Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-05-11 Regular Meeting
City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, May 11, 2021 at 6:00 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87227271773 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 872 2727 1773 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton (left at 6:45) Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Jessica Perreault PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted as Amended (Item 5 vacated) PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15 minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a Homeowner’s Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented homeowners who have consented to yielding their time. After all public testimony, the applicant is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote. 1. Public Hearing for Creamery South Condominiums (SHP-2021-0001) by City Center Redevelopment, LLC, Located at 703 E. Main St. Approved A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of one (1) commercial space and 33 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.429 acres of land in the O-T zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 2. Public Hearing for Creamery North Condominiums (SHP-2021-0002) by City Center Redevelopment, LLC, Located at 33 E. Idaho Ave. Approved A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of two (2) commercial spaces and 69 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.908 acres of land in the O-T zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing Continued from April 6, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020- 0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek Continued to Wednesday, May 26 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 Wednesday, May 26 Special Meeting made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 4. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. Continued to Wednesday, May 26 A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to update certain sections of the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to Standards in the Old Town District in Chapter 2; Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Chapter 5; and Common Driveways Standards in Chapter 6. Motion to continue to Wednesday, May 26 made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION Vacated 5. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code ADJOURNMENT 7:40 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council May 11, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:03 p.m., Tuesday, May 11, 2021 , by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Jessica Perreault. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Jamie Leslie, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is May 11, 2021, at 6:03 p.m. We will begin this evening's meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Simison: Yeah. Council, we haven't sounded that good in a year. Bernt: It's been a long time. COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Next item is our community invocation, which will be offered this evening by Nathaniel Smith of Legacy Life Church. Is Pastor Smith present this evening? Does not appear so, so we will go ahead and skip on that item. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: So, we will move on to adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 2- — Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Simison: How about Item No. 5? Bernt: Oh. Excuse me. Yes. We are going to not adopt the agenda as published. was just testing you. Good job, Mr. Mayor. That is -- let's strike Item No. 5 from the agenda. We don't need an Executive Session. And with that I move that we adopt the agenda as amended. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the motion -- and the agenda is adopted as published. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Next item is the public forum. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up underneath that item? Johnson: Apologies, Mr. Mayor. I'm checking online just to make sure I did not miss -- but I do not believe anyone has signed up. No one has signed up. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Creamery South Condominiums (SHP-2021-0001) by City Center Redevelopment, LLC, Located at 703 E. Main St. A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4- story building consisting of one (1) commercial space and 33 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.429 acres of land in the O-T zoning district Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move on to our public hearings for the evening. The first item up -- and I don't know if we -- the intention is to open up both of these together this evening. Okay. Well, with that the first item up is a public hearing for Creamery South Condominiums, SHP-2021-0001 and public hearing for Creamery North Condominiums, SHP-2021-0002. I will open the staff -- this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. If all of you can hear me? Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 3- — Simison: Yes, we can. Dodson: Thank you. Yeah. I would prefer to do it all together, but we don't have to. It's going to be the same thing for both, because it's generally the same. But that is your choice. 2. Public Hearing for Creamery North Condominiums (SHP-2021-0002) by City Center Redevelopment, LLC, Located at 33 E. Idaho Ave. A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4- story building consisting of two (2) commercial spaces and 69 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.908 acres of land in the O-T zoning district. Simison: They are both open for your comments. Dodson: Perfect. All right. As noted, the first items are for Creamery North and Creamery South Condominiums, also known as the Old Town Lofts, also known as -- I guess Meridian downtown mixed use buildings. There has been multiple names for these. The applicant is requesting two short plats, both buildings that are currently under construction. Creamery South consists of .429 acres of land, currently zoned OT, Old Town. So, is Creamery North. That site, however, does consist of .9 acres. They are on -- what is that? 703 North Main Street and, then, 33 East Idaho, kind of caddy- corner to each other. It would be this property and this property. You can see it right outside the window. When it comes to adjacent land uses, it is Old Town zoning in all directions, except for to the west of the Creamery North, which has R-8 zoning. Apologize for my phone going crazy. If you can hear that. R-8 zoning directly to the west of the Creamery North and it has detached single family zoning there. In addition, within the Old Town district surrounding the buildings there are commercial uses in all directions, except for to the south, which has City Hall. Creamery South obtained CZC approval in 2019 for what was known back then as Building A. It also received a vacation approval for a public utility easement and approval of the property boundary adjustment. Creamery North has only received the CZC and design review approvals in 2019 for Building B. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Old Town as well -- is the proposed condo plat -- or I should say a piece of it. What is on the right hand is an example of what every floor would be for the Creamery South and this would be for the Creamery North. Creamery South has 33 units. Creamery North has 66. Creamery North also has two commercial condominium plats, so to speak, units and the Creamery South has one commercial on the first floor. The short plats before you are to request to condominiumize a vertically integrated four story building on both of them. The applicant did take these proposals to the MDC board, the Meridian Development Corporation, on April 28th and the board voted to -- a unanimous vote to amend their existing agreement between the ownership and the MDC and included a new provision that these units will -- shall be utilized as rental units for a period of at least five years following completion. That is not an agreement that I -- from my understanding that we were not privy to, so we did not include any conditions of approval regarding that. That Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 4- — is an agreement between them and that was, again, voted unanimously. It is the intention from the applicant to not utilize these as a for sale product, but they are utilizing -- they are contemplating them just in case the market changes, giving themselves some insurance later on. According to the UDC 11-613, which is the code section that discusses condo plats, it dictates that the buildings must be either fully constructed or have received building permits for construction prior to applying to condo plat them. Both sites, again, have received CZC and design review and are currently under construction, so they do have valid building permits. Therefore, they are in compliance with the UDC. All the project elements, open space, amenities, parking, the elevations and the proposed uses are to remain the same and no changes are required to accommodate the short plat request. There was no written testimony as of a couple hours ago and staff does recommend approval of the subject short plats for each site in order to condominiumize each building and after that I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Joe, your staff report references a letter from MDC. I didn't see anything in the -- in the agency comments from MDC. There is a -- an e-mail from -- it looks like Administrator Ford on 5/3. Is that sufficient for what you were looking for? Dodson: Councilman Cavener, I believe -- I might -- I might have forgotten to send it. But I thought I sent a letter slash the agreement from Ashley Squyres from -- that works with us on the MDC. She did send a letter and a copy of the new provision, which should be part of the public record. If not, I do apologize, I might have missed that. But I did receive a letter that was satisfactory in what we were looking for. Cavener: Great. Thanks, Joe. Dodson: You're welcome. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Then the applicant is recognized for 15 minutes. Evarts: My name is Josh Evarts. I reside at 303 East State Avenue, Old Town, Meridian. 83642. Schaus: Amanda Schaus. Elam & Burke. I reside at 1413 North 5th Street in Boise. Evarts: Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, we just want to thank you. Thank you, staff, Joe, for putting this all together. As you guys know we are building large buildings in downtown Meridian that are right outside our door. We are pretty excited about the progress and certainly excited about sort of the response that we have gotten from the Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 5— — community and interest in the -- not only the housing, but also the commercial space. look forward to updating you guys all on the letters of intent that we will be signing to put people in there. The way this came about to begin with was as we were meeting with our legal representation and putting together sort of the final things that we needed to do to deliver this product to the city, this whole idea of pursuing a condo plat was really born of a desire -- not because we are intending to do anything different than our development agreement that we set years ago, but really to give ourselves and afford us some protections that if markets changed in the future. As I have spoken to Caleb there is no intent on our part to -- to sell the residential pieces really at any point, but we were given some very good counsel that now is the time to do those things and put that in place if conditions change at sometime in the future. So, that's why we sought this condo plat. We had a lot of discussions back and forth with MDC to make sure that there wasn't some nefarious purposes that were going on and there aren't. We actually executed that amendment to the development agreement today. So, Caleb and I both sent that -- sent that back to MDC, so they have that executed agreement from us. So, we stand ready to answer any questions you guys might have in consideration. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Just a question I'm going to ask. I'm curious. You said if market conditions change. Are you saying that you don't think you could sell these in the current market conditions or -- and I'm not -- I'm just asking from a very practical standpoint. I understand the five years and -- but are market conditions not there that these would sell if they went on the market? Evarts: No. Mr. Mayor, that's a fantastic question. City Council Members. I think we would sell them like hotcakes. The problem would be is we would have to mark the market and sell them for a price that I don't think is affordable and I think our whole purpose in delivering this project was to have market rate rental opportunities. So, somebody who is a bartender at -- let's say The Vault now or -- or maybe Sushi Shack would be able to afford to get a studio one bedroom or two bedroom apartment. If we were to condo these and sell these, they would be in current market conditions. I don't know if you saw that 829 Meridian Road just went for sale for 1 .1 million. The Old Alien House. And so we would have prices that would price out the people that we are trying to support with this product. So, yes, I think they would sell like hotcakes, but I don't think we would be delivering what Caleb and I had intended. Simison: And I appreciate you trying to deliver on your promise or your agreement from that standpoint. I was just curious based on that comment. So, Council, any additional questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Quick question I guess for staff. So, it would be -- the agreement with MDC for the five year rental, would that -- would that run with the property or with the ownership Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 6- — of the property? In other words, like would -- you know, who knows like if things change in the future if there was a different owner at some point, would that restriction remain for the full five years? Dodson: Council Woman Strader, I will actually leave that to -- to the applicant to state. I do not know what that agreement is specifically. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I was just curious if that would be something that would be ongoing or if that's just an agreement between the -- the owner and MDC. Simison: It looks like we will find out in a second. Evarts: I'm not an attorney, so I'm going to give this to -- to a counselor who can -- do you know? Schaus: Mayor, Council Members, I actually wasn't involved in this amendment. It does not have recording information on it. So, I -- my interpretation would be it's not recorded, but I know the original development agreement was recorded -- Evarts: Yeah. Schaus: -- and I don't think we would have an issue with recording this against the property if that's what you would require or desire. Evarts: There is no appetite for us to sell this product. So, yeah, recording it wouldn't be a problem. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Is there anybody in the room that would like to provide testimony? If so, please, come forward at this time and state your name and address for the record or if there is anybody online that would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand function on Zoom and we can recognize you for this purpose. Seeing no one coming forward and no one raising their hand, would the applicant like any additional final comments? They are waiving that. Council, I will turn this over to you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page , — 35 Cavener: I move we close the public hearing for items one and two, Creamery South Condominiums, SHP-2021-0001 and 0002. Simison: Do I have a second? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings. 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. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we approve the short plat for Creamery South Condominiums SHP- 2021-0001 as referenced in the staff report for a date of May 11th. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second for Item 1 to approve Item SHP-2021-0001. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we approve Item 2, short plat SHP-2021-0002. Include all staff and applicant testimony as presented. Strader: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item SHP-2021-0002. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 8- — Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much. Best of luck. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing Continued from April 6, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Simison: Council, next item on the agenda is a public hearing continued from April 6, 2021, for Foxcroft Subdivision, H-2020-0113. Joe, did you have any comments that you would want to lead us off regarding this item? Dodson: Mr. Mayor, just very briefly if I can. Simison: Okay. Dodson: Thank you. I just wanted to note that this was continued because of the state legislation that has recently had some answers, I guess, or outcomes and, then, secondly, part of that -- continuation I should say was to have the applicant work with the parks department to get that crossing from the northwest into Fuller Park. It is my understanding that those discussions occurred and that some positive outcomes became of that conversation. I also want to note that there was some confusion on what was conditioned and what wasn't conditioned. The applicant called me on something that I made a mistake on. I will own that. I linked the wrong condition report in my staff report. So, thank you, Jane, for calling me out on that. I apologize. It was linked to the Mile High Pines, which is adjacent to this subdivision and I stole that staff report to use for this one. So, that's my -- my fault on that. But there was some confusion on what was conditioned. In the correct Parks Department conditions report it does note that the applicant shall connect this -- their proposed pathway along the north side of the plat as shown, which does include building something across the stub drain in this location. I will let the applicant discuss a little more specifically what the conversations were with the Parks Department, but I did want to note that and take responsibility for my mistake there. Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 9- — Simison: Thank you, Joe, for owning that. But, Council, any questions for staff before we ask the applicant to come up? Okay. Jane, if you would like to come forward. State your name and address for the record. Suggs: Thank you, Council. Just in the nick of time. It's a jungle out there. Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning, representing Trilogy Development. I'm really glad to be back with you tonight. Council Woman Strader, missed you last time. Your call, that long hearing we had April 6, and our deferral tonight, mostly because of the taxation legislation that's I think on the governor's desk right now. I haven't heard today if he's signed it. He has until tomorrow I guess. I am hoping you will find it possible to approve our annexation, rezone, and preliminary plat and CUP. I see Council Member Bernt smiling at me. And since our last hearing on April 6 the Meridian parks has gotten a verbal approval of a crossing over the Ten Mile stub drain to Fuller Park. Now, we do agree that this is a very positive connection for the park -- to the park for the residents of Foxcroft and, actually, for lots of residents in the area, because it will tie to that regional pathway that runs along the stub drain that's on our property. Again, that connection is not on the master street map. So, it's not part of what we had originally intended to build. Actually, it was our understanding if there was going to be a crossing there it would be something that the city would build and we would submit the necessary access easements according to the memo that we got from parks on that portion of the property. But we have an understanding now since the last meeting that -- from parks that we do have a condition of approval to build the crossing and as we discussed at the last hearing there is a culvert there that has a chain across it, so there is a place, but we know that when Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District decides they want a crossing it's not going to be a simple culvert with dirt on top, it is going to be a major structure -- pretty elaborate structure. In fact, we are building one of those if -- I'm going to let -- because of this mouse I'm going to let Joe show you where we are already building a pedestrian access across the Ten Mile Creek. Can you point that out down below? So, pedestrian access. That's the -- where he is pointing now is the vehicular access. So, just want to recap that we are building that vehicular access connection over Ten Mile Creek. We are also building a pedestrian bridge over Ten Mile Creek as I mentioned. We are continuing -- that will help us continue a regional pathway that does show up on your maps and we are building Pine Avenue, of course, a mid mile -- mid mile collector and we calculated kind of conservatively that the builder of the homes and the apartments will pay over 400,000 dollars in park impact fees for this project. So, again, I'm here very respectfully requesting that you approve our annexation, our rezone, our preliminary plat and our CUP, but with a little adjustment to the conditions. Instead of us building that connection we are hoping that, one, either the city will build a connection using our impact fees or if we build the connection as part of that phase that maybe we could get some credit for those impact fees for that connection. That is a very positive way to improve the park. I won't say it's just a pathway connection, it's an improvement to the park. Park improvements are really important, but getting people to the park I think are just as important. So, again, I'm hoping that you might consider that as an adjustment to the condition of approval. The condition of approval is in the -- is in the e- mail. I mean the memo that came from Parks and Rec -- and it says prior to final approval the applicant shall submit public access easements for the multi-use pathways Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 10—— and this one says the pathway connecting across the Ten Mile stub drain from Fuller Park, extending along the south side of the drain as far as Ten Mile Road and we know that's where that regional pathway goes on top of that sewer line that the developer provided for the city -- not provide the sewer, but provided easement and, of course, we have to submit that paperwork. So, again, very respectfully ask your approval. I know if the governor hasn't signed you're still in the same place, but I'm hoping that maybe you have had some opportunity to look at the change that has been made to that bill since we were here in April. I will stand for questions or respond to any other comments from you or neighbors. Simison: Thank you, Jane. This -- so we can get this out in the open on this one, pathways are not impact fee eligible to my knowledge, nor was a connection to -- even if it's considered a park element, I can't imagine because of the costs that it would be impact fee eligible, even under that scenario. Mr. Nary, am I incorrect? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't believe they are eligible. I think you are correct. Simison: Okay. Nary: I think what we have done before is when the developers built that and they have given us an easement we have maintained it, but we haven't built them. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: He said it. Simison: Okay. Just so that we are clear on that element for the conversation. Suggs: Well, it was worth the ask, because of all the infrastructure that we are building for the entire community and it just adds to the expense. But I appreciate the clarification and hope we can find some good things to do with all of those impact fees that do come out. I looked at your budget and there is two and a half million dollars that come in from impact fees in the past year. So, it's a big -- a big chunk. Simison: And we got 11 million dollar parks. Suggs: Yeah. I know. Simison: So, we may have run out of money. Suggs: That's great. Thank you. Simison: Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Suggs: Thank you, Mayor. Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 11 of 35 Simison: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone that was -- Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not have anyone sign up in advance. However, Marissa Parker is here and I do believe she wishes to testify. So, I'm going to allow her to unmute. Parker: Hello. Can you hear me? Bernt: Yes, ma'am. Simison: Yes. Parker: Hi. My name is Marissa. I live on 3279 West Acarrera, which is directly behind where all the apartments are going. So, my main concern is the three story apartments. My house, along with six of the other houses that directly back up to where the proposed three story apartments would be located, all of those -- like I said, six of the nine are single story homes and all of our backyards were up -- raised up a tiny bit, but it's -- I mean three stories up against a one story looking into our backyards, into our homes, privacy, let alone property value, I'm just really concerned about that. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council, any questions? Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Marissa, just curious -- and I appreciate your testimony tonight. I know you have submitted a couple of letters voicing your concerns as well and I'm just curious through this process if the applicant has reached out to you to communicate their vision or plan with you in any way, shape or form? Parker: They have not. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. If not I will ask the applicant to come forward. Suggs: Thank you, Mayor. Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning, representing Trilogy and Foxcroft Subdivision. I see Joe is already ahead of me, because he has put the cross- section. Well, we did understand that there were some concerns with the folks in Mosher's Farm and we -- as we, you know, did our surveying and visited the site several times we realized that their properties were quite a bit higher than the property where the apartments would be located, so we had our engineer draw up this cross-section of showing where the second floor of the homes and the ones that are closest to the Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 12—" property are actually mostly two story or one story with bonus rooms and so we do have the three story apartments, but they are at least 80 feet and I would say closer to a hundred feet from each other. So, I didn't count, but it's pretty -- a pretty good distance between because of the stub drain, the backyards, the offsets, the sewer easement. So, again, we think that those are compatible uses and that this piece of property particularly is already zoned for higher density apartments. It's R-15. So, this is the type of use that you would see in an R-15 zone. Yes. And I have not reached out to Ms. Parker. I think there were six letters that came in prior to the P&Z meeting, but only one person showed up at the P&Z and so -- and I think we sent out -- gosh, I don't know how many letters. We had a lot of folks that we sent letters to for our neighborhood meeting. So, again, this cross-section probably tells you a little bit more about how -- the compatibility between the two, but just keeping in mind that they are 80 plus feet apart and we don't think that there is going to be any people looking in backyards, because it's going to be so far away. So, if you have questions about that? Okay. Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Council, what's your direction and thoughts at this point in time on considering this application? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I will take the lead. You know, we have made a lot of decisions, especially, yeah, since I was elected three and a half years ago and I got to tell you this is probably one of the hardest decisions I have ever had to make and I know that the decisions and the conversation that we have on the dais in regard to this legislation and how it affects development and the development community and our -- and our builder partners, we don't take that lightly. I don't think there is a single person on this dais that has ever taken it lightly. It's hard. It truly is. I sat down with the builders pack last week and took many arrows and I get it. I promise you I get it. I know that there is a lot of people out there who are losing tens if not hundreds of millions of -- or, excuse me, thousands of dollars because of this delay, this pause, and I -- you know, we are fully aware of that and I get it. You know, as a body we make decisions that benefit -- and we look after the entire city as a whole and regardless if you are building on the periphery of a city or if you are doing in-fill or whether it's -- whatever type of development it is, it has an impact and, unfortunately, right now we just don't know what that impact look like -- looks like and -- we will know soon -- we will know really soon. But this is what I -- this is what I can promise you and I know there is a lot of eyes and a lot of ears listening and know that we will make a decision quick. This is not something that we will deliberate on for a long time. This is something when we know what we are dealt with and we know the dollars and the cents and the data is put in front of us, I would like the development community to know that we will make a decision quick. This is not something that we are going to sit on our laurels and -- and deliberate for a long long time, because we do take this very seriously and it's been hard and -- and so I don't want to ramble on for too long, but I just wanted to make it known to yourself and other Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page ——— -- others that might be listening that it's been tough, we hear you, we understand. Hopefully you have called your legislators. Hopefully you got involved and made a difference and we appreciate it if you did. So, it would be my recommendation, as Council President, to continue this. I don't know -- I will open up for discussion with my fellow Council Members and get their thoughts and opinions, but that would be my personal recommendation. Sort of consistent with how we have been the past couple of months. Simison: Council, any other thoughts, comments? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I agree with Council President Bernt. I think -- you know, this is on the governor's desk and, hopefully, he is thinking hard about this and he is going to make the right decision and support cities across Idaho. I agree that we need to take a look at this holistically. I think we looked at scheduling some special sessions to try to increase the volume of applications that we can go through once this is resolved and so I think we are going to do the best on our end to try to accelerate the process and once we have that decision. So, I'm in agreement with that. But, hopefully, we can shorten the timetable for people past that decision point. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just a comment. I agree with the Councilman Bernt regarding the -- the situation and where we are and -- and the unknown. We have to sit down and make decisions with the information that we know is going to come, depending on the action that is taken and we just have to go forward once we know, so -- but until we know I just -- I'm not comfortable moving forward on anything at this time. So, I think a slight -- one more pause -- and I know time is money, but, unfortunately, in this situation we have to do that to make the best decision possible. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman -- whoever you are. Cavener: Cavener. I will be playing the part of Council Member Cavener tonight. Mr. Mayor, thanks. You know, we as a body made a decision a number of months ago that we wanted to wait and see how this legislation would impact us. I don't think that we know quite how this legislation is going to impact us yet and so it does make it a little premature. It may be beneficial, Mr. Mayor, for either a memo or a presentation from Finance to us maybe in our next workshop about if this is signed what -- what -- how that impacts us. If it's vetoed, then, we know how that will impact us, so that we can Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 14—— begin to resume some of our normal Council decision making process that we had been doing before legislature came to town. Simison: Councilman Cavener, that's already in the works. It's -- it's queued up in theory for next week's workshop, with the ability to make decisions starting as early as next Tuesday based upon that information, if Council is comfortable at that point in time. Cavener: Great. That's fantastic. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: With that said I -- we have -- we have a special session that we have -- we have set aside on May 26th and so if you -- it's a Wednesday. It's -- it's -- it's not a Tuesday, Jane. Would that be okay with you and your -- and the people you -- folks you represent, would that be an appropriate date for you? Suggs: That's fine. Bernt: Okay. With that said, Mr. Mayor, without hearing anymore discussion, I move that we continue Item 3, which is H-2020-0113 to May 26th at our 6:00 p.m. special meeting. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? 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. Bernt: Thank you, Jane. 4. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to Standards in the Old Town District in Chapter 2; Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Chapter 5; and Common Driveways Standards in Chapter 6. Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for UDC text amendment, H-2020-0001. I will turn this over to Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Pleasure to be with you this evening. This is the first of a series of UDC changes that are coming before this body in Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page ——— the next month or so. This is coming to you at a request from not only you, but a request from the Mayor's office for some UDC changes. This was in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission on their April 15th hearing and as a result of that hearing there have been some changes that have been made to this document as it transitioned from Commission to this body this evening and so the four areas that we are addressing this evening have to do with our height standards in our Old Town district. If you -- this body remembers, the Council remembers, there was an application before you for the Baraya Subdivision where there was some conflicts with the irrigation requirements and the city code and we wanted -- you directed staff to get those discrepancies corrected. So, we have done that as part of this update. We are also making it clear with the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan about 18 months ago that we want to limit Comprehensive Plan map amendments to twice a year and, then, probably the largest discussion will be on the common driveways and I did receive comments today from Jon Wardle and the BCA regarding our proposed changes to the common driveways. So, with that I will go ahead and dive right into my presentation this evening and I won't go through all of these line by line, but I want to point the Council to this particular change that you have in front of you. This is something that came about as a result after the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, so we realized -- we heard -- if you recall, we had a conditional use permit last year to increase -- allow some taller buildings in our downtown -- in our Old Town district and the way the current code is written it requires a conditional use permit to do that and so at the request of this body, we were asked to look at those height increases and see what we could do to modify the code to allow greater flexibility without having to send everyone to a conditional use permit and so the first two items that I will be discussing with you tonight addresses that particular change and this one -- this one before you on your screen is a new one that came up again after the Planning and Zoning Committee, because we realize that there may be cases where buildings can be shorter or less in height than 35 feet and so we wanted to treat Old Town zoning consistent with our other zones, so we allowed for -- this particular change allows for an increase or decrease in height up to 20 percent by the director and, then, anything over that -- over the 20 percent would require the conditional use permit and they -- we are also proposing that they cannot increase anymore than 50 percent of the maximum height increase. So, that would allow up to 150 foot tall building in our downtown core area. So, we are not opening it up to all of the Old Town zone, we are limiting it to just the city core at this moment until we determine whether or not we are going to have more districts or URD districts established in our downtown area. We want to make sure we take -- take an incremental approach to raising our height in the downtown area, make sure it's in the right locations for that height. So, again, in your motion tonight if you do support this recommended change that's before you, I would ask that you include that in your motion and I will make sure that that gets to the Legal Department when we ratify the ordinance for the UDC changes. Any questions on this particular change as we transition? Thank you. The next one does deal with that actual increase in height. So, currently we are -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 16 of 35 Bernt: Sorry, but I think Council Woman Strader had a question. Strader: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. Yeah. Before we move on, because I know how -- maybe I will forget about it. So, with that additional change what would -- what would be the -- I guess the -- if you could just translate maximum height into the number of stories you think that translates into, that would help me kind of wrap my head around it. Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council -- Council Woman Strader, it -- it depends. I mean it can -- it can vary depending on the height of the stories that the architect is designing. But I can tell you I believe -- if I'm not mistaken I believe the Union 93 building is going to be five or six stories, if I'm not mistaken. So, that's a hundred feet tall. So, you can imagine probably nine -- eight, nine, ten story building in downtown. Strader: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess just a quick check in -- that the Fire Department has had a chance to see this proposed change, especially with the deviation. And I guess this is just coming from the concern of -- I'm ensuring that we have maybe that second ladder truck and we are, you know, ready for that. Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this change came about beginning of this week. So, no, they have not seen this specific language, except for what I'm presenting this evening to you. Strader: Thank you, chief. Parsons: But they were okay with the hundred foot height increase. They were part of that discussion. Bongiorno: Yeah. Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, I think at that point, once you get up to a certain point, they -- they just don't make a truck that -- that is that big. So, that's where your secondary devices for, you know, sprinkler -- sprinkler systems and life safety systems and smoke detectors and everything else that's built into that building comes into play. So, we have a hundred foot ladder truck that we currently have. The new one is going to be a hundred foot also. So, it's kind of -- we are limited to that no matter what. They do make taller trucks, but you get to the point where you just -- you don't use -- utilize them for a building that's, you know, 120 feet tall. So, we are okay with the proposal. I don't see a problem with it at all. Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 17—" Strader: Mr. Mayor, a quick follow up for the Deputy Chief. Simison: Council Woman Strader, you are recognized for three minutes. Strader: So nice. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: So you don't have to come back and ask for follow-up time. Strader: Okay. I guess just a question that -- do you feel comfortable with the rest of our building code and that we are addressing the other elements that may be needed for taller buildings? And maybe that's a follow up. But just to make sure that, you know, we are -- I assume at this point they are not stick built anymore. If they are up to five stories I assume that they are -- you know, that we are enhancing the safety element if a ladder truck can't reach the top floor of that building. Bongiorno: So, Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, so the -- the building code dictates typically how things are built. So, the buildings across the street that are being proposed are what's called platform construction. So, the first three stories will be concrete and, then, it will be wood construction on top of that. So, there is codes out there that dictate if you are going to go this many stories it has to be built this way. That's the purpose of the building code and the fire code and everything that goes along with it. So, whatever is built is going to meet code. It will -- it will have to meet code. So, whether they build it out -- it's just how are they going to build it. Is it going to be built out of steel? Is it going to be -- you know, a type one construction or is it going to be a limited combustible building. There is -- there is many many different ways of building a building and -- and now even in this new code section that we are using you can actually build -- I think it's up to like 12 stories with large timber. So, it's -- the technology that's out there is -- is changing rapidly and, again, anything they build has to meet code and has to meet earthquake standards. So, we are covered either way. Strader: Thank you. I -- yeah. I guess if you have reviewed the building code and you feel that the way that it applies now, if we are going up this high, is adequate to protect people, that gives me a lot of comfort. I'm just surprised that we would still be using timber up to six stories and that -- and that that's safe. But if you are saying that that's safe and you have reviewed that and you think that we are adequately covered, I'm okay on this. Bongiorno: Yeah. Mayor and Council, again, all of it would have to meet code and that's why we have an awesome building official. Sam and his team will make sure that whatever is built meets code and, then, we come in behind them with the plumbing code, the residential mechanical code, the electrical code, the fire code, plumbing code -- we all come in into that shell and make it the safest that -- that we can and that's where -- with something that tall that's one of those projects where we would get Pam and our public education crew out there, we would get -- to meet with the property manager of those buildings to make sure that they have, you know, safety plans in place and evacuation plans and all of that. So, we -- we -- just because they build a building Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page ——" our job is not done and, then, obviously, the crews would be going out there to walk the buildings to study them and -- and to train on that particular building. We do that all the time with the new buildings that are being built down at like Ten Mile and Franklin. So, we are good. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions before we move on to other information? Mr. Parsons. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor. So, yeah, this other change does coincide with that. So, right now staff is proposing that we have a minimum height of 35 feet and a maximum height of one hundred feet and, then, all other areas outside of the core would still have -- be allowed to go up to a maximum height of 75 feet and still be subject to this two story minimum. Again, this is an incremental approach. Let's see what works in our core and, then, if we need to adjust code as we see the growth happen in downtown and we started advancing our planning tools. Next change has to do, again, with the ditches, laterals, canals or drainage courses. Again, we did clear up that verbiage in code and just further define that you do have the ability, if -- if a water amenity or if a linear open space is designed as part of the open space, you have the ability to waive the fencing, if the city -- the irrigation districts won't allow it. So, it's been clarified and got that -- that issue rectified for this Council. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: A couple questions about this one, Bill. Let's start with maybe letter -- letter E. It -- where it looks like it -- we strike out the public hearing and maybe I'm -- I'm always a little sensitive to this, but can you help maybe walk us through what we are gaining by eliminating an opportunity for the public to participate in the process around this? Parsons: Sure. That -- that was part two of the -- of this section. But certainly I'm happy to move this one -- if you don't have anything -- any concerns with the first change. But this is one where a lot of times when applicants come forward with the preliminary plat they might not have all the irrigation district's comments or they may get hit -- sometimes we have an overall arching irrigation district, but, then, there is sub ditches underneath them that all Nampa-Meridian does is provide water to them and their sub lateral users and we don't get comments from that group. So, for example, if that's the case -- and we may have a final plat that shows up on our desk and all of a sudden we see an easement going back across somebody's backyard, an easement called out, and we are like where did this come from? It wasn't part of the plat. And so the only remedy to get that corrected is to come back before you through a public hearing. We can't even do that through a final plat, because a final plat is a public meeting process. So, what this is trying to do is allow you the ability to take that under consideration when a final plat comes in, rather than having the applicant go back through the process just to have another public hearing. A lot of times these issues -- Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 19 of 35 they can pop up at the public hearing, but a lot of times the issues are maintain my water to my property or I don't -- I want to know what the drainage is and that's already addressed in code and that's addressed in state code. So, in my mind we are just trying to get this in front of you without convoluting the process. We are trying to make it so that it can happen at different stages in the process. That's the purpose of the change. Strader: Mr. Mayor, follow up if I may. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Strader: On letter B-3A where it states the decision making body may waive the requirement for coverings. I assume that means the City Council or does that mean something else? Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Cavener, that -- that means something else. That means whatever application comes into the door and require -- in our code. So, in Chapter 5 of our code the code delegates who the decision making body is. So, for example, if someone is sub -- is at CZC level, that doesn't require it to come to you for action, but they may have an open ditch on their property that they need to cover. So, that would give their director the ability at that point to allow it to remain open or waive some of these requirements, rather than having to come back to you as part of that process. So, we tried to make it -- soften the code a little bit so you are not always waiving those decisions. It -- it happens, again, at all the various stages or application types under the current code. Strader: Okay. Mr. Mayor, one more if I may. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Bill, some of the comments that we received from stakeholders voiced some concern about some of the -- just the arbitrary language that -- at least the perspective that I was seeing from the letters was that while we are intending to simplify this and make it easier for people to understand, that maybe it's not doing that. Again, I'm not the smartest one when it comes to this stuff, so I -- obviously, I was confused as well and I'm just curious if after you saw those comments if there were any additional changes or recommended changes to help address some of that confusion. Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, no, we did not -- I looked at those comments. It's something that the attorney's office and the Parks Department and myself discussed as we were working on this -- this rewrite to simplify things. But there is various sections in our Comprehensive Plan and in our code that addresses all of these different waterways and so we felt keeping it consistent with what we already have seemed to make a lot of sense. If you talk with the irrigation district they are going to tell you there is no such thing as a creek. They are going to tell you it's all -- they are all manmade waterways and so they don't even support a lot of these things that we want protected and improved as amenities and left open as waterways, because they Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 20—" are designated creeks in our Comprehensive Plan. They don't even recognize those as creeks half the time. So, again, we want to be consistent with our plan. So, we feel what we have here -- I think Mr. Nary even commented that, yeah, we just have to move forward with these changes. That's how we are setup. And so we have kind of -- it's one of those where we kind of agree to disagree. We are going to stay consistent with what we have in our -- in our comp plan and in our mapping and in our GIS system. Cavener: Okay. Parsons: The next change is, again, very simple. We are just reinforcing that Comprehensive Plan map amendments to only happen twice a year. That would be June 15th and December 15th. So, hopefully, this body is happy with those changes. And, then, the last item is common driveways and I'm sure you have probably seen a lot of the discussion around this as well and so originally when I took this before Planning and Zoning Commission I had not recommended a change to reducing the number of units, because back in 2010 or '11 -- and a developer actually came forward and recommended a change to this section of the code and they actually changed it from four to six and they did that because some of the -- the developments they acquired during the downturn had -- had some unique challenges where they could get more units off a common driveway and they have worked very well. We also spent quite a bit of time with the UDC focus group discussing this topic and at the time I had agreed to actually remove it from this round of changes, because I felt like we did need more time to look at this issue and study it to see if it was -- I think we probably need to expand upon some of these requirements in our code. What those look like now I don't know. What I can tell you, if you had a chance -- and when I was at Planning and Zoning Commission I did learn that Eagle actually removed common drive standards from their code and they recently now going the other way and going back to adding them, because they do provide a benefit for in-fill development. So, with that being said, the Planning and Zoning Commission -- and I know this body has on occasion -- on multiple occasions actually reduced the number of units that take access off a common driveway and so the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to you was to go from three to six, but they did -- if you had a chance to look at the record, Commissioner Holland did recommend at least look at four. You know, if you don't support three, her recommendation would at least be to entertain four. And so I tried to stay with the Commission's recommendation to you and change it to three from six and, then, also added flexibility for the city engineer and I also require that common driveways go with -- be added at a common lot, instead of an easement, and that was in support of our Public Works Department. You have probably heard time and time again through the public hearing process that we want our infrastructure in common lots are in right of way and depending on whether or not you have a water-sewer easement or a combination of easement, that width of that easement can be anywhere from 20 feet up to 30 feet and so I thought if we are going to allow mains to be extended in a common driveway, why not -- why not be consistent with our standards, which would be 20 feet for a single easement and 30 feet for a combined easement and that -- and I ran that by Public Works and Warren Stewart, the city engineer, and he actually liked the proposed change. It gave him the flexibility to determine what we need in order for them to Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 21 —" maintain our infrastructure if it were to be extended. You can see in the -- in the public testimony -- written testimony that some of the comments were negatively received and did not -- thought it was too arbitrary. But I -- to me this is pretty consistent with other language in our code and, then, the other item that I added was we have typically -- we have been getting a lot of these common driveways where people are just basically doing perma bark along the common drive and not landscaping it and I wanted to be very clear that if we are going to have landscaping along that common driveway that it needs to be vegetated and enhanced, so it looks attractive as part of the development. So, that's why you see the change to number five. So, in long story short, again, a lot of discussion around this. A lot of -- you can see from -- even from Jon Wardle in his public testimony he does support the change, but he has requested that you increase that from three to four and he also supported the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to allow this to happen on a case by case basis through the alternative compliance process and even at six it still remains eligible for alternative compliance. We just have not approved any more than six off a common driveway. So, with that, again, staff is open to changes that you may have this evening. You probably saw on the record the different testimony from Dave Bailey, Cornell Larsen, Laren Bailey and Dave Yorgason and, then, as far as discussion by the Commission, it was, again, these common drive standards and the height in the Old Town. Some of the Commission felt it should be higher and that's why we made those changes this evening and, then, no outstanding issues for you and, then, as I close in my presentation, you know, Jon and David Yorgason also submitted testimony today. So, with that I will go ahead and conclude my presentation and stand for any other additional questions you may have. Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, any additional questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. I was curious also about what I didn't see and I was just wondering will we get additional waves of UDC changes that will come -- like, for example, regarding open space or other topics. Are we expecting updates to other provisions as well at a later date and we are kind of doing these in batches or -- I was just curious if we have an update on what's coming out of that working group and when we might see those. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, as I have mentioned in my opening statements, this is -- this is phase one or round one. There is a much larger one before this body on June 1st that will address open space and 3-G, multi-family open space, landscape improvements and, then, other various code sections. So, it is a larger one and we will take more time in front of this body, but I do anticipate changes that came from Commission as well. So, that is a working document as well. So, you will see some -- we will be asking for further modify -- modifications to some of those changes, but, yeah, anticipate those in three weeks or so. Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 22 of 35 Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Bill, just from a -- from a process standpoint, can you walk Council through -- as I was reading the minutes for the Planning and Zoning Commission I think some of this was vetted through the UDC steering committee and some of it wasn't. Can you walk us through kind of how that process played out and what was determined to be shared with them and why. Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, all of these changes -- well, three of the four changes here have been vetted through the UDC focus group and also shared with the BCA. The one that hadn't -- has not been changed was the one here for the laterals and courses, because that came about as a result from this body and you having to deal with that issue a month or so ago and that's probably why you saw the commentary around it as soon as it came out. But as soon as I had the draft done I did send it out to them for review and comments and that's why you see that as part of the record. Cavener: Okay. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun, you are recognized. Hoaglun: Thank you. Bill, I just wanted to make sure I understood the -- the six to three to four, because I -- I went through the Planning and Zoning minutes and going through that and they -- and it was brought out in the letter as well that there was also the backup alternative by the Commission recommending that, well, you know, maybe it could be a maximum of four and you do the alternative compliance following that. So, I was -- I was a little bit puzzled on where did they really settle it. Was it three or was it four. So, can you give any clarification to that? Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Councilman Hoaglun, that -- that's -- that was definitely Lisa's motion is -- she -- she said I like three, but would recommend Council look at four and, then, Commissioner Seal said, well, I would be okay with four if we went through the alternative compliance process. But, ultimately, I kind of erred on the side of caution, went with three, with anticipation that this body would more than likely recommend four and, then, we would go through the alternative compliance process as it's currently written in code. So, I did kind of gamble a little bit on tonight's proceedings, anticipating what -- tried to anticipate what you might be doing. But, again, I don't have a crystal ball, but I will go ahead and stand for any changes you may want requested this evening and make those happen if that's your desire. Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page——" Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: Mayor and City Council, I just wanted to comment on that also. The longer the common driveways are, the more difficult it is for us to service them as a fire department. So, if you get like four to six houses on a common driveway, that common driveway gets long and, then, because it's just open space there is the temptation to park a boat there, park a camper there, put an extra car there, jam it full of cars when there is visitors. So, the Fire Department supports the three number, just because it's -- it's less in case that driveway is packed with cars we can at least pull a pre-connect, get it down the driveway into the house. So, some of these ones that we have had in the past where they are super long, it makes it a challenge for us and I just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Simison: And I'm just going back in my head over the last year where this has come up. I don't know that we have had -- I think this issue came up with the longest one being four. I don't know that we have had any fives or sixes proposed in anything. I believe has been concerned with only as much as four in any application, unless anyone remembers otherwise. I don't recall any sixes or fives where Council got concerned, it was starting at four. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I was trying to think the same way and, then, I got to thinking, well, I think there were some stubs that we approved that I -- and I want to make sure Bill can clarify -- make sure it was three and three on each side. So, that made a total of six. So, don't recall ever six in a row or four in a row, but mostly they were twos and threes on -- on each side that -- that we -- we have approved, so -- but to your point, Mr. Mayor, yeah, I don't recall anything -- Simison: I think there is some fours, because sixes on two sides of roads would not be -- or three and three would not equal six, they would each be treated as three. The common -- the common drive is the one -- the three on the left, not the three over on the other side of the road element. Or are you talking about a -- a one simple three on the north and the south side as a private -- is that a private drive or is that a -- a shared driveway. A private road? Shared driveway. Okay. You could be correct then. I would stand corrected. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I recall is Alpine Point I think was the one that we had a lot of conversation about. I think it was Alpine Point. One of those -- it was four and four; right? Mr. Mayor, to my -- Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page——— Cavener: -- to my question to Bill -- as I recall that conversation that we had, I know that Council Member Hoaglun brought up a really good point about concern about getting garbage cans and garbage collection. So, as part of that alternative compliance process would that outline, then, a placement for -- for garbage cans to be set out? mean how does that process play out. If somebody wants to come and do more than four, how do we address some of those concerns that Council has -- has acknowledged recently? Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I think that's a valid point. I think that's why I said let's increase the width of the common driveway, because, then, we could accommodate for those trash receptacles if we had a wider common drive. I also know that in discussions with Republic Services they are starting to pull into the common driveways now and actually get the trash collection if it's under a certain length. So, they are working a little bit more closely with city staff to address some of those concerns. The other thing that Chief Bongiorno didn't bring up is that we actually have a conflict with his code and our code. So, if I'm not mistaken, I'm putting my fire chief hat on, so correct me if I'm wrong, Joe, but apparently the fire code restricts it to no more than five dwelling units off a common driveway and we were saying six. So, either way we have to try to get this in alignment with the IFC. So, it just -- Joe, I didn't know if you wanted to chime in on that as well, just to make sure we are consistent with what your code says as well. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor and City Council, Bill, you hit it right on the head. Again, that's why I'm not -- I don't like six personally. But, again, I'm just looking at the potential for the blocking of the driveways and that's why whenever we get one of those I require them to put signs up no parking fire lane. So, that way if we do run across one of those Meridian PD or code enforcement can actually ticket against it. So, if someone's parked their boat in there or their RV or whatever, we can -- we can ticket it until it gets removed. Stewart: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Yes, Warren. Stewart: I just wanted to say thanks to Bill and for -- for bringing this forward. He -- he did hit on some important things from a Public Works perspective. Of course we support, like the Fire Department, a fewer number of lots for a variety of reasons, whether we are putting main lines down through a common drive and we have to operate and maintain those sewer and water mains, or whether the mains are out in the road and we have services, you can imagine if you are trying to run even three sewer services and three water services up a common driveway, that's a lot of trenches and a lot of congestion and the more you add, the more congested it gets, and the more complicated it gets to try and maintain all that infrastructure. So, just -- you know, it's one of those things that's underground and it's easy to -- you don't see it, but there is a lot of things trying to take place in those little bitty common drives and the fewer houses Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 25—35 that we have on those the more space we have to actually, you know, maintain and -- and make that infrastructure work for our operations team. Simison: Council, any further questions for staff? Okay. This is the public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we had no advanced sign-ups. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come forward and provide testimony, please, do so now and you will be recognized for three minutes or if there is anybody online. Well, we have ACHD online. If they would -- if they would like to provide testimony, I'm sure they can unmute themselves and raise their hand to do so. Inselman: Mr. Mayor, this is Kristy with ACHD. I don't have any comments, but I'm so glad that you know that I'm still here. I'm always here with you guys. Simison: Thank you, Kristy. Okay. Seeing no one wishing to testify, Council, what's your pleasure? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, on the common driveways, just a comment. I personally would fall on a preference of more of three -- maximum of three units. It seems like a good recommendation by the Fire Department. So, I feel like looking back in the past year most of the applications that have come before us I think we have limited quite a few to that -- to that amount, but I don't have the same memories as Councilman Cavener, so -- Cavener- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I appreciate I think the -- the recommendation that came from -- from the Planning and Zoning Commission. I have thought a lot about this particular one and -- and for me I feel comfortable with four. Maybe because it's an even number. I don't know. Just because it is four doesn't mean that we have to approve four if we have something that comes forth and we don't particularly care for it or we think it's a concern or if you get a series of them and maybe we will want to restrict it, I think that we still have those options. So, I'm supportive of the recommendation of four. I guess not a recommendation, I guess that would be my recommendation is that we leave it four, recognizing that if somebody does something creative they can go through alternative compliance for more and if we don't like what they have put together we can always restrict it to three or two or none. Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page——— Strader: Mr. Mayor, maybe -- Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to take the other side of that, I also think it's like we are putting out there into the world what we want to see as well and so I think if we want to see the majority of these come through at three and, then, we can always make an exception up to four, I guess I'm looking at it, you know, the exact same side of that coin. So, I'm sure we will get to the right answer either way, but at least the Fire Department's comments felt like if it was on the fence that -- that's what would push me over the fence one direction or the other. I'm not sure. It's like I would not go for it if we all decide -- the rest of us decide it's four I think I can live with it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: On the reduction, I was thinking four as well, just from the fact that when I think of three in terms of -- Council Woman Strader, that -- that's a good number and one we have bantered about before. It's just the fact that sometimes there will be the layout where it's two and one. So, I'm thinking if -- and is that going to be open space or how does that work. It's got to be in each parcel. So, if you are doing two on one side and you are going to have that length of road, to me that makes the even number and make it four, so -- but, again, it all depends on the layout of the -- of the design of the subdivision. It depends on how the land is laid out. Yeah, we may, as Councilman Cavener pointed out, that, you know, it might have to be less than that and there may be situations under alternative compliance that it could be even more in the right situation. But, you know, to have that option there I think is good. But I was thinking of four as well, just because of that even number and the two and two, so -- Simison: And I think that's where everyone looks at this a little different. I view shared driveways more as -- they are only on one side of the street, as compared to the other. So, maybe you split the baby, three if they are only on one side. Four if they do them on both sides of the shared driveway. Because part of it is length. The further -- the deeper you go. So, the -- if you go four on one side you still have challenges, but if you only go up to three it's a little less. Just food for thought. Cavener: An interesting point, Mr. Mayor. Hoaglun: Yeah. Good point, Mr. Mayor. If I might continue the discussion. And that's -- and my only hesitation on that is that -- that's a big change. I mean right now if we go from six to four, what is that, a 33 percent reduction in the number of site, units. You go to three, yeah, that's a -- that's a 50 percent -- I can do that math right there. A 50 percent reduction in the number of units and that's where that's -- that's a big change from our current code and it's -- it's not a -- it's not a bad thought and I like your -- kind of the split the baby approach to it to where you can have four, but only if they are two Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page— of 35 and two across from each other type of function. So, I guess that makes me want to ask Deputy Chief Bongiorno and -- and Mr. Stewart, you know, is it the length or is it having houses on both sides, which -- which is the lesser of two evils in your world. Simison: Deputy Chief? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor and -- and Councilman -- Council, for me it's -- it's the length that's the problem. So, for the -- the Mayor's suggestion of two and two -- two on one side and two on the other or three on a straight drive, that -- that works for me, because, again, it's that length that we are looking for and what the potential is -- again, for me the biggest problem is the blocked driveway. That's going to be my biggest problem. If there is a fire at the end of the driveway how am I going to get an engine either part way up it or down the driveway enough to get a pre-connect to where I can reach all the way around the structure. That's -- that's my concern with it. So -- so, it's definitely length. So, if you have six that are on one side or even five that are all on one side, that just makes that driveway that much longer and -- that we would have to reach it. And I'm sure Bill can comment, but I know for us the -- the plans that -- like Brighton we looked at today, the most I have seen lately is three, so -- and Bill's nodding in his head. Thank you, Bill. So, I know -- I have not seen anymore than three in quite a while. There may be a couple out there when we first -- when I first became fire marshal, but lately three or less seems to be the magic -- or a lot of people are just dumping them, they are not using them any longer and they are doing the good old fashioned, you know, curve. So, that's -- that's my thought. Stewart: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Warren. Stewart: Yeah. I think from a Public Works standpoint it's a combination of things. So, certainly the length of the driveway when we have to get a vacuum truck down there to the end of a manhole that sometimes is at the end of those or a camera truck, things like -- that those are big vehicles and getting those down those common driveways is challenging. You can't turn around down there, so you have to back out when you are down in those common driveways. But it's also the -- the width of those common driveways, especially if they are requesting main lines in those common driveways, we have to maintain them, we have to have certain distances from separation requirements. That's why Bill put in there that if we are going to put sewer and water in them that they need to be 30 feet wide, because that's the -- the standard easement -- minimum easement for both sewer and water. Twenty feet if it's just one of those utilities. But, also, like I said, you know, the -- they also have to run all the service lines, even if we have the main lines out in the road and they are running service lines back there, you know, you get -- you get three homes in there, that's six lines going down that road. You add five lines in there and, you know, that's ten -- that's ten services in addition to all the other infrastructure, power, phone, cable, all those things that have to fit inside that little area and it gets pretty congested and hard to work on. So, just something to think about. Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page——" Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the other thing to consider is I think on a lot of them you have seen over the last year, the common drives start behind another residence that's already facing the street. So, you have got a residence -- the length of a residence and, then, the homes right behind it. So, you really have many times -- if you had three in a row you would have the distance of basically one side yard and the frontage of three, so it does get pretty lengthy beyond three, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess just thinking out loud, but would it -- would it be possible to maybe take another look at it and move a little bit away from measuring it by units and have the Fire Department create something more centered around the length or the distance that they -- the maximum distance, instead of pegging it at 150 feet, and looking at that differently, like the length from where I assume you hook the water up to the end of the longest driveway is a certain distance. I don't want to get too creative, but maybe that's something to look at. It sounds like the main driver isn't necessarily the number of units, it's really -- it's really a Fire Department concern and utility concern. Bongiorno: So, Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, so we -- there is code that -- that addresses your -- your questions. So, the 150 foot long driveway is for backing purposes and, then, on top of that we have -- if the building is not sprinklered, then, the -- that's where that 150 foot pre-connect comes into play to where where ever my fire engine stops I have to be able to reach all portions of the structure with 150 foot pre- connect and so during our pre-app situations that's where I bring up those concerns to the developers. I believe it was South Ridge up on the hill at Overland there was -- I believe it was for lots where the driveways were long and by the time they put the structures on the lots there is no way I could reach them with a 150 foot preconnect. So, what we ended up doing was the planning group made it to where those four lots had to build fire sprinkler houses on them, because we couldn't reach all points of those pieces of property with 150 foot preconnect. So, your concerns are covered in code and, then, we -- we try and catch them during these preapps and everything when we are doing the -- the designs of the subs. Strader: I guess not to beat it to death, but, then, I guess if you are covered there, then, I guess my question back to you, to turn it around, would be, then, what makes the difference in your mind between three and four from a Fire Department perspective? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, I think, again, it depends on how it's laid out and that's where -- if -- if it's straight, like Mr. Nary was saying, if it's -- if there is no house and it's just one, two, three, four in a row and they are only -- you know, they Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 29 of 35 are 40 feet wide lots, you know, then, it's fine. There is not an issue. But if there is a house and, then, four, now we have, you know, maybe a hundred foot lot with four 40 foot lots, now we are over 240 -- you know, 260 feet long. So, that's a problem anyway. So, again, that's something that we look at when we do these pre-apps and when we are doing the -- the platting of the properties to make sure that they meet code. Simison: So, Council, what's your thoughts? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess what I'm hearing is it sounds to me like four would be okay, because the Fire Department's preplanning process would catch a layout with four units that is inadequate from a fire perspective and that our code already covers the majority of their concerns. I think that's what I'm hearing, so -- that would be my view now. Simison: I think what you also heard was the fire code allows up to five. So, if you just want to go by code -- but I guess I go back to what has this Council been willing to approve and consider. That's why this is here before you, because this body was having struggles with what they were seeing and I'm pretty sure you have not approved anything over three on any common driveway. I don't care on a personal level. I think that it's just what are you willing to consider when these come forward. Again, if you are going to put four in the code now, I highly encourage you to let four go if you see four on a plat as a general -- general -- that's what the development team wants to know. They want some consistency in this issue. So, whatever you put down I hope we don't have an amendment in the future to reduce them down. That would be my guidance to you all. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, question for Bill, I think. Under the common driveways, item three, it provides a maximum length of that driveway. A hundred and fifty feet. And we heard Deputy Chief Bongiorno speak to that. So, if we are trying to play with numbers -- numbers of units -- well, is it three, is it four, do we do two and two -- that is still there in code 150 feet we are allowing. Does it even come to a number that -- that's going to be a hundred feet or it's going to be 125 or that sort of thing. I don't know. Simison: An R-8 versus an R-2, that's very different length of consideration. Hoaglun: Right. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I guess -- I think the challenge to thinking back and on the ones we have looked at, it's -- it's not purely a Fire Department issue; right? And so I think we Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page 30 of 35 have done three. I personally -- my bias going into this originally was three. I think I can be talked in -- by my other Council Members into four and I think I can live with that. If there is a way to split it so that it's a layout thing, I'm not -- I can't quite wrap my head around that, but that seems to make sense if we want to take that approach. Yeah. I mean it's -- you know, people park all kinds of stuff on them. There is the utilities. There is a lot of different aspects. Republic. I know that's come up. So, you know, if it was purely a Fire Department issue that -- that would be that, but it's just not. Simison: And I'm just going back to my memory of these. Typically what you see is a cul-de-sac -- what used to be a cul-de-sac now becomes a three on one side, maybe three on the other, concept -- two or two from that standpoint. The ones where they are on both sides of the street I think is less common, because it's an odder location, you know, from that standpoint, but -- yeah. If we only had a hearing process to figure out what was good and make decisions individually on these. Sorry. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Additional food for thought is the ability of these are going -- or right now have been mostly through the annexation process, so that you have had the ability to sort of do that, but you are going to have zoned property that's going to allow this and if you are -- you may -- you may never see the four, unless it's three is the max, unless there is an exception they have to come to Council for that. Otherwise, you will see four and you won't see them until they want five. So, I think -- I guess that's the decision point for the Council. What are you comfortable with somebody building without them coming back to this Council for your review. It's easier to go up than it is to go down and as the Mayor said, if you find four becomes an unworkable one and you want to go down, it is a real impact to the development community as well. If you go the other way not so much, so -- Bernt- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: My only thought is to error on the side of being conservative. It's almost like open space issues. Unfortunately, they are going to go by code and they are going to do what they are able to do a lot of times they -- you know, if it's four homes they are probably going to put it four homes and so the last thing that we should be doing is -- is wanting it to be, you know, three homes or lower and -- but that's not what the code says. So, consistency, like Mr. Mayor pointed out, extremely important in this decision making process I think. Simison: And I'm probably the lone odd duck on this one, but I have never heard anyone complain about their shared common driveway. I think it's a personal preference for the large part of what we think is appropriate in this case and, then, to Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page— —— drive around parking and mailboxes and trash trucks -- or trash collection and the impacts and that's stuff that, you know, hard to quantify that -- those issues in my opinion, because every layout is so unique, so good luck. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Nary and Councilman Bernt provide some good food for thought. I mean that -- to go conservative and, then, when they have those situations come up where they want more, because of the layout of the land, it's easier to go up than it is to go down. So, that kind of-- as I mentally chew on that it kind of makes sense. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question for you or for Bill. I understand some of these were accelerated to be brought to us tonight. Is there an immediate need for us to render a decision on this this evening? Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you can certainly move this to the -- add it to the list of the other ones or we can punt it until we can get some -- vet the issues with the -- or with the UDC focus groups and more. I mean that was -- certainly was my recommendation. That's why I didn't make it on the shortlist, but, again, I was asked to add this because of the conversations that I had -- been occurring not only with you, but also the Planning and Zoning Commission. Three was -- seemed to be the magic number you all were approving with the platting process, as Mr. Nary had alluded to. So, that's -- that's why I came forward. But, no, you can -- you can remove this or you can -- you can -- I don't know. Mr. Nary, can we tag this onto the next -- the other changes we have going forward on June 1 st or should it kind of wait until the next round of UDC changes in six months or so? What's your recommendation on that? Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think this is a recurring -- and I guess -- I don't know, Councilman Cavener, if you just want some opportunity to kind of ponder this, not necessarily delay it a great deal of time. We can -- certainly you can -- you can continue this a week or two weeks. You don't have to tag it to the June 1 st ones that are coming, if you just think -- or if there is specific information you would like staff to gather to help make a more informed decision for all of you, you certainly can do that. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I certainly wasn't suggesting we continue this out for -- for six months. I was thinking more in terms of -- I appreciate the conversation here tonight and there is a Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page——— couple of views that I would like to kind of ponder on. I think for me also 11-3A-6 -- maybe it's an opportunity to sit down with staff and get some better clarification of how that reads. I'm a little sympathetic that we heard some communication from a couple of stakeholders that were concerned about some of the subjectivity of the language and so that's a piece that's hard for me to get my head wrapped around when I don't fully understand it and those that are the experts have an issue with it, so if Council wants to move forward tonight I'm okay with that, but if there is -- if there are others that would like a week or two to marinate on it, I'm supportive of that as well. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I don't think it would hurt to take a week or two to ponder, maybe come back and make a decision at that time. People will have a chance to like mull it over, chat with staff a little bit. The Comprehensive Plan amendment one seems like a very straightforward decision to me, but I don't know if we can actually split them off and make decisions on some tonight and not others or -- maybe it's just easier to give it a week or two. I will defer to the -- the others if they would want to see that as well. I think a week or two would be fine personally. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I'm ready to make a decision this evening, but if Council Members are wanting to wait a week or two it's certainly not a hill I'm needing to die on. So, I mean it's -- I don't believe these are super imminent, so if you want to -- if you want to punt for a week or two I -- that's fine. Simison: Yeah. The only question -- if we can even just do a quick little -- is everybody okay with three? Does anybody have an issue if someone brought forward a three with shared driveways? What about four? Does anybody have an issue with four right now? Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, I like your idea of limiting on three on one side or two and two. If -- if the design is such where it's two across from each other, that would be four on a shared driveway. I mean I'm okay with four if they are across from each other and three if they are on the same side. Simison: What I'm asking -- I'm just trying to give Bill some ideas if he wants to look at changing any of this language, so that we -- A, when we come back we are not redrafting on the fly. If there is something specific that we agree on now or don't agree on or he can take and consider further. We got at least one idea, Bill, if we want to approach it that way, so -- and it seems like Councilman Borton had a strong viewpoint on this issue I remember and maybe his voice is one that's needed to help not create a Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page——— tie, even though I'm happy to break one if necessary if we move forward on this in two weeks and we are still questioning -- Bernt: We can wait a week or two. Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I would like to wait. I think we are talking about some things that might get clarified even further if we have some more input from our community partners out there and there is further discussions with Public Works and Fire Department and Community Development and all kind of coalescing around some of the things we talked about and -- the picture might become clearer by then if we wait a week or two. Simison: Maybe it would also -- Mr. Nary, I don't know -- can staff reach out to the two Council Members who are not here and ask them specific to this issue? Nary: Since this is legislative, yes, they can. Simison: Maybe that would be helpful, too, to see if they have a strong opinion based on what you have heard today. Or a great idea. Or a solution. And so love to come with -- with draft language next time, so we don't -- so we can move it forward at that point in time. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Sorry. Mr. Mayor, if we were to continue this, Bill, what date would you want us to continue to? Right now we have four hearings on May 18th. May 25th we have three hearings. And, then, we have a special session, which we have one hearing. I -- I don't think this is going to take a lot of discussion when it comes back. I feel like it's going to be fairly quick and so are you -- is there a -- is there a date that you prefer? Parsons: Your special hearing is fine for me or even June 1st, because we are going to have the other one, so we can get this one out -- out of the way and, then, move forward right into the other ones. So, whatever your pleasure is. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Council President Bernt. Bill, I appreciate the offer to loop them together. I -- I almost think, since you have got them separate, let's keep them separate and not kind of get into more minutiae, so -- I mean if we have only got -- if we have only got one hearing right now, that special session, if it isn't going to take that long, I'm supportive of us moving into that one and maybe having it be our last item on the agenda, so we can Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page——35 do all the land use stuff first, as opposed to having our customers sit here while we discuss UDC. Bernt: Whoever makes the motion make it May 26th. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't believe we have closed the public hearing, so I will continue our public hearing on UDC text amendments to May 26th. Bernt: Second. Strader: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this item to May 26. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: One item. And I don't think it's really a future meeting topic, other than the fact that on June 1 st I will be out of town and won't be back in time to make the meeting on June 1 st, so -- you guys can talk about me, so there is the topic. Cavener: First on the agenda. Bernt: I'm glad to talk about you like that, Mr. Hoaglun. Simison: Okay. Well, with that anything else or do I have a motion to adjourn? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 11,2021 Page——— Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:40 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 63 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 . May 11 , 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 City Council Meeting May 11, 2021 Item #1 & 2: Creamery South & North PLANNED DEV.ZONINGFLUM Maps–Condos Creamery South Condo Plat Creamery North Condo Plat Item #3: 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 #1 & #2: Creamery South (item #1) and Creamery North (item #2); (SHP-2021-0001 & SHP-2021-0002) Application(s): Short Plats (Condominium Plats) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: Creamery South (SHP-2021-0001) consists of .429 acres of land, zoned O-T, located at 703 N. Main Street; Creamery North (SHP-2021-0002) consists of .908 acres of land, zoned O-T, located at 33 E. Idaho Avenue Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: O-T zoning in all directions except for Creamery North – R-8 zoning directly to the west (across Meridian Rd.)with detached single family use Commercial uses in all directions except for to the south of Creamery South – City Hall exists south of the subject site. History: Creamery South - A-2019-0032 (Building “A”). In addition, the property received Vacation approval (H-2019-0057) for a public utility easement and approval of a Property Boundary Adjustment in 2019 (A-2019-0164). Creamery North - A-2019-0033 (Building “B).” Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Old Town Summary of Request: Creamery South – Short Plat request to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of one (1) commercial space and 33 residential units for ownership purposes. Creamery North – Short Plat request to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of two (2) commercial spaces and 69 residential units for ownership purposes. Applicant took these proposals to the MDC board and the board voted on April 28, 2021 to amend the existing agreement (between the ownership and the MDC) and include a new provision that the units be utilized as rental units for a period of at least 5 years following construction completion. UDC 11-6B-5A.2 (the code section that discusses condominium plats) dictates that the buildings must be either constructed or have received building permits for construction prior to applying for a short plat to condominiumize the building(s). Both sites have received CZC and Design Review approval and are currently under construction, therefore being in compliance with the UDC. All of the project elements (open space, amenities, parking, elevations, etc.) are remaining the same and no changes are required to accommodate the short plat request. Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Staff Recommends approval of the subject short plats for each site in order to condominiumize each building. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number SHP-2021-0001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 11, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number SHP-2021-0002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 11, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number SHP-2021-0001, as presented during the hearing on May 11, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number SHP-2021-0002, as presented during the hearing on May 11, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number SHP-2021-0001/SHP-2021-0002 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) 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 the southern section of the project; 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. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None th Written Testimony since April 6 hearing: 3 pieces of testimony against the project. Specifically, discussing the increase of traffic due to increase in density and; inclusion of 3-story apartments across from the single-family homes in Mosher Farms north of the Ten Mile Stub Drain. 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 May 11, 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 May 11, 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 Creamery South Condominiums (SHP-2021-0001) by City Center Redevelopment, LLC, Located at 703 E. Main St. A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of one (1) commercial space and 33 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.429 acres of land in the C-T zoning district. Page 3 Item#1. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 11, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Creamery South Condominiums (SHP-2021-0001) by City Center Redevelopment, LLC, Located at 703 E. Main St. A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of one (1) commercial space and 33 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.429 acres of land in the 0-T zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 4 Item#1. STAFF REPORT C:�*%- W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 5/11/2021 - DATE: Legend _ C-C. L-O0 Project Location E CARLTON A TO: Mayor&City Council R-15 E STATE AVE FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner R=4 0 208-884-5533 - �� N�� W o R-8 N Z M H SUBJECT: SHP-2021-0001 R-15 R=8 E IDAHO AVEz I Creamery South Condominiums(a.k.a. Z Ja 13 E BROgDWAY AVE z Old Town Lofts) O-T O T o ~T O-T 1 C LOCATION: Project is located at 703 N. Main Street. 14 �Q E Bo W — C-C� C-G -PO E ADA ST � C-G 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Short Plat request to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of one(1) commercial space and 33 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.429 acres of land in the O-T zoning district,by City Center Redevelopment,LLC. IL APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Bryan Appleby, Rennison Design 410 E. State Street, Suite 120, Eagle, ID 83616 B. Owner: City Center Redevelopment,LLC—410 E. State Street, Suite 100,Eagle, ID 83616 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 4/23/2021 Radius notice mailed to property owners within 500 feet 4/21/2021 Page 1 Page 5 Item#1. Posted to Next Door 4/21/2021 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed short plat depicts subdivision of air space within a vertically integrated building that is currently under construction to create 34 separate condominium units(33 residential and I commercial) for future ownership purposes. According to the Applicant,there is no intention of utilizing these units as a for-sale product but is proposing to condo-map the two Old Town Loft buildings in order to respond to any market changes in the future.No piece of the development is structurally changing and nor are any revisions proposed to parking, amenities, or open spaces; all of the project elements are remaining as previously approved. The subject site obtained CZC and DES approval for a vertically integrated structure in 2019 and that building is currently under construction(A-2019-0032; Building"A"). hi addition,the property received Vacation approval(H-2019-0057)for a public utility easement and approval of a Property Boundary Adjustment in 2019 (A-2019-0164). Due to the City's and Meridian Development Corporation's (MDC) involvement in the sale of the subject property, Staff recommended the Applicant obtain a letter from MDC outlining their understanding of the proposed short plat and confirm the proposal still complies with the joint agreement. In response,the Applicant took this proposal to the MDC board and the board voted on April 28, 2021 to amend the existing agreement and include a new provision that the units be utilized as rental units for a period of at least 5 years following construction completion. Therefore, Staff finds this proposal to be compliant with the joint agreement between the City of Meridian,Meridian Development Corp., and the property owners. Staff has reviewed the proposed short plat for substantial compliance with the criteria set forth in UDC I I-6B-5A.2 and deems the short plat to be in compliance with said requirements. V. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed short plat with the conditions noted in Section VII of this report and in accord with the findings in Section VIII. Page 2 Page 6 Item#1. VI. EXHIBITS A. Short Plat(date: March 25,2021) PLAT SHOWING "K—PAGE . CREAMERY SOUTH CONDOMINIUM LOTS 2 AND 3,BLDCK 1 OF RENEWAL PLACE 8URDM8ION LOCATED IN THE N VVV4 OF THE SVVV4 SECTION 7, T.3 N..R.1 E.,B.M.,CITY OF MERIDIAN.ADA COUITTY,IDAHO 2 21 ➢A 111"1 IT—1L' 3 _.45T WAND AATTIIE S SCAT£ vsr. -wx.va, v.c �.. Nvs3a .DTI I „r ar i w � xcn x FI I j I � I RI �! IS NOTES: $I jg cr,a,u,mnsovnuuv=xs"xrm,.mess,cursx ss, ce; sl la I a �v.� Ira_ noxrry - ;Exovxw>xr..�axs.anx>secrv�Eurxo: a s xo s xrP, n a r. a sn •n n C � m 'ea'xEm' Ivw,zo�, _.._ ,xs _ `220T as - rva.mamaen _.._ — —..—. _��� --... — �----------7" s :•5 � ,u.o<xx.n.wcx xa°..°,.x Zi I �'—\rv_ £i'� I arauxnc w.nlrrt.wusmmT vea,nsino. nex➢reaL vlace swmnsln.v :,�,,s�_xa,,,9 ,: xo[1x 1(IP Pit;M:t1631-1sfi37 81 Aa REFERENCES: vNam,ao xa",aK.rvx�� _ I ; ' 11 , , n r } u;a o a i :,e,°zr w 1:».sal _ � SURVEYOR'S".NARRATTVS.Fr"°`TM. .. 1.2g EAST DTIRAD7AY A17. rxv_xo_ so z "a B v�ee,' � o axs ranunsnsarsna rw "r=v u;o+scwao:oearvs nnT x xamew xea''I�.asj --_ - - LEGEND •u i,s�� NfMliv 1cA1p AVFNIIE —__—__— aemvv:�aN o�xc� 2030 S.WASHINGTON AVE. ENMETT,ID 83617 gscn�Ex-xsa o >n.x�.xN.xxu. �p ii (208)398-8104 aeolwr sr FAX(203)398-8105 www.SAWTOOTHL5,COM EWi�tOFWVAY AVE a-x,sms,n re,we✓; �, F 3,zon okni a ws w,T+ Page 3 Page 7 Item#1. PLAT SHOWING CREAMERY SOiITH CONHOMRIRM r } .,,•,..•, s wz r..• 20305 WASFIINGlON AVE Erg-O5) ro 104 FAX(20S)398-SIGS _-.. �,y�-„!L•�WWW.SAINFOOTHLS.QJM emu. PLAT SHOWING fiOpK ,PNOF CREAMERY 50UTH CONUOMN7iRd w• 90� 2030S WASMINGTON AVE EM,-05) ID'o. (2G8)39&810a -�7�w FAX(2%)398-9I95 _.. 'nvey5-.�:/._/:.NNJW.S9N?OOTHLS.QJM u: Page 4 Page 8 Item#1. PLAT SHOWING q�x J-GF CREAMERY SOUTH CONDOMIMUM f f £ 3 .a,....�a MEEK]a.�..., 115 4 2030 5 WASWINGTON AVE EMMe-rr,In 636N� (�-0R)39361pA . :/',IWWW SAWr00IMLS.COM emu. PLAT SHOWING CREAMERY SOUTH CONOOM4�IHM B ll6 4 9X" m..x., v 20305✓✓AS+iINGrOry AVE_ FMMe-rr,ro 836i� (zaaJ 39a-esw �J T/liY FAY(2C8)398-9105 -.r..=.;r,.r:�:.x�•ri...,WW4Y.59WlWTHLS.GUM Page 5 Page 9 Item#1. B. Previously Approved Plans(A-2019-0032) ON54 TANC[) 6-0 WINE' 64 4�IOE';: t3 $ r EBSTA�iBN9',YYPI�--""�9'Y fr- i;lF 2 Typ 9AP q 915 1Q'9 Rx M79 ,li ACHD ALLEY _ --" '.PRaP---- -AGNC EASEMENT —' '�� ""'^'" AG1C �" " ✓ i' mat PAVEav,TSAwcurErE, 9$ ISP B9$-{U519z 9Y193V._„J ar I,II L H.in-4-1 I f 19',TW -YNCE P—J N®e N940N3N® 17 N3N P-12 I� 92 NEW MIXED USE BUILDING �A'1lYP} EX IN uHn sloEN EMENi94 BE' TED(NST.:M109d198ETJ, [ RFEIA EUWIMNEW SINEWP KEA£EMENT AT FACE OF BUMING(WO0 AY AVEW SINE ONLY) q rr '0 F Y,. - q� PATIO CAFE j J EAENFA3 E1fls A(,TVt WWAIK rCi MNN PNST 41046TB�BTj � § PROPMEDPAT10 VIA �,OI ACro MCENSEAGREEInE 0 - -E. BROADWAY AVENUE - - - - - - �- PARKING Al GROUND I E VE I LIA I— i. .1 _ INC ~ P w __ _ 2 . ------- ----•r ----- — a,�: r-----G 6 f:A - � �n Ien PARKINAi GR�l1H� RI'i LEVEE - n I�.Maln:AnN a. IH..11:pey0.:]0 I .ee-e as�er•a ey {BmlfN3'iAkE GIiAiE[O DE Ro>r•vcv.IAsrure eaAree To CITr rrol�ercal rc4x lat.�ee 30 �II.. I M1 ak�.v T�aRmE•IHIIT ni 8 - PARKING AT GR0�3HD LEVEL_ _ � i�n A c•rT rn[•ewv�an InerauP� $- TW LH.li_n... •.�1•E'.I:•a'+1S•Tea • •--T -------L r'r.nal Tie.P77 nwu .n Fe rern•«4 vruv b.re.Wr�` - fir• ` L`� u ]fTVe w r��.D Na Tipi . NEW MIXES}USE BUIL[]ING'A' .TV��Le V-:sr M;-,Woo, 'Aff Ci I,Tp �- aerxn rr ram•.m �ruia+aRsrre a ur TIaI II Ea1�e+FR Ece IE+IeE T+rr..AI,s a us,,,. . ,.. I �raeT�.we Ia�Oe. _ i�yGY�0.E RACYd t' Ya1M Tli GIri'GF n1molr44 WaT r� tc Ga is�.wA .ram C[TLLd. — lh'."%m i0 w .eP•r.srw soar _ .r.. ecciaTeli acaQ.x�ee.n:r�xG�s- - - �•'r — �-- —r' •r. �., E. BRDADWAY AVENUE Page 6 Page 10 Item#1. 1 NORTH ELEVATION-BLDG.A &ei Sbt ws-t 6bt ST" 777 W2 9FS 9D3 2 EAST ELEVATION-SLAG.A MATERIALS=LOR LEGEND ■5Q 3 FeRRE��5D-2 NIA ■WS-1m ■SF-1 ■BMR7N� ■SQ, INo�uE 57-7 ®BRANeL SM£V/DEOTONE FFF R.e DEB NARG E NFA AkC.IP➢IOR SIN.I MF�MA�IiQ'AICRFhII Mf�R�.:.�SINRaE FMl6k FWE SAHO AFRMEw.TAIE SWCI[ Sn�u&�tEn�s �i Page 7 Page 11 Item#1. VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development: A-2019-0032 (CZC, DES, &ALT); H-2019-0057 (VAC);A-2019-0164 (PBA). 2. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained within two(2)years of the City Council's approval of the short plat,the short plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained,per UDC 11-613-7. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature, obtain the signatures of the Ada County Highway District and the Central District Health Department. 4. The short plat prepared by Sawtooth Land Surveying, LLC,prepared on March 25,2021 by Jeff Beagley, included in Section VI.A shall be revised as follows: a. Note#10: Include recorded parking easement agreement instrument number. 5. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the previous approvals noted above does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions: 1. There are no new changes to the domestic water or wastewater infrastructure serving this development.The City will not bill individual condos owners for water and sewer usage.There will be a single bill to the HOA, and it is the HOA's responsibility to bill tenants. General Conditions: 2. 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. 3. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE In consideration of a short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Unified Development Code; The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as Old Town and the current zoning district of the site is O-T. Staff finds the proposed short plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is being developed in accord with UDC standards for the existing zoning district. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to this property and are adequate to serve the building sites currently under construction. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvements program; Page 8 Page 12 Item#1. Staff finds that the development will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. All required utilities were provided with the development of the property at the developer's expense. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services as services are already being provided to the immediate area. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed short plat to condominiumize the existing structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. F. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with short platting the structure on this site. Page 9 Page 13 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Creamery North Condominiums (SHP-2021-0002) by City Center Redevelopment, LLC, Located at 33 E. Idaho Ave. A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of two (2) commercial spaces and 69 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.908 acres of land in the 0-T zoning district. Page 14 Item#2. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 11, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Creamery North Condominiums (SHP-2021-0002) by City Center Redevelopment, LLC, Located at 33 E. Idaho Ave. A. Request: Short Plat to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of two (2) commercial spaces and 69 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.908 acres of land in the 0-T zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 11 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 PROJECT NAME : Creamery North Condominiums ( SHP - 2021 - 0002 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C:�*%- W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 5/11/2021 Legend DATE: IMIProject Location L-0 R-rD0 TO: Mayor&City Council - N AVE z FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner L-� E STATE AVE 208-884-5533LU SUBJECT: SHP-2021-0002 8 p-T Z iDAHO AVE H�- Creamery North Condominiums(a.k.a. R-15 o Old Town Lofts) CC E B OADWAY AVE LW LOCATION: Project is located at 33 E. Idaho Avenue p:T 0 W BOWER 57 - C.C- a�q� N r CsG z 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Short Plat request to condominiumize a vertically integrated 4-story building consisting of two(2) commercial spaces and 69 residential units for ownership purposes on 0.908 acres of land in the O-T zoning district,by City Center Redevelopment,LLC. IL APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Bryan Appleby, Rennison Design 410 E. State Street, Suite 120, Eagle, ID 83616 B. Owner: City Center Redevelopment,LLC—410 E. State Street, Suite 100,Eagle, ID 83616 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 4/23/2021 Radius notice mailed to property owners within 500 feet 4/21/2021 Page 1 Page 16 Item#2. Posted to Next Door 4/21/2021 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The proposed short plat depicts subdivision of air space within a vertically integrated building that is currently under construction to create 71 separate condominium units(69 residential and 2 commercial) for future ownership purposes. According to the Applicant,there is no intention of utilizing these units as a for-sale product but is proposing to condo-map the two Old Town Loft buildings in order to respond to any market changes in the future.No piece of the development is structurally changing and nor are any revisions proposed to parking, amenities, or open spaces; all of the project elements are remaining as previously approved. The subject site obtained CZC and DES approval for a vertically integrated structure in 2019 (A-2019-0033; Building`B")and that building is currently under construction with a number of building permits. Due to the City's and Meridian Development Corporation's (MDC) involvement in the sale of the subject property, Staff recommended the Applicant obtain a letter from MDC outlining their understanding of the proposed short plat and confirm the proposal still complies with the joint agreement. In response,the Applicant took this proposal to the MDC board and the board voted on April 28,2021 to amend the existing agreement and include a new provision that the units be utilized as rental units for a period of at least 5 years following construction completion. Therefore, Staff finds this proposal to be compliant with the joint agreement between the City of Meridian,Meridian Development Corp., and the property owners. Staff has reviewed the proposed short plat for substantial compliance with the criteria set forth in UDC 11-6B-5A.2 and deems the short plat to be in compliance with said requirements. V. DECISION Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed short plat with the conditions noted in Section VII of this report and in accord with the findings in Section VIII. Page 2 Page 17 Item#2. VI. EXHIBITS A. Short Plat(date: March 25,2021) PLAT SHOWING BOOK_,PAGE _. CREAMERY NORTH CONDOMINIUM LOTS 21-26 AND 2b32.BLOCK 2,DF THE AMENDED PLAT TOW NSITE OF MERIDIAN LOCATED IN THE NWV4 OF THE 8MA SECTION 7, T.3 N.,R.1 E.,IBM.,CITY OFHERIDIAN,AOA COUNTY.IDAHO 2NI -_ _ i,... ` F�15�1 z1D�1H0 A\'T..V L7R '_-_` '_-_-_ it^ SCA E u INN- F NOTES: �� 'I �S � �wn�T `r`�xx�w � � e:rm,xemuuwrxmrr wco-xvuT.mEs.Honor nl 3 �En x Ice so =I P� IA �� III v I� v I� �� i rrenreo nme .cvu uicrrto a6 .�/ .cxosTpwnx rti<T xu imms )� +y .. 0 � wT[tow-nrrErti.rn� c r m e C a m i w I I i RE:VxrvAL Y1:1CF;9ppD1VrL'111V r•0.RCEL A � NiH1K IpE pdG'C llRll-14059 '�I i RRFEREN�CES: °II 0'• ^j miavoo �i'%evxrw iiem,.na,xo.°ovwa a I s& F u � I �.. °X. _ -----.._.. ___._.. � °0 � SURVEYOR'S NARRATIVE: xx3-rx•r..x� _.._.._.._._ _.._ — _._ — _.._.._. § LA T➢ROAONhY AVE woo. -En .s snonxneaeox. me:exuxemaruEu rcwio rza suo _—_ xcwzzrrx mn.[sysai -- - -� iEGEAD Is i� �wv 2030 S.WASHINGTON AVE. EMMETT,lO 83617 & (208)398-8104 FAX(208)398-8185 g 116 4 i � W �ArE -.:o' `°,a""'""" "+awl LviElSwyerny LLGwww.sAwraoTHls.coM Lnsreaoalwur ave � I ��n n..��ra. '�'aexa�e; _ - rxrn Awry Page 3 Page 18 PUT'RomNG 3110K—PAGF— URRAbfERy NORTEI CONDOMINIUM "L—TED NTI ENW14OFTI EGWlf4��T�7. ol 90� -1.wASMNGTON A All PUT SHOMNG WWED-HENVA%0—lEThlMSE—N7. T— I I-1.11TI.Ini—l-I-- 7r flew W2, EMMETT,SD&3fil] Page 4 Item#2. PLOT SHGWING 6WK�PNGE_ CREAMERY NORTH CUNHOMINILM —crnrcs�<ua 3 wc.onwa t 20305 WA514 AVE. EMMEIT,M ID E&361J (zosJ 39s-S1Os f�y��-)Y FAX(30bJ 398-8IO3 PLAT SHOWING a K_,PAGE_. CEEAMEEY NORTH CUMIUMW[UM �crn':cxawe a d1' 2O3P YVASNIN A I. 3301VE. E.- ID 896 {-j (20)398-81w .. .,-�,��r i�'wv✓wsAw7�rrxs,carr Page 5 Page 20 Item#2. B. Previously Approved Plans (A-2019-0033) T j �FW�HSSCP 5*4l P „ P�OPOSE7W ESG E I d A H d AVENUE �° E%�6irKiNELTRPer[.TO&K�+ED�� R+v.soccPrma+csrw,ttr• — -- wm �� _, ousir+cLu+csrrxercroecumgvcu + E:.. as 7771 1 I NEW MIXED USE BUILDING'"B"' I iy LEdtlw Rs�nu• . 77 IL I � � { p, for .::�!!• ' . 8'31. �'.:�19 I _ _ ',it _ i IP191{WIXIX0.Fre.fW I �� $7 _....s - - iL _ —___._____----------------------------- ___ _ __—---_— ------------- ---- _ I -------a j yyyyqA E.u" Si w r: I I �. .ANT�IVEW TF�GPRiE�LC%�►EA1'E — C'6.. �a-6 pATdIL-ry. a wcr0.6 NdP7176'w Misr 8EE DETAIL-I.12, E. fDAHO AVENUE - 1' � � i3Deee ue o —— — — J —— NEW MIXED USE BUILDING"B" e•�,. �a ,..r_� - e CEO L = PARKING AT OROUNU LEVEL g 00 v Yf lrew .7i\ ~ f�O C L� f -----net r — r: � l ^"d ♦— ' :��'''°r`°'d ii L IdahoA� � ��Tarpl No,Rig200031i I L{r `I 1 r'' Ir yr��4•Go bs ' .�ra...c b..rc s1 I - f 7 ` `_ • �_. ~ — ,i rARKINC AT CROUNU LEVE� n y ® _ L— ,➢2 a•cn.aacrrn r� CARPORT RAC ALLEY`" .�, ----------- -------- ------------ -- . �-------- - - Page 6 Page 21 i� ■E�E�I 1�1 10 _ � I - aw aI� two r� ■I � r�r 1 �I ,I, ri�ill' : wf,I .lam' �� �i �■ Iil� �I �° '; lI1 �........ it u �rj �� ����I ,gr�, �Ib,l � .r_ �1■r_ 1■ �I � � I !1 li�� IH�1� 't-01 6� _� ®I i �]�_ I tll■I�11� �1p1P ■ , ''�� �! 2 JzlliiP _1P=� ����.-��-- mot, . 111 0 0 0® 111■I I01 I�_I G :I ICI I�_I IN Ii —� Ii —� Ii I�I1■Ill■ICIllffl■I I-1 --- � �1 4 ON CG nip I ■ H I I i 1; Mai I i .INd - r■ IlR h1111 - -I - -- �IIIII ���!■.- 1� D O I�sli ll III,- I I! � � :1 �_I : I�� 1■1 11 1■1 No I 11 II 11 II i a i1 m ii ■'1 .. � � l f I Item#2. VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development: A-2019-0033 (CZC, DES, &ALT). 2. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained within two(2)years of the City Council's approval of the short plat,the short plat shall become null and void unless a time extension is obtained,per UDC 11-6B-7. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature, obtain the signatures of the Ada County Highway District and the Central District Health Department. 4. The short plat prepared by Sawtooth Land Surveying, LLC,prepared on March 25,2021 by Jeff Beagley, included in Section VI.A shall be revised as follows: a. Note#10: Include recorded parking easement agreement instrument number. 5. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the previous approvals noted above does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions: 1. There are no new changes to the domestic water or wastewater infrastructure serving this development.The City will not bill individual condos owners for water and sewer usage.There will be a single bill to the HOA, and it is the HOA's responsibility to bill tenants. General Conditions: 2. 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. 3. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE In consideration of a short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the Unified Development Code; The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as Old Town and the current zoning district of the site is O-T. Staff finds the proposed short plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is being developed in accord with UDC standards for the existing zoning district. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services will be provided to this property and are adequate to serve the building sites currently under construction. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvements program; Page 8 Page 23 Item#2. Staff finds that the development will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. All required utilities were provided with the development of the property at the developer's expense. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services as services are already being provided to the immediate area. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff finds the proposed short plat to condominiumize the existing structure will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. F. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with short platting the structure on this site. Page 9 Page 24 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 6, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H- 2020-0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek A. Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Page 25 Item#3. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 11, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from April 6, 2021 for Foxcroft Subdivision (H-2020- 0113) by Gem State Planning, LLC, Located Directly West of Ten Mile Road, on Both Sides of the Proposed Pine Avenue Extension and East of the Tenmile Creek Request: Annexation of 23 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 85 building lots and 31 common lots on 35.7 acres of land in the proposed R-8 zoning district and existing R-15 zoning district. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 216 residential units on 12.74 acres in the existing R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 26 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 11 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Foxcroft Subdivision ( H - 20 M113 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#3. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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 27 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 28 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 29 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 30 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 32 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 33 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 34 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 35 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 36 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 37 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 38 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 39 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 40 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 41 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 42 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 43 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 44 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 45 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 46 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 47 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 48 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 49 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 50 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 51 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 52 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 53 000 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 55 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 _ NDTINTENDED 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 DF 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 56 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 57 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 58 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 59 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 60 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 61 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 62 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 63 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 65 •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 -g"�•- 5 �. �� �, � _ III!I:Illf I_ .+r n.. f 5 Page 43 Item#3. -z wo ............ i oil --_-_ Page 44 Page 70 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 71 Item#3. J. Ten Mile Stub Drain cross-section 3HD FLOOR BALCONY IS 4' ABOVE 2ND FLOOR OF EXIS770VG 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 72 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 73 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 74 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 75 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 76 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 77 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 78 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 79 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 80 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 81 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 82 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to Standards in the Old Town District in Chapter 2; Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Chapter 5; and Common Driveways Standards in Chapter 6. Page 105 Item#4. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Bill Parsons Meeting Date: May 11, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment (H-2021-0001) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to Standards in the Old Town District in Chapter 2; Ditches, Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; Comprehensive Plan Amendments in Chapter 5; and Common Driveways Standards in Chapter 6. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 106 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 11 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : UDC Text Amendment ( W2021 - 0001 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#4. Proposed UDC Text Amendments UDC Section Topic Reason for Change Proposed Change 11-2D-4 Increase OT height Allow for taller buildings in city core area of the Old The standards for development in the Old Town District are set forth in this section as follows: maximum Town District A. Building Height: Maximum building height is seventy-five feet (75'). Minimum building height for new construction in the city core as defined in Chapter 1, is thirty-five feet (351 with a maximum height not to exceed one hundred feet (100'). B. Number of stories. Minimum number of stories for new construction is two (2) and/or as set forth in the "City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual". DATE: 03/23/2021 Page 107 Item#4. 11-3A-6 Ditches, laterals, canals Recently came to the City's attention that fencing may A. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to limit the tiling and piping of natural and man-made or drainage courses not always be desired along open waterways by the waterways, including but not limited to, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is irrigation district, specifically as it relates to not a concern as well as improve, protect and incorporate creek corridors (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine section of codee to ensure the UDC does not conflict with maintenance their facility. Staff is amending this Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains) as an amenity in all residential, commercial irrigation district standards as requested by the City and industrial designs.When piping and fencing is proposed, the following standards shall apply. Council. B. Piping. Surrounding property owners don't need to be noticed as the easement on the building lot(s) doesn't affect 1. Natural waterways intersecting, crossing, or lying within the area being developed shall remain as a them - a Council waiver is sufficient. This would allow natural amenity and shall not be piped or otherwise covered. See also subsection (C)(1) of this section. the applicant to request a waiver during the final plat 2. Irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains may be left open when used as a water amenity process and not require a public hearing. or linear open space, as defined in section 11-1A-1 of this title. See also subsection (C)(2) of this section. 3. Except as allowed above, all other irrigation ditches, laterals, sloughs or canals, intersecting, crossing or lying within the area being developed, shall be piped, or otherwise covered. This requirement does not apply to property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a. The decision-making body may waive the requirement for covering such ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain, if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. C. Fencing. 1. Fencing along all natural waterways shall not prevent access to the waterway. In limited circumstances and in the interest of public safety, larger open water systems may require fencing as determined by the City Council, Director and/or Public Works Director. 2. Ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains do not require fencing if it can be demonstrated by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Director that said ditch, lateral, canal, sloughs or drain serves as or will be improved as a part of the development, to be a water amenity or linear open space. If designed as a water amenity, construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho shall be submitted to both the Director and the authorized representative of the water facility for approval. 3. Except as allowed above, all other open irrigation ditches, laterals, canals, sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an open vision fence at least six (6) feet in height and having an 11-gauge,two (2) inch mesh or other construction, equivalent in ability to deter access to said ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain, which fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or both sides of said ditch, lateral, canal, slough or drain. D. Improvements. Improvements related to piping, fencing or any encroachment as outlined in subsections(A), (B), and (C) of this section requires written approval from the appropriate irrigation or drainage entity. E. Easements. In Residential Districts, irrigation easements wider than ten feet (10') shall be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide and outside of a fenced area, unless mid otherwise waived by City Council at^ publie hearing with HA_*J_r^*^ S rding property DATE: 03/23/2021 Page 108 Item#4. 11-513-7C.3 CPAM amendments With adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, limit the The City Council shall not consider amendments to the land use map of the adopted comprehensive plan frequency to which it can be amended. Make it clear that more than twice per calendar year. The application deadlines for amendments to the land use map Map amendments will be processed no more than every component of the comprehensive plan shall be June 15 and December 15 of every year. 6 months - cut-offs. 11-6C-3D Common driveways Commission, Council and PW is having concerns with the D. Common Driveways: number of units taking access from a common driveway. This impacts the extension of services, parking and trash 1. Maximum Dwelling Units Served: Common driveways shall serve a maximum of six (6) dwelling service. Staff is not proposing to reduce the number dwellings served, but to expand on the requirements units. when a greater number of units take access from a common driveway. This will allow the City Engineer to 2. Width standards: Common driveways shall be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width:, unless a require a wider common driveway, if an applicant is greater width is required by the City Engineer.All common driveways shall be on a common lot. required to extend City mains underneath the driveway, consistent with other easement requirements of the City. 3. Maximum length. Common driveways shall be a maximum of one hundred fifty (150) feet in length or less, unless otherwise approved by the Meridian City Fire Department. 4. Improvement standards. Common driveways shall be paved with a surface with the capability of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. S. Abutting properties.All properties that abut a common driveway shall take access from the driveway; however, if an abutting property has the required minimum street frontage, that property is not required to take access from the common driveway. In this situation,the abutting property's driveway shall be on the opposite side of the shared property line; away from the common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways shall be prohibited, unless separated by a minimum five-foot wide landscaped buffer planted with shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover. 6. Turning radius. Common driveways shall be straight or provide a twenty-eight-foot inside and forty-eight-foot outside turning radius. 7. Depictions. For any plats using a common driveway, the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, landscaping and orientation of the lots and structures shall be shown on the preliminary plat and/or as an exhibit with the final plat application. DATE: 03/23/2021 Page 109 Item#4. STAFF REPORT C� W IDIAN - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 05/11/2021 as I '---}� 0 DATE: ' TO: Mayor and City Council �s 55 26 FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning �■■■ Supervisor 208-884-5533 EONE SUBJECT: ZOA-2021-0001 :�I� UDC Text Amendment Legend �. LOCATION: City wide M AOCI — rCounty — ss ■ Line Future Road I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Meridian Planning Division has applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC)text amendment to update certain sections of the City's code as follows: • Standards in the Old Town District(O-T) in Chapter 2; • Ditches,Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; • Comprehensive Map Amendments in Chapter 5;and • Common Driveway Standards in Chapter 6. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Ave, Suite#102 Meridian, ID 83642 Page 1 Page 110 Item#4. III. NOTICING Planning & Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification published in newspaper 3/26/2021 4/23/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet NA NA Public service announcement 3/24/2021 4/21/2021 Nextdoor posting 3/24/2021 4/21/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) A. Comprehensive Plan Text(https://www.meridiancity.or / pplan): 3.01.01B -Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to accommodate the community's needs and growth trends. Many of the requested code changes below reflect the desire of the Community and maintain the integrity of the plan. 3.04.01B—Maintain and update the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. This round of code changes is being expedited to implement the vision of the Comprehensive Plan. In general, the proposed changes support the redevelopment of downtown, minimize conflicts with other agencies, limit CPAMs to twice a year and improve the design standards of common driveways. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UDCI In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5,the Planning Division has applied to amend the text of the Unified Development Code(UDC). The text amendment includes updates to multiple sections that pertain to the following: • Standards in the Old Town District(O-T) in Chapter 2; • Ditches,Laterals, Canals or Drainage Courses in Chapter 3; • Comprehensive Map Amendments in Chapter 5;and • Common Driveway Standards in Chapter 6. The Planning Division is expediting these few changes at the request of the Mayor and City Council in order to support redevelopment in downtown; eliminate code conflicts with the applicable irrigation districts; limit the submittal dates of CPAM applications to twice a year to maintain the integrity of the plan and further improve on the design standards for common driveways. Staff has received comments from some members of the UDC Focus Group regarding the proposed changes (see public record). Exhibit VII below includes a table of the requested changes/additions and supporting commentary explaining the purpose of the change to the UDC. Many of these changes have been vetted with City Council before the application submittal and the draft changes were shared with the UDC Focus Group and others to solicit feedback. As of the print date of the staff report,Planning staff has not presented the proposed changes to the BCA however,the changes will be shared with the BCA at their April 131}i meeting. Page 2 Page 111 Item#4. hi summary, Staff believes the changes proposed with this application supports the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. VI. DECISION A. Staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV and V, modifications in Section VII and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Section VIII. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on April 15,2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject ZOA request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Planning Division b. In opposition: None C. Commenting:None d. Written testimony: David Bailey,Cornel Larson,Laren Bailey and Dave Yorgason e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Reducing the number of units taking access from common driveway(6 down to 3) and approving more through the ALT process. b. Height increase in the Old Town District. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission recommended no more than 3 dwelling units take access from a common driveway. b. Commission modified the height standards in 11-2D-4A based on new language proposed by staff. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 3 Page 112 Item#4. VII. EXHIBITS A. Table of Proposed Text Changes Proposed UDC Text Amendments U¢estdu ropy wmson mr ono®& A-"adg Increase OT hLight Allow for talLer buildingsinnty core area o vie The standards for developmeur in the Old Town District am set[or&in this section as follows: masmum Town District A. Buildimg Height In the area defined as the rites core in chap=1,acy new mnstrurtion shall have a. minimum MEM Dflof hiM-file feet(350 and amammum height ofone hundred feet(100' A0 other areas m the district,thL Xmaaimum building height is seventy-five feet[75'} R Number ofsmries.MinimumnumberofsturiesfornewconstructianisWo(2)amdforassetforthin the r0ty offMeridiau Architectural StaudaodsManual'. es lateralS.canals even came to a SAW IL at n¢gmag A,p'urpose,The purpaseofth-ssemomisto limit the Ong and piping Of natural.a¢dman-made Ordrabagecvurses aotalwaysbedesuSAWed Dogepeawaterwaysbgthe waterwaysconrlLiimng nrtnntl=;tedtn.ditchesCanals,lateraks,s]Dughsaoddratuswhe3epuhhesafery] itr4;atioD drstruR,specifira0p as rtrelatestD not accaimrn as well asimprove.pratectand i¢corparabe rreekoorriden(FiveMde,Fight Mil%Nme maiionaanren to ei sure iheUDC i ces t ingt�s }.�.Tea Mik South 5lougb andjacUDm and a-a¢Drains]as anammitpinallresideotial.commercial section of code to ensure the UDC does¢at conflict with irrigation districtstandasds as request&d hp the Crty and indusiial designs.lb'ben pipiugand fencing ispsnposed,the following standards shallapply. Council. Surrounding property owners don't need tD be noticed IL Piping— as the eas em enton ehuildiaglat(s]dDmitaltecS 1.Naturalwaterwaysimtersecting,cinssmg,arlginowithintheareabeiq;dev�elopedshaLLremaunasa them-aCouncilwaiverissnf5de¢t'l'hiswatildaLLow ¢aturAl me¢iry and shallaDtbe piped orather isecovered.SeeaLrosubsectionQ(2)ofthissection. the processes do trequeeawaiverdmingthefinalplest 2.lrrigationditrhe�laterals,caaalssloughs and drains may be left open when used asawateramenity process and not require a public hearing. or linear ape¢space,as defined in venting 21-1A-1 of this We.See also s¢hsettio¢(C](2]of this section. 3.Ftceptas alined above,all other itrtatia¢ditctes,laterals,sloughs or canals,i¢terAcdag,c Dssmg orlyiu;withi¢the arna being devetoped,shall be piped or otherwise covered.This requirement does no appty to Property with only an irrigation easement where the actual drainage facility is located on an adjoining property. a.Thedecisim-maw;body maylwaivetherequirementbarc Twin;su&dit*lateral,eauaLslough or drain if it Suds that the public purpose mquiriq;such will not be served and public safety eau be preserved. C.FenCia 1,Fencing along all oaturaiw"nways 3ha11 oat present access tDthewatrsway,]¢limited ircumstance and in the mterest of public safety,larger open water systems may require fencing w determined by the City Caimciil.Director and/or Public Works Director. 2.Ditches,laterals:canals,sloughs and drains do not require fenrigg if it can be demonstrated by the appgcanttothesatisfacdoo oftheDirector diatsdd ditch lateral eanabsloughs or drain serves as Drwil] 'ae improved as a part of the development to be a water amenity or linear open space.1f designed as a -nesteramenity. ustruetian draAmp and relevant caku]abons prepared by a qualified licensed p^ofessia¢al registered in the State off Idaho shall be submitted to both the Director and the authorized &presentative of the water facility for appmasal 3.Fsceptas allowed above,all other open irrigatiDa ditches,Iaterats,canals sloughs and drains shall be fenced with an opeu vision fence at least s¢(6)feet in height and having an li-gauge.two(2)inch mesh or ether co¢shvrtioa equivalent in ability to defier atrem to said di6dy lateral,canal slough or drain, rrhirh fence shall be securely fastened at its base at all places where any part of said lands or areas being subdivided touches either or bath sides of said ditch,lateral,cana4 slough or dram. D.Improvements,Improvements related to piphg,fencing or any encmadcment as outlined in subsecdans(A),M.and(C]DftbissectionrequireswTtamo appmaval finmtbeapprDpriateh,d atiDn Dr drainage entity. F.Fesements In Restdeat a=Districts irrigatiao easements Crider than ten feet(10�shall be ioduded in a common hotthatisanimiTumofSweaty feet[20'wide and outsideDfa fenced area,unle-'S-M ed otiter,wise LwaLved by Cty Council Page 4 Page 113 Item#4. - UJIAMamendments a opbcino a[LEW 0 N 97 I rt e The City Cound]shaR not consider ameadmentsto the Land me map olthe adopted c.mp:eheosiveplao ftequencytowhichitcanbeamended Hate itcleardL7r mare 6 months-cut-offs. all Huntx2ceoerraleod�r}�aLTheapphe3tiandeammesfox amendments tothe:a�du<eMad montap ndmeots wtllbepracesedoaowrethanecety mpooentnfthemmpreheosiveplanshbeInne15andDeom&er15nfe4�eryyear 6 �0.mmandrrveways ootmtcaoo, Duna aoPW is knugcanoeroswi D. CommonDrneways: aamber ofunitsrtatn;access tram a common driveway. Tbsimcts pathLEdemienufserkoes.p&Ttij3;andtrash 1, MaximumDwellin;Gaits Served:Common drivewaysshallserveamasimumoftluees b] servicaStaffisartprop"d�tnreduethenumber dwellinguoitr. dwellings served.but tb expand m the requirements whena greater number ofunits sloe access from a cammoo driveway.This 3wilLakw the City Eogineerto S. Width standards:CDmmoo driveways shallbea minimum oftwenty(20)feet iawidth.uolcssa require a wider cammundm-eway,ifaaapp[icamis ueaterwidthis required bythe4taEngneer.UMmmoa driveways shaRheonacvmmonlot required to extend City mains underneath the driveway, mast.s4eut with other easement requirements aftheCity. 3. MadmumleogthCommao driveways shaflheamodmumofooehuodredfdiy(LSD)feetioleogth or less,nnle-nodie i.seapprovedbytheMeridiaoCityFireDepartment. 4, hnpmovement standards.Crmmon driveways shahbepaved with asmfare with the capabltyof support na fi a vehicles and equipmena. S. hbutwgproperdes..0 properties that abut a commoo driveway shalL take aeams fro®the drirewag,however.it an abuttmg property has the required minimum street frcotage,that property is not required to take access from the common driveway.[o this situation,the abutting property's driveway shad be on the opposite side ofthe shared property line;away from the oommom dr veway.Solid fencing adjacent to comman driveways shall he prop hired,unless separated by a minimum five-fact wide landscaped buffer olard arith d,n,hs.lawn cir other veeetative eraundcover. 6. 1lrraing radius,Common driveways shall be straight or proride a twenty-eight-foot ioside and forty-eight-foot outside turning radius 7. De"Dal For aoy plats ukaga common driveway.the setrarlts...fendnabuildmgeovelope, laadscapmE and orientation of the tots and stnrrbares shall be shown on the prehminarp plat and/or as an eahhit with the Sna]plat appkatiom VIII. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) 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 a text amendment to the Unified Development Code,the Council shall make the following findings: A.The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved as submitted. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text 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. The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments.All City departments,public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s)when making this finding. Page 5 Page 114