Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-04-06 Regular Meeting
City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, April 06, 2021 at 6:00 PM 6:12 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87836542487 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 878 3654 2487 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Liz Strader PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA 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. Meridian High School Boy's Basketball State Champions Day 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. Public Hearing for Scentsy Warehouse 4 (H-2021-0011) by Kristen McNeill of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 2499 E. Pine Ave. Approved A. Request: Easement Vacation to vacate a utility easement established along the interior lot line of Block 6 of the Gemtone Center No. 5 (now Lot 7 of the Scentsy Commons Subdivision). Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek Continued to May 11, 2021 A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Motion to continue to May 11, 2021 made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 4. Ordinance No. 21-1926: An Ordinance (H-2020-0112 – Tetherow Crossing Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the SW ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 8.12 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 5. Ordinance No. 21-1927: An Ordinance (H-2020-0105 – Cache Creek Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the SE ¼ of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Being and Comprising of a Portion of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and All of Lots 1, 2 and 7, Block 1 of the Kachina Estates, Filed in Book 35, Pages 3016-3017 on November 15, 1974 in the Office of the Ada County Recorder and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 15.18 Acres of Land from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 8:21 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council April 6, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:12 p.m., Tuesday, April 6, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault and Brad Hoaglun. Members Absent: Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, Garrett White, Mark Ford, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: So, with that, Council, we will come to order. For the record it is April 6, 2021, at 6:12 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all rise. Please join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item is the community invocation, which will be delivered by Rabbi Dan Fink this evening. If you would all, please, join us in this invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Rabbi Fink. Fink: Thank you. We pray. Creator, Sustainer, Source of Justice and Mercy, we gather in this time virtually and in person to continue the work of creating compassionate and caring community. Guide the work of our hands, our heads, and our hearts that it may promote the well being of all the residents we are bound to serve to the very best of our abilities. Open our eyes to the beauty of this springtime season, to the hope it offers for renewal, healing, and growth. Grant us insight, courage, and dedication as we carry out the sacred calling of governance. We recognize and honor the cherished ties that bind the entire body politic in a web of interdependence and shared responsibility. May our leaders lead not only with their words, but by their deeds and moral example in promoting the common good. Holy One, grant our leaders the wisdom to guide our future and the Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 2-" patience to secure it. May they govern with compassion for all whose destinies who will be shaped by the decisions that they render and let us say amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you, Rabbi. Appreciate it. Council, next item is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: No changes, so I adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. 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 and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. PROCLAMATIONS [Action Item] 1. Meridian High School Boy's Basketball State Champions Day Simison: Okay. Well, with that we will move on down to the podium for a proclamation for Meridian High School Boys Basketball State Champions Day. If I could have the coach and players join me at the podium that would be great. Well, coach -- coach, if you think it's weird for you, I quit playing basketball about fifth grade. I think I learned my lesson early on from that standpoint. Excited for today. This is the third high school in Meridian that has won a state championship this year and have some of your cohorts from the wrestling team coming in next week. So,just want to first give a shout out to the Warriors. I know going through the years where you are adding new schools and seeing things change, but we are excited to have a great competition amongst all of our schools and many of all the sports and we are excited here to recognize you for your accomplishment today and overall it's been a great day. We got to start off with a little Coffee With The Mayor. We are getting back in-person events. I know you guys got to get through the season, but congratulations on that. We are just going to do a reading of the proclamation and, then, we have some pins for you -- City of Meridian pins that, hopefully, you can Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 3-— wear, hold on to. But I'm going to do the version of the proclamation without your names, because even trying to get past the first names can be sometimes a challenge. Jeff, I got -- I got that one. But you are named -- we do have a version of the proclamation that will be put into the record with all your names, so it will be at least on record here at the City of Meridian for all eternity. So, after I do the proclamation I would love for each you to come forward and state your name, the position you play, so we have that as well. And your year in school. And with that we will go ahead and do the proclamation. So, whereas being a Meridian High School basketball player is more than scoring points, making assists, grabbing rebounds, stealing the ball and achieving state titles. It is training to build leadership, character, confidence, teamwork and resilience, all traits needed to succeed on the court, in the classroom and in the real world and whereas the Meridian Warrior basketball team spent the entire season as 5-A front runner and were able to complete the journey with the state title and whereas their hard work and teamwork resulting in a 68-54 victory over Lake City High School in the 2021 State Basketball Championship Tournament and whereas the Meridian Warriors captured the 5-A basketball state championship trophy, bringing home the first state boys basketball title since 1992 and whereas the leadership, training, and discipline of their coaches helped all team members to focus their talents and passion to become a winning team, with each player making valuable contributions to their victory. Therefore, I'm, Mayor Robert E. Simpson, hereby proclaim April 6, 2021, as Meridian High School Boys Basketball State Champions Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the community to join me in congratulating the Meridian High School Warriors on the remarkable athletic achievement and for representing Meridian so proudly in the state tournament. Dated the 6th day of April 2021 . So, with that thank you and congratulations. And, coach, I would love for you to say any comments you have about the team first before we ask them to come forward and, then, afterwards we will do a quick picture with the proclamation. Sanor: Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much and this is quite a privilege. I think this is something they will remember forever. Again I would like to thank our Principal Jill Lilienkamp and our athletic director Mike Graefe for supporting us all the way through. This is a tremendous group of young men. I didn't get to thank my coaches at the -- at the tournament, so here it is Jason and Chad. They do a tremendous job, along with some others that aren't here tonight, and we are very thankful for them. It was a great season. It was a challenging season with all the -- the COVID challenges that we had to deal with, but these kids stayed disciplined, dedicated, and worked their tails off to -- to bring a championship to Meridian. But more than anything they -- we preach citizenship, sportsmanship, and competitive excellence and they are a fantastic walking example of that every single day. So, thank you for this and we are really appreciative of it. Okay. Let's start here and -- Kaden: All right. My name is Ladu Kaden and I'm a junior and I'm a point guard. Gwilliam: Max Gwilliam. I'm a sophomore and I'm a shooting guard. Reynolds: Nathan Reynolds. I'm a sophomore and I'm a center. Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 4 of— McKnight: Kaden McKnight. Junior. And I'm a guard. Sanor: Josie Sanor and I'm the manager. I'm a freshman. Voegele: I'm Brock Voegele. I'm a junior. I play small forward. Thacker: I'm Davis Thacker. I'm a wing and I'm a junior. Pearce: I'm Ethan Pearce. I play power forward and I'm a junior. Rowbury: I'm Brody Rowbury .. I'm a forward and I'm a senior. McDowell: I'm Brenden McDowell, shooting guard, and I'm a senior. Mpoyo: I'm Joe Mpoyo. I'm a senior and I'm a shooting guard. Fisher: Drayson Fisher. Senior. Whatever position you need me. Anderson: McKay Anderson. Senior. Point guard. Homer: I'm Colby Homer. I'm a forward and I'm a senior. J.Moulton: I'm Jack Moulton. Senior. Small forward. E.Moulton: I'm Eric Moulton and I play power forward and I'm a senior. Delaney: Chad Delaney. Assistant coach. Anderson: Jason Anderson. Assistant coach. Sanor: Is there a phrase in that proclamation to get these seniors another year? Simison: Yeah. I think Coach just asked for a COVID year for the seniors from that standpoint, but I don't think I have that power. But I will bring it up with the school board chair when I talk to her next week. So, if we just want to gather for a quick picture and, then, coach, I will let you hand these out to your team afterwards. But very exciting. Congratulations. We love the blue and gold in this building. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, as they are departing I just want to -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: -- I want to share my congratulations to them and as an old alumni and I do mean old, the current Meridian High School we were the second class to graduate from that building, but I'm very proud of these young men and what they accomplished and the great year that they had. You know, the pressure mounts when you have a record like Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 5-— they have. Just as Gonzaga. But they came through and it's just so exciting to see these young men and the coaches. Had such a great year and they are just quality citizens and I think they are going to be very successful in life and so it's wonderful to see. So thank you. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Scentsy Warehouse 4 (H-2021-0011) by Kristen McNeill of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 2499 E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Easement Vacation to vacate a utility easement established along the interior lot line of Block 6 of the Gemtone Center No. 5 (now Lot 7 of the Scentsy Commons Subdivision). Simison: Here. Here. Okay. With that, Council, we will move on to our public hearings for this evening. First item is public hearing for Scentsy Warehouse 4, H-2021-0011. 1 will turn this over to Alan for staff comment -- or open this public hearing with staff comments. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Can you hear me okay? Simison: Yes, we can, Alan. Tiefenbach: Terrific. Thank you. Okay. This is --will be relatively quick. This is a request for an easement vacation to vacate a utility easement established along the interior lot line of Block 6 of Gemtone Center. The property is located at the southwest of East Pine and Hickory Avenue. So, here is the Scentsy campus here. As you remember, Council, there was a development agreement that was recently approved for about a 211,000 square foot warehouse. The certificate of zoning compliance has recently been issued for that warehouse. It's just pending this easement vacation. So, again, there was an amendment that was done and the amendment was to allow this warehouse in the commercial zoned district. But when we were reviewing the certificate of zoning compliance we realized that there was a five foot wide public easement, which you can -- and here is a picture just for your -- kind of an FYI. This is what we have come up with. So, here is the site plan. These are the elevations that were approved with the certificate of zoning compliance. While I was reviewing this it was discovered that this easement here existed. This easement, again, was a utility maintenance easement. This easement was platted early on with the Gemtone Center and it was carried over with the Scentsy Commons plat. This easement is no longer necessary. The applicant was able to get letters from all of the different interested parties saying that they had no issues with this easement being vacated and with that, as long as this easement is vacated, I can release the building permit to the applicant and I will entertain any questions if we have any at this time, Council. Simison: Thank you,Alan. Council, any-- any questions forAlan? Okay. Is the applicant with us this evening? Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 6 of— Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. She is online. Simison: Okay. Kristen, if you are there, if you would like to state your name and address for the record and if you have any comments the time is yours for ten -- 15 minutes. McNeill: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. I'm Kristin McNeill with The Land Group at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. 83616. And, you know, as Alan mentioned, this is a pretty simple straightforward application. He covered everything very well. I don't really have much to add. Staff is recommending approval and we are in agreement and with that we respectfully ask for Council's approval tonight and I will stand for questions if there are any. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? All right. Seeing none, Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anyone in the audience that would like to provide testimony on this item, if you would like to come forward at this time or if there is anybody online who would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand function at the bottom of the Zoom platform. Seeing nobody taking either option -- Kristen, would you like to make any final comments? McNeill: No thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. Then with that, Council, what's your pleasure? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the public hearing on item H-2021-0011. Cavener: Second. Perreault: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page , -44 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Alan's presentation made this one relatively straightforward and easy. I would move that we approve the easement vacation in H-2021-0011. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I was waiting for someone else to second, but I will go ahead and do it. Simison: I have got a motion and a second to approve H-2021-0011. Is there any discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Not -- it's very hard to hear Council Member Borton, so just for the remainder tonight if you could speak into the mic. I think that's probably why you didn't hear any seconds from the remote is we -- we couldn't hear. But I appreciate the clarification that it was a motion for approval. Simison: Okay. If not -- nothing further, I will ask the Clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent; Perreault, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Have a good night, Alan. Thank you, Kristen. McNeill: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. 3. Public Hearing for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 8 of 44 C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Simison: Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for Foxcroft Subdivision, H-2020- 0113. 1 will open this public hearing with staff comments and turn it over to Joe. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Mine will not be as quick, unfortunately, but we will get through it. As noted this is for Foxcroft Subdivision. The project consists of multiple properties, totaling 35.7 acres of land, currently zoned RUT, with 12.74 acres of it currently zoned R-15 as seen in the center map. The site is located directly west of Ten Mile Road and is on both sides of the proposed Pine Avenue extension. It is entirely east of the Ten Mile Creek. It surrounds the recently approved Ten Mile or -- Mile High Pines Subdivision, which is this little pocket in the southeast. To the north is R-4 and R-8 zoning, detached single family, and civic uses noted as the Fuller Park and the Chaparral Elementary School. To the east is Ten Mile Road, with C-C and some RUT zoning further to the east. Because the zoning for Mile High Pines has not been approved yet -- or I should say has not taken place at the county yet. To the south is railroad property. South of this is C-G with self storage. To the west is R-8 zoning and detached single family through -- across different -- multiple different subdivisions. The only history on this site is for the R-15 portion, which was the Ellensburg Subdivision. It was annexed and zoned and platted -- or had an approved preliminary plat and a CUP in 2005. The CUP and plat have expired, but the zoning ordinance was approved. So, the zoning stuck, but nothing else. No DA, no plat, no site plan, nothing else has come through with it. The site does contain two future land use designations, medium density residential and mixed use community. The request before you tonight are for an annexation of 23 acres of land, with a request for the R-8 zoning district. A preliminary plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres in the proposed R-8 and to the existing R-15 zoning district and a request for a conditional use permit for multi- family development, consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres of land in the existing R-15 zone. Total unit count between both areas of the project is 291 units, 75 single family units, and 216 apartment units. The proposed uses are multi-family residential and single family as noted. The single family is broken out into detached single family, attached single family in the form of duplexes, and alley loaded single family. The project is proposed with a gross density of 8.17 dwelling units per acre, which is rounded down to eight units per acre per the comp plan. This falls -- this does fall at the maximum density allowed within the medium density residential designation. The majority of the subject property contains the medium density residential designation, but there is an area on the southwest portion of the project that contains the mixed use community designation. Mile High Pines, which was approved earlier this year to the south and east of this project, it contains the mixed use community elements by having commercial along Ten Mile and the remaining of the site being multi-family. In addition, the existing commercial to the east should be taken into account for the overall area of the mixed use community designation. The applicant has the opportunity to float designations -- I should say comp plan designations and propose a project that may fit with both or only one of them. In this case the applicant has not chosen to include any commercial uses with the Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 9-44 subject property and instead has proposed a project that is entirely residential, which corresponds with the medium density residential designation. Despite intentionally not proposing a project consistent with the MUC designation, the applicant does understand the integration of uses and incorporating adequate transitions between the uses is still important. Thus this applicant and that of the project to the east, Mile High Pines, have worked together to allow cross-access between the projects on the south side of Pine Avenue extension so both vehicles and pedestrians of this project can have easier access to the commercial area that is approved along Ten Mile. This access will be right here. With the latest information that has been provided to staff and the change in the conditions of approval and recommended DA provisions from the Commission hearing, staff finds that the proposed project complies with the comp plan. The applicant submitted conceptual renderings for the proposed apartments and some photo examples of the proposed single family homes. The submitted multi-family elevations show traditional walk-up garden style apartments. The buildings appear to have at least three field materials of stucco, lap siding, and stone and incorporate adequate roof plane variations. The buildings appear to share an identical color palette, which does not meet the architectural standards manual. Multi-family and attached single family homes require design review prior -- prior to obtaining approval for building permit and at that point staff will ensure compliance with the architectural standards manual. As shown on the master street map, the applicant is proposing to construct and extend Pine Avenue as a 36 foot wide collector street from Ten Mile Road to the Ten Mile Creek and construct a vehicle bridge over the creek. Mile High Pines is also required to construct their portion of the south side of the Pine Avenue extension. Both projects are required to construct this public road with the first phase of development to help with community infrastructure. The multi-family portion of the site has proposed the two driveway access points to Pine. We will go back to this one. Those two access points are here and here. ACHD has approved these access points despite that the eastern driveway, the one closest to Ten Mile, does not meet their offset requirements and needs a 25 percent modification of policy to be approved. Moving this access further west would significantly change how the triangle shaped R-15 piece could develop, which aided in ACHD's determination to allow this access as proposed. All the streets within the single family portion of the site are proposed as public local streets at widths of 33 feet wide, which allow on-street parking where no driveways exist. There is a short segment of roadway in the south area site that contains a minor urban local street that serves five of the alley loaded homes along Pine. That street is the street here. And for reference all of these homes are alley loaded homes. This is the minor urban local street. This road section is a reduced street section with a 24 foot width and does not require sidewalks. In addition, there are plenty of sidewalks adjacent to this area, mostly in front of the homes and also along the other local streets. So, there will be adequate pedestrian access for these units. The revised plat shows 75 single family building lots and nine multi-family building lots with 41 common lots, totaling 125 lots. Of the 75 single family lots three are proposed to contain homes that are remain -- that are to remain. Those are, obviously, the largest lots noted on the plat and they will be part of the new subdivision. There is two in the south and one in the northwest. The applicant proposes to construct the project in three phases, starting with the south segment, then, moving north to the southwest and, then, ending with the multi- family development. All proposed building lots appear to meet UDC dimensional Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 10 of 44 standards on the -- on the revised preliminary plat. The cul-de-sac in the south area of the site is approximately 720 feet in length and connects to an emergency access within the Mile High Pines project. So, right here. This -- this cul-de-sac length requires City Council approval, because it exceeds code maximums. The single family homes are required to show compliance with the parking standards at the time of individual lot development. But as noted the local streets are also wide enough to allow on-street parking. Based on the number of bedrooms and minimum parking required for the multi- family development is 411 spaces. The revised site plan shows 440 spaces, exceeding code requirements by 29, and amounting to slightly over two spaces per unit, which is an industry standard. Staff believes the revised site plan with additional parking spaces provides adequate parking without producing a waste of land area. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space meeting UDC standards is required to meet the UDC standards and the multi-family development is required to provide common and private open space in line with the multi-family specific use standards. Combined the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 4.81 acres. The applicant's revised open space exhibit shows a total of 7.33 acres of qualifying open space. The applicant is proposing 5.7 acres of open space to meet the minimum ten percent, which amounts to approximately 16 percent. The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers, mostly along Pine and a little segment along Ten Mile. The Ten Mile Creek area and other open space areas throughout the site that meet the minimum dimensional standards. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. The remaining 1.6 acres meet the common open space requirements for the multi-family development specific use standards and consists of a clubhouse pool with some -- that does not make sense. Clubhouse, pool, as well as other open space areas. The applicant is proposing five qualifying site amenities, which include the clubhouse and a pool, the fitness facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths and open space that is at least 5,000 square feet. The Commission recommended that an additional amenity be provided within the multi-family area. The applicant has discussed that with staff and has noted that it will likely be a tot lot. That location has not been determined as of our last conversations, but I will leave that to the applicant to give you more details on that. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required and proposed along the property's western, northern, and southern boundaries per the master pathways plan. The submitted plan show compliance with the master plan. Staff originally required that all pathways were to be constructed with the first phase of development, but with the Pine Avenue extension and the required detached sidewalks along its entire length, plus the first phase of pathway segment, which would be the south and west boundary, staff now finds that the pathways would be better constructed with each phase. Overall this applicant is proposing to construct approximately 4,500 linear feet, almost -- or approximately .85 miles of pathway within this development, which does not include the detached sidewalks along Pine. This is an abnormally high number for one project to construct, so staff is appreciative of the proposed pathways. The new pathways constructed in this development would offer multiple avenues for residents in the vicinity to safely get to Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. Staff is in full support of the proposed pathway plan for the subject development. Both staff and Commission recommended approval of the subject applications. At the hearing there were a few members of the -- sorry. There was only one member of the public that spoke against the project. There were some Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 11 of 44 discussions -- I should say the issues that were brought up were regretting the future land use map and its correlation to density, concern over the extension of Pine Avenue, and the potential traffic increasing at the intersection of Pine at Black Cat, which is approximately half a mile to the west. Density of the project not being compatible with subdivisions to the west and larger lots even further west. West of Black Cat. And there was some discussion about the Black Cat and Pine intersection being signalized, which is not required, because it was an off-site improvement. ACHD discussed that within their staff report that there should not be enough of this traffic heading that direction to warrant those off-site improvements. The Commission discussed this traffic concern, as well as how the southern most lots will function. They discussed the redevelopment plan for the three existing homes, specifically the two lots in the southern section, and they discussed the general location of the different types of single family homes and how they will access them. As noted they also discussed what additional amenity would be appropriate in the multi-family development. The Commission recommended approval with modification in line with the memo that I sent the week of the Commission hearing and I made all those changes and they only added one, which was to add an additional amenity within the multi-family area. There has been no written testimony since the Commission hearing. So, after that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Quick question, Joe, just to clarify. The -- the multi-family portion of this project, that triangle, that's on the existing already annexed parcel. So, it's got zoning already and it's just the CUP for that parcel -- that portion of this; is that right? Dodson: Councilman Borton, that is correct. Yes. Borton: And the remainder of the application is a zoning with the annexation as well. Dodson: Correct. But we are also -- the DA does include all of the project. Borton: Okay. Dodson: Yes. Borton: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: One question to you, Joe, on the -- the designation, kind of as a heads up to the applicant that they can address it, but the mixed use community designation in your staff report identifies the ability to float and you referenced transition -- or, excuse me, you said Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 12 of 44 that the -- adequate transition between uses is still important and my question was in the mixed use community when it talks about adequate transition between uses, it seemed as though uses would be commercial versus residential versus civic and that those are different uses, but here it looks like the transition between uses is different types of residential. Is that what the word uses is intended to mean when we are looking at mixed use community or is it really intended to mean residential versus commercial versus office or civic? Truly distinct uses. Dodson: Councilman Borton, great question. Traditionally it is more of those distinct uses is what we want to have better transitions between. However, there should be -- I guess not just transition of uses, but transitional densities would be more appropriate for the residential uses --the different residential uses. But the main point was transitioning from the commercial and, then, the multi-family of Mile High Pines and, then, to the single family residential, which, then, is the transitional density to the existing single family residential further to the west. Borton: Okay. A couple real quick ones -- Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: -- to clarify. And that project to -- directly to the east, the -- the majority of that is -- is residential as well, just the portion along Ten Mile is commercial as I recall. Dodson: That is correct. Borton: Okay. Last question if I could. The two gray boxes on -- or brown boxes -- boxes -- existing sites. Can you -- I have tried to read the small print and I can't make it out. Those are existing sites that are going to stay; is that right? Dodson: Councilman Borton, that is correct. That's why I put this picture in here just so you can see. This home is going to stay, as well as these two. This area will be removed and I believe a couple of these little outbuildings as well. Borton: Okay. And -- Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: -- one last question was -- and this is a heads up for the applicant -- is when those homes ultimately do get removed, do they come back and replat those parcels to add future home sites to it? Dodson: Councilman Borton, another great question. Yes. We ask that the applicant provide a redevelopment plan, which is part of the plat conditions, but not the DA. We found that it wasn't -- we didn't want them to have to do a DA mod in order to plat them, so -- but, yes, they would have -- if they want to subdivide further those two lots, then, yes, they would have to come back and do another plan, which would come to Council. Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 13 of 44 Borton: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Joe. Dodson: You're welcome. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. Joe, do I remember correctly when we heard the Mile High application that there is an emergency access off of a cul-de-sac for fire and police? Dodson: Council Member Perreault, that is correct. I tried to note that in my report -- or my presentation, but it is right at the end of this and it basically follows this angle. It goes right down one of the -- not common drives, but one of the alleys for the townhome units. Perreault: Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks. Joe, in your staff report it talks about, you know, the vast majority of -- kind of this project is -- is -- falls into the MDR for future land use plan and when we are looking at it you have got a -- a gross density of, you know, a scoach over eight dwelling units per acre and the MDR calls for three to eight. I recognize you have rounded down. How -- how frequently are we doing that, rounding down, when it -- I mean I kind of look at that number as three to eight. Anything over eight doesn't necessarily fall under the MDR and I'm just curious how often we are rounding those numbers down. Dodson: Councilman Cavener, I can't -- I can't give you a percentage or anything like that. It usually doesn't happen -- from my experience we are usually within the range -- or, if anything, I probably had more experience with rounding up. Cavener: Yeah. Dodson: But it -- it does occur. I mean the comp plan does allow for this. It does specifically state that if it's a half percent, then, you would round down. If it's the top half, you know, standard algebra one. We are allowed to do that through the Comprehensive Plan. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 14 of 44 Cavener: Joe, I was -- I was a social science major, so that's probably where some of my questions are coming from. I appreciate the clarification on that. My other question was about the amenities and as I understand from kind of your report and the staff report, with the exception of the open space, the vast majority of the amenities are going to fall -- are going to be constructed within phase three? Dodson: Councilman Cavener, yes and no. So, the overall site only requires one amenity for the single family portion, because of its size per code. However, they are proposing a tot lot in the south, as well as I believe a picnic area here on the north and -- and additional open space that would technically qualify as an amenity. But the five additional amenities are going to be with the multi-family development, yes. It shouldn't be taken lightly that they -- the pathways in themselves are an amenity, as well as adding multiple connections -- or I should say ways to get to Fuller Park, so -- Cavener: Agreed. Great. Thanks for that clarification. I must have missed the tot lot. Thanks, Joe. Dodson: No worries. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Two questions for Joe, both related to streets. The cul-de-sac in the south, it exceeds our length, the one with the emergency access, but I think the length -- does it have to do with the speed of cars and that if we have some bends and turns it allows -- it's -- it's a little more acceptable than just one straight long shot? Can you -- can you jog my memory on that? Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, that is my understanding. Same thing with our block length requirements is that it's meant to not have a race track down. So that does help. But there is the overall length requirement as well, which is probably a fire thing more than a planning thing. Hoaglun: Okay. Dodson: But with the cul-de-sac and the emergency access that is hopefully mitigated mostly. Hoaglun: And to my second question, I notice we have a crossing over Pine where the pathway is, but where we have the two streets coming together where you just indicated, well, this side has a tot lot, that side has the picnic benches, are there going to be crosswalks at that intersection right there where your pointer is or are we going to have any pedestrian type of light? What's -- what's the plan for -- for that area? Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page —of 44 Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, I do not know that there are any plans to have a pedestrian light or any kind of crossing there, because it's going to be local streets abutting -- connecting to a collector. The collector should -- especially this kind of collector, it should only be a 35 mile an hour speed limit. It shouldn't be the 40 or up, which is good. So, again, that's an ACHD thing more than it is us. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome, sir. Simison: And we do have Kristy here with us if we need to get into that. Council, any further questions for staff? Okay. Then I will ask the applicant to, please, come forward and state your name and address and be recognized for 15 minutes. Suggs: Good evening, Commissioners. Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning. I'm at 9839 Cablecar Street in Boise. And I'm going to request if I can take this off for a few minutes, because my glasses fog up. Thank you very much. A little clearer as well. Again Jane Suggs. No relation. You know, the one time there is another Suggs around, so -- I'm here representing Foxcroft Subdivision and also Deb Nelson is in the audience with Givens Pursley and she is on our team attending tonight. We really appreciate working with the staff. If you have read through the staff report you see that we have worked out all of our issues with our updated plans, especially with Joe and Bill Parsons, Bruce Freckleton, Joe Bongiorno. I'm going to mess up his name. So, let's first take a look at that site plan again. We are just really happy to report that P&Z recommended approval and we agree with all the conditions of approval in the staff report. You will find those in your package and we agreed to put the tot lot in the multi-family and we are actually thinking that that tot lot will probably go up here in the recreation area, because there is plenty of room there for a tot lot and I will talk a little bit more about the fact that we have these intimate recreation areas in this development, but we are next to a large -- very large park. Just wanted to let you know that Foxcroft is an in-fill community and it is approvable as conditioned. So, we could stop right there and I could answer a bunch of questions. But let me tell you a little bit more about it. This is a bridge. This is not the one over Ten Mile Creek, but there will be something similar. Keep in mind as we walk through this process that this developer, Trilogy, will be building a bridge over Ten Mile Creek and that will actually construct a great connection on Pine Avenue, so that you can now drive from Black Cat to Ten Mile. That is a much needed piece of infrastructure for the entire community. With our approval tonight we would start our design and our approval process. That usually takes six to eight months. That would take us almost to the end of the year just to get our bridge designed and approved by all the agencies, Nampa- Meridian, city of Boise, ACHD, Corps of Engineers. We do want to get the bridge built before March 15th of next year. So, we are a little bit in a time crunch here. Also by building this bridge we actually improve safety for all the residents along Pine Avenue, because now we have a great connection. In fact, we will probably find a lot of folks that are on the other side of Ten Mile Creek will be using this connection to get to Ten Mile, because that's how you get to the freeway very easily. Show you one more -- one of the agreed upon conditions that -- as Joe pointed out that you don't really see in phased Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 16 of 44 developments -- you usually see some improvements along streets with each phase. We have agreed to put in all the improvements -- along with Mile High Pines to put all the improvements, curb, gutter, sidewalk on -- on Pine Avenue in the first phase and we are agreeing to build the bridge in the first phase. So, if we start here in this lower area and we will be building these and we will be building all the improvements, so you will actually be able to get out to Ten Mile from the very beginning. Also want to put this project in a little bit of context, of course, with the surrounding areas and Joe did a good job of looking at that. Quite a bit of activity down along the Ten Mile interchange area. You will recall, of course, that Mile High Pines development included 28,000 plus square feet of commercial uses. So, this is a really good opportunity for the Foxcroft community to support those commercial uses and also have pedestrian access to those commercial uses. We think that Foxcroft -- or I believe it shows that it's a great transition between the commercial areas that are down here in this lower area. Let's see if I can find my cursor. There. And a good transition. We are next to Fuller Park without having to cross the street and Chaparral Elementary without having to cross the street. So, great transition there and also transitioning to the residential pieces that are to the west. Again, since we are close to a park and a school you want houses. You want a lot of houses. It's a really good opportunity to utilize the infrastructure that's already there and as, of course, you can see here we are almost completely surrounded by city. As mentioned previously, the apartments are already annexed and zoned for higher density residential, the R-15. The apartments will have a 3,000 square foot clubhouse. It has a community room, a fitness room, a kitchenette, plus a swimming pool and we are adding the play structure. Here are some renderings and I think you have seen some of these. Again we talked a little bit about all the different types of housing that are being provided. We have the larger lots and you can see those. Mr. Borton already pushed -- pointed those out. They were brown on the other one, but here and here. They will be part of the plat and I can show you in a few minutes the redevelopment plan for that. I just want to run through these first. The -- let's see. The peach colored lots -- these are the ones that are front loaded here. They are going to face -- make a great streetscape along Pine Avenue and they are accessed in the back -- garages in the back. So, that will be a nice streetscape along there. Of course, as a collector you don't want to have driveways. Here is an example of one of the alley loaded. You can see they are really cute little houses with a little landscaping up front. We have to actually -- because the street's in the back we put a nice big landscaped area in the front. The yellow lots are two unit townhomes and they provide a nice transition from the apartments over to the single family. So, we have taken it upon ourselves to -- we actually -- this is a pretty new design here. This actually will be built as -- could be built as a duplex or could be built as a duet, which I call a duet is with a property boundary in between. And, then, finally, we have the standard single family lots that are here and running down here. Foxcroft really has -- and that's just an example of a front load home. You have seen lots of those. We really have great diversity of housing for such a small project. We do have the amenities. We have the gazebo area here. Again, these are some of the more intimate sort of little neighborhood pockets. We are next to the large park and, then, we have the amenities that will be here and, then, multi-family. We have the tot lot down here and as mentioned we have a lot of pathways. Just to let you know, Fuller Park, again, right across -- this is the Ten Mile stub drain, but -- oh, didn't mean to do that. It's 23 acres. It has picnic shelters, restrooms, playgrounds, Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 17—" baseball fields, volleyball fields and, then, a -- and a pond. I'm sure you have been out there. It's an incredible little park. And we think that that's a great recreation amenity for all the residents here. But, again, we wanted to show some of those more intimate kind of places where people could gather. That really touched one of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners. He says the apartment guys need some intimate locations, too, and that's how we added the tot lot. Let's take a look at some of those again. Oh. Okay. There is a gazebo slash pergola and that's the location here in the upper area here. I'm not handling this very well. And, then, here is a tot lot and there will be two of these, one in the south portion and one in the multi-family. One more slide or two and I will answer some questions. Again -- okay. Ah, there is my connectivity slide. The one you have already seen I think. Okay. Lots of pathways. I'm sorry about that. I'm not getting the right response from my keyboard here. Lots of pathways. Some of those are regional pathways. This north pathway -- you might remember this. This one right here that runs along the Ten Mile stub drain actually is on top of a sewer that was installed by the city as a trunk line and it was land that was an easement that was dedicated by the developer, so that they could get that in a few years ago. So, that was part of -- kind of agreement and somewhere in your package there is even a thank you letter from the sewer department for doing that. That was really nice of the staff to do that. Again, we have these regional pathways. This one over here is -- right here is already in place, so we are continuing it down to here, then, we run out of opportunity, because we don't own the land, so we are going to use that and crossover and a little -- right here and, then, come down here on this side and this is the railroad track down here. So, this is part of a regional pathway that the city has planned as well along the railroad tracks. And lots of internal sidewalks and pathways, too. Of course, we want to make it easy for people to get to each other's neighborhoods. We want to get over to the commercial areas and we want to be able to get to the park and the school. I will answer a few more questions that have already come up, but would respectfully request your approval of our applications for annexation, zone, preliminary plat and the CUP for the Foxcroft apartment. Let me see if I can go ahead and answer those if there is some time. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Ms. -- Ms. Suggs. Question. I -- I would like to follow up on a question that Councilman Hoaglun presented earlier, which is a pedestrian access across Pine. I have lived in the subdivision directly to the west of this for 12 years. Intimately familiar with this area and have spent numerous numerous hours in Fuller Park. I'm but I'm still trying to figure out how pedestrians, especially on the south side, would -- would access that. Is it going to be a sidewalk across the bridge on Pine? Is that how they are primarily going to get to the north side? Suggs: There will be sidewalks on both sides of Pine Street. We had talked a little bit internally -- I think even with the staff about this pathway that runs along the canal and Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 18-- connecting the two. We could do a crosswalk. I think some of those things would be something that we would monitor as development occurred. I don't know that we would specify that now and that's something we would work with with ACHD. So, when that connection actually occurs we can see if the traffic needs a cross -- certainly a crosswalk is one thing. Any other type of flashing lights or HAWK signal probably needs to come after we do some analysis to determine if that is necessary with the number of people crossing. But there is -- so, this is a pathway that runs along the Ten Mile canal and will cross over Pine Street and, of course, sidewalks all up and down Pine Street. Does that answer the question a little bit? Perreault: Well, so if-- if pedestrians were to need to stay on the south side of Pine they would basically need to go all the way over to an entrance -- the most eastern entrance in Castlebrook -- headed through Castlebrook Park and, then, get into Fuller Park on the west side and, then, have to make a right and head back. There is just not a direct way to Fuller Park without that -- without that pedestrian access across the bridge. I mean it would be a significant roundabout way to get into the park going through two other subdivisions -- potentially two other subdivisions. Unless I'm missing something. Suggs: I'm -- I'm not following you very well. We are -- okay. I can't touch this, because it's too sensitive. I'm sorry. Get us back to the landscape plan or maybe a plan that shows the surrounding area. I apologize. There we go. That's good. So, there is a pathway -- I'm going to try this again. We will be constructing a pathway here along the creek. So, if you lived in the south area, you could come down here, you could get either on the sidewalk along Pine and, then, you would cross over -- there is a pathway here. If you want to get a little closer there is a -- there is a crossing -- okay. I need some batteries. Okay. There is a crossing off of our property that goes over the stub drain. I don't think it's very well used, but we are taking our pathway to that location as far as we can on our property, but we cannot put a path over the stub drain. We have been told by Nampa- Meridian that we can't do that. So, I guess I'm not following you, Ms. Perreault, about where you think we are going to have to cross down Pine Street to get to -- to get to the park. I mean there is a pathway that winds -- go ahead. I'm sorry. Perreault: Where are the residents going to cross Pine to get to the park? Suggs: Well, there is a place right here. There is a path -- there are sidewalks here. They could come up through this sidewalk. There is a pathway here and takes you to this location. And, again, this is the location that takes you over the stub drain, but we cannot build that. Otherwise, you would walk down Pine Street to go on the pathway that's behind -- okay. Here. And this takes you down -- you are right, it takes you a little bit further this way and takes you over to the park. There is a pathway there. Does that answer your question? This pathway here and, then, there is a place to across the stub drain down here. Perreault: Not exactly, but -- so, the question that -- that Councilman Hoaglun presented earlier was if Pine is going to be a collector there are some safety factors to cross at the intersections of the streets within -- within the neighborhood. So, if there are not going to Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 19 of— be crosswalks required, then, how does someone -- how do the residents safely cross Pine to get to the -- Suggs: And my response is we can put crosswalks at every intersection. We don't typically see every local street tying into a collector with a cross -- with a crosswalk. We can put those in. I think what we were thinking about or at least what I immediately went to was a more robust crossing opportunity, but we don't want to go and signify or put in some sort of signal for crossing on a collector, because that's where you move traffic, unless we see that there is a necessity for that and that would come later. So, that is why I'm saying, yeah, crosswalks are just paints on the ground and it signifies where people can cross and you see those all over town, but I don't know that we would put anything more than that. So, we could put them on the bridge or just beyond the bridge where the crossing is on the west side of the bridge or we can put them where the streets -- all the local streets tie in. Just -- I'm not thinking that we need to put anything more until we know that we need something more. Does that make sense? Simison: And maybe we could -- either A, as Kristy or Garrett could chime in, I think, Council, this is one of those questions where it's not uncommon -- I mean we can talk the pathways crossed arterial roadways with no identified crossing and sometimes when they cross roadways they have HAWK signals or blinking lights put in. There is really no consistent behavior that we have in the city or expectation, quite frankly, of pathways. Now maybe it's a pathway to a park, but it's still --we have a railroad track, which, actually, limits even further, where people are going to come from. But from a very practical standpoint every intersection, whether with a crosswalk or not, has the same basic treatment in terms of, you know, establishing the right of pedestrians to cross, but maybe Kristy could chime in to see if there is an ACHD standard as it relates to lighting a crosswalk or pathways along with an arterial or collector. Inselman: Mr. Mayor, this is Kristy Inselman with ACHD. Yes. Thank you. I think you and Jane have answered that very well. We typically do not go in on -- especially a new development like this and put enhanced crossings in before we really know that there is a need for it. All of those crossings where the street crosses the sidewalk there will be ADA ramps that will direct people so they can get across the roadway, but until we know that there is a high traffic area or we know there is going to be a lot of pedestrian use, that's not something we typically require a developer to put in before we know that there is really a need for that type of signalized or higher use type of crossing. I hope that helps. Simison: It answers the question. I mean it answered Council's desire if they would like one or not, but at least answers the question I believe. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 20 of— Hoaglun: Since I raised the issue, I was just curious -- I recognize the fact that there is not going to be a huge influx of young people headed -- headed north down this pathway because of the railroad tracks and other constraints. But there are going to be kids and -- and adults who want to access that park and who would be going to school. So, I was hoping there would at least be some sort of markings -- and, again, it doesn't have to be the HAWK signal right away, but there were -- there would be an identified crosswalk area, whether it's the bridge or the intersection, for them to -- to -- at least it's identified, they can process safely, and not -- because, unfortunately, the timing of going to school and rush hour kind of -- kind of coincides. So, get people used to the idea that there is a crosswalk there and you are going to have kids there. I do want to follow up, though, because I was surprised to learn that they are not going to be able to access the park where we see that pathway and you mentioned, you know, you can't build over the stub drain to the park. But is that something the irrigation district can do? Suggs: If the irrigation wants that to go, yes. We talked to the irrigation district, actually, about an alternative location for a crossing and they said no. So, this is one of those things where I'm hoping that the pathway coordinator might want to spend some time with Nampa-Meridian, because you already have a master pathway plan with Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District and we are putting a pathway along the Ten Mile stub drain just outside of their easement. But once you get beyond that we -- we have not been able to convince them that we --there should --there is a path, it just right now has a chain across it and they use it for maintenance. Kids use it all the time. So, it's one of those that's kind of an unofficial, but not. So, I think that's one of those things where we might get the pathways people to kind of work together. Again it's off of our property, so we are not really able to do that, because the stub drain is sort off of -- in that location off of our property. So, we have looked at it. And Ms. Perreault is right, you know, if you cross over to the west side of the Ten Mile Creek there is a regular crossing that goes over to the park, but, then, you double back to go to the school. Simison: Well, as a -- you know, at least from an outside perspective -- I mean I understand, but I would hope that if there is ever a potential -- I don't know what the cost to put in the conduit and everything else. I would hate seeing ACHD have to go in and invest a lot of money to -- to -- and, Councilman Cavener, the one that was outside of your neighborhood, that -- that area, basically, three months to put in a flashing light with all the work that they had to do to dig underground. So, it would be great if this is the direction that people want to go. It's done during construction of the road, as compared to coming back six months later when you see what the use is. But that's just a -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 21 —44 Cavener: I guess sticking with the pathway theme, Jane, if you could pull back up -- you had a -- a great illustration that kind of showed all of your connectivity that you were planning to put in and where I'm trying to track -- maybe let's go to the park, more so to the school, how residents in these -- or phase one, phase two, phase three would plan to get from their residence to the school? Suggs: Okay. Right now they would come down the Ten Mile -- Cavener: And if there is another illustration you would rather use, Jane, I know that our -- Suggs: I'm just -- I'm having a hard time using the mouse, so -- it's not reacting to me very well. Okay. So, there is a pathway along the south side of the Ten Mile stub drain here and we show it coming here and that's where there is a location where you can cross over to the park. There is no location right now to go over to the school. There is -- we inquired upon a location that was closer to this, but we were told no by the Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District. So, that they -- we could not put any type of crossing there. So, kids that are in the apartments will probably actually come down to Ten Mile -- just walk up a short part of Ten Mile and go into the subdivision. There is a crossing through the subdivision called Mosher's Farm and you can go through there and get to the school that way and that's --we did inquire upon that, getting a pathway to go into Mosher's, but, then, we didn't also talk to Mosher's, because that would mean a bunch of kids going through their subdivision. I mean if you look an aerial photograph you will see that it looks like the pathways are supposed to be on the Mosher's Farm side, because they have this open space with pathways in it. Oh, there you go. Look at that. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Thank you. To further on that and to answer Councilman Cavener's question, preliminary discussions about this -- also you can kind of see the property line here. This would be Fuller Park to the west of that line and, then, the elementary school here. We were told that both the school and police did not want an additional connection point to the school because it's one more point for somebody to have to check and look and watch out for and so they wanted to maintain only the one that was here through Mosher Farms. So, it was anticipated that with the additional sidewalk along Pine, as Jane noted, that they would just come out to Ten Mile and, then, be able to use the existing access point. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jane, is that -- the sidewalks, regardless, will go in with phase one. It's the added pathways that would be, as I understand correctly from -- from Joe's report, would be kind of phase dependent? Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 22—" Suggs: Yes. The pathways in phase one would go and the sidewalk along Pine would go, but the rest of the pathways and sidewalks would be phase dependent and a lot of that is just because -- to have people walking on those pathways while you are trying to construct a subdivision is going to be kind of difficult. So, we would do those when we were constructing the subdivision. It's just -- it's just not going to be possible to get all of that construction in when you have people walking through your construction site. We would actually have to close it, probably, if we built it and, then, we would have to repair it, so -- with that. So, we were -- we talked to the staff about that and I said, yeah, that makes sense, especially if you are going to go ahead and put all of your improvements on Pine, so -- which is a big deal and build a bridge, so -- something just popped in my mind. If you drive down to the end of Pine on the west side of the -- there the street's not quite finished and neither are the sidewalks. So, there must be some bond money -- and I don't know if Kristy has got this -- for the completion of the street on the other side that's off-- off site. It's not in the -- it's not in the easement of the creek. So, we will be working on the creek, but we won't be working down Pine on the other side of the creek. So, we will --we will, of course, work through all of that with construction drawings, because that's why we want to get going on our construction drawings, so we can deal with all of those issues. Can I respond to Mr. Borton and his question about redevelopment of those properties? In my PowerPoint I have it at the end. Keep going. There we go. So, we were asked by the staff -- they wanted to know what this would look like, so we did that. We -- we think that's a great example of what could happen and it does not create any problems for the adjacent properties. It actually provides the secondary access down here. You can't see that, but I'm pointing to this access and it keeps the two existing homes. Let's say that they want to keep those nice. So, we thought that was a great opportunity to show a little bit about how that could redevelop. Go back up to the landscape plan. There you go. There was a question I think about the cul-de-sac link and we would request your approval of that link, so that we could provide that emergency access over to Mile High Pines. We think with the -- with the open space, the driveway there towards the end, the pathway that we have that's connecting, that that would slow people down and they really don't have anyplace to go, so -- but it does provide that great emergency access to Mile High Pines. Again, one of the things we think is just so important about this project is the ability to build that bridge and get this started, getting Pine Avenue built. It is a great connection for the entire community there. We did hear from one of the neighbors who is actually on the other side of Black Cat and she talked about all the traffic coming from the west side of Ten Mile Creek, so everybody goes out to Black Cat, they turn down south to go down -- there is a school there, which causes problems, but that's how you get to the freeway. You have to go south and so now this will be a great opportunity -- you know, I think we can lessen some of the issues there by having a connection to Ten Mile. Again, I very respectfully request your approval of our annexation, our rezone, our preliminary plat and CUP and I will stand for some more questions if there are and something I missed. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 23 of— Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I would like to just clarify the reason that I am bringing this up and -- and so strongly encouraging conversation about this is because, again, I have lived here for 12 years, I have driven around Black Cat and would have loved to have had a way from Pine to Ten Mile for all these years I have driven around the block and gone to Franklin and gone to Cherry to get around to where we need to be. But my -- Pine -- even -- even though Pine is only a half mile currently, there is about 450 houses that access Pine to get to Black Cat and there was another development coming in Horse Meadows and so Pine, even in -- even though it stops, it dead ends, it's busy and there is -- it's very busy and so as a -- as the -- addressing my fellow Council Members, we have had lots of conversations about different neighborhoods in our city where there are safety issues -- pedestrian safety issues that we have later had to come back and have conversations about in Tuscany, in Woodbridge, in various areas of the city and I don't want those -- I don't want this to become one of those where we are retro actively -- where we are down the road five and ten years and we are talking about, you know, something that's simple that could have been done -- in my opinion striping a crosswalk is sufficient in this area for now, but I have no doubt that Pine is going to become busy and become a thoroughfare and -- and it should be if it's a collector. That's the intention of it. So, I'm not, you know, saying that that shouldn't become a busy area, but if-- being a resident in that location I'm not going to use Ten Mile to head south, because Ten Mile is backed up to Cherry Lane frequently. It's backed up to Pine, it's backed up to Cherry Lane multiple times a day. So, if I'm in any of that area -- I'm in Chesterfield, I'm in Castlebrook, I'm in the subdivision that's between the two, I'm still heading out to Black Cat, because you can't get down Ten Mile. A light at Pine or no light at Pine, I'm -- I'm not using that, because the -- literally there is going to be people leaving the apartment complex and -- and heading out east to the light and just getting stuck there, because they are not even going to be able to make a right onto Ten Mile numerous times a day. So, I don't -- I don't -- I understand where you are coming from. Like it would be ideal for all these subdivisions to now be able to access onto Ten Mile and get down to the freeway faster. At this point in time it's not going to happen, because there is just too much traffic on Ten Mile. I have waited minutes and minutes and minutes to get onto Ten Mile in areas where there isn't a light that allows for a crossing. So, I am challenging you a little bit, because I want to say I don't think -- if -- if you want to propose the Fuller Park and Chaparral are -- are great community resources for this neighborhood, I -- I -- yes, except that there is not pedestrian access to them. So, how can we say that they are -- there are, you know, great amenities for your neighborhood when -- when there is no way to get there and so I -- I am still not feeling satisfied that that question has been answered or that there -- that there is a safety factor that's been answered either, especially if we are talking about children that are crossing over to Chaparral. The other thing I'm curious -- curious about is Chaparral is a year round school and as far as I know West Ada still allows the parents to choose if the students go to Chaparral or if they go to Peregrine. So, it's possible that some of these students may not choose to go to Chaparral at all, they may still use to go -- may choose to go to Peregrine because it's -- it's only a nine month schedule. So, is that still -- is it your understanding that that's still the case? Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page——" Suggs: It was my understanding that West Ada had recently changed that and all of these students will be going to Chaparral. They will not be going to Peregrine. That that is the school of that district. So, that -- that's the recent information we got from the West Ada School District. Simison: That is correct. Suggs: And I -- I would agree. I -- you know, we take a condition that says that we will put striping. I just don't want to go ahead and start thinking that we are going to have to have any kind of electronic signals all along Pine Street --just like any collector, but -- but I understand that and I understand the Mayor's request that let's not -- let's not have to tear up the road three months after we put it in, because we need to put in some sort of conduit for some sort of HAWK signal or something. Again, I'm doing everything I can to get folks to those regional pathways and I will work however I need to with the parks and pathways folks to see if we can't offsite get the right connections to the school. But I -- you know, I understand what Joe says and the school says, well, if you put all these connections to the school we have to monitor those and so I ran into that at various jurisdictions. The schools like to have the kids come in the front door and not so much in the back door, because it just opens itself up to too much mayhem I guess. Again, appreciate your concern, Ms. Perreault, because you do live in that area and part of our conditions from our traffic study and from ACHD is that we will be looking at the improvements to the Pine and Ten Mile intersection. We actually will be looking at improvements that might have to happen on the east side of Ten Mile on Pine, so that we can make sure that the lanes line up. That will all be determined by a new updated traffic study. But that will be a light there. So, now we will have pretty good -- pretty good opportunity, at least, for people to make some of those turning movements that might right now be a little restricted. But that will be a pretty -- we will be working with ACHD on that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, just two more quick questions if I may. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, I believe there was a statement made about the -- the entrance -- the entrance into the apartment area, multi-family area on the east and that it is closer to the intersection than ACHD's code permits, although they allowed for -- you know, they allowed for this, they approved it. Is there any possible way that -- is that going to be just a right-in, right-out and is there any possible way to design that such that that would be an entrance only and the farther west would be an exit only or something like that, so you are flowing the traffic through in one way and out the other, so that -- so, you don't have a lot of, you know, left turns coming out of that so close to a major intersection? Suggs: That is a full intersection there. It was the only -- across the street it's the only access to Mile High Pines, so that was -- this is where we worked together with Mile High Pines developer Baron to make sure that we were coordinating that and that worked for both of us and was approved by ACHD. There was no request by ACHD or signified by our TIS that we make that right-in, right-out. Again there is opportunity for that to be a full Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 25 of— intersection, both of those, so that we don't have people having to drive through the driveways of the rest of the apartment complex to get there. Again, if that becomes an issue, again, we are kind of supposing they are issues and if that becomes an issue we can always make some adjustments to that. But right now ACHD in our traffic study did not indicate any need for that to be a right-in, right-out. So, I'm going to go with the --that -- those decisions. Thank you. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Suggs: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have people signed up to testify on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up in advance. Simison: Okay. Well, if there is anybody that would like to provide public testimony on this item if you would like to come forward at this time, state your name and address for the record or if you are online and use the raise your hand feature and we can bring you in for any comments at this time. And I'm not seeing anybody wishing to provide testimony. Okay. Would you like to make any final comments? Suggs: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. I was just advised by somebody that's a lot more knowledgeable on some of these things than I am that whereas we would agree that crosswalks may be necessary, we cannot put those in and agree to a condition unless ACHD agrees to that. So, we would have to condition our condition that if ACHD agrees for crosswalks, striping, we would put those in. So, just want to make sure that I don't find myself with a condition I can't meet, because another agency won't let me do that. So, thank you. Again answering any questions you might have. Again, we -- we feel this as an in-fill type property that would be a great opportunity and we are a little bit in a time crunch to get our design of our bridge and our improvements done, so we can get this built this winter. So, thank you very much for your time. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Kristy. Kristy, are you available? Inselman: Yes, sir. I'm here. Bernt: Hi, Kristy. Thank you for being available. Any -- any concerns about a crosswalk at that -- at that -- at the bridge area right -- that we have been discussing this evening? Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 26—— Inselman: Council -- and I don't -- I don't have any concerns, but I am not a member of our traffic department. Bernt: Let's make a deal tonight, Kristy. Let's make a deal. Inselman: Let's make a deal. Let's see what we can get done here. I would say that's something that you can certainly -- I would -- I would probably agree with, that that's something that you could maybe amend the condition that on upon approval of ACHD. I would want our traffic to just weigh in on that to say whether they are -- Bernt: Is ACHD agreeing to something on the spot right now? Inselman: -- I know. I do. I have worked this before. But -- Bernt: Thank you, Kristy. That's good. I appreciate -- Inselman: -- I would just want them -- I would just want them to weigh in before I said we were okay with it --ACHD was okay with it. Bernt: I heard what you said, Kristy. I heard it. Inselman: Okay. Sorry. Bernt: No. You're good. I appreciate you. Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor and -- comment to Kristy and -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: That crosswalk, if it's --ACHD agrees, I mean whether it's at the -- the walking path or that intersection, just having some location somewhere that has -- that makes sense and works for everybody to have that identification, so -- Bernt- Mr. Mayor, I completely agree. Suggs: Thank you. A condition with a condition. We like that. Thank you. Bernt: With an asterisk of what Kristy said. Maybe just a little reminder. Suggs: What Kristy said. Inselman: What Kristy said goes. I'm just kidding. Yeah. I think likely we would be amenable to some type of a standard crossing, but I would want traffic to weigh in on its location. Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page— —" Simison: And a conduit in case there is ever a future -- we will talk about that later, but -- Inselman: Yeah. That definitely would need to get approval from somebody other than myself. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, to your point -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: -- I think it's worth exploring. Conduit is a lot cheaper than redoing the road. You know, it's hard to tell. If it's -- if it's a small line that has to go through maybe. If it's going to be a lot more complicated than that, probably not. But that's something I would like you to take a look at, but -- Simison: I have got some extra -- Suggs: Deborah is taking notes right now for us, because we will be coming back with a final plat and construction drawings and at some point somebody will be looking at that and Bruce or somebody is on the line right now that -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I had a question for -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: --for staff. I know Garrett's on the line from parks and not Kim, who coordinates our pathway system, but I want to give Garrett an opportunity to just speak to the pathway system. Garrett, is that something Kim can take a look at about having a bridge to that point where it makes sense and sounds like something's already there? And I think we worked with the Nampa-Meridian before on these types of things where something has existed and we worked to make it happen, so can you speak to that? White: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I spoke with Kim about that -- that exact spot right there today and she had mentioned that a lot of times Nampa-Meridian does not like those, but she's -- she's willing to work with them and see what she can do. Also just to the west of -- yeah, to the west of that there is already a connection break that think Jane spoke of earlier and Kim made the comment this -- this morning that when that was put in they actually didn't really agree to that as well and just kind of went with it, but, yeah, absolutely, Kim can look into that. Not going to overpromise anything, but she can obviously look into it and see what you can do. Hoaglun: Thank you, Garrett. I appreciate it. And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page——" Hoaglun: Another follow up, but this time for Deputy Chief Bongiorno. Chief, I wanted to get your input on the cul-de-sac and its length and of course it is emergency access. To me they have got some bends in it to make it so it's not a -- not a speedway type thing. But are -- are we good from your eyes for--for keeping that -- that length and that access point? Bongiorno: Yeah. Mr. Mayor and Councilman, we did look at it and I am one hundred percent okay with it. They actually needed that emergency access at the end of that cul- de-sac to help with -- because it's kind of an odd shaped piece of property that access -- the emergency access is helping both the previous project and their project. So, it's -- it's good. We are okay with it and Joe was correct, it is a fire -- a fire code issue and I'm okay with it. Hoaglun: Great. Thank you, chief. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Garrett, are you still on? White: Yes. Perreault: Can you go back to where you were pointing -- the footbridge that you were pointing to before? Okay. So, that -- is that where -- is that where there is a proposal that -- that folks will cross to get into Fuller Park? White: I believe so. If I'm -- if I'm understanding Jane correctly. She may be able to speak up, but I believe that Jane's proposal. Perreault: So that's probably three quarters to a mile from the south part of -- we are talking about elementary school children three quarters of a mile to a mile from the south. It's -- it's a long way around. A significantly long way around. And so where you are pointing right there there is no current connection. White: That -- that is the one that I'm going to look -- have Kim look into to see if she can't -- Perreault: Okay. White: -- correct. Yeah. Perreault: Okay. Fantastic. Yeah. I know exactly where that is and that would be a much much better connection. It's still a ways away, but it would be a much better connection Otherwise -- otherwise, the students are going to go through -- they are going to head west onto Pine, then, they are going to go through the Castlebrook Subdivision and they Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page——— are going to go up a private pathway that -- that is a subdivision pathway that's not a public pathway. If you -- if you move your cursor over -- there you go. Keep going. So, if they are heading west on Pine and they are heading up -- that -- over to the -- to the west and they take that private -- the -- that pathway is a private pathway that belongs to that -- to that subdivision. It is not public. So, the proposal would be that folks from the various subdivisions are going through this neighborhood on a private pathway to get into Fuller Park. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I would like to clarify that. The -- there is an existing ten foot pathway on the west side of the creek and that's the way that they would access the existing access there. Perreault: It actually doesn't go through I don't think. Dodson: According to our master pathways plan it does. It should. I hope it does. And, then, if-- I mean hopefully they aren't using that to get to the school and it would be faster and easier to go along Ten Mile and, then, through this subdivision, through their existing pathways. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question for Jane -- oh, zoom back in. Whoever is in control you are doing a great job by the way. Dodson: You're welcome. Cavener: This blue line -- so, right -- right in the top -- right -- just a little bit to the right. Yep. Yep that's left. But right -- keep going. Keep going. Right there. So, is -- is the creek open there? Is it -- is it tiled? I guess what I'm failing to see is why we don't just connect the pathway right there to Fuller. That takes you right into the park and right to the front entrance of the school. Help me -- and maybe you have touched on this, Jane, and I just didn't pick up on it, why we can't do that. Suggs: I would be happy to, Council Member Cavener. There is a fence across the creek there that's gathered a bunch of debris. I would imagine kids sometimes use that. However, the fence continues all the way north separating the park from the school. So, when you do go along the pathways you actually have to go north to get to the school. There is a -- Cavener: Right. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 30 of— Suggs: -- there is a break right up there -- right there. So, that's where the kids actually enter. They don't enter in down in that area. There is no crossing. When I was out there there was a crossing just south of the parking -- the second parking lot. Right there. There is a crossing over the stub drain. It looks like there is a pipe there. It's been covered, but there is a chain over it. So kids use it I think, but it's not a legitimate -- and I think that's what Garrett is saying that Kim would like to look at to see if we couldn't do something -- or if the city couldn't do something to make sure that is a good access as well and, then, I believe that pathway does go all the way over to the other crossing that's a little further to the west and I am agreeing, that's a long way to tell a young kid to walk that far just to double back through the park. They may never make it to school, because there is so much to do in the park. But I think that -- Cavener: Jane? Suggs: -- certainly we want to work -- I'm hoping that Kim has more pool with Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District than I do. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jane, is that fence that you talk about is that the school district fence or the irrigation district fence? Suggs: I do not know whose fence it is. It typically would not be the irrigation district, because they would probably not want the fence in their irrigation -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Cavener: Okay. Okay. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. The police department -- I think the security issues come into play here, so -- about school properties and access points. So, could you enlighten us a little further about controlling access points and whatnot? Ford: That's actually one that I would probably have to defer to somebody else in reference to what the security procedures would be for that. Lieutenant Harper is probably the best guy with that information. But I could gather that information and bring that back. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 31 of 44 Dodson: Lieutenant Harper is the one who told me in our project review meeting that he would want to minimize the access points to the school and would prefer to maintain what is already there. Simison: Again, local schools, everything is different, but, you know, residential neighborhood of Sienna, they have gates to go one way. They--they do allow-- so, open pathway access is not the preferred direction for the school district. Suggs: Okay. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: For elementary. Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, just for clarification, if you -- if -- there is going to be connection to the pathway that heads north through Fuller Park there on the east side of the park and goes up to -- there is a fence that goes along with -- that's on the school -- right there. Yes. Keep going up. So, there is a little tiny entrance right there and it -- and literally the gate is like three feet wide. You can barely even get through it. And, then, the kids park all their bikes right in that area. That's like the place for all the bikes to go. So, now if you have got children from five or six neighborhoods coming in and this a tiny little entrance and bikes everywhere -- and I just think that like those are the kinds of things that it's not the applicant's responsibility to -- to solve, but if they are -- if that's going to be a main proposal that this be a pedestrian access to the school, then, those are the kinds of things that, you know, should be discovered I guess. Cavener: I agree. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: In fairness to the applicant, as well as I guess my own analysis, there is not an expectation, at least from staff's perspective, to have a direct access right to the school's front door. But the fact that it does abut property lines to it is a great benefit. I just don't want it to get lost that that was an expectation from staff that they would just have a clear access. I mean this is, obviously, closer than you are going to get anywhere else around the area, so it's going to be a benefit and a lot less trips -- hopefully less vehicle trips than what would have been if you are half a mile away or a quarter mile away on the south side of the railroad tracks even. Simison: Joe -- and I don't -- I don't recall, did the school district talk about -- because, really, they would say this is a perfectly adequate connection to the school from a walking standpoint for elementary. It would be under their distance guidelines no matter how you have them walk and on sidewalks or on pathways. Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 32 of— Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I agree with what's been said. I think it's just really important that Kim Warren communicate with Nampa-Meridian to see if we can make that -- that little walk a little bit shorter. I agree with Ms. Perreault. Simison: Council, any further questions or comments? Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, sir. Bernt: I always -- I don't -- I don't like being the bearer of bad news. I -- I like this project. This project is great. Literally have no issues. I -- the only -- the only concern that I have is the current state of our elected officials and -- at the state level. I know that this is no surprise to you. We have been very consistent with it for the past month and -- and it's unfortunate that they weren't able to get their business done. I get why. You know, COVID is important and it's important to deal with COVID in the way that they dealt with it. So, I get why that they took a little recess. But they are -- they are --to be -- I -- I sat down with the speaker last week and he was a gentleman about what the process is and what they are looking at, what their projection time is. They are hoping to be out of session at the end of the month. Excuse me. At the end of -- yeah. This month. And so hopefully -- but he also said that--when I grilled him on this, because I -- I knew that we have projects that are coming up and I wanted an exact time of when they were -- and his response to me was we are done when we get our business done and I just don't know what that is. And -- and so, hopefully, it's at the end of the month. But until then the most prudent thing that we should do in the City of Meridian is to continue these projects until we have clear understanding of what that direction is, so -- I'm one of six. We have been pretty consistent with it. But it would be my recommendation to continue this project until at least the middle of next month. Simison: And tonight you are one to five. Bernt: One of five. Or excuse me. Yes. I am one of five. That's true. Suggs: Can -- can I respond a little bit to that? Yeah. That conversation that's being had at the legislature, it's going to go on and it might not get resolved now, but it will come up again and I would just hate to see this -- lose this opportunity to get this done now. We think that this particular project, the location surrounded by the -- the infrastructure that the developer is trying to get done in a very timely manner so he's not delayed, just really sets this particular project apart and I do understand there are others that you have had to defer as well or continue as well. I would just hope that you might look at this one being a little different, because we are trying so hard to do a really great infrastructure or package for the city and we know that that conversation -- it just keeps happening. So, Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page"—" I'm just hoping that we might make that move again. Just great opportunity with great land uses here and the services are all here. I mean we are -- you are really -- we are not -- we are not doing a stretch, you know, with annexing property someplace out beyond. We are actually doing it almost right in your backyard. Well, it is -- it is your yard. So, I'm just --just appealing to you to see if they might find another way. I do understand that that has been your process, but I'm just hoping you might find just another little bit that might allow you to approve this one tonight. So, thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. -- Councilman Borton said something very -- asked a question early on in the process I found interesting and -- and that had to do with phase one and the conditional use permit parcel, which is the 12.74 acres that are already zoned R-15. They have been zoned since '05 1 believe, if I heard correctly. We have been dealing with annexations, not bringing in new property, and -- and, Jane, I agree, this is probably more of an in-fill project than it is out on the outskirts, but there is an impact that we are concerned about for -- for purposes of providing services, but I would like to explore a way, Mr. Nary, for -- with a CUP where it's already zoned and for discussion with Council Members, I believe we could -- could we do an approval that is split with -- with this sort of project? I don't know how to go about it if we can, but I think it would be worth exploring if Council Members want to look at that. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, I mean I don't know if that helps the applicant greatly, because, yes, you can approve the conditional use permit. I don't see an issue with that. It's already zoned for that. It's annexed. I remember this apartment that was supposed to be there originally. So, that's not a problem. I don't know if that helps them move the process along faster. I mean if it can, if it would be beneficial, then, that's certainly an option for the Council to consider, because, again, it's -- if you had just that piece alone in front of you there will be nothing really to deny. They are asking -- as in the CUP is obviously a conditional use, but they are building what is proposed to be built there and it's already zoned and it's already annexed. So, certainly if that can help at least continue the process moving forward, if the applicant's agreeable to that, I don't see any -- any reason to -- that you couldn't do that if you want to. Simison: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun, did you have any -- Hoaglun: Yeah. Just to follow up, because, Jane, I want to ask you the question. When -- when I heard your presentation, the bridge and the work on the road was going to be part of phase one. Did I understand that correctly? Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page"—" Suggs: Yes, sir. That was right. However, I will go ahead and say if you approve the CUP we will respectfully request a change to our phasing, so that we will start with the CUP property and still build the bridge. So, it -- anything we can do to move the project along. And, again, with the idea that maybe by sometime next year we have got -- we are starting to do apartments and we have a bridge, which is a good thing. So, I will -- I will -- I will take it. Simison: So, there is no concern about the bridge not being --or the -- because it appears to me to be in the annexation portion of the project. Does that not need to annex to do the road improvements? Suggs: Oh, yeah. Okay. That would be the problem I guess. I didn't think about the fact that there is really not a road there. Unlike most roads where you are building collectors, there is 50 feet of right of way, but there is nothing. There is a driveway there. Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess -- and Ms. Nelson can correct me if I'm wrong -- if they are agreeable to doing an off-site improvement of building the roadway and building the bridge, the risk potentially is the Council does not approve annexation. Now, again, I can't see the future very well, but you can certainly agreed to do it. Suggs: Okay. Nary: Whether it's annex -- whether we annex those pieces or not you can agree to build something off site. Suggs: I would get 216 apartments versus 75 single family homes. There would be some issues with access to the existing property owners if we didn't proceed with getting their access to them. We are -- we do have an agreement with the Baron developer of Mile High Pines, so, you know, part of this all hinges on us both moving forward with the improvements to Pine Avenue. You can see how complicated this is. Annexation of enough land for 75 single family homes -- and you are right, a CUP for 216 apartments. So, yeah, we would love to take it. I think we would, but we would also want to make sure that we can make that happen, the off-site improvements, and make sure everybody is whole, because I don't want to do anything that would impact the Johnson family or the Schweiger family who own the larger lots on the south side that are staying there. So, we would have to take their land -- I mean to do the off-site improvements we would have to dedicate that land without any guarantee there would be anything adjacent to it. Nary: Ms. Nelson is going to save you here. Suggs: Oh. There we go. Help me out here. Thank you. Nelson: Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might jump in. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock. I -- there is a lot of complications, as your attorney noted, with agreeing to that condition. I guess what I would ask as we are trying to wrestle through that -- I mean you Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 05 of— can see you have got a very cooperative applicant. They are trying to figure out how to accommodate your timing and, you know, one thing to consider-- I would ask the Council to consider as you are discussing this is I feel like that -- that R-15 zoning, the existing zoning is -- is a huge distinguishing factor, too, for you to consider as you are thinking about, well, what's different about this project than others that you have had to defer. This one is integrated both in phasing and improvements and infrastructure, the Pine Street improvements that front it. Every single thing is so integrated that very complication that I think we are struggling with to piece apart from the different projects is also what limits your exposure from legislative actions related to property tax, that not only is it an in-fill location that's only a mile from your existing fire station that is fully staffed and at 85 percent reliability, but it's -- it's largely already annexed and served. So, it -- I guess I just ask that, because I think it is difficult to --for the applicant to commit to building the bridge and the road improvements without secure annexation rights, even though they are -- they are trying, they are agreeable, and so I guess that's what I would ask is you are considering this is if that gives you another basis for saying this project is a little different from in-fill and location of services and the annexed piece. And, then, I would be happy to help wrestle through any further. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Borton: Oh. Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I beat you to it. So, here is -- here is my thought. And I think it's one project. I think it's all to be reviewed and approved as one would and, Jane, hats off to you to try and see if there is a way to -- to make it work. That's just the way you do -- what you do, which is fantastic. But I still have the same reservations and the reason that Councilman Bernt brings it up. There is five of us here, but -- but what the legislature is doing this session impacts the next 30 council members. We have been consistent -- I think you got to continue it to May, just to be blunt. Every project we could try and parse out and create some specific parameters which warrant it going forward and the very reason that we have not entertained that with, you know, some limited exception of a little, you know, a one acre in-fill here or there -- is the magnitude of what is at risk is, you know, tens of millions of dollars. So -- and even though the R-15 is annexed, there is nothing on it, so we don't have 400 people there that our fire department is going, they are not using our parks, they are not using our water, wastewater, all of the services that we will be unable to provide at the same service level if the legislature does what they have been trying to do, we can't service them in the same way, so -- so those same concerns arise and each individual application we can argue that this is a little different and it's less of an impact, perhaps, than other types of applications and we could split hairs with everyone. So, it's not a matter -- and it's not easy to do. None of these have been easy to do and it's not easy for any applicant who is stuck with this. But I think that's the perspective where we need to be unified in our expression of the legislature that it is a catastrophic failure to all Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 36 of— municipal government if what they have tried to do to our finances were to happen. It drastically alters for generations what happens for cities. So, we are painfully cautious, because we don't want your residents to get a little less police service, not quite as nice of parks, a little less fire service and that's not what you want either. So, the lesser of two evils I think still has to be to continue it. I think approving even the CUP by itself brings on hundreds of people and a great demand to service when we don't know if we have got the revenue source to -- to serve them in the same way. So, it's the same argument and justification for the difficult decisions weeks ago -- I think still stands here and it stinks, it's terrible, but I don't think we can, nor should we split hairs and try and carve out exceptions, because we could try and do that on everyone, unfortunately. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, before Jessica speaks -- I don't mean to cut Jessica off, so guaranteed Jessica talks next, if it's okay with you, Mr. Mayor, but I -- Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: -- unfortunately, the way this legislation is being proposed, it doesn't matter where the -- where the new construction comes from, whether it comes from the periphery of our city or it comes with an in-fill. New-- new-- new construction is new construction and it's unfortunate and so I -- it had nothing to do with you, it has nothing with your project. Your guys' presentation was money. It was great. The project is wonderful. With the exception of one thing. We just need to look into -- we just need to have more clarity in regard to what our state legislators are talking about and it's that simple, so -- Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I have a question about one or two subjects ago back to the CUP. The CUP being potentially approved, you know, with -- separately from the rest of the project. How does that work -- maybe this is a question for Bill. How does that work with the DA? Is it -- it just becomes something where -- how does that -- how is that written up then? Is -- is there just -- can you help me understand how that would work? Nary: Well, I guess -- Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Perreault, the -- what I would suggest is if the Council's desire is to consider that option of splitting this and certainly Council Member Borton made a good case for not doing that, I would suggest you continue it for two weeks to see if we can even work this out. Again, I think it's pretty complicated. Again, there is -- I'm sure there is an existing DA on that property. We didn't do a modification of it. There isn't? Okay. So, there is -- so, we could modify an existing DA. So, again, I'm not sure totally how we would require the off-site improvements. I mean they would have to, essentially, promised to build it. So, I would suggest that if that's something that Council wants to consider a potential resolution here, that we delay this for at least two weeks for Ms. Nelson and I to have that conversation to see if it's even possible to do it. If it's not a consideration, then, I wouldn't worry about it. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 37 of— Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Clearly I'm not on the level of the attorneys in the room here, but the direction I'm getting from the other Bill -- supervisor Bill is that we would be -- we would pull the DA -- or, actually, pull the CUP from the DA and any off-site improvements would be conditions of approval, if that's the route that Council took. Because it is already zoned. But that -- clearly for staff that complicates things in the long term in how we go about this in the future, but that -- that is a possible outcome. Nary: That would work. But, again, I think Ms. Nelson and I would probably have to have that discussion and she's probably going to have to verify that her clients would be willing to do that, because, again, it is a gamble. And, again, like I say, Council Member Borton made a good case as to why maybe that isn't something the Council wants to do. So, I think you can if you wish. I would suggest a little delay -- a very short delay to do that. If you don't wish to do that, that's certainly understandable, too. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I -- at the end of the day I just don't want to waste people's time. You know, this was -- Ms. Nelson isn't for free and neither are you, Jane. And so I'm just saying I just don't want to waste your time. I guess I'm trying to be as frank and as direct as I possibly can and I understand where Mr. Nary is coming from and where others might be coming from trying to help you out and trying to -- we are trying to be -- I totally understand where you are coming from right now and the position that you are in. So, I hope that you can feel that compassion coming from this Council and from this dais. So, I mean if it were me I -- I would wait, but if you guys want to see what it looks like in two weeks, I mean I guess that's totally up to you and that -- that's your request for us. Suggs: Question to the Council, Mayor. Simison: Yes, Jane. Suggs: You mentioned May, because that's the safe date to see what the legislature does, that -- what you understand. Here we are in April and we are talking maybe two weeks to figure out how we split the project up. It sounds like -- I'm hoping it sounds like that we have -- are on the road to an approved project. I'm hoping. I would hate to have to start all over in two weeks with this presentation and talk about time, but, you know, I -- I think it might -- it's a big risk I think for my client to say I'm going to build some apartments and build a road and all of those things and put conduit under it and build a bridge and get started. I just would hope if we do agree that we delay it until May that we can hopefully do that sooner in May than later, if at all possible. We will have some direction from the legislature and that we move forward. I am just really -- talked to my client and the construction manager and he just says we are just running out of time to try to get this built and we really want to get that built. So, I'm just -- you know, as much Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 38 of— as I want to take it to CUP and, then, I realize all the complications and the impact on our neighbors, because they are also wanting to make -- see how this all works out, because we have agreements on Pine, they have already been contacting us, they have a time schedule they are working on as well. So, what -- do we have a date in May and do we have a -- will we start all over with our presentation and -- fill me in a little bit about what you expect. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: As far as your presentation is concerned that's totally up to you. Suggs: Okay. Bernt: Thankfully these -- these meetings are recorded, so Council Woman Strader probably most likely will be watching this recording and will be up to speed by the time we reevaluate in May. So, I don't think that's an issue. It happens all the time with all of us. So, as far as a presentation is concerned, I will leave that up to you. That's totally up to your discretion. As far as dates are concerned, the first available date would be may 11th. That's cutting it pretty close. When we first -- when I first looked at this calendar weeks ago, when we were evaluating potential issues and continuations, I was thinking more in the lines of the 18th, but I understand, I believe -- and I get it. I totally understand where you are coming from. But -- but those are the two dates. I will leave that up to you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: A question for Mr. Nary. Mr. Nary, could we continue this -- if the Council wanted to continue it to -- I think Council President Bernt said the 11th and the legislature still hasn't signed, there was nothing that would prevent us from continuing it yet an additional week at that point; correct? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, nothing would prevent you from continuing it again. Cavener: Okay. Suggs: Was that a continuation for two weeks? Two weeks out? Is that what Mr. Cavener was asking about? Bernt: No. Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 09 of— Nary: Mr. Cavener asked if-- if somehow the 11th we still didn't have an answer from the state could the Council continue it an additional -- Suggs: Your next Council meeting is two weeks from tonight? Every Tuesday. One week from tonight. So, two weeks from tonight. Is there a possibility that I could go back and talk to my client and see if we couldn't talk a little bit about that. I mean I -- I'm saying both things. I'm saying, yeah, let's go to the 11th and now we are talking about maybe it might be later, but I really -- my issue is getting my plans and -- or some sort of approval over to my engineer, so he can start working and he will not start working until we have some sort of approval. So, maybe -- do we really think the legislature is not going to figure this out in two weeks? Isn't that their deadline? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Highly doubt it. Suggs: Well, yeah, as I said, I think it might go on for years. Bernt: No. It will -- they will make a decision this session for sure. Simison: And what I'm actually more concerned about is if -- what decision they make and, then, what this Council will do with that information. Two -- two weeks may not give them time to contemplate what this means for future development in our community. So, you know, there are multiple layers to this conversation potentially. Nelson: And, Mr. Mayor, that's a good point, that -- and I think that's part of our concern with the timing. Could -- could we ask -- and, obviously, this is your decision, but as we are considering timing, if we can come back in two weeks with the opportunity to discuss the CUP, understanding that not everybody may support that breakout, but if we have an opportunity to come back in two weeks to discuss that option we would sure like that opportunity, then can visit with the --the others involved in the development, think through the logistics, visit with Mr. Nary, and if that doesn't work, either on our end or your end, because you don't approve that, then, we would get continued again and hopefully we will have a better idea if May 11 th might work. We sure hope for the earlier date and understand we are at -- you know, we are -- we are really -- all we can do is ask for your consideration in that, so -- Simison: Well, let me at least poll the Council. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: I have heard from two that are more in favor of treating this as one project and not -- if the three others -- Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page--- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Yeah. I appreciate that question, Mr. Mayor, and I tend to agree with my colleagues, I look at this as one project and while I'm certainly supportive if you all want to come back in two weeks and that's the direction the Council wants to go, I won't oppose that. What I -- what I worry about, Jane and Deb, is we are continuing to still have City Council meetings where -- where the Council is faced with this same challenge week and week -- week in and week out, which we are, then, delaying and continuing out later in May and so, for instance, you could come back two weeks from now and we could have already continued other stuff, so now the Council is looking at the middle to the end of May. So, I don't want to at least demonstrate some type of a commitment that if you come back and see us in two weeks that we are going to be able to fit you on an agenda on May 11th. It may be the case, but I don't want to create a false hope that that is the reality. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun, your thoughts on one project versus separating them out. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, when -- when Councilman Borton started to speak I became very disheartened, because I knew down deep he is correct. In terms of the fact that -- that what we are doing and what the impact could be to our community with the legislative action that's being proposed is severe and it impacts everything. Now, conversely, when we come -- if the worst case scenario were to happen and we have all these that we have continued and you look at all the projects on our outskirts of town and narrow boundaries versus projects like this that are next to schools, pathways, fire stations, the whole bit, your odds are good. But having said that, I think going to May 11 -- 11th is the best option. I just do not see the legislature getting done in -- in two weeks. It's just not -- I have worked in that system before, I know how that train rolls, and it is -- it is not going to happen. So, hopefully, we have answers and May 11th we can deal with it and -- and -- and move forward from there. So, that's kind of my -- my take on it. Suggs: Okay. Let's see if we can't schedule ourselves for May 11th to come back and talk about -- and hopefully have some direction a month from now. In the meantime, Council Member Bernt -- meet with the speaker again. Get some interruption. I'm just -- sorry. I couldn't help it. Don't we want to know? Simison: I think you would be -- I think you meeting with the speaker will be much better than us meeting with the speaker. Bernt: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. We got along. Okay. Suggs: Okay. Thank you very much. If there is some more questions I would be happy to ask them and -- but -- and we will move forward and see if we can't continue to May 11th and not presenting again, unless there is some questions that might have arisen in the meantime. Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 41 of 44 Simison: Councilman Cavener, it looks like you are ready to -- Cavener: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just -- Jane, maybe -- I think using this as a -- as a good opportunity to collaborate with our parks staff to address the -- the pathway and the connectivity concerns. You guys are making a remarkable investment in connectivity and -- but I have to agree with Council Member Perreault, we have got to find the most efficient way to move these kids from your development to the school and, secondarily, to the park. Bernt: I agree. Cavener: We know they will find their own pathways if we don't provide them for them and so let's -- let's use some subject matter expertise and see if we can find a better solution, recognizing that the school's got their concerns about access, but I think there are some much easier ways to get kids over to that part of Meridian than taking Pine to Ten Mile or by doubling back through a couple of neighborhoods. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you for -- for that, Mr. Cavener. I know I am coming off assertively and that's just because I'm very much in model of your mode, since I had one of those kids that was almost ran over across Pine, because he went to Chaparral, and so I -- I do -- I have strong feelings about this. I know that's showing through and -- but I am also, as a member of this Council, going to be objective about it and I -- I know my fellow Council Members can tell you that I strongly advocate for many of our neighborhoods that -- if I see a concern for -- for access or safety. So, that being said, I wanted to answer the Mayor's question. I do think that we need to keep these two tied together, the CUP with the annexation and the zoning as part of the same development agreement. I think that separating them, not only from a timing standpoint, but, obviously, as -- as you had indicated you would put quite a bit of financial investment in completing the road and the bridge and not have any guarantee of annexation. So, I think it would be wise all the way around to keep those projects together. Simison: Thank you. And while we sometimes ask whether or not we should leave it open or close the public hearing, it sounds like we should leave this one open for the conversation about the -- if there is something else on that pathway connection between now and then. Bernt: Agreed. Simison: With that, Council, do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page——" Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we continue this public hearing for Fox Trot -- Fox -- excuse me -- Foxcroft Subdivision, H-2020-0113, to May 11 th. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the item is continued. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 4. Ordinance No. 21-1926: An Ordinance (H-2020-0112 — Tetherow Crossing Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the SW '/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 8.12 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: With that we will move on to our next action items under ordinances. The first item is Ordinance No. 21-1926. 1 will ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2020-0112, Tetherow Crossing Subdivision, for annexation of a parcel of land located in the SW 1/4 of the SW '/4 of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, and being more particularly described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 8.12 acres of land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page——— Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this item read by title. Would anybody like it read in its entirety? Or anyone in the room? Hearing no one, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance H-2020-0112, Tetherow Crossing Subdivision, with the suspension of rules. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve this item under suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 5. Ordinance No. 21-1927: An Ordinance (H-2020-0105 — Cache Creek Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the SE '/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Being and Comprising of a Portion of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and All of Lots 1, 2 and 7, Block 1 of the Kachina Estates, Filed in Book 35, Pages 3016-3017 on November 15, 1974 in the Office of the Ada County Recorder and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 15.18 Acres of Land from RUT to R- 4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next item on the agenda is Ordinance No. 21-1927. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2020-0105, Cache Creek Subdivision, for annexation of a parcel of land located in the SE '/4 of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, and being and comprising of a portion of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and all of Lots 1, 2 and 7, Block 1 , of the Kachina Estates, particularly described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#2. April 6,2021 Page 44 of 44 limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 15.18 acres of land from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this item read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Seeing nothing, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 21-1927-820200105, Cache Creek Subdivision, with the suspension of the rules. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve this item under suspension of the rules. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the item is agree to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, any future meeting topics? Or do I have a motion to adjourn? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: Motion and 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 8:21 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 4 / 20 / 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 77 Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active Land Use/Development Application. By Law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that a topic be added to a future meeting agenda for more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : April 6 , 2021 Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three (3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet or other provisions of law or policy. Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Meridian High School Boy's Basketball State Champions Day Page 4 Item#1. E IDIAN:—_- I AHQ 11he Office of the Mayor PROC -L AMA TIOX Whereas, being a Meridian High School basketball player is more than scoring points, making assists, grabbing rebounds, stealing the ball and achieving state titles. It is training to build leadership, character, confidence,teamwork and resilience—all traits needed to succeed on the court, in the classroom and in the real world; and, Whereas, the Meridian Warrior basketball team spent the entire season as the 5A front runner and were able to complete the journey with a State Title; and, Whereas, their hard work and teamwork resulted in a 68-54 victory over Lake City High School in the 2021 State Basketball Championship Tournament; and, Whereas, The Meridian Warriors captured the 5A Basketball State Championship trophy bringing home the first state boys basketball title since 1992; and, Whereas, the leadership, training and discipline of head coach Jeff Sanor and assistant coaches Jason Anderson, Chad Delaney, Jason Anderson and Colin Grove helped team members Kaden McKnight, Max Gwilliam, Nate Reynolds,Brock Voegele, Ladu Kaden, Jack Moulton,Erik Moulton, Ethan Pearce,Brenden McDowell,Colby Homer,Davis Thacker,Drayson Fisher,Joe Mpoyo, McKay Anderson, Brody Rowbury, to focus their talents and passion to become a winning team, with each player making valuable contributions to their victory. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim April Oh, 2021 as Meridian High SchooCBoys' Basl etbaCC State Champions Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the community to join me in congratulating the Meridian High Warriors on their remarkable athletic achievement and for representing Meridian so proudly in the state tournament. <Dated this 6th day of April, 2021. ` Ro rt Si ayorn Treg Bernt, City ncil President Brad Hoaglun, City Council Vice-President Joe Borton, City Council Luke Cavener, City Council City Jessica Perrault, y Council Liz Strader, City Council Page 5 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings City Council Meeting April 6, 2021 Item #2: Warehouse #4 Item #2: Warehouse #4 Item #2: Warehouse #4 Item #4: Foxcroft Sub. PLANNED DEV.ZONINGFLUM Zoning Maps– Existing Preliminary Plat Elevations ACHD & MapLines Prelim Revised Open Space Exhibit Pathway Exhibit Ten Mile Drain CrossSection- Changes to Agenda: \[if applicable\] Item #2: Scentsy Warehouse 4 Easement Vacation (H-2021-0011) Application(s): Easement Vacation to vacate a utility easement established along the interior lot line of Block 6 of the Gemtone Center No. 5 (now Lot 7 of the Scentsy Commons Subdivision). Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site is zoned C-N, located at 2499 E. Pine Ave, at the southwest corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Hickory Ave. History: Development Agreement Modification was recently approved for the property to allow 211,000 sq. ft. warehouse. The easement vacation was required as a condition of approval of the CZC for the warehouse. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Regional Summary of Request: In February of 2021, the Council approved an amendment to the existing Scentsy Campus Development Agreement (Inst. #111052691). The purpose of this amendment was to add warehouse uses as a principally permitted use to allow construction of a 211,500 sq. ft. warehouse building. During review of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) for this building, it was discovered that there was a 5-foot wide public drainage, utilty construction and maintenance easement which was dedicated with Gemstone Center No. 5 Plat and replatted on Lot 7, Block 1 of the Scentsy Commons Subdivision. This easement bisects the site north to south at the western portion where the new building is proposed. Vacation of this easement was a condition of approval of the CZC so the applicant could proceed with applying for a building permit. Commission Recommendation: No Commission action; easement vacations go straight to City Council. Staff recommends approval of the vacation Written Testimony: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0011, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0011, as presented during the hearing on April 6, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0011 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #3: Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) Application(s): Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This project consists of multiple properties totaling 35.7 acres of land, currently zoned RUT and 12.74 acres are zoned R-15; The site is located directly west of Ten Mile Road, on both sides of the proposed Pine Avenue extension, and east of the Tenmile Creek (this project surrounds the Mile High Pines project to the southeast). Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: North – R-4 and R-8 zoning; detached single-family and civic (Fuller Park and Chaparral Elem.) East – Ten Mile Road, C-C and RUT zoning (future R-15 w/Mile High Pines); undeveloped land and commercial uses South – Railroad property; south of this is C-G zoning and self-storage West – R-8 zoning; detached single-family History: R-15 area has history - Ellensburg Subdivision, AZ-05-051; PP-05-052; CUP-05-047. CUP and plat have long expired but zoning ordinance was approved. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (3-8 du/ac) and an area of Mixed-use Community on the southwest section of the development. Summary of Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district; Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lot on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district; and Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. The total unit count between both areas of the project is 291 units (75 single-family and 216 apartment units). The proposed uses are multi-family residential and single-family residential (detached single-family, attached single-family duplexes, and alley-loaded single family). The project is proposed with a gross density of 8.17 du/ac which is rounded down to 8 du/ac per the comprehensive plan. This falls at the maximum density allowed within the Medium Density Residential Designation. The majority of the subject project contains the MDR designation but there is an area on the southwest portion of the project that contains the MU-C designation. Mile High Pines (approved earlier this year) to the south and east of this project contains the MU-C elements by having commercial along Ten Mile and the remaining of the site as multi-family; in addition, the existing commercial to the east should be taken into account for the overall larger area of the MU-C designation. Future land use designations are not parcel specific and therefore, when a project contains more than one designation the Applicant has the opportunity to float the designations and propose a project that may fit with both or only one of the designations. In this case, the Applicant has not chosen to include any commercial uses with the subject project and instead has proposed a project that is entirely residential, corresponding with the MDR designation. Despite intentionally not proposing a project consistent with the MU-C designation, the Applicant understands some integration of uses and incorporating adequate transitions between uses is still important. Thus, this Applicant and that of the project to the east have worked together to allow cross-access between the projects located on the south side of the Pine Avenue extension so both vehicles and pedestrians of this project can have easier access to the commercial area approved on the west side of Ten Mile. With the latest information provided to Staff and the change in the conditions of approval and recommended DA provisions, Staff finds the proposed project complies with the comprehensive plan. The applicant submitted conceptual renderings for the proposed apartments and some photo examples of the proposed single-family homes. The submitted multi-family elevations show traditional, walk-up garden style apartment buildings. The buildings appear to have at least three field materials of stucco, lap siding, and stone and incorporate adequate roof plane variation. The buildings appear to share an identical color palette which does not meet the ASM. Multi-family and attached single-family homes require design review approval prior to building permit submittal and at that point, Staff will ensure compliance with the Architectural Standards Manual. As shown on the Master Street Map, the Applicant is proposing to construct and extend Pine Avenue as a 36’ wide collector street from Ten Mile Road to the Ten Mile Creek and construct a vehicle bridge over the creek. Mile High Pines is also required to construct their portion of the south side of the Pine extension. Both projects are required to construct this public road extension with the first phase of development to help with community infrastructure. The multi-family portion of the site is proposed with two driveway access points to Pine, both are full-accesses. ACHD has approved these access points despite the eastern driveway not meeting their offset requirements and needing a 25% modification to policy to be approved. Moving this access further west would significantly change how the triangle shaped R-15 parcel could develop which aided in ACHD’s determination to allow this access as proposed. All of the streets within the single-family portion of the site are proposed as public local streets at widths of 33 feet wide which allow on-street parking where no driveways exist. There is a short segment of roadway in the south area of the site that contains a minor urban local street that serves 5 of the alley-loaded homes along Pine. This road is a reduced street section with a 24’ width and does not require sidewalks; there are plenty of other sidewalks adjacent to this area of the site to serve these units. The revised preliminary plat shows 75 single-family building lots and 9 multi-family building lots with 41 common lots, totaling 125 lots. Of the 75 single-family lots, 3 are proposed to contain homes that are to remain and be part of the new subdivision (two in the south section and one in the north, along Pine). The Applicant proposes to construct the project in 3 phases starting with the south and then moving north and finishing with the multi-family project. All proposed building lots appear to meet UDC dimensional standards on the revised preliminary plat. The cul-de-sac in the south area of the site is approximately 720 feet in length and connects to an emergency access within the Mile High Pines project. This length of cul-de-sac/dead-end street requires City Council approval. The single-family homes are required to show compliance with the parking standards at the time of individual lot development but as noted, the local streets are wide enough to allow on-street parking as well. Based on the number of bedrooms, the minimum parking required for the multi-family development is 411 spaces; the revised site plan shows 440 spaces exceeding code requirements by 29 spaces and amounting to slightly over 2 spaces per unit (an industry standard). Staff believes the revised site plan with additional parking spaces provides adequate parking without producing a waste of land area. A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting UDC standards is required to meet 11-3G-3 and the multi-family development is required to provide common and private open space in line with the specific use standards. Combined, the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 4.81 acres. The Applicant’s revised open space exhibit shows a total of 7.33 acres of qualifying open space. The applicant is proposing 5.74 acres of open space to meet the minimum 10% which amounts to approximately 16% open space; the qualified open space consists of the required street buffers, the Tenmile Creek, and other open space areas throughout the site. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. The remaining 1.59 acres meet the common open space requirements for the multi-family development specific use standards and consist of the clubhouse/pool with some dimensional standards. The single-family portion of the site requires one amenity per code and the proposed multi-use pathway meets this requirement. The multi-family development proposes over 100 units so the decision-making body shall require additional amenities above the minimum 4 noted within code. The Applicant is proposing 5 qualifying site amenities: a clubhouse, a swimming pool, fitness facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and open space that is at least 5,000 square feet. The Commission recommended that an additional amenity be provided within the MF area and the Applicant has discussed with Staff that this additional amenity is likely going to be a tot-lot. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required and proposed along the property’s western, northern, and southern boundaries, per the Master Pathways Plan (MPP); the submitted plans show compliance with the master plan. Staff originally required that all pathways to be constructed with the first phase of development but with the Pine Avenue extension and the detached sidewalks along its length plus the first phase segment of pathway along the south and west boundaries, Staff now finds the pathways should be constructed with each phase. Overall, this Applicant is proposing to construct approximately 4,500 linear feet (approximately 0.85 miles) of pathways with this development, which does not include the detached sidewalks along Pine Avenue. This is an abnormally high number for one project to construct so Staff is appreciative of the proposed pathways that are required and not required. The new pathways constructed in this development would offer multiple avenues for residents in the vicinity to safely get to Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. Staff is in full support of the proposed pathway plan for the subject development. Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval of the subject applications. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning – Applicant Representative; b. In opposition: Jane Byam, resident. c. Commenting: Jane Suggs; Jane Byam; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Current Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Future land use map shown on the project site and its correlation to density; b. Concern over the extension of Pine Avenue and the potential of traffic increasing at the intersection of Pine and Black Cat; c. Density of the project not being compatible with subdivisions to the west and the larger lots even further west, west of Black Cat; d. Will the Black Cat and Pine intersection be signalized? 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Pine Avenue extension and its impact to closest arterial intersections (Pine & Ten Mile; Pine & Black Cat); b. How the southernmost lots function as shown on the proposed plat; c. Redevelopment plans for the three existing homes that are to remain on site, specifically the two lots in d. the southern section of the project; General location of the different types of single-family homes and how access to them will work. What kind of additional amenity is appropriate for the apartment units; 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Revise the conditions of approval as noted in the Staff Memo dated March 1, 2021; b. Add a condition that an additional amenity be added to the proposed multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. 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-2020-0113, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 6, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0113, as presented during the hearing on April 6, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0113 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Scentsy Warehouse 4 (H-2021-0011) by Kristen McNeill of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 2499 E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Easement Vacation to vacate a utility easement established along the interior lot line of Block 6 of the Gemtone Center No. 5 (now Lot 7 of the Scentsy Commons Subdivision). Page 6 Item#2. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: April 6, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Scentsy Warehouse 4 (H-2021-0011) by Kristen McNeill of The Land Group, Inc., Located at 2499 E. Pine Ave. A. Request: Easement Vacation to vacate a utility easement established along the interior lot line of Block 6 of the Gemtone Center No. 5 (now Lot 7 of the Scentsy Commons Subdivision). Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : April 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 PROJECT NAME : Scentsy Warehouse 4 ( W2021 = 0011 ) 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#2. STAFF REPORT E IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 4/6/2021 Legend DATE: ��P•��eot Lflcaixo-r• . TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner ' 208-489-0573 SUBJECT: H-2021-0011 Seentsy Warehouse 4 Easement Vacation LOCATION: The site is located at 2499 E. Pine Ave,at the southwest corner of E. Pine Ave. and N. Hickory Ave., in the SE 1/4 of Section t 8, Township 3N,Range IE. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to vacate the 5-foot drainage, utility construction and maintenance easement platted with Gemstone Center No. 5; currently depicted on Lot 7, Block 1 of the Scentsy Commons Subdivision. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kristen McNeill, The Land Group—462 E. Shore Dr, Ste 100, Eagle, ID 83616 B. Owner: H.O.T. 1LLLP—PO Box 1335,Meridian,ID, 83680 III. STAFF ANALYSIS In February of 2021,the Council approved an amendment to the existing Scentsy Campus Development Agreement(Inst. #111052691). The purpose of this amendment was to add warehouse uses as a principally permitted use to allow construction of a 211,500 sq. ft.warehouse building. During review of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) for this building,it was discovered that there was a 5-foot wide public drainage,utilty construction and maintenance easement which was dedicated with Gemstone Center No. 5 Plat and replatted on Lot 7,Block 1 of the Scentsy Commons Subdivision. This easement bisects the site north to south at the western portion where the new building is proposed. Vacation of this easement was a condition of approval of the CZC so the applicant could proceed with applying for a building permit. The applicant has submitted letters from all potential easement holders(i.e. Sparklight,Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas, Century Link,Nampa Meridian Irrigation District)who have all submitted written consent agreeing to vacate the easements (see Exhibit V.D.). Page 1 Page 8 Item#2. IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends the Council approve the subject vacation application. Page 2 Page 9 Item#2. V. EXHIBITS A. Vicinity Map dL ■ :7 i ■ -- -- - — 43'36'28.56' k 116'2 1 27.36 VV Page 3 Page 10 Item#2. B. Legal Description and Exhibit Map of Easement Proposed to be Vacated €XFA BIT"`AR HOT 1 i LLR SCENTSY WAR EH0USE#4 EASEMENT VACATION A 5 foot-ride easement being a portion of Lot 7, Block I of Scentsy Commons Subdivisi on,as same is shown on the official plat thereof,recorded in Book 108,Page 15229,Ada C;Dunty records,situate in the Southeast Quarter of Section 8,Township 3 North, Range 1.East,Bo Ise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more pacticulady described as folIoows: Commencing at the Center Quarter corner of said Section 8 Jfrorn which the East One Quarter corner of said Section 8 bears South 89054'50" East,2615.03 fleet distant);thence on the east-west mid-section line afraid Senior}8,South ET54'50"East,316.11 feet;thence leaving said mid-section line,South 00°05'10"+Nest,51.00 feet,to a poirrt camrnon with the northedy lot line Lot 7,Block 1 of said Scentsy Commons Subdivision and the southerly right of way line of East Pine Avenue,said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence 514.89 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,having a radius of 444.22 feet,:a central angle of G&O 24'OB",and whose long chord beam South 333 43'24"West,486.56 feet; Thence South 00"31' 19"West,275.07 feet,to a point on a n existing 10 foot-Wde irrigation easement per said Scentsy Commons Subdivision; Thence on said irrigation easement,North 89°28'59"West,5.00 feet Thence leaving said irrigation easement,North 0K0°31'18" East,275.07 feetto a point of curvature, Thence 509.33 feet on the arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 449.28 feet,a central angle of 54°57' 16",and whose long chord bears North 32"59'58" East,482.49 feet,to a point or}said southerly,right of way line; Thence on said southerly right of way hne,South 89"54'50" East 12.35 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Tine above described easement contains 3,937 Fe(0.09 Acres),more or less. PREPARED BY. The Land Group,Inc. 5* Michael Femenia,PLS A& Page 4 Page 11 Item#2. 2298.92 C 1 f4 SEC. S 51.0 L2 59_QO' 2015-055315 ov 4 E 124 SEC. 8 y— POO GP&F#2020-0520DL1 i J Easement Vacation acl for 01 NOT 1 LLLP Being a Portion 4f Lot 7, Bloc-k 1 + of Sogntsy CareLmans Subdivision Situate in the SE 114 of 5i�etiao:B / E PINE AVE Township 5 North. Range I East.$a ise Ka6di$n HUT 1 LLLP CitW of Meridian. Ida 0nuntW. I1ab& AFWRT724570700 2020 @,L LA I f i -0-F &M INTMMOE EME_ PEER RE WTONE No.5 A Sammy 60MMONS sup. Line Table II TO BE VWATM a II 3M7 FI1 WV9 Aires;2 UN-E: E EA;?IHG LENS Lt N99-A50'y4 S.RO' LLI� SaW545TE Izw I � � Curve Table CLPRVE LENGTH RAdItiE DELTA C�ORiD BEARING DHOAD LENGTH ' Dc�STil+� Ci �:t,sa !21 2€ WNW, 3S3'n� 'w �6� .�E I V it IRMIATIQN E. PER GEMTONE�4a.S A ca :ears a,-.Ra 5d�i`IT �BrUse.� {�2:9' SCEN75 UMMONS qL1 Page 5 Page 12 Item#2. C. Plat Showing the Location of the Easement mIW ElVI R� PUT OF OCNTONE CWTQ No , C.LLRAT-TAELE GEMTONE CENTER NO. 5 nrlllgEn oEl rA RAaus EERCRi r ArrNr doFm c+wlo � 4L c rin sJlpAw E•11w V�Nw[IyAg�r- _ C7 89'.1K09' 4".2g 041] 440.94 6z.393 S 45�8'57'iY A Al/2.EA° rAaYA 6,vm �I �� yyy �r ir.-• A PCRFlnW of ER FAST 1/2.COUNTY. &T:11..FL1 E..pJY.. s eP1Y Ic u11.0 ■ __ FY 49757}" T9.W .56 J?Q�n5 2&39 5+4'+1'R+'E11ETeulAti.FnA CquXTY.7pJIHo 1 73.99 5 i4Y1'2F'E ,,`rieyyb' E ,TRTE AAAENIJ J C4 e"C4n7�Y}6' 444.38 a94.30 93.OS 183.37 S 7•'70'4],W 2004 X CY47�79 f CS 8$'(SII' 44{.PR 530,31 301.BB W4.39 5 S4'4�40'W �GO' }-.` C9 49T16'CU' ✓50.Otl gt.]B 77.41 uA.gs s 6378'S4'E 0 of: z f _sf s LUr L4 HEAE6Y C[�pWEU AS M NO n PERrA W fASEYlM FOR - 4x urIUIIEl FI OPE 9R .-iEVA!Nr4 S U UdMS tr.N IRE 1EH X }I ru {79J FFP W.NCEYr TO Ah1 r1Wryc4,FEEr.mu IME49 9 R W1 WT �cB?`PT F= suerACFo we caws.No xnew rs ro w 3i M «3j11 u!✓W 04bmm WWIN-q}da ok-k1 IouEu,I-W Slw.dl-A�,E Jm i • BLOCK 5 / 19�.u4■ P' 7 Jai. NOT P4DR"V Dl L.Wulr Ctl Mdc6bN*b WANrYRANoF sAslylEM 3sa aA.oR 1 u�s C ALL wt W IiE wS n4E s ftn Nrr�R W n t FVmR.A ,J o Z. of wn �ti i� 7�ouLIHNG SEPJ4CK.aYFJi510Hs IN THIS 9LVONER1u oWa WNFOR4 10 rrE 1Y{G -- IN EFFEEMAT Oi1Ni Ed OF OF A RM uYe PE Yrr � ••IwIN,, J 5 ABS4'DI"E 3@4�91C {5.�Q' <.aNr r,�ssrn.�w or nni s cau wm.rc Axl+Er�lm_c ywrc Ph1Ea - +� I N EPFecT Aras P r[.nY¢I or n.E acsLlsii mnsnW oe As rudweo x wear _Sie1WL1r'E A90A.Y _I r3ggE' 1 _ Ne A]' __ / Is [urmRloNu usE PEILIn. R1yrp E.PIKE F1rtNUE �_N -r-s---r------ - ].TE,]WNER 11 N CG4ftY M IOAM COOS SQC"31-HO5 OF Ir4 �3'L aI R 997.A 1. F'hUy�lOHs iM4T APPLY R7 IRPIGiCN NNiER. ---1/'A LOANERLUT1 1 S10HE' �� \`4 13.O17._ UIJPLATTEb awl!Fe imWrte r� g O"Am IK"a SIUL S LRF aF w� p AS Rawp T �I 4 • r a Aa wRlannN cw ova umcvom. r�m __ _ V TI!�1y1-•-N Or k&L"rg05n4 9ryy_OE It'A III.-I p E9A515 OF BFJs+lAAg7 j T]T,Ot ICS A ME IIYJIEST ESTA r10RLN_fSr0U140 YALl�EA MON. FIeLncMi •.+Fn]M1y1T Imdi41 - - [ 5.TIN 11 g11'ERC-EW OF THE WD%LW U 7 MP of EACH LOT SKkU 9E r TM 1M wAAIarww IO tiNr rAA OIw+�V t'+''rw nlI:IIr•^++^ti IJ �gp.wEp ti5 COWWi GIEN V' FJLVIOYH40 MEA RS�EPAKU Sr CRY 1 PlIL1u R�Wln Pni of LPII S LE r{pc.5.noiwr I�ilw. 09OINAW E 5DTIM 11 9•87 II rr 7T'almT�>a I ocw4 C w.wwwwTr.n �D=W t[_9hvRAc roOS, (OP,AN NIHIEI III L7 Ars r ti r ttlFRV>RmEI)�❑S sLYEC PAC MOOS,rLTL1'LR,AL M T OR Mltl fM[ ' MKbL RIR113 OF EYl1TA wINC U C441R441 1 NIIJA i0 W O OR I TiftER ullCmA'AEO_.FON TNL L.FIIO MCIAERD Y AIE 1i.S5 ILAE 51C dl' E W TI,IY 090M901Y-3 A R.HE., ANO 5NA D TO ALTO LO .-IN N TIRE A I L,•OF 11717_ f, �I I'll E777Zy 3�TP4 V. •]H..R.IE.,9.4.fxIMIEG iC CENTp1E.•IC•.IN AINAFif IF 1900. 11}Z�^I,' 1� S 1 't•., 1 F�� O G 1'w.4.0-s.kbfl,i'Iu4 Ndt L•ar'A.d LN OR k3wtfL 4s5 To P PAA Al NM A•goom r f F 4 •1.A GEAR AP"S161a TRIANGLE V1LL 9E FWO''Wm N All STRE1T M IIn 2v �' S 1 f 1 ,sue O 5WXgM N IU TWl 139 �IAB7 ErH�IF PA urYF MLL HE II A Iiz.oa'-+ N•�L11 I 1}I1IT slT1IPA:!taP,aA'__. + ,S � LLxr.m.InartAlxc LAWn�LPwc.Rrnw.rFNCFs,+IALLs OP sNALas .... .a5tA3'...............�- w = ICI' a I XII� f AlAAY arStPTF0TIC NG^JJPLYG ANG SrgiR EIIIA-A I'MIL"IIES.PHINE Lms 10 J + _ E PING /.41[W4J6 bu 2' sFrntwi T9 ANo LONI�w.,cr0 CRIswSf SrSfELa.uld ME Fif�uwFAE6 9r W li 4l 1HS•' 1W:cur 30oA AS IPHEYIAOL'ENI.la.�`idoea.SAi,°Wdn�CbROS�OT�rOA •i+I ! - .�p@Jy*) ;.c�nRx.µp IHBO FA+] Xt IkT1Er1 W NIS KrPM,,E+.S IF 5E1 MMI,IN E_COMMERCIAL'3rI4FET vrrn IrrP� rat y�Q� w r • j4ME IW-510 Fn�n mw kw 1 FWFrfYJ CIF NM+TCR F��AFNr NRl�Mf i�CWI�MAZY P.17rI ptyxAq 41'b FNS E 6AiwrTiO m n[�n Pursuun m sEnN'!ti w-3T ZI I E9 yjPArµyaq PR91 `y.``, 14�1 f L1]xI ME 1N51ER FAACIrN1 IS FLR IRE ppEp LlpR ANO uV1YE111NGE OF IK Jy3 4'IokA'.PrFR IX+AvuT£5 7OA.rKSE L9I5 ME d By manes,I& ALCN A 6 SUwaT U A 20-WT 9ALGVC+�T0AL1[uO.G PIE _F7.1^•� W i L'� UNpLATIE0 wSTIpLr LOT IJN[ •tRr 01.010-P01,00IENT. 1yu1 x BLOCK 7 i 1 PARO i� '. > I `� I Y I# 1 IArC TLRfI F - 1 CC_CIJ[] `LT [ � t L_'S F•ATCN ��•• ++ iL \' SlJ6AIVIiitthl x r IiUX�R 9EAral6 p5TAHCE ��` Rouw6mY lln• LI S 11'E 6.SO' Rkpr-a-Wory um I x - � p¢�RaI1L S711I_ET 1 xQQ '-lI Le s oo•s,'s+'w 4ar5 - �,�;k '(I 1 �•'�'` 1��` I Ln L.3 s i47a 0�9 E +2.i3 - '`c OP S 7I 1 -7 1 1 L{ 6 BB 11'E 13,50 Lne &A4L t.r EanmAnP 1A�PISW4 ar'1M 4M GGW LsIll ri OOSt s+ss1 st54 w z. • a�rim J t 3qm ye Ne n4 -see e 11 LT X E 40. - _ L '5A-E S].4B Pm Pohl of ByixEq,Fowl bum CO, p$I= RMT BLOC k 7`all --_-___ �- 15•a 9 e95A z5 E a --- r' e tt �'{r�B A +o n r r +s B '•A'e arol.r.u.nw. I��L�1 con eoiG I-J tz + 1 LIt 5 00'.3,'7r N • SFt 5�5'rS0'BNar Nh Rwli Gy II I, ^'UM on�al uNPL_ATiEO �'7S.]A-- n `x!1/2-i - Pb Wf =1310 S,INC. 1111 1 uR,.IN IP.�IA'r Lr.P.k.R. TRAGIC% D-. •AECIttA LIIT Y ruin .rrw S/AenM Pywr RS APAR m Nnlwl I12r Page 6 Page 13 Item#2. D. Relinquishment Letters NEI�� Pn IGACDRPCOnwI i Febntary L 2021 Serd Iva ernaff to knrcrreillAtheiandgrompinc-com Re-- Partial Relinquishment of a Public Utility Easement (PUE) located in Block L Lot 7_ Scentsy C'onm ccu Subdivision,City of hfendiaa Ada County- 1&--io Dear Kristen This is in response to the relinquishment regxtest submitted to Idaho Power Company and received on .mary S_ 2021, regarding the possible partial rehn*iit ment of a public utility easement witlim the above noted subdivision- The attached Embibits more sparifrcally identify the-'easemen#area-'requested for relinquishment highlighted in red. Idaho Power's review of the relinquishment application indicated that there are no facilities within the above noted easement area- As such. Idaho Po%iTr agrees to relinquish the easemenr area described m the attached documents- Thank, you once again for providing Idaho Po xw Company the opportunity to re��iew and comment upon the subject petition for relmquislmnent- incerely- Krista L:nglund Asuxiate Deal Estate Specialist Land Management and Permitting Department Idaho YowerComgany Page 7 Page 14 Item#2. Cent urylink/Lumen To whom it may concern: We, the undersigned public utility company, Centurylink/Lumen. Release the rights for the property drainage, utility and maintenance easement that is located within the western portion of Parcel R7724570700 of the scentsy commons sub 3 subdivision in Meridian, Idaho. Carson Gallegos Network Engineer II Centurylink/Lumen 1315 W Amity Rd, Boise Idaho 83705 INTERMOUNTAIN"' GAS COMPANY WESTERN REGION OFFICE 555 S0UTH DOLE ROAD-BOISE.Id.83709 (208)377-60DO-Fax{208)377-686T www.intgas.com Jwluar G. 2 0 2 1 To Whom It May Concern_ We, the undersigned public utility company, Intermountain Gas Company release rights for the property drainage, utility and maintenance easement that is located witl}in the western portion of Parcel R7724570700 of the Scentsy Commons Sub 3 Subdivision in Meridian, Idaho_ '6 10— 0,a4��— GI Field Technician Intermountain Gas Company Page 8 Page 15 Item#2. Kristen McNeill From: Greg Curtis agcurtisCu.nmid_org> sent: Monday,January 4, 2021 6:50 AM To: Kristen McNeill Cc: Dave Duvall Subject: RE:Vacation Application Request E. Pine Ave- Nampa Meridian Irrigation District -TLG PIN 120154 Khste n, As noted on your attached exhibit, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District's{NIVID) Snyder Lateral and easement lies within the SW corner of this lot and must be protected. The easement for the Snyder Lateral at this location is a minimum of 40' total, 20'from centerllne from each side of centerline. Any encroachment into this easement must be reviewed and approved by NMID in writing. As for the area showing the 5' drainage and utility easement, NMID holds no claim to any easement in this area except for where it intersectswith the Snyder Lateral and therefore NMID will have no further comment regarding the rest of this 5' easement outside of the Snyder Lateral easement.All private laterals and waste wars must be protected.It is reconuuended that irrigation water be available to all developinents-within the NMID_Dev elopers mi st comply ivith Idalio Code 3I-3 803_ Hopefully this email will work for your needs, if not please let me now. Thanks, Greg Greg G Curtis Water Superintendent Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District Shop 5525 E. Greenhurst Rd. Nampa Idaho 83666 Phone:208-466-0663 Fax:248-483-0183 Website_vvww.nrnid_org z" Iffiraw WJ Page 9 Page 16 Item#2. /Sparklight- Re:Vacation of Easement--Gemstone Center Subdivision No.3--Merldlan, 1D Dear Kristen McNeill: Cable One, Inc. d/b/a Spa rklight has reviewed the proposed utility easement vacation. Based on this review,we have no objection to vacating the property drainage and utility easement between Lots 1, 2, 3,and 4, block 4, of the Gemstone Center No.3 Subdivision in Meridian, Idaho. Sincerely, 021 19/ 2021 Page 10 Page 17 Applicant Presentation Conceptual Neighborhood Housing Type Plan April 6, 2021HearingMeridian City Council 0011-2021-H VacationEasement Warehouse 4Scentsy 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Page 18 Item#3. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 6, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 19 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : AP01 6, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Foxcroft Subdivision ( W2020 - 0113 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 i 4 � 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#3. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/6/2021 Legend DATE: ��Proect Location s A TO: Mayor&City Council II�� i FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner _ IBA.. 208-884-5533 l0 SUBJECT: H-2020-0113 . Foxcroft Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located directly west of Ten ; '�. Mile Road, on both sides of the proposed ; Pine Avenue extension, and east of the ' Tenmile Creek, in the E '/2 of Section 10, �® Township 3N.,Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lot on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district; and • Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district,by Gem State Planning,LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 35.7 acres(R-15— 12.74 acres;R-8—23 acres) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential&Mixed Use Community Existing Land Use(s) County residential and farm land;vacant R-15 zoning Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-Family Residential and detached single-family residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 1156 total lots—9 multi-family residential;-6 75 single- family lots;and 31 common lot. Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as three(3)phases Number of Residential Units(type 2912 total units—-6 75 single family;216 apartment units of units) Density(gross&net) Gross(overall)—8.17 du/ac.;Net—18.3 du/ac. Gross per area:NW Block—3.35 du/ac.;SW Block— 3.28 du/ac.;NE Block(apartments)—16.95 du/ac. Page 1 Page 20 Item#3. Description Details Page Open Space(acres,total 6.88 acres of qualified open space OVERALL [%]/buffer/qualified) (approximately 19.2%)—5.31 acres for 11-3G requirements(approximately 15%); 1.57 acres(69,123 square feet)proposed for 11-4-3-27(Multi-Family) standards. 18,360 square feet of private open space is proposed (approximately 85 square feet per unit)to meet specific use standards. Amenities 7 qualifying amenities— 10' multi-use pathway,pool, clubhouse,picnic areas,tot-lot,fitness facilities,and a pedestrian/bicycle circulation system. Physical Features(waterways, Tenmile Creek abuts the property along the entire western hazards,flood plain,hillside) boundary; some floodplain exists on site due to creek. Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 14,2020— 13 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) R-15 portion of property—Ellensburg Subdivision,AZ-05- 051;PP-05-052;CUP-05-047.CUP and plat have long expired but zoning ordinance was approved. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via connections to the extension of W. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Pine Avenue west from N. Ten Mile Road(arterial).Pine Proposed) will be extended by this Applicant and the adjacent Applicant on the south side of Pine from the intersection of Pine&Ten Mile west to the eastern boundary of the southern portion of this site.Access is proposed as 3 public street connections for the SF portion of the site and 2 driveway accesses for the multi-family site. Traffic Level of Service Ten Mile Road—Better than"E"(1.474/1,540 VPH) Pine Avenue(existing section only)—Better than"D" (182/425 VPH) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No public stub street connections are proposed.Applicant is Access allowing adjacent property to southeast to connect one of their private drives to a proposed public street connection on the south side of Pine Avenue.Applicant is also allowing an emergency only access near the southeast corner of the site for the benefit of this project and the adjacent project. Existing Road Network No(Pine Avenue exists on the west side of the Tenmile Creek) Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Existing sidewalk along Ten Mile but no buffer. Buffers Proposed Road Improvements The Applicant,in conjunction with the Applicant of the property to the southeast,is proposing to extend Pine Avenue west from the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile to the Ten Mile Creek.This Applicant is responsible for the construction of Pine that this property abuts(approximately Page 2 Page 21 Item#3. Description Details Page 1,650 feet)and construction of the vehicular bridge over the Tenmile Creek along the western property boundary. Distance to nearest City Park(+ 0.9 miles to Fuller Park(21.9 acres in size)by car; size) approximately 0.5 miles to Fuller Park via existing and Tanned pathway and sidewalk connections. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station Approx. 1 mile from Fire Station#2 • Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%. • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(multi-family and waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Proposed phasing plan shall be adhered to;any changes in the phasing shall be approved by the Fire Department. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4.5-minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 12/1/2019- 11/30/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,209 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development. The crime count on the calls for service was 111. See attached documents for details. Between 12/1/2019- 11/30/2020,the Meridian Police Department responded to 35 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) 0.1 miles to Chaparral Elementary 2.4 miles to Meridian Middle School 1.0 mile to Meridian High School • Capacity of Schools Chaparral Elementary—700 students Meridian Middle School—1,250 students Meridian High School—2,075 students • #of Students Enrolled Chaparral Elementary—423 students Meridian Middle School—1,022 students Meridian High School— 1,852 students Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services NA • Sewer Shed ` South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.02 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 16,555 gpd of flow committed to model. •Per minimum city requirements,all sewer mainlines and manholes outside of a paved roadway shall have at a minimum,a 14-ft wide compacted grave access roadway centered over the mainline. This condition can also be satisfied with a 14-foot wide paved surface.The pathway shown over the existing sewer along the north properties is Page 3 Page 22 Item#3. Description Details Page subject to this requirement,as well as manholes SSMH A2, SSMH A3,and SSMH A5. •Please redesign the sanitary sewer routing to eliminate the sewer mainline passing through the common driveway labeled as Lot 20,NW Block 1. Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 2 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Applicant shall be required to construct 12-inch water main in W.Pine Avenue to comply with"to-and-through" requirements.This new mainline shall connect to existing water mains at the west and east ends. •The water main in N.White Leaf Way near SSMH G5 needs to connect to the proposed water main to the east(Mile High Pines Sub). •The water main in W. Sugar Pine Ct.that currently dead- ends needs to connect to the proposed water main to the east (Mile High Pines Sub)in N. Side Creek Lane. Currently this dead-end does not meet fire flow pressure requirements. •There are a few water mains in the multi-family area that may have an opportunity to be eliminated. See Exhibit Section VII(L)Water Markup for Areas of Possible Water Main Elimination. COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 3,801 Jobs w/in 1 mile 1,454 • Ratio 0.38—Indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio) Farmland Consumed? Yes Nearest Bus Stop 0.8 miles Nearest Public School 0.1 miles Nearest Public Park 0.1 miles Nearest Grocery Store 0.5 miles Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Page 4 Page 23 1 1 1 ■ rll�ll nln i • . - . . .HER'RY'ts" �� _ � (�• . - . . ;;RR�Y ...: ... m - • - ■ ��■■ ��i■■ ■ W All :nnunnn nn u iiii- � 1 q h�1•nm�hi■iJhJ� -nunnm nnn 0.nm�-nu■■■.nn nnn n u■ A F•I � ■i nw nnn nnn ��.,- ■■::r� •i'.■�'.'.��:III c-SSdrZS• -._�. 1 •�no�■� �E'• LU ....-1%L■IIII■1■�11111:IIId7i P IN E- •••,, P IN E ■III um �liiiii'--3==-= nm � T�.`- i�:mmiwunl►� R\�ll::11 ll�11111111111111 IIYIIII, i o - • Id" FRANKLIN ` FRANKL-IN I - IIIIIIIIIIIIIn11a6d6, — 1 nIW1YY - =Lau n;••snnnll==nn �um u• w � 'iiii=== �e �.►`@�'�I - _ loll - � R'Y .pn...n , .. q�R'n I I l�,i�■ ® a n � �,i�ni■i■s nnu 1 .IH :u ;■m ♦ n■■■nl u ;■m ♦ 6•■■u n■ 1 p •Illnrl Dunn nn�nn ■�IIIUW Dunn...ii.. ■■.L 1 n 1. n r m_I u.nnnn n■ . f :m: ....uuun n. ■■.. -�: In■■?Mn y •o � nu.nn■1■O■11 •o-■ -" nu■numonsoons n. �� ♦ ■■ y•r -: lnunnn mn • -■ •• - ■ :nnunnn nu. ■ �1 • ..ulmmn nnn • - •nl.omn unn ■■■ h wnm��1 nm�h1� ICI m • q1 .mi:■nnnuu■nnn il.ni:nunnnn nnn ■■ n ann m■■■■Inn �.... a••1 a n.n m.■■■Inn n���.�'•• .a► �::.-:�■guano n..•� . ■ �.m �::.-:i■guano . ..-=ter :::I�1�►" . ■-.-. .- ■h. _ _==a__ •J - N:�.1�6n - nl■.■ _ � 1�■I nln■ : ': •■ ■:-::III � .it IFI mn■ :::■- ■ ■'-::III QI tr �Vmm�I�_-. IIII � mn■ ■.:�:-�Il..0 nm.A:-un: � � S ,,�. ■::�:_I ll..0 nm.d:-u1.: �e ► •� - _ ■. :mm�n u1 s+ � �• n■.. ■■ :,ninon anon■■ 1_ ♦ nl.� •° � �LI�J .�■S■._■ un: nnlnn numni:�2i_ r �ji��_-� �'•___■: .■. ....: 011llll■�I 1; :.t, f -.:u minuir ' -- 4, �_, �'.-'--- - ■Ill ..—.II...LL111 IIII 11111111•.,•. ® - �N.=• �.■—..I...Lull, ..,In 1111111 ,..; J����Cl_` �--p IN EirL un �J = �::°►I:a"s ^ ■ uni �liiiii€�.-■:_:9 mu �:`.. t' W m u I �nnn= _■---u.ui�nl ''. ��• a••1 .innmuu nlll @-`j.11.111.111 • 'ni�+`�'L� I IIn\VII::II�IIIILInlllI1111111111�_, -'E\ �� i IILN�•f ■nm\Vnc:mtun.nuunnnnnn� -- 111111 11111111111111111�I11..16. — . ;•,unmet i • _ Item#3. C. Representative: Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning—9840 W. Overland Road, Ste. 120,Boise, ID 83709 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 1/15/2021 3/19/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 1/12/2021 3/16/2021 Site Posting 2/3/2021 3/26/2021 Nextdoor posting 1/12/2021 3/17/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridianciu.or /g compplan) The subject project area contains two future land use designations,Mixed-use Community(MU- C)and Medium Density Residential(MDR),with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, 12.1 acres and 23.6 acres,respectively. Mixed Use Community—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community- serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,including residential,and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N)areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU- R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject project is located west of Ten Mile Road near the intersection of Pine and Ten Mile and its western border is the Tenmile Creek. The project has existing City of Meridian zoning and development to the west and north of the property consisting of R-8 zoning and detached single- family homes and R-4 zoning containing Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. South of the southern section of the project is the railroad easement for the historic Oregon Short Line RR; south of the railroad tracks is a 15-acre self-storage facility. Directly to the east/southeast of this project is a project that recently received approval by City Council for a mixed-use development consisting of 135 multi family units and three commercial pad sites. Across Ten Mile Road is existing commercial zoning and uses as well as a Church use. The project to the south/southeast has the MU-C designation which is also on a portion of the southern section of the subject project. The majority of the subject project contains the MDR designation. Future land use designations are not parcel specific and therefore, when a project contains more than one designation the Applicant has the opportunity to float the designations and propose a project that may fit with both or only one of the designations. In this case, the Applicant has not chosen to include any commercial uses with the subject project and instead has proposed a project that is entirely residential, corresponding with the MDR designation. The Applicant is proposing detached and attached single-family residential and multi family Page 6 Page 25 Item#3. residential which are also recommended uses within the MDR. Despite intentionally not proposing a project consistent with the MU-C designation, the Applicant understands some integration of uses and incorporating adequate transitions between uses is still important. Thus, this Applicant and that of the project to the east have worked together to allow cross-access between the projects located on the south side of the Pine Avenue extension so both vehicles and pedestrians of this project can have easier access to the commercial approved on the west side of Ten Mile. Commission and Council should determine if this sole connection is enough integration. Other than integration, the density of the project also comes into play when discussing the future land use designations. MDR allows projects with densities in the range of 3-8 du/ac and overall, this project is proposed with a gross density of 8.17 du/ac which is rounded down to 8. The MU- C designation allows gross densities of 6-15 du/ac but Staff finds this range to be generally nonapplicable because the Applicant is largely not proposing a mixed-use project; in short, it would not be appropriate to allow an overall higher density based in a future land use designation that is otherwise not apart of the project in any other aspect.A potential issue arises when the density is broken out into the segments of the plat that happen to coincide with the proposed phasing plan—the southwest block, the northwest block, and the northeast block, according to the Applicant. The Applicant breaks the density of the project down into these three areas on the submitted preliminary plat. The single-family portion of the project is proposed with a gross density just above 3 du/ac with the apartments being proposed at a gross density of 16.95 du/ac. The same difference in the numbers is also revealed when looking at the number of units proposed within the requested zones; 216 multi family units on 12.7 acres versus 76 single-family units on approximately 23 acres. If the Applicant was only requesting approval of the apartments, the proposed density would not comply with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore the only reason it is compliant now is because of the single-family portion of the project. Despite this fact, Staff agrees that apartments make sense on the R-15 piece abutting a collector street, adjacent to a school, and across from a mixed-use development to the south and more commercial to the east across Ten Mile. However, Staff does have concerns on how the apartments transition to other development and the impact that the proposed number of units will have on the transportation system in this area. To help in these regards Staff is recommending the Applicant lose some apartment units in the form of reducing some of the buildings to two-story structures instead of three. Specifically, Staff recommends that buildings on Lots 4, 5, 6, and 9, NE Block 1 (as shown on the submitted plat) within the multi family portion of the site be no more than two stories. This would help with the transition of multi-story structures abutting the backs of single-family homes to the west and to the north (Moshers Farm Subdivision) and reduce the number of units by approximately 32 units. Reducing the number of apartment units by 32 would revise the total number to 184 units and change the density of the apartments to approximately 14.4 du/ac which would fall within the allowed range of the MU-C designation. Again, this designation is generally not being analyzed by Staff but because part of the project does contain it and the adjacent project south of the proposed apartments also has the MU-C designation, Staff finds it appropriate for the higher density portion of the site to not exceed the allowed density within the MU-C because it makes for a more cohesive density between the proposed apartments and all adjacent development, both existing and approved. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section HII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council Page 7 Page 26 Item#3. and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. and Zening exhibit does not appeal,to mateh the pare k 51iYQ417�2�a � 1�14�17 1 Sf21041.7919 Sis2i441 s1.2-1041- this small area. The aims te minimize lea-ving small slivers ef eeenty!a-nd whenever-As seen by this blue area,the red lifie of the submitted Afmexa4iefi a-ad Zoning Boundafy mi prior-to the City Couneil heafing,the Appheant should provide revised legal deser-iptiefis a-ad e*hibits to ineltide this small sliver-of lanld-. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01G).Foxcroft Subdivision proposes multiple different types of housing within the project to include single-family attached(duplexes), alley- loaded single-family homes, as well as traditional detached single-family and garden style, walk- up apartments. Staff finds the proposed housing diversity would offer new types of housing for this immediate area. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A). The proposed site design incorporates some transitional densities and pedestrian facilities within open space to act as buffers between the subject parcels and existing development.As noted above, Staff does have concern between the transition of the apartments to the detached single- family homes abutting the project to the northeast. The project also abuts the Tenmile Creek on its entire western boundary which is a natural buffer between this subdivision and those to the west. Within the site the Applicant is proposing alley-loaded units abutting Pine Avenue on the south and duplexes on the north side of Pine Avenue abutting the apartments. Both of these choices offer a good transition from a busy collector street to the more traditional detached single-family homes. In addition, Stafffinds placing attached units next to the apartments in order to transition from a higher density to the existing Creekstone and Castlebrook Subdivisions to the west is appropriate. Page 8 Page 27 Item#3. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing network abutting the site to the east and to the west within the existing section of Pine Avenue,per Public Works comments. The Applicant will be extending Pine from Ten Mile Road all the way to the west and constructing a bridge over Tenmile Creek to complete this segment of Pine. Subsequently, all public utilities will also be extended at the Applicant's expense in order to connect to the existing services within the right-of-way. This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal. West Ada School District has offered comments on this project estimates 73 additional school aged children in this development. Chaparral Elementary abuts the subject site directly to the north and the Applicant is extending the multi-use pathway network to incorporate pedestrian connection to Chaparral. Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for adequate levels of service to and for this proposed project, especially with Staffs recommended revisions. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the unified development code (UDC) because of the preservation of the Tenmile Creek. This creek is one of the natural waterways specifically noted within the UDC that should be left natural and unimproved in order to provide for conservation of historic waterways. Other than the creek, the Applicant is proposing open space areas that exceed the minimum 50'x 100'dimensional standards that should allow for usable open space in all areas of the proposed project. The Applicant is also proposing multi-use pathways along the creek and adjacent to Chaparral Elementary and Fuller Park which provides more usable open space and additional pedestrian connections in this area of the City that is currently lacking in connections to Ten Mile Road. "Coordinate with developers, irrigation districts,and drainage entities to implement the proposed pathway network along canals, ditches, creeks,laterals and sloughs." (3.08.02B). The Applicant is proposing a large extension of the multi-use pathway network with this development adjacent to the Tenmile Creek. The Applicant has coordinated with the irrigation district to ensure adequate access for maintenance as well as allowed landscaping. In addition, the Applicant is proposing segments of the multi-use pathway along the north boundary to be wider than the 10'requirement to accommodate adequate access for public utility maintenance. This also offers additional room for pedestrians and cyclists to travels safely from the east and west of the site to Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together and to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system." (6.01.01H).As discussed above, the proposed development is constructing large segments of the regional pathway system which helps connect multiple areas of the City to Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. In addition, there are proposed connections to the required detached sidewalks along the Pine Avenue extension.All of the proposed pedestrian improvements would improve the access and safety for pedestrians and cyclists in this area of the City. "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.03B).Pine Avenue is a collector street east of Ten Mile Road and west of the adjacent Tenmile Creek but the segment of Pine that bisects the property is only a dirt-road,private access at this time. With the development of these parcels and the recently approved project to the southeast, Pine Avenue will be constructed as a collector street as noted on the MSM. This will make a much needed connection for the overall transportation network of Meridian and especially within the immediate area of the development. Page 9 Page 28 Item#3. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject development consists of 7 parcels and on three of them are existing homes that are proposed to remain. Access to all of the existing homes is currently via Pine,a private street that connects to Ten Mile Road but is required to be constructed as a public collector street with this development.No other site improvements are currently known. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The Applicant is proposing multiple types of residential uses within this development—detached single-family, attached single-family,alley loaded single-family, and multi-family residential. Multi-family residential is a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. All other proposed residential uses are principally permitted uses in the R-8 zoning district. Multi-family developments require Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)and Design Review so Staff will have additional opportunities to review this portion of the site. The Applicant has provided a phasing plan notating the project is to be constructed in three phases with the single-family south of Pine being first,the single-family area north of Pine second, and lastly the multi-family development in the third phase. The Applicant is required to and has proposed to construct a vehicle bridge over Tenmile Creek and extend Pine Avenue from Ten Mile Road over the creek with the first phase of development. The proposed residential uses and how they are laid out provide for a transition from Ten Mile Road to the existing detached single-family subdivisions on the west side of Tenmile Creek despite not including the 16 acres abutting the development to the east(a different owner that has received approval for a multi family development). Abutting the creek, the Applicant is showing traditional detached homes that front on a north-south local street that connects to Pine Avenue. East of this local street, and on the south side of Pine, the site transitions to alley loaded homes that front on Pine. South of the alley loaded units are two of the three existing homes that are to remain and they are proposed to take access from the new local streets proposed within the development. These homes abut the developments eastern boundary along a long segment but are somewhat removed from the boundary by the existing yards. The Applicant has provided an exhibit showing how this are of the plat can redevelop in the future should those existing owners relocate or choose to redevelop. Stafffinds it appropriate to incorporate this exhibit into the Development Agreement because it shows a logical extension of the single-family development within the project for future development. East of the local street on the north side of Pine the site transitions to single-family attached homes inform of duplexes. These homes abut the proposed apartment complex within the existing R-1 S zoning district. According to the Applicant, these homes are proposed as single-story structures which is a major factor in Staff's recommendation to limit the centrally abutting apartment building(Lot 9, NE Block 1) to a two-story structure to offer a better transition within this area of the project. The apartments are proposed with five buildings along the northern boundary abutting Chaparral Elementary and an existing subdivision.As noted, Staff believes the three buildings adjacent to the existing subdivision should also be limited to two-story structures to offer a more appropriate transition regardless of the approximate 80 foot buffer between the apartment buildings and the back of the single-family lots. Staff finds the centrally located clubhouse and open space for the multi family units to depict good site design and should offer adequate opportunity for use by everyone within the multi family development. Page 10 Page 29 Item#3. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): The proposed multi-family development use is subject to conditional use permit approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and subject to specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3- 27 and below: 11-4-3-27—Multi-Family Development: A. Purpose: 1. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. 2. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. 3. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. 4. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe, interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties.Proposed project shall comply with this requirement. 2. All on-site service areas,outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures that are only visible from the private streets; all proposed transformer/utility vaults shall also comply with this requirement. 3.A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title.According to the revised open space exhibit, the apartments are proposed with approximately 85 square feet of private open space in the form of private patios and decks for each unit, commensurate with traditional garden style apartment buildings. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common open space calculations for the site. 5.No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area. Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts",of this title. See analysis in staff report below. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: Page 11 Page 30 Item#3. a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail)that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) Per the submitted plans, the Applicant appears to meet these requirements. Where it is not clear on the submitted plans, the Applicant shall comply with these requirements at the time of CZC submittal. The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict these items. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. Note: Open space standards found in UDC 11-3G AND those found in these specific use standards shall apply to this project.Please see the applicability section of both code sections. Staff analysis for both open space requirements is in Section V.L of this staff report instead of splitting the analysis into two parts. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20').Proposed open space submitted as meeting this requirement has been reviewed.All area labeled as qualified common open space on the open space exhibit complies with this requirement. 3. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. The multi family portion of the project is proposed to be developed in one (1)phase. However, all pathways and required landscape buffers to Ten Mile Road and Pine Avenue will be required to be constructed with the first overall phase of development. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4') in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff.retroactive to 2-4- 2009). The buffer along W. Pine Avenue, a collector street, and the buffer along N. Ten Mile Road, do not count toward the common open space requirements for the multi family specific use standards. However, those areas along the arterial and collector roadways do count towards the minimum 10%required open space for the residential development as a whole. D. Site Development Amenities: Page 12 Page 31 Item#3. 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life,open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2)Fitness facilities. (3)Enclosed bike storage. (4)Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100)in size. (2) Community garden. (3)Ponds or water features. (4)Plaza. c. Recreation: (1)Pool. (2)Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two (2) amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five (75)units,three (3) amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five (75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Based on 216 proposed units or the reduced amount of 184 units recommended by Staff, a minimum of four(4) amenities are required,however, the decision-making body is authorized to consider other amenities in addition to those provided per the standards listed above in 2.d. It is not entirely clear what amenities are proposed only for the multi family portion of the development. Therefore, the following amenities are what are known by Staff to be proposed from the quality of life, open space, and recreation categories:a clubhouse, a swimming pool, pedestrian and bicycle paths, a segment of multi-use pathway, and open space that is at least 5,000 square feet. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing 5 qualifying site amenities to meet the multi family standards. Staff is not in full support that the proposed 5 amenities can adequately serve nearly 200 apartment units.At the Commission hearing, the Applicant should clarify Page 13 Page 32 Item#3. what other amenities are proposed for the multi family portion of the development to ensure compliance with code. E. Landscaping Requirements: 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3) linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The submitted landscape plan appears to meet these specific use standard landscape requirements and shall be further verified at the time of CZC submittal(see Exhibit VII.D). F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed building lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards except for Lots 3-8,of SW Block 2 (some of the alley loaded lots),per the submitted plat;these lots do not meet the minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. The Applicant is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the requested zone so the noted lots must be enlarged to meet the minimum lot size requirement. To do this, the Applicant will likely have to reduce the open space lot directly south of these lots and push the alley further south. Note: The alley that is shown on the plat does not meet ACHD policies for an alley. Therefore, this alley must instead be constructed as a minor urban local street which is a minimum of 24 feet wide with curb and gutter and no parking is allowed on either side. Staff is recommending a condition of approval in line with ACHD's condition to ensure this street segment is revised. hi addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). The Applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac that is over the permitted 500 foot length and therefore must be approved by City Council,per the UDC standards. The submitted preliminary plat depicts this cul-de-sac to be approximately 710 feet in length and ends in a cul-de-sac that has an emergency access to the adjacent Mile High Pines subdivision directly to the east. This Applicant needs the emergency access in order to maintain Fire Department approval. The adjacent subdivision was recently approved with maintaining this access but Commission and Council should determine if the overall site design of this southern section of the site is sufficient for 26 homes to take access from when developing around existing structures. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed local street connections to the W. Pine Avenue extension for the single-family portions of the development;the multi-family development is proposed with two driveway access points to Pine Avenue that line up proposed accesses on the south side of Pine (one within this development and one within the Mile High Pines project on the south side of Pine). There is no access to N. Ten Mile Road except through the collector street, Pine Avenue. Because of the Tenmile Creek and other easements along the boundaries there are no other stub streets that exist to this development. Subsequently,the Applicant is not proposing any stub streets to adjacent subdivisions. The proposed public streets and driveway access points have been approved by ACHD despite the easternmost driveway not meeting district policy. ACHD has recommended a Page 14 Page 33 Item#3. 25%modification to their standards to allow this access so that it aligns with the one approved for Mile High Pines to the south and to allow overall traffic circulation in the multi-family development. As noted,the Applicant is proposing a cul-de-sac over the permitted length. Please see previous section for analysis and requirements on this issue. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: The proposed project proposes more than 100 units and therefore requires a Traffic Impact Study(TIS). The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and specific conditions of approval are outlined in their staff report(see exhibit VIII.K).Despite ACHD analyzing and discussing the TIS in their own report,Staff finds it necessary to highlight the main points of discussion and road improvement requirements,specifically those related to the extension of Pine Avenue. This Applicant and the Applicant for the approved project to the southeast of this project have entered into a legally binding "Dedication and Development Agreement"that outlines the potential options for how the Pine Avenue extension will be constructed(see Exhibit VIII.0). In addition,ACHD has outlined different options for how this extension and road improvements can occur. The Applicant's agreement discusses that whoever obtains City approval second is required to dedicate the required amount of right-of-way to ensure Pine Avenue is constructed centered on the section line dividing the two properties.Staff appreciates the forethought of this agreement to ensure correct construction of the Pine Avenue extension. Therefore,Staff recommends a condition of approval in line with this agreement. At a minimum, this Applicant will construct Pine Avenue west of the Pine/Ten Mile intersection as % of a 36 foot collector street section with vertical curb,gutter, and detached sidewalk on the north side. This half street section is proposed and has been approved by ACHD for approximately 890 feet into the site from Ten Mile because the Mile High Pines development will construct the southern half the street section abutting their site. West of this line, this Applicant is required to construct Pine as the full collector street section to the west boundary and construct the vehicle bridge over Tenmile Creek.In addition, the Applicant is required to enter into a signal agreement for the required signal improvements at the Pine/Ten Mile intersection. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family and multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The single-family portion of the site must comply with these standards and will be confirmed at the time of building permit submittal. The Applicant has provided data regarding the multi family portion of the site to show compliance with the parking requirements. Based on the number of bedrooms, the minimum parking required for the multi family development is 415 spaces; according to the submitted preliminary plat, 429 parking spaces are proposed. This amount exceeds the minimum requirements by only 14 spaces. Pine Avenue will be a collector street which does not allow on- street parking so there are only 14 extra spaces for guests to park within the apartment complex. Staff has major concerns regarding the proposed parking which is an additional reason why reducing the number of units as previously discussed is recommended. By losing 32 units, the parking requirement will be reduced by 48 spaces if they are all one-bedroom units and will be reduced by 64 spaces if they are all two-bedroom units. Staff recommends a reduction in apartment units but not a significant reduction in parking spaces. Following the reduction in Page 15 Page 34 Item#3. units, some of the parking could be removed in order to move Lot 11 or Lot 9 away from the single-family homes to the west;some parking could also be removed to increase the amount of open space within the apartment complex. Staff recommends that no more than 20 of the excess spaces are removed to accommodate the above options. The Applicant did not submit a separate parking plan for review. I. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required and proposed along the property's western, northern,and southern boundaries. The Applicant's submitted plans show compliance with this requirement in line with the Master Pathways Plan(MPP). The Applicant will continue the new segment of pathway from Mile High Pines to the east along the southern boundary and abutting the railroad easement. This section of multi-use pathway will then connect to a segment along the east side of the Tenmile Creek that will be shared with the irrigation access road.Approximately 425 feet north of the southern boundary, the pathway turns west and crosses the creek at an existing culvert to end up behind the Chesterfield Subdivision. This juncture of the pathway also turns east to become a micro path and connects to the attached sidewalk along the internal local street.Along the creek the pathway continues north to Pine Avenue and will connect to the sidewalks along the collector street and allow for access to the existing multi-use pathway on the north side of Pine that continues further north to Fuller Park and the Castlebrook Subdivision. Per the MPP, the Applicant is also proposing to construct another large segment of multi-use pathway along the northern boundary that starts at Ten Mile Road and continues all the way to the western boundary with a new pathway connection to Fuller Park from this development. This new connection will allow residents of this development, the future Mile High Pines residents, and those of existing developments to the west to use the sidewalks and this new pathway segments to access Fuller Park further east than what is currently existing within Castlebrook Sub. In addition to the required multi-use pathways, the Applicant is proposing a micro path between the apartment complex and the northwest block of single family homes that connects the detached sidewalks along Pine to the multi-use pathway along the norther boundary. This is yet another pedestrian and bicycle connection to increase the pedestrian circulation in this area. Despite all of the proposed pathways within the development, there is one additional connection that could tie together even more paths and add a quicker way for children to walk to Chaparral Elementary, if it can be done. Staff believes adding a new micro path connection to the open space and pathway within Moshers Subdivision to the northeast would be a great benefit to this development and the recently approved Mile High Pines.Adding a new connection to the school is not preferred by either the school district or Police because it creates another access point to monitor for safety reasons. Mosher Subdivision already has a dedicated micro path connection to Chaparral so if this Applicant can work with the Mosher HOA and tie into their existing network, the overall pedestrian access to the school will be increased. Overall, this Applicant is proposing to construct approximately 4,500 linear feet(approximately 0.85 miles) of pathways with this development, which does not include the detached sidewalks along Fine Avenue. This is an abnormally high number for one project to construct so Staff is appreciative of the proposed pathways that are required and not required. Staff is in full support of the proposed pathway plan for the subject development. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal private streets and 5-foot detached sidewalks are proposed along Pine Avenue, in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Page 16 Page 35 Item#3. The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the project including to and from the multi-use pathway segments surrounding the development. All open space areas also appear to be directly adjacent to sidewalks which add to the accessibility of these areas. Staff supports the sidewalk and pedestrian circulation plan for this development. See Exhibit VII.E. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W. Pine Avenue, a collector street,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. At least a 20-foot wide common lot is depicted along both sides of Pine Avenue and the submitted landscape plans appear to show landscaping in excess of code requirements. There is also a 25-foot wide landscape buffer required adjacent to the small area of the site that abuts N. Ten Mile Road, an arterial roadway; the submitted plat and landscape plans also show compliance with this requirement. The submitted landscape plans appear to show the correct amount of landscaping per the UDC standards for the landscape buffers. Landscaping is required along all pathways (including micro-pathways) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of all pathways with the required and proposed number of trees are included in the Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans, sheet LA. The correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted plans.However, the required 5 feet of landscaping and trees on both sides of the pathways is not shown at any point throughout the site. Staff understands the pathways are encumbered by the Tenmile Creek to some degree. Therefore, at a minimum, the Applicant should apply for Alternative Compliance at the time of Final Plat submittal to show an adequate alternative to the required landscaping on both sides of the multi-use pathways. Prior to the City Council hearing though, the Applicant should revise relevant plans to reduce the depth of the lots along the southern boundary to include the required landscaping on both sides of the pathway in this segment. In addition, the segment that runs along the east side of the creek should widen the landscape area adjacent to the pathway to at least 5 feet;the submitted landscape plans show only a 3-foot wide area of landscaping. The lots adjacent to this segment can accommodate a loss of at least 2 feet in lot depth to include 5 feet of landscaping on at least one side of the pathway. The segment of multi-use pathway along the north boundary and proposed apartments is also encumbered by irrigation and sewer easements as well as the required dimensional standards for drive aisles and parking spaces. Because of this, the Applicant has proposed trees and landscaping on the buildable lots abutting the pathway that exceed UDC minimums. Staff agrees with this decision but this alternative should also be included in the alternative compliance request required at the time of final plat submittal. For the segment of pathway along the north boundary but behind the single-family lots, no landscaping is shown beyond grasses. This does not meet code and at a minimum, these lots should be reduced to accommodate at least 5 feet of landscaping(including trees) between the pathway and the buildable lots.As discussed previously, the lack of trees on the drain side of the pathway should be part of the required alternative compliance request. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is included in the Landscape Calculations table and meets UDC requirements. Page 17 Page 36 Item#3. L. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): As discussed previously,the open space standards for both the standard 11-3G-3 and the multi- family specific use standards are analyzed in this section. A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the overall development, including the multi-family portion of the project. Based on the proposed plat of 35.72 acres,a minimum of 3.57 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy the requirements of 11-3G-3. In addition,because there is a multi-family development within a residential zoning district,the common open space standards listed within the specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27, also apply. The minimum amount of open space required to satisfy the specific use standards is 1.24 acres of common open space. Combined,the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 4.81 acres. The Applicant's revised open space exhibit shows a total of 6.9 acres of qualifying open space.5.31 acres meet the 11-3G-3 standards (approximately 14.9%) and the remaining 1.59 acres meet the common open space requirements in the multi-family development specific use standards(see Exhibit VII.C).The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers,the Tenmile Creek,and other open space areas throughout the site. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. The 1.59 acres of common open space proposed to meet the specific use standards for multi- family development consist of the clubhouse/pool with some adjacent open space,two areas that are at least 5,000 square feet, and other smaller areas of open space that meet the minimum 20' x 20' multi-family open space dimensional standards. The open space proposed to meet the specific use standards also exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. As noted above, the common open space provided with this development exceeds the minimum amounts required by code. Despite proximity and ease of access to Fuller Parkfor this development, the Applicant proposed open space in excess of UDC standards. In addition, the Applicant is not counting a majority of the multi-use pathways as open space because they know they cannot accommodate the required landscaping adjacent to them. Staff appreciates the amount of open space proposed and even though it is not centrally located, Staff believes there is adequate open space within Fuller Park to engage in larger activities. In addition, the Applicant is proposing private open space for the multi family development that complies with code requirements. Staff appreciates all of the pedestrian pathways throughout the site; these pathways and sidewalks connect the main areas of open space to the residential units offering fairly equitable access to the proposed open space. Staff supports the pedestrian network and the connections to open space anchored by usable open space and amenities and the commercial area on the eastside of the site. All in all, Stafffinds that the proposed common and private open space are sufficient for a project of this size and proposed use. M. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(35.7 acres),a minimum of two (2) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The applicant proposes three(3)qualifying amenities to satisfy the requirements in this section of the UDC; 10-foot multi-use pathway segments, children's play structure, and a gazebo. All other site amenities(analyzed in an above section) satisfy the multi-family specific use standard amenity requirements. Page 18 Page 37 Item#3. N. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the submitted landscape plans and appears to meet UDC requirements. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual renderings and elevations only for the apartment buildings. Attached single-family homes and multi-family structures require Administrative Design Review(DES)approval prior to building permit submittal. The submitted multi family elevations show traditional, walk-up garden style apartment buildings. The buildings appear to have at least three field materials of stucco, lap siding, and stone and incorporate adequate roofplane variation along the roofline. The buildings all share the identical color palette which does create a singular identity. The ASM notes that no two multi family buildings should look the same.At the time of DES submittal for these structures, the Applicant should create more differentiation between the units to ensure compliance with the ASM. This could occur by adding variation in the amount of accent materials and/or accent colors. Staff will ensure compliance with the ASM at the time of design review submittal for both the multi family units and the attached single-family dwellings. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested conditional use permit and preliminary plat applications per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on March 4,2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jane Suggs, Gem State PlanningApplicant Representative; b. In opposition: Jane Byam,resident. c. Commenting: Jane Suggs;Jane Byam, d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Current Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Future land use map shown on the project site and its correlation to density; b. Concern over the extension of Pine Avenue and the potential of traffic increasing. at the intersection of Pine and Black Cat, c. Density of the project not being compatible with subdivisions to the west and the larger lots even further west,west of Black Cat, d. Will the Black Cat and Pine intersection be signalized? 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Pine Avenue extension and its impact to closest arterial intersections(Pine&Ten Mile; Pine&Black Cat), b. How the southernmost lots function as shown on the proposed-plat- C. Redevelopment plans for the three existing homes that are to remain on site, specifically the two lots in the southern section of the project; Page 19 Page 38 Item#3. d. General location of the different types of single-family homes and how access to them will work. What kind of additional amenity is appropriate for the apartment units; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Revise the conditions of approval as noted in the Staff Memo dated March 1,2021; b. Add a condition that an additional amenity be added to the proposed multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None B. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 20 Page 39 Item#3. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps Description for R-8 ZONE Foxcroft Subdivision November 19,2020 A parcel of land located in the Southwest 114 of the Northeast 1/4 and the North 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 10 from which the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 10 bears, North 89°36'02"West,2655.68 feet;thence on the East-West centerline of said Section 10, North 89136'02"West,939.50 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said centerline, South 06°07'28"West,415.20 feet; thence South 42152'02"East,798.04 feet to the centerline of the Oregon Short Line Railroad; thence on said centerline, North 88°51'42"West,703.34 feet; thence leaving said centerline, North 33°15'25"West,241.17 feet; thence North 48°32'21"West, 101.97 feet; thence North 43°57'49"West, 144.27 feet; thence North 88°52'12"West,50.71 feet to the Easterly boundary line of Chesterfield Subdivision No.4 as filed in Book 112 of Plats at Pages 16216 through 16218, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence on said Easterly boundary line the following seven(7)courses and distances: North 45°26'50"West, 1.76 feet; North 39°43'48"West,89.05 feet; North 39°20'28"West, 100.02 feet; North 25°23'24"West, 125.16 feet; North 19'21'27"West,94.89 feet; �- •µ... s 11779 Page i of 2 Page 21 Page 40 Item#3. 4 ' North 22°44'42"West,83.44 feet; North 17'25'33"West, 198.22 feet to the East-West centerline of said Section 10; thence on said centerline,South 89136'02" East,39.48 feet to the Easterly boundary line of Ten Mile Creek as described in Easement Deed recorded on March 15, 1946 in Book 121 of Deeds at Page 23, records of Ada County, Idaho; thence on said Easterly boundary line the following three(3)courses and distances: North 17'27'31"West,530.79 feet; 120.85 feet along the arc of curve to the left having a radius of 176.00 feet, a central angle of 39°20'32"and a long chord which bears North 37'07'47" West, 118.49 feet; North 56°48'03"West, 118.30 feet to the North boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10; thence on said North boundary line,South 89'37'19" East,765.14 feet to the Northeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10; thence South 00°03'48"West, 663.57 feet to the Southeast corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10; thence on the East-West centerline of said Section 10,South 89'36'02" East, 388.34 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 24.567 acres,more or less. End of Description. ti OFPage 2 of 2Y;�` Page 22 Page 41 Item#3. 4 1s0 600 0 300 SCALE: 1" = 300' .] L C-S-NE 1/64 S89'37'19"E 765.14' S.10 <g - Ln Ki Z ( MOSHERS co FARM SUB 13 Of I W BASIS OF BEARING ............ •N89'36'02"W 2655.68'•............... -S89'36'02_"E 1/4 C 1/4 --- C-E 1/16 388.34' N 89'36'02"W 939.50' --- 5.10 N1T25'33"W S89'36'02"E S.10 --198.22 39.48' 1.3 OFABEG BEGINo NING NT S.1 D 5.11 R-8 ZONE Nf CO N22 4 83.44' ±24.567 ACRES f o I ti N19'21'27"W Z 94.89' N 25-23'24"W 125.16' N88'S2'12"W \� 1 N39'20'28"W 50.71' I S 100.02' S45'26'50"E 1.76' \ I N43'57'49"W �� %.o 144.27' \ p�pL LANp _ N88'51'42'W 703.34' \ 4�C ENS F i1G�G — I OREON SHORT LINE RAILROAD 11779 n N�'J�y��sZsPs rF of do per' LINE TABLE orM McCk LINE BEARING LENGTH L1 N33'15'25"W 241.17 CURVE TABLE L2 N48'32'21"W 101.97 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BRIG. CHORD DIST. L3 N39'43'48"W 89.05 Cl 120,85 176.00 39'20'32" N37'07'47"W 118.49 L4 N56'48'03"W 118.30 .e too w Fnvc.ok a :5 P IDAHO EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR roB no. 19-133 9955 W.EMERALD ST. CITY OF MERIDIAN R-8 ZONE SHEET NO. SURVEY 8018 4"5HO 70 6 FOXCROFT SUBDIVISION 1 GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 AND THE N 1/2 OF THE SE DWG.DATE 1/4 OF SECTION$0,T.3N.,RAW.,B.M.,ADA COUNTY,iDAHO 11/19/2020 Page 23 Page 42 Item#3. Description for R-15 Zone Ten Pine Park Subdivision October 27,2020 A parcel of land located in the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the East 1/4 corner of said Section 10 from which the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 10 bears, North 89°36'02"West,2655.68 feet; thence on the East-West centerline of said Section 10, North 89°36'02"West, 1327.84 feet to the Southeast corner of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10; thence on the East boundary line of the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 10, North 00°03'48" East,654.55 feet to the centerline of the Ten Mile Drain; thence on said centerline the following seven(7)courses and distances: South 85'32'14" East, 126.24feet; South 65°24'02" East,49.70 feet; North 89°34'58" East,23.00 feet; South 66°39'02" East,357.40 feet; South 67°30'53"East,357.19 feet; South 66°01'35"East,448.10 feet; South 50°13'59"East,22.66 feet; thence leaving said centerline, North 89°59'52" East,48.00 feet to the East boundary line of said Section 10; thence on said East boundary line,South 0°00'08" East, 158.64 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 12.942 acres,more or less. End of Description. R-x1 fn Page 1 of 13 Page 24 Page 43 Item#3. 150 600 0 300 SCALE: 1" = 300' S85'32'14"E 126.24' S65'24'02"E - -- 49,70' T66 i 3S3g0,2E 19, 1 ,40 S6). MOSHERS r N89'34'58"E 3053 FARM SUB 23.00' 3g j E w� S6B 07 3. I w R--15 ZONE o f ±12.942 ACRES ``�48�� z S50'13'59"E . L1 22.66' REAL POINT N OF BEGINNING 1/4 C 1/4'' N89'36'02'W 1327.84' S.10 5.10 5.11 Z N89'36'02"W 2655.68'••""""• i w BASIS OF BEARING ~ I iz G � I � I OREON SHORT LINE RAILROAD ��5y\ONPGENS�eo sG�� C� 779 LINE TABLE 1 `p �7 7 9 LINE BEARING LENGTH �0 9TF `pQ = L1 N89'59'52"E 48.00 O OF o Y� McCAM� L2 SD'00'08"E 158.64 EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR mD Ho. I DAHO 19-133 SURVEY 9955W EMEMLDST. CITY OF MERIDIAN R-15 ZONE S EET ND. (M)86-8Hoe37oa TEN PINE PARK SUBDIVISION 1 GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION m OWG GATE T.3N.,R M,U.M..ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 10/27/2020 Page 25 Page 44 Item#3. s65°32'q"e sg�3go2h S a e sgs 3053 e 7 m h� m SBB a735B `9 10 G �C �C �G aQ n; 1327.64 n89 36'02"w Ir 10/27/2020 Scale: 1 inch= 171 feet File:Ten Pine Park Sub R-15 Zone.ndp Tract 1:12.9416 Acres,Closure:s62.4340e 0.01 ft.(11686231),Perimeter-3573 ft. 01 n89.3602w 1327.84 10 n89.5952e 48 02 nOD.0348e 654.55 11 s00.0008e 158.64 03 s85.3214e 126.24 04 s65.2402e 49.7 05 n89.3458e 23 06 s66.3902e 357.4 07 s67.3053e 357.19 08 s66.0135e 448.1 Page 26 Page 45 Item#3. B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 11 min 0 February 24,2021) _-- --• .==a=� eyr. 0N1 `1 N 3 w d 013A-]Q AV 0112i1 _ aapalvxfxxmdlvxixa+xvu3+vat L''3r N O I S I I O 9 M S 13 O Li Z>X O-A I •aul'�ulaaau�u3/uflle(yi �;���+'^s � m� per.., r � �� IJ� I.'.,Mi o fat } a z a€ e Z r_' t F p �e T------- � 'm i fr lII a 51 �� It fl I / I I a 1 1 Page 27 Page 46 000 1 a HINNod 1----3 1-10 auiHupaauav3eane � p —j A 2tj IV r-4 1 VN 11:s ztj d 13 �N F Ms lu 19 N Ag.7 AK MIMI all 61, V. . ................... C�, sa .... .............. it . J bo —Gj:- p jj 21 e,o® Page 28 Item#3. C. Open Space Exhibit(date: 11,111,12020 r February 24,2021) -•- -.- dal. `1N3W-1 O 1.`J 0112d1 `U Oni DMIMMd I DHlHmNIGa3;up nloislnlaans i�oa�xo� I ul'9uuaau!au3 Ili °aofw, QJ `"w k NV 1d `JNI?IHVd (INV 30VdS N3dO cS w_ ¢t7mZ mN rriLL m � 6 W N k O g LL a k N W ¢ wNN� w¢�� 00wQNA az W o �Jf� 1 ��e E f O'09� p Mc dUe dOH�, d rN V � =1... 3oc-ar „b.k Haag �a s. M w��o� yozooa oo o S§ 3 w NA ET k CJr j LIZ Ca ev 10 f : I � rI m s Y y�\`(3•jP '�— �g�'i €�w i3�3 @fie� �4 '�E P 4 Y4924I�3 J Fed"§� � ���$§oo Hfil Page 29 Page 48 Item#3. PARKING PRGw OSPACES-42B EINCLE FAMILP PARKING APARTMENTS -COVEREOSPACES-L16 -EA CH UNIT PROPOSED HAS EQUIRE ACES.RS P20i 5iANDARD CAR ENCLOSED GARAGE -�� -541BRx I.G=61 -9 HANDICAP SPACES MEETING CDDE REQUIREMENTS OPEN SPATE AND PARKING 4WALfFtFD_}D�-- --......,..___....._.... __.._._ -1622BRx2-224 -UNCOVERRD SPACES-1. FOR 20FFSTREETPARKINGPER EXHIBIT FOR -�-_� PARKIN G FOR CWBHOUSE=6 14-3G 3 B 1 e 13,290 sf. ..... -01 AooITICNALPARKmc UNI FOXCROFT SUBDIVISION HLAP 6PAGE5-g=125PACE5 5 PAGESAREIDENTIFIED ON-STREET 11.21UNITITHESEARE lif /yy/� TOTAL REGUIRED411 _ NOTINTENDED TO BE MARKED THE PUBLIC STREET BUT ,/. Q`AIEh iJDC,, QU ONLYAS AN ILLUSTRATION OF \ 11-G 3 Q 1-Yd 6f 2 d - REASONABLE PARKING NET OF a 3.`2L DRIVEWAYS AND OTHER IF - OBSTRUCTIONS 21 UAL p �; P Ar It IM Q ALI DIED DC I I P o o �� di ._ �� s P�_ QUALIFIED UDG IED UDC 3G-3.B4.4.10 EALI 1—G3 61"1.a°` �8 sf © 9 OO ® ® ® ® ® II !y+ -`.--u UAL'4PIEBT362i` ALIFIED 4!ljlC 1 •"• -3G-3. QUALIFIED UDG II-3G-3.B.i.a. \ \� �_ Jcn OPEN SPACE NO DRAINAGE 50x100 MIN 9 I\A 50,645 SF W= �� 1.17ACRES -� QUALIFIED UDC 11-3G-3.B.1.e. .... PATHWAYS WITH LANDSCAPE 598 SF �N\ ® 073ACRES QUALIFIED UDC 11-3G-3.B.3. COLLECTOR 45,450 sf 104 ACRES QUALIFIED UDC 11-3G-3,6,4. ONE HALFARTERIAL BUFFERS .05 ACRES QUALIFIED UDC II-30-3,B,7 QUAL'IF`EED UDC NATURAL WATERWAY 11-3G-J. 1 119,722 sf 1,732 sf m. 2.75 ACRES Page 30 Page 49 Item#3. D. Landscape Plans(date:'-�20 0 February 25,2021) f; n — ------------ — r 1 sIY a. LU LU i � 3 � 5 C,, a C" O W L.L � Page 31 Page 50 Item#3. L � I rr f I- I 'V� � ��I M Awe 1, (i'1 �•�� -� I d T,- �' Nn pop co Y JICL L L— �e 1 Z w L.L Page 32 Page 51 Item#3. 'I4 ,N I - UN ruv• - r _ V V V I�I I \ I ,\0"\ �;� 10 Iy Al- ...' o li'I lil qN I ...l�g41!Isi� I IIIr I'I c- I __ ra Y Pi k t � I N K'AV 'J ® F ° Ld e O � - n� F r,E r b ' I� v II x>ur�m — +e" PRF—IFINAR" PLAT LANDSCAPE FLAN ev'so am sn Riley Engineering,Inc. r— n FCDXCROl-7- E�u�3L7IWI�ICJ�I �MLE O NGINEENINGIPaNNINGICAD TRILOGY -DEVELOPh/E:NT, INC. Page 33 Page 52 Item#3. �M I bll � m11 h 10 I _ 'N ]EN MILE ft0. Z x _ m 54 m ma rn a zm'm PRLLM1,ARY PLAT LANGSCA'L PLAN 1—o x C R o i—T �LJ B d I i/I T.I C� \ �VaileyEngineering,Inc. z`' CIVIL ENGINEERING I PLANNING I CAUU -RILOGY ID LOPV-I1,T, INC_ Page 34 Page 53 Item#3. /� y � d/ yy till I III I� m D 10 le ra m < r � i o VE sEx =, m ..... PRE_I/INAK" PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN � ! Ua ileyEngineering,Inc. Caa O X C R O;—T 1_]D L7 I V I S I O r-,l m e Cm�ExclxeenlxclPwxxlxc lCADD TRILOGY DEVELOPMENT, INC. Page 35 Page 54 Item#3. 1. t ins•.. � a S �' �� �� � � �� � ��a � &��� � '"��^,� vN Ij - z 50 o r z : Y nn � r z m dr -A r , ra PII a ° a'` ma ON,. om V r�A €o m PREL MINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAY R ^T d�3 It Wiley Engineering,Inc. ,.P ®X R 1- T S LJ[� I V V Q?v �'' .- CIVIL Fire MEF uma I PLANNING I CAoo T ICI LC GY CEV E LO PM TNT, INC. d;;; •„ _ .-.�.. Page 36 Page 55 Item#3. E. Pathways and Pedestrian Circulation Exhibit 1 � j I O = a-- � I• .�-� ^ III � � 0_ o b O Al o � IIFo ^ O I € O O /0 CQ Oa III m� Q O II fJ /l I i o� I O I•�' ran p rn'a k m f o m j `tl a H - PATHWAYS EXO-iOBOT s ,�y„r*�, 9 w.i °_ Ilry Endneetln&lnc. �-3 FOXCFZO FT SUl3OIVISION � Cm�EnowEntixclPunninal CRUn T F21L0 GY DEVELOPMENT. INC Page 37 Page 56 F. Proposed Phasing Plan PR ELIMINARY FORFOXCPOVTSUBDIVISIO................ .......... 1AP, td rv" Z L) 0 z 4A� J - Ld IL 7:7 0 w x (L L A' TEL Page 38 Item#3. G. Conceptual Redevelopment Plan for lots containing existing homes to remain in the"SW Block" t92 F 34' 34' f... _ ' .� O}{CROFT SUBflIV15fON A nc;r -; i REDEVELOPMENT PLAN N... - _ .• FOR LOTS 2 AND 6 ` - '' BLOCK 4 SW F�l ---------- - - 3 r s '------ �•--- -ri- - r _ --_---- f 8,392 s 1 , - i 1 041 - aj,sls SCALE 1"=60' II//II�YH.�//.YrS�YIIIIIHI/IIIrI/y� r S U + - 8,558 14,777 SAS +u Z4b82 ,a 1 6" � • `\ t 52' '� SW BLOCK 4 4,12 Page 39 Page 58 •e i� r F a �� ► - a_ d— Au i i r, m Lv i' a'• .r' x : r�mn��lllill f ry jF' va I •� �_ III }�. r ......,� ,y.,,. 1 Page 42 Item#3. =-c a ON A; 9'1 -. w - s Page 43 Page 62 Item#3. -z wo ............ i oil --_-_ Page 44 Page 63 Item#3. 1. 3A14er-Maf"p for-Areas of Possible Water-Main Elimination(DELETE) by oy 1 A3 s —7 77 A4 SSMH l .� r this water loop SSM' p.... .needed? �� `--�yIP/P• ASS .$ 1 � ` ... ��� a _ IP!`I w -Y I'•p P Pfp��_ Pl iA "w, • 1P 2 ��•• �-Pr _ NF OCx•1 p,W,•,� 1���_ � Plp�/P!�. Ss�i H P+ I this section cfiwater fP •, main can be eliminated P4P{P+p{yl P .` P ph r�y}R+P�ai P�P•P `� far better circulation ` •_P - �� r 'I"I Pf,, , SSMH D3 �s needed? IP'rP=I�:� a I:•: P o 7 P P' , wPr ' -j11°"I 7 _HPI 1 ._P CLUBHOUSE/ 'SMH F1r �.Hi OFFICE lip!pi Nl of rl rl nl PI PIP PIPS P'r1,;r » ^' .ir �P_� P ...� 1 c f 1 _ _ rr L+ l - _ I NE BLOCK I 14 r .,... _ ❑ I P Ill ;o P-IP p P SSMH E2 r p� F P P I I P LP P 1 7'I T-T L J - W I iC Pi P "-a _� �L _ �' }P' � 15 L ---�— —� •_ P�6ILPIFI PI PIP I •� � L-- - Page 45 Page 64 Item#3. J. Ten Mile Stub Drain cross-section 3HD FLOOR BALCONY IS 4' ABOVE 2ND FLOOR OF EXISTING HOME C Elko-2W 01 m 1 0 i ELEY- FLOOR R0 ELLY- 2THIfm Race BALCONYC N m SECOND FLOIXiROOF PEM 7.55 RD�F BAN N m d N C 2610 —D ' d 261❑ oIN I� r 2600 F V a K 2600 � b 2590 2590 2rrd Flaar a 2580 2rrd Flo a fst F7aar � 2580 2570 fst Hoar I I 1 2560 ———— 2560 ELEV- E4.O1 ELEV-s LM 2550 10 wsat vATM I 255D { I 2544 RAVEL I 2540 2+00 2+50 3+0D 3+50 4+00 4+-50 5+00 Ten Mile Stub Drain PROFILF VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved plat, site plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit,conceptual building elevations,e r,.o..tua -edevo',....mefA ph an-,pathway and pedestrian circulation exhibit, and the proposed phasing plan included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The 10-foot multi-use pathway segments surrounding the development shall be constructed with Pose 1 each phase of the development as seen on the phasinl; >l lan- c. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct the extension of W. Pine Avenue,the vehicle bridge over Ten Mile Creek,a-ad the Pine/Te Page 46 Page 65 Item#3. Mile:f Arse.tiers in aeeE)r-d wi all other ACHD requirements and in line with the signed"Dedication and Development Agreement,"as seen in exhibit VIILL, and the ACHD conditions of approval. d. No building permits shall be submitted until the final plat for the associated phase is recorded. e. The required landscape street buffers shall be constructed and vegetated(along N. Ten Mile and W. Pine Avenue)with the first phase of development. The multi family development shall be censtFuEtea with fie more-than 184 g. With future sale of single-family homes on Lots 20-32,NW Block 1,the Applicant shall include the multi-family site plan and renderings in the sales and advertising information for these homes. h. 2. With Final AM s4mittals,the Applieant shall pfevide r-elev&14 revised plans to depiet any 3. The preliminary plat included in Section VILB, dated November- 11,-20z9 February 24.2021 is approved as shown. sha4l be revised as fellews at least ten(10)days pr-ier-to the Git Getmeil he r.. a. Revise the pr-epesed alley between SW Bleek 2 a-ad SW Bleek 3 to be a miner-ur-ba—a lee i stfee•1 eeastndeted t a minimtim e f 24 feet wide with, „-b and tt#e sidewalks, and no pafk4ag o eithef:side. feet. e. Reduee appheable building lots in the single family areas of the site to aeeemmeda4e M least 5 feet of!a-ndseaping and tfees a4eng the n�mlfi tise pathway segments ( 4 The landscape plan included in Section VILD, dated November- !I,-20N February 25,2021, is approved as shown. sha4l be revised as fellews prior-to sttbmittal ef the Final PI appheatiew a. Revise the!a-adseape plans to add a 5 feet wide la*dseape buffer-alefig both sides 0 aeee with T T� 11 3B-1-2-. b. Shew M least 5 feet of!a-ndseaping en the east side of the pathway segment on the east side of the Ten Mile creek•••,1�cape in aeeen'1rwith T TUPC 1 1 3JB 12 e. Show at least 5 feet of!a-ndseaping en the set#h side the pathway segmen4 abuft4n Lets 12 19,NIAI>?1eek 1 5. The Applicant shall apply for Alternative Compliance with the first each Final Plat submittal to propose an adequate alternative for all of the required pathway landscape requirements,in accord with UDC 11-5B-5. Page 47 Page 66 Item#3. 6. if an agreemefA ea-a be made with the Mosher-Subdivision hemeeNN%er-'s asseeia4iefi,th-e pathway network generally leea4ed in the leea4ion ef the existing eulveI4 ever-the T-eft Mile 7. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6,UDC Table 11-2A-7, and those listed in the specific use standards for multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 8. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family and multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 9. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 10. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval entire multi-family development with the submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the entire site and for the attached single-family dwellings. 11. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for the entire multi- family development prior to building permit submittal. 12. The Appheant shall provide eeneeptual eleva4ieas fer-the pr-epesed single family a4taeh dwellings buildings at least ten(10) days-prior-ie the City Couneil hear-ing. 13. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 14. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 15. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 16. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements,acquire building permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4. 17. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 18. The Applicant shall adhere to and maintain all standards as set forth in the Multi-family Development specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27. 19. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 20. The Applicant shall record a maintenance agreement for the multi-family development that states the maintenance and the ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas,and other development features, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27. 21. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit public access easements for all of the multi-use pathways within the development to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. Page 48 Page 67 Item#3. 22. Future redevelopment of existing homes (Lots 2&7, SW Block 4) shall be generally consistent with the submitted Conceptual Redevelopment Plan as seen in Exhibit VII.G. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval ever-the maialine. This eenditien ean alse be sa4isfied with a 14 feet wide paved sur-faee. The pathway shown ever-the exisiing sewer-alefig the fieAh pr-epei4ies is subjeet to 1.1 Pef minimum eity r-e"ir-emeats,all sewer-mainlines a-ad manholes etAside of a pa-ve 1.2 Please redesign the sa-mitafy sewer-FetAing to elimiaa4e the sewer-mainline passing dffetl the eemmen driveway labeled as Lot 20,NW Bleek 1. Sanitary sewer-mainlifies are fie allowed within eemmen drives, only s (r-emiader-that a mffldmi±m ef three illewed into a manhele,with a minimium 30 degrees ef angle separ-a4iea). 1.3 All sanitary sewer and water easement areas must remain free of any permanent structures, trees,brush,or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for the easement. 1.4 Sanitary sewer and water service lines cannot run under carports. 1.5 Minimum distance between service lines must be maintained, 6-feet between potable/non- potable service lines, 5-feet between each sewer stub off the mainline. 1.6 Any sewer service lines greater than 100-feet will need cleanouts that are accessible for cleaning; contact plumbing official for specific details. with"to and through"r-e"ir-emefits. This fiew mainline shall ewmeet to existing wateF mai M the west and east orate 1.9 The water-main in N. White Leaf Way near-SSN414 G5 needs to eemeet to the Pr-epE)sed ater-main to the east(ratio High Pines Sub) 1.9 The wa4er-main in W. Sugar-Pine Ct.that e-Hffen4ly dead ends needs to eefifleet to the pr-epesed water-main to the east(Mile High 12ines St�b)in N. Side Greek Lane. Cth-fet4ly thip, dead end does r t meet fire t4ew pr-essw 1.10 There are a few water-mains in the mttlfi family area tha4 may have an oppeftunity to be eliminated. See E*hibit Seetien N111(I.)Water-Mafkttp fer-Areas ef Pessible Water-Main. 1.11 A Floodplain Development Permit and updated hydrology and hydraulic model are required for the W. Pine Ave bridge and pathways. 1.12 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A future installation agreement is required for the streetlights on Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road. Contact the Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator for additional information. 1.13 The geotechnical report submitted with this application(prepared by SITE Consulting, LLC, dated November 16, 2020)indicates that they had begun the geotechnical exploration and recommendation report. This initial investigative report does not contain the final determinations. Applicant shall be required to submit the completed geotechnical report/recommendations prior to this application proceeding to the Meridian City Council for consideration. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all Page 49 Page 68 Item#3. residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals,laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services.Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190. Page 50 Page 69 Item#3. 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. 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. These standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, Page 51 Page 70 Item#3. which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancily.ore/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218795&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218971&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancily.ore/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=217427&dbid=0&rgpo=MeridianC iv F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219143&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv G. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.orelWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=220017&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=218921&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH) https:11web1ink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218258&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) hyps://weblink.meridianciU.or,g/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=221010&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C K. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridiancily.ore/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=218397&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv Page 52 Page 71 Item#3. L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219 777&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=221015&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity N. PUBLIC WORKS MEMO—RESPONSE TO PRELIM CIVIL PLANS https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aVx?id=220311&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity O. DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—VIPER AND BARON https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222672&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Ry IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-8 zoning district and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for different types of residential dwelling types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and within this area. Stafffinds the proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; 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 Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Page 53 Page 72 Item#3. Because of the proposed addition of differing dwelling types and the construction of a needed public road extension, Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property.ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the subject roads and road improvements. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission finds that with preserving the Tenmile Creek, the development meets this finding. C. Conditional Use Permit Findings: The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Commission finds that the submitted site plan and preliminary plat appear to meet all dimensional and development regulations in the R-15 zoning district in which it resides. Page 54 Page 73 Item#3. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds the proposed use of multi family residential, with Staffs recommended revisions, is harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Medium Density Residential and the requirements of this title when included in the overall project analysis. 3. That the design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Despite the proposed use being different than the residential uses closest to the subject site, Commission finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area, so long as the Applicant complies with Staffs recommended revisions. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Commission finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services as all services are readily available, the nearby arterial street is widened to its full width, and the Applicant is required to construct a new public road extension to accommodate additional traffic flow. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Commission finds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes, glare or odors. Although traffic is sure to increase in the vicinity with the proposed use, all major roadways adjacent to the site are already at their full width and the Applicant is required to extend Pine Avenue as a collector street adjacent to their site. Therefore, Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare. Page 55 Page 74 Item#3. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005,eff. 9-15-2005) With the preservation of the Tenmile Creek(a natural waterway), Commission finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features. Page 56 Page 75 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 17 of 62 Seal: Commissioner Grove. Grove: I don't see any issues that jump out at me. Definitely need additional daycare, childcare facilities in the area and this would be a good addition. Seal: All right. Thank you. Anybody else? Shy bunch this evening. Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Holland. Holland: I don't see any concerns, so since nobody else was jumping up, I will just make a motion and see if it goes somewhere. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0003 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 4th, 2021, with no modifications. Grove: Second. Seal: It has been moved and seconded to approve item number H-2021-0003 for Kiddie Academy with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing Continued from February 18, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Ten Mile Creek A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Seal: All right. Are we ready for the next one? Okay. At this time I would like to open the public hearing for item number H-2020-0113, which has been continued from February 18th, for Foxcroft Subdivision. We will begin with the staff report. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Now we are on to the fun ones. As noted, this is for the Foxcroft Subdivision. This project consists of multiple properties totaling 35.7 acres of Page 76 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 18 of 62 land, which is -- the majority of it is currently zoned RUT, but 12.7 acres of it are already zoned R-15 from an older approval. The site is located directly west of Ten Mile Road and is on both sides of the proposed Pine Avenue extension and it is east of the Ten Mile Creek, which abuts the property entirely on its west boundary. This project is surrounds -- Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner. Grove: Joe, did you want to switch slides before -- Seal: Yeah. We are not seeing the slides on Zoom. Sorry. I could see them in chambers. Dodson: Interesting. That is odd. Seal: There it is. Thank you. Dodson: Thanks, Commissioner Grove. So, as noted, this is 37 -- 35 and a half acres, 12 of which are already zoned R-15, located west of Ten Mile and on both sides of the proposed Pine extension and all the Ten Mile Creek borders it on the west boundary entirely. In addition, it surrounds the Mile High Pines Subdivision, which is the -- I guess the white area shown here -- has not yet done their rezone, but they have garnered approval from City Council. To the north is R-4 and R-8 zoning with detached single family, as well as to civic uses, Chaparral Elementary School and Fuller Park. To the east is Ten Mile Road as noted and across that is C-C. That's not right. No. C-C and RUT zoning as I noted, which will be the future Mile High Pines, which is R-15 zoning, as well as some C-G zoning. To the south is the railroad property and south of that is C-G zoning with some self storage. To the west is the Ten Mile Creek and further west of that is R-8 zoning and existing detached single family homes. As noted, the R-15 piece already -- is obviously zoned. It received approval and annexation in 2005. However, the development agreement and use and plat were never signed and never -- I guess fully issued. Therefore, the property did receive zoning however, but no development agreement, no concept plan, and no plat are currently approved or relevant on that site. It does have two future land use designations on the site, medium density residential and mixed use community. The formal requests for this are threefold. An annexation and zoning of 23 acres of land, with a request for R-8 zoning designation. A preliminary plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning and the existing R-15 zoning and a conditional use permit for multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 units on the 12.74 acre site in the existing R-8 -- R-15 zoning district. The total unit count between both areas of the project is 291 units, 75 single family, and 216 apartment units. The proposed uses as noted are multi-family and single family residential. The single family is proposed as mostly detached single family, but there are also some attached single family duplexes and alley loaded single family. I will let the applicant speak to a little bit more about where those are located. The project is proposed with a gross density of 8.17 dwelling units per acre, which according Page 77 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 19 of 62 to the provisions within the Comprehensive Plan is rounded down to eight dwelling units per acre, meeting the Comprehensive Plan designation of medium density residential, which allows three to eight dwelling units per acre. Again, this does fall at the maximum allowed within the medium density residential. The majority of this project contains medium density -- or the medium density residential designation, but there is an area in the southwest portion of the site that contains the mixed use community designation. Mile High Pines, as noted, already approved earlier this year just to the south and east of this project and contains -- they are entirely mixed use community and they also have the mixed use community elements within their site plan by having commercial along Ten Mile and some additional multi-family that are half single family -- or, sorry, half single story and half two story. In addition, the existing commercial to the east should be taken into account when discussing the overall area of mixed use community. I lost my place. Sorry. Future land use designations are not parcel specific and, therefore, when a project contains more than one designation applicants have the opportunity to float designations and a proposed project that may fit with both or only one of the designations. In this case the applicant has not chosen to include any commercial uses with the subject property and, instead, has proposed a project that is entirely residential corresponding with the medium density residential designation. Despite intentionally not proposing a project consistent with the MUC designation, the applicant understands that some integration of uses and incorporating adequate transition between users is still important. Thus the applicant and that of the project to the east, Mile High Pines, have worked together to allow cross-access between the projects located on the south side of Pine Avenue, so both vehicles and pedestrians can have easier access to the commercial approved on the west side of Ten Mile and that would be right here. As well as an emergency access here that more than likely I would walk through, because it's only going to be bollards, so that's another pedestrian connection. Much of -- much of staff's analysis within the staff report regarding the apartments was based on the transition between these units and the existing two story single family homes to the north. Following publication of the staff report, the applicant provided additional information and exhibit to show that the third floor of the three story buildings will only be approximately four feet higher than the second story of the adjacent single family homes. My other discussion and analysis regarding the density and the MUC designation were somewhat misplaced and should not remain in the staff report. Following review of this information staff is recommending that some of the conditions of approval and DA provisions be changed or removed in line with the provided staff memo submitted on Monday, March 1st. With the latest information provided to staff, staff finds the proposed project complies with the Comprehensive Plan. To dive into this exhibit a little bit more quickly, you can see the elevations of the existing and the proposed. There is a presumed approximate four feet of fill and/or foundation for the apartments and, then, you have the first, second, third floor, which as you can see not that much higher than the adjacent second story, which I was concerned with initially. It will also be more than 80 feet away from the abutting adjacent homes to the north. So, line of sight is going to be very difficult to see into their yards, which is preferred and I can understand that perspective, which is why I initially had them being reduced to two stories. As noted in my memo, Commission does have an -- well, with the CUP process Commission does have the authority to limit any part of the multi-family as well. The applicant submitted conceptual renderings for the proposed apartments and some photo Page 78 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 20 of 62 examples of the proposed single family homes. The submitted multi-family elevations show traditional walk-up garden style apartment buildings. The buildings appear to have at least three field materials of stucco, lap siding, and stone and they incorporate adequate roof plain variation. The -- the buildings do appear to share an identical color palette, which is not--which does not meet the ASM, the Architectural Standards Manual. Multi-family and attached single family homes require design review prior to obtaining building permit approval. So, at that point staff will ensure compliance with the ASM. Here is some examples of the attached duplexes, the alley loaded, and, then, the standard home lots, the detached single family. Let's go back to this one. As shown on the master street map, the applicant is proposing to construct and extend Pine Avenue as a 36 foot wide collector street from Ten Mile Road to the Ten Mile Creek and construct a vehicle bridge over the creek. Mile High Pines is also required to construct their portion of the south side of the Pine extension to their western boundary. So, to be more clear, this applicant will construct half the roadway and this section on the full roadway segment of Pine here and construct the pedestrian -- or the vehicle bridge across the creek. All projects are required to construct this public road extension with the first phase of development to help with community infrastructure and overall site circulation -- or really road circulation through this area of the city. The multi-family portion of the site is proposed with two driveway access points to Pine, both being full access points. One here and one here. ACHD has approved these access points despite the eastern driveway not meeting their offset requirements for a full access and needing a 25 percent modification to their policy to be approved. Moving this access further west would significantly change how the triangle shaped R-15 piece could be developed, which aided in ACHD's determination to allow this access as proposed. In addition, it lines up with the access within Mile High Pines to the south. All of the streets within the single family portion of the site are proposed as public local streets at width of 33 feet wide, which allow on-street parking where no driveways exist. There is also a short segment of roadway in the south area of the site located here and labeled as alley on the site. It's not actually an alley, it is considered a minor local urban street. I might be mixing the words up. Minor urban local. To service five of the alley loaded homes along Pine. This road is a reduced street section of 24 feet and does not require sidewalks. There are plenty of other sidewalks adjacent to this area that serve these units, as well as the open space surrounding it. The revised preliminary plat shows 75 single family building lots and nine multi-family building lots, with 41 common lots, totaling 125. Of the 75 single family lots, three are proposed to contain homes that are to remain and be part of the new subdivision, two in the south and one in the north along Pine, which you can guess are three larger parcels here. All proposed building lots appear to meet UDC dimensional standards on the revised plat. The applicant proposes to construct the project in three phases, starting with the south -- southwest you could say and, then, move to the northwest and, then, finish with the multi-family project in phase three. The cul-de-sac in the south of the site is approximately 720 feet in length and it connects to an emergency access within the Mile High Pines project as noted. This length of cul-de-sac and/or dead- end street, according to code, is beyond the 500 feet allowed and require City Council approval to be longer than 500 feet. The single family homes are required to show compliance with the parking standards at the time of individual lot development, but as noted the local streets are wide enough to accommodate on-street parking. Based on Page 79 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 21 of 62 the number of bedrooms the minimum parking required for the multi-family is 411 spaces. The revised site plan shows 440 exceeding code requirements by 29 spaces and amounting to slightly over two spaces per unit, which is my understanding an industry standard for multi-family development. Staff believes the revised site plan with additional parking spaces provides adequate parking without producing a waste of land area. A minimum of ten percent qualified open space is required to meet UDC standards in the 11-3G-3 section. In addition, the applicant is required to meet the multi-family development common and private open space standards for the specific use standards for multi-family development. Combine the required -- required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 4.81 acres. The applicant's revised open space exhibit shows a total of 7.3 acres of qualifying open space. The applicant is proposing 5.7 of this area to meet the minimum ten percent and it actually amounts to approximately 16 percent. The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers, a little area along Ten Mile, but mostly the ones adjacent to Pine, the Ten Mile Creek area, which is allowed to remain natural per code, and other open space areas throughout the site as noted in the darker green on the shown exhibit. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirement. The remaining 1.6 acres, approximately, meets the common open space standards for the multi-family development and consists of the clubhouse, pool, with some -- that doesn't make sense. Consists of a clubhouse and pool and other open space areas that meet the required dimensional standards of 20 by 20. The single family portion of the site requires one amenity per code and the proposed multi-use pathway meets this requirement. The multi-family development proposes over one hundred units, so the decision making body shall require additional amenities above the minimum four noted within code. The applicant is proposing five qualifying amenities. A clubhouse, a swimming pool, fitness facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths and open space that is at least 5,000 square feet in size. Because of the number of units staff is not in full support of the proposed five amenities can adequately serve the apartment units. The applicant and I have discussed additional possibilities and I assume that they will be discussing that with Commission tonight as well. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required and proposed along the property's western, northern and southern boundaries per the master pathways plan. The submitted plans show compliance with this master plan. Staff originally required that all pathways be constructed with the first phase of development, but with the Pine Avenue extension and the detached sidewalks along its -- its entire length, plus the first phase segment of pathway along the south and west boundaries, staff now finds that the pathway should be constructed along with each phase. So, to say that another way, their phasing plan already shows them starting here and, then, moving in a clockwise pattern. They will already be constructing the southern multi-use pathway and the western one, which will connect to the detached sidewalks along Pine, as well as an existing multi-use pathway segment here and, then, be able to get to Fuller Park and the school. With this they can get out to Ten Mile and the existing sidewalk there. So, there is not necessarily a need with phase one to have the multi-use pathway segment here or even this segment here, because there will be adequate ability to get to the adjacent open space and school with phase one and the Pine Street extension. The submitted memo outlines this revision as well. Overall this applicant is proposing to construct approximately 4,500 linear feet, which is .85 miles of pathway with this development and does not include the detached sidewalks along Pine Avenue. This Page 80 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 22 of 62 is an abnormally high number for one project to construct, so staff is very appreciative of the proposed pathways that are required, as well as those that are not required, but being proposed. The new pathways constructed in this development would offer multiple avenues for residents in the vicinity to safely get to Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary. Staff is in full support of the proposed pathway plan for the subject development. This application did receive some public testimony prior to the hearing. As of this afternoon there were six pieces of testimony discussing disapproval of the project. The main issues outlined in those were regarding the extension of Pine and not wanting it to be extended. The density of the proposed project -- project and the safety of pedestrians going to and from Fuller Park and crossing the new extension of Pine or the existing area of Pine in the western subdivisions. Staff does recommend approval of the subject applications with the conditions contained in the staff report, as well as the DA provisions, but with the revisions noted in my memo dated Monday, March 1 st, and after that I will stand for any questions. Seal: Thanks, Joe. Are there any questions the Commissioners have for staff? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: Joe, question for you, because I know it's going to be brought up and you have already mentioned it in the written testimony from the public, but can you speak to the connection for Pine and how that is aligned within the master street map? Dodson: Absolutely, Commissioner Grove, Members of the Commission. On the master street map -- I don't know if it's -- I can't see it in these. Pine is shown as a future collector roadway, meaning it's supposed to help local streets of subdivisions get to the arterials, which would be Black Cat to the west and Ten Mile to the east. This was always going to be extended, it's always been part of the plan. Collector roadways are usually constructed by applicants and not ACHD, which is why this applicant, as well as the Mile High Pines applicant are required to construct it with these applications. They will be also constructing the bridge over the Ten Mile Creek, which is, obviously, one of the more expensive pieces -- pieces of the project for this required access. It will -- Pine will be extended from the west all the way to Ten Mile between the two projects. Should line up on -- on the section line between the south and the north and should align with the existing stub to the west. Does that answer your question, Commissioner Grove? Grove: It does. And I guess a follow-up question, because it was brought up in the testimony, but could you speak to the -- I guess signalized lights on the east, but how -- think a lot of the concerns were how it affects the nonsignalized intersection to the west, but since that's not part of this project how -- how this is addressed or not able to be addressed with this project. Dodson: Great question, Commissioner Grove. So, yes, as noted the Black Cat and Pine intersection is an off-site thing and generally speaking very rarely does the city Page 81 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 23 of 62 require off-site improvements. This would be one of those cases where we are not going to require that. It's not just the city, but also ACHD noting that there are not yet enough vehicle trips at that intersection to trigger a signal. That doesn't mean that Black Cat is not going to be widened, which it is slated to be widened in the coming years, thankfully, from Franklin all the way to Cherry. Whether that includes a signal I am not aware of that. I am --from what I have seen I have not known of a signal to be placed at Pine and Black Cat. However, with this extension the majority of people in the subdivisions that are to the west, if they need to get to the freeway likely they are going west to Black Cat and, then, down to Franklin, back out to Ten Mile. Now those trips would be heading directly east and not utilizing the Pine and Black Cat intersection, which should help alleviate some of that traffic. I can't speak to the traffic associated with the school site south of where all of this is at, but that's also why ACHD is planning to widen Black Cat hopefully sooner than later. My understanding is within the next five year work plan that they are including the widening of that road. But this extension should alleviate some of the issue, because people would logically go east to get to Ten Mile, rather than heading west and going around the subdivisions. Grove: Thank you. Dodson: You're welcome. Seal: Any other questions for our staff? Lorcher: Commissioner? Seal: Go ahead. Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: So, the -- ACHD signed off on it, even though all these homes are going in with the extended traffic that's going to be on Ten Mile? Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher, that is correct. Yes. ACHD very much wants this extension to help alleviate some of the traffic issues further to the west off of Black Cat. Lorcher: Off of Black Cat. Okay. Thank you. Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Seal: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Go ahead and state your -- state your name and address for the record, please. You have 15 minutes. Suggs: My name is Jane Suggs with Gem State Planning and I'm here representing Foxcroft Subdivision. Is it okay if I do this without my mask? Seal: I think you are okay. Page 82 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 24 of 62 Suggs: It fogs my glasses up. And, then, Joe, do I just press down if I want to get -- or do I tell you? Okay. And I will move over here and -- Seal: Just make sure you are speaking into the microphone, so we can -- Suggs: Got it. Seal: -- get everything recorded correctly. Thank you. Suggs: Again, Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning. 9839 Cablecar Street. Representing Foxcroft Subdivision. Happy Idaho Day. Today's the day. We really appreciate working with the staff. We updated our plans. I want to very much thank Joe Dodson, who was very helpful. Bill Parsons. Bruce Freckleton. Joe B -- because I can't always pronounce his name. The fire marshal. And others. We are very happy to say that we agree with all the conditions of approval and those are the ones that are outlined in the March 1st memo. Right now Foxcroft is an in-fill community that is approvable as conditioned. So, everybody can breathe. We talked about this -- Joe talked about this a little bit. I'm going to tell you a little bit more about Foxcroft, but while I do keep in mind that with the approval of the Foxcroft as we proposed, this developer, single handedly, will construct the vehicular bridge over Ten Mile Creek and we are going to finally provide that much needed connection. That is something that ACHD has been wanting to happen. We are also going to make the connection on Pine Avenue and this is unusual that we are doing this in the first phase. Typically you would do this type of construction throughout and have it completed after you have completed your project, because there is a lot of cost involved in that. This is a little bit of a different thing to do this all during phase one, but I believe Mile High Pines also had a condition to do their work on Pine -- Pine Avenue at phase one. So, we are going to work together and make sure that when we get started you will have a connection, not only the bridge, but -- well, of course, it will take a while to build it, but curb, gutter, and sidewalk along Pine Avenue, which I think will be a wonderful connection for the folks who live in that area. I also want to put this project a little bit in -- since it's an in-fill project and put it in context. You can -- you can see -- don't know if you -- if this works. Oh, there we can. Oh. So, here we are. This is the R- 15. This is the Mile High Pines project and this is our project north and south of Pine. There has been a lot of activity south of this project at the Ten Mile interchange as you know and you will recall that the Mile High Pines development did include over 28,000 square feet of commercial property. That's how they finally got approved. The Foxcroft community can certainly support that commercial with rooftops and the pedestrian access that you will see. We have a lot of that. We believe that Foxcroft is a really great transition and it's between this commercial area that you see in this part of Meridian. Again, a little squirrely here, but -- there we go. All the commercial here and this is a nice transition with single family and multi-family housing. It also is adjacent, as Joe mentioned, to Fuller Park and Chaparral Elementary School. Schools and parks. That's where you want to put houses. That's where you want to put people. A lot of them. Foxcroft apartments are already annexed, as Joe mentioned, and zoned for high density residential. The apartments will offer a 3,000 square foot clubhouse with community room, fitness rooms, and a kitchenette, plus a swimming pool and I'm going to show you a couple of renderings Page 83 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 25 of 62 that for-- some of these were in your package. It shows you some of the apartments and the pool and other views of the apartments. Now, we have -- we are asking for a conditional use permit for that. We did not do design review on this particular application. So, we will be coming back for design review, as Joe mentioned. We will be looking at our palette of colors. So, this plan shows the different types of lots. This is a color-coded map showing the different housing types. The blue lots --the grayish blue lots -- and they are the larger lots -- are the existing homes that are out on this Pine Avenue, which, really, is just a dirt road right now, it's not even a dedicated right of way at all. They will remain as part of the plat. The peach colored lots, the ones south of Pine, are single family detached homes. They will face Pine and they will have garages in the back and this makes for a really nice streetscape as you are going down Pine and that's one of those homes. Again, there are some yellow lots on the north side. These are the two unit townhomes that Joe had mentioned. I will show you what they look like. And these are two story townhomes. There you go. And the tan lots are the ones that are just standard single family detached homes and there is an example of one of those. Even though we are within walking distance of Fuller Park -- and Fuller Park -- if you haven't been out there it's incredible. Twenty-three acres, picnic shelters, restrooms, playgrounds, three baseball fields, volleyball court and there is even a pond to go fishing. We also want to have a couple of intimate spaces within the subdivision of Foxcroft for our residents to recreate and gather. So, here is something showing those amenities. You will see the gazebo, Pergola Park. You see a circle around the clubhouse and fitness facilities. In the apartment complex, the playground area, and, of course, we have community pathways around the entire project. Here is a picture of our -- I call it Pergola Park, because that's a cute pergola. Opportunity for people to gather in that location in the north part of the project. And, then, we have the playground that's in the south part. Again, they are --the playground equipment and larger over in Fuller Park, but sometimes you got little ones and you just want to be able to walk across the street and this provides that opportunity with some seating around the park, so the kids can play. Again, a little more intimate setting for just the residents of that neighborhood. We do have extensive connectivity within the project. We are constructing, as Joe mentioned, several regional pathways. The ones on the north boundary, the pathway along Ten Mile Creek, and along the south boundary, which is next to the railroad track. This is in addition to all those yellow marked up sidewalks that you see throughout the project and, unfortunately, we didn't show, because every one of those apartment buildings also has sidewalks in front of it, too. So, there is lots of ways for residents to move around in a pedestrian way. Now, the way I look at it with the connections that we have here, you can get your steps in. We also appreciate the fact that we do have a path -- there is a pathway that runs along the Mile High Pines, along their west border, that we can access and get into the commercial areas pretty easily to support them in a pedestrian way, which is very nice. And, of course, we also have the easy access up to the school and to the park. I can stand for questions. But first let me say how much I appreciate, again, the staff working with us on these conditions. We are in agreement with all the conditions and we very respectfully request your recommendation of approval to City Council for the annexation and rezone, the preliminary plat, and the CUP for the apartments as conditioned in the March 1 st memo and I will stand for some questions. Page 84 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 26 of 62 Seal: Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant? Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Grove. Grove: Yes. I have a question on the southern parcels. Are -- and how the access to those lots will work. Are those indicated as driveways? I was a little -- I couldn't really tell what those were intended as. Suggs: Yeah. Thanks. Those are on the very bottom of the property. I mean against the railroad track. Those are shared common lots that are -- well, excuse me. They are single family homes that have a common driveway, so because we have such an odd shaped lot there, there wasn't any way to really get a street to wrap around, so they will access to the cul-de-sac and you will see several of those were there -- the lots on the very southern border will take their access to a common driveway and you will see that as they are shared there. So, those are single family, they are not multiple family lots, and they are pretty good size lots. They just have to share that common driveway and they are -- they are popular all over town when you have these odd shapes and that's a little bit about why we have to design this way and why we design for residential is because of the odd shape of this property. Does that help? Is that what you are talking about, Commissioner? Grove: It is. Thank you. And if I can get one other question. Is there future plans for the three existing residential lots to be developed in the future or are those intended to stay as is in perpetuity? Suggs: Well, it's hard to say. They are going to be part of the plat. They will be zoned R-8. We were asked by the staff to take a look at how the two on the south side, since they are larger, how they might redevelop and we wanted to make sure that there would be a possibility of doing that by making sure that we didn't Iandlock them and -- do you have that, Joe? Do you want me to see if I can -- I think I have it down here on -- way down. There it is. We did develop a little sketch. Now, this is not going to be property that we own after the property is finished, so it will belong to the people who actually sold the property to the developer and so this was just showing that those two homes could redevelop their property in the future, meet the zoning code. It is a condition of approval that we expect that they will build something similar to this. Again, we won't be in control of those, but we do think that really what the city wants to know is that we weren't setting up these guys to have an issue if they chose to redevelop. Again, we can't even tell these -- this drawing saves the homes and we don't know if they won't even do that. So, right now they are planning on living there. So, that -- and we have planned to provide the access that they need to get to the public streets. So, they will be larger lots -- and I think we used to do this back when we were doing other developments that had -- next to RUT, those five acre lots, sometimes we had to come up with a -- kind of a conceptual plan for doing future development. We really couldn't hold it to -- hold that -- someone to that, but we did want to know that the city wasn't letting someone approve something that Page 85 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 27 of 62 would keep that property from developing. So, I think that's really what this is all about, just to give a concept of that. Grove: Thank you. Seal: Any other questions for the applicant? I have one myself, actually. On the -- and you can just leave this up. Where the driveway is for that kind of southwest -- the bigger property, is there a reason that -- that Lot 11 isn't slid to the left to kind of close that off, instead of having a driveway in between two houses there? Suggs: Because that's where the owner wanted to be able to access. So, that's Mr. Johnson, who has that southern larger lot, and he needed to have that access at a certain location, so that he could access his garage and get through his property and so we ended up having a driveway there and we added a lot there, because you can add a lot there and somebody can live there. It would force 12 -- we would love to develop that as well, but it wasn't large enough and didn't have the right configuration to put a house on it. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Let's go ahead and open it up for public testimony. Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up? I'm guessing we do. Weatherly: We had two people sign up, none of which indicated a wish to testify however. Seal: Okay. If anybody in chambers would like to speak on this you can raise your hand, have you come up. Oh, we have got somebody online. Weatherly: Jane, one moment, please. Jane, you should have the ability to unmute yourself and speak when you are ready to provide your name and address. Byam: Okay. Are you looking for Jane Byam? Weatherly: Yes. That's correct. Byam: I got disconnected there for a minute, so -- I am -- my name is Jane Byam and I live at 6050 El Gato Lane, Meridian, Idaho. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Byam: Should I use my camera or not? I'm -- I have got that capability or you just want to hear me. Seal: That's up to you. We don't have to -- we don't have to see you, we can just hear you if that's okay. Byam: So, I would like to start my remarks with asking a question about the future land use map and current zoning on that northeast parcel where the apartments are going. Page 86 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 28 of 62 Several residents in -- in our neighborhood were involved in paying attention to participating in surveys and things when it came to the future land use map and protection of our neighborhood and the rural atmosphere that we have here and on the future land use map that parcel is designated as medium density, just like the other two parcels that are currently RUT within the county designation. I recognize that in 2005 that north -- northeast parcel was annexed into the city and zoned at the time R-15, but could you, please, explain to me why on the future land use map the city designated the use as being medium density, not high density? Seal: Joe -- Joe, do you want to take a stab at that? Dodson: I can, but usually we let the public testimony go first. Seal: Okay. I was going to say if you -- Dodson: If she has another comment we can hear that and, then, if nobody else wants to answer, then, I will gladly answer that. Byam: Okay. So, should I continue with my -- with my other remarks -- Seal: Yes. Byam: -- and, then, we will come back to that? Okay. Thank you. So, being on El Gato, which is, essentially, directly across from Pine, we -- we have seen increased traffic on our quiet agricultural street over the past few years. When the school was being proposed, the Aviator Charter School was being proposed to the city, originally that property there was going to be high density, but when the school was approved that was changed to mixed -- mixed employment, I believe, and I know that a parcel of that property is now going back to high density. At the time a traffic study was done by Charter -- or by Compass Charter and said that at peak times there were only 200 cars coming down Black Cat. Well, anybody who lives on our street can tell you that there is certainly more than 200 cars going down Black Cat and so traffic is a concern at the time that school lets out and starts in the morning. People can't get out onto Black Cat because of traffic stopping to turn into the school. Having Pine extended, which we -- you know, everyone knew that it was eventual. Having Pine extended is going to cause even more problems there. I recognize the gentleman earlier said that most people will head west to Ten Mile if they are wanting to go to the freeway, but if anybody that's going to live in these homes or in the apartments have children that are going to be going to the charter school, they are going to be heading west and it's going to make that intersection there at Pine and Black Cat or El Gato and Black Cat that much more difficult and so that is a major concern for me and -- and I believe other people have expressed that in writing to the city. Another concern for me is that in the Comprehensive Plan it does make allowance for keeping areas of rural homes and agricultural properties and as time goes on and just really in just the last few years we are seeing more and more farmland becoming high density or medium density subdivisions. So, I am concerned about the fact that the applicant is requesting -- or going with the maximum density for the medium density area, rather than Page 87 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 29 of 62 giving -- giving those homes a little bit larger lots and leading to, you know, less congestion when it comes to people. We are seeing that rural atmosphere that used to exist here in Meridian disappearing very quickly. The Comprehensive Plan states housing introduction -- introduction communities for housing should be available for all income groups, with a diverse mix, including rural, modular, townhomes, apartments workforce housing, large lot subdivisions and single family homes. We are -- we are seeing a lot of cookie cutter homes crammed into small spaces with, you know, like ten feet or less in between homes and so the rural atmosphere is disappearing very quickly. Residential land uses, the purpose of this designation is to provide for a variety of housing. There is several things in the Comprehensive Plan that emphasize the need for maintaining some of that rural atmosphere and -- Seal: Ma'am, you will need to wrap up -- Byam: Okay. Seal: -- your three minutes is up. Byam: Okay. So, I -- I just wanted to -- wanted to express my concern for increased traffic coming to the intersection of Pine and Black Cat, which when it's -- when traffic is backed up on Black Cat there is the potential of people come -- going down El Gato, instead of waiting to get to the traffic light at Franklin and that causes a hazard on our street and so that -- that's a major concern for us is that increased traffic with Pine going through, especially if it's not going to be a controlled intersection. So, those --that--those are all the comments I have. Thank you. Seal: Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Do we have anybody else that wishes to testify? Joe, do you want to go ahead and explain the zoning slash -- because it does get a little bit confusing in there. Dodson: Yes, sir. Like I said last time, we are going to have to start an education series for Meridian on zoning versus comp plan. I will let the applicant speak to some of the other comments that she made, but as long -- for the Comprehensive Plan conversation, the -- as I noted in my presentation, the future land use designations are not parcel specific, unless -- unless the parcel only has one designation on it. However, when we work with projects we take in -- you know, and you are subdividing, now all these parcel lines are moving and you got to take into account all of the different designations on there to some degree, as I did in my analysis. But, then, again, you don't have to adhere to both or all three or four they are having. For example, there is properties off Overland that have half of the property is -- shows commercial and half of the property is residential. You are not going to develop the site as both more than likely, you will choose one. In this case there was mixed use community and also medium density residential and they are opting to go with the medium density residential designation and that can fit with the Comprehensive Plan. With the density that's the bigger conversation. They are meeting the density for the overall project, which is how we look at gross density. The medium density residential is, again, three to eight dwelling units per acre. The density is not tied Page 88 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 30 of 62 to the zoning. R-15 zoning does not equal 15 dwelling units per acre as it used to. It did prior to the new comp plan 2018, formally approved late last year. It used to mean so many dwelling units per acre maximum. That is not true anymore. It is only -- density is always tied to the future land use now, which is in this case three to eight dwelling units per acre. The R-15 zoning -- or any zoning that they request, it has more to do with the dimensional standards and the allowed uses within that zone. They could have requested R-40, which does not mean 40 units per acre, it just means that there is no minimum lot size. That's a higher height limit. That's pretty much the only differences. R-15 has a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet and a maximum height I believe of 45 or 50 feet, roughly. So, there is -- that's the biggest difference between the comp plan and the zoning. But they are meeting their density per the Comprehensive Plan and if you have more questions regarding that you can review my staff report and I did more in-depth analysis than that. I hope that answered your question, ma'am. Seal Thank you, Joe. Appreciate that. Would the applicant -- excuse me. Would the applicant like to come forward and close. Suggs: Thank you again -- thank you, again, Commissioners and Mr. Seal. I do want to respond to a couple of the questions from Ms. Byam on El Gato Lane. If you know where that is, that's on the other side of Black Cat. So, that's about a half mile away. So, just kind of to show where it is. But I understand her concern, because that seemed to be the concern of many of the people who live -- who live on Pine Avenue on the west side of Ten Mile Creek and how they have kind of enjoyed living in -- on a dead end and so their traffic really is just the people that live there and the construction guys, who are building all those nice houses that are right there now, so -- so, yes, there -- I think there is some concern about the Black Cat and Pine, but we are imagining what it could be and I do think that one of the things that the neighbors likely will do when the projects are all completed and the traffic is all done -- and that could be several years from now -- is keep in touch with ACHD, because as a person who is in my neighborhood association in the east end of Boise, we spent a lot of time with ACHD asking them to do studies on some of our streets, especially our cut-through streets. So, we want to make sure that, you know, everyone has a safe access. That is not something this particular project can do. We are pretty far removed from that, but I do recommend that Ms. Byam -- Byam and her neighbors kind of keep in touch with ACHD, because there may be a need for additional studies when the project is completed. I mean we are just imagining it's going to be a lot worse, so -- and I do agree with Joe, there are some people now that are going to want to go east and this is the way to do that, instead of going out to Black Cat down Franklin and coming back -- to Black Cat and down to Franklin. I do -- I think I need to address the fact that I do think the Comprehensive Plan -- and this is one of the things that makes the Comprehensive Plan interesting for some of us. It does say things about maintaining rural lots, but we are in a very highly urbanized area right here. We are very -- we are on Ten Mile Road, which has access to the freeway, which is being improved -- of course it's already been improved with five lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk, which is nice and bike lanes and we are close to the school and we are close to a park and, again, these are the places where you want to put in the lots that serve the most people. So, we want to get people closer to these recreation opportunities and to the schools, so that kids can walk and I -- Page 89 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 31 of 62 1 have spent some time talking to a property manager that manages apartments of this size and even larger and she talked a little bit about the fact that in this location where you are near a school, she said I will almost guarantee you you are going to have a lot of young children with single parents, because they have to go to work and they want to be a place where the kids can get to school without having to be bused or -- so, you will see a lot of that. She was really very specific about it, so -- but, again, just to -- just to share that I believe we are in a very -- more urban area of Meridian and we think that reserving -- setting aside land for rural, we do have the natural Ten Mile Creek, we have the pathways, we are leaving that as natural as possible and, again, we are close to a park that's open space. And I think we have a really good mix of homes. I think Jane mentioned that she thought that there should be a mix of homes and I think we do, we have the attached single family, we have the alley loaded or rear loaded single family and we have the standard single family and we have multi-family apartments and that's all within like our 35 acres. So, we think that that's a really nice mix of opportunities for people who want to live near Fuller Park, near Ten Mile, you have got lots of choices. So, I will stand for other questions if there is some more questions from the Commissioners. Again, I very respectfully request -- because we have done such good work with the staff, we are -- we are ready to get approved, move on to City Council as conditioned and -- and there are quite a few conditions and there are things we have to do, so -- but we appreciate the staff understanding how this will flow and we are doing all the extra things we can to make sure that we provide a really good opportunity for the city. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other -- Holland: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Holland, go ahead. Holland: Hi, Jane. I have a one follow-up question. So, I'm sorry I missed -- if I missed this, but Lots 29 through 31 that are up on that northern section of it there where Aleppo comes in, there is Lot No. 28 to the north of it, is that the drive aisle access for those three lots? Suggs: You are talking about along the north -- Holland: I was having a hard time understanding just from looking -- Suggs: You are here; right? You are talking these? Can you see my screen? Holland: Sorry. Let me flip back -- Suggs: Oh, to the south. Holland: So, down farther--farther to the south. Right above where Pine comes through. Suggs: Where Pine -- Page 90 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 32 of 62 Holland: So, in that northern quadrant right above where Pine is. Suggs: Okay. Holland: As you are coming into that loop there is kind of that yellow -- Suggs: Oh, yeah. Holland: -- triangular -- Suggs: Oh. Yeah. Yeah. Holland: Those three lots there. Suggs: Yes. That's a driveway to service the -- yeah. That's a driveway. They will actually be front-loaded, those three larger lot -- those three -- and that's a funny shaped lot for a driveway. But yes. I'm going to see if I can point to that. So, yes, there will be a fence along Pine at this location. These will not the -- face the street. This will be a fence and they will be front loaded and this is the driveway right here. That makes -- is that -- I think that's what you're talking about. Right? Holland: Yeah. It was just trying to figure out how those lots had access, if it was off of -- I was hoping it wasn't off of Pine, I was hoping it was off that drive aisle there. Suggs: Yes. It is off the drive aisle. And similarly on the north side of that same little loop you see a couple of houses with a -- with a driveway that they are accessed off of, too, and just below that is a pathway that carries you through. So, there is an opportunity. And, then, not shown very well, but along the boundary between the apartments and the single family in that north part, there is a pathway that runs all the way from the regional pathway on the north all the way down to Pine Street. So, there is a nice connectivity there, too. But you -- you have -- you have caught onto the fact that, yes, we have a couple -- so we have these lots that have common driveways and they are not accessing Pine, because that's a collector and we have the front-on housing, but they are not going to have their accesses, so that's the -- south of Pine. Those vehicles will be accessed from the south and they will not be connect -- driveway connections to Pine. We are trying to eliminate that -- that -- those turning movements. Holland: So, one more follow-up question just to confirm. So, that drive aisle -- that lot that connects over to the east there, is that a drive aisle that -- it's going to be open between the apartments and that residential for people to go between? Suggs: The --the lot will be and that particular-- the one on the south that you mentioned -- oh. Okay. Keep on going. Are you doing that, Joe? Okay. I'm trying to get to a plat. Seal: Yeah. I was going to say, you had it there. That -- Page 91 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 33 of 62 Suggs: Okay. Well, that -- you can see -- yes. On the three that -- that kind of backup to Pine, there will be a fence. So, people will not be walking there, because it's a driveway. On the north where there are two lots that -- that -- there are two lots that service -- you see there is one that's landscaped, that will be an opening in the fence, so people can cross over. Right there. And the -- and the gray area is going to be the drive aisle. So, we are trying to make sure that people aren't walking down somebody's driveway. So, there will be a fence along the pathway that runs between the multi-family and the single family. Is that -- I think that's what you are asking; right, Lisa? Holland: Yeah. That makes sense. And thanks, Jane. I appreciate you clarifying. Seal: Okay. Are there any other questions? I have one question that I would like to pose. So, the attached single family that's there, I think they are the ally-loaded ones, they do have a driveway or is that not correct? Do all of them have a driveway? Suggs: They each have a driveway and they are not attached, they are actually detached single families. Seal: Okay. Oh. Okay. Suggs: So, yeah. And they each have a driveway, two car garage in the back, and they will have a little bit of a -- about a 20 foot apron that you have to -- have to park there, too. So, yeah, those are detached. Because you are getting the driveway in the back, those houses are all 36 foot wide lots, I think, and they are 26 foot wide houses. So, they are just wide enough to put a garage in the back, but since you don't have the garage up front they are really cute, because -- I mean I would prefer one if I could find one that I could afford. Seal: Okay. Suggs: I like the alley load look. I mean I guess it's -- it just makes for a really nice streetscape. You can't tell on this -- and we didn't blow it up enough for you to see, but we went in and had to change this -- we had to actually drop a lot. We had 13 and now we have 12, 1 think, and we -- because a couple of lots we had made less than 4,000 square feet, which is your requirement for that R-8 zone, and so we dropped a lot there, which was -- you know, we don't like to do that, but we did, and so now when you come out your front door towards Pine you will go a little -- kind of -- you will have connecting sidewalks -- two at a time and they will come out. So, you won't have a sidewalk every 20 feet, you will have one sidewalk every like 40 feet, so -- and it's really cute. I think we have done that in a couple of other projects, too, and we really like the look of the fact that, you know, you can get to the homes, but you don't have all those little sidewalks coming along Pine. Our landscape architect is really good at doing the connections. Seal: All right. Thank you. Suggs: Thank you. Page 92 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 34 of 62 Seal: Do we have any other questions? Commissioner Grove. Grove: Mr. Chair, I have a question real quick. Seal: Go ahead. Grove: Jane, for the amenities for the apartment section, is there a play structure of any kind or is it primarily the clubhouse, fitness center, pool, for the amenities there? Suggs: That is what we are planning right now is the clubhouse with amenities in the clubhouse and the pool and, of course, all the walking areas. We do have some green spaces. A couple of those are being used as drainage facilities, but we do have some just open areas. So, if you want to throw a frisbee you can. So, I guess in some of the areas like -- oh, gosh, I can't seem to find this very well. There we go. There is some just open areas here and here. This is a drainage area, but you could still probably have -- have some recreation in it if you just wanted to run around a little bit. Again, we were -- we were not putting in a lot of recreation, because we are so close to Fuller Park. I mean you can actually just -- I mean it's a stone's throw. You can walk down the pathway and get to Fuller Park and you are right there with all of those amenities. So, we had not been -- we have done what we were asked to do for the number of units, as Joe mentioned, that -- we had talked about a few others, but at this point we have not proposed any additional amenities over and above what were required by the code. Grove: Would a tot lot fit in any of those open green spaces in that R-15 section? Suggs: We could probably make something fit. We did talk -- I did talk to Joe a little bit about maybe some of these areas -- what we find are people with dogs and we might need to turn one of these little areas here -- which we think this would be a -- probably a good space for it -- into a dog park. I think that's something Joe said that he's finding that in apartment complexes people have dogs and, of course, we have a pathway -- again, taking -- you can walk your dogs on the path. But we could do that. I have found from talking to the other property management person that I have been dealing with, it -- either that or maybe at one of these locations near this -- a regional pathway along the north side we could put in a bicycle air pump and you can hang tools with it. You have to be kind of careful so they don't walk away, but there is a way that you can do that. I think I have seen those at some places along pathways in Boise. I haven't seen them along the regional pathways. So, we might choose to do that. We think that because we are close enough and with bike lanes to the Ten Mile interchange and all of that, maybe if you are willing and we are willing to put in maybe a bicycle station along the regional pathway along the north that would be adjacent to the -- the apartments we think it would be well used. Does that sound good, Commissioner? Add a bike station? Grove: I'm just kind of going off of the comment that you made earlier in your initial presentation about the tot lot for the alley-loaded project and seeing the difference between the alley-loaded project on the south and, then, the R-15 in terms of how that's described. Page 93 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 35 of 62 Suggs: Okay. I'm not -- I didn't quite follow that. Tell me -- say that again another way. Grove: You said how nice it is for that little playground area for people to walk across and be able to have that without having to go somewhere else and so just curious if that applied to the -- how that applied or did not apply to the R-15 section. Suggs: Possibly. We just think that we have enough amenities there with the swimming pool, the plaza that's around the pool, and the areas that are inside the clubhouse and with all the other open spaces we feel like that's sufficient amenities. Grove: Thank you. Suggs: I'm not -- I'm not offering that up right away. I'm just thinking there are other things that -- instead of another tot lot there that might be more usable, like the bicycle station than a tot lot, since things are closer. And, then, it's -- again, one is on the other side of Pine, which is a collector and one is directly accessible to the -- to the playground at Fuller Park without crossing a street. Seal: Okay. Do we have any other questions? Nobody come off mute. All right. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for item number H-2020-0113, Foxcroft Subdivision. Lorcher: I will motion that. Holland: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on item number H-2020-0113. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. Seal: All right. Who wants to start out? Lorcher: Chairman, I will start out. Seal: Go ahead, Commissioner Lorcher. Lorcher: My primary residence is at Black Cat and Cherry, so I'm very familiar with this and I did have a house on Parkside Creek, which I was on for a park back in the way back days when it was a dirt path and farmland all over the place and the pond was little and it's gotten a lot bigger and it's beautiful. It's wonderful that the City of Meridian has taken over Fuller Park. They have done great things with their amenities and it was only a matter of time before developers come in to be able to take advantage of some of these green spaces that we already have in our community and build houses around them. I empathize with the homeowners on El Gato. I also have a small farm off of McDermott and Ustick and I do use El Gato to get through to Pine and if Pine kept going through I Page 94 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 36 of 62 would probably do that to avoid Cherry Lane or Franklin. So, those traffic concerns are real and it's going to happen, but it's not necessarily the developer's fault, it's -- as our community grows we all look for different ways to get to where we need to go. It sounds like this particular developer is doing everything that the city is asking them to do. They are following the rules, they are following the code, even though some of our old timers really kind of lament about losing some of our farm space, it is part of -- of what's happening. So, you know, they have addressed the concerns of the city. They are following the rules and it would be a great place to live to be able to access that park. Seal: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Holland, you are off mute I see. Holland: I don't know that I was ready to talk either, but-- I mean is it exactly what I would draw on a map if I had this site plan, maybe not. But I don't know that I have any huge opposition to it. I think that-- I appreciate the pathways. I appreciate that they did provide a little bit more green space than required and they have worked closely with staff. I think that the roadway issue with Pine, even though it might seem like you are going to get more traffic on Pine going through, it could actually alleviate some of the issues that we are having at Black Cat and Pine, because people will be able to head towards the east to get Ten Mile to get towards the freeway. I -- I'm very familiar with this area, too, and I know that -- I know that that can be a really busy road, but I think this could potentially help offload some of those traffic challenges. So, I don't know that it will be necessarily used as a speedway to go through, but I think it could potentially help with some of those challenges in the future. That's all I got for now. Seal: Okay. Thanks. Grove: Mr. Chair? Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Grove: I would echo what's been said so far, especially with Commissioner Holland, and this might not be the exact layout that I would have gone with if I were, you know, thinking about it, but I don't have any strong objections other than I would like to see some additional amenity, you know, tot lot or something for the R-15 section. I do really like the amount of pathways that are in this project. It is very similar to the -- the project to the southeast of the pathway that it had and I think having all of those pathways between the two developments is going to be a big benefit for this -- this new development that's coming in and I think that -- that Pine needs to open up. It's going to create better access for everybody and it should help alleviate some of the pressure that is, you know, over on Pine and Black Cat and it's also one of those things where we don't get some of the improvements on Black Cat, you know, until 2031, until there is more rooftops that necessitate it to be bumped up sooner and so that's, you know, chicken and egg situation with some of the development for improvements on roads. So, I'm -- I'm mostly in favor of this project. Page 95 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 37 of 62 Seal: Okay. Thank you. And I will just chime in here. I don't have any major reservations about it either. I do -- having the driveway through to two properties there, that -- I see that becoming an issue when things try to redevelop on those lots or even an issue as having that a drive -- drive aisle between the two lots. So, I think it's going to limit that -- what they can there and how they can do things there or pose problems in the future. I do agree that, you know, some kind of tot lot or play structure up in that multi-family is to me going to be a little bit more relevant than -- than where it's at down south. Not that I would like to see that one go way, but an additional one, you know, play structure something like that just to let kids run around. Even, you know, kind of rock structures or something like that. Something for kids to play on and -- would be great to see there. But, yeah, I do like the pathways and all that, the way that they have constructed that, incorporated the creek into it and everything is very nice. So, I think it's going to be nice if it gets approved. Commissioner Yearsley? Yearsley: Yeah. I wanted to -- I -- I think for most parts it's a fairly good layout. I do echo the idea of having an additional amenity for the R-15. You know, I -- in all my years I have been on the Commission I have never heard anyone come in and say I have got too many amenities in my subdivision. Typically everything is underbuilt, overutilized. In our subdivision that we have, the same thing, it's just -- you never have enough and so I think it is warranted for another amenity within the tot lot -- or in the R-15 area. The rest of it looks reasonable and makes more sense and so I would be in favor of that with that -- with that addition. Seal: Okay. Do we have any other commentary or would somebody like to make a go at a motion here? Anybody? Holland: I could probably take a stab. I was trying to let somebody else do it this time though. Grove: I was getting my notes. I can -- I can do it if you would like. Holland: Go for it, Commissioner Grove. I will let you do it. Grove: Okay. Seal: Commissioner Grove. Grove: All right. Let's see. Make sure I got the right number. All right. Oh, no, I don't. Dodson: Mr. Chair? Seal: Go ahead, Joe. Dodson: Just real quick, Commissioner Grove. On this one, because there was a staff memo following the staff report, just be sure to include any recommendation that it also Page 96 Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission Item#3. March 4,2021 Page 38 of 62 includes those revisions within the memo, dated March 1st. In addition to those in the staff report. Just so we cover all of our bases. Grove: I can't find the right piece of paper, so I'm just going to take a wild stab at this. Yearsley: I can take a stab at it. Grove: You want to do it? Thanks. Yearsley: Yes. Grove: Thanks. Yearsley: So, Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend -- Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, I can't -- we are having trouble hearing you. Yearsley: Sorry. I'm looking on -- talking into one computer and looking at the screen on the other. Seal: Understood. Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2020-0113 as presented for the hearing date of March 4th, 2021, with the following modifications: That we add the -- to include the revisions in the staff memo dated March 1 st, 2021, and that in the R-15 area an additional amenity, such as a tot lot, shall be included into that phase. Grove: Second. Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to recommend approval of item number H- 2020-0113, Foxcroft Subdivision, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Movado Mixed Use (H-2020-0123) by FlexSpace, LLC, Located on the South Side of E. Overland Rd. Between S. Eagle Road and S. Cloverdale Rd. A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 66 attached units (56 units on 4225 E. Overland and 10 units on Parcel S1121121011) on 6.8 acres of land in the C-G zoning district Page 97 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21-1926: An Ordinance (H-2020-0112 —Tetherow Crossing Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the SW % of the SW % of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 8.12 Acres of Land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules, and Providing an Effective Date Page 98 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-055473 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 KRISTINA LOWRY 04/07/2021 11:23 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1926 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0112 — TETHEROW CROSSING SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SW '/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE I WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 8.12 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-8(MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian,Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation. and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Dennis Creek. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Tetherow Crossing Subdivision(H 2O20-0112) Page 1 of 3 SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two(2)separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 6th day of April , 2021. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,this 6th day of April , 2021. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 6th day of April 2021,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian,Idaho MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2022 Item#4. Exhibit A legal Description Proposed Annexation Tetherow Crossing Subdivision A parcel t ei'rg located in the SW'/a of the SW'/d of Section 36 Township 4 North Range 'i 'West, Boise Meridian City of Meridian.Ada County Idaho and more panic-o[arly described as foli•+-j5 Commenclnig at a grass Cap rnanument marking the southWest cornier of said Section 36, from oih chi a grass Gap monument marking that sotjtheeast corner of the SWN%of said Sectis i 36 gars S 58°43'02" E a distance of 2662 34 feet: Thence alorig tr,e sou'herly 1joundary of said SW'/4 S 83'43 02" E a distance of 665 63 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Thence leaving sand Routheriy I-oundary N 0"17'23 E a distance o7 48 00 feet to a point on the noriberty right-of=Quay of W LJsl& Rood Thence continuing N U l7'23' E a distance of 787 24 feet to ,a paini; Thence N 89*51 54" E a distance of 274_59 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of Woodbum 1NEs1 5ubdiviocn No 2 as shown in Boni( I I I of Flats on Paues 16040 through 16044, record; of Ada CQunly Idaho Thence along said westerly boundary of Wmdbrtrn West Sulbdi,won No- 2 the following de5cri ed courses Thence S 14-45A2" E a distance of 356.68 feet ie a paint, Tt3Lncr-S 81'01'42" E a distance of t2$46 feet to a point: Thence leaving seid westerly boundary S 0'02'28"1!V a distance of 434.45 feet to a point on said northerly rigs t-of-way of W L15tI(-k Road, Tfience continuing S 0°'02'28" W a distance of 48 00 feel to a mint on the southerly boundary of t+ee SYU Y4 of the SW Y of said Section 36 Thence along said southe•ly boundary N MB'43 02"W a distance of A93 39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING Ths parcel contains M2 acres and is sal�ect to any eAsements o.,, L LA e'er existlr)g Gr ill use Ciinton W_ Hansen, PLS Land Svlutlons, PC Octacer 8, 2020 �� ��r 4�� '�� �`�• 1� Tetherow Crossing Subdivision H-2020-011 Page 102 EXHIBIT B Item#4. Annexation Legal Exhibit. CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION TETHEROW CROSSING SUBDIVISION 1/4 L0CATE0 IN THE SW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 36,TAN-. R.1 W., B.M. 35- 36 CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNY, IDAHO I I N89'51' 4°E 274-59' SN- rl- III F py125,46.r t �UJ`lJ�j��LL O N o PROPOSED ANNEXATION Z i - - U2 ACRES TL I4 4 + V11. -� N O o a 11118 POINT OF BEGIIWNG 35 ?6 I e 4 35 �165-6J' _ 172,23' _ 43_31.pg' + 1 W. USTICK I NI;B`4 02"41 4 3.39' w 111 ......... ..... . S88'43'02"E 2fisT.34'. ....-,A'SIS 00WIW............. 4' 75' 1 ? 300" LA nd lotion - - ---I.nnd SumyiK end Cmaulting Z31€.bIHSI.$'rE A kCMIDIAM HS 4JGd2 (Z-g12Wro40 12oEt29t25Si1 : Tetherow Crossing Subdivision H-2020-0112 Page 103 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . Loo � • 10JIg F William L. M. Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO, 214926 An Ordinance (H-2020 -0112 — Tetherow Crossing Subdivision) for annexation of a parcel being located in the SW %4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 36, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described in the map published herewith; establish- ing and determining the land use zoning classification of 8 . 12 acres of land from RUT to R4 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — Tetherow Crossing Subdivision (H 2O204112) Page 3 of 3 Page101 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21-1927: An Ordinance (H-2020-0105 —Cache Creek Subdivision) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the SE % of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Being and Comprising of a Portion of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and All of Lots 1, 2 and 7, Block 1 of the Kachina Estates, Filed in Book 35, Pages 3016-3017 on November 15, 1974 in the Office of the Ada County Recorder and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 15.18 Acres of Land from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code, Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Page 104 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-055455 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 KRISTINA LOWRY 04/07/2021 11:20 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1927 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-01.05 — CACHE CREEK SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SE %4 OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND BEING AND COMPRISING OF A PORTION OF VICTORY ROAD AND LOCUST GROVE ROAD AND ALL OF LOTS 1,2 AND 7,BLOCK 1 OF THE KACHINA ESTATES FILED IN BOOK 35, PAGES 3016-3017 ON NOVEMBER 15, 1974 IN THE OFFICE OF THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 15.18 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-4 (MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR,THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Challenger Development, Inc. and Open Door Rentals, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Cache Creek Subdivision(H 2O20-0105) Page 1 of 3 SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two(2)separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 6th day of April , 2021. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,this 6th day of April , 2021. ATTEST: MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 6th day of April ,2021,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian,Idaho MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: - -2022 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Cache Creek Subdivision (H 2O20-0105) Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT A DATE: August 30, 20 ANNEXATION—CACHE CREEK A parcel of land being located in the SE 114 of faction 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 Eaat, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and beiW and oamprising of a partian of Victory Road and Locust Grave Road and all of Lots 1, 2, and 7. Block f of the plot of Kachlna Estates Flled In Book 35, Page 3016-3017 on November 15, 1974 in the Office of the Ada County Recorder and being mare particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the southeast corner of said Section 19, mon urn ented by a found 3"Aluminum Gap stamped"J-U-13 Engineers PLS 11334" (Corner Record No 114007715). from which the South 114 corner of said Section 19, monumented by a found 3" Brass Cap stamped "J-U-B Engineers PLS 113W (corner Record No. 114007714), bears South 89'42'08" West, a distance of 2W.01 feet; Thence;mouth 89'42'08"West, coincident with South line of said Section 19, a distance of 625.97 feet; Thence leaving said South line of Section 19, coincident with the westerly line of Bald Lot 2, .Block 1, North 00°23'33°Wiest, a distan-ce of 690.31 feet to the northwest corner of said Lot 2, Block 1; The noE coincident with the southerly line of said Lot 7, Black 1, South 89°37'01" West, a distance cf 106.50 feet to the southwest comer of sold Lot 7, Bl-ock 1; Thence coincident with the westerly line of said Lot 7, Block 1, Nurth 00°21'l8"Walt, a distance of 305.85 feet to the northwest corner of Bald Lot 7, Block 1,' Thence coincident wilh the northEr€y line of sold Lot 7, Block 1, South 89a23'52" East, a distance of 751.95 feet to a paint conterminous with the East line of said Section 191 Thence ooineident with said East line of Section 19, South 00°44'46" +Nest, a distance of 964.36 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 15.16 acres or 661425.33 square feet, more or less. Tagetherwith and subject to covenants, easements, and restrictions of record. The basis of bearing for this parcel is South 89442'08" West between tfie southeast corner and the South Y,corner of said Section 19. Robert Grani atzky. P,L.S. #L LA#p License No. 17216 EN CL ca G Cache Creek—H-2020-0105 EXHIBIT B A PUR-FION OF SE1 4 SECRON 19 RAJ 1111 1792 R. 1 E.: B.M. I PASS ST. � L077 � oc � els 37'o-1'w 14N,54` i ANNEXATION AREA 15.1a ACRES 651425.33 SQ. FT. E. SAcEmoal? ST. * op,j- L{ $ < Lori LOT CL PWT of DEaG WNW 3' BRAS6 CAP STAMPED "J—U-8 BASIS OF BEARINGS 3' AUMNUM CIkP STMKD ENGIN ERS rl S 113�lr '�1-11-B ENC WERE PLS 1133e 51/4 CMNER SECTION 19, INSTR 5E CORWR SEC11ON 19, IN . 1 114007714 114DO7715 atlAf mfi LEGAL DESCRIPTION �"'°'MrjD arwr Piro `r I of CACHE CIREEK ANNEXATION NMI °�""" Ll—CHAIA.F-WER 70YSi2 +1! vay.NYl.co■ 1' ]` l�a+ah CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L .M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . Ju 1 William L. M. Nary, ity Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO , 214927 An Ordinance (H-2020-0105 — Cache Creek Subdivision) for annexation of a parcel of land located in the SE %a of Section 19, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being and comprising of a portion of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road and all of Lots 1 , 2 and 7, Block 1 of the plat of Kachina Estates filed in Book 35 , Pages 3016-3017 on November 15 , 1974 in the Office of the Ada County Recorder and being more particularly discribed in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 15 . 18 acres of land from RUT to R4 (Medium Low Density Residential) zoning district; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — Cache Creek Subdivision (H 2O20 -0105) Page 3 of 3 Page 107