003 to the 3rd Tuesday in April. The number escapes me, but our esteemed Council President might have that in front of him. Bernt: That would be the 20th, Mr. Borton. Borton: To April 20th and in making the motion, Mr. Mayor, again, I -- if we are stuck procedurally we are stuck. If the waiver is not an option, I make the motion hoping that Matt's able to -- to persuade Nampa-Meridian to make the request for this modification to actually go away. I would hope that's what can happen. Still allowing us the time to make sure there is clarification in our code, if necessary, but we will continue it, but, again, I am hoping that it goes away, so with that I move that we continue it to that date. Hoaglun: Second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by -- oh, do I need a roll call, Mr. Nary? Nary: Voice is fine. Simison: All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. And we will continue it until the 20th. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Thank you, Matt. Schultz: Thank you. 3. Public Hearing for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request:Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts Simison: Our next item on the agenda is a public hearing for Shafer View Terrace, H- 2020-0117. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 39.01 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located on the east side of South Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 15 of 55 Meridian Road and State Highway 69, midway between East Amity Road and East Lake Hazel Road. This property is part of Shafer View Estates Subdivision to the south recorded in 2002. It was deed restricted and was only allowed to be used for open space for a period of not less than 15 years from the date of recording of the plat. That time period has since lapsed and it is now eligible for development. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is low density residential, which is three or fewer units per acre. The proposed annexation is 40.48 acres of land with R-2 zoning, which consists of 10.66 acres and R-4 zoning, which consists of 29.82 acres, which includes adjacent right of way to the section line of South Meridian Road and State Highway 69 and to the centerline of East -- East Quartz Creek Street along the northern boundary of the site. A total of 50 residential dwelling units are proposed to develop on the site at an overall gross density of 1.76 units per acre, consistent with the associated low density residential future land use map designation for this site. Although the proposed density is more consistent with an R-2 low density residential zoning district, the applicant is requesting R-4 in order to provide a transition in lot sizes between the existing rural residential subdivision to the south, Shafer View Estates, and the future urban residential subdivision approved to the north Prevail Subdivision, zoned R-8. Larger lots are proposed along the southern boundary adjacent to rural residential lots that gradually transition to smaller lots to the north. A common lot that contains a 41 foot wide easement for the McBurney Lateral separates the proposed lots from the existing rural lots. If you can see the -- this little line through the -- horizontally through the middle of the project, that is the McBurney Lateral. The proposed plat is shown as a resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 1 , Shafer View Estates, and is proposed to consist of 50 buildable lots and ten common lots on 39.01 acres of land and should be developed in three phases as shown. The third phase is under separate ownership and consists of one 10.66 acre lot that is proposed to develop separately with the Apex development to the east. Two accesses are proposed via East Quartz Creek Street, a planned collector street along the northern boundary of the site. Direct access via East Shafer View Drive, an existing local street along the southern boundary of the site, is proposed for the lots south of the McBurney Lateral. An emergency only access is proposed between the cul-de-sac and East Shafer View Drive. Access to the R-2 zoned portion of the site is anticipated to be provided from the east with the Apex development and that is the Brighton development that was recently before you. Direct lot access via South Meridian Road and State Highway 69 is prohibited. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the street, which should be sufficient to serve guests in addition to driveway parking on each lot. There are no improvements planned to the CIP or the five year work plan for Meridian Road or nearby intersections in the next five years. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards in UDC 11- 6C-3, which includes block face standards. The face of Block 3 exceeds the maximum block length allowed and does not provide a pedestrian connection, other than the emergency access drive, which may serve as a pedestrian connection between the proposed subdivision and East Shafer View Estates to the south and that is this area, if you can see my cursor right here. The applicant is requesting Council approval of a waiver to allow Block 3 to exceed 1 ,200 feet due to the existing site constraints that include the following: Number one. The narrow configuration of the subject property. Two. The location of the McBurney Lateral, a large waterway and irrigation facility that Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 16 of 55 runs along the southern boundary and through the western portion of the proposed subdivision and, three, the existing Shafer View Subdivision that abuts the site to the south, south of the lateral, which does not include any pedestrian pathways or stub streets to this property. If not approved the plat should be reconfigured to comply with this standard and just a note it's the -- this is Block 3 right here and it's measured from this center section right here -- basically right here to the cul-de-sac. Perreault: Sonya, I'm not seeing your cursor. Allen: I'm sorry. I have got two screens in front of me and it was -- it's a little unclear what you guys are looking at. Can you see it now? Simison: Yes. Allen: Okay. Sorry about that. So, it's measured from right here and it's the whole face of this block right here. A emergency access road for the Fire Department is -- is proposed between the end of the cul-de-sac and East Shafer View Road, but it is not a public access and that is this location right here. A ten foot wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed along South Meridian Road and State Highway 69 within the street buffer as required in the pathways master plan. A detached sidewalk is proposed along East Quartz Creek Street. A combination of attached and detached sidewalks with parkways is proposed within the development. A 35 foot wide street buffer is required along South Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, and a 20 foot wide street buffer is required along Quartz Creek, a collector street. Noise abatement is required to be provided for residential uses adjacent to State Highway 69. A four foot tall berm and six foot tall SimTek wall is proposed as noise abatement in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space or 3.9 acres and one site amenity is required to be provided with the subdivision. A total of 4.05 acres or 14.27 percent is proposed, along with four site amenities consisting of a multi-sport court, tot lot, gazebo shade structure and a segment of the city's multi-use pathway system in excess of UDC standards. A mix of six foot tall wrought iron and six foot tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas. Wrought iron fencing is proposed along the McBurney Lateral. Two waterways cross this site. As I mentioned, the McBurney Lateral, a large open waterway within a 41 foot wide easement along the southern boundary of the site and through the western portion of the site and, again, that's this area right here, and a 30 foot -- 38 foot wide slough and drain on the eastern portion of the site that the applicant has confirmed with the Boise Project Board of Control is not within an easement and that is this area right here. The UDC allows waterways to remain open when improved as a water amenity, as defined, or linear open space. The Council may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The applicant is not proposing to improve the McBurney Lateral as required in order for it to remain open and request a waiver from Council to allow it to remain open and not be piped. A six -- six foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed along both sides of the waterway to deter access to the waterway and to ensure public safety. Conceptual elevations were submitted as shown that represent the style and construction of homes proposed within the development. The Commission recommended approval of the Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 17 of 55 proposed project with conditions in the staff report. And I will just go through a summary of the Commission hearing. Jon Breckon, Breckon Land Design, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition. Marvin Ward and Gayle Ward commented on the application and Mary Wall, Breckon Land Design, the applicant's representative, submitted written testimony. The key issues of discussion were as follows: Concern pertaining to safety of access to Lots 2 through 5, Block 6, accessed via Shafer View Drive, with the configuration of East Shafer View Drive and change in grade in that area and that is these lots right here. Preference for one acre lots to be provided on the south side of the McBurney Lateral consistent with adjacent existing one acre lots in Shafer View Estates and, again, those are these lots right here. The applicant testified they are willing to add more landscaping at the entry to the development near the South Meridian Road and State Highway 69 and East Shafer View Drive intersection. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: They were in favor of the provision of additional landscaping at the entrance of the subdivision at the intersection of South Meridian Road and State Highway 69 and East Shafer View Drive as offered by the applicant. Possibility of reducing the number of homes in the area south of the McBurney Lateral, Lots 2 through 6, Block 6, to enhance safety in that area and just to note, the applicant did submit a revised plat and landscape plan and plans that did reduce the number of lots in this area by one from four to three. They did have concern pertaining to lack of comments from the Idaho Transportation Department and we have since received those and I will go into those in just a bit. They would prefer a better transition in lot sizes to the south, specifically Lots 15 through 17, Block 3, and maybe lose a lot and that's what I just referenced. They did lose a lot. Discussion regarding the proposed amenities. Opinion that the style and size of the homes should be compatible with adjacent homes in Shafer View Estates. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. At staff's request they included a condition for the 38 foot wide slough and drain on the eastern portion of the site to be contained entirely within common lots, with fencing required on both sides of the drain consistent with UDC standards. At staff's request they included a condition requiring the common lots containing the slough and drain to have vegetative ground cover to prevent fire hazard and unsightliness if the waterway is piped. At staff's request they modified condition nine to allow the option for the waterways on the site to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to being piped, as allowed by the UDC, with submittal of construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the state of Idaho that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for water amenities as defined in the UDC. They included a condition for the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of Meridian Road and Shafer View Drive to be improved with additional landscaping as offered by the applicant and the applicant did submit a revised landscape plan showing that. They included a condition for one buildable lot to be removed in the area of Lots 2 through 5, Block 6, south of the McBurney Lateral and that is this area right here. And I actually misspoke just a moment ago. They -- they did discuss removing a lot north of the McBurney Lateral in this area as well and the applicant did not remove a lot in that area. Outstanding issues for Council tonight are as follows: The Commission requested an Idaho Transportation Department review of the project and comments prior to the Council hearing. Comments from ITD are included in the staff report and I will just read through those a little bit real quick. Give the highlights. The letter states a Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 18 of 55 northbound right turn lane is warranted with the additional trips generated by this development to ensure turning traffic can exit through lanes and turn safely onto Quartz Creek Street. ITD can't require the developer to install a northbound turn lane, as Quartz Creek Street is a public road and instead request proportionate shared contributions to address the need for a right turn lane. All future developments adding northbound right turn lanes to this intersection will be requested to contribute proportionate share as well. Should the developer not be required to contribute their proportionate share, which amounts to approximately 59,358 dollars or 1 .01 percent, ITD recommends the city require the developer to install the northbound right turn lane to ensure the safety of the traffic -- traveling public and citizens in and Shafer View Terrace and Prevail Subdivisions. If Council determines one of these options should be a requirement for this development, a provision should be included as such in the development agreement. Written testimony has been received since the Commission hearing as follows: Two letters, one from Charles Boyd, in opposition to the lot sizes of the four parcels accessed via Shafer View Drive. Would like lot sizes at least one acre in size comparable to the one to 1 .24 acre lot sizes in Shafer View Estates. And as I mentioned earlier, the applicant did reduce the number of lots in that area from four to three. They have safety concerns pertaining to driveways so close to Meridian Road and the topography in that area, which creates poor visibility. There is an immediate incline for Meridian Road. He requests that the number of lots be reduced from four to two in that area to ensure no driveways are placed near the top of the hill. Written testimony has also been received from Deborah Boyd and she does have a lot of the same concerns as Charles Boyd and these letters are both in the public record for your review. Staff will stand for any questions Council may have. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. With that ask the applicant to, please, come forward and I assume that they are in the waiting room, Mr. Clerk. Breckon: I'm online, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for 15 minutes. Breckon: Jon Breckon. Breckon Land Design. 6661 Glenwood Street, Garden City. Am I able to share my screen, Sonya? Allen: Yes. You should be able to share your screen, Mr. Breckon. Thank you. Breckon: Okay. Sorry. I have a brief presentation here on PowerPoint. Much of it is somewhat redundant to what Sonya already presented. Anyway, I will move forward here. Shafer View Estates. Here is a small exhibit of the site location and its relation to adjacent developments. Apex to the east. Prevail to the north. Existing Shafer View Estates to the south. Part of our request is to annex into the city and here is just an adjacency map depicting the existing city limits and how we are adjacent to that. This is a zoning map for reference. You can see the existing Shafer View Estates, which are the large one acre lots to the south and how we are attempting to transition in between those lots and the R- Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 19 of 55 8, which has the 8,000 square foot lots to the north. We are presenting R-4 for the majority of this site and, then, R-2 to the east. For reference, these are the schools that would service the subdivision. Mary Mac Elementary on Amity. Victory Middle School. We are here to the northwest. And Mountain View High School relatively close by. Also for reference emergency services, Fire Station No. 6 on Overland is within the response time, as well as Meridian Police Station. Here is more graphic depiction of the site. This is a good example. It shows the differential on lot sizes and these three lots here, which are the closest are on the south side of McBurney Lateral and closest to the one acre lots are about 30,000 square feet. So, very close to an acre in size. And, then, these lots on the north side of the McBurney are -- are also pretty good size, varying from, oh, about 14,000 to 19,000 square feet and, then, we have the smaller lots closer on the north side. I also add that, you know, part of the challenge of this site is the layout of it, kind of odd size, the lateral kind of weaving through and there is also substantial grade change as the grade slopes off down to the east and it also slopes off to the northwest. There is about, oh, 13 feet -- between 15 feet of fall through here and that was also one of the challenges in laying out the property. The graphic depicts the open space, both qualified open space, as well as common open space and here is -- here is -- this is a good depiction of where that transitional network that we are -- that we are trying to achieve. You can see the larger one acre lots here. We have the 14 to 18 thousand. Actually, these -- these go up to about 30,000 square feet and, then, these ones are the ten to 12 and, of course, Prevail is that R-8 with about eight -- eight thousand square foot lots. This is a graphic of the highway frontage. So, currently ITD right of way and, then, the landscape treatment, as well as the pathway that's proposed. Meridian Road, a borrow ditch, and we have got some -- a very nice landscape treatment that provides a four foot berm, as well as six foot solid wall of this product style here, this SimTek fence. This is very similar to what is being installed to the north along the Prevail Subdivision. Amenities. We exceeded that. There is only requirement for one amenity. However, you know, we would like to -- we would like this to fit in and provide multi-use pathway, a tot lot, multi-sport court and, then, we have got also a seating area. Here are some examples of the housing style you expected in line with what is existing at Shafer View Estates and this is just a brief summation of waivers and exceptions. So, as Sonya mentioned, the street access waiver, two access points on Quartz Creek Street, just due to the challenges of connecting. The piping of the McBurney Lateral. I guess I could add to that in that did meet on site with the Boise Project Board of Control with Tom Ritthaler and discussed what options would be there. His words were that he would prefer no improvements of the lateral and -- and as such we were actually -- we were hoping that we could put a pathway and some landscaping and -- and beautify it, but he said the Boise Project does not allow those sorts of improvements. So, we are attempting to comply with the code and that we are providing wrought iron fence all the way around it. Then the block length waiver was the other waiver that we are requesting, just due to the geometry here, trying to make the site work. I would stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 20 of 55 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just a quick question, Jon, on that last comment with the -- the open vision fencing. I'm looking at page 12 of the staff report and getting myself a little sideways. Is the request that the lateral remain open and -- but the fencing will be placed -- is the fence outside the easement so the Boise Project Board of Control wouldn't be subject to messing around with it? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, yes, it is -- it would be placed along the property lines at the -- at the edge of the easement and so there would not be a conflict with the irrigation district. I did not bring any photos of McBurney Lateral, but I guess I could also share a little bit more on in that, you know, dimensionally the easement is 41 feet, the ditch itself is about seven to ten feet wide. It's rather broad. It's not super deep. You know, it's -- it's -- it's -- it's -- it's wider, just to -- you know, effects of time I suppose. Probably maybe four -- four feet deep, five feet deep. The other thing I guess, you know, some of the site challenges only go into detail on and some of the constraints that we had to deal with on the east side in particular is that McBurney is piped across actually this gentleman's lot and it comes to some structures in this location and goes to --there where it splits and a portion of it is utilized by the pressurized irrigation system and pump station for Shafer View Estates and, then, it is pipped further to the south and, then, the remainder is distributed or goes to the McBurney Lateral and off of that we have a headgate that would be utilized for a pressurized irrigation system for this proposed -- proposed development, part of which we are also -- we were recommended by Boise Project to provide an irrigation pump pond and, then, there is also a couple of headgates in this vicinity that were used for surface watering fields and one actually provides water to the Prevail Subdivision and their pressurized irrigation system. The remainder of it goes to the west and to the last user on the line on the other side of the highway. So, just some details there for consideration. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. I think one thing that would be helpful for me is just to get your perspective on the safety issues around Shafer that we heard from in some of the public testimony and how -- how you can try to address that. Breckon: Yes. Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, the majority of the safety concerns had to do with the connection to the highway. If you have driven this there is a rather abrupt grade change from the highway and, then, you go up on Shafer View Drive. This first straight stretch and, you know, part of the concern there is this is also a bus stop for the schools. In addition to that -- that grade change, there is some landscaping and signage on the south side and some landscaping on the north side that I assume were installed as part of Shafer View Estates and a good portion of that is -- you know, it's -- Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 21 of 55 it's -- it's been a while since that was installed. Many of the trees are much larger than they originally installed. Evergreen trees somewhat overgrown and they are not helping with the views as you -- as you drive out to turn either right or left onto the highway. The highway here -- I believe the speed limit is 55, so people are zipping by there pretty good and, then, you know, with that grade change, if you can picture it, there is -- you know, it's almost like a terrace that sticks out. So, there is -- there is a substantial slope directly adjacent to the road that slopes down from -- from the -- the hillside there down to the Shafer View Road and so, you know, we would definitely like to address that and that was a part of the discussion and what we are depicting on the landscape plan to minimize any concerns there, you know, they are probably -- expect there needs to be some regrading, as well as redo the landscaping on both sides and, then, we will see the other concerns -- well, I think that was the main -- the main concern there. The -- let's see. Was there anything else? Well, there was -- originally we had -- we had four lots along this frontage here and that was part of that discussion that there would be four access points on this stretch of road that's, you know, already a bit of a challenge and that it would potentially be unsafe for families with children that have access onto Shafer View Drive and so, you know, we have accommodated that and went from three blocks to four, which was the request. Originally the lots came over and touched -- well, almost touched on this side much closer. There was just a very skinny landscape strip in between. So, we would broaden that out and provide more separation for these folks here. Beg your pardon? Strader: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. Breckon: Oh, no. No. I was just going to add that there is an existing drainage swale in this location and, then, you know, to address -- but there is also an existing drainage swale down here in the corner that would need to be reworked as part of these improvements. Of course we would need to bring utilities over and provide curb, gutter and sidewalk along the frontage. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, just so I can understand, is that street pretty sloped, then, and the concern is that cars won't see the kids walking and, then, I guess if you could also address if there will be a sidewalk along there and where the kids would, then, be waiting for the bus. Breckon: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Strader, yes, there -- there would be a sidewalk along the frontage. It would tie into the pathway along the highway. The -- the big -- the majority of the -- the grade change is really just right in this entry-exit throat and -- and just, you know, as you pull down, come down the hill and there is a bit sharper drop off at the end and due to that drop off, you know, you really can't see down the highway either way until you really nose out. I mean you got to get to the end. So, if there were -- for example, if there were cars stacked here, you know, if you had two or three cars, the first car would be fine, they would be up and ready and queued and you can see just fine, but the second car would be in a position that they would not be able to really see down the Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 22 of 55 road either way and so that's -- that's -- that's a big concern there is the visibility. Anyway, we have a little hesitation about proposing modifications here. I mean we would like to make it better, but we would like to get some feedback from ITD. We wouldn't want to propose something and, then, ITD comes back and, you know, wants to do something else. So, we were hoping to get a little bit more direction in the ITD staff report, but it's -- it's a little bit vague. As I understand they are conducting a study right now on how far to widen Meridian Road and so, you know, we are kind of waiting on that. Strader: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Breckon, I just wanted to know your thoughts on the proportionate share on Quartz Creek Street. Are you willing to participate in that right turn lane? Breckon: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, we are willing to share that. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone who has signed up to testify on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there were no advance sign-ups. Simison: Okay. Well, if there is anybody in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this item, if you come forward and state your name and address for the record or if there is anybody online who would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand feature and to indicate and we will bring you in for testifying. Sir, if you would like to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Ward: Marvin Ward. 152 East Shafer View. First house in the subdivision of Shafer View Estates. I testified at the Planning and Zoning, concerns about -- Strader: I'm sorry, we can't hear you online. Ward: Okay. My fault. Talked about the safety that -- the raised elevation of the road, as that elevation raises and it makes a hard right and a hard left within 50 yards or so like that, it's -- it's a sight problem. Entering the subdivision you are coming off of Meridian Road, you know, fairly fast to get across the traffic. Putting houses there has been a concern of the neighborhood and also for myself and with all this development going around us, increased traffic on Meridian Road is, obviously, going to impact that as far as ingress and egress of the subdivision. Of course, another concern that kind of came to light in our home a week ago is emergency services. How fast can we get emergency Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 23 of 55 services to this area based on traffic patterns that are coming and the development that's going around there, it's -- it's a concern. I know that the developer has talked about five to eight minutes. I don't know that that is accurate. Based on our experience with emergency services it's closer to ten. You know, heart attack or not breathing or stuff like that is tough, so -- of course, the biggest concern is losing the country feel that we have out there with smaller homes around us and we are concerned about that. But these -- these three lots that are going in facing to Shafer View are definitely an access concern, a safety concern for those people that are moving into those houses with that coming in there. Most of the people in the subdivisions will not let the children stand there waiting for the bus, just because of the safety concern. They usually sit in the car and wait for the bus to show up, because people are coming and going and the speeds that are there, so -- and, of course, with the highway district stuff coming along we don't know what that's going to do, how that's going to impact the -- that intersection and that are along there, so just, you know, concerned about those things and wanted to share my thoughts and opinions on the safety and the development of that particular corner and making that work for us, so I appreciate your time, Mayor and Council, and hopefully we can work through this and make it work. So, thank you. Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to provide testimony? Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody raise their hand online? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Would the applicant like to make any final comments? Breckon: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I -- to address Mr. Ward's concerns. I think you -- to reiterate some of the points already made. You know, the access point there, we fully intend to make appropriate modifications to improve the access and the visibility into the property. I might note that, you know, currently Shafer View Estates there is 15 homes, so a relatively small cross-section as far as traffic flow and we have addressed, you know, previous concerns, you know, making these lots larger-- substantially larger, close to one acre in size, so that they will fit in with the existing development. Response time. You know, did look that up based on the city's data for emergency services. It is three to five minutes and I will stand for any further questions. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Thank you. Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Ward's point, Mr. Breckon, I'm assuming that because of the size of these three lots that people would not be backing out of their driveway onto Shafer View, they would be pulling out front say, is that a safe assumption? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, I fully agree. If we were to pull up an aerial view of the existing Shafer View Estates, you know, one acre lots are -- are very large by today's standards and fully expecting that these three lots that we are proposing Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 24 of 55 will be of a similar nature and architectural design, as well as site design, and, yeah, here if you look at the -- oops, it went away. If there was the color plan that we had you can see the aerial photo of these one acre lots and these -- these are substantial homes, you know, with -- most of them have drive-through driveways, as well as auxiliary buildings or guest homes adjacent, swimming pools, and, you know, water features and they are -- they are very nice and -- and they all have substantial accommodations for multiple vehicles, guest parking, and, you know, on-site circulation I guess is what I'm trying to explain. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Breckon: So, yeah, I expect that -- you know, and that's the intent of these -- these lot sizes, that these will fit in with these folks here and, you know, be able to build a similar type of home and have similar amenities and, you know, have your drive-through driveway or, you know, whatever they would like and be able to turn around on site in any case. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Breckon, is there a way that those driveways -- and I know we don't have the site plans or where the house is going to be, but can the driveway be configured safely that it has view of -- it does sound like -- and that's the one thing we don't have much experience in Meridian is dealing with hills, that's just not something we have many of. So, is there a way to locate those driveways to maximize visibility? Breckon: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Hoaglun, yes, sir, I absolutely agree that that's fully possible. One of our niche services that we provide to the public at my firm is hillside development within the city of Boise and Ada county and so we routinely design homes -- nice estate homes, large estate homes in the hillside and have to address those types of concerns and while we have some grade change here, you know, we are talking five or six feet, this is easily mitigated with the space that we have available here on these sites. There is -- you know, I -- I don't see any issue, you know, with laying these out in a way that can accommodate those sorts of improvements. There is -- there is plenty of space to accommodate it. Simison: Deputy Chief, I see you probably want to address the time response that you are -- with reference or maybe something else. Bongiorno: No. Yes, please, Mr. Mayor and Council, if I can share my screen. Sonya, if you want to share or -- awesome. I was frantically trying to pull up data while you guys were finishing up and I didn't -- I didn't catch it in time before you got to Mr. Breckon. To address Mr. Ward's information, we did recently go on a medical call out in that area and that particular call was an eight minute response to that location. As it stands, this subdivision, just like many of our other ones, just sits on the edge of our five minute Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 25 of 55 response to goal. Again, if we build the -- if we have the opportunity to build the fire station around the corner, this is what that area will look like once the south station is built. So, with that we are super close, but the response we had the other day was eight minutes to that location. Simison: Thank you, Deputy Chief. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I think that it's important also to note that -- and I'm glad we are having this -- this discussion this evening. Appreciate the presentation and such. I did want to make sure that the applicant is aware of -- of the statement that was made at our Council a couple of weeks ago in regard to the property tax legislation that's currently being discussed at the -- at the Capitol. Just wanted to make sure that the applicant was aware of that statement. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, yes, we were -- we were made aware of that by staff. Simison: Council, just in light of that comment, that I think also at least from a practical standpoint where we -- my concern regarding ITD's even letter and approach -- and I really would encourage us to not just wait for the property tax, but also have a further conversation about ITD. What we have seen on Chinden, which is we have a -- an area of Black Cat that didn't get a right-hand turn lane built that is experiencing concerns out in that area that we are trying to work through. You know, getting access off of these interstates is going to be a challenge. Now, I'm not a traffic engineer and I don't live in the subdivision, but, honestly, I don't know the value of a right-hand turn lane -- I would assume that most people are not coming from Kuna, but I could be wrong, you know, so -- so even from a practical standpoint about the access issues or access expectations, but the ITD has had this conversation about proportional share costs encouragement. They don't have a -- they don't have a way to require it. I'm not even sure what the expectations would be when they would ever build it. Would they build it only after they get 99 percent more of contributions from other people to -- to do that? But when you already have other areas -- others in that area developing, who really becomes the additional contributors to that right-hand turn lane and I think that's an important question. If a right-hand turn lane is desired by Council or in some sort of access, you know, what is the best mechanism by which to achieve that and when and whether it's further clarification from about when that would or should occur from a proportional cost share from this developer or anybody else, that -- that to me is a big question mark, because if it's -- if it's warranted, well, when is it warranted and if we are waiting for ITD to do it, well, we see what happens when we wait for ITD to do anything in our community. It may not happen for a decade or more. So, I think that that's an issue that Council -- I would encourage Council to really consider when looking at that element and do we have enough data even to talk about this tonight. Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 26 of 55 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. You know, I think it's a good point. I -- I am concerned when the traffic situation is bad enough that folks don't want kids to wait for the bus. We are hearing a lot of feedback and the letter wasn't -- really didn't provide a lot of guidance. So, maybe this is an opportunity for the applicant as well, just to really -- maybe city staff could -- could also try to do what we can, but maybe we can get more clarity from ITD on those -- those aspects. I -- I tend to agree. I -- yeah, I think it's a concern. I appreciate the information about the driveways, though. That did make me a little more comfortable. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I would like to hear the applicant's thoughts on what Chief Bongiorno shared and, then, any other -- hopefully they will share any other comments they have about what -- the concern that you had just stated. Is that -- is this an appropriate time to have them do that? Simison: Yeah. I will let the applicant determine if they think it's appropriate. Yes. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I'm sorry, I didn't -- I didn't quite understand the question. Perreault: If you had any thoughts or comments to share about Chief Bongiorno's presentation regarding the response time from the Fire Department and also anything you might have to add about the Mayor's comments regarding ITD. Breckon: Yes. So, regarding the Chief Bongiorno's comment, yeah, I mean I guess that stands, if they had a direct response to eight minutes, we are surrounded by city limits, so I would hope that the new fire station will go in on Lake Hazel very soon, so that we can keep our response time down below five minutes. As far as ITD, yeah, I was -- I was greatly disappointed that we did not receive more direction from them in their staff report and, you know, unfortunately, we didn't get it, we only got it just in the last few days and so that didn't really give us time to contact ITD and maybe press them for more clarification or direction. So, you know, there is -- there is some comments in there -- I mean there is a potential that they would require additional right of way dedication, which, you know, could substantially impact the frontage design. You know, the school bus drop off is an existing condition. We would like to address and make appropriate modifications to this access, but, you know, we can -- and we can -- we can suggest options. In the end that design will need to go in front of ITD for their review and comment and we fully expect to work with them in compliance to make this a safer access. ACHD will also weigh in on the design. This is an ACHD roadway, as, you know, all the roadways would be designed to ACHD standards as public roads and so, yeah, we are willing to -- to work Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 27 of 55 with these agencies to -- to make this a better access, not just for our three lots, but for the -- for the existing neighbors. You know, just a point of clarification, this is about 400 feet, this frontage here, just for reference. Simison: Council, any further questions, comments, observations, actions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: There is a lot fantastic with this project. I really think it's a good looking project and I -- and among a lot of things that I like about it I appreciate it's larger lots and its R- 2 zoning request I think is spot on. The elephant in the room remains some of the assumptions which these types of projects are built upon, understandably so, and that is the funding stream that we have necessary to serve them. So -- and Council President Bernt brought it up that one of the challenges, Jon, is -- is for the hopefully brief future we have a -- a potential generational change in -- in funding available to the city. So, when we talk response times, for example, or even a location of a fire station, for example, all of those plans have been premised from years and years over a funding stream that is now in grave jeopardy with the legislature and a particular bill that's -- well, while they are in session it remains. So, the concern that existed a week ago I think continues today. It's something that makes me only comfortable with a continuance, because there could be -- if legislation is passed that's proposed, there could be seven figure reductions annualized that grow exponentially and that jeopardize our ability to maintain those various levels of service that -- that we are trying to hit for a project like this and it would impact this project and -- and elsewhere around the city. So, it's such a drastic funding concern that I couldn't proceed on anything other than continuing to -- you know, it's mid late April, hopefully, everything's completed by then. This legislation hopefully fails and we can continue as we planned for years and years and years. Long term, very fiscally conservative responsible planning. It's the very reason that we can rely on and applicants like you can rely on response times and -- and our commitments to locate fire stations and have adequate police service, among all of the other services that are necessary to make Meridian as great as it is. We are in great jeopardy of losing that. So, to act on one application impacts all of them and -- and everyone already in the city. So, it's just a long way to try and give some context, Jon, hopefully to help you understand the challenge that Meridian's in -- frankly every city is in this challenge, but this is a big big deal and I don't think we can proceed at all until that issue is resolved, at least not responsibly, and I wouldn't -- I wouldn't suggest, Mr. Mayor, that we necessarily close the public hearing. If it -- if it were to be continued -- and in fairness to the public and the applicant, I think we are still forced to be on a prudent pause. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Borton nailed it on the head. He was very eloquent in his description and Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 28 of 55 nothing further to add to his comments. Just -- I just wanted to say, Jon, you know, setting the concerns about access aside, unfortunately, our hands are tight on this one. So, I'm glad that you were made aware prior to this public hearing from staff. So, that is what I wanted to make sure in my previous comment. Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Breckon: Councilman Bernt, is it -- I guess I'm a little unsure as to how we proceed. Should I request a continuance at this time or what is appropriate? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Jon, it's totally up to you. That's something that you need to decide for yourself and for your -- for the folks that you represent. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I mean if we don't ask for a continuance, then, the expectation is denial at this point; is that correct? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: You know, I -- I would never speculate. All I can say is that what Mr. Borton stated is fact, unfortunately, and -- and so I believe -- just going on precedent and what happened, you know, two -- two weeks ago when we heard an application in a different type -- you know, a different part of town, I think that you would probably see similar action. But, again, I -- I would leave that up to you and the folks that are present to -- to make that decision. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, with Councilman Bernt, I would, then, at this time request for a continuance. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to say that if a continuance is requested I think -- I would hope the applicant would really try to get some answers out of ITD and along with our city staff, so when it comes back before us, if that's the direction of the Council, then, we can have -- hopefully have some answers regarding their plans. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 29 of 55 Bernt: Hey, Jon, is there is a -- there a date that you would like this to be continued to that not next Tuesday? Breckon: Well, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, yes, beyond next Tuesday -- I'm not clear of when the next meeting might -- might be or when our next opportunity would be to have this resolved. I'm assuming maybe two weeks out at a minimum. I'm open to suggestions from staff. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: I would be recommending probably minimum six weeks. Bernt: Right. Mr. Mayor, I believe that we continued the -- the application from two weeks ago until the 13th. I don't know what the 13th looks like. Maybe the clerk can shed some light on what that date looks like. I certainly don't want to continue all of the applications for the same evening, it could make for a long evening, so I would say minimum the 13th, most likely maybe the 20th, depending on what the clerk says. Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, the 13th or the 20th, either one is open at this point. Simison: Council Member, I think either one of those, the 13th or the 20th, would work. I don't think we have seen the work out of P&Z yet that would hit those dates, so there are likely -- they will be close, but I think that we don't know yet what else might come, but -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor. And I also feel like we need to be accommodating to these folks as well. So, I will leave that up to Jon and what he feels what he wants, but the minimum would be the 13th of April, Jon. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I would request continuance to the 13th, please. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we continue this item H-2020-0117 to April 13th. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second it. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and this item will be continued. Thank you to the applicant and Council for that conversation that will hopefully will allow them to get the answers, let us get the answers, and continue this -- get the needed information so we can enter into these decisions appropriately. Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 30 of 55 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Allen: Mr. Mayor, this is Sonya. Can I, please, have clarification as to what the Council -- what information the Council would like from ITD on this. What I understood was they would like more information in regard to when the turn lane would be constructed, if funds are allocated for the improvement. Was -- was there other items as well? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And, Sonya, yeah, it's -- it's just a matter of what -- what are their future plans, what are the widening plans, what is the time frame this is going to take place. What they are going to do with the funds, as Mayor Simmons had mentioned, you know, how much money needs to be collected for a right turn lane. Is it -- is it 99 percent? When do they proceed with construction at one point. So, there is just a lot of information that's -- that's needed to make that ingress and egress safe. What does that look like? That just helps us and the applicant and the residents who are currently there know what -- what the plan is to -- to make this work and for us to decide do we move forward with that or not. So, it's -- it's just one of those things. The more information they give us the better it helps us. So, as much as you can get, Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Councilman. Simison: And hopefully my city attorney doesn't look down on me for how I'm going to phrase this, but, in essence, this process that ITD is trying to go through is an extraction through people to the public through to the development process, so is the rest of the 99 percent going to have to come from actions this Council approves through the development process before that can actually occur, because they don't have any other mechanism by which to collect the other 98.7 percent of the funds for this, unless people voluntarily give it to them or you require it through your actions. To my knowledge. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. I didn't get in too much trouble, so -- thank you very much. Council, do we want to take a five minute break? Perreault: Ten. Simison: Ten minute break. We will reconvene at 8:05. (Recess: 7:53 p.m. to 8:07 p.m.) 4. Public Hearing for Chewie Subdivision (H-2020-0120) by Kent Brown Planning, Located at 2490 W. Franklin Road and the Lot Directly North Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 31 of 55 A. Request: Preliminary Plat for six (6) industrial lots on 43.87 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Simison: Okay. Council, we will go ahead and resume from our recess. Next item on our agenda this evening is public hearing for Chewie Subdivision, H-2020-0120. We will open this public hearing with staff comments and I will turn this over to Joe. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The application before you consists of 43.87 acres of land, currently zoned I-L and located generally at 2490 West Franklin Road. To the north is railroad property. North of that is residential uses in R-8 and R-15 zoning. To the east is the West Ada bus barn and the Republic Services transfer station and also I-L zoning. To the south is Franklin Road and south of that is undeveloped C-C zoning within the Ten Mile area. West of the site is I-L zoning and the new FedEx distribution center. The future land use designations on the site as noted on the screen -- the picture on the left is both mixed employment and high density residential. The application before you is a request for a preliminary plat to subdivide the property into six industrial lots for ownership purposes. This property right here is not a part of the plat and is an existing home. The property is zoned I-L and has been so for decades. The zoning entitlement vastly predates both the Ten Mile plan and the Comprehensive Plan designations. In addition, Lot 1 of the subdivision, the largest lot, approximately 30 acres, has already received administrative level approval of a large e-commerce delivery station that is to be operated by Amazon. Therefore, this project and its site design --the Amazon project and site design is not up for review at this public hearing. Only the submitted preliminary plat. Because of the existing zoning and entitlements, strict adherence to the Comprehensive Plan is not feasible. The existing industrial zoning and approved delivery station align with the mixed employment future land use on the site. Also because of the existing entitlements and zoning, staff believes placing a high density residential project on this site would not be in the best interest of the city. The city should be getting the site density residential further to the west as part of the Gateway at Ten Mile, which is located on this parcel and was approved late last year. Despite not being able to strictly adhere to the Ten Mile plan, staff believes the proposed project generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan and those applicable policies were outlined within the staff report. All proposed lots meet the dimensional standards for the I-L zoning district and access is proposed via a new collector street from Franklin Road shown as North New Market Avenue. New Market is proposed to continue into the site and, then, head east and west as an extension of West Fred Smith Street, which is already constructed along the front of FedEx to the west. As discussed previously, the applicant has received CZC and design review approval for the new 141 ,000 square foot e-commerce delivery station on Lot 1 of the subdivision. That administrative application triggered the TIS and this plat, therefore, does not include a TIS. However, because the road extension and overall circulation element of this area are the main issues of the project, staff has included the main points of the GIS and ACHD's -- ACHD's comments, as well as analysis on the existing access points. The new collector street required to be constructed with the delivery station will have access to Franklin in two places in the future. The New Market Avenue connection noted here -- sorry, I lost my place. And one offsite connection to the west noted here as Wayfinder Avenue. This offsite connection is not yet constructed and Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 32 of 55 the timetable for when it will be current -- it will be constructed is currently unknown, as adjacent projects, both FedEx and Gateway at Ten Mile, do not include and do not own the parcels directly adjacent to Franklin Road, which would be these two parcels here. And because of that they cannot construct the right of way at this time. The TIS did not include estimated traffic from the additional industrial lots along Franklin and so future development should be monitored to ensure the allowed trip count on one access, meaning the New Market Avenue access, does not exceed 3,000 daily trips without constructing the additional access at Wayfinder. This may limit future development until such time that Wayfinder is connected and constructed to Franklin. In addition to the traffic volumes produced by the new delivery station, the applicant's TIS did include the traffic from the West Ada School District bus barn and Republic Services transfer station that are both located directly west of the project. These volumes were included, because the new east-west collector street and new signal at the intersection of Franklin should also serve these sites when constructed. The existing private road, which is noted here -- and I stole this from ACHD, because they did such a good job with this little picture here. The existing private road for West Ada and Republic Services that is restricted to an exit only access cannot be closed with this application, because it is not part of this property. In addition, the city cannot force West Ada and Republic Services to use this new collector road once it is constructed, because they already have their entitlements and zoning and their access to Franklin. However, this applicant and representatives from both the school district and Republic Services have worked out an agreement to close this existing only private drive and utilize the new collector street. Staff is appreciative of this work being done by the applicant and these outside agencies. To help ensure this access can occur for all parties involved, ACHD recommends constructing the segment east of the New Market Avenue, this segment here of West Fred Smith Street, as a private street, instead of a public street. This recommendation is being made because this segment of the collector roadway is over 150 feet in length and would require to be terminated in a temporary, more likely permanent cul-de-sac at its -- at the eastern property line. Staff agrees with this recommendation to construct it as a private street, instead of a public street for the reasons stated and because this collector roadway is not expected to continue further east due to existing industrial development that may never redevelop. In addition to the private street, the applicant and West Ada and Republic Services should enter into a cross-access agreement for this segment of the private street to ensure continued access to the collector roadway and the signal at Franklin. Since the Commission meeting staff has confirmation that this agreement has been agreed to by all parties and a private street will be constructed by this applicant with West Ada and Republic Services participating in a cross-access and shared maintenance agreement for this segment of the roadway. Other than the road extension and access points discussed within the TIS, the submitted plat and landscape plan -- sorry -- they show existing accesses to Franklin remaining, which does not align with code and they will -- because they will have a lesser classified street, the new collector roadway for access. In addition, there is a lot that the preliminary plat surrounds as noted and contains an existing home that is legal nonconforming within the I-L zoning district. Currently this home also takes the access from Franklin. The applicant should provide a curb cut for this property along the extended West Fred Smith Street, so that when this out-parcel does redevelop in the future it will have access to the collector street instead of to Franklin, an arterial. The Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 33 of 55 submitted plans do not show an access as being provided and this should be corrected prior to final plat submittal. Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of this application with no modifications to the staff report and there was no written testimony then and there has been none since the Commission hearing. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the road layout and, then, the additional -- the estimated additional vehicle trips per day as noted within the traffic impact study regarding the additional industrial lots along Franklin. After that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. With that I will ask the applicant to be recognized for 15 minutes. If you would state your name and address for the record, Mr. Brown. Brown: Can you hear me? Simison: Yep. Borton: Yes. Brown: So, for the record my name is Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. And grateful to be here tonight and discuss this application. It is pretty straightforward. We are already annexed and zoned, as staff has talked about for many years. With this industrial zoning we are moving forward with an industrial subdivision. I do have questions and mostly it was from attending tonight's meeting with regards to Matt talking about something that was required during a preliminary plat. Condition one states that prior to submittal of the final plat we revise some items and I don't know if that's -- I initially took that to be that we would revise the final plat to show these items, but Item A talks about us closing the entrances to Franklin and I understand that we are going to show -- not show them there, but actually closing them -- physically closing him we would prefer to have that at the end of the process and maybe some clarification from staff. I know this isn't something I talked to Joe initially, but it was something that I thought of as -- waiting for our hearing to start when this specifically says revise the plat, the preliminary plat, I would say it's -- they are asking me to provide them with a perfect preliminary plat with the closure of those roads to -- to Franklin and we acknowledge we are going to close them, I just don't want to physically have to go haul the concrete out and close them prior to me submitting the final plat. I would like to be back to the city in a couple of weeks with the final plat. So, I will stand for any questions that you may have. Simison: Okay. First, any response to that comment? Dodson: Mr. Mayor. I'm trying to look up the ACHD staff report to see what their language usually is. I understand Ken's point. The applicant's point there. Sorry. Just give me a couple seconds. Yeah. Time frame wise. I would agree with Kent -- or the applicant, I don't necessarily think that with the final submittal they need to physically be closed, but the plat itself should show the closure and so if we -- if he requires that the condition be modified to say that, that -- I guess at prior to final plat signature I think it is appropriate, that these accesses be closed, because the road improvements and everything should Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page Q4 of 55 be done and constructed at that point, too. That makes sense. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: I read that different. I saw that A-1-A only to require the preliminary -- preliminary plat revision to occur, but not the actual work. I thought that you just were trying to have that designation on the plat changed before the final plat submittal, not the -- which wouldn't have been a problem, but -- Brown: That was the question that I had was whether it was asking me to create a perfect preliminary plat or if I was just to adopt those items and put them on my final. Borton: Oh. Brown: Asking for a clarification there. If it wants me to not show it on my final plat, I just need clarification, which -- which way I need to go with that. But when it says close, it's hard to tell is that just asking for it to be drawn that way or -- so if that's clarified, which Joe has, then, that's fine, too. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Real briefly, I think we can just -- you might have clarified it with your comments, Kent, and your commitment to do that, we just want to make sure that we don't have a pre-plat that looks one way and, then, the final plat has to be substantially compliant with it and if it -- if the preliminary plat doesn't show it and the final plat doesn't show it, that's not what we are intending, which, obviously, you have picked up on. Simison: Mr. Brown, I just want to -- I know your clients are out listening as well. I don't know if they intend to provide comments or not, but I just want to take a quick moment and whether I need to disclose or not, I did have conversations with the applicant sometime before this moved into the process, but I want to applaud them working with Republic and with Ada School District to help address this traffic issue and, hopefully, solve a larger issue as this -- as Amazon comes on and FedEx comes on and the school district expands and more buses, I really appreciate you guys working together to help address this issue and get a solid access point for everybody there on Franklin. Brown: Thank you. Council, any further questions for the applicant? Okay. This is a public hearing. Do we have anyone signed up to testify on this item, Mr. Clerk? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody who would like to provide testimony online? If so, use Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 35 of 55 the raise your hand feature and we will add you in. I'm seeing nobody raise their hand at this point in time. So, Mr. Brown, would you like to make any final comments? Brown: No. I think we have covered everything. Simison: Okay. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: A quick question for -- for Legal. Bill, what's the mechanism, if any, to ensure that conditions are complied with? There is not a DA that's part of this. It's already annexed, so could you provide just a brief comment on what -- what ensures these things all occur, all these conditions? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, so that's going to be part of Joe's findings; right? They will be part of the order. So, then, the reflection -- and, then, they will, then, verify it against the final plat. So, I think there is sufficient safeguards in the process to make sure that happens. Borton: Okay. Thanks. Simison: Council, any further questions, comments, or motions? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Just wanted to super clarify on the condition A-1-A that Kent was referring to, that I can understand the little confusion there, because it was written a little more definitive than some of the other ones where it says show on the plat, but that is what the intention is. I just want to make that clear. And with the final plat submittal the final plat should show those corrections. Brown: Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I see this one a little bit different with the issues we have been dealing with. Because it's already annexed this -- this property is a part of our community -- it has been for a long time and it has zoning, it has existing entitlements. A different situation than an annexation application seeking to grow our city and -- and compound our service obligations. So, these are relatively rare when these long-term existing annex properties Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 36 of 55 finally come in for a plat, so I think this one is unique and we have already committed -- brought it into the Meridian family decades ago, so I don't have the fiscal concern that comes with a new annexation. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I was going to comment to that and I think Joe -- Joe nailed it. This is long standing, been part of the community, just looking for the right time to develop and it's here and -- and being industrial, too, it doesn't have the same -- quite the same impact as some of our other things, but there is no annexation involved in this, so I think this can move forward if the Council desires. Simison: Agree. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: If there is no other comment, I will go ahead and make a motion to close the public hearing on item 2020-0120 for Chewie Subdivision. Simison: Could I have a second? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Mayor, if there is -- Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: -- not yet any -- any additional discussion on this one, at least yet, I will make a motion to approve 2020-0120 for Chewie Subdivision, to include all of staff comment's set forth in the March 9th staff report as clarified by the applicants and planning staff at today's hearing with regards to the -- the conditions in this preliminary plat and what's going to be included in the final plat once it's submitted, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 37 of 55 Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and it is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) by The Land Group, Inc., Located Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved. B. A Rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from the M-E zoning district to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment. C. A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2018- 079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. Simison: Thank you. Next item on our agenda is a public hearing for Aviator Subdivision H-2020-0111 . We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The application before you for Aviator Subdivision is not a subdivision yet, but consists of 9.8 acres of land, currently zoned to ME, which is mixed employment, located at -- well, near I should say the northeast corner of Black Cat and Franklin. It is directly north of the Compass Charter School and east of Hensley Station and is along the rail -- railroad corridor within the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan. It did receive -- or I should say it was -- well, I will get into that later. Summary of the request -- it is threefold. First and foremost is the Comprehensive Plan map amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of medium high density residential for the purpose of developing the site with residential, instead of a school site -- or part of a school site as previously approved. A rezone to total the 9.8 acres of land and change it from ME zoning to R-15 zoning to align with the proposed map amendment and, thirdly, a modification to the existing development agreement for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries in terms of that agreement and -- and to enter into a new one consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. In short, if the map amendment is not approved the associated rezone and MDA are not applicable, because they are contingent upon the future land use changing back to the residential designation. The applicant is requesting to modify the Comprehensive Plan map for the subject parcel in order to allow Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 38 of 55 for residential zoning and uses, instead of mixed employment or other light industrial uses. The current future land use is mixed employment, which encourages research and development, office, light industrial, information and other ancillary-- ancillary commercial uses. Instead, the applicant is requesting to return the property to its original future land use of medium high density residential. This designation allows for a mix of dueling types, including townhomes, townhouses, condominiums and apartments. Subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with a Compass Charter School application and received map amendment approval back then to change the underlying land use for medium high density residential to mixed employment. The 2018 request and subsequent approval to change the future land use was so the new school could be constructed and an adjacent county landscaping business could be annexed into the city and still comply with code. At the time it was determined that the map change was applicable, because the subject parcel was conceptually shown with the sports field, track, and stadium and was the school's avenue for annexation into the City of Meridian in 2018. However, in 2020 Compass Charter received approval to modify their concept plan and development agreement to move their sports field to a more adjacent parcel to this -- to the new school directly to the east of their existing site. Therefore, this 9.8 acre parcel is no longer part of the long term plan for Compass Charter School and was subsequently sold to its current owners. Because the applicant is proposing to return the parcel back to its original future land use designation and becoming more compatible land use to his neighbors, staff supports the map amendment. Thus, the subsequent MDA is to modify the concept plan and incorporate new provisions based on the new plan. The same can be said for the rezoning request of R-15, which would allow for future development of the property with a residential use in line with the proposed concept plan. To be clear, the applicant is not proposing a plat with these applications and the future development will be driven by the DA and its provisions and this associated concept plan. Specifically it is important to discuss access for this project in a separate section within the staff report regardless of the fact no preliminary plat is currently being proposed. Access is proposed via extension of a collector street, an existing one, West Aviator, and subsequent local street off of said collector. West Aviator currently provides one of the accesses to Compass Charter School and will provide access to Hensley Station directly west of the subject site. Due to the pattern of development Aviator will only be extended to the east boundary of the subject site and not connect to any other road until such time that more parcels developed to the south and east of the subject site. This is one reason -- one more reason why the applicant is not choosing to submit a plat at this time. Because of this it is imperative -- it is imperative that the concept plan and conceptual layout of Aviator is well thought out and shown in a place that allows for fair and convenient access in the future and convenient extension. Staff shared these concerns with the applicant and they revised the concept plan to show a more appropriate extension of Aviator. Staff is appreciative of the applicant's ability to work with staff and revise the layout for the above reasons. The revised concept plan shows Aviator heading northeast into the parcel from its terminus in front of the Compass Charter School expansion, crossing the drain once and, then, stubbing to the east property line north of the irrigation pump station in the southeast corner of the site. The new configuration allows for the future extension of Aviator to occur without a need to cross the drain again and not require this applicant to acquire land from two county parcels to the south. This new layout Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 39 of 55 generally depicts the same internal layout with some shifting of the site to the east to accommodate easements and some loss of internal green space that is replaced with other green space. With the future plan staff will analyze the open space more thoroughly for the subject property. Commission recommended approval with a desire for the applicant to review the open space and number of units shown off in common drives when they come back through the process for a plat in the future, should Council approve the map amendment, rezone, and MDA. There was one item of written testimony prior to the Commission meeting from one of the county parcels to the south, Mrs. Bowery, and she had issues with the road being shown on her property and no agreements being made. The applicant clarified some of the intentions of the -- of the application and the road with her and she was satisfied with those answers. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the location of the drain on the property and whether it is intended to be relocated, piped, or both. Second to that was the willingness of Nampa-Meridian to allow any section of the drain to be piped. The applicant has had preliminary discussions with the irrigation district and they are in support of piping this segment of the drain. And, lastly, there was some concern of the future plat and its layout in regards to open space and the common drive shown, which was noted in the recommendation to Council. There have been no additional comments -- written testimony I should say since the Commission meeting. I did note in my recommendations that there was an outstanding issue regarding the legal descriptions. The applicant had made a mistake and thought that they submitted those. Soon after the Commission meeting that they did not, so I have received the revised legal descriptions and, therefore, there is no longer any outstanding issues. After that I will stand for any questions from Council. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions? Okay. With that ask the applicant to come forward and state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for 15 minutes. McNeill: My name is Kristen McNeill, with The Land Group, located at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. 83616. And let me share my screen here. Are you seeing the full screen version or the -- Dodson: No. McNeill: You are seeing the -- okay. Okay. How about now? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. McNeill: Thank you. So, as I said, I'm Kristen McNeill with The Land Group. I'm representing the developers in this application. This application, as Joe mentioned -- thank you, Joe. That was a very thorough review of our presentation of our application. It includes restoring the pre-2018 Comprehensive Plan land use designation of medium high density, the rezone, and the modification of the existing development agreement and as Joe mentioned we are not proposing a preliminary plat at this time. Okay. So, we have received support from staff and recommendation for approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission and there were some comments that -- as Joe mentioned that were Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 40 of 55 made for revisions from the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, we are going to talk through those as we walk through, even though they weren't necessary for part of this application, we still wanted to look into what they -- those concerns and discuss those here. So, one of those is the common drive recommendations, the number of homes served by the common drive. The connection between the open space concept and the plan. So, we have done some graphics to show that and also just discussion of the Compass charter relocation of their open fields, which -- which Joe mentioned. They have relocated those. And, then, also just reviewing parking. This graphic shows the planned alignment of Aviator Street through the site, as well as a general open space plan, blocking for residential areas and open space and as Joe mentioned we originally envisioned Aviator to continue straight through -- straight through here, but now it's -- we have routed it to go through the site to alleviate any concerns with the drain that's located in the corner, as well as if the road were to continue straight it would be partially on the parcels to the south here. This is a new graphic that we --that we created to -- in response to -- to questions about the open space on this site. As you can see it's kind of a unique site with the way that Aviator comes through the development. We have this open space over here, as well as the Purdam Gulch Drain that runs diagonally across and this storm drain swale over in this area with an irrigation drainage easement. So, it definitely is a site that offers unique opportunities and unique challenges as well. So, this graphic is also showing the medium high density residential along here and as we -- over in this corner we have reduced the number of -- up in this corner we have reduced the number of lots that are accessed on that common drive. In addition, Planning and Zoning had questions about parking and this concept plan offers 18 percent more parking than required by code, including 144 garage and pad spaces and 25 on-street spots, for a total of 169 spots. So, again, this is -- this is not a preliminary plat, so this graphic is here just for conceptual purposes and, again, these -- this is here for conceptual purposes. Part of what the -- the developers have looked into is different types of conceptual design elements to go along with that and with the intent to create a premier Meridian neighborhood that supports the Ten Mile interchange specific plan. The area plan envisions residential lots that feature walkable neighborhoods and a community feel with the intent to complement existing and plan near nearby developments. In addition, the important part of showing some varied facades along there as well. With the site constraints that were mentioned earlier, this site also offers unique and exciting opportunities to create a dynamic and original open space plan that will be unlike others in the area. Three distinct open space areas are highlighted in this concept plan. On the west side here we envision utilizing the storm drain swale and irrigation easement area for natural walking paths and possibly nature play or exploration area. This central green space would offer areas of opportunity to integrate pathways with areas for sitting, gathering, connecting with other residents and the green space to the southeast is -- provides a space to link the neighborhood with the surrounding areas, with the goal of creating a neighborhood that seeks to integrate with the greater Ten Mile plan. We anticipate further exploration of integrating amenities in each of these areas to maximize open space and provide opportunities for unique walking and gathering spaces involving natural play or sport areas, all to encourage an interconnected community. So, to review, the application includes the Comprehensive Plan map, the amendment to the medium high density residential, the rezone to R-15, a development agreement modification that Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 41 of 55 goes along with that and, as I mentioned, based on Planning and Zoning comments we reduced the number of homes on the common drive. We revised the drawings to better represent the green space and reviewed how the concept plan exceeds the parking code requirements. So, with that we respectfully request your approval tonight and will stand for questions. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Kristen. Would you run us through the time frame of -- first of all, the -- the purpose of requesting a Comprehensive Plan amendment if there isn't any intention of a preliminary plat application in the near future? And I will share with you in just a second where I'm going with this. And it seems like that -- for there not being an intention of doing a preliminary plat in the near future, there has been a lot of thought put into the concept design. So, I'm asking this, because we have had several developments in this area and Black Cat and Aviator really are not set up for additional residential. Excuse me. That -- that street -- I pass by it numerous times a day, numerous times a week. Aviator is -- is backed up during the school hours, which would be the same time as rush hour for all of those homeowners and it's really, in my opinion, not -- not functioning as a collector, even though it's intended to be a collector it's not going to be one until there is a way to head east. So, could you give us some background on why -- why request the comp plan amendment now if there isn't an intention of doing a preliminary plat in the near future? McNeill: It's not specifically near future, it just is not with this application. It's being considered right now and, obviously, as you can see there has been quite a bit of thought that's gone into that. But the effort -- to put the effort forth without -- they wanted to start here and make sure that we could -- they could make the moves and have clarity on the rezone before they commit to the specific set of pre-plats. And in addition to -- in terms of the -- any of the comments related to transportation, travel along that road, it is anticipated in the future that that road will be extended. Obviously, that's not a part of this application. The developers don't have -- they don't have the parcels to the east of this, but we will comply with all required ACHD improvements and this is a part of -- of the master plan that goes along with that. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we had no one sign up in advance. We do have a couple people online. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody online who would like to provide testimony on this item, if you can use the raise your hand feature -- it looks like we have at least one person. Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 42 of 55 Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Jane Byam. Simison: Okay. Jane, if you can unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for three minutes. Jane, I see you unmuted yourself. Byam: Yes. Sorry. My computer -- when I raise my hand it kicks me out for a minute. I don't know why it happens that way, but thank you. Thank you, Mayor and City Council Members. My name is Jane Byam. I live at 6050 El Gato Lane, Meridian, Idaho. And I have a couple concerns about this development. First and foremost, maybe a minor thing, but the sign -- the notice -- you know, the white signs that the city puts up about changes was not out on Black Cat, but was at the end of Aviator, which is, essentially, to most people, unless they are driving into the school or going to go out -- and I feel as though that sign should have been put out where the majority of the people that live in the area could see it and be aware of what was going on. Another concern for me is that several years ago -- and Compass Charter School approached the city about the rezoning and land use change to be able to put the school there. It has been mentioned that property was originally designated as medium high density. We were concerned about the school and increased traffic, but in talking with several neighbors people pointed -- Simison: Jane, we -- Perreault: She cut out. I can't hear her. Simison: Jane, we just lost you. Byam: Can you hear me now? Simison: Yes. Byam: Okay. Where -- where was I at? Simison: You were -- you were referencing the element about the change in zoning and the school. Byam: Yes. Yeah. So, at the time when the school requested having that change, people in the -- in -- in our neighborhood and discussing that, we felt that a school there would definitely be better than medium high density or high density apartments and -- and so did not oppose the school going there, with the understanding that that property was going to be for the school and the sports complex. Now it's been sold and they are asking to put it back to the medium high density after now -- now other homes are being built and the new development that's going to be up at the end of Pine and as Ms. -- I don't know if I will say your name right -- Perreault mentioned, the traffic on Black Cat is a nightmare. People can't get off of our street. People have trouble getting off of Pine even heading north to Cherry. And another concern -- and probably my biggest concern is the continual deviation from the future land use map, which was studied and researched. People were Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 40 of 55 interviewed, neighborhood meetings were conducted, and that was voted on and approved by the City of Meridian, but a developer can come into the area and just petition the city to change it, how are people that live here going to know what to expect for property -- vacant land that's around them. Let's say somebody is going to put their home up for sale, they could use the future land use map to tell, you know, potential buyers this is what the city has in mind for the land behind us should it be annexed, but when -- when a developer can approach the city and have such great deviations from what the future land use map has, what's the point in having a future land use map if we are -- if we are not going to follow it and stick to it. Meridian is growing so fast -- Simison: Jane, if you could, please, conclude your comments. Byam: I'm -- so Meridian is growing very fast. The roads can't handle it and -- and I'm not seeing the -- a mixed use in the neighborhoods. We are not seeing a variety of homes in this part of Meridian in the southwest quadrant north of the freeway. It seems to be all apartments and medium or medium high density homes, rather than a mix of home types and so thank you, Mayor and City Council Members, for letting me share my thoughts. Simison: Council, any questions for Jane? Borton: No. Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, anybody else raise their hand to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I see no other hands at this time. Simison: Okay. With that would the applicant like to make closing remarks? McNeill: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Yes, I would just like to address a couple of comments from Ms. Byam. The -- regarding the posting, we did post as -- the signs as required by code and did run the locations past staff before the signs were posted. So, just wanted to clarify that. And in terms of the future land use map, I also just wanted to clarify, again, that we are bringing this back to the original future land use map designation. So, there was at -- what the application that Compass had done did change that future land use map, but we are going back to that original, which is medium high density residential and so just wanted to clarify those two points and also that we agree with the staff report and -- and we -- and also, you know, are glad to have received support from the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, thank you very much and if you have any other questions for me -- thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any further questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for staff. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 44 of 55 Strader: What other types of development could happen under this designation? If you could give us some examples. Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, are you talking under the current ME or under the medium high density? Strader: Yes. ME. Dodson: ME. Yes, ma'am. ME would be more in line with the commercial uses. Within this zoning it has a bit more of an employment destination -- designation, which as I did note in my staff report is a little odd when everything surrounding this to the east and southeast is -- and directly to the west is medium high density residential. It -- you are -- you would likely see more ancillary -- anci -- I cannot say that word. Ancillary commercial uses, office uses, some maybe even flex space, those types of uses. That's going to be what -- what you would see on ME designation. Granted, because this is removed from the arterials and this is tucked away a little bit, I don't know if you would see any larger users there. Strader: Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for Joe. And to that point, I happened to take Black Cat one afternoon, I had to go home for an appointment and thought, oh, I will just take the back way home, I live in northwest Meridian and -- and shoot down Black Cat to Ustick and it was about 3:15 or there -- thereabouts and I was shocked, the traffic backed up, as Council Woman Perreault, has noted, it was -- I didn't realize it was that -- that backed up. But whether it's mixed employment or high density, you are still going to have some times with the school there that we are going to have some issues and I think part of the -- the solution and my question to you is do we need to have that expansion of Black Cat at some point to make all of this work or is this going to require Aviator to be extended, even though, you know, these folks don't own the property, what -- what -- what is the -- the answer to the -- to the traffic issues or has that been discussed by -- by staff at all? Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, that's a great question and has a -- definitely a larger conversation. Chris, could you let me share my screen? Ignore this section of the thing, because it's still for whatever reason -- picked up the Compass Charter School site. But part of your question was regarding Black Cat. Black Cat is not -- well, it was currently slated in the 2031 CIP to be widened, which, obviously, that's a ways away. The next round for revision to the CIP, from my understanding, is in 2024 and it is based on the traffic use here. I would assume that -- I would hope Meridian would push to get Black Cat widened before then -- before 2031. So, there is bigger discussions to be had above Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 40 of 55 my paygrade for that segment, but when it comes to Aviator and the extension of that, this site and site to the east are picking up in interest and I -- I think Aviator will get extended and connected to Franklin prior to Black Cat being widened, which is one avenue to alleviate some of the traffic as well, not just leaving Aviator onto Black Cat, but coming and going in general from the school will be drastically improved with that connection. Unfortunately, the applicant doesn't maintain those parcels, but part of what, you know, we pushed for so hard was to get Aviator constructed with this -- or shown on the concept plan in a better location, so it can be extended sooner and easier for the future. Overall with the conversation of transportation, that is one of the main reasons why they are not going forward with a plat now. They might have -- prior to Kristen joining The Land Group I was working with the applicant with -- on this site and we have met multiple times officially and unofficially about this site and the access issues and they don't have a secondary access as required by Fire, so they would have to sprinkler all the homes. Again, one reason why they are not doing a plat right now. But they do want to set the basis for that up and return it back to the future land use of medium high, which is what this, from my understanding, had been part of the comp plan for quite some time. Changing it to ME was, frankly, not -- didn't have a lot of long term view, it -- and the school could have been annexed in under the medium high, but with the adjacent landscaping business that would not have worked and we can't create nonconformity, so having it changed back then in 2018 to what it is now was a little weird. I do think that changing it back to medium high fits with the area better. It does have those issues with transportation, but that's why they are not doing a plat right now. They are just trying to set it up for the future development, so that they can later, when some of these transportation -- transportation issues are corrected or improved, then, they can come forward with a plat. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Joe, thank you for that. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Joe, you do such a great job in your explanation, it helps us out quite a bit, but I just have one question to -- just to clarify. So, what you are saying is tonight is approval for just the -- the rezoning, it has nothing to do with any future projects that may come. Those will be a -- just to -- just to clarify, those will be a separate discussion in a separate public hearing or CUP, maybe. I don't know. Dodson: Councilman Bernt, there is two facets. If they did multi-family they would have to do a development agreement modification, because this is tied to a concept plan that is showing lot lines. So, I would say that -- and generally with the me the analysis is single family attached. So, if they were going to do multi-family, DA mod, and CUP. If they stick with the single family concept as shown, then, they would come with a pre-plat, which will come before Council for sure and it will be tied to this DA and make sure that it's significantly consistent and all of those things, you know, and road layouts are part of that. So, they couldn't turn around and completely reroute Aviator without doing a DA Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 4U of 55 modification as well. But it will come before Council again. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Can we get clarification on -- when we talked about what was spotted -- or, excuse me, when we talked about the Comprehensive Plan future land use in 2018, is that -- was that from the last comp plan or what is -- is the medium high from -- was there a conversation done when we approved the new comp plan that -- what was it set out at that time? Was it ME? Because that application had already been approved with the school? Am I being clear on my question? Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, I'm not entirely clear on your question. The ME -- prior to it being ME it was medium high density residential and that was -- Perreault: But that was -- oh, sorry. Dodson: No worries. The -- it was part of the comp plan -- my understanding is that it had been changed on staff's perspective, but it had not been formally approved. But it is the comp plan that had this -- had Compass Charter not coming through it would have been medium high density residential now. Simison: I think that -- the question I'm hearing, Joe, is what was this in the 2019 approved comp plan. Did this -- what was it at that time and did it change in that process or is it basically a carry forward from the previous comp plan that -- do you know? Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for clarifying. It -- the 2019 approved comp plan has it as ME, because Compass Charter came in and changed it from the previous one -- from medium high to ME. To clarify that. It kind of -- Simison: Did that help answer your questions on time and elements? Perreault: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Yes, it does. That's what I -- that was what I was not so eloquently asking, because it's 9:00 p.m. and I am exhausted. But thank you for clarifying. Yes, that's what I was asking, because, you know, even though that -- that property might have been intended for a particular use, you know, our entire comp plan was reviewed by committees and decisions were made about what the uses were all over the city. So, I don't want to discount that as part of this decision either. You know, when that -- when that use came in with the school I was actually pretty excited, because that is such a unique small acreage and it's hard to do something with it and I knew it would be because of geography and because of what's around it and so, yeah, I just -- I thought that would have been a good use of the time, but it's -- it's not -- it's neither here nor there now. So, I did just pull up the cut sheets for ME. I don't know if that would help, Joe, to bring one of those onto the screen that shows exactly what the other uses could be, just for visual. Council Woman Strader had asked that and I think the visual was helpful for Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 47 of 55 me. So, I just -- I -- we take these comp plan amendments so seriously and we have decided that we are only going to do them every six months and so I want to make sure that we are a hundred percent comfortable with the decision. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe a couple comments. I wasn't sure if staff might pull something up or not. But, you know, I -- so, it's surrounded by medium high residential; right? So, I would think if there was a comp plan amendment exception like this would be the one. That being said, I am of the mindset that this should be done at a set time during the year when we should hear all of them at once. I don't like making an exception for one property. I think we need some rigor around how we do comp plan amendments. In previous years I think the public may have had a level of mistrust because of how frequently they happened and I just want to make sure that we are being really careful around that. I think this one would warrant an exception. It's pretty easy to see to me that it -- it can't be a sports field anymore. They already have one. I get it that that should probably happen. But I think these should all happen together at a set time during the year. So, I don't know. That's just two cents. And -- and just to give feedback to the applicant, I realize there is no plat at this point, but I have concerns about your concept plan. So, I just want to voice those. I hate common drives and I think a lot of people probably share that view. I also think the open space is really got to be looked at. I would expect for something this dense to have real central open space. So, those are just some initial comments. But I just want to be, you know, as early with those comments as possible as you are taking all that into account. So, those are just some initial thoughts. Simison: Mr. Nary, just for clarification -- to my knowledge it was not actually approved or anything that requires that only allows the comp plan to be amended every six months. I know it's something I support as well, but I don't -- can you provide any clarity? Do you know? Or Joe? Nary: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it's not in the code currently. It was -- it's been a discussion and certainly the Council has not really had a further discussion as Council Woman Strader has mentioned about process or preference, other than the desire to not amend the comp plan. She is correct that, you know, that was one of the issues that came out during the public hearings through the last comp plan approval with the concern from the public that it gets done too often, that it feels like there is really no place. Simison: Okay. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 48 of 55 Perreault: If I remember that conversation correctly, we did -- I thought -- at least put forward a resolution, but -- that that was our intention. So, it's not that there isn't anything in writing, but I just would be curious to -- to double check that. And, Joe, would you mind pulling up the sheets from the website that has -- actually have like the drawings of the different potential uses. It's under long range -- yeah. There you go. Under long range planning. Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, that is the one that I pulled up. You may have pulled up the one from the not Ten Mile plan. But that is the one that I pulled up. It has the sample uses here. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, there is a person from -- Kristy Inselman is on from ACHD, but I know Joe mentioned the potential of seek to advance this widening of Black Cat and I know there is a railroad crossing there that always has a huge challenge on widening because of the interplay with the feds on the railroad. So, I don't know how realistic that -- that desire -- I mean the desire may be there, the ability may not. So, I don't know if you want to explore that further, if that's what are your thought process. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Talk about that further. And I thought Joe had -- had a good answer. I appreciated the insight into the thinking, because recognition that the traffic flow in this area isn't working well and -- and to get that to a point where it can function better, are we going to need to do something here to allow the next domino to fall to be developed -- or plan for development to extend the road, to come out, to connect to -- to Franklin Road and create a better-- better situation in this --this case. And -- and to Councilman Council -- Council Woman Strader's point, that, you know, do we wait and do these all together. You know. And I struggle with a bit -- when you go back to the original designation of what it -- what the designation was in the future land use map, is that really a change. The change was made from what it was going to be or what it was, future land use map medium high density, to an ME and now we are going back to that, it's a change, but it's not a complete change from what it was, because it's going back to what it was. So, I kind of struggle with that a little bit. I get it. But at the same time it's like, well, is that a real change. I don't know. Even if we were to leave it mixed employment and looking at those on the sheet Joe brought up, do we -- you are going to still have traffic and the issues are -- are going to be there. So, does a residential spur development of through streets quicker than an ME that's just going to sit there and never be utilized, which, you know, that -- someone cheer that one on, you know. So, it's kind of a-- bit of a conundrum here as we try to determine. The good news is, though, as Councilman Bernt brought out with his questions, was the fact that we will have another bite at this apple down the road Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 49 of 55 and be able to address some of the major issues that are concerning us with traffic and densities and those types of things. So, it's -- it's a little less of a concern to me that we tackle all that now, because we can't and that we are just dealing with these -- well, one issue and that's do we return it back to the future land use designation of medium high density residential and, then, the next two will -- will fall into place if -- if we do that, so -- my thoughts. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think Councilman Hoaglun made some good points. He has won me over. I think I'm tracking with his thinking on this one, but I might offer some future meeting topics to address some underlying issues if we decide, you know, to have those discussions at a future date. So, I think for this one it -- it makes sense. It's pretty obvious that it should be residential to me at least. So, yeah, I feel convinced that changing the designation now would be okay. We will get another bite at a future plat later. But I do think we have some underlying -- some underlying issues that might mention a couple ideas for future topics. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Candidly I don't think that the future is all that far away if this applicant has put this much effort into this. I think we are going to be sitting and having this conversation in not the far future and so in my opinion as much work as they put into this, even though we aren't making that decision this evening, it's not going to be far out that we are making the decision about -- so, no, they are not one and the same, but in -- I don't think that we are all that far out in having this conversation with them or else they would not have put this much effort into this and so it's not that I'm -- I don't think that this should be residential use. I don't want to give the impression that that is what I'm implying. I actually don't think that either one of these comp plan uses are really the ideal scenario for this parcel, but that's not what we are here to determine, so -- but I just -- I am not in agreement in that we are going to be able to have that conversation really far down the road. I think this application for the pre-plat will probably come shortly thereafter based on the applicant's statement herself about the -- those conversations have been had and the plans have been made. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sort of in response to that and to the bigger theme of having a plat or no plat here, I -- I can't speculate or state my position of future applications, but with these noted and important discussion points and issues not being corrected in the near future, I would Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 50 of 55 be hard pressed for the applicant to make a smart choice and not apply in the near future, because I don't see how this -- I don't know how they would get a recommendation of approval, let alone an approval from our City Council. I think they understand that, which is why they are not doing a plat with this application. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Since we have not closed the public hearing I would like to hear the thoughts from the applicant on some of our discussions, if she wouldn't mind. Kristen, would you like to speak to some of the discussion that we have been having, since we haven't closed the public hearing? McNeill: Yes. Thank you. I do have one -- if I could share my screen. I just want to comment about -- let me see. Dodson: You should be able to share it now, Kristen. McNeill: Are you seeing -- are you seeing -- oh, there we go. Are you seeing a map there? Borton: No. McNeill: Double screen makes it very difficult. Okay. Are you seeing -- are you seeing a map now? Borton: Yes. McNeill: Now? Okay. Great. Okay. So, I wanted to show this just in regards to this -- this map shows the thoughts about future roads going through there. So, you can see the parcel. The subject parcel is right-- right here. So, I did want to just kind of -- I thought this might be helpful. Obviously, we don't have our -- our clients don't have control over any of the parcels that are to the east. The only things developed -- or approved or developed are in this side over towards Black Cat. But I did want to just show that -- this map here to see if that was helpful for any of the discussion. But other than that is there -- what are the specific questions that -- that you would like me to review? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Kristen, just -- you have heard the concern about the time frames and making sure -- you know, traffic is one of the major issues that we deal with not only here, but in many locations around the community. Just wanted to kind of find out if you can be part of the solution pushing for those things. We know you don't control some of those things, but if we go back to the future land use designation medium high density residential for this, what does that do for the parcels to the east, if anything? And Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 51 of 55 if you have a crystal ball certainly love to hear your thoughts on that. McNeill: I think I'm unmuted. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, so we definitely agree that traffic is a concern in all of Meridian and we -- we know that it's kind of one of -- the way that I think about it is anytime you have undeveloped parcels you need to plan for them to be developed in the future. However, you -- they are not developed, so, you know, what we can do is look off of what these sorts of plans are -- these future plans are and try to do the best that we can as we talked about looking at some of those within our -- within our parcel routing -- you know, as Joe mentioned as well, routing that road up through the parcel to help with the future development to the east to do the best that we can to support that. But, again, not being able to control any of that other development, that's -- that's all we can do is kind of look -- look to these -- this framework that's -- that's put forth by previous commissions and groups, Planning and Zoning Commissions and Council, you know, to try to see how we can -- we can kind of work within that framework. And regarding the mixed employment, we -- we do feel these -- these parcels over here also, as you can see here, they are the same -- they are residential as well. So, medium high density residential. So, we do feel like it fits in with that and we can -- the hope is in terms of connecting it back is -- is to -- to find a way to make this not just a -- just a parcel that's floating in there and everything has to be the roadways, so if there is any sort of -- some of those walking paths connecting back to Aviator could do that. In terms of timeline, I couldn't speak to when -- when our clients are looking -- you know, when -- when there would be any future pre-plat application. I -- I couldn't speak to that at this point. But as you can see we have done -- we have done some research and they are interested in making -- you know, supporting Meridian and making -- making the best moves to -- to make it a premier community. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor and Kristen, thank you for that. That was a bit of an unfair question. I apologize. But you did your best and it does help seeing and thank you for this map to show kind of the planning that's going on and connecting, you know, similar neighborhoods together and -- and trying to make the traffic situation work better. So, appreciate that. Simison: Council, further discussion, questions, or motions? The one good thing I will say, to my knowledge this might be our first Comprehensive Plan amendment since we did approve it. So, we have definitely gone beyond the six months, so we haven't had to -- you know, even though we haven't officially had that policy in place, at least that's a positive to our process tonight. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, with that encouraging bit of news, I would move that we close the public hearing for H-2020-0111 . Bernt: Mr. Mayor, second that. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have. Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 52 of 55 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, there has -- there has been a lot of good discussion -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: -- good discussion about this and -- and there are concerns and issues and I think to Council Woman Perreault's point that if this were to come back right away I don't know how far it would get. But we are not to that point and this is to kind of back to the future if you will to -- to a medium high density residential. I did check with our -- our legal counsel and I will be making a series of motions dealing with each one one by one to go through that and the first one is kind of the first domino, so we will see -- we will see where it goes. So, Mr. Mayor, I move to approve file number H-2020-0111 , to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 9th, 2021 , as it regards to a Comprehensive Plan amendment to return the subject site back to medium high density residential. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Do I have any discussion? All right. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2020-0111 has presented in this report for the hearing date March 9th, 2021 , and for a rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from ME zoning district to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second regarding the rezone. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Page 78 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page 53 of 55 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2020-0111 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 9th, 2021, and that a modification to the existing development agreement, instrument number 2018-079763 for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter to a new one consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I will second that motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to a motion that was very long. Do I have discussion on the motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: The reason why I'm -- I'm in favor of these motions this evening is just for the mere purpose that it's just a rezone back to what it originally was. I take solace in the fact that any type of future development that will happen on this property will have to come back to City Council through Planning and Zoning for future discussion and I think it's pretty clear that we have mentioned this evening that a little bit of work needs to be done in the traffic and -- and I'm sure this Council will take that in regard when we make those future decisions. Simison: Thank you, Councilman Bernt. Are there any further discussions on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Page 79 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9,2021 Page J4 of 55 Simison: Thank you very much. Like you say, Councilman Bernt, a lot of work still to be done for this part of our community. With that we move to future meeting topics. Any item in our future meeting topics? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I have two suggestions for possible future meeting topics. One would be maybe we could have a future discussion about reserving two times during the year when we consider, you know, comp plan amendments is one idea. I think that that's worthy of discussion. Give a lot of clarity to people in the public. And, then, the second idea would be -- I at least would be interested in receiving an update from the Planning Department on the amount of residential development that's been approved in this area of Meridian and a projection of the absorption of that inventory that's already been approved and just kind of an update. It feels like we have approved a lot. What are we looking at in the next five years. Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I -- this question isn't for discussion purposes, obviously, but just clarification on Ms. Strader's comment and are you wanting information just in this particular locale in our city? Am I understanding you correctly? Strader: Yes. This area around Black Cat. This neighborhood. Bernt: Perfect. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I'm not sure the appropriate method to go about the discussions, but it sounds like we need to also have one about the waterways in our community as well. So, I don't know if that's something that needs to go through Planning and that's the code-related issue and not for us to discuss -- I don't know what the appropriate method is. Simison: Are you talking about fencing on the waterways -- Berns: Of waterways. I got it. Perreault: Yes. Yes. Correct. About -- about the distinction between the types of waterways and how we can clarify that further for the public, for the -- and for the applicants. Page 80 Meridian City Council Item#2. March 9, 2021 Page 55 of 55 Simison: Yeah. That was on my note. I mean, obviously, based upon the conversation, but I can think back to three separate fencing conversations along the waterways over the last -- I want to say four months and I have no idea what our consistency is in those conversations. Bernt: Good points. Good points. Simison: Okay. Anything else, Council? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Hoaglun: Second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9.27 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 3 / 23 / 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 81 Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active Land Use/Development Application. By Law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that a topic be added to a future meeting agenda for more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET I Date: March 9, 2021 Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City i Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law, Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet or other provisions of law or policy. Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings City March 9, 2021CouncilMeeting Item #2: Baraya Subdivision No. 5 Final Plat Modification Site Photos of the Purdam Drain in Phase 5 Ten Mile Creek pathway along Warrick SubdivisionTen Mile Creek pathway between Tuscany & Wells Item #3: Shafer View Terrace AERIALZONINGFLUM Annexation Area 2-R4-R Revised Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan ACHD & Preliminary Lines Map Revised Landscape Plan Qualified Open Space Exhibit Conceptual Building Elevation Photos Item #4: Chewie Sub. PLANNED DEV.ZONINGFLUM Zoning Maps– Preliminary Plat Road Alignments Item #5: Aviator Sub. PLANNED DEV.ZONINGFLUM Zoning Maps– Existing PlanConcept New Concept Plan Road Layout ACHD & MapPrelim Conceptual Elevations k I, Changes to Agenda: None F Item#2: Baraya#5(MFP-2021.0003) Application(s): ➢ Final Plat Modification Location of property: This site is located south of W. Franklin Rd. &east of S. Black Cat Rd. History: The landscape plan approved with the preliminary plat for this site depicts a wrought iron fence between the multi-use pathway and the Purdam Drain in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.3,which requires fencing along waterways such as this to deter access. The only exception to this requirement is if it can be demonstrated by the Applicant to the satisfaction of the Director that said drain/waterway serves as or will be improved as part of the development to be a water amenity as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application did not depict fencing along the waterway as required, nor was the drain proposed to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to fencing.Therefore, Staff included a condition of approval for fencing to be constructed between the pathway and the waterway in accord with UDC standards for public safety. Summary of Request: The Applicant does not wish to construct fencing along the drain and requests removal of that condition. The Applicant believes the landscape architect erred by depicting the fence on the plan originally and that the code in effect at that time may not have required the fence—Staff has verified the same code was in effect at that time. Previous Phases 1 &3 did not show the fencing on the plans, nor were conditions requiring such included in the staff reports(Staff missed it);therefore,fencing wasn't constructed along the drain in those phases. This is the last phase of development in Baraya that includes a pathway along the drain and would be the only portion in this development with fencing between the pathway and the drain. A letter was submitted from NMID stating they do not have parallel fences put at the top of bank on drains and the approved license agreement for this phase does not include a fence, therefore,a fence is not allowed. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Denial—'because the drain has not been improved per the required UDC standards to qualify as a water amenity for a waiver and this section of code is not eligible for Alternative Compliance or a Variance. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number MFP-2021-0003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 9, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number MFP-2021-0003, as presented during the hearing on March 9,2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number MFP-2021-0003 to the hearing date of March 9, 2021 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance.) Item#3: Shafer View Terrace(H-2020-0117) ➢ Annexation ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 39.01 acres of land,zoned RUT in Ada County, located on the east side of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 midway between E.Amity Rd. & E. Lake Hazel Rd. History: This property is part of Shafer View Estates subdivision to the south, recorded in 2002. It was deed restricted &was only allowed to be used for open space for a period of not less than 15 years from the date of recording of the plat. That time period has since elapsed and it is now eligible for development. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR(3 or fewer units/acre) Summary of Request: The proposed annexation is for 40.48 acres of land with R-2(10.66 acres)& R-4(29.82 acres)zoning districts, which includes adjacent ROW to the section line of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 &to the centerline of E. Quartz Creek St. A total of 50 residential dwelling units are proposed to develop on the site at an overall gross density of 1.76 units per acre consistent with the associated LDR FLUM designation for the site.Although the proposed density is more consistent with an R-2(Low Density Residential)zoning district,the Applicant requests R-4 in order to provide a transition in lot sizes between the existing rural residential subdivision to the south (Shafer View Estates)and the future urban residential subdivision approved to the north (Prevail Subdivision), zoned R-8. Larger lots are proposed along the southern boundary adjacent to rural residential lots that gradually transition to smaller lots to the north; a common lot that contains a 41' easement for the McBirney Lateral separates the proposed lots from the existing rural lots. The proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 4, Block 1, Shafer View Estates and is proposed to consist of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land and be developed in 3 phases as shown. The third phase is under separate ownership&consists of one(1) 10.66-acre lot that is proposed to develop separately with the Apex development to the east. Two(2) accesses are proposed via E. Quartz Creek St., a planned collector street along the northern boundary of the site; direct access via E, Shafer View Dr.,an existing local street along the southern boundary of the site is proposed for the lots south of the McBirney Lateral.An emergency only access is proposed between the cul-de-sac&E. Shafer View Dr.Access to the R-2 zoned portion of the site is anticipated to be provided from the east with the Apex development. Direct lot access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 is prohibited. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets which should be sufficient to serve guests in addition to driveway parking on each lot.There are no improvements planned in the CIP or 5-Year Work Plan for Meridian Rd. or nearby intersections in the next 5 years. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design &improvement standards in UDC 11-6C-3,which includes block face standards. The face of Block 3 exceeds the maximum block length allowed &does not provide a pedestrian connection other than the emergency access driveway which may serve as a pedestrian connection between the proposed subdivision &Shafer View Estates to the south. The Applicant requests Council approval of a waiver to allow Block 3 to exceed 1,200'due to existing site constraints that include the following: 1)the narrow configuration of the subject property; 2)the location of the McBirney Lateral, a large waterway/irrigation facility, that runs along the southern boundary and through the western portion of the proposed subdivision; and 3)the existing Shafer View subdivision that abuts the site to the south,south of the lateral,which does not include any pedestrian pathways or stub streets to this property. If not approved, the plat should be reconfigured to comply with this standard. An emergency access road for Fire Dept is proposed between the end of the cul-de-sac and E. Shafer View Rd. but it's not a public access. A 10'detached multi-use pathway is proposed along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 within the street buffer as required in the PMP; a detached sidewalk is proposed along E. Quartz Creek St.A combination of attached &detached sidewalks with parkways is proposed within the development. A 35'wide street buffer is required along S. Meridian Rd., an entryway corridor, and a 20'wide street buffer is required along Quartz Creek, a collector street. Noise abatement is required to be provided for residential uses adjacent to SH-69.A 4'tall berm and 6'tall Simtek wall is proposed as noise abatement in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of 10%qualified open space(i.e. 3.9 acres) and one(1)site amenity is required to be provided with the subdivision.A total of 4.05 acres(or 14.27%) is proposed along with (4)site amenities consisting of a multi-sport court,tot lot,gazebo shade structure and segment of the City's multi-use pathway system, in excess of UDC standards. A mix of 6'tall wrought iron&6'tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas;wrought iron fencing is proposed along the McBirney Lateral. Two waterways cross this site-the McBirney Lateral, a large open waterway within a 41'wide easement along the southern boundary of the site&through the western portion of the site; and a 38'wide slough/drain on the eastern portion of the site that the Applicant has s confirmed with Boise Project Board of Control is not within an easement. The UDC allows waterways to remain open when improved as a water amenity as defined or linear open space; the Council may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The Applicant is not proposing to improve the McBirney Lateral as required in order for it to remain open and requests a waiver from Council to allow it to remain open and not be piped.A 6'tall wrought iron fence is proposed along both sides of the waterway to deter access to the waterway and to ensure public safety. Conceptual elevations were submitted as shown that represent the style and construction of homes proposed within the development. Commission Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jon Breckon, Breckon Land Design(Applicant's Representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Marvin Ward, Gayle Ward iv. Written testimony: Mary Wall, Breckon Land Design(Applicant's Representative) v. Key Issue(s): a.Concern pertaining to safety of access to Lots 2-5, Block 6 accessed via Shafer View Dr.with the configuration of E. Shafer View Dr. and change in grade in that area; b.Preference for 1-acre lots to be provided on the south side of the McBirney Lateral consistent with adjacent existing 1-acre lots in Shafer View Estates. c.Applicant testified they are willing to add more landscaping at the entry to the development near the S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. intersection. Key Issue(s)of Discussion by Commission: i. In favor of the provision of additional landscaping at the entrance of the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. as offered by the Applicant; ii. Possibility of reducing the number of homes in the area south of the McBirney Lateral (Lots 2-6, Block 6)to enhance safety in that area; iii. Concern pertaining to lack of comments from ITD; iv. Would prefer a better transition in lot sizes to the south, specifically Lots 15-17, Block 3(maybe lose a lot); v. Discussion regarding the proposed amenities; vi. Opinion that the style and size of the proposed homes should be compatible with adjacent homes in Shafer View Estates. Commission Change(s)to Staff Recommendation: i. At Staffs request, include a condition for the 38'wide slough/drain on the eastern portion of the site to be contained entirely within a common lot(s)with fencing required on both sides of the drain consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b per UDC 11-3A-7A.7a; ii. At Staffs request, include a condition requiring the common lot(s)containing the slough/drain to have vegetative groundcover to prevent fire hazard and unsightliness if the waterway is piped; and, iii. At Staffs request, modify condition#9 to allow the option for the waterways on the site to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to being piped as allowed by UDC 11-3A-6C.2 with submittal of construction drawings&relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for water amenities as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. iv. Include a condition for the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Shafer View Dr.to be improved with additional landscaping as offered by the Applicant; v. Include a condition for one(1) buildable lot to removed in the area of Lots 2-5, Block 6 south of the McBirney Lateral. Outstanding Issue(s)for City Council i. The Commission requested an ITD review of the project and comments prior to the Council hearing;comments from ITD are included in Section VIII.N. The letter states a northbound right turn lane is warranted w/the additional trips generated by this development to ensure turning traffic can exit the through lanes&turn safety onto Quartz Creek St. ITD can't require the developer to install a northbound turn lane as Quartz Creek St. is a public road&instead requests proportionate share contributions to address the need for a right turn lane.All future developments adding northbound right turns to this intersection will be requested to contribute proportionate share as well. Should the developer not be required to contribute their proportionate share($59,358 or 1.01%), ITD recommends the City require the developer to install the northbound right turn lane to ensure the safety of the traveling public&citizens residing in Shafer View Terrace&Prevail Subdivisions. if Council determines one of these options should be a requirement of this development, a provision should be included as such in the DA. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: • Charles Boyd—In opposition to the lot sizes of the 4 parcels accessed via Shafer View Dr.;would like lot sizes of at least 1-acre in size comparable to the 1 to 1.24-acre lot sizes in Shafer View Estates. Safety concerns pertaining to driveways so close to Meridian Rd. and the topography in that area which creates poor visibility(there's an immediate incline from Meridian Rd.)— requests the#of lots are reduced from 4 to 2 in that area to ensure no driveways are placed near the top of the hill. • Deborah Boyd: Has the same concerns as Charles Boyd. (see letters in the public record for more info) Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0117, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 9, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0117, as presented during the hearing on March 9, 2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0117 to the hearing date of March 9, 2021 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance.) i Item#4: Chewie Subdivision(H-2020-0120) Application(s): ➢ Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 43.87 acres of land,zoned I-L, located generally at 2490 W. Franklin Road. s Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: a I • North—Railroad property; north of that are Residential uses and R-8 and R-15 zoning; • East—West Ada bus barn and Republic Services Transfer Station—I-L zoning; • South—Franklin Road; south of that is undeveloped C-C zoning; • West—I-L zoning and a new FedEx distribution center History:A-2020-0194(DID3 Delivery Station); Property annexed and zoned I-L sometime in the 1970s(exact ordinance unknown). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Employment and High Density Residential Summary of Request:Applicant is requesting a Preliminary Plat to subdivide the property into 6 industrial lots for ownership purposes. Property is zoned I-L and has been for decades;this zoning entitlement vastly pre-dates the Ten Mile Plan and the comp plan designations. In addition, Lot 1 of the subdivision (the largest lot, approx. 30 acres) has already received administrative level approval of a large E-commerce delivery station operated by Amazon(NOTE: that project and its site design are not up for review at this public hearing,only the submitted preliminary plat). Because of the existing zoning and entitlements,strict adherence to the comprehensive plan is not feasible. The existing industrial zoning and approved delivery station align with the Mixed-employment future land use designation on the site.Also because of the existing entitlements and zoning, Staff believes placing a high-density residential project on this site would not be in the best interest of the City. The City should be gaining this high-density residential further to west as part of the Gateway at 10 Mile project that received AZ approval last year. Despite not being able to strictly adhere to the Ten Mile Plan, Staff believes the proposed project generally complies with the comprehensive plan and those applicable policies were outlined in the staff report. All proposed lots meet the dimensional standards for the I-L zoning district and access is proposed via a new collector street extension from Franklin Road, shown as N. New Market Avenue. New Market is proposed to continue into the site and then head east and west as an extension of W. Fred Smith Street.As discussed previously,the Applicant has received CZC and Design Review approval for a new 141,000 square foot E-commerce delivery station on Lot 1 of this proposed subdivision. That administrative application triggered the TIS and,therefore,this plat does not include the TIS. However, because the road extension and overall circulation element of this area are the main issues of this project, Staff has included the main points of the TIS and ACHD's comments, as well as analysis on existing access points. The new collector street required to be constructed with the delivery station will have access to Franklin in two places in the future;the New Market Avenue connection discussed and one off-site and to the west,Wayfinder Avenue. This off-site connection is not yet constructed and the timetable for when it will be is currently unknown as adjacent projects(Fed-Ex and Gateway at 10 Mile)do not include the parcels directly abutting Franklin and therefore cannot construct that right-of-way at this time. The TIS did not include estimated traffic from the additional industrial lots and so future development should be monitored to ensure the allowed trip count on one access(3000 daily trips) is not exceeded without constructing the additional access point and right-of-way to Franklin;this may limit future development until such time the second access is constructed. In addition to the traffic volumes produced by the new delivery station,the Applicant's TIS also included the traffic from West Ada School District(WASD) bus yard and Republic Services'transfer station located directly west of the subject property. These volumes were included because the new east-west collector roadway and new signal at the intersection of Franklin should also serve these sites when constructed. The existing private road for WASD and Republic Services that is restricted to an exit-only access cannot be closed with this application because it is not a part of this property. In addition,the City cannot force WASD and Republic Services to use this new collector roadway once it is constructed because they already have their entitlements and zoning. However,this Applicant and representatives from both WASD and Republic Services have worked out an agreement to close this exit-only private drive and utilize the new collector street. Staff is appreciative of this work being done by the Applicant and outside agencies. To help ensure this access can occur for all parties involved,ACHD recommends constructing the segment of W. Fred Smith Street as a private street east of the intersection of New Market and Fred Smith instead of a public road. This recommendation is being made because this segment of the collector roadway is over 150' in length and would require to be terminated in a temporary cul-de-sac at the eastern property line. Staff agrees with ACHD's recommendation to construct this short segment of the collector roadway as a private street instead of a public road for the reasons stated and because this collector roadway is not expected to continue further east due to existing industrial development that may never redevelop. In addition to the private street,the Applicant,WASD, and Republic Services should enter into a cross-access agreement for this segment of private street to ensure continued access to the collector roadway,W. Fred Smith Street. Since the Commission meeting, Staff has confirmation that this agreement has been agreed to by all parties and a private street will be constructed by this Applicant with WASD and Republic participating in a cross-access and shared maintenance agreement. Other than the road extension and access points discussed within the TIS,the submitted plat and landscape plan show the existing accesses to Franklin to remain which does not align with code as they will have a lesser classified street(Fred Smith Street is a collector)to take access from. In addition, there is a lot that this preliminary plat surrounds and contains an existing home that is legal nonconforming in the I-L zoning district;currently,this home also takes access from Franklin. The Applicant should provide a curb cut for this property along the extended W. Fred Smith Street so that when this"outparcel"does redevelop in the future, it will have access to the collector street instead of to Franklin, an arterial.The submitted plans do not show an access being provided to this parcel and this should be corrected prior to Final Plat submittal. Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval with no modifications to the staff report. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: vi. In favor: Kent Brown,Applicant Representative vii. In opposition: None viii. Commenting: Kent Brown ix. Written testimony: None Key Issue(s)of Discussion by Commission: - Road layout and estimated additional vehicle trips per day as noted in the Traffic Impact Study. Outstanding Issue(s)for City Council: - None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020.0120, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 9, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020.0120, as presented during the hearing on March 9, 2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0120 to the hearing date of March 9, 2021 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance.) Item#5:Aviator Subdivision (H 2O20.0111) Application(s): ➢ Comp Plan Map Amendment(CPAM), Rezone, and DA Mod. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.8 acres of land,zoned M-E, located at near the northeast corner of Black Cat and Franklin (Directly north of Compass Charter school and east of Hensley Station along the railroad corridor in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). Adjacent Land Use&Zoning: • North—Railroad; north of that is County residential; • East—County residential; • South—Compass Charter School on M-E and R-15 zoning; • West—R-15 zoning and approved attached single-family residential History: H-2018-0048(Compass Charter School AZ, CPAM; DA Inst.#2018-079763). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Employment(TMISAP) Summary of Request: i 1. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR)for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved; 2. Rezone a total of 9.8 acres of land from the M-E zoning district to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment; and 3. Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst.#2018-079763)for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one,consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. In short, if the CPAM is not approved,the associated Rezone and MDA are not applicable because they are contingent upon the future land use changing back to a residential designation. The Applicant is requesting to modify the comprehensive plan map for the subject parcel in order to allow for residential zoning and uses instead of Mixed Employment or other industrial uses.The current future land use is Mixed Employment which encourage research and development, office, light-industrial, information, and other ancillary commercial uses. Instead,the applicant is requesting to return the property to its original future land use of Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR). This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. The subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with the Compass Charter School application and received CPAM approval at that time to change the underlying land use from medium-high density residential to mixed employment.The 2018 request and subsequent approval to change the future land use was so the new school could be constructed and an adjacent county landscaping business could be annexed into the City and still comply with code,At the time, it was determined that the map change was applicable because the subject parcel was conceptually shown with a sports field, track, and stadium and was the school's avenue for annexation into the City of Meridian in 2018. However, in 2020, Compass Charter received approval to modify their concept plan and Development Agreement to move their sports field to a more adjacent parcel to the new school. Therefore,this 9.8 acre parcel is no longer part of the long-term plan for the school and was subsequently sold to its current owners. Because the Applicant is proposing to return the parcel back to its original future land use designation and become a more compatible land use to its neighbors, Staff supports the requested map amendment. Thus,the subsequent MDA is to modify the concept plan and incorporate new provisions based on the new plan. The same can be said for the Rezone request of R-15 zoning which would allow future development of the property with a residential use in line with the proposed concept plan.To be clear,the Applicant is not proposing a plat with these applications and future development will be driven by the DA and its provisions and associated concept plan. Specifically, it is important to discuss access for this project in a separate section within this staff report regardless of the fact no preliminary plat is currently being proposed.Access is proposed via extension of a collector street(W.Aviator Street) and a subsequent local street off of said collector,W.Aviator currently provides one of the accesses to the Compass Charter School and will provide access to Hensley Station Subdivision, directly west of the subject site. Due to the pattern of development,Aviator will only be extended to the east boundary of the subject site and not connect to any other road until such time that more parcels develop to the south and east of the subject site. This is one more reason why the Applicant is not choosing to submit a preliminary plat at this time. Because of this, it is imperative that the conceptual layout of Aviator is well thought out and shown in a position that allows for fair and convenient extension in the future. Staff shared these concerns with the Applicant and they revised the concept plan to show a more appropriate extension of Aviator. Staff is appreciative of the Applicant's ability to work with Staff and revise the layout for the above reasons. The revised concept plans now show Aviator heading northeast into the parcel from its terminus in front of the Compass Charter expansion, crossing the drain once, and then stubbing to the east property line north of the irrigation pump station in the southeast corner of the subject site.This new configuration allows for future extension of Aviator to occur without a need to cross the drain again and not require this Applicant to acquire land from the two county parcels to its south.This new layout generally depicts the same internal layout with some shifting of the site to the east to accommodate easements and some loss of the internal green space that is replaced with other green space. With a future preliminary plat, Staff will analyze the open space for the property. Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval with a desire for the Applicant to review the open space and number of units shown off of a common drive when they come back through the process for a plat in the future. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: x. In favor: Kristen McNeill, The Land Group; Matthew Adams, The Land Group A. In opposition: xii. Commenting: Kristen McNeill and Matthew Adams xiii. Written testimony: One item from Mrs. Bowery(neighbor to the south)—Applicant clarified her questions prior to the hearing and she was satisfied with the answers. Key Issue(s)of Discussion by Commission: vii. Location of drain on property and whether it is intended to be relocated, piped, or both; viii. Willingness of Nampa-Meridian to allow any section of the drain to be piped—Applicant has had preliminary discussions with irrigation district and they are in support; ix. Concern of future plat and its layout in regards to open space and the common drive shown. Commission Change(s)to Staff Recommendation: vi. None Outstanding Issue(s)for City Council: i. None—Applicant made a mistake and thought they sent the revised legals earlier;they did send revised documents meeting requirements. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0111, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 9,2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0111,as presented during the hearing on March 9, 2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020.0111 to the hearing date of March 9, 2021 for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance.) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week: March 7, 2021 through March 13, 2021 Page 3 Item#1. E IDIAN -- IDAHO 7'he Office of the Mayor PROCLAM ALIGN WHEREAS, Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a neurological disease of the central nervous system, affecting 2.5 million people worldwide (1 million people in the U.S.) and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society has been committed for 75 years to a world free of MS, heightening public knowledge about and insight into the disease; and, WHEREAS, In Idaho, it is estimated that nearly 5,000 people are living with MS, and the disease generally strikes people in the prime of life, between ages 20 through 50; and, WHEREAS, The cause and course of MS remain unknown and no cure currently exists even though more than $1.06 billion to date in groundbreaking research has occurred to pursue prevention, treatments and a cure; and, WHEREAS, The Treasure Valley MS Walk brings together the community and raises funds to change the world for everyone affected by multiple sclerosis, and this year's walk will be held on-demand online at WalkMS.org on and after April 24, 2021; and this year the Walk plans to raise more than $100,000 for those with MS; and, WHEREAS, Stopping MS in its tracks, restoring what has been lost, and ending MS forever is the mission of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society and one that all Americans and Idahoans should support. THEREFORE, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, do hereby proclaim, March 7-13, 2021, as MS Awareness Week in the city of Meridian and urge all community members to become informed and involved in the fight so we can imagine a world without multiple cle 4E. miso Dated this 9th day of March 2021 R , Mayor Treg Bernt, City Council President Brad Hoaglun, City Council Vice-President Joe Borton, City Council Luke Cavener, City Council Jessica Perrault, City Council Liz Strader, City Council Page 4 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Plat Modification for Baraya Subdivision No. 5 (MFP-2021-0003) by Matt Schultz, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and East of S. Black Cat Rd. Page 5 Item#2. C� fIEN , IN1, IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: March 9, 2021 Topic: Final Plat Modification for Baraya Subdivision No. 5 (MFP-2021-0003) by Matt Schultz, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and East of S. Black Cat Rd. Request: Modification to the final plat (H-2020-0088) to remove the requirement for fencing to be installed between the multi-use pathway and the Purdam Drain. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Page 6 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 3/9/2021 w FRANKLIN RB DATE: RYA SUMSIGN \,BARAYR SUBDWM BhMYA ND I N0.3 uNDER SUBBMMM CONMUMN ND.2 i TO: Mayor&City Council o� � rn � s eu ansDN FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 a 4 { PROJECT � SUBJECT: MFP-2021-0003 m SITE p�, i Baraya No. 5 LOCATION: South of W. Franklin Rd. and east of S. Black Cat Rd.,in the north'/2 of Section 15,T.3N.,R.1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the previously approved final plat for Baraya No. 5 (H-2020-0088)to remove the requirement for fencing to be installed between the multi-use pathway and the Purdam Drain. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Matt Schultz, Schultz Development—8421 S. Ten Mile Rd., Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Corey Barton,Challenger Development— 1977 E. Overland Rd.,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. STAFF ANALYSIS The UDC(11-3A-6C.3)requires waterways such as the Purdam Drain to be fenced with an open vision fence at least six(6)feet in height and having an 11-gauge,two (2)inch mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to the drain; fencing along natural waterways such as creeks are exempt from this requirement. The only exception to this requirement is if it can be demonstrated by the Applicant to the satisfaction of the Director that said drain serves as or will be improved as part of the development to be a water amenity as defined in UDC 11-IA-1. Construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho are required to be submitted to both the Director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. The landscape plan approved with the preliminary plat(PP-06-062)proposed wrought iron fencing between the pathway and the Purdam Drain in accord with UDC 11-3A-6C.3. A condition of Page 1 Page 7 Item#2. approval(#1.2.14) of the preliminary plat requires all fencing constructed on the site to be in accord with that depicted on the landscape plan. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat(H-2020- 0088) for Phase 5 did not depict fencing along the drain as required. Therefore,a condition of approval(#S_b)was included in the staff report for fencing to be depicted on a revised landscape plan between the multi-use pathway and the Purdam Drain for public safety. The Applicant requests removal of that condition based on the information in the application narrative. The Applicant believes the landscape architect erred by depicting the fence on the plan originally and that the code in effect at that time may not have required the fence—Staff verified the same code was in effect at that time. Previous Phases I (FP-13-047)and 3 (H-2018-0047)] did not show the fencing on the plans,nor were conditions requiring such included in the staff reports (Staff missed it);thus, fencing wasn't constructed along the drain in those phases. This is the last phase of development in Baraya that includes a pathway along the drain and would be the only portion in this development with fencing between the pathway and the drain. A letter was submitted from NMID stating they do not have parallel fences put at the top of bank on drains and the approved license agreement for this phase does not include a fence,therefore, a fence is not allowed. However,the drain has not been improved per the required UDC standards to qualify as a water amenity for a waiver and this section of code is not eligible for Alternative Compliance or a Variance. Therefore, Staff cannot support a waiver to this requirement. IV. DECISION Staff recommends denial of the proposed final plat modification as the proposal is not consistent with UDC 11-3A-6C.3,which requires fencing along the Purdam Drain to deter access to the drain for public safety. Page 2 Page 8 Item#2. V. EXHIBITS A. Landscape Plan Approved with Preliminary Plat(PP-06-062) (dated: January 22,2007) PLANT PALETTE LAND5OAPE GALO'JLA7ION5 NOTE5 j . .w J � v V�n.� " • hVs �. lP.a e $ � � '• I FRANK-IN ROAD BUFFER 52677I0N e s o a BARAYA SUBDIVISION �� °"F ° I° © �a.n iw�o"w. R.+.e. col �I Cd©w JENSEN,BELTS MERIDIAN, IDAHO Page 3 Page 9 � - �� . � ork - ` � � , 4 . \ ml s k � ■ - - - � % ■ \ � % ■ o � t IF � 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Page 11 Item#3. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: March 9, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E.Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 12 i I PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 9, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) 3 PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#3. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING March 9,2021 Legend L_J__ DATE: IdProject D=tor F-1 #0 TO: Mayor&City Council 4:: XOzz FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0117Shafer View Terrace—AZ,PP LOCATION: East side of S.Meridian Rd./SH 69midway between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd., in the SW 1/4 of Section , 31,T.3N.,R.IE. (Parcels#R7824220044 Tr 4 &#R7824220042) 1- -� {{ do I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4(29.82 acres)zoning districts; and Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 39.01 acres Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County/R-2 and R-4 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)(3 or fewer units/acre) Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 50 buildable lots/10 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units(type 50 SFR detached dwellings of units) Density(gross&net) 1.76 units/acre(gross); 3.30 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 5.26 acres(or 18.55%)overall common open space—4.05 [%]/buffer/qualified) acres(or 14.27%)of which is qualified open space Amenities Multi-sport court,tot lot,gazebo shade structure,multi-use pathway Physical Features(waterways, The McBirney Lateral runs along the southern boundary hazards,flood plain,hillside) and through the western portion of the site. Another Page 1 Page 13 Item#3. Description Details Page waterway exists on the eastern portion of the site between the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoned properties. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/13/20; 14 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) This property was previously platted as Lot 4,Block 1, Shafer View Estates,developed in Ada County and recorded in 2002(Bk. 84,Pg.9403). It was deed restricted and was only allowed to be used for open space as defined in the non-farm development section of the Ada County code and the planned development section of the Ada County code for a period of not less than 15 years from the recording date of the subdivision plat. This property was originally proposed to be annexed with the adjacent Apex development but was later withdrawn. B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(draft) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via E. Shafer View Dr.,local street,and E. (Arterial/Collectors/State Quartz Creek St.,collector street Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service ACHD does not set LOS thresholds for state highways. Stub No stub streets exist to this property and no stub streets are Street/Interconnectivity/Cros proposed to adjacent properties. s Access Existing Road Network S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 exists along the west boundary and E. Shafer View Dr. exists along the south boundary. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers exist along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69,a Buffers state highway,or E. Shafer View Dr.,a local street Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP}f Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • The intersection of Amity Road and Meridian RoadISH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened Improvements r to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2031-2035. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road/SH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2036-2040. • Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian RoadISH-6910 Locust Grove Road between 2036-2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road/SH-69 between 2036-2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian RoadlSH-6910 Locust Grove Road between 2036-2040. • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP for pavement rehabilitation and pedestrian ramp construction from Meridian Road7SH-69 to Locust Grove Road in 2022. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.5 miles • Fire Response Time Falls within 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 87%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater Page 2 Page 14 Item#3. Description Details P • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service (open waterways) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service • Distance to 4 miles . Police Station • Police Response The average emergency response time in the City is just under 4 minutes(meets Time target goal of 3-5 minutes) Meridian Police Department-Shafer View Narth Location of new development- Las.-of N Merldlan Rd Between E Amity Rd&E Lake Hazel FLd ime Frame- Dl/01/2019-12/31f2024 Level of Service ILoS)-Delivered By Reporting District RD-M777) Calls for Service[CFS]: Response Times; Dispatch to Arrival(all unitsi Average Response Times by Priority- 'City of Meridian' PriorkV 3 3A3 Prrority2 fMPosvwawffhbstolom"esl 7:11 Priority 1 l+str Goof is w![14l015#0 20 mJrwfesl 10:37 Average RespbnSB TirdeS by Priorky:'Iv1777' Priority 3 5A2 Priority 2 11:43 Priority 1 8:36 Calls for Service(GFS}:Calls occurring In RD'M777' CFS count Total 55 %of Calls for Serwice split by Priority in'M777' *of P3 CFS 1.8% *of P2 LXS 74.5% Ag of P4 LT5 21.64L %of PO 0:5 0.0% Crimes Crime Courrt Total 22 Cr'aaltei 'Crash Count.Total 46 Analyst Note(si: Response Time and Calla For Service(CF51 by morlty-Most frequent priority call types; •Pribei ty 3 balks involved Subject at the Door. •Priority 2 calls most frequently inmkved TrafFC Stapsr Stalked Vehides,and Welfare Checks i911 Hang Ups)_ •Priority 1 Falls m45t frequently involved N4 Contact Order RePgFtr VIN In5peaions,and Citizen A55ift5- Crime loccurred date!-Most frequent crimes involved: Driving Under the Influence,and Liquor Law Violations(Open Container IDrlveri,Aloohollc Beverage Possesslon Under Age 21,etc.),and •druglNarcotic Ulalatlons(Possesslon of MarlJuana), 'Crashes-Most frequent crashes were; •41.1,%injury type crashes, •26.1-%property damage reports,and •324-M non-reportable crashes. arioelty Response rsmes ye8ned: Priority 0 type ca Its are no priority type of ca IIa Prliarlty 1 type calls are For non-emergency type of calls where the officer will arrive at the ea rilest oonwenlerKe,and shall obey all tMfit laws_ Priority 2 type calls require an urgent response where the officer will arrive as soon as practical,and should obey all traffic laws. Prlorh,y 3 type calls are an emergency response In which the Irghts and siren and driving as authorlmd far an emergency vehicle by Idaho Cade to facilitate the quick and safe arrival of an officer to the scene. West Ada School District • Distance(elem, ins,hs) Page 3 Page 15 Item#3. • Capacity of Enrollment Ca aci Miles [nn..m kh-1) Schools Mary McPherson Elementary' 481' 675 1.3 • #of Students Victory Middle School 868 IODO 2.8 Enrolled Mountain View High School 2218 2175 3.9 *Enrollment number is estimated for the 2021-2022 school year based on current enrollment and future growth in the respective attendance area.It reflects changes made to the Mary McPherson Elementary attendance area. • #of Students Predicted from 35 school aged children predicted from this development by WASD. this development Wastewater • Distance to Directly adjacent Sewer Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.02 Balance • Project Yes Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water ) IL • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's _ • Water Quality None • Project Yes Consistent with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 4 Page 16 Item#3. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend . (fLegend ' Proyeci Lcca-hor I Prnjeot Lorca on Medium Density Residenfial idnfi ed-Hig :�• - ensify - Residenfi Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R1 Legend RUT— ff ; 0Prayeci Lorca-nor IetProject Lacafkm -- R1 ;_1 City Limit R-$ — Planned Parse R _ RUT R-4 w RUT RUIT A. Applicant: Mary Wall,Breckon Land Design—PO Box 44465,Boise, ID 83711 B. Owners: James Chambers, 39, LLC—5356 N. Troon PI., Boise, ID 83713 DWT Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 5 Page 17 Item#3. III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 1/15/2021 2/19/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/12/2021 2/16/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 1/21/2021 2/26/2021 Nextdoor posting 1/12/2021 2/16/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Low Density Residential(LDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and 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 proposed development consists of a total of 50 single-family detached dwellings on large lots [i.e. 12,000 square foot(s.f.)minimum] on 39.01 acres of land at an overall gross density of 1.76 units/acre,which falls within the density range desired in LDR designated areas. This property abuts a County subdivision, Shafer View Estates,to the south and will provide a transition to future urban properties to the north, zoned R-4 and R-8. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one housing type, single-family detached, is proposed which Staff believes is appropriate due to the large lot sizes and density desired in LDR designated areas. The variety of lot sizes (i.e. 8,600-23,600 sf.) proposed will provide for diversity in styles of homes, which Staff believes will contribute to the variety of housing in the City to meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed density and lot sizes should be compatible with the rural residential homes/properties to the south on 1+ acre lots in the County and future urban residential development to the north and east in the City. Page 6 Page 18 Item#3. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response times for Police Dept. and Fire Dept. meets the established goals. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd.ISH--69 as required by the Pathways Master Plan and UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A total of 4.05 acres of qualified open space is proposed along with quality amenities (i.e. sports court, gazebo, tot lot, multi-use pathway). • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)." (3.01.01A) The Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required by ACHD for this development. WASD submitted comments stating that approximately 35 school aged children are estimated to be generated by this development; enrollment at Mary McPherson Elementary School and Victory Middle School is currently under capacity and Mountain View High School is over capacity(see Section VIII.I).According to the Community Development's school impact analysis, enrollment at Victory Middle School will be slightly over capacity at build-out of building permits already issued in this area at 104%(Mary McPherson will be 95%and Mountain View will be 109%) (see Section VIII.J). The closest City Park to this site is Discovery Park, consisting of 77-acres, to the southeast on E. Lake Hazel Rd., Y4 mile east of S. Locust Grove Rd. A future City Park is designated on the FL UM within a half mile of this site to the west. • "Require all 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 features a 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 transition in proposed lots to existing lots in Shafer View Estates to the south. These lots are separated by an existing 41 foot wide easement for the McBirney Lateral which provides an added buffer between rural lots and proposed urban lots. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are proposed as required with this development. Page 7 Page 19 Item#3. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS( L0 A. Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres)and R-4(29.82 acres) zoning districts,which includes adjacent right-of-way to the section line of S. Meridian Rd./SH- 69 and to the centerline of E. Quartz Creek St. A total of 50 residential dwelling units are proposed to develop on the site at an overall gross density of 1.76 units per acre consistent with the associated LDR FLUM designation for the site. Although the proposed density is more consistent with an R-2 (Low Density Residential)zoning district,the Applicant requests R-4 in order to provide a transition in lot sizes between the existing rural residential subdivision to the south(Shafer View Estates)and the future urban residential subdivision approved to the north(Prevail Subdivision),zoned R-8. Larger lots are proposed adjacent to the southern boundary that gradually transition to smaller lots to the north. The property is contiguous to City annexed land and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area along with individual legal descriptions and exhibit maps for the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts are included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the development plan proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA is required with this application, containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed below. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 4,Block 1, Shafer View Estates, developed in Ada County and recorded in 2002 (Bk. 84,Pg. 9403). This lot was deed restricted and was only allowed to be used for open space as defined in the non-farm development section of the Ada County code and the planned development section of the Ada County code for a period of not less than 15 years from the recording date of the subdivision plat. The required time period has elapsed and the lot is now eligible for redevelopment. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. The subdivision is proposed to develop in three(3) phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.B. The first and second phases consist of 28.35 acres and is proposed to develop with 50 single-family detached homes at a gross density of 1.76 units per acre and a net density of 3.30 units per acre with an average lot size of 13,444 s.f. The third phase consists of 10.66 acres and is proposed to be platted as one large lot that will be developed at a later date under a separate application by the property owner. This portion of the site is under separate ownership from the rest of the site and was previously illegally split off, therefore,it's ineligible for development until included in a subdivision to create a legal lot for development purposes. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements on this property other than a private drainage facility on Lot 6,Block 6. Page 8 Page 20 Item#3. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted uses in both the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts per UDC Table 11-2A-2: Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2A): Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R- 2 district in UDC Table I1-2A-4 and the R-4 district in(UDC Table 11-2A-5), as applicable. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets and block face. Block faces are limited to 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley but may extend up to 1,000' where a pedestrian connection is provided as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3F.3. City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions that include a large waterway or irrigation facility;block faces over 1,200 feet require a waiver from Council. A 90 degree turn in a roadway may constitute a break in the block face; however, overall pedestrian and vehicular connectivity will be considered when evaluating the appropriateness of block lengths greater than 750' in length—additional pedestrian and/or roadway connections may be required. The face of Block 3 exceeds 1,200' and does not provide a pedestrian connection other than the emergency access driveway which may serve as a pedestrian connection between the proposed subdivision and Shafer View Estates to the south. The Applicant requests City Council approval of the proposed block length due to existing site constraints that include the following: 1)the narrow configuration of the subject property; 2)the location of the McBirney Lateral, a large waterway/irrigation facility,that runs along the southern boundary and through the western portion of the proposed subdivision; and 3)the existing Shafer View subdivision that abuts the site to the south,south of the lateral,which does not include any pedestrian pathways or stub streets to this property.If not approved,the plat should be reconfigured to comply with this standard.An emergency access road for Fire Dept. is proposed between the end of the cul-de-sac and E. Shafer View Rd. but it's not a public access. The cul-de-sac length complies with UDC standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Direct lot access is proposed via E. Shafer View Dr.,an existing local street along the southern boundary of the site, for the lots south of the McBirney Lateral;the lots north of the lateral will be accessed via two(2)accesses from E. Quartz Creek St., a planned collector street along the northern boundary of the site. The UDC(11-3A-3)restricts and limits access points to collector streets where access to a local street is available. Local street access is not available to the northern portion of the proposed development. Due to the configuration of the property,without the easterly second access,the cul-de-sac would exceed the maximum length standard of 500' allowed by the UDC(11-6C-3B.4). Therefore, Staff is supportive of the proposed accesses. An emergency access for the Fire Dept. is proposed between the cul-de-sac and E. Shafer View Drive. A public street connection is not proposed to E. Shafer View Dr. for several reasons, including the following: 1)residents in Shafer View Estates were strongly opposed to the connection; 2)modification to the McBirney Lateral would be necessary to design a public road in that location and the lateral is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the process for modifications to their canal and an encroachment on their easement is very time consuming(i.e. 12+/-months)with no guarantees of approval; 3) approval from Nampa-Kuna Page 9 Page 21 Item#3. Irrigation District would also be needed has they have irrigation piping located in this area as well;4)a public road through that area would require a new pump system for the Shafer View Estates irrigation system as the road would go through the existing pump system—moving the pump system would also require moving/modifying a large BOR irrigation pipe that feeds the irrigation pump station; and 5)the cost of design and irrigation infrastructure work required to put in a public road is estimated to be $100,000.00 to$150,000.00(see Applicant's explanation for more detail). For these reasons, Staff does not recommend a connection is provided. Access to the R-2 zoned portion of the site is anticipated to be provided from the east as that portion of the site is planned to develop with the Apex development to the east. Direct lot access via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Quartz Creek St. is prohibited. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot. Staff is of the opinion sufficient parking can be provided for this development. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A 10' wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed as required within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 per UDC 11-3H-4C.4 and the Pathways Master Plan. The pathway is required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public use easement,which shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s)for Phase 1.If the pathway will be located entirely within the right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is not needed. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Where the multi-use pathway is required along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69,the pathway may take the place of the sidewalk. A combination of attached and detached sidewalks are proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along all internal public streets where detached sidewalks are proposed. All parkways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, an entryway corridor; and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E. Quartz Creek St., a collector street, as proposed. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require buffers to be planted with a mix of trees and shrubs, lawn,or other vegetative groundcover. Street buffer landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.C. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. At a minimum, one tree per 8,000 square feet of common area is required to be provided along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.C. Landscaping is required adjacent to the pathway along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. A 5' wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. The Landscape Page 10 Page 22 Item#3. Requirements table should include the linear feet of pathway with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B- 7C. The Landscape Requirements table should include the linear feet of parkways within the development with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. There are existing trees on this site at the fronts of Lots 1-5,Block 6 along E. Shafer View Dr. If any of these trees are proposed to be removed,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. Contact the City Arborist,Matt Perkins,prior to removing any trees from the site to determine mitigation requirements. Noise Mitigation (UDC 11-3H-4D): Noise abatement is required for residential uses adjoining state highways as set forth in the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A 4-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall solid wall by Simtek is proposed along S. Meridian Rd. as noise abatement as depicted on the detail on Sheet L 1.0 of the Landscape Plan. Architectural elements are proposed to break up monotonous wall planes as required. A detail of the proposed wall that demonstrates eomplionee with the standftFds listed in UDC 11 3H 4D should be submitted with the final plat for-the first phase of development.—Depicted on the revised landscape plan. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3 A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required for developments over 5 acres in size. Based on the area of the plat, 39.01 acres, a minimum of 3.90 acres of qualified open space is required. A total of 5.26 acres(or 18.55%) of common open space is provided within the overall development,4.05 acres(or 14.27%) of which is qualified per the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B, which exceeds UDC standards(see open space exhibit in Section VII.D). Qualified open space consists of half the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, all of the street buffer along E. Quartz Creek St., 8-foot wide parkways, linear open space, and open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area. Lot 9,Block 3 does contain a pond but it does not encompass more than 25%of the required open space area as required. The pond is required to have recirculated water and should be maintained such that it doesn't become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 A minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required for developments over 5 acres in size and up to 20 acres,with one(1)additional amenity required for each additional 20 acres of development area. Based on a total of 39.01 acres of development area, a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required. A multi-sport court,tot lot, gazebo shade structure and segment of the City's multi- use pathway system is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Limited Geotechnical EngineeringReport for the subdivision. The preliminary plat depicts an existing private drainage facility and existing&proposed ACHD drainage facilities and easements. Page 11 Page 23 Item#3. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 : Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The McBirney Lateral is a large open waterway that lies within a 41-foot wide easement along the southern boundary of the site and through the western portion of the site. Another waterway 38' wide) exists on the eastern portion of the site between the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoned property within r€eet wide NN P a-ad B m easement;the Applicant verified with the Boise Project Board of Control that the waterway is not within an easement. This project is not within the flood plain. The UDC allows waterways such as this to remain open when used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UC 11-1A-1; otherwise,they are required to be piped or otherwise covered per UDC 11-3A-613. The decision-making body may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The Applicant is not proposing to improve the McBirney Lateral as a water amenity or linear open space but is proposing to install a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence along the waterway to deter access to the waterway and ensure public safety. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from Council to allow the waterway to remain open and not be piped. The Applicant states the Boise Project Board of Control opposes any improvements within their right-of-way.The other waterway should be piped or improved as a water amenity or linear open space as required. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C for fencing along waterways and the general fencing standards in 11-3A-7. A mix of 6-foot tall wrought iron and 6-foot tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas; 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing is proposed along the McBirney Lateral. There appears to be gaps in the fencing along the lateral on common lots that abut the waterway; fencing should be included in these areas to prevent access to the waterway and to ensure public safety. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations have not yet been prepared for this development. However,the Applicant did submit several sample photos of 2-story homes that will be similar to those constructed in this development, included in Section VII.E. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because homes on lots that abut S.Meridian Rd. and E. Quartz Creek St.will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on lots that face those streets should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Page 12 Page 24 Item#3. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 4, 2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jon Breckon,Breckon Land Design((Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Marvin Ward, Gayle Ward d. Written testimony: Mary Wall,Breckon Land Design e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Concern pertaining to safety of access to Lots 2-5,Block 6 accessed via Shafer View Dr. with the configuration of E. Shafer View Dr. and change in grade in that area; b. Preference for 1-acre lots to be provided on the south side of the McBirney Lateral consistent with adjacent existing 1-acre lots in Shafer View Estates. c. Applicant testified they are willing to add more landscaping at the entry to the development near the S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. intersection. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. In favor of the provision of additional landscaping at the entrance of the subdivision at the intersection of S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. as offered by the Applicant; b. Possibility of reducing the number of homes in the area south of the McBirney Lateral (Lots 2-6,Block 6)to enhance safety in that area; C. Concern pertaining to lack of comments from ITD; d. Would prefer a better transition in lot sizes to the south, specifically Lots 15-17,Block 3 (maybe lose a loth e. Discussion regarding the proposed amenities; f. Opinion that the style and size of the proposed homes should be compatible with adjacent homes in Shafer View Estates. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request, include a condition for the 38' wide slough/drain on the eastern portion of the site to be contained entirely within a common lot(s)with fencing required on both sides of the drain consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b per UDC 11-3A-7A.7a; b. At Staff s request, include a condition requiring the common lot(s)containing the slough/drain to have vegetativegroundcover to prevent fire hazard and unsightliness if the waterway is piped; and, C. At Staff s request,modify condition#9 to allow the option for the waterways on the site to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to being piped as allowed by UDC 11-3A-6C.2 with submittal of construction drawings&relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for water amenities as defined in UDC 11-IA-1. d. Include a condition for the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Shafer View Dr. to be improved with additional landscaping as offered by the Applicant; Page 13 Page 25 Item#3. e. Include a condition for one(1)buildable lot to removed in the area of Lots 2-5, Block 6 south of the McBirney Lateral. 5. Outstanding issues for City Council: a. The Commission requested an ITD review of the project and comments prior to the Council hearing; comments from ITD are included in Section VIII.N. Page 14 Page 26 Item#3. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map ��1 tics .,ACCURATE F SURPE TIN 6 6 NAP�INS -#titP1� Annexation Land Destriptiorr A parcel of land being a(portion of the north Half of the Southwest Ouarter of Section 311 Taurnsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise MQridian,Ada County,Idaho and all of Lot 4,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded in$vok 54 of Plats at Pages 94C3 and 9404, Et-eonrds of Ada-curdy,said Iparcel is local-ed irr the North Ha if of the Southwest Qwi§rter of Section 31,Townslhip 3 North,Range 1 East of the Bocce Merldkan,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularity de bed as folbws, l3E:GINN ING at the found aluminum cap man ument at the QUartar-amer common to Section 31.TNN,RIE and Section 36.T3N,R1W as iperpetuated bV document 103052690.Records of Ada--aunty,from which the fnu nd brass cap at the township corner common to Township 3 North.Ranges 1 East and I West and Township 2 North,Ranges S East and 1 west as perpetuated by document 20194)15470,Records of Ada County hears 5 07 05'17"E a distance of 2669.99 feet; Th ence H 83'57'19"E a long the m id-seEbon line for a distance of 2507-75 feet to the northeast{Omer of said Lot 4; Thence S OW 17'00"W along the Qasterty line Qf swiW Lot A for a distance OF 1342-40 feeC Thence along the wulhi!riy boundary of said Lot 4 th a following fi courses and d istances= 1_) N 99'52'35"W for a d4stanoe of 130A0 fee, 2-) N 23'55'33"W far a distance of 17453 feet; 3-) N 16'35'10'W fora distance of 254.88 feet; 4.) H 14'42'14"W for a distaNxe of 194.52 feet; 5-) N 31'29'55"Vd for a distance of 113.67(eet; 6-) N gy°3X 47'°W fora distance of 147.74 feet; Th ence S 34'28'44"W for a dicta rice of ln43 feet to the mnterline of E.Shafer mew Drive; Theme N S5'19 49"W along said cent-erline for a distance of IGD.09 feet; Thence leaving said canterllne N 34'41'11"E for a distance of 10753 fett; Thence along the&Gutherly boundaryofsaid Lot 4 the following 15 courses and distances; 1-) N 04'09'19"E for a distance of 90-91 feet; 2,1 N 26'42'26"W fora distanoe of 85.32 feet; 3_) N 515°39'37"W for a distance of 97.95 Beet; 4_) N 75'35'35''W for a distance of 90-f!B feet; t 1 B02 W.Hays St..:Suite 306-Eini9e,ID 83702•Phckw:2054504-227. www.accurattee urvey are.amn Page 15 Page 27 Item#3. �4, ACCURATE � r � e a � SURMEfl�l6 3 Ii�PPl�16 5_) N 86"33' 28" VV for a distance of 135.49 feet; 6_) 5 71'44'26"W for a distance of 111,98 feet; 7_) S 60°59' 28"W far a distance of 112.30 feet; &. N 76'52' 47" W for a distance of 210.54 feet; 9j 5 78'31'59"W for a distance of 45.73 feet; 10_) S 51`53' 13" VV for a distance of 147,64 feet; 11.) 5 65'24'ST W for a distance of 258.22 feet; 12.) 517'39'49"W for a distance of 98.75 feet; n_) S 03'59'SY E for a distance of 50,00 feet; $a-3$fetm 3 longzhc arc of a 275.00fout radIuscurve rlght h"nga central angle of 18'24' 12"and a long chord bearing N 84'38' 15'W a distance of M_00 feet; 1S.) 5 28'48'47"HIV for a distance of 206-91 feet to th-e centerline of E.Shafer View Drive; Thence along said centerline the following 4 tourers and distances., 1.1 103.63 feet along the are of a 500.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 91'52'28"and a long chord bearing N 47'59'54" VV For a distance of 103,44 f eet; 2.� N 42"01'36'' W for a distance of 107.12 feet; 1.) 83.86 feet along the arc of a 100,00 foot radius curve left having a central angle of 48"02'45"and a long chard beating N 86'02'56"W a distance of 91.42 feet; 44 5 89'55'39'W for a distance of 219-88 feet to the section line; Thence N 00'45' 17" W along the section line for a distance of 802_03 feet to the REAL P01NT Of BEGINNING, Parcel conta Ins 40.463 acres,more or ie5s- 1602 W. Hays St.,Suite 305 Boise_ ID 887W Phone;20"86422~7 www.arcuratesurweyars corn Page 16 Page 28 Item#3. AIVIVEXA TIOIV MAP PARCEL LYING 1N I•HE N 112 OF ME SIN 114, .SEC 7701V 31, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M. 36 3i 7 f4 COR. CP&- rNST No.103052680 N 89'57'1 8" E 2507,75' ^� M LOT 4 BLOCK 1 Cy N SHAFER VIEW ESTATES ZQ 40.4a3t ACRES co r rLl$ 05 L14 y3 07 �1$ o ti� j2 SCALE: 1"=300' �s O A ~~ ° L6 L22 �+ g L25 C3 C 1 o NOTE., SEE SHEET 2 FdR C " UNE AND CURVE TABLES L to a E. SHAFER VIEW DRIVE ° 1146 3 L 1 LEGEND ANNEX A�4Y ACCURATE � ---------- SE LINE C770N LINE � � T3N R1 W 38 3T T31V R2W � a , FOUND 3 i r 1/2" BRASS CAP A40MUMENT � SURVEYING & MAPPI1.P r2N R I W T 8 f2N R2W r 1682 W.Hays Street#306 FOUND 2" ALUMINIUM CAPlt Boise,Idaho 83702 CP&F WST, No. 11A (248)488-4227 201 9-0 154 70 ❑ CALCULATED POINT qtf w www,accuratesurveyura.mm RYI� SHEET I OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 17 Page 29 Item#3. LINE TABLE UKE BEARif4G E115TANCE L1 N 89'52'35 W T30.4U' L2 N 23755'33" W 170-53' 0 N t 6'35'10" W 254_68' L4 N 14'41'14" W 194-52' L-5 I 'N 31'29'55" W 113.67' Lb N 89'34'347" W 147-74' L7 S 34` 8'44" W 190.4,3' LB N SY18'49" W 100_09' 1-9 N 34741'}1" E 107.53' L10 N 04'00 19 E 90-81 i-11 N 26'42'26" W 85.32' L12 N 56730'37" W 87.95' L13 N 75.33'35" W 90.66' L1 d N 86'33'28" W 185.49' L15 S 71`44'26" W 113.68' L16 S 60'S9'28" W 11 -aD' L 17 N 76752'47" W 210-54' L113 8 78-31'59- W 45-73' L 1 9 S 51'-53'13" W 147-64' L20 S 65'24'50" W 258-22' L21 S 17`40'26" W 98.75' L22 S 03'59'33" E 50-00' L23 S 28'48 47 W 206.91 L24 N 42701 36 W 107.12` L25 5 89'5.5 39" W 219.W CURVE TABLE CURVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 88.35' 275.00' 1 T24 50 S $4735'15" E MOO' G2 103.153' 500-00' 11'152'28" N 47 n,3'54 W 103.E C3 a3.86' 100.00' 40'02'45 IN 68'02'58 W $1.4.2 4. ACCURATE 11463 � un4Erl$6 NrYrau Ba19e.Idaho 33702 } 4208�"E-4227 w n w.acc u ra c e su r veyomco ro Piro I 1 SHEET 2 OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 18 Page 30 Item#3. R-2 Legal Description: krn ® 9233 WEST STATE STREET I RUSE,0 83714 1 208.639.6339 j FAX 208.639.6930 January 6,2020 "ed NO.�8 037 Legal Description Portion of Lot 4,Block 1 of Rafer View Estates Exhlhit A A parcel of la nd being a portion of Lot 4, Block 1 of Shafer View(:states(Book 84 of plats,Pages 9403-9404, records of Ada Cou rty,I daho)which is sit uated in the N orth 112 of the Southwest 1/4 of SeCtipn 3 jg wnsh ig 3 Nurthr Range 1 East,Boise Mericlliarr,City of Meri{i8n,Ada cau nty,Idaho,and being more particu larly described as follows: BEGINNING at a V13.1rich rebar marking the Cerkter of said Section 31(also being the northeast corner of said Lot 4,Block 1),which bears N89°57'15"E a distan€e of 2,507.62 feet from an alurninom top marking the West 1/4 Comer of said Seffion 31,t henee following the easterly line of said North 112 of the Southwest 1/4, S00°16'52"W a distance of 1,342.44 feet(formerly 500°15'38"W a dlzstan€e of 1/342.81 feed to the southeast Corner of said North F/2 of the SoulhwW V4(a65o being the sout heart corner of said Lot 4,Block 11; Thence leaving said easterly flee and fallow Ing the southerly I ine of said Nort h 1/2 of the Sout hwest 114, N$9"52'31"W a d Istance of 130-43 feet to the lout beast corner of Lot 13,Block 1 of said Shafer View Estates; Thence leaving said southerly II ne and following the boundary of Lot 4,15 lock 1 the#allowing courses: 1. N 23°S5'33"w(formerly P4235632"WI a d istance of 170.57 feet; 2. N15'35'10"W(formerly NW36'09ffVY1 a dlstanee of25.4.38feet; N14"41'01"W(f arm erly N1ir42'W M a distance of 193.75feet; 4. N31a15'14"W(formerly N31"ifi'1 -W° a distance of 224.54 feet to a found 1/2-inch rebar, 5- N89'52'31"W(formerly W?53'3V W)a d ista nce of 23.81 feet to a polnt on t h e northe rly line of t he 41-foot wide McBlrney Lateral easement; Th ence Ieavin,g the houndary of sa Id Lot 4,Block 1 and following said northerly line the following courses: 1. N77'19'36"E a distance of 75.47 feet;; 2_ 1475'37'04"t:a distance of 77-3a Net to a point on the centerline of the 38-foot wide drain ditch easement shown on said Shafer Vlew Estates su6dlvkslpn plot; Thence leaving said northerly Ilse and following sald centerline the fvll4win8 courses; 1. N06°2W52"W a distance of'151.79 feet; 2_ N17°292rW a dEstance Of 170.33 feet; 3. N25°5V09"W a distance of 63.g6 feet; 4_ N36'4 r3o"w a dkstar+ce of 99.39 feet; 5. N 50°03'15"W a distance of 94.54 feet; 6_ N55"05'SrW a distance of 124.96 feet; 7. N 51°4e38"W a distance of 99.63 feet; 9. h61 W51-W a distance of 33.41 fleet; 9. N 67'05'46"W a dlstan€e of 68.04 feet to the northerly line of said North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (also being the north"line cf said Lot 4,Block 1): ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 19 Page 31 Item#3. Tlrarnce lea wing said oenterline and following so id.northerly line,N99'57'15'E a distance of 799.30 feet to the POINT OF BEG INNENG. Sold parcel contains 10.66 acres,more or less, kL r,Lt {s 1245 A 0F � L_ ValA�' PAGE. 2 Page 20 Page 32 Item#3. F T89.30 Y P P -1 i S a 'ik t � F Y � 3 a th a S M �3 JPSPJ]L I]F/p Title; mate; 01-06-2020 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File: Trw 1: 10,661 Acres; 464381 Sq F ;Gomm n63.4107w 0.01 Feel: FYecision=U331449= P'eximew=39458 Feet 001-s00.1652w 1342.44 M-n77.1936e 75.47 015-n55.0559w 124.96 002-n69-M I w 130.43 009-05.3704le 27-30 0 M--51.4638w 94.63 003--n23.5533w 170.57 410--nO62852w 151.79 01 33.43 04 16.351 Ow 254_$,9 01 1= 17.2622w 120.33 01$--rbG7.054{,w 0.04 005�t14.4101 w 193,75 01'2=Fk25.50Ww 63-86 019=09.5715e 799.30 006=6 .1514w 1144.54 013=06.4130w 99.39 CV-nS9.523I w 23.81 014=n5O.O3 i 5w 84.54 Page 21 Page 33 Item#3. ACCURATE �r { SDR>IEYIND 9 MA, P190 `rfypyyt� R4 Rezone Land Descrigtian A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 4,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded in gook 64 of Flats at Pages 9403 and 9404, Records of Ada County,said parcel is located in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the found aluminum cap rnonurnent at the [kuarter Corner common to Section 21,T3N, R1E and Section 36, T3N, R1W as{perpetuated by document 103052680, Records of Ada County,from which the found#grass cap at the township corner common to Township 3 North,Ranges 1.East and 1 West, and Township 2 North, Ranges 1 East and 1 West as perpetuated by document 2019-015470, Records of Ada County bears S 00'05'17' E a distance of 2669.99 feet; Thence N 8T 57' 18" E along the mid-section line for a distance of 1718.45 feet to a set 518°" inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 67'05' 19"E for a distance of 68_04 feet to a set 5/3kh inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 61'36'51"E for a distance of 33.43 feet to a set 5/8'h inch iron pin with a tap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 51'46' 38'E for a distance of 99.63 feet to a set 5/Su'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 55'05' 59"E fora distance of 124.96 feet to a set 5/81"inch iron pin with a cap stamperf PLS 11463; Thence S 50'03' 15"E for a distance of 84.54 feet to a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 36'41'30"E for a distance of 99,39 feet to a set 51 V inch iron pin with a cap Stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 25'SU 09'E for a distance of 53.86 feet to a set 5/8th inch iron pin with a cap Stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 17' 26' 22'E fora distance of 120.33 feet to a sett 5/81"inrh iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463, CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) I 1602 W.Hays St..Suite 306•Boise.ID 83702 • Phone:208-488-4227 www.accur,4e tlrveyars.com Page 22 Page 34 Item#3. *A rtr ACCURATE SURVEYING II: MA9fING Thence 5OF 28' 52" E for a distance of 151.79 feet to a set 5/81° inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 75'37'W W for a distance of 2730 feet to a set 5J81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 114,53; Thence 5 77*19' 36"W for a distance of 75.47 feet to a set 5/811 inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 99'38'35"W for a distance of 224.09 feet to a found 7:inch iron pin, replaced with a Set 518tn inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 34'28'44"W for a distance of 190,43 feet to the centerline of E-Shafer View Drive; stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 55' 18'49"W along said centerline fora distance of 100.09 feet,- Thence N 34'41' 11" IF for a distance of 107.53 feet to a set 5/81" inch Iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 04'O9' 19" E for a di9anre of 90-81 feet to a found M inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5/Slh inch iron pin with a rap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 26'42'26"W for a distance of 85.32 feet to a found'A inch Iran pin, replaced with a set 5/8th inch iron pin with a rap stamped PI-S 11463; Thence N 56'39'37�W for a distance of$7.95 feet to a found' inch iron pin,replaced with a set 5/8tn inch iron pin with a tap stamped PLS 1141523; Theme N 75'35'35"W far a distance of 90.88 feet to a found )S Inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5f g`h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 86"33' 28"W for a distance of 185-49 feet to a founcl inch iron gin, repiacEd with a set SlVh inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 71'4-' 26"W for a distance of 113.88 feet to a fou nd'A inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5f81" inch iron pitt with a cap stamped RLS 11463; Thence 5 6D'59' 28' W for a distance of 112.30 feet to a set 5/8" inch iron pick with a cap stamped PLS 11463; (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1002 VV. Hays St.-Suite 305• Boise. ID 53702 • Phone: 206-488-4227 www.occk1 ratesu rveyors.cum Page 23 Page 35 Item#3. ACCURATE �. 4 SII11MEYIM9 t MAPPINe s '�f�PY1C� T# ence N 76'52'47" W for a distance of 210.54 feet to a fount} inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5/8u'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence 5 78`31'59"W for a distance of 45-73 feet to a found Y2 inrh iron pin,replaced with a set 5/8"n inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 5V 53'13"W for a distance of 147.64 feet to a found Y4 inch iron pin, replaced with a set 501h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence 5 65' 24'50"W for a distance of 259-22 feet to a found%inch iron pin, replaced with a set 518"'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463: Thence 517'39'W W for a distance of 99.75 feet to a found Y2 Inch 1ron pin,replaced with a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 03'59'33" E for a distance of 50-00 feet to a found inch iron pin, replaced with a set 51V inch iron pin with a cap stamped PI-5 11463; Thence 88.39 feet along the arc of a 275.DO foot radius curve right having a central angle of 18' 24' 12"and a long chord bearing N 94'38' 15" W a distance of 88.00 feet to a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 78°48'47"W for a distance of 206991 feet tothe centerline of E.Shafer View Drive; Thence along said centerline 103.63 feet along the arc of a 500.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 11'52' 2V and a long chord bearing N 47'59' 54" W for a distance of 103.44 feet; Thence continuing N 42'01'36"W for a distance of 107-12 feet to a set 5/9"inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence continuIng93.86 feet along the arc of a 10D.00foot radius curve left having a central angle of 48'02'45'and a long chord bearing N 66'02'Se W a distance of 3 1.42 feet; Thence 5 89`55'39"W for j�distdnC2 of 2 19.99 feet to the centerline of S.Meridian Road (State Highway 69); Thence N 00'OS' 17'W along said centerline for a distance of 802.03 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel con#ain5 29-822 acres, more or less- 11463 zooz 1-1-74o 3 4 OF 1t� 1602 W. Hays 5t.,SuiW 306 a Boise, id 83702 +Phone:209-489-4227 • ''fiQ f J. www.accuratesurveyors.com Page 24 Page 36 Item#3. R4 REZOIVE MAR PARCEL LYING IN THE N 112 OF THE SW 1A SECTION 31, T.3N., R.1E., B.M. cP�F rNsr. No. 114 COP. CP&F ]000100 36 31 wsr No.103052660 N 89'57'18" E 1778.45' S 89'57'18" IN PLS 4398 4,r -c,�-789-30'---- M nor 4 BLOCK i 2 CA SHAFER VIEW ESTATES Cy CQ oar 29.922E ACRES � 6' L24 421 L20 1,9 r '�+ h L23 ��Z 76 w d SCALE: 1"=300' �� r Q o �Z6 0 A co U to P, NOTE. SEE SHEET 2 FOR '�� r L12 L1� N N LINE ANO CURVE TAR4ES ~ ^] w L28 1 v Ao^ L31 C3 C 7� a f� g N wma '� A E. SHAFER VIEW DRIVE 1j4671q R� LEGEND BOUNDARY J. D��G ------ SECIIDN LINE ' FOUND 3 1/2" BRASS CAP MONUMENT q 1 r f�bI ACCURATE T3N R7W 36 31 T3N R2W JR FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP m _ SURVEYING $ MAPPING T2N Rl W 1 T2N R2W FOUND 1/2" IRON PIN, REMOVED d 6 AND REPLACED WITH 5/8" IRON AN, 1602ome Mays St8370reet 306 P"ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 11463 r Boise,Idaho 42702 CP&F INST Na �; {2087 488.42Z7 2019-015470 O SET 518"IRON P)N, 2" ALUM. CAP, PLS 1 f46J ,P E www.accuratesurveyors.com ❑ CALCULATED POINT ER Y 1 C SHEET 1 OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 25 Page 37 Item#3. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L i S 67`05'19" E 68.04' L-2 S 61'36'51" E 33.43' L3 S 51'46'38" E 99-63' L 4 S 55'05'59" E 124.96' L5 5 5G-03'15" E 84.54' L6 S 36'41'30" E 99-39' L7 S 25'50 09" E 63.86' L8 S 17'26'22" E 120.33' L9 5 06'28'52" E 151.79' L10 S 7535'46" L 1 i S 77 19'36" W 75.47 L 12 N 89'38'36" W 124.09' L 13 S 34'28'44" W 190.43' L_7 4 N, 55'18'49" W 100-09 L 15 N 34'41 11 E 107.53' L16 j N 04'09'19" E 90.51' L17 N 26'42'26" W 85.32' L 1 S N 5639'37" W 87-95' L19 N 75'35'35" W 90.88' L20 N BV33'28" W 1 MAT L21 S 71'44 26 W 1 13-88' L22 S W59'28" W 112-30' L23 N 76 52'47" W 210.54' L24 S 78'31'59" W 45.73' L25 S 51'53'13" W 147-64' L26 S 65'24'5{D" 1W 258.22' L27 S 1739'49" W 98.75' L28 S 03'58'33" E 55.00 L29 5 DY48'47 W 206.91 L30 N 42'01'36" W 107.12' L31 S 89'55'39" W 1 219-88' CURVE TA8LE G,URVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 S&M, 275.00' 1 T24'50" S 84'38'15" £ MOO' C2 103.63' SOD.00 11'52 2B N 47'59'54" W 103-44` C3 83.86' 100,00' 48'02`45" 8 56'02'58" E 81-4Z' L Ar, ACCURATE MAPP 1146353 2- 16W W.Nays Street 4306 , ,1*T-%P Boise.Idaho 93702 4 P t4$)488,422? le It xrnw a€rura"urweyors€om 5HEET 2 OF.2 109 2W mmmml Page 26 Page 38 B. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 18N8/2020) NOTES ro fr LU /;j�NPHASING MAP ------- Page 27 Item#3. C. Landscape Plan (date: 5��^7�0 2/3/2020) 14* �. f info- VIEW TERRACE MERIDIAN,16AH0 ----w- Page 28 Page 40 Item#3. INFORMATION inswxw. IMF 'i MH � , CRY OF MERIDIPN L LANDSCAPE RECUIREMENIS q __ � � ` ;LLll '.J'I'.J'I"'I'7'..I�l�i6','V.'�'•'., � x non thxrrtr I.'err. &I NNE w a❑ IyJ w g 1�OVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAN x l Aur�sr:ex rvrnc ., "...,.«,,..,.,1.11 O x 1f .I +iI% I:al I ., .F1A47.YTL" .... ,. 'rti V....... R���S',��I1€4'�4?j!•.411'l IAS!!!�1rk AIIj! "„ • _ _ 9EW ADJACENT TO MERIDIAN ROAD rt .. •. ' ..F ++ 7-7 -- '4 � BLOCX 5 Jsl- �'� III 2 3 4 5 6 O 20 T zwo Wog —T, 'm .. -ram y 7� a ILLI •1LANOSCAPE PLAN-AMA ONE IPJNOTES, _ATIDN NOTE EFj LANDSCAPE LEGEND yW�p 3 CALLOUT LEGEND 'ICY. :, :. g c! �o. .E » �� ■E,� :udsl•I1.a.'rl'l'!Ir,. IYJ. ° ---------'^".�:...,.�..�. I'r JiM ...,.w...,,a.,i.,.. Bxgba�rea++wa[wwe�rw� �,� M.� ... .•..��" -- — H$ � .Krr emux�nwc xxe exe um�vry J ® ,...,.�.,. 5a,•,14•'I'16V':6'M'RUM1'-5'.A!"'° ^KEY MAP Page 29 Page 41 Item#3. III I I I I �m 7717 . Ti BLOCKS r'� ": `'!T Y�• �5 �. .-,rr:-:;-"-::.-�,,. it ■ 17 w + Lncxs W o —r---- w a 4&"NESCAPF PLAN ARFA TWO fQ N o ill Tl1RF AREA PREPARATION NOTES` =w LU V `j LANDSCAPE LEGEND GALLOIIT LE(iEND fI"JIh,I4'I„?I .I:I�"VS Ld a# � ''r;°'alti'arilii'y^V',.r. g .'nor'i's,'i'FI''n'��Ny�{+��i;�;nvl�Iv.�rl•'r SA�.i.11liliH;i'rarrh"' �".•Il��14.1 71 I' �Ii�jfi1€I e3 w� il,ui� •I'16'R i' ai ia"..,,.,..a.,.. 9xnaamea..u�.rvuwe,rku� -u.,. �,a a«na RA�2 -� 0dl."N IY TLLII8r1.- �,. ®,. KEY MAP Lam` t LOCKC, , 1 > �' r , ca_ 1 i w w I � �Eo a w .W_oa w�a g u❑z _ aW-g a a # &ANDBCAPE PLAN-AREA THREE q o a IJ " WEED ABATEMENT NOTER = W U LANDSCAPE LEQEND N W Z a cnLLoer LEGEND...,..•..,,,, �. E �.� E �. .,,, ........, Cl) g —_-�--- ;�.i.,"'h. '6'!�''n"ui nnn non.nu.. wf 1mNluL wM! y MH,! .» •'I! 1NTRRY' a , � + KEY MAP n....o. ®�.1_'d+Y,r'.ILH:.�!....,.••' �I Rnnnnr �rim. Page 30 Page 42 Item#3. LANDSCAPE LEGEND � . _ _ - �L— .S•'.�:•.�. 1•. 1'A• '.'C::.i::.'1:••S•.".511:SS'..y.t'1. :!. 9�d 4 a.x�ni.ensue "�\,,-ice E` TI T W1i _.. .may 1•,:♦:; :�:;,: - _ _f BLOC, C/U1011T LEGEN12, ®! =❑w ywLLI xU TLammn 0I�=jEif eHww�wi.ardwwvnu a• d iai rwe _.. wn:e _. a ium G P--TEFi BIi CSIT EDGE F 2 WRONGFii IRON FENCE 4m a 4 L14 S rmrxw�maaw nwruus, J'"rL :v :.: .. __—__—__ LANDSCAPE LEGEND rn: '1 2 YL OCK f CALLOUT LEGEND t LU i.'r4ri:rrr�l,r.. � ..............M"�.. 7xIVA ECt '-•- _ ' 11 7 1 '1` I ,'iS�•Y ' i�.m. �xiy�6 t ' ' �'i i'..YiB..I mu- LANDSCAPE .:w w Z � PLAN-AREA FNE TOPSOIL NOTES f r!;';ii!?ss sgtir;Ih};+1ititi'i},e rti!i;;Ei"ril;'a lti 4r'ii!;; '" il' 14.�I'''ISI•!'41'i'h'114'4'11.'�i�•r'411141'•1�11!''Sil'''f�•','d'!11. KEY MAP UD Page 31 Page 43 LANDSGAPE LEGEND tam %mw 9LOCK3 Ol, xix.......... v P. A'vil, I viro ........ 9AULIM-LE9EM ........... LU z 3;0 C3 LU F I LU m?iiiiii'I'll 'I < EL i3o- Co LU IND APE PLA z E"Ui Wi R POND REVEGE7ATION REQUIREMENTS 1'2 V. VII% i:"i Vl�illii.X, V'Ahi'%, Vi ,.j, IT I'VO Vi,J Xi.",I r�llill,d i31 .. ..... .... ..............il"I" NUNAd. ...............- m1iii-111, AIV.I��i il.i. .... ................. 0 BOULDER IVA LAT LL A 0 LLI j LU n ri 141iiii 1 414"diiii,iii F.i,.IvIy i 11 J. I L2< d. X'09Z ......... LU Lu ......... .. ........ ----------- hAV". TREE mrnGATION' 4 .............. ...............- ......... (2) Page 32 Item#3. SIM TEK FENCE 1330 WEST 400 NORTH OREM_UT B4057 1 T �� TOLL FREE;I-aBE�4KMS PHONE,(E41}BS5-E2 £ FENCE FAX;(301)955-52A5 www,slmtekfenm.roTi cvjv VN&-COURFENCE, nV'_:TUNE PATTERN QV 3C-- SIM 4 150►€TR1Cy1EN' ri' I o I L � � a - HOUND L1'':=l 6�oU4=Ev_L I -'iFRiLENGTM �t n!r A.GEGALVANIm POET 11 STEEL ST4FENERASTMA513 00 ia.it UPS HOLE DIOWER CONCRETE Rp(MNG 0 AYEFER 1W TO 12 LIN, ANC 7C'-O W HEP X.IN ACC=ANCE WITH LOCA CONDIT1W.00DES,AM€TAWARG •hip+DE WITH LINEAR LOW EENSITYPULYETHYLENE 6UIUGINOFNAa'lICES PLASTIC iLLCPE). ELEVATION VIEW ACTUAL PM4EL CFIENSIW:YTH&M.7EM •PMfLVrEIGHT Sete€ TOURANC#S ARE t.V 1.US PATENTS 7,t78,79?;7.V5 7 CREISH GATE TT_PE NCING, 2. INSTALLATION TOEECCfAPETLCINACCNIAWCwi GA4.7ACTURERSSPECIFIC .10% 3,ALL CIMENPKMARE CCNSICERECTRUE AND REFLECT WANUFACTURER'sSPECIRGATIpN€, 4, DO NOT SCALE URMYIIY6, S.OONTRACTOR'A NOTE;FORFRODUCTAND COMPANY MFORMATIUN VISIT www,C.;Dxwl6DwWWm PEFEPENCE NUMBER AS*W. SIMTEK FENCE WDEL FPTW2.FENCE PANEL ir H X 9 W A3124a2 RLASNNi PATE 0&+011Q014 Page 33 Page 45 D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 12/16/20) CITY OF MERIDIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS COMMON OPEN SPACE Mmowmm Z?" 'Alm QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE AmG4!rmw&fTw�lmDLAm I NUUMM um C6J-22r6Ho-;j MAW ffj* hm 14.7m LANDSCAPE LEGEND Qmu.rlm OFM fflPA" Wa7 GREEK W. I ='!LA-45,IM M rT "ma!7 ftm-. 4mm6a rr 1 17 17 1 LLITL j le APOLJ�-14-W 53.P-r I 121 E.'2D20 SHAFER VIEW NORTH PROJECT#2D121 MERIDIAN, IDAHO OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT X1.0 Page 34 E. Conceptual Building i .. ..... .... Page 35 ate•." � - # . f Item#3. 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 and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. 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. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations. b. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required to be constructed along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 in a public use easement in accord with UDC 11-3H-4C.4. c. Noise abatement is required to be provided within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. d. A final plat shall be recorded that includes Lot 1,Block 7 prior to any development occurring on the property. 2. Development of the subject preliminary plat shall be consistent with the phasing plan included in Section VII.B. 3. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Quartz Creek St. b. Block 3 exceeds the maximum block face standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F; the plat shall be revised to comply with these standards unless otherwise approved by City Council.A waiver is requested from Council to exceed the maximum block face allowed of 1,200 feet to allow the block face as proposed. c. The 38' wide drain on the eastern portion of the site shall be contained entirely within a common lot(s). d. Remove one(1)buildable lot in the vicinity of Lots 2-5,Block 6 south of the McBirney Lateral. 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.0 shall be revised as follows: a. inelude ro Fed vs.pfevided number- ft fees.Done b. Done c. Inelude a detail of the bei:Fn and ,,vall r-e"ir-ed for-noise aba4ement along S. Mer-idian Rd./S14 69#ivA demonstrates eepapkanee with the standards listed in UPC 11 314 4D. Done d. 1-neltide mitigmien infefmation for-any existing tfees thm are removed from the site in Page 36 Page 48 Item#3. Done e. The 38' wide drain on the eastern portion of the site shall be contained entirely within a common lot(s). Depict fencing on both sides of the drain consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b per UDC 11-3A-7A.7a. f. If the drain on the eastern portion of the site is piped, depict vegetative groundcover on the common lots containing the drain to prevent fire hazard and unsightliness. g. Depict additional landscaping at the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Shafer View Dr. as offered b, t�pplicant. h. Remove one(1)buildable lot in the vicinity of Lots 2-5,Block 6 south of the McBirneX Lateral consistent with that shown on the revised preliminaryplat. 5. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathway along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 prior to submittal of the Phase 1 final plat for City Engineer signature. If the pathway is located within the right-of-way, a public use easement is not required. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district and 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district.. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The rear and/or sides of structures on lots that abut S.Meridian Rd. and E. Quartz Creek St. shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 9. All waterways on this site shall be piped unless otherwise waived by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B. As an alternative,the waterway may be left open if improved as a water amenity as defined in UDC 11-IA-1 (see also UDC 11-3A-6C.2). The Applicant requests a waiver from City Council to allow the McBirney Lateral to remain open and not be piped. 10. The pond is required to have recirculated water and shall be maintained such that it doesn't become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. IX. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The angle of sanitary sewer pipe going into and out of manholes needs to be minimum of 90-degrees. 1.2 All sanitary sewer manholes require a 14-foot wide access path that meets City requirements. 1.3 Sanitary sewer manholes should not be located in curb and gutter. 1.4 Add an 8-inch water mainline in Crystal Creek Way, and stub to the north for future connection. 1.5 The water mainline needs to be 12-inch diameter in Prevail Way,portion of Terrace Ridge Dr,portion of Terrace Ridge Circle and south out to E Shafer View Rd. Page 37 Page 49 Item#3. 1.6 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6 of the City's Design Standards. A future installation agreement and funds are required for the required streetlights on S. Meridian Road pursuant to Section 6-4 B. of the Meridian Design Standards. 1.7 The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by Materials Testing &Inspection, dated 02/10/2020, does not indicate a specific concern with regard to groundwater. Applicant shall be responsible for the adherence to the recommendation presented in this report. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.4 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313- 14A. 2.5 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.6 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.7 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years.This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.8 In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non- health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. Page 38 Page 50 Item#3. 2.9 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.10 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.12 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.13 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.14 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.15 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.16 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.17 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.18 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 2.19 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20- feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 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 signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Page 39 Page 51 Item#3. 2.21 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2.22 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 2.24 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219456&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220250&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222017&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=220261&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=220014&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220034&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220564&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv Page 40 Page 52 Item#3. J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=221041&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty K. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.meridiancity.orF WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219526&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty L. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219424&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty M. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222031&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty N. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222250&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-2 and R-4 and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of single- family detached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Page 41 Page 53 Item#3. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health,safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 42 Page 54 Applicant Presentation SHAFER VIEW TERRACE Meridian, Idaho SUBDIVISION Site along Meridian Road84 -2.8 miles south of I◦Hazel RoadAmity Road and Lake Midway between ◦E. Quartz Creek Drive◦Location Proposed light grayCity property shown ◦Annexation Zoning Map zoning4 -2 and R-Proposed R◦ Schools mies3.9 –School Mountain View High ◦2.8 miles–Victory Middle School ◦1.2 miles-Elementary School Mary McPherson ◦ Emergency serve the subdivisionsewer) are available to Public utilities (water and ◦for both Departmentsminute response time -5–3◦4 miles to Police Station◦3.5 miles to Fire Station #6 ◦Services Proposed open space (18.55%).5.26 acres of common ◦s.f.23,600 to s.f.◦family -50 single◦Site Plan Neighborhood north. neighborhoods to the -the 1The lot layout provides ◦Transition MERIDIAN ROAD BERM & FENCE Planned structure & seating area A park with a shade ◦sport Court-A Multi◦A Children’s Play Area◦along Meridian Roaduse pathway -A multi◦AmenitiesLandscaping and Housing to 23,600 s.f.Lot sizes from 8,600 s.f. ◦Single family homes◦Style Waivers and additional cross streets property prevents -◦Control per Boise Project Board of No access or landscaping -of canall.f.Over 2100 -for safetyInstall open vision fence -◦Creek Streettwo accesses to Quartz -Street access waiver◦Exceptions 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Chewie Subdivision (H-2020-0120) by Kent Brown Planning, Located at 2490 W. Franklin Road and the Lot Directly North A. Request: Preliminary Plat for six (6) industrial lots on 43.87 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Page 72 Item#4. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 9, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Chewie Subdivision (H-2020-0120) by Kent Brown Planning, Located at 2490 W. Franklin Road and the Lot Directly North A. Request: Preliminary Plat for six (6) industrial lots on 43.87 acres of land in the I-L zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 73 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 9, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4 PROJECT NAME: Chewie Subdivision (H-2020-0120) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#4. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 3/9/2021 Legend EH LEI] DATE: TF FEIIProiect Location TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 _- ( SUBJECT: H-2020-0120 Chewie Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 2490 W.Franklin Road and the lot directly north,in the S F. 1/2of Section 11,Township 3N.,Range - - `--" 1w. E I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary Plat consisting of six (6) industrial lots on 43.87 acres of land in the I-L zoning district, by Kent Brown Planning. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 43.87 acres—zoned I-L Future Land Use Designation High Density Residential(+/-23 acres)and Mixed Employment(+/-20.5 acres) Existing Land Use(s) Single-family residential and agriculture; Small engine repair shop;bus barn;disposal site;and new FedEx distribution center. Proposed Land Use(s) Industrial Warehousing/Distribution(DID3/Amazon delivery station is currently under construction on Lot 1). Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 6 total lots—all industrial building lots Physical Features(waterways, Railroad property abuts property along entire northern hazards,flood plain,hillside) boundary. Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 20,2020—4 attendees; attendees: History(previous approvals) A-2020-0194(DID3 Delivery Station);Property annexed and zoned I-L sometime in the 1970s(exact ordinance unknown). Page 1 Page 74 Item#4. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District 1 • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via a new collector street(shown as N. Hwy/Local)(Existing and New Market Avenue)connection to W.Franklin Road(an Proposed) arterial)in line with the collector street connection on the south side of Franklin. Traffic Level of Service- Franklin Road—Better than"D"(282/1,780 VPH) PM Peak Hour Traffic Count Ten Mile Road(zero frontage)—Better than"D"(942/1,780 VPH) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to construct a new collector street Access through the development stubbing at the west property line and eastern property line via the already approved CZC for DID3 (A-2020-0194).The 6 industrial lots are proposed off of this collector street.Cross-access along Franklin is unknown with the submitted application.Further analysis is below. Existing Road Network No(Franklin Road abutting the site is only existing road) Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is no existing buffer to Franklin Road(the abutting Buffers arterial street)but there is existing detached sidewalk along the property's entire frontage on Franklin Road.The required landscape buffer will be installed with this project. Proposed Road Improvements Via the approved CZC for DID3,the Applicant is required to construct a new collector street across the site(west-east)and connect to Franklin Road in line with New Market on the south side of Franklin. Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1.7 miles to Fuller Park(21.9 acres in size) size Fire Service—No Comments Police Service—No Comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Sewer Shed South Black Cat 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 Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan Page 2 Page 75 Item#4. Description Details Page • Impacts/Concerns Utilities are being reviewed under DID3 (Amazon) application. COMPASS— Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 3,180 Jobs w/in 1 mile 3,270 • Ratio 1.0(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio) Nearest Bus Stop 0.7 miles Nearest Public School 1.3 miles Nearest Public Park 1.7 miles Nearest Grocery Store 2.2 miles Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Section VIII.0 C. Project Area Maps .Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend g i nsi 0 Legend EIProject Location sidential Project Locatic i y. M ® "a,T I General Hi ity Industrial _ R mnra MU-Res Commercial € _U Lowt en ill High Density !ill lilt a E " F Employment Residential Zoning Map .Planned Development Map Legend R� ® 0 Legend ® Id 0 Project Location RUT Project Location K-13L-O R`40 L����G�i ;_i City Limits RRUT C-C R-:1 C-N R._�§ Plann R� ed Parcels _ C-N RUT Ril I=L L O C-C C_C .IFS' I-L ----- - � R-4U RUT TN=C C-C T RUT R-15 TN-G �R1P____ RT$ R-$R-8 RUT R-8 R 4 TN-C E ® E H-E WJ1llR1 E 11 t fl" E RI RUT _� M-E RUT Page 3 Page 76 Item#4. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Same as Representative B. Owner: Michael Adler,Adler AB Owner XI, LLC— 10259 W. Emerald Street, Ste. 100,Boise,ID 83704 C. Representative: Kent Brown Planning—3161 E. Springwood Drive,Meridian, ID 83642 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1/15/2021 2/19/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 1/12/2021 2/16/2021 Site Posting 1/18/2021 2/23/2021 Nextdoor posting 1/12/2021 2/16/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan) The subject property lies within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) and contains two future land use designations that are approximately even in area across the site— Mixed Employment(+/-20.5 acres) and High-Density Residential(+/-23 acres). Mixed-Employment—The purpose of the Mixed Employment areas is to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mixture of office,research and specialized employment areas, light industrial including manufacturing and assembly, and other miscellaneous uses. Mixed Employment areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small,local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or regional enterprises. High-Density Residential—High Density Residential areas are multiple-family housing areas where relatively larger and taller apartment buildings are the recommended building type. High Density Residential areas should include a mix of housing types that achieve an overall average density target of at least 16-25 dwelling units per gross acre.Most developments within the High Density Residential areas should fall within or below this range, although smaller areas of higher or lower density may be included .As noted above the property was annexed and zoned prior to the adoption of the TMISAP. The current zoning allows the property to develop with the freight terminal and other industrial uses. Because much of the development has been approved at an administrative level based on the current zoning, adherence to specific elements of the plan are not feasible. However, the proposed 6-lot industrial subdivision and the existing approval of a large warehouse and delivery station operated by Amazon complies mostly with the Mixed-Employment future land use on this property. This land use and designation ofMixed-Employment also blend better with the adjacent uses and I-L zoning to its west and east. Directly to the west is a new Fed-Ex distribution center and to the east is the bus yard for West Ada and Republic Services'disposal site. Staff believes incorporating a high-density residential Page 4 Page 77 Item#4. project on this site with the surrounding development would not be in the best interest of the City. Furthermore,further to the west and along Ten Mile Road, the City has an approved mixed-use development that will incorporate the type of high-density residential envisioned within the HDR future land use designation and along the railroad corridor. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "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 is typical of an industrial area with large warehouse type structures, as is the case with this property. By extending the collector roadway system through the site from the west, the Applicant is creating an additional way for traffic to flow through these industrial parcels. Specifically, the Applicant is working on an agreement with both West Ada and Republic Services (located to the east) to allow them to use the new collector street to access the required signal at New Market and Franklin and close their existing private access to Franklin along the eastern property line. This is a great benefit for this area as it will combine access points into to minimize curb cuts and access points to Franklin. The Applicant is required to construct a landscape buffer along the entire frontage of Franklin which will help mitigate any noxious uses proposed within this I-L zoning district. "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 arterial network abutting the site to the south and the utility stubs provided by Fed-Ex to the west,per Public Works comments. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal. Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road are built at their ultimate width (5 lane arterial);subject property has excellent access to Interstate 84. ACHD has provided data on the nearby roads and traffic levels of service and provided their support for the proposed subdivision and use. Therefore, 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. "Explore development and implementation of architectural and/or landscape standards for geographic areas of the City."(5.01.02F).As noted, the proposed project site lies within the TMISAP which has specific architectural requirements for new buildings. Again, because this application is not for annexation and zoning and the existing zoning controls,full compliance with all of the requirements in the Ten Mile Plan isn't feasible. However, in order to maintain some compliance with the Ten Mile Plan and ensure elevations along Franklin meet the intent of the plan, Staff is recommending that future buildings along Franklin (Lots 2-6) are held to the Commercial standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. "Plan for industrial areas with convenient access to state highways or the rail corridor,where appropriate."(3.06.02D). The proposed subdivision abuts the rail corridor and is within a half mile of Interstate 84. Future uses on this site will have adequate and convenient access to both facilities which make this industrial area a great location within the City. "Preserve the industrial base within designated industrial land use areas by discouraging non- industrial uses and focusing on light manufacturing, distribution,flex-space, and base- employment." (3.07.0ID).As discussed, of the proposed 6-lot industrial subdivision, one of the lots has already been approved for a large warehouse/delivery station for Amazon. This approved use is in line with what is envisioned for industrial areas, especially those near the interstate and the rail corridor. Because other users are not yet known for the remaining building Page 5 Page 78 Item#4. lots, those uses will be evaluated with each future Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Staff will continue aiming to preserve this area for the envisioned industrial uses. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. Preliminary Plat Analysis C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The site currently houses a dilapidated home and some accessory buildings that were used as a small commercial business in years past. These structures are proposed to be removed upon approval of the preliminary plat. Other than the existing right-of-way improvements along Franklin Road,no other site improvements exist. The proposed plat surrounds an existing residence that is also zoned I-L but is not part of this plat. As part of this plat and roadway extensions,the Applicant is required to provide an access to this property(2340 W. Franklin Road.) from the collector street so that when this outparcel redevelops in the future,their access to Franklin can be closed. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The general proposed use is industrial but end-users are not yet known except for on Lot 1; this 30 acre lot will contain a large delivery station approximately 141,000 square feet in size. This delivery station will be operated by Amazon and was given Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) and Administrative Design Review(DES) approval in Fall 2020. This use is a permitted use within the existing I-L zoning district. Because no uses are currently known for the remaining building lots, Staff cannot review those uses for compliance in the I-L zoning district. However, industrial buildings require CZC and Design Review approval so at that time Staff will evaluate uses for compliance with code on each building lot. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The industrial building 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 the UDC requirements of this code section. F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4)&Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Access is proposed via a new collector street extension from Franklin Road, shown as N.New Market Avenue.New Market is proposed to continue into the site and then head east and west as an extension of W. Fred Smith Street and act as a frontage road for this industrial area.As discussed throughout,the Applicant has received CZC and Design Review approval for a new 141,000 square foot E-commerce delivery station on Lot 1 of this proposed subdivision. That administrative application is for that use as well as the road improvements and subsequent Traffic Impact Study(TIS)that was required. Therefore,this plat does not include the TIS and ACHD referred to their previous approval on A-2020-0194 (DID3 Delivery Station)within their response to the subject plat application. However,because the road extension and overall circulation element of this area is so important, Staff has included the main points of the TIS and ACHD comments as well as analysis on existing access points. Other than the road extension and access points discussed within the TIS, the submitted plat and landscape plan show the existing accesses to Franklin to remain which does not align with code as they will have a lesser classified street(Fred Smith Street is a collector) to take access from. Therefore, these accesses should be closed with curb and gutter upon construction of the new Page 6 Page 79 Item#4. collector roadway.As noted, there is a lot that this preliminary plat surround and contains an existing home that is legal but nonconforming in the I-L zoning district; currently, this home also takes access from Franklin. Commensurate with Staffs previous comment, this access should be closed but because this parcel is not part of this application, Staff cannot require this access to be closed. However, this Applicant should provide a curb cut for this property along the extended W. Fred Smith Street so that when this "outparcel"does redevelop in the future, it will have access to the collector street instead of to Franklin, an arterial. The submitted plans do not show an access being provided to this parcel and this should be corrected prior to Final Plat submittal. Traffic Impact Study Analysis(accepted and analyzed by ACHD under the DID3(Amazon) administrative application): The proposed preliminary plat does not have any known users outside of the approved delivery station. This lone use triggered the requirement of a TIS because it was estimated to generate more than an additional 1,000 vehicle trips per day.DID3 proposed their use thru the CZC process because this property already has zoning and is a permitted use within the I-L zoning district.ACHD reviewed the submitted TIS and generally agreed with the finding and recommendations contained therein. The new collector street required to be constructed with the delivery station will have access to Franklin in two places in the future;the New Market Avenue connection discussed and one off-site and to the west, Wayfinder Avenue. This off-site connection is not yet constructed and the timetable for when it will be is currently unknown as adjacent projects(Fed-Ex and Gateway at 10 Mile) do not include the parcels directly abutting Franklin and therefore cannot construct that right-of-way at this time.Because of this, Fed-Ex was approved(at staff level due to existing zoning) with a temporary driveway access to Franklin—this Applicant and the TIS have indicated that the Amazon DID3 traffic will not be using this driveway for any access. Since Wayfinder will not be constructed, the traffic volumes for the collector street and New Market access to Franklin is an estimated 2,405 vehicle trips per day, according to the TIS. ACHD policy allows up to 3,000 trips per day on a collector street that is the sole access to a development therefore,future uses within this subdivision cannot increase the daily trip count by more than 595 combined. Future development should be monitored to ensure the overall trip count is not exceeded without constructing the additional access point and right-of-way to Franklin;this may limit future development until such time the second access is constructed In addition to the traffic volumes produced by the new delivery station, the Applicant's TIS also included the traffic from West Ada School District(WASD)bus yard and Republic Services'disposal station located directly west of the subject property. These volumes were included because the new east-west collector roadway should also serve these sites when constructed. Therefore, these sites would also utilize the new signal at the intersection of Franklin and New Market. The existing private road for WASD and Republic Services that is restricted to an exit-only access cannot be closed with this application because it is not apart of this property. In addition, the City cannot force WASD and Republic Services to use this new collector roadway once it is constructed because they already have their entitlements and zoning.However, this Applicant and representatives from both WASD and Republic Services are working out a binding agreement to close this exit-only private drive and utilize the new collector street and remove an existing arterial access point.Staff is appreciative of this work being done by the Applicant and outside agencies. To help ensure this access can occur for all parties involved,ACHD recommends constructing the segment of W. Fred Smith Street as a private street east of the intersection of New Market and Fred Smith instead of a public road. This recommendation is being made because this segment of the collector roadway is over 150'in length and would require to be terminated in a Page 7 Page 80 Item#4. temporary cul-de-sac at the eastern property line. This cul-de-sac would require a large area of buildable industrial land and still be providing an access to WASD and Republic Services. Staff agrees with ACHD's recommendation to construct this short segment of the collector roadway as a private street instead of a public road for the reasons stated and because this collector roadway is not expected to continue further east due to existing industrial development that may never redevelop.In addition to the private street, the Applicant, WASD, and Republic Services should enter into a cross-access agreement for this segment ofprivate street to ensure continued access to the collector roadway, W. Fred Smith Street. G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B for industrial buildings based on gross floor area(1 space per 2,000 square feet of area). Compliance with this standard will be reviewed upon future proposed uses and CZC applications. The already approved delivery station is providing parking well in excess of code minimums. H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed along the public collector street extension as part of the overall pedestrian circulation and landscape plan,in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Dedicated multi-use pathways are not required or proposed in this industrial area but the addition of detached sidewalks would connect to new signals and existing pedestrian facilities which will help pedestrians and cyclists nearby get to these future uses and add an element of safety by being detached from the right-of-way. Staff supports the sidewalk and pedestrian circulation plan for this development. I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W. Franklin Road, an arterial roadway, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide buffer is depicted on the landscape plans starting at the edge of right-of-way and includes the existing detached sidewalk along Franklin,meeting the UDC requirements. There is also a required 20-foot wide landscape buffer on both sides adjacent to W. Fred Smith Street,the proposed industrial collector roadway. The submitted landscape plan shows a compliant buffer on the south side but the plans to do not show the north side buffer because it is being constructed with the DID3 site improvements. Commercial and Industrial areas do not require the landscape buffers to be within common lots and instead can be within easements. The submitted plat does not appear to show the required easements for these buffers but does show the correct amount of landscaping per the UDC standards. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to show the required buffers within easements prior to Final Plat submittal—the plat should show the easements on both sides of the collector roadway regardless of when it is being constructed. Note: The Amazon (DID3)delivery station received design review exceptions for their south facing loading docks by incorporating additional architectural elements and landscaping above code requirements directly abutting W. Fred Smith Street. See Section VII.Cfor those approved landscape plans. J. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing appears to be proposed but any future fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. K. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): No buildings are proposed with this preliminary plat application.As discussed above,Lot 1 has already received both CZC and Design Review approval for a large delivery station. Because this Page 8 Page 81 Item#4. previous approval exists and no new buildings are proposed with this application, Staff does not find it appropriate to discuss the approved elevations for the DID3 warehouse. Future industrial buildings require Design Review approval and as discussed in the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff believes future buildings along Franklin Road should be held to the commercial architectural standards instead of the industrial to ensure adequate integration with Franklin Road and those residential and commercial zones on the south side of Franklin. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat application per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 4,2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Preliminary request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Kent Brown,Applicant Representative b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Kent Brown d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Road layout and estimated additional vehicle trips per day as noted in the Traffic Impact Study. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. outstanding issues for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 9 Page 82 Item#4. VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(dated: 11/13/2020) LMON Paao-7C&qLgr&W Af I I k I k I I IM I I} I� � F I � I I� LOT 1 a M-3t ACRES i i I I I �I f I 5 96_�9'14_E 22209' I 15 89'19'2S- E t I I �I I I I {I a I 22B' -'--—Y-- 6,--'�-F i2' I i zw.11' Ie I { NOT LOT c l a I- LOT 2 LOT 3 g LOT # 8 LOT 5 A I _ 6 I 1.9t ACRES �ri 1.9t ACRES Iki 1-9f ACRES I+s 1.9f ACRES I PART w I ' I i'k", 2-5f ACRES �I I .$, N 80'tw1z, w ow-ay W 991 2'W W a73-as' Page 10 Page 83 Item#4. N 444M PAEW C RAKM A0 �t 9 I x 5 }s5 �� _ x� 'S }y x4 `',� 1'=100' U-- ;i ' •ra•nim,a C+,lIOII OXMUR IBIM&= Y I II 4� I, r` 30_3f ACRES I IIII I � ---------- NOT �t w oflr�iRr STR££F fF I F'S LOT 2 LOT I d '`f LOT 5 LOT & I , I 1.9f ACRES I 1,9t AC 5 I 1. A � 1.9f A*s � j PART i n 2.5.L ACRES I }I - --r, r T_� x ' L , , II mI Page 11 Page 84 B. Landscape Plans(date: 10/16/2020) --------------------- CL LL fL Nz To at Z RL NI LLJ LLJ �---------- 9aoc |2 Item#4. I D r m O h 1d m 1I •m 7 ` •3 is s-: > a I i pz D ® aooCoOOao "00C-)C 0 o oFn q s " cs s f> R a gg i m o CHFWIF SUBDIVISION Li�l FHANKLIN ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO LANDSCAPE PLAN - AREA ONE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL Page 13 Page 86 Item#4. r " I — _ y N. D ` z f. i 1 I Cc: o z a R �.p z x . ccu'i ® 000QD O 0 t� 0 � a m � a � � , $ s � g 4 �� � €• c gm m j m a 0. V I Dom° y § e 3 A m ms "z �kB �, g I CHEWIE SUBDIVISION FRANKLIN ROAD Y iv ns� MERIDIAN, IDAHO ' LANDSCAPE PLAN - ARE TWO = PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL ...., _.,.- Page 14 Page 87 Item#4. ... _ -_----------- F .r: am d8 m r / m _ y A a I'1 f/I1 tRf C'l. Ii o d _.—_�__� NCFITFI LILAC AVENUE .._..._..._..._..._...0 v� —,17 ,a. _—_---_ .iy�•• iw 9Y - " 4 C"p Z q a `� ` % 5 m n ® O o O b 0 0 0 4 0 V)oc.J ?(J�, �m m . .� m z m z m 2 7- �� r g � �➢ � � � 9 E o s Vie€ � a� £� a �s � $��m `�. 0. D� D effi s Ti_ — CHEWIE SUBDIVISION 1 m S FRANKLIN ROAD w s _ MERIDIAN, IDAHO 3 ao LANDSCAPE PLAN — ARE THREE _ PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL Page 15 Page 88 N&lTffLILAC AVENUE .... -—-—-—-—-—-- Z- c9 EXISTING WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT ACCESS DRIVE IT c ED 0 0 -A cj) 6) 0 0 0 s 9 IT 2m Fn 71 0 q 1 IT Fn 7 a "N z N CHEWIE SUBDIVISION FRANKLIN ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO LANDSCAPE PLAN - ARE FOUR PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL Page 16 n" NNNM 14140 v4 4 im m ,T 'I z 4 T'N z L 33 ZIZI c m co r- m go 0 z ull 1-6�R Pq om P, W m 0 ��v CZ llq Ig I G) o gj 0'.sl q z CHEWIE SUBDIVISION FRANKLIN ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO LANDSCAPE DETAILS U75- i -1- ;'."' = PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL Page 17 Item#4. C. DID3 (Amazon)Delivery Station Approved Landscape Plans LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE LEGEND RECUREMENTS Y"•II" Plfifl1911tt PEAIEl9t LY�9G/E -__ ,. -------- --- I _ �n 111i1x,nll..l... I -- -- I , � 111111111111 1�11111111.-1 1�11111111111 1�� I �3 - -- Kil [ [ 1 I I , it I 1 . b TOVERALL LANDSCAPE PLAhI .w.. 41 Page 18 Page 91 Item#4. 1 1cm ---- I ; 1 em _J 1 A a I u 1 l O ¢ > 4¢ ¢4 O e a Q e O ¢ } O Oe ap ¢pe { LANDSCAPE PLAN-AREA FIVE VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.A,dated November 13,2020, shall be revised as follows prior to Final Plat submittal: a. Close the existing access points to Franklin Road shown on Lots 3 &4,per UDC 11- 3A-3. b. Provide and visually show an access to the Morrow property(Parcel#S1211438440) from the new collector street,W. Fred Smith Street. c. Revise the plat to show the collector street(W. Fred Smith Street) segment east of N. New Market Avenue as a private street commensurate with ACHD recommendations. d. Depict the required landscape buffer easements on the plat where applicable (adjacent to Franklin Road,New Market Avenue, and W. Fred Smith Street). Page 19 Page 92 Item#4. e. Revise the plat to show the required lot AND block for the proposed subdivision— submitted plat does not list any block numbers. 2. The landscape plan included in Section VII.B, dated October 16,2020, shall be revised as follows prior to submittal of the Final Plat application: a. Show the required 20-foot landscape buffer on the north side of the collector street (W. Fred Smith Street)regardless of if it will be constructed with a different application. 3. Future buildings along Franklin Road shall meet the Commercial standards outlined in the City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). 4. With Final Plat submittal,the Applicant shall provide the recorded cross-access and maintenance agreement with West Ada School District(WASD) and Republic Services to allow these agencies to utilize the private road segment of W. Fred Smith Street. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2C-3. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the standards listed in UDC 11-2C for the I-L zoning district. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6B for industrial uses based on the gross floor area of buildings. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for all fixture structures within the subdivision,where applicable,prior to applying for building permits on each site. 10. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC I I-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The angle of the sanitary sewer pipe into and out of manhole SSMH-Al needs to be 90- degrees minimum. 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 of the City's Design Standards. Streetlights shall be installed and operational prior to any new occupancy. 1.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). By entering into a development agreement with the City of Page 20 Page 93 Item#4. Meridian,the applicant agrees to use the City of Meridians recycled water supply as the source of irrigation water.Further,the applicant agrees to provide for secondary backup water to provide service when recycled water is not available. 1.4 Once development plans have been submitted to the city for review,the city will model the recycled water system and make a final determination regarding our ability to supply reclaimed water to the development. If the city can serve the development with recycled water then recycled water must be utilized as the irrigation source of water, and a secondary or backup source must also be provided. If the city can't serve the development then the primary source of irrigation water should come from surface water irrigation sources if available. 1.5 The applicant shall be responsible to construct the recycled irrigation system in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)recycled water rules and regulations, and Division 1200 of the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications and Drawings to the Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction. 1.6 These requirements do not wave the applicants responsibilities or obligations to irrigation districts. 1.7 Applicant shall enter into a Shared User Agreement for use of the recycled water system. 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. Page 21 Page 94 Item#4. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 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. Page 22 Page 95 Item#4. 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. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219142&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv D. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:11web1ink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219003&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219528&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219010&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220316&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty H. ITD MEMO https://weblink.meridiancitr.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218494&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Page 23 Page 96 Item#4. IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, generally complies with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property.ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has issued a staff report outlining their conditions of approval. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 24 Page 97 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) by The Land Group, Inc., Located Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved. B. A Rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from the WE zoning district to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment. C. A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2018-079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. FaLge05 Item#5. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: March 9, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) by The Land Group, Inc., Located Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. A Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved. B. A Rezone of a total of 9.8 acres of land from the WE zoning district to the R- 15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment. C. A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2018-079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 106 I PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: March 9, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Aviator Subdivision (H-2020-0111) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#5. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING March 9,2021 Legend DATE: Project Location �� m TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0111 Aviator Subdivision h LOCATION: The site is located near the northeast corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd., directly north of Compass ------ Public Charter School,in the SW '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 10,Township 3N., Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted requests for the following: • Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to return the subject site back to the future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR) for the purpose of developing the site with residential instead of a school site as previously approved; • Rezone a total of 9.8 acres of land from the M-E zoning district to the R-15 zoning district to align with the proposed map amendment; and • Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2018-079763) for the purpose of removing the subject property from the boundaries and terms of the previous agreement and enter into a new one, consistent with the proposed residential concept plan,by the Land Group, Inc. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 9.8 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Employment—Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single-Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) No plat is being requested at this time Physical Features(waterways, Purdam Gulch Drain runs diagonal through site from the hazards,flood plain,hillside) southeast corner to the northwest corner.Applicant intends to tile a majority of this drain and realign it to make better Page 1 Page 107 Item#5. Description Details Page utilization of the property and green space with future plat application. Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 13,2020,on-site meeting—3 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2018-0048(Compass Charter School AZ,CPAM;DA Inst.#2018-079763). 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 future extension of W.Aviator Street, Hwy/Local)(Existing and designated as a towncenter collector street on the Master Proposed) Street Map(MSM)and within the TMISAP(two lanes of travel with on-street bike lanes). There is no plat proposed with this application but there will be local street connections off of the Aviator extension. Traffic Level of Service Black Cat Road—Better than"B"(446/575 VPH) W.Aviator Street—no known traffic counts at this time. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to extend W.Aviator Street and bring Access it through the subject site and stub it to the eastern property boundary north of the irrigation district pump station in the southeast corner of the site upon future submittal of a preliminary plat. Existing Road Network W.Aviator ends in a temporary turnaround approximately 200 feet along the property's southern boundary.Next closest street is N.Black Cat Road,an arterial,and is in the ACHD CIP for widening in 2031-2035. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not proposing any road improvements at this time.When a preliminary plat is requested in the future,the applicant will be required to extend W.Aviator Street and stub it to their east property boundary. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Fuller Park(21.96 acres)— 1.3 miles by foot;approximately size) 1.7 miles by vehicle. Fire Service Comments Because no plat is being proposed,MFD did not offer any comments at this time.In general,project will be limited to no more than 30 homes off of singular access unless all homes are s rinklered. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 5 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4 '/2 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. • Additional Concerns None Page 2 Page 108 wBig ■■■'� ■o:-■■1111111 nun • �� '-,„ f,3',F- rno - �•11111n1111 IIIII=_ --� • �' ,,. --- Y_' 1- ` I I �•IIIII==_e=°°° � - r IIn\�\�II�Clllt lli111111111111111 I L -`� - _. I -' �Z' ■1 I � � fRANKLI�N I� - 1 � �FRANKLIN ■111 __ 11 - l f. 1111,� I11"IG Ito • • - �1111111 1111111__� 01�1 - .p;� � nos ;�; 4q - �:•1»� _ I ' 1 ' •! 1 I I 1 ■ -- R~ •���� •i' fir' ��Illlp� -•" �i:- �:'- IIIII RIIIIIIII � " ^• em''■ ly'1�■■■■■■■■■i-��-pI1n1 111 n■1■111n111 1II1nl llllllul I��i4�'= ', U9�UCJ • • 1l1l1u11�■�.�111/'- _' • 1■11■■11 11111111■I►�%ile= _�:� � w� ■■ ■��v1•nnlm ' Ilnu"'� v1•nlTllnl,pn Innuli s•Imll IIIIIII ■ IIIII='- __--}I III 'I - --�i ■ IIIII ee.----■- 711111 -IIIIr „ 'I� ♦,IIIII=_�•--- IIIII r•�� ■■ .IIIII=-., -7N11111 � Innl.____99�='.nmum■ \•�' ■,r =: :..IIIII"'+ L■n\\�II�CIII�IIIIIIInlnnllnnln �Ii~� 1 n►`\�u=_II�amnnmm�nnm JIIIIII�� I�, I"IIIIIII, '�, n■ r nun -- Illln ".e. Ilnll nn■IId11n111111111111 ■ IIIII jjjj, ..IIIII tl..IIIII IIIII nnm nnm rr■■� =nmm nnl== ill 11 Item#5. IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification l/l/2021 2/19/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 12/29/2020 2/16/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 1/11/2021 2/24/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 12/29/2020 2/16/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT(CPAM) The Applicant is requesting to modify the comprehensive plan map for the subject parcel in order to allow for residential zoning and uses instead of Mixed Employment or other industrial uses. The current future land use is Mixed Employment which encourage research and development, office, light- industrial,information, and other ancillary commercial uses. Instead,the applicant is requesting to return the property to its original future land use of Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR). This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to fifteen dwelling units per acre. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The subject 9.8 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2018 with the Compass Charter School application and received CPAM approval at that time to change the underlying land use from medium- high density residential to mixed employment. The 2018 request and subsequent approval to change the future land use from residential to more of a commercial or industrial land use was so the new school could be constructed and an adjacent county landscaping business could be annexed into the City and still comply with code. Currently,these mixed employment parcels are the outliers in an area surrounded by parcels designated for medium-high and high density residential. At the time, it was determined that the map change was applicable because the subject parcel was conceptually shown with a sports field,track, and stadium and was the school's avenue for annexation into the City of Meridian in 2018. However,in 2020, Compass Charter received approval to modify their concept plan and Development Agreement to move their sports field to a more adjacent parcel to the new school. Therefore,this 9.8 acre parcel is no longer part of the long-term plan for the school and was subsequently sold to its current owners. In addition to the outcomes of the subject parcel,directly west of this site Hensley Station is currently under construction as a medium-high density residential subdivision and less than a half mile to the east of the subject site additional high-density residential projects are currently underway. In addition, directly south of Franklin Road is a larger area of the Ten Mile Plan with a mix of residential, commercial, employment,and industrial zoning. If this parcel is to remain with its current zoning and future land use, Staff believes it would essentially be a random area of commercial zoning and would be very difficult to properly mitigate any noxious uses from occurring. Because the Applicant is proposing to return the parcel back to its original future land use designation and become a more compatible land use to its neighbors, Staff supports the requested map amendment. Page 4 Page 110 Item#5. B. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION(MDA) The subject parcel is still subject to the existing Development Agreement and concept plan from the Compass Charter School annexation(Inst. #2018-079763)that shows this site containing the football field,track, and stadium for Compass Charter. As noted,the school is no longer going forward with this plan and received other approvals from the City to annex an adjacent parcel and construct a play field on it instead. Therefore,in conjunction with the CPAM to change the future land use from mixed employment to residential,this DA Modification request is for the purpose of removing this parcel from that agreement to enter into a new agreement consistent with the proposed residential concept plan(see Section VII. The proposed concept plan includes the required extension of W. Aviator Street along its southern boundary and then its eventual stub to the east property line within the property. Further analysis of this extension is below in the Rezone analysis. In addition,the concept plan shows single-family attached homes that are a mix of alley-loaded and front loaded homes; a large number of the homes are proposed to have front porches facing green space within the development and along the buffer to W. Aviator. The applicant is showing a local street that loops through the site and connects to Aviator near the southwest and southeast corners of the property allowing for an easy flow of traffic through the site. If the Applicant does not receive the requested map amendment approval,this concept plan,requested R-15 zoning, and conceptual residential use would become null and void. Because the development plan for this site has completely changed from the school site development previously approved and the terms of the agreement are therefore no longer applicable, Staff is amenable to the request for a new DA to replace the existing agreement based on the proposed concept plan;the provisions for the new DA are included in Section VIII.A.1 and the concept plan for the overall site is included in Section VII.D. REZONE(RZ) Lastly,the Applicant is requesting a Rezone of the 9.8 acre parcel, currently zoned Mixed Employment (M-E). This request hinges on the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Mixed Employment to Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR). If the map amendment is approved,the Applicant is requesting to rezone this property to the R-15 zoning district to allow for a future single- family residential development—no preliminary plat application is being proposed at this time because development of the property as residential hinges solely on receiving the map amendment approval. As discussed in the CPAM analysis section above, Staff is supportive of a residential development at this location. This property also lies within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and the Applicant has revised the concept plan numerous times in order to better meet the guidelines and preferences of the Ten Mile Plan. Specifically, the Applicant's concept plan depicts a mix of homes that will be alley-loaded or rear-loaded with the dwellings fronting on green space and homes that are more garage dominant. However, even the garage dominant units are proposed to meet the Ten Mile Plan by bringing the building closer to the street to establish a more uniform street presence and support a pedestrian environment as seen in the conceptual elevations and floor plans in Section VILE. Specific guidelines and policies within the Ten Mile Plan and the general Comprehensive Plan will be analyzed with a future preliminary plat. However, because the Applicant is not concurrently applying for a preliminary plat, these conceptual elevations,floor plans, and site plan will be made part of the Development Agreement to ensure substantial compliance with what is currently being proposed. Furthermore, Staff believes the proposed elevations are more in line with the Ten Mile Plan than previous iterations. Staff anticipates some tweaks to the site plan but nothing substantial-if the site plan changes substantially, a new DA Modification application will be required. Page 5 Item#5. Transportation: Concept plans within Development Agreements are heavily driven by road layouts and the transportation element of society. Therefore, it is important to discuss access for this project in a separate section within this staff report regardless of the fact no preliminary plat is currently being proposed. Access is proposed via extension of a collector street(W.Aviator Street)and a subsequent local street off of said collector. W. Aviator currently provides one of the accesses to the Compass Charter School and will provide access to Hensley Station Subdivision, directly west of the subject site. Due to the pattern of development,Aviator will only be extended to the east boundary of the subject site and not connect to any other major road until such time that more parcels develop to the south and east of the subject site. This is one more reason why the Applicant is not choosing to submit a preliminary plat at this time. Because of this,it is imperative that the conceptual layout of Aviator is well thought out and shown in a position that allows for fair and convenient extension in the future. The original concept plan submitted by the Applicant depicts Aviator continuing on its current path and heading due east through two parcels that are not currently annexed into the city and terminating at the western boundary of an irrigation parcel with unknown owners (a parcel containing a segment of the Purdam Gulch Drain). Both City Staff and ACHD believe this conceptual configuration for Aviator would be both costly and very difficult to execute because it would have to cross the drain in more than one location and there is no guarantee those permits would be allowed by its administrator. Staff shared these concerns with the Applicant and they revised the concept plan to show a more appropriate extension ofAviator. Staff is appreciative of the Applicant's ability to work with Staff and revise the layout for the above reasons. The revised concept plans (Section VII.D) now show Aviator heading northeast into the parcel from its terminus in front of the Compass Charter expansion, crossing the drain once, and then stubbing to the east property line north of the irrigation pump station in the southeast corner of the subject site. This new configuration allows for future extension ofAviator to occur without a need to cross the drain again and not require this Applicant to acquire land from the two county parcels to its south. This new layout generally depicts the same internal layout with some shifting of the site to the east to accommodate easements. In addition, the revised concept plan appears to lose much of its central green space but has more green space in other areas of the site. If possible, with future development applications, the Applicant should work to utilize more of the site to provide more central open space. The revised road layout and land area lost to right-of-way may lend itself to a mix of single family and multi family to help the property reach the density range for MHDR. Staff believes tying the DA to this revised concept plan is applicable but all parties should be aware that any significant changes will require a future DA Modification application. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment,modification to the existing Development Agreement,and Rezone per the provisions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 4,2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment,Development Agreement Modification,and Rezone requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Kristen McNeill, The Land Group; Matthew Adams, The Land Group b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Kristen McNeill; Matthew Adams Page 6 Page 112 Item#5. d. Written testimony: One item from Mrs. Bowery—Applicant clarified neighbor's questions prior to the hearing and she was satisfied with the answers. e. Staff presenting application: f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. None 3. Key issues)of discussion by Commission: a. Location of drain on property and whether it is intended to be relocated,piped, or both; b. Willingness of Nampa-Meridian to allow any section of the drain to be piped— Applicant has had preliminary discussions with irrigation district and the,, are in support; c. Concern of future plat and its layout in regards to open space and the common drive shown. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant has not provided Planning Staff with revised rezone exhibits as noted in the conditions of approval. Page 7 Page 113 Item#5. VII. EXHIBITS A. Conceptual Development Plan Included in Existing Development Agreement ni 1 I i C•103Q Page 8 Page 114 Item#5. B. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map LEGAL DESCRIPTION ■s � Page 1 OF 1 LAND GROUP November 10,2020 Project No.:120D35 R/Z EXHIBIT CITY OF MERIDIAN REZONE FROM M-E TO R-15 DESCRIPTION An area of land situate in Southwest Quarter of Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the West Quarter Corner of said Section 10[from which the Southwest Corner of said Section 10 bears South 00"38'57"West,2653.05 feet distant];Thence on the west section line of said Section 10,South 0D°38'57"West,1565.22 feet;Thence leaving said west section line,South 89'15'44" East,25.00 feet to a point common with the easterly right of way line of North Black Cat Road and the northerly right of way line of West Aviator Street;Thence on said northerly right of way line,South 89"1544"East,470.45 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence leaving said northerly right of way line,North 00°36'41"East,626.77 feet to a point on the centerline of the 200 foot right of way of the Union Pacific Railroad; Thence Dn said centerline right of way line,South 88'25'50"East,824.18 feet; Thence leaving said centerline right of way line,South 00"36'4 1"West,614.80 feet; Thence North 89'15'44"West,101.63 feet; Thence North 00'44'16"East,46.00 feet; Thence North 89'15'44"West,32.00 feet; Thence South 00'44'16"West,46.00 feet; Thence North 89'15'44"West,484.59 feet to a point common with the northerly and easterly right of way line of West Aviator Street; Thence on said easterly right of way line,South 00'36'4 1"West,27.50 feet to the centerline of said West Aviator Street; Thence on said centerline of West Aviator Street,North 89'15'44"West,205.91 feet; Thence leaving said centerline,North 00'44'16"East,27.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described area of land contains 11.84 acres,more or less. PREPARED BY: ",pl.LAJy The Land Group,Inc. WH O��GENSE G� Michael Femenia,PLS a 13 ❑ �6 '5 T OF\DA ARL S. 402 East Shore Drive.Suite 100,Eagle,Idaho 83616 208-939.4041 ihelandgrouplm-rom Page 9 Page 115 Item#5. W1/4 COR. ccr SEC.10 x4� R/W— R/W R/VJ --R/W- R/W —R/W o UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIC,HT—OF-WAY 1 S88°25'50"E 824. 8� All— PN88°25'50"W 495.26 — — — — -- - Line Table 'yNL LA N APN:S1210325951 I � \C Ns s�� w COMPASS PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOL INC W G N BLACK CAT RD `r LINE BEARING LENGTH o 9.85 Acres± n r, 5 02�) L1 N89°15'44"W 101.63' 0 REZONE AREA:17.84 Acres± �I L2 N00°44'16"E 46.00' c.r FROM:M-E T0:R-15 I L3 N89°15'44"W 32.00' q `t2 t1/1C/?07U L4 S00°44'16"W 46.00' O �cm o S89°15'44"E 25.00' � POB L3� i L5 SOO°36'41"W 27.50' �� N R89v15'44"E 470.54'R /// L7 N89°15'44"W_484.59' L1 m � W. AVIATOR STREET ; L5 1 L6 N89°1544"W 205.91' 0 R/W�� 1L6! 32.00' L7 N00°44'16"E 27.50' Rezone = r for cc Compass Public SW COR. F, SE0.16 Charter School, Inc. Situate in a Portion of the SW 114 of Section 10 .� 5 Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian W R m City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho ram+ N RIZ Exhbit 2020 0 200' 400' i� cc 4 ``\ Horizontal Scale-1"=200' PmleciNo.:120035 1 of 1 Date of Issuance:Number 10,2020 Page 10 Page 116 C. New Concept Plan(date: 8/03/2020)NOT APPROVED —rLAN' THE GRODUP IU 111W-11WAY I-T-l-]-T- L j Jji 'I d Lt .......... h.puty 0-- -T-H Tffl T CM Ci -i I LL L�-i E.g...11 L..d—p.A.hit.d,MI.—,:7 vv THE LAND 3R—N�C�f.IPMM Call_T '1_ 1-1 F-T,FT, -Fr Tti"T IIFFNj al t rA L V, -T—JU—B" F� ompo ER'SrCHOOL N- CONCEPT SITE PI C6.00 Page 11 D. Revised Concept Plan and Revised Road Layout(dated: 1/13/202 1) MTHE LIFILAII Proles Summary: GROUP ----7TTTTTT-MTFTjTT 41 Z..Irg 11Squirerark- JAIAILIJALULLq��: -,.T T 'TT"I .......... Ropirty Ommur, j 1111T.1-11111 11 El- J4 �j-wj LI Engirmar,Landscape Architect,Man— THE LANI SPOUP I <91STFf,4M17NFr I 1-ILH -E 00-WTHNT-SPLA-ES COW-110-i-I--VEYCH) 1111H,11 EW 1H K, J,. I 'A �,COMPASS tRTER SCHOOL TT Y CONGER SIR PW, I D CONCEPT SITE PLAN C6.00 Page 12 Item#5. IAII ' THE THE GROUP V.P,RR.PoGHT-0E-WAY 6 PLAN LEGEND: ME IU R sub GIVISIGN PARCEL 11E0A1-HIGH 0fN91TY RE910ENTIAL �� •++„�-� RRAC AVIATG—TIGHT RG-CT0iING ROAO L1A991FILATION'.COLLECTOR AVIATOR SUBDIVISION PARCEL wEST nvInTOR srREET ROW - APPROXIPIRTE f-RE ALIGNMEW •£I I� RDAO G—FIGATIGN',COLLECTOR i•�I�—_I. - '�, P�AMn�NraATAPPL�NTnn � 3�ES1 EFEIIJ�E.pIF�� l Pro ertlwne Or: p 3T rtVfAT�R STREET-FO veestlnerrtmuattas caoua.LLc y —Elo—2sr tYN O J o J �F { En sneer Landsna a Archdeci Planner: (— _ 1 9 P e — — �\,�: aoNTm,NRIrT1v IAONNLLmIAnNERJ C.fe _I mz LONT.L 11..TiNE'A']AIMS FLANC X]9FDRj HITFLf' — 4i �xf�- \ �'n COITY 1E100L9' NC StIR IFYOA _ - } iPGLL, D6 6 611 •„„ 5 � f �+1 � BOWERY PARCEL =x �3R 4:'n ICI ROXM PARCEL qqq� d1k a ,¢OMPASS TER SCHOOL �. 11 -_ eat. e __ - - t. I I I' If:I � I� 'J � I I,, caacErlrnleu:' CONCEPT SITE PLAN C6.00 Page 13 Page 119 Item#5. E. Conceptual Building Elevations and Floor Plan c r .y t rf, i J� II OA AG F X DRIVGWAY �hrlq F u++a i P CH h� STREET SIDE STREET SIDE Conceptual Neighborhood Housing Type Pion Page 14 Page 120 Item#5. ' s Mkd A# 61�1T I lx- - EAST ELEVLTION Conceptual Neighborhood Housing Type Oetration Page 15 Page 121 Item#5. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Development Agreement Modification: 1. The subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. #2018-079763)upon the property owner(s)entering into a new agreement. The new DA shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the City within six(6)months of City Council granting the approval of the rezone. The new DA shall include the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, conceptual road layout, and conceptual elevations and floor plan exhibits included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. c. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the neighborhood design elements outlined in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) and the guidelines for the Medium-High Density Residential future land use designation within the TMISAP. d. Future residential development shall be constructed within a gross density range of 8-12 dwelling units per acre. e. The Applicant shall construct W.Aviator substantially consistent with the configuration shown on the Revised Road Layout(Exhibit VII.D). f. No building permits shall be issued for this development until the property has been subdivided. g. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing, The Applicant shall submit revised Rezone legal descriptions that include the NMID pump station parcel that was illegally split from this parcel in the past. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 No proposed changes to public sewer and water Infrastructure have been presented within this record. Any changes or modifications,to the Public Sewer Infrastructure, shall be reviewed and approved by Public Works. C. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218962&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiV&cr =1 D. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218983&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219210&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX Page 16 Page 122 Item#5. IX. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment(UDC 11-511-71)) 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 amendment to the comprehensive plan,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the comprehensive plan. Commission finds the proposed map amendment is consistent with other elements of the comprehensive plan as discussed in Section V. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. As outlined in Section V, Commission finds the proposed map amendment is an improved guide to future growth for the subject property. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the goals,objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. Commission finds that due to the adjacent development and order of development, the proposed map amendment will be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with this Unified Development Code. No development is proposed with this application but Commission finds the proposed use of residential is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Commission finds the map amendment makes the subject property more compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Because the Applicant will provide public utility extensions at their own cost with future development applications, Commission finds the proposed map amendment will not burden any service capabilities. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Commission finds the proposed map amendment allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated or unanticipated impacts associated with future development of the site. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. As outlined in Section V, Commission finds the proposed map amendment is in the best interest of the City. B. 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: Page 17 Page 123 Item#5. 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the Applicant's proposal to rezone the 9.8 acre property to the R-15 zoning district is consistent with the requested future land use designation of Medium-High Density Residential as noted above in Section V.B with Staffs recommended provisions. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed map amendment and concept plan comply with the purpose statement of the residential district in a conceptual nature as no specific development is currently proposed. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed use should be compatible with adjacent existing residential properties to the west and the school property to the south. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed rezone is in the best interest of the City. Page 18 Page 124