The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-05-18 Regular E HO IDIAN City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, May 18, 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/84709336710 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 847 0933 6710 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault (left at 7:52 pm) Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted 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 Continued from April 13, 2021 for Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd.Approved A.Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached),townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 2. Public Hearing Continued from April 13, 2021 for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020- 0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E.Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. Continued to June 1, 2021 A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Motion to continue to June 1, 2021 made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 2AS acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES [Action Item] 4. Ordinance No. 21-1928: An Ordinance (H-2021-0008 - Meridian South Fire Station) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 5,Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment"A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 4.00 Acres of Land From RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor,the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 9:37 pm Item#3. Meridian City Council May 18, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, May 18, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Alan Tiefenbach, Kyle Radek, Jamie Leslie, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault (left 7:52 pm) _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, May 18, 2021, at 6:02 p.m. We will begin this evening's regular City Council meeting agenda with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item is the community invocation, which will be given by Pastor Drake of Calvary Chapel Meridian. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Drake: Council Members, Mr. Mayor, would you join me. Lord God in Heaven, just come before you here this evening in this great city and we just appreciate --just remembering the privilege that we have here in this country of being given life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and we are grateful for those people who have gone before us to have the genius of that and, then, those who have defended it over the decades for us, the centuries, that we may live in a free place and so, God, we just want to acknowledge that and thank you for preserving that for us and we are just praying for the citizens of Meridian tonight, that they might be safe and -- and have a place to go if there is trouble or any needs -- poverty, hunger, homelessness, I just pray, Lord, that people can find their way to have their needs met and, Lord, we are also asking for a special protection over the safety of our citizens this evening. So important to all of us that people can -- can live Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 2- — safely and so we pray for those servants who provide protection for them, the first responders, our paramedics and fire and police officers, please protect them, Lord. And lastly, God and not least I just want to pray for our City Council, all the people that work in this building, that you would give them just a lot of grace and encouragement and wisdom in how to handle the affairs of the city and we just appreciate them, God, and ask that you would bless them for what they do, in Jesus' name, amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Council, next item is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: No changes to the agenda, so I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do not. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing Continued from April 13, 2021 for Prescott Ridge (H- 2020-0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi- family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 3- — Simison: Okay. So, with that we will go right into our action items for this evening. Our first up is a public hearing convened from April 13, 2021, for Prescott Ridge, H-2020- 0047. 1 will see if Sonya has any comments that she would like to make. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Council heard this project on February 23rd and continued it to April 13th and, again, to tonight's meeting in order to determine the potential impacts of legislation pertaining to State Senate Bill 1108. So, Council's already heard staff's presentation on this, so I'm not going to go into that all again, I will just remind you that Council does need to make a determination in their motion in regard to the specific use standard for hospitals that provide emergency care. The location has to have a direct access onto an arterial street. However-- however, because the UDC prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway no other access is available, except for North Rustic Oak Way, the north-south collector street along the east boundary of the site, which connects to the highway. Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement. If so it should be memorialized in the development agreement. If not, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD has denied the applicant's request for direct access to the state highway for the medical campus. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Is the applicant with us and make any additional comments? Connor: Thank you. My name is Patrick Connor. Address is 701 South Allen Street, Meridian, Idaho. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you for having us tonight, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. It was nice sitting in on the workshop previous to this hearing and hearing the conversations that were happening -- happening about how do we grow, where do we grow, and how much do we grow and I fully agree that we need complete projects that are smartly designed and bring in all the components of the Comprehensive Plan and I truly believe that Prescott Ridge is that project. So, you have seen this a few times, but here is the overall layout. I'm just going to briefly go over the project, as you have heard it a couple times, and, then, talk a little bit about the economic impact of this project to the City of Meridian. Majority of the project is single family residential. We have a component of townhomes and multi-family in red. Medical campus is about 15 acres on the north side that abuts Chinden and, then, part of this application is the West Ada School parcel for a future middle school. It was part of an illegally subdivided lot before, so it's being part of this application and part of this preliminary plat. So, you have seen this before as well, but this is the site plan for the medical campus. Just a couple things I want to point out that I believe Stephanie did at the last hearing. The preferred emergency access per the city and the fire department is in the northwest corner. That connects to Serenity Lane. That is how we are showing on this plan. There also is an alternative backage road stub here on the center of the west side, which goes into an existing residence in the county. We also have an alternative 20 foot fire access to the south portion of the property through our cul-de-sac. So, there is multiple options for backage road and for emergency access. I think they are in the conditional use permit process. We can decide which one is most appropriate as we engage with this particular site plan further, but I wanted to point that out. Next I just want to talk about some of the Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 4 of 63 economic impacts of this project. First the residential piece. Each home in Prescott Ridge is going to bring in 857 dollars to Meridian in the form of property tax revenue. This is after the effects of House Bill 389 and assuming an average household value of 450,000 dollars. So, at build out for 355 homes it equals over 300,000 dollars in annual property tax revenue to the City of Meridian. For the 14 multi-family four-plex buildings, each of those is valued at about a million dollars, which would bring about 2,636 dollars in property taxes. All together, these 14 multi-family buildings would equal 30 -- over 36,000 dollars in annual property tax revenue to the city. So, total the residential impact of this project is 341,000 dollars and this is based on a conservative estimate of 450,000 dollars. Over time we assume that the properties will escalate. So, as I said, the average home in Prescott Ridge was 450, paying 857 dollars in property tax each year. If you look at the city overall, Meridian, the average value of a home there is 360,000 dollars and pays proportionally 690 dollars in property tax. So, even with the effects of House Bill 389 in reducing the amount of property-- amount of value you can levy for property tax, Prescott Ridge homes actually bring in 167 dollars more or 20 percent more revenue to the City of Meridian for the same level of public service that they would be needing from a residential standpoint. Next the medical campus. The best way I can describe this medical campus is it's a major tax benefit for the city. At build out the medical campus will be 180 million dollars in value. So, each year they will bring about 474,000 dollars to the Meridian property tax revenue. This is roughly the same as the value of 553 homes valued at 450,000 dollars. So, it's a significant tax benefit for the city on just 15 acres. Not only that, it will bring high earning jobs of over 300 employees. Seventy percent of those are either doctors or nurse or nurse practitioners and the annual payroll is expected to be over 24 million dollars. So, you can think about the economic benefit as more than just the property tax revenue, it also brings in jobs -- high paying good jobs and you think of the induced economic impact from that standpoint. So, we believe that the campus --this medical campus is a big asset to this plat. It will be an anchor of economical activity, will support further economic development in the area, and with that the area of Chinden, 16, and being a new magnet for medical services, we think that's a -- a big net positive for this project and for the City of Meridian. So, as far as new information that's been presented since February, that wraps up what we wanted to talk about tonight and any questions you all have we can stand for them. Simison: Council, any questions? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: One question. Will these homes be owner occupied? Connor: Yes. I will point out most of all them will be owner occupied. The exception is the -- the red multi-family you see in the northeast corner. Those are intended to be a rental product. They will sell as a single building of four units in the building and, then, they can lease or they can live there if they want, the owners. It will be maintained by a central property management company, but that -- the red portion is intended to be multi- Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 5- — family in rental product. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: How many buildings are there in the red? Connor: Fourteen. There is four units per building, so it's 56 units total. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you for your presentation this evening. I have a couple of questions for you. The first is did you take into account in your property tax estimates, which really appreciate you doing that analysis for us, exemptions -- homeowner's exemption, which just increased, and things like that, was that a part of your calculation? And, then, also I noticed from the original plan until now there has been some significant changes to the amount of townhomes and some of the multi-family that was estimated. Can you kind of go over for us -- it sounds like there was a decrease in the percentage of residential on the overall project and the increase in the commercial. Can you go over the reasons for that change and help us understand more what -- the thought process behind it? Connor: Sure, Council Member Perreault. So, first, to answer your question, yes, we did take into account the 125,000 dollar homeowners exemption for this analysis. So, that is included in both what Prescott Ridge homes would be paying to the city in annual property tax revenue and when I compared it of the existing homes in Meridian that also received the 125,000 dollar property -- or homeowners exemption. So, thank you for asking that question. I can clarify. Also, your question about the changes in numbers of townhomes and multi-family. We -- when we first submitted this application last April we did change the layout of this townhome layout here. It didn't change since we presented it to you all. We changed this for this -- our second P&Z hearing. There is 46 total townhomes in this particular area, but we had not -- we have not changed that since we presented in February. The same with the layout here of the multi-family, we changed this layout a little bit and we added a park to be used by the multi-family area and we added a mail kiosk due to some -- some good suggestions from the Council on how to make that area better and more equitable for -- from a livability and recreational standpoint. So, that's the only changes that we made to the multi-family between now and the February presentation. The number of lots hadn't changed either and, then, the medical campus, the --we did add retail and hospital --or restaurant space to the bottom floor of the medical office building per suggestions of the Council. So, the whole bottom floor of the medical office building is the mixed use retail component and the top three stories are strictly the medical office use. So, that's the only thing that changed throughout this public hearing process, but the plan that I'm presenting tonight has not changed in the -- in the square footage count of commercial space or the number of lots per multi-family or for townhome. Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 6 of 63 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Mr. Connor, and appreciate you bearing with us through so many meetings and apologies on the impact to your business from this legislation that we have been grappling with. Question for you. So, one of the things we really need to figure out tonight is the emergency care component of the hospital specifically and, you know, this is not the typical access that we would want for that and I know this is supposed to be outpatient. I'm trying to wrap my head around future uses of this hospital building and I guess a question I have that Council Woman Perreault brought up in I believe our last meeting was are you open to a limitation to some extent on your operating hours in order to get that emergency access? You know, that access that you need for the hospital component would be my question. Connor: I am not the hospital operator, obviously. Perhaps Betsy Hunsicker can chime in. I think she is online or able to do it. But just a quick -- some flavor I can add. You are correct, it's -- it is designed to be outpatient operations, so they don't want to have too many people spend the time over there. They want to cater towards women's health, pediatric services. The actual freestanding emergency room that they have there is necessary per federal law, given the level of surgeries that they are going to be doing in the building, so it's not intended to be -- it's not a trauma hospital, they are not going to be bringing, you know, helicopters and critical things, they will go to St.Al's and St. Luke's. So, I -- is -- is Betsy online that she can chime in? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I did admit Betsy. She should be able to unmute or turn her camera on if she chooses. Hunsicker: Hi, can you all hear me? Simison: Yes, we can. Hunsicker: Okay. Great. Thank you. Hi, my name is Betsy Hunsicker, I am with HCA Healthcare --emergency room is a really important part of our--our campus and although we don't -- like Patrick said, you know, over the -- Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I believe that -- hey, Betsy? Hunsicker: Can you hear me? Simison: Yeah. You are going in and out. It's speeding up, slowing down -- Hunsicker: Okay. I'm sorry, I'm -- okay. Well, I'm driving. See if I can change -- is this better? Can you hear me better now? Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page , of V3 Bernt: Yes. Much better. Simison: Yeah. Bernt: And if you can start from the beginning, Betsy, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Hunsicker: Hello? Can you hear me better now? Simison: Not now. Hunsicker: Now? I think you can hear me better now. Okay. Well, I don't -- how about I can pull over and see if that helps. I'm sorry let me just -- I'm trying to get my children to different places. Hold on one second. Strader: That's okay, Betsy, be safe and maybe -- Cavener: At a later point in time. Strader: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, maybe I can explain my questions more in the meantime? Hunsicker: Yeah. No. No. I'm here -- Simison: Okay. Betsy. Well, we will come back to you. Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. Maybe just -- just to sort of flush it out a little more, I guess one of the concerns I would have for-- I understand that you're operating this for outpatient only and it's unusual, but hospital ownership does change, that can happen, and so one of the things I'm curious about is if a limitation in operating hours would fit with your business model and wouldn't be an undue burden to you if you are able to still conduct your business with a limitation in the operating hours, maybe that would be a good tradeoff to get the emergency vehicle access, you know, for the piece of this that you need for ambulances. That's all. So, maybe if you guys want to have your team visit with her and we will circle back, but please don't -- yeah, don't do anything dangerous while you are driving. Thank you. Simison: Maybe for -- just to help in the conversation when she hears it, do you have hours of restriction in mind that you think are appropriate? Strader: Sorry, Betsy, we still can't hear you. But I had, off the top of my head, something that would go along with what you would expect in terms of a noisy business. So, I was going to pick 9:00 p.m., 10:00 p.m. But I'm just guessing. I asked the planning staff if they have a suggestion and Councilwoman Perreault may have ideas, too. She had this concern as well in our last meeting. Simison: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Nary, but for our commercial -- or our noise ordinance, 6:00 to 11:00? Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 8- — Nary: Mr. Mayor, yes, that's -- that's the current noise ordinance for operations. Simison: So, if those are the type of restrictions versus something more, I guess that would be just for flavor. Connor: Mr. Mayor, is this a -- could this be a discussion during the conditional use permit process that we can talk about more and perhaps Betsy can have a better idea of how operating hours would affect her business? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think the concern there is we need a decision from Council tonight on giving you your emergency vehicle access and City Council, from what I understand, is not part of the full CUP process, so I would be concerned that we are, you know, kind of making that decision without the agreement on your end. I'm only speaking for myself. I don't know if the other Council Members are thinking along the same lines or not. But I had that concern and Council Woman Perreault had mentioned it. I was just wondering if there is something that fits with your -- with Betty's and the team's business plan that that might help alleviate that concern. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you -- thank you, Council Woman Strader, for bringing that up as well. And part of the conversation last -- last meeting was about the hours in regard to not only the ambulatory services, but also, you know, basic hospital functioning, cafeteria, hours, loading and unloading and that kind of thing. My question, whether for Mr. Connor or for Betsy, help us understand -- so, it sounds like there is the requirement for there to be emergency services. This is going to be an emergency service room similar to other -- whether it's on a smaller scale than the other area hospitals where the public can come in at any point and receive service, so -- or are you saying that this is specific to the patients that are being treated there and it's that -- that emergency services is only for those people that are currently under the hospital's care. If this is a public emergency room, which my understanding is there is intended to be one that's just to the north on the hospital project that's designated on the north side of Chinden, then, that, in my opinion, is a really important part of this conversation as far as access goes, because that means, then, you know, that ambulatory services need to be available 24 hours a day. So, if you could give us clarity and understanding of how that is actually going to operate that might be helpful. Connor: Yes, Council Member Perreault, Council Woman Strader, she does -- we are text messaging with her trying to get information, but she's trying to call back in. Definitely want her to be safe. So, she absolutely needs emergency services in order to provide, Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 9 of 63 like we have established. We are trying to figure out if it needs to be 24 hour. My understanding is that it would function similar like a primary health. So, it would be open for someone to get stitches on their finger if they need to, someone -- it's not strictly for patrons of the hospital, it's for the general public. So, it would function as -- similar to a primary health or a doc-in-the-box in that effect. My thinking is she probably will likely need 24 hour services. I don't know. We are getting clarification. Because there may be a situation where someone needs to stay overnight, especially if they need to stay overnight they need to have emergency service there. I do know from -- I guess just a nuisance standpoint for ambulances coming in and out of the hospital, they do have a no lights, no sirens policy within a certain distance of the hospital. So, that's something they can abide by. I know they do it nationally. If that's a concern of-- of, you know, bothering neighbors or having that sort of issue there. We do have significant buffers of our hospital from the neighboring properties. We have an eight foot high masonry wall to help dial back on any sort of impact the hospital will have and, like she said before, typical office hour -- or hospital hours between 7:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. is when they schedule the surgeries and so the ambulatory care is pretty limited. So, hopefully, we hear back soon if she absolutely needs 24 hours. I think she's on the -- Hunsicker: Hi. This is -- this is Betsy again. I was driving by my office and I pulled in and I -- can you all hear me now? Simison: Yes, we can. Hunsicker: Okay. So, I'm really sorry that I wasn't unable to wait -- you know, my phone signal was not working very well. So, I -- unfortunately, we absolutely have to have 24 hour access. That is the critical part of the business plan. It's a critical part of the operation. It's a critical part of the access. Like Patrick said, the -- you know, it's not going to be a trauma center, it's -- we are not going to have a heli-pad, we are not going to have -- you know, we are not going to be receiving helicopters, obviously, without a helicopter pad and we --we often in other-- in other places we often work with ambulance companies to not use lights and sirens coming into the facility within a certain radius and so we do work with the -- the EMS providers to minimize the noise and the nuisance. I guess I'm a little confused. You know, I -- I didn't realize -- you know, I thought we were planning to use the ambulance -- we designed the emergency service, the emergency room area, to have the main access point off of the Levi Lane Road. I know it has a new name, but I can't remember what that -- Rustic Oak I think is what that's called. So, that's how we designed all the ambulance traffic to come in and out and my understanding was that the other access on the frontage road would only be for emergency -- like city emergency vehicles, not for ambulances and other emergency vehicles that are accessing our facility. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. Betsy, so, you know, our -- one of our transportation departments here Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 10 vivo denied access off of the main highway there, so you're asking for access off of Rustic Oak, this doesn't meet the standard on an arterial, this is a collector, and so that's why the planning staff was directing City Council to look at this and I guess my question to you would be if you could explain how this is different than a trauma center and if you have a way to help us understand if there is something in your development agreement that could give us some comfort in the future that this wouldn't become a future trauma center if the ownership were to change or the business were to change. You know, maybe it's -- that you need the ambulance access 24 hours a day, but that you're going to schedule surgeries during certain hours or maybe that you're not -- you know, tell me what the difference is with the trauma center, maybe we can wrap our heads around it. My only concern, really, is just -- if this turns into ambulances running through here really frequently and they are very noisy and it sounds like you can mitigate that, but give me a flavor for how this is different from a trauma center and how we could feel better about it, I guess. Hunsicker: Well, I mean I guess if you look at -- like let's just use West Valley as an example and I think this would be a -- you know, a smaller emergency room than what West Valley has currently and we see around 70 patients a day and I think we have about ten ambulances a day here and what we have -- what we are expecting in this --what we are thinking in this location will be a volume, you know, kind of closer in the 20s and the 30s per day, so -- and -- and, typically, you don't have emergency -- emergency EMS -- so, you know, Ada County Paramedics typically doesn't bring patients to kind of smaller facilities that don't have as many services, because -- because typically they end up having to transfer them again. So, they tend to avoid -- you know, they have -- so they tend to avoid kind of facilities to have more scaled back services from an emergency standpoint. You know, I can't guarantee -- I can't, you know, sort of -- there is no documentation of that or, you know, policy around that, but that's typically what you see. But just to put it in perspective, so if we are seeing 70 patients here with ten ambulances and we are talking, you know, a third of the volume, you know, best -- you know, best case, three ambulances a day and that would be, you know, more of a steady state kind of that they are -- you know, there will be some ramp to get to that point. You know, certainly -- so, a trauma center is actually a designated thing. So, you actually go out and get designated as a trauma center. The state has a trauma committee or trauma -- that's not the right -- they are a -- well, yeah, they have a state committee that sort of evaluates different hospitals and kind of gives them a trauma level status. So, we don't anticipate, you know, pursuing that for this project and that has certain requirements. So, there is certain requirements that go with that. Like you have to have different specialties on hand, you have to be able to accommodate, you know, blood bank and other things that go with being a trauma center. But at the same time if you have someone that lives in that area and their child falls at 8:00 p.m. and they fall on their elbow and they need to have surgery and get a pin put in that elbow, they may potentially go to the operating room and have the pin placed, you know, at 9:00 p.m. in a facility of this type if there was -- if there were ORs and an emergency room, because that's a fairly minor -- you know, that's not a major procedure and, you know, it would be kind of a disservice to that family to transfer them somewhere else for something that could be done there. So, I think there is scenarios where that actually benefits the community by being able to take care of that Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 11 of 63 patient kind of locally and close to home. So, I don't know that I'm totally answering your question. I think -- I certainly think that, you know, it's not our intention to make this a -- kind of a regional emergency hub, but I think that there is --there --there is a lot of growth in this area, you know, at least there has been up to date and -- you know. So, there -- there is a need for those services, you know, for -- for that kind of care and I think it's a service to the community versus a detriment to the community. Strader: Thank you, Betsy. I think you -- you answered my question and I appreciate it. I guess it sounds -- if you could just explain if it's the size of your facility that by definition you are looking at three ambulances -- like what aspect of your facility is the limitation? Is it the size and services you provide? Hunsicker: Yeah. Uh-huh. Strader: I guess -- okay. Hunsicker: Yeah. I think. Yes. Strader: Are you okay with saying that you're not going to pursue becoming a trauma hospital in the future, since that's within your control, would be my question. Hunsicker: I think we could say that. I mean I guess I would like to have the ability -- I mean, you know, like picture this area in 20 years, you know, is it going to be a different story or 30 years or 40 years? So, I guess as long as there is some ability to kind of revisit that if -- if there is a need in that area, then, I think that that's okay. You know, I hate to do something today, because it doesn't seem necessary, but in 25 or 30 years, you know, it is something that really the community needs and deserves. So, I don't see that being an issue at all right now or even in the near future, but I guess I would just want to have some ability to leave that door open down the road or some process to be able to open that door back up down the road. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader, are you done? Strader: Yes. Simison: Okay. Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Oh, I'm sorry. There is a little delay sometimes. Thank you, Betsy. Thank you very much, by the way, for pulling over and taking time to answer our questions. It is a really critical part of the conversation. Hunsicker: Well, it's important to us -- to me, too, so I -- so, I'm glad I was able to do it. Perreault: So, just --just to clarify a couple of things. First of all, I don't know that -- that Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 12 vivo our Council is -- is questioning the merits of the hospital or questioning that there is a need for hospitals in this area, it more goes back to this road -- the road not having the capacity for ambulatory services to the code that's currently required for it to exist. So, we are not -- Hunsicker: Right. Perreault: -- at what I'm hearing from my fellow Council Members -- give me just a second, let me finish. What I'm hearing from my fellow Council Members is -- is not that -- that we are, you know, needing -- needing you to -- to convince us that a hospital is -- is a good thing in this area, but this is really more about some technicalities regarding what is typically permissible for ambulatory services on a road this size and if you would like to leave that -- the option open for this to become a trauma center, that's not going to be a feasible possibility for you if this road stays at the size. Now, I don't know if you -- your design team, your engineering team, has considered the possibility of -- I don't think actually ITD is going to allow an arterial off of this, is that the reason why we are -- this is set up as a collector? Maybe staff can answer that in a moment. But the other thing I wanted to state is that -- is that this -- as you mentioned this area is growing and we have two highways --two state highways at this intersection and we also have a city that's north of here, Emmett, that has almost no medical services whatsoever. They have very small hospital, they have very limited -- and I would guess that this is going to become a main location for them for ambulatory services. So, if there is an accident on Highway 16 this is the place that they are going to be bringing somebody who is -- who is rapidly bleeding; right? I don't think they are going to drive them into Boise or drive them into south Meridian and that's just my guess. So, that's the kind of things to look forward -- forward looking, future looking that I think myself and Council Woman Strader are -- that's kind of the point we are trying to get at. Hunsicker: Well, I would -- I would say, you know, out here where I am in Caldwell, you know, we have some pretty significant accidents on some of the major highways out here, you know, fatal accidents or, you know, near fatal and in those situations those ambulances bypass West Valley and they go into Boise to St. AI's. So, just speaking from, you know, actual -- the actual experience out here, they do bypass. So, I think it does depend -- because those -- because we are not able to meet the needs of those patients here, so -- and so -- so, just as a -- as a point of, you know, an anecdotal -- an anecdotal point, so -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just -- just to weigh on -- weigh in on this a little bit and maybe, hopefully, provide some information through my previous job that I had with one of the regional medical centers, yes, the time sensitive emergency system in Idaho is administered by the Department of Health and Welfare and they can designate trauma centers based on criteria and different -- the requirements -- if you meet the requirements and so it is some Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 13 vivo -- and so the -- St.Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise is a level two, the highest that we have in the state of Idaho. Level One is -- has an academic research component to it and those types of things, which won't happen anytime soon in our state, but -- and I think Ms. Hunsicker was -- was correct, you know, you can start out and have an emergency center and meet some of those -- those smaller, less critical -- important, but, you know, less -- less critical things that require transportation to a trauma center and there are different designations for traumas, too. You can have heart, stroke, those types of things and -- and she also talked about it -- and, again, I think she's accurate, you could start out at this level, but you can eventually say, hey, we -- we want to be a level three trauma center and be designated by that by the state of Idaho and be able to take these certain things and I think as our population grows and their location, that very well could be the -- be the case, it's just a matter of the timing and if you say, okay, you can only do this much at this level and that changes and, then, what's the process -- process for that? So, that's -- that's kind of the difficulties is that -- that limitation now is fine, but, then, the future how does that move forward? I guess -- and, Mr. Mayor, if I can ask a question of staff and Bill or Sonya, I'm not sure, because we have this whole package here before us and it involves residential of varying zonings. We have, you know, the C-G, of course, which is -- which is the hospital and I think the -- some other -- and the medical office building and I know the conditional use process comes into play for the C-G here and I'm trying to figure out -- and one aspect of that is the standard that we have to decide for that road, because our -- our UDC says you got to have an arterial, this is a collector, so if we decide that component now, is everything else just going to be under the CUP and go through that process or can we move that whole thing -- we can designate C-G, that means it could be anything that meets that designation, but not -- not necessarily a hospital. I mean trying to figure out -- if we designate it C-G, your site plan does include the medical campus, so that's what we are approving if we were to approve this tonight. Is that -- am I on the right track with that? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, if I may respond. This is Sonya. Staff. Yes, if you are approving this tonight with the zoning, this is the concept plan that is presented for your approval. It would require a conditional use permit, which only goes before the Planning and Zoning Commission, not City Council. So, that's why if you do approve the access, that that needs to go tonight and be included in the development agreement. Rustic Oak, just to respond to Council Woman Perreault's comment earlier, Rustic Oak needs to be a collector street consistent with the master street map. So, it can't be an arterial street. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Then -- so, Sonya, if we hammer out the issue with the street, whether we approve that or not, we probably need to give guidance on some of these other things related to the emergency center usage, because that's what the hospital will have, that's what their plan is, and would be part of the conditional use permitting process, which, as you know, doesn't -- doesn't come back before Council. So, we need to hammer out Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page —of 63 some of those details; is that correct? Allen: Well, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, my stance on it would have been -- and Legal may have another opinion, but my stance on it would be everything, other than the access, would need to be handled through the conditional use permit associated with it. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Kristy Inselman was indicating she wished to speak from ACHD. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. Maybe just a quick comment. I'm -- I would think we could put a DA provision that they will not seek to become designated as a trauma center. I don't know what level that -- if there is -- I mean I don't know enough about that to know if there should be a level or just a blanket statement, but they can certainly come back before us at any time, if the community's needs are different, and what's going on on this road is different, I think they could come back to us and modify that in the future. But that's kind of what I'm leaning toward is we are making an exception for something that we normally would not. I think that there should be a compromise here and that we wouldn't want to see a trauma center, but I would love to hear from ACHD. I'm sure others do. Simison: Kristy, you are recognized. Inselman: Mr. Mayor, thank you. There was just a question raised as to why this was a collector and not an arterial roadway and I just wanted to briefly discuss that, because it's based on the function and volume of a road. This one happens to be -- your arterials happen to be McDermott and Chinden and this functions as a mid mile collector between those arterial roadways and its function is to collect the interior traffic and funnel it to those arterial networks that are a higher volume roadway and typically what you will see with mid mile collectors is those typically tend to be -- end up being signalized for additional access, so the function eventually would be for this to go all the way down to McMillan Road. But that's -- that's the function. I just wanted to throw that in there. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I suppose this is probably a question for the applicant. So, I'm sure you are all familiar with St. Luke's in Meridian and they have a similar situation where they have this collector road that -- that comes in on the north side of the main hospital and it seems to frequently be backed up, because they all -- that's also an access that people use to get to medical offices, but there is also a lot of retail and various types of businesses that are there as they have kind of become this bypass street. Is there any information or data or anything that you might be able to use that will help us with hospitals that have similar situations where they are accessing off of a two lane road and whether their ambulances have had any challenges getting -- you know, I know that's not necessarily our purview in terms of -- like it's not our job to determine whether the Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 15 vivo ambulances are going to get to your hospital on time and those kinds of things, but, really, I think we need to take very seriously what this will look like in ten years or 20 years and it -- with the intention of this being a collector to go through McMillan, the anticipation is there is going to be a lot of people using this road that are not -- that are not accessing hospital services and -- and so the same thing with -- with St. Luke's, I think when that -- when that street that they have that accesses the -- the emergency room was first built it didn't go all the way through and wrap around to all that retail that it -- it now has access to and it's causing problems with traffic there. Are you -- just want to make sure my question is clear. Is there any way to get information that might help us from a more empirical standpoint to help this decision, other than just -- not that we are -- we understand what you are saying, we just -- it's our job to make sure that we are having some foresight with this. Simison: If I wouldn't mind,just-- I just want to put this in -- in all of Council's minds, since we are all trying to figure this out. Think about St. Luke's downtown Boise, St. Al's off of Curtis, St. Luke's off of Eagle, all completely different, all -- at least all three of those can take trauma level things coming in. Some got a collector, some have a two road arterial, some are in a downtown space that don't have anything but a very simple road structure and yet they all function. So, I understand Council is trying to get to certain areas of comfort with something, I'm not exactly sure what. Just think about the hospitals which are in our valley and what the road network is around them and what else is around them as you consider looking at this. I don't think you can design the perfect hospital situation. Otherwise, we should take St. Luke's Meridian out from where it is, because it creates all sorts of problems for everybody in the valley with its location near the -- near Eagle Road. So, food for thought. Now, if anyone wants to take a shot at answering. Connor: Mr. Mayor, I'm sure Betsy can also provide some color, but I completely agree with you, you know, St. Luke's in Meridian -- our office is right by there and I see kind of the -- the way that interchange works. I don't think it's completely dysfunctional, it's just part of the -- kind of the road network and kind of the environment in that area. I haven't personally experienced any congestion there that seemed like it was emergency and that's on the busiest road in my -- in my opinion in this area, Eagle Road. Same thing with St. Luke's downtown. I -- I am around there quite a bit and it is a bunch of local roads all kind of wrapped around a building and it's -- and it does function as you said. Again, this hospital, as Betsy said, she only expects, you know, three to five ambulances a day. So, from that standpoint it's a very very light load as far as from an ambulance -- ambulance emergency standpoint. Their operating hours are more during the day. Betsy, I don't know if you can add some more color. Hunsicker: Yeah. I mean I don't have -- can you all hear me okay? Simison: Yes. Hunsicker: Okay. Great. Yeah, I don't have anything empirical and I could maybe see if I could find something, but I -- like someone said, you know, there is -- every hospital is different, you know, there is no kind of mold that is consistently applied and -- but I know, Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 16 vivo you know, again, West Valley is on two two lane roads and the hospital at Denver was on, you know, a two lane road and set off a main road and, you know, that was kind of how all that -- so, I think that there is just -- there is a lot of -- I don't have anything empirical. I guess what I would say is I don't think that I have any concerns about committing to not pursue a trauma designation in the -- you know, in the -- for this project and, you know, if there is a way to come back down the road when the -- at that point revisit it, but -- so, I don't -- I don't have any concerns about that -- Simison: Betsy, we are missing you again. I'm sorry. Hunsicker: Oh, I'm sorry. Can you -- how about now? Simison: Yes. Hunsicker: Okay. I just said that I would have no issue with committing to not pursuing trauma level designation, if that helps alleviate some concerns. Simison: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, kind of to piggyback the answer to Council Woman Strader's question, we can definitely put it into the development agreement. What it asks is if -- Council Member Hoaglun, I heard you say that the centers, such as St. Luke's or St. AI's, are currently level two. St. Al's, anyways, is level two. So, would this hospital be considered a level three or some other designation? Because we could designate in the development agreement that this is going to be designated as a level whatever and that any future upgrade of a level would require a modification to the development agreement and that way it's clear to upscale from what you are currently going to do, it would just require another, again, public hearing with the City Council. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: If I might respond to that, Bill,just to--for information. The trauma designations are only issued by the time sensitive emergency system of the state of Idaho. So, they are the only ones who can give that designation. So, we could put a limit on that, but it does change. Where I was involved and how I got my knowledge base of this was the Nampa St. Alphonsus decided, hey, we are going to go to a level -- we want to be a level three trauma center. So, then, they went to work and they have to, then, present all their information and the case to -- to this committee and, then, they can be designated to that. So, if Ms. Hunsicker says, well, we are not going to seek any, that -- you know, then -- then they don't have to do that. If they are just a regular emergency care for the hospital Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 11 vivo and for whatever -- those other emergencies come in and they don't have any trauma designation, then, they can -- they can remain that way for -- for as long as they -- they want to. It does -- where I want to make sure we don't get things into a knot here is the fact that this is going to be a burgeoning area. I mean this is -- we -- you put a hospital in there, there is no medical services, there is going to be the need as that area grows and, then, traffic makes it harder to get to, whether it's St.Al's over here on Garrity or St. Luke's on Eagle, you know, I don't want to make it impossible for them to not become a trauma center of whatever designation they desire or think they could meet at the time. So, that's -- that's my only concern and if I might -- now that I have the floor, Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? Simison: Absolutely. Hoaglun: Okay. And -- and Bill or Sonya, we talk about the DA and, of course, we have the annexation request with the different zoning and those types of things. Is the DA part of the CUP process or are we doing a DA as well with this annexation process; correct? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Hoaglun, the DA is absolutely part of the annexation process. So, my only thought process is -- and I would still -- still suggest it, because it sounds to me that to move to a level requires some -- some work on the part of the hospital. So, if it's in the development agreement that this is being approved as a level -- whatever and they would like to go higher than that, before they go to the work of doing it they would come to the City Council and say would we be able to go apply for this, depending on the circumstances, their evidence of why that's necessary, why it's appropriate, what the conditions are, the Council just says that's fine. It's not approving them for that, it's just saying you can go ask and now you have the ability to go get it. I'm assuming there is a long enough process that that's not going to be a great impediment to it. Simison: And -- and not to be the Debbie Downer, but I view that as like -- can you, please, remember to take down your billboard in ten years. I mean they don't -- unless they have to come back and do building modifications that would require approval from our Community Development Department, who will remember that there is a DA that they have to go ask for in order to do that. Maybe Betsy will, but I think it's just an eyes wide open. I mean I don't disagree if that's what Council wants to do, if that's where your comfort level is, but this is someone who wants to put a medical facility in our community that is in an area where there is none. I would hate to hamstring them too much. But if a DA is what Council wants to do, there is a process to change that. Nary: And, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the only reason we use the DA is because it's recorded. So, it's always available for them. They would likely have to go to Planning. I mean, again, I can't -- I hopefully won't be here ten years in the future where they want to do this, but they are going to likely go to Planning, have a process, they can always pull the DA, are they allowed? That's going to come up. Simison: If they have to do modifications to their building or something like that, yes. Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 18—63 Nary: Right. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant before we move onto the public? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testing on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, none in advance, but there are several people online who may wish to testify. Simison: Okay. Well, if there is anybody in the audience -- anybody in the audience that would like to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have Val Stack. Simison: You want to bring Val in and anybody else that would like to provide testimony, you can use the raise your hand feature on Zoom or if you're in the audience and would like to come forward and provide testimony, you can just come up to the podium and do so. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Val is able to speak. Simison: Val, you are recognized for three minutes. If you would state your name and address for the record. Mr. Clerk, do they need to be brought in as a panelist? I show them -- Johnson: We -- we stopped doing that, because of the time constraints, but she does have -- she is unmuted and has the ability to talk. I don't see any movement on the microphone, so she is raising her hand. I can try to bring her in, but that shouldn't change anything. Simison: Val, if you are speaking we can't hear you. Mr. Clerk, perhaps we can provide a phone number for Val to call in on. Johnson: I will get that on the screen. It did not allow her to speak either way. One moment. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item while we try to get a phone number for Val to call in on? Seeing nobody in the audience wishing to come forward. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Val is unmuted again. I see her microphone is on, but we are hearing no sound. Val, if you can hear me there is a phone number on the screen with a webinar ID. I recommend calling that number and trying to speak that way. Stack: Okay. Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page ——— Simison: Oh, there we are, Val. Stack: Oh, you got it? Thank you. Simison: Yep. Stack: Okay. So, this is Val Stack. I'm at 6072 North Serenity Lane and we are abutting the Hubble Homes. I just wanted to correct something that came up -- a question that was asked right at the end of Patrick's presentation and the question was whether or not there were all owner occupied homes, other than the townhouse, in the subdivision and I think maybe the question was misunderstood potentially by Patrick, because they had told us that 20 percent of the single family homes were designated as rentals. So, they are not all owner occupied homes. So, I wanted to be sure that, you know, you knew what they were saying there. Okay on that part? Simison: Okay. Thank you. Stack: All right. And, then, we hear wrecks all the time on Highway 16 and I think it's kind of silly to assume that somebody is going to go all the way downtown Meridian out to the highway, the freeway or clear downtown Boise in order to get care if there is some sort of facility here, because they will go to a doc-in-the-box if they need to if somebody is on that road. So, I think that we should make that assumption that there is going to be a lot of volume of people coming in off of that road. And the final thing that I would just comment on is that although, you know, we all know that there are some real issues with access with every hospital in the valley, so let's not repeat it. We don't have to do it exactly the same way and -- and -- or let things go through that are bad just because the other hospitals are screwed up as well. I mean it's kind of a -- it seems like a faulty argument to me. I would like to see what we can do to keep all the neighbors safe and traffic reasonable. And -- and know -- you know, this is coming with the growth, you know, for them to say that, well, there really won't be that, only three ambulances a day. When you've got three times the volume of that over at West Valley Medical Center with the explosive growth in this area, I think that's --that's just kind of a -- it seems like a ridiculous Iowball. So, anyway, we are hoping that you guys work through this further and be able to look at the legal side of all of this and find some other access points for them to be able to do the limited version and check with ITD and ACHD. So, that's all I have. Thank you for your time. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for Val? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Did -- Val, did you mention that 20 percent of the homes are going to be rentals? Stack: Yes. That's what -- that's what Patrick had told us before. Patrick could answer Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 20—— that easily. Bernt: Okay. Simison: I think we will let him address that. Stack: I believe it -- I believe it could be -- it's probably in one of the earlier documents, because we heard it in a couple of the meetings that they were allowing up to 20 percent of those single family homes to be rented, which isn't great. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, anybody else raise their hand to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we -- sorry. Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. And seeing nobody else in the audience that would like to provide testimony, I will ask the applicant to come back up for final comments. Connor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, just to clarify, the 20 percent per the CC&Rs -- and it's pretty typical valleywide on subdivisions, CC&Rs cap the amount of rental units at 20 percent. So, our business model is a for sale product, but if someone owns a home, gets a good job somewhere else, or, you know, maybe want to rent out their home, they are allowed to do. The CC&Rs regulate the number of units in our overall community at that 20 percent number. Now, as I said, that's pretty typical valleywide in masterplans. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council President Bernt. Bernt: So, that-- that makes sense. I get that. I just want to clarify, so what you're saying is there will not be, you know, investors coming in and buying swathes of homes and turning around and renting them out to people? Connor: That is not the intent. We sell all of our homes -- like I say, we have a for sale business model. We can't -- if -- if, you know, a family comes in and buys a house and, then, chooses to rent it out, that's -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor. I'm not talking about families and whether or not they are -- they have the -- the autonomy to choose how they -- whether they choose to live in the home or if they choose to rent it out. That's not what I'm talking about. What I want to know, like, frankly, like crystal clear, is if you will have investors come in and buy multiple homes at a time and keep these homes for themselves and rent them out to other people. Connor: Let me check with that. Bernt: Thank you. Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 21 —— Connor: It's -- that's not something we do. It's not something that we have ever done. We have never seen it. It's -- we are not going to do it. Other than that I can't really tell you -- it's never happened to us before. We don't intend to do it. We build homes for families. It's how we have always done it. It's how we intend to do it. We don't -- we don't necessarily want that to happen. So, that's --we can't do that. So, we won't do that. I just want to clarify another comment that was made by Ms. Stack. So, when Betsy was describing the operations of this hospital and compared to West Valley, this hospital is compared to be half or less than half the size of West Valley Medical in Caldwell and so that's how she arrived at that ambulance number. That's also how we arrived at the 300 employees for this hospital. At West Valley they have 600. So, we -- that's how we -- they have been modeling and doing the analysis of this new hospital based on West Valley about half or about less than half from an operation standpoint. So, that's how they kind of arrived at that number. Again, Rustic Oak Way, there is going to be a light at that intersection at Chinden, so it really kind of will function like an arterial road. So, it was designed that way as a suitable width. It's aligning to Rustic Oak north of Chinden as well, so we have worked with ITD and with ACHD to ensure that that's appropriate. Also we have worked with the developer Brighton to the north of us to ensure that the roads are aligned correctly and that it's being built so it functions correctly. Simison: Thank you. Council, anymore questions for the applicant? Councilman Borton. Borton: -- come back. Skedaddle pretty quick. Simison: Yes. Borton: So, in light of all the -- all of the discussion, if this were to be a level two trauma hospital, how would the layout be designed differently? Connor: I cannot answer that question. Betsy, are you still on the line? If it was a level two trauma hospital how would the layout be different? Hunsicker: How would the layout be different? Well, a level two trauma center -- you know, really the -- the level -- the trauma center level really boils down more to the services versus the -- the layout and the design. But we are certainly not -- you know, we are certainly not scoping this out to be kind of a -- you know, have a lot of ORs and, you know, a really just high level -- the high level of care and acuity that goes with a level two trauma center, so -- so, I don't know that the layout would be different, but I -- you know, I can't remember how many ORs we -- we scoped in this. I think it was six. I think a level two trauma center would probably need more than six ORs. And, you know, other -- you know, other services that, you know, at this point in time haven't really been scoped out in kind of the project that we are contemplating here, but typically it does kind of come more down to the level of services versus the layout and the kind of building size. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 22 of 63 Borton: The line of questioning comes -- it comes from me wondering why there would be an agreement to limit the type of services. For example, trauma level. Councilman Hoaglun brought up good -- good points with regards to the demand of this area and what the use likely might be and -- and there is concern about intensity of use in light of that demand and if the design -- it sounds like is designed to incorporate a lower intense use, but if a more intense use doesn't alter the design in any way, why would you agree to limit yourself? I thought it was just the opposite, that -- that if there was a more intense use that would be requested down the road, it would require basically a different site layout, perhaps different access. The access issue might be more concerning. The density of paramedic visits, disturbances, et cetera, things like that, would be much more intense. You are not contemplating it now, but that's why I was surprised. Hunsicker: So, probably the main thing you would need for a level two trauma center is the helicopter pad and we are not planning to -- to do that in this location. Truthfully, the reason why, in my opinion, it's not -- the -- we are just getting this off the ground and getting this going. Trauma is not really part of the conversation around this location and as it was described, it's a very complex process to become trauma designated. It takes a lot of specialties, it takes a lot of -- it just takes a lot of stuff. That is -- is not -- it's a -- it's a very heavy lift, so -- and the truth is by having no trauma designation, you know, that -- that's -- that's the most -- that's the simplest way to do business, at least at the outset, just because you are not having to kind of commit to all these different specialties and all these different services that--that you may not have out of the gate and for several years, so it's a -- it's a very heavy lift to become a trauma center. To become a trauma level two center is an extraordinarily heavy lift. So, I think that the reason why it's -- it's not hard for me to say, you know, we are okay with, you know, kind of having some limitation on our -- our trauma plan is because we don't really have any trauma plan. So -- so, I think that's -- that's why -- I mean I -- and like I said before and like you all have said, I don't want to limit ourselves for, you know, 20, you know, when this community --this area does -- you know, if it does change -- the needs change. But in -- in the foreseeable future that's just -- it's just not something we are contemplating and it is a significant -- it is -- it is not just -- you can just become a trauma center, it's very hard and so that's why from an operational standpoint, it's -- it's not a major ask to not do it and maybe we could put a limitation on it, maybe it could be, you know, for ten years and we would have to come back -- you know, I don't know what the -- if there is some way -- like it sunsets in ten years or 20 years or whatever that is, but -- because you're right, like it may not require some kind of permitting to go back, because you may not have to change your facility level -- certainly not to go to level three. To go to a level two, you know, maybe you would have to add a helicopter pad or something like that. So, hopefully, that answers the question. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: There will be robots performing the surgery by that point in time, more than likely. Hunsicker: Right. They can do it from home. Yeah. They can just stay at home and the Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 23 of 63 robot will come over and fix it. Drone surgery. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I really appreciate the time that -- that the applicant is investing in answering our many questions. This is very helpful information to have now and in the future. What keeps coming across my mind, though, is -- is, honestly, really how many of your -- how many ambulance, you know, visits to any hospital are really that truly --the level that need trauma. I'm going to guess that it's not as high as we think maybe on a daily basis and so for me it's not just about the intensity of the -- the type of care that you're getting, but it's about -- in my mind this is just about the traffic that's coming down this collector road and whether that -- you know, -- if -- if 15 percent of your -- of any ambulance services that are provided are for trauma and 85 percent aren't, I mean like, you know, that it's -- it's not critical care, it's not ICU, then, we are still talking about a traffic -- potential traffic issue on a collector road that's intended to service residential, all the way down a mile south. So, that really, for me, is kind of where I'm trying to, you know, I'm trying to rectify that. Hunsicker: Would you like me to respond to that? Perreault: Yes, please. Hunsicker: Okay. You know, you're right and I would say probably the biggest -- one of the biggest ambulance transports is sort of elderly people that are -- you know, they -- that's probably our number one is an elderly person that is at home and calls the ambulance and, typically, those are not coming in, you know, lights and sirens and we would -- we would, you know, have that agreement anyway. But those are typically not -- not necessarily emergent transports, they are coming in an ambulance, but they are not necessarily emergent. So -- you know. So, you're right, there is a fair number of those. You know. And I will just point out -- so, we had been working with --with BVA and Brighton on that -- that property on the north side and I believe -- you know, I don't really understand all the different roads and the -- and the collectors and arterials, that's not my -- we can talk about trauma, but arterials and collectors are a little harder for me. But I believe that was the same collector that had access into there. So, I don't know if that -- something's changed since that was approved or what the difference is, but I -- you know, yeah, you're right, there is -- there is -- there is ambulances that are not for trauma, but they are for, you know, kind of nonemergent transport and, yeah, that's -- that's definitely -- but that -- that's in the number I gave you, too, for here at West Valley and kind of a comparison to what we are projecting for the volume out there. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond to her statement about the hospital to the north. Simison: Yes. Go ahead, Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I remember that very clearly and we had a very similar conversation about this and what ended up happening is that although it couldn't be Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page—of 63 designated as an arterial, it -- they are designing it with the width similar to it. So, they actually -- it's my understanding, unless something's changed, that it's going to kind of have like a boulevard, kind of a parkway type of -- really a more significant entrance and the street width is going to be wider than at least I'm understanding this application to be. The other element of that is that street stops there, it doesn't go on into another arterial road to the south, so that is -- that -- their entrance is essentially just for their project. There isn't a through street that goes -- and it connects another part of the city. Simison: Betsy, just a quick question. Will you have an ambulance that runs out of this facility for transport? Hunsicker: No. No, we don't have any ambulance company that like lives at the hospital. So, no. But we would -- Simison: So, this facility will -- will be served by the Ada County Paramedics, which has one ambulance that covers a large portion. So, just, again, for -- you know, there is only one ambulance -- Hunsicker: Well, we -- Simison: -- in this area. I -- I'm just trying to put it in perspective. You're not going to have ambulances streaming in nonstop, because there is only one ambulance that takes an hour to go between places more than likely anyways. Hunsicker: Yeah. I mean there are some private ambulance companies that will work -- that will work with -- for transport but that -- again, they are not really emergency. They are -- I mean they are -- they are nonemergent transfer -- transport kinds of vehicles. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you. Council Woman Strader. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I feel comfortable maybe starting a discussion and I know if we want to go ahead and close the public hearing, we have had this happen to us so many times where we have to open it up. So, I will just say I think, to me, overall, I was happy with some of the changes made to the project. Was very happy that the -- the playground amenity was added to the multi-family portion of the property. I think, for me, it was obvious -- probably obvious for my comments, I -- I think there is -- there is a reason that it not being a trauma center is advertised throughout the presentation to us, because it's a less intense use and I think we should try to hold them to that in the DA, for them to agree not to pursue being designated as a trauma center. I think there is a big difference if there is a future helicopter flying over this neighborhood to the land there down the road, I think that that would -- should require coming to us for modification. This is much more intense. So that -- that's where I'm at on this one. I'm in support if we have that -- that restriction in the DA. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page—of 63 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to weigh in a bit. You know, we focus a lot on -- on the medical center and, you know, the promise you --there have been good changes to the development and how it circulates and the impacts and the layout and some of the amenities that -- that have been added since we first began with this process. Just to talk further about the common center and those types of things, one thing you have to remember that was mentioned, you know, and you have a highway -- Highway 16 there and there is a major accident, those -- where they are sent to are triaged by -- by trained medical professionals and those -- whether they are the paramedics, the ambulance, however -- however their triaged, they make that determination of where they are going to go to. So, they would bypass this facility that has basic emergency level services -- you know, if it's a head injury, they will be shipped to St. Al's in Boise. If it's a child with major injuries, they are going to head to St. Luke's. So, they make those determinations. They are not going to make a stop there and then -- then move on. So, those things are done right there. The trauma designations are a significant decision for any facility, whether nonprofit, for profit, it doesn't matter, to get to those designations, because of the specialties that you are -- that you might need, which requires medical professionals and also equipment and so it -- it is a major decision and those decisions are really driven by the marketplace and if -- and to me, if that area grows significantly and that need presents itself, I -- if that's the case I doubt Serenity Lane will exist in the way it is now, because of the growth that happens and there will be expansion and those types of things. I tried to give you some idea of a level two trauma center and the only best example I can give is if the President is in the area and he needs emergency services, he is going to level two. I mean it has everything that is needed, except for the teaching component, so -- and that is a significant amount of money. You wonder why healthcare is so expensive, when you use a machine once a year and it costs millions of dollars, they got to pay for it somehow. So, it's -- it's just a -- one of those things that -- it -- to me it's a market decision and it will be driven as -- as that area develops and -- and it's unfortunate, I completely understand how the residents of Serenity Lane feels having gone through a change like that myself from our rural area to -- to the middle of a subdivision and those -- those are difficult, but with the extension of Highway 16 to the freeway and the things that are happening, this is a process and, of course, we do have to make the decision, so just how it's lined out, the ins and outs of it, how the homes are situated, the development, all those typical things that we do. So, I don't have any heartburn of not putting any time frame on having -- you know, when they can go to a trauma center level or not. That will just work itself out over time through the market. So, I'm good with moving forward without that -- that type of restriction, but it's -- you know, if that's what the Council wants, that's fine. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: First--thank you, Mr. Mayor. First, it's great having Council Member Hoaglun's, you know, industry expertise here tonight. Thank you. I have had a lot of time to kind of noodle this one and I went back and forth kind of where Council Member Strader has Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— been and I think that the big concern always for me is about that piece of boundary. If I lived over there I wouldn't love the idea of the helicopter flying over my house, you know, every night, if there is an emergency, something like that. That part would give me some pause and some concern. I think Council Member Hoaglun spot's on again that if the hospital is going to change those types of designations for more intense use, that's going to be a much longer process. In addition -- and I appreciate our good city attorney confirming for me -- if they were ever going to want to put in a helipad they would have to come back for a CU anyway. So, I -- I feel I have greater comfort that if those more intense uses expand because of the marketplace, that future city council's, future residents, will have the opportunity to weigh in on their thoughts about that before those changes would be made. So, again, if that's the direction Council wants to go, no issues for me, but I'm also supportive moving forward. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Strader, to add to what Council Member Cavener said, so I was here when we approved the helicopter pad for St. Luke's. They had to build the building to have a helicopter pad to be able to do it in the future. Otherwise, it's a major expense to try to retrofit a building. They had to have the CU because they also have to have an exterior pad, because the FAA requires that they have to alternative sites to land. That isn't likely to change in the future and the FAA also required that they fly over major roadways, so that they don't fly over homes. So, would anticipate if you had this in the future you're still going to -- the FAA is still going to require that they fly over Chinden, over Highway 16, and not say over homes. But you are going to have to have a CU, because to have an exterior site on the property is going to require a major change to the layout of the property. So, I think you would be covered, but certainly if that's what the Council's desire is, we could build that into the DA. Simison: It's to the point that was made, I don't see where you're putting a heli-pad on this property and you're going have to buy out neighbors to even consider that in the future. But anyways. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: So, I think what we are trying to capture is -- and we are using trauma centers as one metric. We are just trying to capture expansions of use -- more intense uses, so said another way, I think the DA provision that presents uses of the property beyond which the applicant may manifest itself in a trauma designation request, but probably not the trauma designation that we are concerned about, it's the heli-pad example or the ambulance services or more intense demand that necessitates totally different access or layout. It doesn't sound like that is the case, but -- I like that provision. Even if the CUP would capture it, I like the DAto include it all, even if it duplicates somewhat, as the county Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 27 of 63 would have the ability -- or a future Council would have the ability to address it and on a nonissue, no concern with it. The applicant, to the applicant's credit, proposed that cooperative agreement to do so and to limit itself and as circumstances change and there is a desire for more intense use and they can apply to modify the DA, make the case the public will hear and it's not a trauma designation that we are prohibiting, it would be the uses that go with that -- that type of patient -- somehow gets captured into the DA. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I'd like to -- to actually make a request that the applicant take us in a little bit different direction. We have had many applications in the last four years -- four or five years along Chinden that have really caused challenges in our community, among neighbors, with traffic. Chinden has just -- for whatever reason it seems like every large application we get we just grapple with it and I -- so, what we have learned from some of our past large projects off of Chinden in the last few years is that when you have this multi-use development and you have got residential, you have got commercial, that the developer -- the developer -- some developers have done an amazing job of -- of identifying for the public and for the future homebuyers -- homeowners what -- what is going to happen on that property and some developers haven't and so I just would like to make a suggestion, being a real estate broker and understanding this industry and also just from our experience with some large projects along Chinden, that your project be well signed, be well -- what am I trying to say -- that -- that the uses be identified, so that as people are coming along and making the decisions about where they want to live, where they want to recreate, you know, obviously, the hospital is part of phase one, so that's going to be something that -- that most individuals will know, but I just make a request if -- if -- if we end up approving -- if Council ends up approving this this evening, as you move forward, please, provide a wonderful service to our community and make sure that what is going to transpire there is really -- that there is signage, that it's well known, and that it's easily accessible to the public to find out what's going on and the time frames and whatnot, because it just -- I feel like we are kind of repeating history here a little bit with these large projects -- projects on Chinden and we seem to come back to a lot of these same conversations and I would love to see us make those recommendations and improve every time that we go through this process on behalf of our public. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we have -- at least for me there has been enough discussion in regard to level of use, if -- whether or not this is a trauma designation or whatever. So, by stating that, the one concern that I have, after reading over my notes from our previous discussions, and, you know, going over the -- our packet and reading and thinking, the one thing that comes to mind is our city services and what that looks like and my-- my major concern is specifically fire and so albeit a great project, a nice project, it's a dense project. There is going be a lot of people in this -- in this subdivision, in this project, and I think it's well known from previous -- previous discussions that we are Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 28 of 63 planning on two fire stations -- Fire Station 7 in the south and Fire Station 8 in the north and I think it's pretty evident that Fire Station 7 is going to be in the south for sure. I think that's a well known item of discussion. What isn't quite unknown is whether or not this fire station up north is going to be realized in this budget -- or in future budgets. It's a discussion that we need to have and I don't want to get in the minutiae of whether or not it's going to happen or not, but relating to this particular application it -- unless -- maybe the applicant can speak to this, but unless something comes up in discussion, I -- it's difficult for me to approve this large and as dense of a subdivision, not knowing for sure what -- what Fire Station 8 looks like and so those are my thoughts. Simison: Well, I will go ahead and give you my thoughts. I know what your thoughts are. Well, I think it's twofold, from some very practical elements. You know, I -- I know this is -- this is the first step. There is still other steps in the development process and if we just want to talk the hospital, there is just the hospital on that, I assume that that's a 24 month build, to complete that and maybe a little less. Even if we followed our normal process with where we have the second fire station in 2025, a lot of this isn't going to come online before then. It may be a little bit, but not much. That's if we made no changes to the CFP and just left things as -- as they are currently planned for this area. I mean you all can -- the development team can tell me whether or not two to three years from now is the quickest that this is likely to see any occupancy in this area. So, to that point -- I mean that's -- from where that -- you know, I will be making the request to Council to do both in this upcoming year and that will be the time for that conversation. As to the project, I love this project. I have always liked this project since I first saw it. I think it's got a great integration of uses and how it flows, the open space, the elements, the -- the density, the interaction with the adjacent neighborhoods, the connection that comes all the way through to create that connectivity. I think it's got a lot of pluses. I think that the commercial with the hospital is a great asset for this part of the city. I view this very similar to what Saltzer just put in up by Ten Mile, you know, same -- maybe a little bit more than that, but probably not that much different from all aspects. Again,just look at the roadway, how-- you know, not on Ten Mile, you actually got to go pretty far back in. You know, they can take ambulances there, too. Not residential right next to it, but the level of road, the type of road, what it is. All very similar from that standpoint and I don't want my comments to be mistaken from earlier. You know, we don't want to create a problem. My point was that every hospital in our area has different circumstances, which makes it unique in how it's accessed. The roads that are around it, the congestion from other things, not from their doing -- you know, some of it is, but, you know, I don't know that you go downtown and you go like, oh, St. Luke's, man, I can't believe they are letting those ambulances run through -- you know, you never hear about that. But Ten Mile -- or, I'm sorry, Eagle Road, we hear about it, because it creates traffic issues in that area, because it's so -- so much congestion. So, there are lessons learned that we can take from other places. But from my perspective I feel like we will be able to provide the services to this area based upon our projections that we have seen, our ability to build stations and have them in place, whether it's 2023 or 2025 and if that's what Council is concerned about is the date, I would encourage you to take that up with the -- with those -- with the applicant if you feel like there is a need that you want to put a limitation on when this could be involved, but I'm -- it's my intention to put -- and our fire chief's intention to bring forward a plan to develop Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— this -- to provide a service in this area by October of 2023. Whether you agree with that that remains to be seen. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I know in the staff report it talked about that the subdivision is proposed to develop the nine phases over a period of four to five years. I would like to hear from the applicant to kind of -- if we can get a little better time frame of that how this master plan will -- will play out, among other things. Connor: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, yeah, so we typically -- the way that most developers work is we try to pave once in the summertime and, then, once in late fall, just given the issues of wintertime, you can't pave during that time, so -- and we took a look between 40 and 60 lot phases and so with a nine or ten phased project we are looking at about a five year build out. We are -- as soon as we can we want to start our engineering plans, hoping to have those go through and we anticipate to start construction potentially as early as the end of this year or early next year in hopes to bring lots on in '20 -- summer of 2022. You know, potentially maybe our first homeowners move in beginning of 2023. So, that's kind of the standpoint. So, if we are able to deliver our first homes in 2023, you can move out maybe five and a half years from that when the final homes will be built in -- you know, assuming that this market continues as we have seen it. So, that's -- that's kind of what we are looking for is -- is our timing there. The question about the fire service ability for this particular project, I believe it was at our February hearing Chief Bongiorno had a -- a really great -- I don't know if he's on the line or not, but he had a map that showed that current service area for this particular area and the line went down the current extent of Levi Lane and, then, it went all the way down Trinity Lane. He showed that that line was constricted, because there is no other roads that exist in that current area. But as soon as Levi Lane or Rustic Oak goes in in the first phase, which we are committing to build that in the first phase, particularly for this reason, for fire access and safety, almost the whole project is within the current service area with the current facilities that you all have. Another part of that commitment to the fire chief and to the city is building that first -- Rustic Oak all the way through the project is it helps with fire connection to our neighbors to our south, Oaks North, and while they are a different builder from us, we think that is a net positive for the community overall. Those new homeowners in phase eight, I believe, of Oaks North, will have quicker access -- emergency access because of the road that we are going to be putting in in our first phase and so that's something that I advocated for, that we advocated for, with the city in hopes that it would help our project be more attractive from a -- from the question of fire and emergency response. Lastly, the hospital -- and we have had conversations with the fire chief about this and he said, essentially, hospitals could stand on their own merit for fire response. All the buildings are fully sprinklered. They are emergency ready if there is an issue with -- with fire or anything like that, it's on a major intersection, so from a fire standpoint hospitals really can kind of run their own show. Obviously, all of our homes, you know, would need the fire services and our multi-family complexes we require those to be sprinklered. Again, Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 30—— those are the closest units that we have to Chinden. So, they are sprinklered and they have the quickest access for our services, but I just want to end with that, that we spent a lot of time and we are spending a considerable amount of investment in putting in that full road to make that full connection from our neighbors to the south, all the way to the north, extending the services from our neighbors from the south, which have an agreement on that we are going to extend those services to our property line, all the way through our property to the hospital in that first phase. So, it's a big investment, big expense, we think it's the right thing to do to help support development along Chinden in the future and I hope that kind of alleviates any questions or anything you had. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm going to take a crack at it. Move that we close the public hearing. Cavener: Second. Simison: Motion and second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I will take a crack at a motion and maybe we will see where we shake out and if there is discussion -- I have tried to keep track of who I thought was on each side and maybe there is enough of a consensus, so I will give it a try. After considering staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2020-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18th, 2021, with the addition memorialized in the DA agreement that City Council believes the North Rustic Oak Way emergency care access is sufficient for a less intense hospital use and that the DA should include an agreement for the applicant and the hospital to agree not to pursue being designated as a trauma center. Allen: Mr. Mayor, excuse me. May I clarify the motion, please? Borton: Mr. Mayor, I will second it, so we can get there. Simison: We have a second, but, yes, Sonya, if you would like to ask a clarifying question. Allen: Does -- does the motion mean that you're approving an emergency room? Trauma center is not language that's used in our code. It's the emergency room is the Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page— —— key words. So, please, include whichever way you -- you're proposing in your motion. Thank you. Strader: Thank you. I will amend my motion to clarify that we will approve the emergency room use, but there would be a modification -- or an addition to the DA that the applicant would agree not to pursue becoming designated as a trauma center, because that is within their control whether or not they pursue that business plan. Simison: Does the second agree? Borton: Yes. Simison: Second agrees. Is there discussion on the motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Member Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just as an option for Council Woman Strader. Is there a time frame on that or is that just flat -- or a request -- if they ever do want to pursue that, the request would come back to -- to Council was that -- Strader: Yeah. Well, my understanding -- Mr. Mayor, I apologize, I should have gone through you. My understanding is that they -- they would need to come before Council to modify the development agreement in the future and I don't foresee a certain date we could choose, I just think that's a more intense use and at that time they will come before us -- or a future Council and the needs of the community would be considered at that time. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Members of the Council, maybe Sonya could answer this question. What would trigger planners to review a change in the use? Because we wouldn't use -- again, if we don't have trauma center in our code that's not going to trigger anything. I know more intense use would be what we normally would, but what specific language, Sonya, if any, do you think would trigger what the Council is requesting -- essentially a planning review that this is going to need to go back for modification to the development agreement? Allen: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, Mr. Nary, that -- that was kind of the basis of my concern is that we -- we don't have trauma center outlined in our specific use standards. You could certainly add it as a DA provision. You can add anything. We would always be looking at the development agreement, though, when we approve any land use applications out there. So, we could just simply carry over that restriction into the certificate of zoning compliance approval and the conditional use permit approval, that Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 32 of 63 they not pursue being designated as a trauma center. Nary: I think we will be okay if we put those words in there. I just wanted to be sure it would trigger someone to make that review. Simison: And, unfortunately, I believe there will be nothing that would trigger it, unless they put in the helicopter pad or expand their building, because they don't have to ask the city to become a trauma center as part of the process. Nary: But if they did any change within the building itself, like even just a tenant improvement, they would have to come back. Allen: Mr. Nary, if tenant improvement -- we are getting on a little slippery slope period. We may or may not be able to catch it in something in a situation like that, so -- typically, we don't look at tenant improvements. Simison: They are going to be really good neighbors. They are going to be good neighbors and know that they got to come back, if that's what we are going to rely upon. Allen: Yes. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. That's -- that's what makes it difficult. Like, you know, Ms. Hunsicker, if she's still there, you know, she may recall, you know, and make that happen, but, you know, it's often the case with CEOs of hospitals, they -- they may move on. And I was trying to fit -- this is just one designation, one issue, and as I was listening to Councilman Borton, he was talking about anything that was related to more intensive use. Types of areas that are going to be utilized -- I don't know. I mean it's just -- do we have that covered with just the trauma designation? Is that our biggest concern? And it might be. And that if they add more doctors and maybe they want to have a pediatric specialty and add -- add to a children's wing or something, that falls under the expansion in a whole different area, but -- and it would come back to Council, I would assume, because if they are going to -- especially if they seek a building permit, of course, but, you know, just -- does this -- are we -- are we covering the basis that -- that you expressed earlier that needed to be covered? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I tried to limit the provision in the DA agreement not to be more expansive, because I believe that would further limit their business plan and attempted to tie it to something somewhat objective that doesn't involve us opining on their specialties or Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— whether the use is more intense or not. This seems like it fit -- was a good compromise and fit with their business plan. So, that's why I tried to make the motion that way. Simison: Council, further discussion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: It's tricky to define the metrics, but it's something. Again, the applicant proposed it and offered it and I think Council Woman Strader's concern is spot on. Provides some sideboards. One of the things that -- that late in the game I found compelling was the remarks from the Mayor and from the applicant that Station 8 is not critical for this project to be successful. There is service levels available for it. That in my mind it's no secret that Station 7 in the south we should amend the budget and do it tomorrow, but Station 8 to me is a distant second part, which is no surprise. So, the fact that -- that your remarks, Mayor, and the applicant's remarks at Station 8 is not a critical component, that could come later, if it's 2025, 1 think that was -- that's an important part for me to get some comfort that this project is successful and safe. Simison: Not that --just so we are clear, I think that it's just from a timing standpoint, how long it will take to build it, but there could be a time where even -- I'm going to leave it to the Fire Department to determine whether or not they think there is adequate coverage over time. I think another station up here makes a lot of sense for a lot of different reasons all together, but the timing is the issue. We know it's not going to show up tomorrow. We have got a couple years before there will be a nexus. Just like in the south. We got homes right now, been there a couple years by the time we get serviced, so, you know, it doesn't always come at the one hundred percent time. Council, further deliberations on the motion? All right. Question has been called. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is passed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Simison: Council, we are going to take a ten minute break and reconvene at 8:00 o'clock. (Recess: 7:50 p.m. to 8:02 p.m.) 2. Public Hearing Continued from April 13, 2021 for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 34 of 63 A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts Simison: All right. We will go ahead and come out of recess and move on to our second public hearing tonight, which was continued from April 13th, 2021, for Shafer View Terrace, H-2020-0117. I will ask Sonya to make any opening comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This application was heard by City Council previously on March 9th and it was continued to the April 13th hearing in order to get more information from the Idaho Transportation Department in regard to future plans pertaining to widening of Meridian Road and when the turn lane would be constructed if funds were allocated for the improvement. A letter was submitted from ITD. You should have it in your packets tonight. It's also included in the public record. The project was continued again to tonight's meeting because of the legislation that was in process. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Is the applicant with us? Would they like to make any comments? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, I did include the presentation that you saw previously and I would be glad to run through that if you would like to see it again. Simison: Council, would you like to see anything else from -- any refresher from the presentation? It looks like that's a no, so I think we're good. Breckon: Okay. Very good. I will stand for questions. Simison: Council, any questions for the applicant? Bernt: Yes. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Breckon -- let me read my notes here. Did you hear from ITD about -- we are getting feedback with regard to the visibility issues at the entrance of your project. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, we did not get any specifics from ITD regarding the visibility or what they would like to see there. I did bring some additional visuals if -- if I could I can share my screen and show some of that information. Allen: Mr. Mayor, this is Sonya. Just while we are waiting here, I did fail to mention a reminder to City Council that they should act on the applicant's request for waiver to allow Block 3 to exceed 1,200 feet due to the reasons noted in the staff report. Thank you. Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 05 of 63 Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, you can see the photo here. This is at the intersection of Meridian Road and Shafer View Drive facing south towards Kuna. Existing condition shows existing landscape, large trees and the grade change as it slopes up from Meridian Road into the subdivision. Here is a photo looking the other direction and you can see some of the large trees here. Here is another photo looking out of Shafer View Drive towards Meridian Road and what this photo shows that's highlighted here with the red and the green -- the red area are -- is the existing landscape that we plan to remove, as is depicted on the proposed landscape improvements to help increase the visibility and the green shows essentially location of where the new landscaping will be installed. This is the other side of the street. Again, similar removal of existing landscape and walls and if you recall when we were talking about this previously, the plan is to remove this landscaping, as well as regrade this slope, so that it cuts it back and minimizes the protrusion and any visible barrier at that location and this is the plan view kind of cleaned up. It shows Shafer View Drive, Meridian Road, and you can see here where --this is the new proposed sidewalk, actually ten foot pathway and landscape berm as is shown on the landscape plan and so, essentially, this area here, as well as over here, would be cleared out and provide better visibility further back into the site as you drive out of Shafer View Drive and look to make a turning movement either way out to traffic. ITD did not give us any specifics here. This was purely our effort to improve the situation and -- and make it safe. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, John. One question before I forget is -- is did ITD talk to you about whether that is just -- is that going to be right-in, right-out only in that entrance or any other details? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, we did have -- after -- after our last meeting and Council's request for us to work with ITD, we had a conference call with ITD, Erika Bowen there, in an effort to find things -- or obtain some specific direction and answers to questions and it was a rather unfruitful conversation. The --they said they think it's -- ITD, if you see it in the letter, I think it's -- it's -- it explains it there more specifically, but ITD requested that this area be a condition of approval by the Council and that they would like the developer to participate by donating money for their future improvements. In short, they are -- they are working on the designs and they don't have a clear path as to what they want to do in the future is what I got out of it. Bernt: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So -- so, ITD, just to clarify, didn't give you a path forward or a recommendation in Page 78 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— regard to what that entrance looks like, specifically if it's in the meantime -- I guess until they get a right lane configured, you know, into this subdivision, in the meantime wanting to know if it's going to be right-in or right-out only. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, no, they did not. I might -- I might add that, you know, this access is existing. It's full access right now for the existing homes and the -- what we are proposing -- go back to the overall plan. It's really -- you know, the addition of these three lots here previously. We had four lots and we removed one lot in an effort to blend in better as -- as was requested by Council and so the existing entrance and drive and functionality of this would remain as is, other than what we are proposing for improvements. Simison: Council, any further questions? Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: One second, Joe. Bongiorno: Okay. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: John, I think we clarified this at the -- one of our other meetings, but those lots, Lots 2 and 3, 1 think they were at the top of the hill and there was some concern about vehicles coming out of driveways onto that road and visibility and I think we established that those would be -- forward facing cars would be pulling out, not backing out from -- in that area and should be able to see it decently for direct; is that right? Breckon: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun. Yes, these -- these are substantially sized lots and what we did discuss previously was that -- that expectation here is that these are going to be large estate homes, very similar to what is existing adjacent here and if you look at it you can see that a majority of these have a very large turnaround driveway and all of them have substantial drives with adequate turnaround on site and that is the plan for these three lots as well. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. John, I had a quick question. It just popped in my mind about this project. Is there fire hydrants on Shafer View? I haven't been out there in a while. Breckon: Mr. Bongiorno, I do not believe there are. These -- these are within the county and have on site septic and water wells and so I do not believe that they have fire hydrants. Page 79 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 0, of 63 Bongiorno: Okay. I was just -- I had one of those oh moments, because we do have a drafting site out there that I just reminded myself of and so I just need to make sure that we talk about that drafting site at some point. There is a large tank in the ground in your first lot there on the right. Breckon: Yes. Bongiorno: So, that's our water supply for that subdivision, so we need to make sure we talk. Breckon: Okay. Very good. Simison: Council, anything else for the applicant right now? I don't know -- Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. We do have some people who are watching. If you would like to provide testimony on this item, you can use the raise your hand feature at the bottom of Zoom and we can unmute you to provide comments. It looks like we have no one that would like to provide testimony, so would the applicant like to make any final comments? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, just -- maybe just like to reiterate -- I think this is a great in-fill type of subdivision that we are proposing here. It provides a very nice transition between the large estate homes and the smaller lots to the north. Even though we are asking for some exceptions here, I don't think that they are unreasonable in any way and this will be a nice addition to the community, particularly with all the amenities that we are proposing. Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Question for staff. I might have missed it, but the report that speaks to the northbound right turn lane and the cost share, needing to clarify and insert into the DA what the solution to that is. Is the contribution of their proportionate share within the DA the -- staffs recommended solution? Simison: If I could just -- we don't have any proportionate share agreements with ITD. So, I don't know what you would be -- what we would be requiring the developer to enter into an agreement with from that standpoint. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Page 80 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 38 of 63 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm not sure if it's economically viable, but there was a comment under outstanding issues that ITD recommends the city require the developer to actually go ahead and install the northbound right turn lane. Not sure what the cost of that would be and what that would look like, but that was their recommendation. Simison: Speaking of other areas in the city where we have had very similar issues come up, really, the only way you're going to get an improvement is through conditions at the annexation on the developer. We have an issue up in Black Cat where there is no right- hand turn lane and absent development putting that in, it is likely -- it's not a priority and even if we did a proportionate share agreement with ITD where would this right hand turn lane rise to the level of this is needed improvements on this road. Those are the types of things where -- it may or may not ever be used for this purpose, because you can't -- you're not going to collect the monies to do this project as -- so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'd love it if the applicant would react to the suggestion from ITD that we go ahead and require the developer to build the right turn lane. If you have explored that and if that's something you are prepared to do. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader -- Strader, I believe the ITD had recommended either -- either/or-- either/or -- the right turn lane or the cost share and we think we would much prefer to do the cost share, since ITD is working on a plan and we will be -- you know, they are working on the design and that will be coming forward soon and, then, they will be improving the whole -- most likely the whole street, the whole highway there. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I think the challenge that the Mayor just outlined for us is that we don't -- we don't have a mechanism in place to do that and so if we don't require this improvement now, there is a very real possibility that it wouldn't happen in the future. I guess I'm just thinking through that personally as I'm making the decision. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, City Councilman Strader, I guess -- yeah, if you could maybe -- I guess we are wondering what the cost differential would be there, if that would truly be a benefit and maybe we could follow up with ITD to verify that would be beneficial versus -- versus the cost share, but I'm not quite clear how to proceed here. Strader: Yeah. It's about as clear as mud. Unfortunately, with ITD we feel for you. Mr. Page 81 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— Mayor, question for staff. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Do we have any example of a right turn lane and have we required that before in previous developments and do we have any idea what -- maybe just in our -- not that this would cost a certain amount, but from our past experience like what -- what that cost could be or an example? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, actually, I was just reading the letter from ITD that was submitted that you guys should have, dated March 30th. The e-mail. And it says attached is a draft transportation mitigation agreement. Please reach out to me with any questions. I put in there that the monetary contribution of 59,358 dollars prior to the Meridian city clerk signing the first final plat. I think that that's what that was for. To answer your question, I'm not aware of any other situation. Doesn't mean there hasn't been, I'm just not aware of it. Simison: I mean are you asking if there has been areas on state facilities where right hand turn lanes have been required and paid for by development? Strader: Yeah. Simison: Absolutely. Strader: Okay. Simison: As to what level -- The Village. Strader: Yeah. Okay. Simison: So -- that was the STAR agreement, but they were still required to put in right hand turn lanes. How you pay for them is one thing. Whether they are required or not is the other. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Sonya, can -- so, if -- if you go down that path, walk us through what happens. If, for example, that agreement is done and there is a -- the developer pays a proportional share what happens in it culminating and it ultimately getting built? Allen: Yeah. I can't answer that, Councilman Borton, Mr. Mayor. I'm not sure. Simison: This is -- this is -- Councilman Borton, this is part of the challenges with this, because, really, there is no guarantee that this would ever be built under a proportionate Page 82 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 40 of 63 share agreement. Allen: Yeah. So -- Simison: They -- they would come to us and say where do you want to see these funds expended that you collect and they -- for example, if they wanted developers on Locust Grove to contribute to improvements on Meridian Road, ITD really is trying to create an impact fee when they don't have the ability to create impact fees and they are relying upon cities to -- I'm going to use the word again -- extract contributions from developers to pay for their facilities that they don't have a mechanism to really adequately improve. So, it's -- quite frankly, I don't consider these reimbursement agreements to be, frankly, legal in terms of -- if you really think about it, the fact that a developer can pay for something that they may not get what they are actually paying for. They are contributing to systemwide improvements and places, but the only way you can ever guarantee you are going to get right hand turn lane here is if the developer puts it. Even if ITD does the road, they may or may not choose to put it in. If they don't want -- Allen: Yes. Or -- excuse me, Mr. Mayor. If I could just add to that. That's absolutely correct. In their letter that they submitted to the city -- again, you have -- in your packets in front of you you should have -- dated April 7th, ITD is saying they are not sure when the turn lane will be constructed if funds are allocated for the improvement. Their goal is to collect proportionate share contributions from all developments along State Highway 69 corridor. Collected funds will be prioritized to be applied to projects on State Highway 69 in alignment with a corridor plan. ITD must expend the funds within ten years and they currently don't have a program project to widen this area. Bill Parsons messaged me a bit ago and said that Victory Commons was another example on Victory and Meridian Road. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, we have examples of where we haven't done it and currently it's a big problem and so, in my opinion, I get that -- you know. And I feel for those who come before us. I know that they don't have the intent of not providing sufficient level of public safety for those with whom, you know, would be going in and out of their subdivisions, whether visitors or homeowners. I know that that's not the intent at all, but I think that we have one shot to get this right and Meridian Road is a really busy road. People are flying down -- I believe that -- I believe it's 50 or 55 miles per hour and it's extremely important that we have a right turn lane and we don't wait up to ten years to have this done. I'm only in support of this unless it's -- the developer is willing to build it. If they are not I'm not supportive of it, because of public safety concerns. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could I would like to screen share here one more time. There is -- I guess I would like to -- to cut things. So, this is a plan that we were able to obtain off the ITD website. Now, that's not an official plan, but it does depict -- you can see this is Meridian Road. This is Shafer View Drive. So, the three lots will be going in here and also this -- this is a little bit dated aerial photo. We have the Prevail Subdivision that's being built in this area right now and I guess what I will say is, you know, it's not that we are completely against building this right hand turn lane, I guess Page 83 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 41 —— what we are a little bit -- a reason we are hesitant here is that, you know, we are asked by ITD to spend this -- or contribute to their fund and, you know -- you know, the bigger question, too, is if we agree to the right hand turn lane what are the parameters of that? Where does it go exactly? How far does it need to go? It just needs to be better defined. As we see it this right hand turn lane actually is a bigger picture that should be shared in by the adjacent developers, particularly Prevail, as well as Brighton, since this road is on the half mile and if ITD already has some plans here that they are working on to completely revamp and -- and rework Meridian Road, it's just -- it seems like a waste for us to go through this effort to put in a right hand turn lane that's just going to get torn out in a few years and if--you know, there would be something we would have to work directly with ITD with to determine what that right hand turn lane is, is it--you know, what distance does it go? Does it go on past? I mean that just seems like a substantial burden for just one developer to -- to bear when there is quite a bit more going on in this area and so, like I said, not that we are against building a right hand turn lane, but more we don't want to be building a -- you know, a mile of right hand turn lane that's -- when some other folks should be sharing in that I guess. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: John, I don't -- I don't disagree with -- with your -- with what you're saying and believe that your thoughts and your -- your concerns are valid. I'm not trying to invalidate anything that -- what you just said. Do you want to -- do want us to continue this and so you can get some answers from your neighboring partners and ITD? Breckon: Well -- Bernt: Because I think that your questions you are answering are very -- are important and valid and questions that cannot be answered this evening, because we are not ITD and -- and we are not Brighton and we are not -- you know, we don't own land next to what you're talking about, so do you need to -- do you need time to go take care of these issues before we make a decision? Simison: Councilman Bernt, if I could just follow up. Sometimes the first one in does bear the disproportionate share of costs and just like the last one in can sometimes not have to bear any of the costs, but in -- as Councilman Bernt said, working with your neighbors to create a plan together where those costs can be shared, if that's the appropriate solution, then, it may take time, as compared to moving this project forward now or even -- I don't have any idea what Brian's plans are for this area or timing. Is this -- Bernt: And, Mr. Mayor, it's not our purview. Simison: Correct. Page 84 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— Bernt: That's not -- it's not something that we get involved with. We just want to get it right. However this works out is -- go make it happen, you know. That's -- I guess that's all I can say is it needs to happen. What it looks like is up to you and your neighbor developers and ITD and those questions need to be set in stone before I can make a -- before I can a -- I want a six, but I need those answers before I can vote on this or the answer is going to be no for me. Breckon: So, if you're telling us -- and I want -- that you're not going to approve this -- Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, we will agree to build the right hand turn lane. However, I would like to reiterate that we have -- on several occasions I had multiple conversations with ITD in an effort to find out what they would like us to do for road frontage improvements and every time we have gotten the same answer, which is really no answer at all -- that they don't know what they would like built and that they -- they really don't want us to do anything there right now. So, I would guess concede that we will build the right hand turn lane at ITD's direction. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: You know, maybe part of ITD's thought process was laying out the two paths -- the proportional share path, which doesn't work, and this other path and if City Council's direction is for you to build a right hand turn lane, you know, I would think that they would like to take advantage of that resource and work with you to do something that will work longer term. Certainly I would think, personally speaking, for future developments along this corridor, if the same dilemma existed for me, I wouldn't be hung up about that, too. So, you could tell your, you know, neighboring developers that this will be an issue for them possibly in the future maybe you can work something out. But it's hard -- it's tough. I mean I -- I feel for you, but I'm in the same camp as Councilman Bernt right now. We got the situation off Black Cat, I have had a lot of complaints about it. I don't live far from it and we can't undo that now. Undoing that -- unfortunately, we can't rewind the tape and -- and so, you know, fixing these problems later is like almost impossible and that's why we are in this tough spot. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I guess one -- some points of clarification. Do -- do you want us to build a right turn lane out of Shafer View for the three lots that we are adding or should it be further up here where the -- our main entry into the subdivision will be? Would be happy to do that. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. And that's the situation I can't figure out is what are they asking when they say a right hand turn lane. Right hand in at Shafer View or the new intersection and an acceleration right hand -- right turn acceleration lane from Shafer and the other local road that will be coming out, the new road. I mean that can be very extensive, but we just don't have any direction from what ITD gives us here and that's -- and they have Page 85 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 4O of 63 to expend the funds within ten years, so you think there would be some sort of preliminary plan out there and, you know, I feel for the developer on this, it's just -- it's very frustrating trying to figure out what to do, who is all going to be participating -- and the fact that we just don't have any idea and the developer doesn't have an idea how much is that going to cost and what does ITD really want to have? You know, it's -- I don't know, just -- it's frustrating. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I completely agree with what Councilman Hoaglun just said. Is there any way that we can help the developer in his -- in their communication with ITD to expedite this process? Simison: Yes, I think we can from a practical standpoint, because these are all the similar questions that we have had with -- on Black Cat from that standpoint. I -- I -- you know, my -- the short answer is, you know, to me ITD's direction -- but, unfortunately, ITD's direction has not been great, even on Black Cat. So, that's why I don't want to just leave it to them. I think we should all have a comfort level about what the expectations are in this. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: You're exactly right. Comfort level. We are talking about a comfort level, but I think that we are all looking for -- I think it's -- I think that that's where we are all -- I think we are all in agreement that we don't have that comfort level right now and because we don't have that comfort level it's very difficult for us to make a decision tonight. Maybe we can, but, you know -- I feel for -- for John and his team and I get what he's saying. I get what -- what he's asking. It's just everyone's scratching their heads and -- and when you're talking about a corridor, like Meridian -- with like this highway, gosh, this is just the wrong place and the wrong time to be scratching our heads and making decisions. That's just -- I mean that's all I'm saying. Simison: So, Mr. Breckon, I don't know that we have any of our transportation people on here, but perhaps if we could continue it to the -- we have a special meeting in two weeks on the 26th. We can see if-- what our -- our staff can do to work with you and ITD to get some clarification on this and if -- if you want to reach out to other neighborhood and developers and find out what their plans are, because they probably will care as well. I would leave that up to you. But if that would work we could at least see what we can accomplish in two weeks. Maybe that's a little quick. Maybe the first -- first meeting in June. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess if we have to we have to. However, Page 86 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— I -- you know, I think something to bear in mind here is our proportion of this contribution is one percent of these road improvements. I feel that, you know, putting the brunt of this burden on this one developer is a bit lopsided. You know, these improvements encompass this corridor and, you know, while we are glad to participate and do our part and work with adjacent developers and so forth, that is just a lot of work to try to -- well, one, to coordinate with all these adjacent developments that are going in. I know there is -- for a fact there is things in the works -- I'm sure the city knows better than I do what -- the details of these other developments and I guess it is what it is, but I hope that the Council will take that into consideration. Simison: Mr. Breckon, just to speak from conversations that we have -- that I have had personally with ITD on other areas, a right hand turn lane to them can be throwing down some blacktop pavement on some already compacted dirt. So, quite frankly, to get a right hand turn lane could cost you a fraction of what a proportional share agreement could be if it meets -- if there is -- if there is property there, if it's -- so, it's -- if there is additional -- if there is currently any sort of shoulder, that's what I'm saying. So, it could mean a lot of different things from this -- from this standpoint and that's why at least find out what the immediate is versus the long term and, you're right, one percent for a lot more than just the right -- but a right hand turn lane -- what I have heard from ITD about 50,000 dollars is about appropriate for a right hand turn lane based on Black Cat, because, really, the costs are in the signals and other things. So, I think there is some good conversations to have that are not that far different, personally, but it depends upon what ultimately is needed. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Breckon, what date do you want this continued to? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, just the next available option would be fantastic. No. Staff has the dates available. Allen: Mr. Mayor, June 1st would be the first available, because today would be the deadline -- or tomorrow morning would be the deadline for the 25th hearing to get this information turned around. Simison: Sonya, whatever date is selected I am assuming you can get with Miranda tomorrow? Allen: Yes. Bernt: So, Mr. Mayor, the quickest date -- if they are asking for the quickest date, the quickest date would be the 26th. If they think they can hammer this out in two days, so that it's on the agenda for the 26th, I have no problem doing that, but -- I mean it's -- don't -- I -- I'm -- I'm not a developer and so I have no idea what that process looks like. Page 87 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— Simison: We have no idea what ITD's availability is to even engaged in conversation. Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: If Mr. Breckon is saying as soon as possible, well, then, we can put it on the 26th. If the applicant is unable to get the information they need, they can have the top score for most continuances in 2021 and we can continue it again. Allen: Mr. Mayor, I believe that meeting date is May 25th, which is Tuesday. Simison: There is a special one on the -- the next day, the 26th? Allen: Thank you. Sorry. I didn't know that. Okay. Breckon: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I would like to request the June 1 st for a hearing for the continuance, please. Simison: You have heard the request. Do I have a motion? Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. I move we continue Item 2, public hearing for H-2020-0117 to June 1 St. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this public hearing until June 1st. Is there any discussion? If not, all favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the item is continued. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 2.15 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for Roberts Annexation, H-2021-0013. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Tiefenbach: We are getting the presentation loaded up here, sir. Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a proposal for an annexation of 1 .7 acres of land with an R-2 zone district. The site, like I said, about 1.7 acres of land. It's zoned R-1 . It's located at 1630 East Paradise Lane. That is the southeast quadrant of McMillan and Locust Page 88 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— Grove. Very rural area of the county. The property is comprised of two lots that are presently zoned R-1 IN unincorporated Ada county. The southern lot -- so, again, two lots. The southern lot, until just recently, had a 4,000 square foot residence on it. The applicant demolished the single family residence in anticipation of building a newer 6,000 square foot house with a detached shop and garage. The applicant contacted Ada county to merge the lots to get the larger home and they were told that because the property directly abutted the city limits it would need to be annexed. Here is a picture. On the right there you can -- sort of give you an idea of where the project site is and on the left this is a site plan showing the proposed house that's going to be constructed. The nearest available sewer is located in North Locust Grove, which is about 1 ,400 feet north of the subject property. The applicant's received the city engineering and Public Works approval for our utilities waivers. So, under our code you would actually have to connect into the sewer, but because the sewer is 1 ,400 feet from the property it doesn't make a lot of sense for one single family residence. City understands that. We are okay with the waiver. There would be a requirement in the conditional -- or sorry. There would be a requirement in the development agreement that when services become available the applicant would have to tie into the sewer. So, again, we are okay with that. There is a second waiver that the applicant was required -- was requiring. Presently there is water that's available at the intersection of Locust Grove and East Paradise Lane. Per our code the applicant's required to extend a water main from that intersection east to the adjacent properties. The applicant is -- asked for a waiver from that. The city engineer actually denied that particular waiver. The applicant is now appealing that waiver to the Council. The applicant believes that that is somewhat costly to have to extend that water main. City engineer's opinion is that they should. What the applicant wants to do instead is to be able to just have a service line tied directly in -- shortest distance and save the money. There is existing sidewalk on the east side of North Locust Grove, but, otherwise, the Heritage Subdivision, which is where this property is located, the entire area is very rural. It is -- there is no sidewalk the staff has been able to find in this subdivision. However, the UDC does require sidewalks along both sides of the street. Staff has gone out there and taken a look at the property. We don't have strong opinions about it. Again, we would leave that to the Council to decide whether they would want only this particular property for a single family residence to have to build the sidewalk. This one in front of the Planning Commission -- and I will talk about that in just a second. So, on April 15th this went to the Planning Commission. There were four citizens that were there. The primary concerns of the citizens were why was this being annexed. Was R-2 a zone district that would allow more than one particular house. I think there was just a lot of concern, because it's a very rural neighborhood. They like being in the county. They don't want development, basically, creeping into their neighborhood. If -- if water or sewer mains are connected and extended into the neighborhood it could facilitate additional property owners selling their properties and developing. So, that's really their concern. The applicant agrees with them. Unfortunately, in regard to the applicant, they are in a rock and a hard place. They can't get a building permit. The county sent them to us and, really, their only option now to be able to annex is to get the water and sewer. The Planning Commission did approve -- recommend approval. The Planning Commission also did agree that the applicant should not have to extend that water main from Locust Grove up Paradise. The Planning Commission did not believe that they should have to build the sidewalk and the Planning Page 89 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page— of 63 Commission agreed with staff that they should not have to connect into the sewer until at such time that there is a closer connection. Again, I want to mention, because I know there is at least several neighbors that have -- that are probably listening in, that the development agreement will say only one house can get built on this property. That's -- that's the point of this. One single family 6,000 square foot house. If the applicant ever wants to build anything else other than one house or subdivide any of the additional lots, not only would they have to come in front of you to amend the development agreement, but there would be a public hearing, there would probably be a plat. So, all of the public would be notified and, once again, they would have any chance to be able to weigh in on this. With that, the staff recommends approval. Staff's only comment would be if the -- if this Council is supportive of this and they are supportive that they should not have to extend the water main or build the sidewalk, those were two conditions that -- that this -- the Council should include into their -- into their approvals. And that I will accept any questions if there are any. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Under the current -- I know you take the two lots, make them into one. The designation we would have for zoning for those parcels, they could request, what, up to three units per property. So, a total of six if they had wanted to do that, instead of just the one. Tiefenbach: That is correct. The R-2 is our lowest zone district. We don't have a lower density zone district. With that-- but, again, the development agreement will control that. So, the development agreement will say one lot, one house. Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor, just to follow up. So, he's going in a direction that should be in the neighbor's favor, as opposed to going the other direction that would increase housing there. Tiefenbach: I guess that depends on your perspective, sir. The concerns of the neighbors are incorporating into the city and extending any kind of water sewer is going to make it easier to develop in the future. Simison: Alan, to that point, do we know when -- where is this section of roadway in an ACHD five year work plan or not? Tiefenbach: I know that there is going to be some widening done to Locust Grove, which would include sidewalk. Off the top of my head I can't remember how many lanes. There is not any proposed improvements that I know that are going to be to Paradise. But, yes, they -- or ACHD is eventually going to expand Locust Grove in the near future. Page 90 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— Simison: Right. And that's what I'm trying to find out. What is the near future? Any ideas? In the five year work plan? Is it not in the five year work plan? Tiefenbach: I believe it's in the five year work plan. Correct. Simison: Oh. Can you pull back up the map that shows -- Tiefenbach: That one? Simison: Don't we normally have a vicinity map that shows improvements, what's your plan for the area in the future? Tiefenbach: I could get one, but I don't have one. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor. I'm looking at the motion that was made by Planning and Zoning and I -- I didn't see a current comment or a new comment from Public Works on the section regarding the waterline waiver. I cannot recall -- and I'm not saying we never, but I cannot recall us ever waving to and through and that's what this is is to and through. But -- but the -- the motion is only requiring stubs to the infrastructure that's in Locust Grove, but not even an easement through the property. So, if you're -- if you're going to do this you are waiving something -- we have -- I can't recall we have ever waived, that you're going to have to require at least an easement through this property for the rear property to be able to connect to the -- to the water line in Locust Grove, if that's what you choose to do. My only caution to -- to the Council is when this Council has chosen to waive something like that for one developer, even if it's just a single family homeowner, we will get numerous requests to waive it for somebody else. So, it's not just one homeowner, it is -- it is really a precedent setting type of direction that will affect other people, even smaller developers have the one or two lots up. So, just something to consider if you want to consider that request. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Just --just one question to Bill. When you're talking about to and through, you're talking about the water, the sewer, or both? Nary: Well, our code requires both, it requires that they take them both through, so that the next property can get to it, otherwise, they have no access to it. Now, we have held off requiring them hooking up to sewer services until they were available. So, until they run in front of the property we haven't required people bring it to them unless they want to do that. Clearly a single lot development like this, it is cost prohibitive to do that. So, Page 91 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— that's not problematic, we will create that in the development agreement that they will do it and we will have a way to trigger that in the future. But my guess is if it's in the five year work plan to widen Locust Grove, they are not going to build that sewer line until the road is widened, because that's where the sewer line is going to go. I'm talking about the water. The water, if it's available now, since I believe it is, we would normally require they take the water all the way through. Tiefenbach: Correct. The sewer, again, is 1,400 feet, but the water is directly in that intersection now. So, there is much shorter distance for the water than there is for the sewer. It really isn't reasonable to expect them to extend a sewer line a quarter mile. see Kristy is there to tell us when this road is planned or not planned to be built. Inselman: Mr. Mayor, yes. This is Kristy Inselman with ACHD. Again, we currently do not have this segment of Locust Grove planned in the '21 -- the adopted 21-25 integrated five year work plan. It is planned to go to three lanes. We are in the process of developing the '22 to '26 integrated five year work plan and this is one that we are hoping to at least move into the plan. Likely we wouldn't have the construction year identified, but currently it is not in an integrated five year work plan. Simison: Thank you, Kristy. So, just my two cents from a practical standpoint is, you know, trying to make -- make the connections is important, but in this case you're really not going to connect through the next properties more than likely and so while knowing that this road will either be built in five to six years when -- and that will produce the sidewalks, I don't know that makes sense to have them do one, so I would be in supportive of not making this connection, because it's not going to connect to anything else that will likely redevelop before then. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Do you feel that way about Locust Grove and Paradise? Simison: I'm just looking at Locust Grove. I'm looking at -- I'm thinking more along that element. Paradise not necessarily. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I think you and I have kind of drawn the same conclusion. I think I can get on board with no sidewalks on Locust Grove, but what I envision is 30 years from now, those county folks who didn't want to have the city come have said, oh, we want to go someplace else, redevelopment occurs, and, then, we get little -- a little spot of sidewalk along Paradise that -- that will never be built, because we didn't require it on Paradise. So, I think I can get there on Locust Grove, but I think we have got to have the sidewalk on Paradise. Simison: From a practical standpoint with the sewer and water, would it not go down Paradise if this area was likely to ever-- I'm just looking to the to and through, what makes Page 92 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— sense. From our standpoint I see this more being a -- not the same, but Meridian Heights style where we are going to go through -- you know, you are not taking it through people's property, but you're taking into it to connect on the street. Nary: Mr. Mayor, yeah, so it definitely would have to go in the right of way -- normally is where it would go. So, Kyle is on the call, so he would probably be better suited, but I -- I was just concerned about waiving the two and through requirement. Simison: Kyle, would you like to speak? Radek: I think -- I think Bill has enumerated fairly well, Mr. Mayor, Council, and, obviously, Warren's concern, if-- if this property doesn't build to and through, then, what will happen when the next properties need water, then, they will get a waiver, because water isn't to them and properties that really need to get off wells and septic will never get off wells and septic. So, it -- without -- without enforcing the to and through you -- you lose the opportunities in the future, which will be there and the well and septic concept is just not sustainable on these size lots for -- forever. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: If I can also follow up with what Kyle said. I think the to and through would be important for the fire department as well. As -- as we know this whole area is rural, so we don't have fire hydrants in that area and if they're building a 6,000 square foot house, a fire hydrant -- the near -- the closest fire hydrant is down -- down the street, quite a distance. So, if we did the to and through we could to least get a fire hydrant out either on that corner or in on the other property -- the east corner of the property that would help us down Paradise Lane in case we did get a structure fire, which we have had fires down in that area before, so I follow what Kyle says as well. Thank you. Simison: Council, any further questions? Okay. Is the applicant -- Semple: Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council, Ben Semple with Rodney Evans & Partners. 1014 South Lapointe Street, Suite 3, Boise, Idaho. I'm representing the owner of these two parcels and I guess first and foremost I want to thank Alan for the presentation, as well as his assistance during the process. It's been a long process, almost two years for the property owner. I want to give a little bit of background. Initially when they purchased this property they were informed by Ada county that they could consolidate within the county, because they did have a mechanism for that. When they went to apply for that the county apparently had removed that mechanism from their code and required the owner to submit a subdivision application to consolidate the two parcels within the county. When that subdivision application was submitted to the county, obviously, it was transmitted to the city, because it's within the area of impact and the city, then, identified a single point of connection to an annexed piece of property. The extension of the northern property boundary of the overall two parcels when it hits Locust Page 93 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 51 of 63 Grove meets a single point of the extension of the south property line of the subdivision that you can see to the northwest -- I believe that is Alexandria Subdivision. There is a single point of connection at the centerline of Locust Grove. That is their path for annexation. Every other parcel north, south, east and west of these parcels are in the county. Nothing else is in the city. I just want to clarify that. The process it's been a very back and forth process for this owner. Again, they have gone through about two years of the process now to get to this point to consolidate these two parcels into one for them to build their single family residential home. They are in agreement with the terms and conditions of the staff report, including a development agreement that limits this parcel to a single home. Construction. The reason that the owner bought this parcel was because it is in the county and they intended to build a single family home for themselves and their family. They wanted to be in the county to be a part of this small county subdivision that does fall within the boundaries of City of Meridian. Ultimately, their -- their combined parcel would be larger than any of the other parcels in here and contain home -- a home that is similar in size to some other ones within that subdivision in the county. We did request a waiver as was indicated by Public Works for-- that we could apply for a waiver for not only the sewer extension, but the water main extension, due to the limited nature of this project. They did grant us our waiver of the sewer extension for a 1 ,400 foot extension of a sewer main. The owner of this property did indicate that they would be -- they would hook into the sewer -- the water main that exists in Locust Grove in front of the property to service their home. Obviously, the -- the city engineer denied the waiver of that extension. That water main extension consists of about 280 linear feet of mainline to run down Paradise, so the eastern property boundary, and I guess it sounds like also the installation of a fire hydrant. So, that is fairly cost prohibitive when building a single family residential home. If this was a true redevelopment or something that approached additional density, then, I don't think we would be having the same conversation, because that is, you know, apparent when you redevelop to increase density that any utilities and other infrastructure are improved in that area. Additionally, sidewalk in this area, just for context, the total length along Locust Grove, as well as Paradise, would be 560 linear feet of sidewalk that currently would connect to a buffered asphalt pathway along the east side of Locust Grove to the north and connect to nothing to the east. There is no sidewalks anywhere within this subdivision and our opinion is that the installation of sidewalk on the north side of Paradise Lane is going to create some issues with drainage. There is some drainage facilities on Locust Grove, but when you install curb, gutter, sidewalk along a portion of a roadway that is a rural road section and currently utilizes, you know, a roadside swale effectively to handle the drainage, when you're concentrating that into a gutter it needs to go somewhere. So, it's not just the sidewalk installation, it would, then, be potentially a stormwater facility consisting of an underground seepage bed, something along those lines that would substantially increase the cost of the development of a single family home. We did have some conversations with the fire department and are in agreement with building the driveway to extra specifications to hold fire apparatus in the event that there is a fire. Ultimately, if it is the decision of the Council to require a water main extension, obviously, we would have to agree to something along those lines, because the -- the owner wants to just build his house for his family and we have to have this completed prior to being able to apply for a building permit. There, again, I just want to reiterate there is a water main in Locust Grove that we could theoretically connect to Page 94 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 52 of 63 that's out there to service this home and we -- part of the development agreement is that when sewer is extended past your Locust Grove that we take the -- the future home off of septic and connect it to that sewer main. You know, we are -- we are not proposing any further development or redevelopment of this lot. During the public hearings, as well as the neighborhood meetings that we held, multiple of the neighbors are very leery of any annexation here. They worry about forced annexation. They are worried about additional density out here or commercial uses -- any of that stuff that we are willing to enter into the development agreement that restricts this property from being developed that way by this current developer, because, again, not anything that he wishes to do, plans to do, or anything having to do with the project. So, I guess our hope was that we could get the annexation approved in order to, then, consolidate the two lots into a single lot to build a single family residence without the added expense of sidewalk and water main extension for ultimately the service to a single lot with no, again, cost share by anyone to the east. I guess if they eventually redeveloped, then, I don't know if there is a -- a payback type of situation where this owner would be able to recoup some of those costs and I do understand that typically in development the developer is required -- you know, first in pays for improvements that they don't necessarily recoup costs on, but this isn't a typical development of the property. It's a consolidation and really a reduction in what could be done here. So, that's kind of our stance and I would be happy to stand for questions. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Semple. Just one thing as we look at this, when we talk about the curb, gutter, sidewalk on Paradise, I don't -- at least from my perspective I don't know that you're talking about a full curb, gutter, sidewalk, but, you know, an asphalt five foot pathway, similar to what I have seen in other places -- yes. At least from a -- and I would love for the applicant to talk about that after opportunity for additional questions. Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question I think for the applicant, but maybe staff will want to weigh in. I'm sympathetic as to kind of the predicament you're in where the county is sending you our way. That's what we want the county to do, but I recognize that it's -- it's caused kind of a challenge for your client. From your perspective, if the -- if the City Council were to deny this application, does that open the door for you to go back to the county at that point? Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, the county does not currently in their code have a mechanism for the consolidation of these two lots. They are two lots within a platted subdivision in the county. The only mechanism that they have currently in their code is a subdivision process to consolidate, but when a subdivision application goes to the county, it, then, goes to the city of which they fall within the area of impact. So, we have kind of done this back and forth with the county before we have had multiple meetings with the city as well and this is really the only avenue we have to accomplish Page 95 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— this and, unfortunately, that got us to this point, you know, and we have even looked at a redesign where there is not a consolidation of the parcels. Unfortunately, having a home on one lot precludes having an accessory dwelling -- or an accessory structure, such as what the -- my client is proposing with an RV shop -- or basically large detached garage on the northeast portion of the property that can exist on a separate lot without a primary structure as well, which would, then, defeat the purpose of building a single family home and an RV structure. I think that might answer your question. Cavener: It did. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question -- well, comment first. I think, Mr. Semple, you -- I wouldn't be surprised if your clients were regretting that they just didn't call this a remodel, keep a wall of the house and build a whole new house behind it and be done with it, as many hoops as they have had to jump through so far and not done yet. I want to make sure I understand the water issue and you talked about connecting to sewer as well in the future, but that is -- both of those would be coming off of North -- North Locust Grove directly to the house, as opposed to coming up Paradise Lane, especially the water. We have talked about in the future someday there might be a sewer line coming up Paradise and they would have to tie into that once that's there. But right now -- and staff-- Kyle might weigh in on this if we need him to. Instead of running the water line up Paradise and, then, over to the house, you're saying there is a line already -- I think there is a line in North Locust Grove -- of just going directly from North -- North Locust Grove is -- do I understand that correctly? Tiefenbach: Sir, he would want to run a service line directly -- basically from Point A to Point B. There -- there is a line -- if you look at the map I have up here, basically stubs right there I believe at that intersection. I can let Kyle to weigh in. Rather than having to run a main line up Paradise, they want to get a service line and just directly Point A to Point B right to that house. Basically, where we are standing right here on Google Maps. Radek: Mr. Mayor, yeah, if I could -- if I could just clarify, the waiver that the city engineer denied was their request to just access the water main that is in Locust Grove and so what the city engineer is saying is this --this property needs to bring the water from Locust Grove along its frontage along Paradise Lane to the eastern most portion of its lot, like any other subdivision in the city would do and any other house in the city would pay for if it was a new house. It's all baked into the cost of a new house. I don't agree that this is a cost prohibitive feature to ask for. It probably will cost less than the -- than the new counters in this house. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 96 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— Hoaglun: Kyle, if I -- and to follow up on that, I would understand a service line would be much smaller and less costlier, as opposed to running -- I don't think the term is main line, that's more of a sewer term, but a main water line to the easternmost part of the property. Any idea -- I don't recall a distance of that frontage -- what that might cost, as opposed to just a service line. Radek: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I would estimate about 50 dollars a foot. So, 280 linear feet, somewhere around 14,000 dollars and, then, throw in 5,000 dollars for a hydrant. So, again, I think it's -- I think it's well -- well under the cost that this -- that lots of features in this house are going to cost and if -- if a water main and on top of that a hydrant is not put in, you -- you're allowing a -- I don't know what the square footage of this house would be. I'm sure it's over 5,000 square feet. You're going to have a house -- a new house in the city that's built without a fire hydrant within spitting distance of anywhere, I just think that's probably not a good precedent. Tiefenbach: It would be a 6,000 square foot house, for clarification. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I think if you're building what I would consider to be a country estate, it's quite -- sounds like quite a large house. I'm imagining that the cost to build that house is -- is fairly expensive and now that this property will be part of the city, the -- if there is an emergency, the fire department will have to respond and they need something to hook up to and to me I understand the sewer, I kind of consider that one thing. To me the -- the water main is important. Maybe there is some wiggle room on the sidewalk. I don't care about Locust Grove, if that's going to happen already a different way, but on Paradise maybe just an asphalt sidewalk. I don't know if I have as much energy around the sidewalk piece, but, you know, the fire department has got to respond if there is an emergency and, you know, like it or not, it sounds like they are going to become part of the city. Welcome to Meridian and now that you're part of this -- you are going to become part of the city we are going to have to serve you and that includes emergency services and we have had a lot of incidents with people that have had their own septic and they have maintained them and they have had their own water and, then, they have had problems down the road in other subdivisions where they have had to join the city later. So, we should just set this thing up for success in the first place. Semple: Mr. Mayor -- and I guess multiple Members of Council, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying, 1, again, do this a lot and understand the to and through requirements for redevelopment of properties. We were just told that we could appeal the denial of the waiver to extend the water main line from the intersection of Locust Grove down Paradise Lane to the eastern property boundary of the property and, then, pull a service line off of that. For my client I had to go through that process, because it was indicated as a process that was allowable within code to request that waiver. Ultimately, yes, we will comply with the conditions that City Council places on the Page 97 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— redevelopment of the property. We were very happy to see a waiver for a 1 ,400 linear foot extension of a main line, knowing that we would still enter into a development agreement to run a service line to that line when it -- when the main line runs past here. We are not debating that aspect of it. Going back kind of touching on sidewalk, if a sidewalk consists of a five foot asphalt path that's detached from the road, still falling within the right of way and it doesn't create drainage issues for ACHD or something along those lines that would require substantially more work and expense -- yes, this isn't a small house, but, ultimately, it's also not an apartment complex that can be built here that would, then, be spread out over multiple users or even multi-family townhomes, something like that that could be spread out. It's ultimately one individual family that's paying for all of that, including the construction of the house that will be a nice, larger home. So, I guess we are not necessarily here debating, I guess, kind of what your decision would be,just wanting to lay out a case for -- that this is not ultimately what could have been brought forth in terms of a redevelopment of the property. Just some food for thought for the Council. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant at this time? I don't know if we even have anybody online who -- this is a public hearing. If there is anybody that would like to provide testimony on this item you can use the raise your hand function at the bottom of the Zoom platform and we can bring you. Mr. Clerk, I assume -- did we have anybody sign up? Johnson: Nobody's signed up and we have had one or two people in and out since then. Simison: Okay. I'm not seeing anybody raise their hand wishing to testify. So, Mr. Semple, would you like to make any final comments? Semple: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I guess, you know, we look forward to -- or my client looks forward to ultimately building a home for his family and I think that we have kind of laid out what our requests would be and that, ultimately, we are in agreement with the way the staff report is written and look forward to your decision. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I do have a question for Kyle regarding the water. You know, this -- the properties behind this being, you know, rural, we don't see them developing anytime soon. They could stay that way for quite some time. That water line that goes to the eastern edge of the property, it has a fire hydrant, they run a service line off of that. I know in the past there has been discussions about making sure water circulates. Is that going to be an issue here where it just comes to a dead end? And, of course, it goes to the house, but there is no circular motion to that tying in elsewhere and flowing through and whatnot. Can you comment on that? Page 98 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— Radek: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, that -- that could actually be an issue. It may be that although we require the --the main to --to go to and through to the eastern portion of the property, we could solve that problem by allowing them to put their service tap on Locust Grove and that would keep -- keep their service tap where there is water flowing. So, it's not unsolvable, but good -- very good point. Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Deputy Chief. Bongiorno: It does -- it does state in the -- sorry. Mr. Mayor and Council, it does state in the fire code that if a building is brought into an area that -- and there is no hydrants nearby, then, we do need to add a hydrant in. I was just looking -- I have the code. It says where a portion of facility or a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a fire hydrant or on a fire apparatus access road and approved route -- let's see. No, that's not the one. Oh. Hydrants and main shall be provided where required by the fire code official. So, if we are not going to do the extension down Paradise, then, we at least need a fire hydrant on the corner of the property and, then, we will have to work with Kyle on the modeling to see what the fire flow is going to be for that particular house. At 6,000 square feet we are going to need at least 2,000 gallons a minute for two hours. So, we would just need to make sure that we can meet that requirement, so -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Bongiorno: -- thank you. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Thanks for that, Deputy Chief. I was wondering about that as we were talking to this, is if -- if finding out what the width would be when ACHD expands Locust Grove and where the corner would -- would likely be and having something there as -- and, then, running the service line from that, as opposed to going clear down and, then, waiting maybe forever for development, still having that fire hydrant, and I'm sure Mr. Semple could sell his client on the fact that there will be insurance -- you know, house insurance savings over time that, yeah, I wouldn't pay for that. But it was -- it was a -- it was a shot. Mr. Semple is -- you know, just your thoughts on something like that. Semple: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, yeah, I -- I believe that my client would be in agreement with constructing a fire hydrant at that corner off the main line that currently exists in Locust Grove, assuming that the modeling comes back that supports the fire flows as required by code, as well as installing their service line to their home off of that same main line. I can't imagine that they would be opposed to that. Hoaglun: Thank you then. And, Mr. Mayor, follow up question for Joe. Page 99 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 0, of 63 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Deputy Chief, how do they determine the fire flow? What does that take to know that there is going to be enough -- enough pressure on that? Could you walk me through that? Bongiorno: Sure. Typically -- sorry. Mr. Mayor and Council --Allen, can I share a map real quick? Tiefenbach: There you go, Joe. Bongiorno: Thank you. I was going to share Kyle's map. So, this kind of shows you where the closest hydrant is, so -- you're welcome, Kyle. Sorry. Mr. Mayor and Council, so to --when we find out how big a house is going to be typically what we do is in Appendix B of the Fire Code it lists what the fire flow requirements are for a particular size of a structure. So, depending on the house and what it is is, basically, it's everything underneath the eaves of the house. So, the house itself may be 6,000 square feet, but if they have 1,000 square foot patio cover and 500 square foot porch now the house is 7,500 square feet and so we have to calculate the fire flow off of that. And, again, there is a table in the back in Appendix B of the Fire Code that covers what the fire flow is required to be and, then, typically, I will work with Kyle and I will say, hey, Kyle, I have got this project, it's on the corner of Paradise and Locust Grove, what's our fire flows in that area and, then, we can determine whether or not we have adequate fire flow, either by the -- the hydrants that are in the area -- is typically what he goes by, with his pressure zones, you know, he's got all his magic that he runs and -- and, then, he can determine whether or not we have adequate fire flow for what's there. If for some reason we do not have adequate fire flow, which we have had some 10,000 square foot houses and some 14,000 square foot houses pop up, then, the only requirement after that point is they will have to put fire sprinklers in their house to lower the requirement for fire flow. Hoaglun: Thank you, Chief. Simison: Council, further discussion or is there a motion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move that we close the public hearing on the Roberts Annexation, H-2021- 0013. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: Motion and second to close the public hearing. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. Page 100 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 58 of 63 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question for -- for Alan. Sidewalk requirement. Mr. Mayor brought up, you know, a pathway of some sort. Is an -- is an approval of a pathway in place of curb, gutter, sidewalk within code? Is that something that we can -- we can do? Tiefenbach: I would need to leave it to Public Works for the curb and gutter, but you have the option of an attached or a detached sidewalk. Simison: Councilman Cavener, I turn your attention to the corner of Victory and Locust Grove, which has -- has a black asphalt detached sidewalk type facility on it and I think it's temporary, but I think this is temporary, too. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I will take a crack at this and -- for discussion. After considering all the staff and applicant testimony I move that we approve file H-2021-0013 as presented on the staff report of a hearing date of May 18th, denying the waiver to connect the water main and requiring a detached asphalt pathway along Paradise. And, Mr. Mayor, I will provide clarification if staff needs that, because I realized I may have said I denied the sidewalk -- or the pathway along Paradise, but I'm -- I'm in support of the pathway along Paradise, but denying the waiver on -- on the water connection -- requested waiver. Radek: If we could maybe clarify it and say denying the waiver to the to and through requirement for water and it would be more clear. Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, as Kyle much more eloquently put it, also denying the waiver on the to and through element. Borton: Second. Simison: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Do we need to discuss -- I mean the fire hydrant issue or is that going to just come along with the water? Page 101 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 09 of 63 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: It's my understanding is, yeah, that the fire hydrant would come along with water. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for maker of the motion. Would that--so, that would go to the eastern part of the property as required and, then, pulling the line off of that and the purpose of the paved sidewalk, for lack of a better term, paved path, that is going to go to where? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Hoaglun, for giving me an opportunity to talk about a pathway to nowhere. As -- as we have discussed tonight -- well, that will be the only piece that will be annexed into the city and likely that pathway will exist in its current format for quite a long time, I'm supportive of the flexibility to at least get some piece of connectivity should we have some piece of infrastructure in place in case a future neighborhood to the east develops. If the Council is more supportive with requiring a traditional sidewalk and curb and gutter, I'm -- I'm happy to have that conversation. I think I was just trying to find a happy balance. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I guess my happy balance was -- I can go along with the required water and hydrant, even though there -- there could be issues with -- with the water quality, but -- but the pathway, if there is development in that area in the future, I think the road would be widened, there will be traditional sidewalk, curb, gutter, type of thing. So, I don't see a need for the pathway yet at all. That's where I'm coming from. I'm not requiring even more, I just -- this is -- we are taking a rural area that has existed for quite a while, likely will exist for a while, until that point comes when a developer comes in and makes them an offer they can't refuse and, then, it has a new vision, a new plan. But that's -- you know, that's just my thinking on it, so -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 102 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 60 of 63 Cavener: Council Member Hoaglun, I completely get where you're at and I think that we have seen enough applications where I have been on the Council saying, man, I wish -- I wish the previous Council would have required at least that piece there, because now you have got -- it's a little bit of patchwork and I figured at least having most likely to wear like the trail head beginning for what maybe later come, makes more sense than to try and fix it at a later point in time. Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And to that point, if you take the Five Mile path, go up Bellano --towards Bellano Creek, you will see this nice ten foot wide sidewalk coming down from -- along Ten Mile, make the turn, and, then, you have 40 feet of grass not connected to anything. So, we don't know the future. That's the problem. I mean we try and do our best here and sometimes, okay, if it's not there, what's the loss, as opposed to they expend the money and do it and it's -- it's torn up in the future, I -- you know, I don't know. Your -- you know, your -- your motion is a good one and there is validity behind it, I just -- there is just -- yeah, I struggle with -- with that portion of it, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would rather error on the side of having something than having nothing in the future if the rest of this develops. I feel like we have had enough examples of more annexations and neighborhoods like this and I wouldn't want to have a piece that doesn't have some sort of connectivity. I feel like this kind of comes along with the territory, like you're joining the city, we expect sidewalks and pathways and it's incongress with the rest of the neighbors and it's unfortunate Ada county doesn't have their own process for figuring this out, but they don't and I would rather-- I personally would rather have -- have something than not have anything. Simison: And like it or not, I think the subdivision is going to be a one by one process for the city over time, because Ada county likely is not going to have a great -- don't want to provide services to this in-fill component with the current commission I believe. Cavener: Call the question. Simison: The question has been called. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Page 103 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page— —— MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 4. Ordinance No. 21-1928: An Ordinance (H-2021-0008 — Meridian South Fire Station) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 4.00 Acres of Land From RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Thank you, everyone, for their time and attention this evening. Next item is ordinances. First up is our only ordinance number 21-1920. Ask the clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2021-0008, Meridian South Fire Station, for annexation of a parcel of land situated in a portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, and being more particularly described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada County, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 4.00 acres of land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Council, you have head this ordinance read by title. Was there anybody that would like it read in it's entirety? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. No. Do we need to do roll call --no -- Bernt: We need a motion. Simison: Sorry. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Page 104 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page 62 of 63 Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve Ordinance No. 21-1928 with suspension of rules. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the item under suspension of the rules. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The ordinance is agree to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Not a future meeting topic, just a moment of privilege if I can. I just want to recognize the passing of a really, really remarkable city employee. You know, we here at the City of Meridian are so lucky to have such amazing staff that work here and when -- when Barb Hohler passed away this week and I was really lucky to work with her as an employee and she just was such a champion for our city, our staff, for our Mayor and Council, both when she was here as an employee and when she left. So, I just wanted to take a moment to recognize her and thank her posthumously and her family. Simison: And for those who are interested, there is a service memorial tomorrow at 11:30 at Cloverdale Funeral Home. It's either virtual or in person, if you are interested in attending. So, appreciate your comments. So, with that do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: Motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Page 105 Meridian City Council Item#3. May 18,2021 Page——— MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:37 P. M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 6 / 1 / 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 106 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 18 , 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 Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 2 zoning district;-Annexation of 1.77 acres of land with a R AERIALZONINGFLUM was told because the property directly abutted City limits, it would need to be annexed. The applicant contacted Ada County to merge the lots together and construct the larger house and house with detached shop / RV garage. -family residence in anticipation of building a newer 6,000 sf ft +/-The applicant demolished this singlesouthern lot until recently had contained a 4,000 sq. ft. residence. 1 in unincorporated Ada County, of which the -The property is comprised of two lots presently zoned R2 zoning district;-Annexation of 1.77 acres of land with a R Applicant will be appealing this waiver to the Council. The City Engineer denied this waiver request.home. Instead, the applicant prefers to only be required to connect a service line from the main to the new The applicant has also requested a waiver from this requirement.E. Paradise Ln along Paradise Lane to the eastern property line.The applicant will be required to extend a water main from the intersection of N. Locust Grove Rd and is extended in the future. However, the development agreement will require connecting to City sewer if and when a sewer main 21 to not connect to City sewer at this time. -3A-from UDC 11The applicant has received City Engineer and Public Works Director approval for a utilities waiver the subject property. The nearest available sewer main is located in N. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1,400 feet north of required with the development agreement.The City Council should determine whether requiring sidewalk along the property frontage should be regarding any additional improvements.when the average lot frontage is more than 150’. ACHD has not commented on this application However, UDC does require sidewalks along both sides of the street, or only one side of the street N. Spangle Dr., E. Freedom Ln).appear any of the right of way within this subdivision contains sidewalks (E. Paradise Ln., E Star Ln., Otherwise, the Heritage Subdivision Filing One and Two reflects rural character and it does not There is existing sidewalk on the east side of N. Locust Grove Rd. the consolidation of lots.Following this annexation and prior to building permit, the easement will need to be vacated as part of subject lots.foot drainage, utility construction and maintenance easement platted between the -There is a 5 •If the Council supports these waivers, it should be included in their motion•along the property frontage. approve the waiver to not require the water main to be extended to the east, and not require sidewalk Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation, and recommended the Council •new development to creep into their neighborhood.stay unincorporated, and whether allowing an annexation and requiring infrastructure would allow Four citizens testified. Testimony mostly concerned the rural character of the neighborhood, desire to •Planning Commission heard this case on April 15, 2021. City Council Meeting May 18, 2021 FLUM Annexation & Zoning Exhibit Master Plan Proposed Concept Plan for Hospital/Medical Campus Preliminary Plat (Revised) PhasingPlan ACHD 5Year Work Plan & Preliminary Plat Lines Map- Parking Plan Qualified Open Space Exhibit Landscape Plan & Site Amenities Conceptual Building Elevations Conceptual Building Elevations 3Story Medical Office Building-Story Hospital and 4- Item #2: Shafer View Terrace AERIALZONINGFLUM Annexation Area 2-R4-R Revised Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan ACHD & Preliminary Lines Map Revised Landscape Plan Qualified Open Space Exhibit Conceptual Building Elevation Photos Changes to Agenda: None Item #1: Prescott Ridge (H-2020-0047) Application(s):  Annexation & Zoning  Preliminary Plat  Private Street – approved by the Director st Note: At the December 1 hearing, the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission for the out-parcel at the NEC of the site adjacent to the commercial development to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Since that time, the Applicant has acquired the out-parcel and submitted updated plans that include the parcel in the development area. The st Commission heard this project on January 21 and recommended approval of the updated plans and annexation boundary. Council rd heard this project on February 23 and continued it to 4/13 & again to tonight’s meeting in order to determine the potential impacts of legislation pertaining to SB1108. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 124.07 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located on the south side of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 & on the east side of N. McDermott Rd. History: A portion of this site consists of Lot 18, Block 1, Peregrine Heights Subdivision (formerly deed restricted agricultural lot for open space – non-farm that has since expired). Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R (10.27 acres) along Chinden Blvd. & MDR (113.5 acres) to the south (3-8 units/acre) Summary of Request: Annexation of a total of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts is requested for the development of a mix of residential & medical office uses, including a hospital with emergency care. WASD plans to develop a school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. A Master Plan for the residential portion & concept plan for the medical campus portion of the site is proposed. The residential portion will include a mix of SFR attached & detached homes, townhomes & MFR apartments; the commercial portion will include a 3-story 181,000 s.f. hospital with 60+/- in-patient beds & a 4-story 80,000 s.f. medical office building proposed to include 20,000 s.f. of retail and restaurant uses on the entire first floor to serve the employment area and adjacent neighborhood. The medical campus is proposed to include medical services geared toward women’s health & pediatrics. A concept plan was submitted for the medical campus that depicts the hospital centrally located in the southern portion of the site and the medical office building at the NEC of the site. The SFR uses are principally permitted in the R-8 & R-15 districts; the school, MFR development & hospital will require CUP approval of the uses prior to development & are subject to specific use standards. One of the standards for hospitals that provide emergency care is that the location has a direct access on an arterial street; however, because the UDC prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway, no other access is available except for N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, along the east boundary of the site which connects to the highway. The City Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement; if so, it should be memorialized in the DA; if not, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD has denied the Applicant’s request for a direct access to the SH 20-26 for the medical campus. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 371 buildable lots \[317 SFR (102 attached & 215 detached units), 38 townhome, 14 MFR, 1 commercial & 1 school\], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots on 124.81 acres of land in the proposed R-8, R-15 & C-G zoning districts. The minimum lot size proposed in the SFR portion of the development is 4,000 s.f. with an average lot size of 6,028 s.f.; the average townhome lot size is 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 2.96 units/acre with a net density of 7.68 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 portion is 3.07 units/acre with a net density of 7.07 units/acre & the gross density of the R-15 portion is 7.57 units/acre with a net density of 13.8 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR & MU-R designated areas. The subdivision is proposed to develop in 9 phases as depicted on the phasing plan over a time period of 4 to 5 years. The north/south collector street will be constructed from W. Chinden Blvd. in alignment with Pollard Ln. across Chinden Blvd. to the north & extend to the southern boundary with the 1st phase. The commercial & SFR portion of the site will develop first, followed by the townhomes and then the MFR apartments. The school property is not included in the phasing plan as it is under separate ownership & will develop separately from the residential portion. Access is proposed in the residential portion of the development via (1) collector street (Rustic Oak Way) from Chinden, which extends through the site to the south boundary & will eventually extend to McMillan Rd.; access via McMillan Rd. is proposed at the west boundary. A collector street is proposed from Rustic Oak to the east for access to the school site. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension; an additional stub street is recommended by Staff to be provided to the out-parcel at the SWC of the site. Access is proposed to the commercial portion of the development from Rustic Oak with a frontage road running through the site parallel to Chinden, which will provide access to the traffic signal at the Rustic Oak/Chinden intersection when the property to the west of Peregrine Heights redevelops – secondary emergency access is proposed via Serenity Ln. to the commercial portion of the site (Serenity Ln. is designated for emergency vehicle access on the Peregrine Heights subdivision plat, note #6). The frontage road is proposed instead of a backage road for consideration by Council since a public street isn’t desirable in this area. The Director has approved private streets in the townhome portion of the development with a mew in accord with UDC standards. The ACHD 5-Year Work Plan shows no road improvements in this area; Chinden was recently widened to 4 travel lanes adjacent to the site. Preliminary plat lines are shown in red that are either in process or have been approved. A parking plan was submitted for the overall development that depicts a total of 497 on-street parking spaces available for guest parking in the SFR portion of the development. Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards – a minimum of 8.04 acres (or 10%) is required based on the residential area of the subdivision (i.e. 80.42 acres); a total of 12.41 acres (or 15.41%) is proposed – consisting of the street buffer along collector streets (McDermott & Rustic Oak), open space areas of at least 50’ x 100’ in area & linear open space. A minimum of 4 qualified site amenities are required – a 3,750 s.f. clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office & meeting room with an outdoor patio & a swimming pool, one large tot lot and 2 smaller tot lots with play equipment, an enclosed dog park (although this area may be just a pocket park with no dog facilities depending on what is desired for future residents), segments of the City’s multi-use pathway system, additional qualified open space exceeding 20,000 s.f. a pavilion, BBQ’s and seating area with a fire pit in accord with UDC standards. Sample photo elevations and renderings were submitted for the different home types planned in this development as shown; homes depicted are a mix of 1- & 2-story attached & detached units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stone/brick veneer accents. Staff is recommending articulation & other architectural elements are provided on elevations facing collector streets for 2-story homes. Elevations for the MFR structures will be submitted with the CUP application. Conceptual renderings were submitted for the hospital & medical office building as shown; final design is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0047, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0047, as presented during the hearing on May 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0047 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #2: Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117)  Annexation  Preliminary Plat th This application was heard by Council on March 9 & continued to 4/13 in order get more info from ITD in regard to future plans pertaining to widening of Meridian Rd. & when the turn lane would be constructed if funds are allocated for the improvement. (See letter from ITD.) It was continued again to tonight’s meeting in order to determine the potential impacts of legislation pertaining to SB1108. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 39.01 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located on the east side of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 midway between E. Amity Rd. & E. Lake Hazel Rd. History: This property is part of Shafer View Estates subdivision to the south, recorded in 2002. It was deed restricted & was only allowed to be used for open space for a period of not less than 15 years from the date of recording of the plat. That time period has since elapsed and it is now eligible for development. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: LDR (3 or fewer units/acre) Summary of Request: The proposed annexation is for 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) & R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. A PP is proposed consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land with a gross density of 1.76 units/acre consistent with the LDR FLUM designation. The project is proposed to develop in 3 phases as shown. The third phase is under separate ownership & is proposed to develop separately with the Apex development to the east. A transition in lot sizes is proposed between the existing rural residential subdivision to the south (Shafer View Estates), zoned RUT, and the future residential subdivision approved to the north (Prevail Subdivision), zoned R-8. A common lot that contains a 41’ easement for the McBirney Lateral separates the proposed lots from the existing rural lots, except for 3 lots south of the lateral which are . Two (2) accesses are proposed via E. Quartz Creek St., a planned collector street along the northern boundary of the site; direct access via E. Shafer View Dr., an existing local street along the southern boundary of the site is proposed for the lots south of the McBirney Lateral. An emergency only access is proposed between the cul-de-sac & E. Shafer View Dr. Access to the R-2 zoned portion of the site is anticipated to be provided from the east with the Apex development. Direct lot access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 is prohibited. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets which should be sufficient to serve guests in addition to driveway parking on each lot. There are no improvements planned in the CIP or 5-Year Work Plan for Meridian Rd. or nearby intersections in the next 5 years. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design & improvement standards in UDC 11-6C-3, which includes block face standards. The face of Block 3 exceeds the maximum block length allowed & does not provide a pedestrian connection other than the emergency access driveway which may serve as a pedestrian connection between the proposed subdivision & Shafer View Estates to the south. The Applicant requests Council approval of a waiver to allow Block 3 to exceed 1,200’ due to existing site constraints that include the following: 1) the narrow configuration of the subject property; 2) the location of the McBirney Lateral, a large waterway/irrigation facility, that runs along the southern boundary and through the western portion of the proposed subdivision; and 3) the existing Shafer View subdivision that abuts the site to the south, south of the lateral, which does not include any pedestrian pathways or stub streets to this property. If not approved, the plat should be reconfigured to comply with this standard. An emergency access road for Fire Dept. is proposed between the end of the cul-de-sac and E. Shafer View Rd. but it’s not a public access. A 10’ detached multi-use pathway is proposed along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 within the street buffer as required in the PMP; a detached sidewalk is proposed along E. Quartz Creek St. A combination of attached & detached sidewalks with parkways is proposed within the development. A 35’ wide street buffer is required along S. Meridian Rd., an entryway corridor, and a 20’ wide street buffer is required along Quartz Creek, a collector street. Noise abatement is required to be provided for residential uses adjacent to SH-69. A 4’ tall berm and 6’ tall Simtek wall is proposed as noise abatement in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of 10% qualified open space (i.e. 3.9 acres) and one (1) site amenity is required to be provided with the subdivision. A total of 4.05 acres (or 14.27%) is proposed along with (4) site amenities consisting of a multi-sport court, tot lot, gazebo shade structure and segment of the City’s multi-use pathway system, in excess of UDC standards. A mix of 6’ tall wrought iron & 6’ tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas; wrought iron fencing is proposed along the McBirney Lateral. Two waterways cross this site - the McBirney Lateral, a large open waterway within a 41’ wide easement along the southern boundary of the site & through the western portion of the site; and a 38’ wide slough/drain on the eastern portion of the site that the Applicant has confirmed with Boise Project Board of Control is not within an easement. The UDC allows waterways to remain open when improved as a water amenity as defined or linear open space; the Council may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The Applicant is not proposing to improve the McBirney Lateral as required in order for it to remain open and requests a waiver from Council to allow it to remain open and not be piped. A 6’ tall wrought iron fence is proposed along both sides of the waterway to deter access to the waterway and to ensure public safety. Conceptual elevations were submitted as shown that represent the style and construction of homes proposed within the development. Commission Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jon Breckon, Breckon Land Design (Applicant’s Representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Marvin Ward, Gayle Ward iv. Written testimony: Mary Wall, Breckon Land Design (Applicant’s Representative) v. Key Issue(s): a. Concern pertaining to safety of access to Lots 2-5, Block 6 accessed via Shafer View Dr. with the configuration of E. Shafer View Dr. and change in grade in that area; b. Preference for 1-acre lots to be provided on the south side of the McBirney Lateral consistent with adjacent existing 1-acre lots in Shafer View Estates. c. Applicant testified they are willing to add more landscaping at the entry to the development near the S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. intersection. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. In favor of the provision of additional landscaping at the entrance of the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. as offered by the Applicant; ii. Possibility of reducing the number of homes in the area south of the McBirney Lateral (Lots 2-6, Block 6) to enhance safety in that area; iii. Concern pertaining to lack of comments from ITD; iv. Would prefer a better transition in lot sizes to the south, specifically Lots 15-17, Block 3 (maybe lose a lot); v. Discussion regarding the proposed amenities; vi. Opinion that the style and size of the proposed homes should be compatible with adjacent homes in Shafer View Estates. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. At Staff’s request, include a condition for the 38’ wide slough/drain on the eastern portion of the site to be contained entirely within a common lot(s) with fencing required on both sides of the drain consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b per UDC 11-3A-7A.7a; ii. At Staff’s request, include a condition requiring the common lot(s) containing the slough/drain to have vegetative groundcover to prevent fire hazard and unsightliness if the waterway is piped; and, iii. At Staff’s request, modify condition #9 to allow the option for the waterways on the site to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to being piped as allowed by UDC 11-3A-6C.2 with submittal of construction drawings & relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for water amenities as defined in UDC 11-1A-1. iv. Include a condition for the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Shafer View Dr. to be improved with additional landscaping as offered by the Applicant; v. Include a condition for one (1) buildable lot to removed in the area of Lots 2-5, Block 6 south of the McBirney Lateral. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The Commission requested an ITD review of the project and comments prior to the Council hearing; comments from ITD are included in Section VIII.N. The letter states a northbound right turn lane is warranted w/the additional trips generated by this development to ensure turning traffic can exit the through lanes & turn safety onto Quartz Creek St. ITD can’t require the developer to install a northbound turn lane as Quartz Creek St. is a public road & instead requests proportionate share contributions to address the need for a right turn lane. All future developments adding northbound right turns to this intersection will be requested to contribute proportionate share as well. Should the developer not be required to contribute their proportionate share ($59,358 or 1.01%), ITD recommends the City require the developer to install the northbound right turn lane to ensure the safety of the traveling public & citizens residing in Shafer View Terrace & Prevail Subdivisions. If Council determines one of these options should be a requirement of this development, a provision should be included as such in the DA. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing:  Charles Boyd – In opposition to the lot sizes of the 4 parcels accessed via Shafer View Dr.; would like lot sizes of at least 1-acre in size comparable to the 1 to 1.24-acre lot sizes in Shafer View Estates. Safety concerns pertaining to driveways so close to Meridian Rd. and the topography in that area which creates poor visibility (there’s an immediate incline from Meridian Rd.) – requests the # of lots are reduced from 4 to 2 in that area to ensure no driveways are placed near the top of the hill.  Deborah Boyd: Has the same concerns as Charles Boyd. (see letters in the public record for more info) Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0117, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0117, as presented during the hearing on May 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0117 to the hearing date of ____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Item #3: Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.77 acres of land, zoned R-1, located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Property is zoned R-1 in Ada County, surrounded by unincorporated rural land and R-8 zoned land in Meridian. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential. Summary of Request: Annexation & zoning of 1.77 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district to develop a 6000 sq. ft. house Written Testimony: None Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes:  The property is comprised of two lots presently zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada County, of which the southern lot until recently had contained a 4,000 sq. ft. residence.  The applicant demolished this single-family residence in anticipation of building a newer 6,000 sf ft +/- house with detached shop / RV garage.  The applicant contacted Ada County to merge the lots together and construct the larger house and was told because the property directly abutted City limits, it would need to be annexed.  The nearest available sewer main is located in N. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1,400 feet north of the subject property.  The applicant has received City Engineer and Public Works Director approval for a utilities waiver from UDC 11-3A-21 to not connect to City sewer at this time. Staff supports this waiver but notes the development agreement will require connecting to City sewer if and when a sewer main is extended in the future.  The applicant is also required to extend a water main from the intersection of N. Locust Grove Rd and E. Paradise Ln along Paradise Lane to the eastern property line to serve adjacent properties in the future.  The applicant has also requested a waiver from this requirement, stating it would be cost prohibitive and not necessary as adjacent properties to the east and south are remaining in Unincorporated Ada County and already have wells providing water. Instead, the applicant prefers to only be required to connect a service line from the main to the new home.  The City Engineer denied this waiver request.  Applicant will be appealing this waiver to the Council.  There is existing sidewalk on the east side of N. Locust Grove Rd. Otherwise, the Heritage Subdivision Filing One and Two reflects rural character and it does not appear any of the right of way within this subdivision contains sidewalks (E. Paradise Ln., E Star Ln., N. Spangle Dr., E. Freedom Ln).  However, UDC 11-3A-17 does require sidewalks along both sides of the street, or only one side of the street when the average lot frontage is more than 150’. ACHD has not commented on this application regarding any additional improvements.  The City Council should determine whether requiring sidewalk along the property frontage should be required with the development agreement.  There is a 5-foot drainage, utility construction and maintenance easement platted between the subject lots.  Following this annexation and prior to building permit, the easement will need to be vacated as part of the consolidation of lots. Planning Commission  Planning Commission heard this case on April 15, 2021.  Four citizens testified. Testimony mostly concerned the rural character of the neighborhood, desire to stay unincorporated, and whether allowing an annexation and requiring infrastructure would allow new development to creep into their neighborhood.  Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation, and recommended the Council approve the waiver to not require the water main to be extended to the east, and not require sidewalk along the property frontage.  If the Council supports these waivers, it should be included in their motion. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to APPROVE File Number H-2021-0013, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18, 2021 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to DENY File Number H-2021-0013, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 18, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0013 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 13, 2021 for Prescott Ridge (H-2020- 0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached), townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-81 R-15 and C- G zoning districts. Page 4 Item#1. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 13, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from February 23, 2021 for Prescott Ridge (H-2020- 0047) by Providence Properties, LLC, Located on the South Side of W. Chinden Blvd. and on the East Side of N. McDermott Rd. A. Annexation of 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and C-G (19.85 acres) zoning districts. B. Preliminary Plat consisting of 371 buildable lots [single-family residential (215 detached/102 attached),townhome (38), multi-family residential (14), commercial (1) and school (1)], 42 common lots and 6 other (shared driveway) lots] on 124.81 acres of land in the R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 1 PROJECT NAME : Prescott Ridge ( W2020 - 0047 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 4 6 l 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 i 14 15 Item#1. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING May 18,2021 Legend DATE: (Continued from:February 23 and Prot Lcofl-non Y April 13, 2021) -- - ----- TO: Planning&Zoning Commission - FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0047 ' Prescott Ridge—AZ,PP,PST - LOCATION: South of W. Chinden Blvd. and east of N. ® _ McDermott Rd., in the North %2 of Section 28,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. - (Parcels: SO428233640, R6991222210, - f SO428120950, SO428131315, 4 SO428131200, SO428211102) NOTE: At the December I"hearing, the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission for the out parcel at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the commercial development to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Since that time, the Applicant has acquired the out parcel and submitted updated plans that include the parcel in the development area. The staff report has been updated accordingly. The Commission heard this project on January 21s`and recommended approval of the updated plans and annexation boundary. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of a total of 426.53 128.21 acres of land with R-8 (99.53 acres),R-15 (8.82 acres)and C-G (48.47 19.85 acres)zoning districts; and, Preliminary Plat consisting of 395 377 371 buildable lots [346 32-3 single-family residential(94 102 attached-&-222 215/detached),63 38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school],22-39 42 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway) lots on 423.26 42343 124.81acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts. Private streets are proposed within the townhome portion of the development for internal access and circulation. Ahefnative Gemplianee to UDG 11 3 F 4 A.4, when*,,...rh,,mes are-proposed, is also requested.Alternative Compliance is no longer required based on the revised plan which includes a mew. Page 1 Page 6 Item#1. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 122.8 124.07 Existing/Proposed Zoning Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County(existing)/R-8,R-15 and C-G(proposed) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)(3-8 units/acre)(113.5+/-acres) with Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)(-9 10.27+/-acres)along W. Chinden Blvd. Existing Land Use(s) Rural residential/agricultural with 1 existing single-family home Proposed Land Use(s) Residential(single-family attached/detached,townhomes&multi- family)&commercial(medical campus with a hospital and medical offices and retail/restaurant uses) _ Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 395 377 371 buildable lots(316 323 317single-family residential,63 38 townhome, 14 multi-family, 1 commercial and 1 school)/32 39 42common lots/6 other(common driveway)lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases wF Number of Residential Units(type 316 323 317 single-family(94 102 attached/ 215 detached),(63 38) of units) townhome and(56)multi-family units Density(gross&net) Overall-3-6-3 2.96 units/acre(gross);7.96 7.68 units/acre(net) R-8 area:4-87-3.07 units/acre(gross);749 7.07 units/acre(net) R-15 area: 12.97 7.57 units/acre(gross);21.39 13.8 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 44.566 112.411 12.43 acres(or 44-.9. 15.41%) [%]/buffer/qualified) (4 -M 8.04 acres required based on 105.08 80.42 acres of residential area) Amenities Swimming pool,clubhouse,large and small children's play structures, a dog park,multi-use pathways and additional qualified open space beyond the minimum standards Physical Features(waterways, Two(2)segments of the West Tap Sublateral cross this site hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 12/18/19- 11 attendees;and 4/l/20- 13 attendees; 12/16/20 7 attendees: attendees History(previous approvals) A portion of the site is Lot 18,Block 1,Peregrine Heights Subdivision (formerly deed restricted agricultural lot for open space—non-farm that has since expired). B. Community Metrics Description Details Pag e Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) N �Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access A collector street access(W.Rustic Oak Way)is proposed via W. Chinden (Arterial/Collectors/State Blvd./SH 2O-26 at the half mile which runs through the site and connects to Hwy/Local)(Existing and a future collector street(N.Rustic Way)in the Oaks North development Proposed) from McMillan Rd.An access is proposed via N.McDermott Rd.,a collector street. Traffic Level of Service McDermott Rd.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service) W.Rustic Oak Way/Levi Ln.—Better than"D"(acceptable level of service) Page 2 Page 7 Item#1. Description Details Pag e Stub Two local stub streets are planned to be constructed with the Oaks North Street/Interconnectivity/Gros development at the southern boundary of the site and extended with this s Access development. Two stub streets(N. Serenity Ave. &W.Fireline Ct.)are proposed to the north for future extension. A cross-access easement is required to be provided to the MU-R designated property to the west. Existing Road Network No public streets exist within the site;N. Levi Ln.,a private lane,exists on the northern portion of the site via W.Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing buffers or sidewalks along N.McDermott Rd. or W. Buffers Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 Proposed Road Improvements Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Chinden Boulevard to McMillan Road between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Black Cat Road and Chinden Boulevard is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,5-lanes on the south leg,6-lanes on the east leg and 6-lanes on the south leg between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of McMillan Road and Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2 lanes on the northbound and souhbound legs and 1 lane on the westbound and eastbound legs. • The intersection of McMillan Road and McDermott Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes on the north leg,4-laes on the south leg,3-lanes on the east leg and 3-lanes on the west leg between 2031 and 2035. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3 miles from Station#5 to Serenity Ln.on Chinden&4.4 miles to the McDermott side of the project(Station#7 once constructed,will serve this development) • Fire Response Time Some of this development falls within the 5 minute response time area as shown on the priority growth map;the McDermott side is 8 minutes away and does not meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 80%from Station#5—meets response time goal • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service(open waterway) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds as long as phasing plan is followed. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device for the multi-family development— cannot meet this need in the required timeframe.Eagle Station#1 is the closest truck company at approximately 8.4 miles away. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour for the single-family homes; the multi-family areas will require additional water(may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered) • Other Resources NA Police Service No comments submitted • Distance to Police 9 miles Station • Police Response Time No emergency response data can be provided because this development is near the edge of City limits • Calls for Service 156(within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Accessibility I No concerns • Specialty/resource needs I None • Crimes 5 (within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Crashes 4(within a mile of site between 4/l/19-3/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits,service can be provided if this development is approved. Page 3 Page 8 Item#1. West Ada School District Enrollment Capacity Miles • Distance(elem, 0ev.wschool mS hS) Pleasant View Elementary Opening 20121 650 2.4 f School Y ear Star Middle School 704 1000 6.9 Meridian High School 1965 2400 6.1 Due to the abundant amount of growth in the area,West Ada is actively building new schools,and boundaries are always changing,These future students could potentially attend Owyhee High School. • Capacity of Schools • #of Students Enrolled Wastewater • Distance to Sewer This proposed development is not currently serviceable by Meridian Services Sanitary Sewer service. The sewer trunk line designed to service this development is within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 13.92 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 4,662 gpd has been committed •Sewer mains are not allowed in common driveways.Please remove. •The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way •Sewer line in N.Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd •This development is subject to paying sanitary sewer reimbursement fees (see Public Works Site Specific Conditions of Approval for detail). Reimbursement fees for the entire subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. Water • Distance to Water This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian Services City water system. Water mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. • Pressure Zone 1 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns None Page 4 Page 9 Item#1. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend tsi8enfial Legend f 0 Project Lorca-lion I ProjEOf Lacaion t MU- ® Y a 4 3i k MU-R7 JEW � •., f. ,Y )en s fird Ai- EEE� . Zoning Map Planned Development Map f (Legend 0 (fLegend 01 Pra}ect Lorca-lion 1 I Protect Lacation _-- t City Limit I I I I � f - + ® — Planned F o v__ r RUT r � S � R-8 T III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Providence Properties,LLC—701 South Allen Street, Ste. 104,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owners: Joseph Hon— 16790 Rose Park Dr.,Nampa, ID 83687 Raymond Roark—5952 N. Serenity Ln.,Meridian,ID 83646 Page 5 Page 10 Item#1. Lonnie Kuenzli—6210 N. Levi Ln.,Meridian,ID 83646 West Ada School District— 1303 E. Central Dr.,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering—9233 W. State St.,Boise, ID 83714 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 6/26/2020, 8/28/2020, 11/13/2020,2/5/2021 newspaper l/l/21 Notification mailed to property 6/23/2020, 8/26/2020, owners within 300 feet 12/29/20 11/10/2020,2/2/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 7/2/2020, 8/27/2020, 1/5/21 11/10/2020,2/4/2021 Nextdoor posting 6/23/2020, 8/27/2020, 11/10/2020,2/2/2021 12/29/20 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates 9 10.27+/-acres along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 as Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R); and the 113.5+/-acres to the south as Medium Density Residential(MDR). The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. The developments are encouraged to be designed consistent with the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3D(pg. 3-17). The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow small lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The MU-R designated area is located adjacent to a major intersection,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd. (future SH-16). The MU-R area is proposed to develop with a medical campus, including a regional hospital, and multi-family apartments.A larger MU-R area than currently designated on the FLUM is proposed which incorporates an additional 9.5+/- acres to the south and east of the current designated area.Because FLUM designations are not parcel specific and the proposed development provides needed services,employment opportunities and housing consistent with that desired in MU-R designated areas, Staff is supportive of the expanded MU-R area provided that a retail component is also included and integrated as part of the development. The MDR designated area is proposed to develop with a mix of single-family attached, detached and townhome units at a gross density of 3-46 2.96 units/acre,which although at the low end of the desired density range, is consistent with that of the MDR designation. Page 6 Page 11 Item#1. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences,and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed single-family attached, detached, townhomes and multi family apartments will provide a variety of housing types for future residents in the northwest portion of the City in close proximity to the proposed employment uses on this site and across Chinden Blvd to the north. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are not currently available to the subject development, however the main/trunk lines intended to provide service are currently being developed in The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. This development is dependent on the development timing of the phase(s) within The Oaks North for services to be readily available for extension. This developer is attempting to work with The Oaks developer to hasten the timing of utility expansion. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) Four(4)different housing types are proposed in this development(i.e. single-family attached/detached, townhomes and multi family apartments) along with a wide range of lot sizes for diversity in housing types in this area. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family residential development should be compatible with existing single- family homes to the west in Peregrine Heights and in the development process to the south in The Oaks North and the future school to the east. Larger lot sizes are proposed as a transition to the I-acre lots in Peregrine Heights. Higher density residential uses are planned adjacent to the proposed medical campus at the north boundary and the future school site at the east boundary.A 30 foot wide landscaped buffer with a pedestrian pathway and 8'tall CMU wall is also proposed adjacent to residential uses along the southern and western boundaries of the proposed medical campus to reduce conflicts. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10'wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 and the north/south collector street(Levi Ln./Rustic Oak), and to the east to the future school site for safe pedestrian access to the school. A large central common area is proposed along the collector street with quality amenities. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Page 7 Page 12 Item#1. Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems when available; services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers."(2.01.01H) The proposed townhomes and multi family apartments in close proximity to the regional hospital and medical campus will provide higher density housing options in close proximity to the employment center and major transportation corridor(i.e. Chinden Blvd/SH2O-26&future SH 16). • "Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed use areas near in and around Downtown,near employment, large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks, and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map."(2.02.01E) Townhomes and a multi family development are proposed in close proximity to the mixed use area along Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, a major transportation corridor, where employment uses are proposed. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The proposed project is located on the fringe of the northwest corner of the City. However, because the land to the north and south has been annexed into the City as well as land located a half mile to the east, services will be extended in this area. Therefore,public services will be maximized by the development of this property. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure, when available, and curb, gutter and sidewalks is proposed to be provided as required. • "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided." (3.03.03) The proposed development plan is consistent with the City's vision in that a mix of uses are proposed including a regional hospital and medical offices in the MU-R designated area adjacent to a major transportation corridor. Residential uses are proposed at densities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for this area. Public services can be provided and public infrastructure will be extended when available to this site. • "Require collectors consistent with the ACHD Master Street Map(MSM), generally at/near the mid-mile location within the Area of City Impact."(6.01.0313) The MSM depicts a collector street at the half mile between Black Cat and McDermott Roads in the current location of N. Levi Ln. at the northeast corner of the site from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20-26 to the south to McMillan Rd. A collector street is proposed in accord with the MSM which will connect to N. Rustic Oak Way to the south in The Oaks North subdivision. Page 8 Page 13 Item#1. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics) • "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone." The proposed development includes#we-at least three (JJ different land use types—residential off d,office and commercial(retail/restaurant) uses. , to serve the employment area and nearby residents.A public school(i.e. civic use) is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area; however, it's outside the mixed use designated area and not a part of the proposed development. • "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69." Multi family apartments and townhomes are proposed adjacent to the Mixed Use designated area to provide a higher density in close proximity to the employment center located adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26. • "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed Use designation." A Master Plan is proposed with the annexation request which will be incorporated into a Development Agreement to ensure future development is consistent with the Mixed Use designation. Me develepment guidelinesfer AK*ed Use designated areas in the GenTrehensive Plan. • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space." The Master Plan depicts shaded itt . area three(3) outdoor courtyard areas ;. Q around the medical office building a large outdoor plaza/ rg een space area in front of the hospital with a shaded seatingarea,rea, and a pedestrian pathway within a 30'wide landscaped common area along the southern and western boundaries of the commercial portion of the development abutting residential uses with two (2) shaded areas of respite. development with bud&iTs anwnged oround the eommon area in oeeord with this pro��ion. • "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development." There are existing low density homes on 1-acre lots along the west boundary of this site in Peregrine Heights Subdivision adjacent to the area proposed to be zoned C-G and developed with a medical campus.A 30'wide densely landscaped buffer is proposed along the west and south boundaries of the C-G zoned property adjacent to existing and proposed abutting residential uses along with an 8'tall CMU wall as a buffer to future commercial uses. Parking is proposed along these boundaries norM tofiwnf on the main en"drive aisle 6ff W. Rustie Oak "as a better tmnsXon to th residenees to Me south • "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks, daycares,civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments." Page 9 Page 14 Item#1. A future school site is planned on the eastern portion of the annexation area but it is outside the Mixed Use designated area and not a part of this development.A hospital is proposed in the medical campus on the northern portion of the site adjacent to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 which will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City. • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries,and schools are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count." A school is planned to develop on the eastern portion of the annexation area but is outside the Mixed-Use designated area and not being developed with this project. Te ..n ui-.sueh spaees- andplaees ��a a Three (3) outdoor courtyard areas are is-proposed jt6±rt�around the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/green space area with a shaded seating area is proposed in front of the hospital. Two shaded outdoor areas of respite are also proposed within the buffer along the southern boundary of the commercial portion of the development. • "Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi- public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered." Xe sueh&paees or design elenten"menities are proposed, To ensureAtuie development in the MUR designated area is eonsiqten t with this guideline; Sktff reeommends the eoneept plan revised aeee4ingbypr4ei-to the 00, GoHned hearing. " shaded ** - Three (3) outdoor courtyards are proposed around the medical office building and a large outdoor plaza/green space area with a shaded seating area is proposed in front of the hospital. Two shaded outdoor areas of respite are also proposed within the buffer along the southern boundary of the commercial portion of the development. • "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both vehicles and pedestrians." The proposed mixed use development is directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by a collector street(W. Rustic Oak Way) that runs along the project's east boundary at the half mile between McDermott and Black Cat Roads; a multi-use pathway is planned along the collector street for pedestrian connectivity in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. • "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential densities and housing types." There are no roadways separating the commercial/mixed use area from the single-family detached homes and townhomes proposed at the south boundary of the area proposed to be zoned C-G. However, there is a 30-foot wide densely landscaped buffer proposed between the commercial and residential uses. Staff reeemmends as a provision of Me A! that a stmet is • "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed Use standards listed herein." The subject property is not located in Old Town, therefore, this item is not applicable. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas, per the Comprehensive Plan(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17): Page 10 Page 15 Item#1. • Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed Use areas. Staffs analysis on the proposed project's compliance with these guidelines is included above. these guideU*es-. • Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non- retail commercial uses such as office, clean industry, or entertainment uses. Multi family uses are proposed at a density of 16.6 units/acre for approximately 27%of the mixed use development area. Non-retail medical office/hospital uses are proposed on the remainder of the mixed use development. • Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area. #e�Retail/restaurant commercial uses (10,000+/-square feet) are proposed on the entire first floor of the medical office building. Because this site is proposed to develop with a medical campus including a regional hospital, retail uses will be minimal but should be provided as a third land use type as desired in mixed use designated areas as discussed above to serve patrons and residents. Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%), based on the ratios below: • For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say,if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be eligible for two additional acres of retail development. • For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield,the developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development. • For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas, and some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be eligible for three additional acres of retail development. This guideline is not applicable as no public/quasi-public uses are proposed in the MU-R designated area. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan if a commercial(i.e. retail, restaurant, etc.) component is included in the mixed use designated portion of the development as discussed above. VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS(UDC) A. Annexation & Zoning: The proposed annexation area consists of six-ten(6 10)parcels of land totaling 122.8 128.21 acres designated on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(FLUM) as Medium Density Residential(MDR) and Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R). Per the proposed conceptual Master Plans included in Section VIII.A, single-family residential attached and detached homes,townhomes, multi-family apartments and a medical campus featuring a regional hospital and medical office Page 11 Page 16 Item#1. building with retail and restaurant uses is proposed to develop on this site. As dise ss a .,L.oy Staff recommends commereial •Fetail, reStaHFant, ete.) uses fiFe also provided as p in the C G zoned area as desired in Alixed Use and speeffieally MU R designated areas to serve the employment area and adjaeent neighbffhOod. The medical campus is proposed to include"boutique"medical services geared toward women's health and pediatrics. Two buildings are proposed—a 4 3-story 220,000 181,000+/-square foot (s.f.)hospital with approximately 90 60 in-patient beds and a 44 4-story 90,000 80,000+/- s.f. medical office building which is proposed to include 10,000+/-square feet of retail uses and 10,000+/- square feet of restaurant uses on the entire first floor. Most services anticipated to be performed in the hospital will be out-patient procedures. Areas not used for inpatient beds will be used for surgery,radiology, an emergency department, labor rooms,physical plant and a cafeteria. The hospital is proposed to be similar in scope and size to the St. Luke's and St. Al's campuses in Nampa. West Ada School District plans to develop a public school on the eastern portion of the annexation area separate from this development. The parcel was included in the subject AZ and PP applications because it was created outside of the process required by Ada County to create a buildable parcel. Including it in the proposed plat will allow building permits to be obtained for future development. The single-family attached/detached portion of the development is proposed to be annexed with R-8 zoning(99.53 acres),the townhome and multi-family portions are proposed to be zoned R-15 (8.82 acres)and the medical campus is proposed to be zoned C-G(18.1:7 19.85 acres, including adjacent right-of-way to the section line of W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26),which is generally consistent with the associated MDR and MU-R FLUM designations for the site as discussed above in Section V (see zoning exhibit in Section VIII.B). Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached homes and townhouse dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts;multi-family developments are listed as a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; and public education institutions are listed as a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district per the Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts table in UDC Table 11-2A-2, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14. A hospital is listed as a conditional use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-22;and healthcare and social services is listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district;retail uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district; and restaurant uses are listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-49 per the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts table in UDC 11-2B-2. Evaluation of the multi-family development for consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 and the hospital's consistency with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 22 will occur with the conditional use permit applications for such uses. One of the standards for hospitals that provide emergency care requires that the location shall have direct access on an arterial street; the proposed hospital is planned to provide emergency care.Because UDC 11- 3H-4B.2 prohibits new approaches directly accessing a State Highway,access is proposed via N.Rustic Oak Way, a collector street,at the project's east boundary located at the half mile mark between section line roads. The City Council should determine if this meets the intent of the requirement,if so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If not, Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Note:ITD denied the Applicant's request for access via SH 2O-26/Chinden Blvd. for the medical campus. Page 12 Page 17 Item#1. The property is within the Area of City Impact Boundary(AOCI). A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.B. 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 and future development meets the Mixed Use and specifically the MU-R guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends a DA as a requirement of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The Applicant requests three(3)separate DA's are required—one for the R-8 and R-15 residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district's parcel. Staff is amenable to this request as there are three(3)distinct components of the project. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 433 422 lots—3953777 371 buildable lots [316 single-family residential(94-102 attached 215/detached),6-3,38 townhome, 14 multi-family residential, 1 commercial and 1 school],3-2 39 42 common lots and 6 other(shared driveway)lots on "�423-54 124.81 acres of land in the proposed R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts. A portion of the proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 18,Block 1,Peregrine Heights Subdivision, a formerly deed restricted agricultural lot that was only to be used for open space(i.e. non-farm)— this restriction has since expired. The minimum lot size proposed in the single-family residential portion of the development is 4,000 square feet(s.f.)with an average lot size of 6-,060 5,982 s.£; the average townhome lot size is 2-,037 2,302 s.f. The overall gross density is 3-6-3 2.97 units/acre with a net density of 7-.M 7.68 units/acre. The gross density of the R-8 zoned portion is 4.P 3.07 units/acre with a net density of 7417.07 units/acre and the gross density of the R-15 zoned portion is 12.97 7.57 units/acre with a net density of 21.33 13.8 units/acre consistent with the density desired in the associated MDR&MU-R FLUM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this site. Phasing: The residential portion of the subdivision is proposed to develop in nine(9)phases as depicted on the phasing exhibit in Section VIII.0 over a time period of 4 to 5 years. The north/south collector street will be constructed from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 in alignment with Pollard Ln. across Chinden Blvd. to the north and extend to the southern boundary with the first phase of development. The single family portion of the site will develop first,followed by the townhomes and then the multi-family apartments. The school property(Lot 84, Block 12)are is not included in the phasing plan as they are it is under separate ownership and will develop separately from the residential and commercial portions of the development. The Applicant estimates development of the hospital and medical campus will commence in 2021 at the earliest; and the school in 2023 at the earliest, assuming services are available. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home on the Kuenzli property and some old accessory structures on the Roark property that are proposed to be removed with development. All existing structures should be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. Page 13 Page 18 Item#1. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): Development of the subject property is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district, 11-2A-7 for the R-15 district and 11-2B-3 for the C-G district as applicable. Lot Layout: The lot layout/development plan for the townhome portion of the development on Lots 16-7-9-, common driveway may only serve a maximum of(6) dwelling units peir UD 6-C units are proposed off each . Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those than create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated development-neither a mews nor is proposed but no gates are proposed(alter-native compliance i thiss standard see analysis below in Section 3*71•r hearing.AlteFnaflve Complianee may be requested to these standaMs and apffOved upon recommendation of the City Engineer-,Fire Marshal and the Director when the Applicant can demonstrate than the proposed over-ail design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards and shall not be detrimental to the publie health, safety and welf-aFe and where private streets are determined to enhance the safety of the development by establishing a clear emergency vehiele travel lane. However,the Fire Dept. and Staff would not be in suppo sueh a request as Staff is of the opinioll M. - . - Weh at the numbeir of units and density PFOPosed would result in a neighbor-hood that is seveFely undeF par-lied,whieh eould be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare if emerge ' ver-e not able aeeess homes within the development due to parking issues on the private street. Staff Feeommends this POFOOH of the development is Fedesigned with publie stFeets (alleys and/or common driveways may be incorporated), or if private streets are proposed, eaeh unit should&ont on and be aeeessed via the private street(s) and the design should include a mew or-gated entr-y in aeeoM with UDC- 11 3F I however-,publie streets are preferred. Alter-natively, a multi family development(i.e. one structure on one property with 3 or-more dwelling units)with townhome style units might be a development option for-this area.A r-evised par-king plan should be submitted for-this area as well that pr-ovides for adequate guest par-king above the minimum UDC standards (Table 11 3C- 6)to serve this portion of the development.A revised eoneept plan and par-king plan should be submitted prior-to or-a Commission hearing fot!r-eview and a revised plat should be submitted at least 10 days p to the City Couneil hearing that r-efleets this modifleation. The lot layout/development plan for-the multi family development on Lots 70 83,Bloek 12 depiets parking and aeeess dr-iveways on buildable iots the number of par! with eaeh lot and are not eommensur-ate with the par-king required-fftmr-eaeh Therefore, Staff r-eeommends the aeeess dAveways and par-king are plaeed in a common lo with an ingress egress/par-king easement for-eaeh buildable lot.A Fevised plat should be submitted at least 10 days prior-to the City Coune 1 A revised plat was submitted that depicts the private street in the townhome portion of the development within a common lot as requested, see Section VIIL C. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3) Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets, common driveways and block face. Page 14 Page 19 Item#1. Block length is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Block faces should not exceed 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided,then the block face may be extended up to 1,000' in length. The face of Block 7 on the south side of W. Smokejumper St. exceeds 750' at approximately 900'+/-;because the preliminary plat for the abutting property to the south did not include a pathway to this site in this location, Staff does not recommend a pathway is required for connectivity as it would dead-end at the subdivision boundary. Other block faces comply with the standard. Common driveways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 6C-3D.A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks,fencing,building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway.Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed via one(1) collector street(N. Rustic Oak Way)from W. Chinden Blvd./SH 20- 26,which extends through the site to the south boundary and will eventually extend to McMillan Rd.with development of The Oaks North subdivision to the south.A local street access (W. Sturgill Peak St.)is proposed via N.McDermott Rd., a collector street, at the project's west boundary. A stub street(N. Jumpspot Ave.) is proposed to the out-parcel at the southwest corner of the site— Staff recommends W. Smokejumber St. is also stubbed to this property from the east;two (2) stub streets(N. Trident Ave. and N. Rustic Oak Way) are proposed to the south for future extension with The Oaks North subdivision; and two(2) stub streets(N. Serenity Ave. &W. Fireline Ct.) are proposed to the north for future extension—the stub street to Serenity Ln.will serve as an emergency access only to Peregrine Heights Subdivision and will have bollards preventing public access.A collector street(W. Ramblin St.)is proposed for access to the school site. A stub street (Sunfield Way)was approved with The Oaks North preliminary plat to Lot 37,Block 12,proposed as a common lot;this street is not proposed to be extended. The ACHD report states Sunfield Way cannot be extended into the site at this time as the stub street is aligned with the parcel line between this site and the school parcel. ACHD has required a permanent right-of-way easement to be provided and a road trust for the future extension of Sunfield Way with development of the school parcel. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements should be provided to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west(Parcels#R6991221700&R6991221600) and east(Parcel# R6991222101)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. As discussed above,a private street loop(N.Highfire Loop)is proposed for access to the townhome portion of the development in Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development(see analysis below under Private Streets). Staff is not supportive of the proposed revised design and r-eeommends revisions to the plan as stated above and in 8 e re t-*aq INI EX.A. The Applicant's proposal to curve McDermott Rd. north of Sturgill Peak St.to the east at the project's west boundary does not meet ACHD policy and is not approved; the ACHD report states construction of this portion of McDermott will be completed in conjunction with ITD's SH-16 extension. Page 15 Page 20 Item#1. Developments along SH 2O-26 are required to construct a street generally paralleling the state highway that is no closer than 660 linear feet(measured from centerline to centerline)from the intersection(i.e.Rustic Oak)with the state highway.The purpose of which is to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the subject property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road.The street shall be designed in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3H-4B.3 and shall collect and distribute traffic.Frontage streets or private streets may be considered by the council at the time of property annexation or through the conditional use process.Frontage streets and private streets shall be limited to areas where there is sufficient access to surrounding properties and a public street is not desirable in that location. A frontage road is proposed along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to Chinden Blvd. with an access on Rustic Oak approximately 660' south of Chinden as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A.Because residential homes exist to the west that are not likely to redevelop in the near future,a future interchange for SH-16 is planned east of the McDermott/Chinden intersection, and a north/south collector street(Rustic Oak) exists along the east boundary of this site, Staff believes there is sufficient access to surrounding properties as proposed without the provision of a public street. Emergency access:In response to the Fire Department's estimated response time to the development, which are below the target goal on the McDermott side of the subdivision, the Applicant plans to include an AED(Automated External Defibrillator) device in the clubhouse and provide education related to the use of the device to ensure residents are aware of the benefits and function if the device is needed.Additionally, a connection is proposed from Chinden through the project to the southern boundary of the subdivision with the first phase of development to aid in emergency response times to the site; this should also benefit response times to The Oaks North to the south. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6; and for non-residential uses in accord with the standards listed in 11-3C- 6B.1. Future development should comply with these standards. A parking exhibit(and details in the narrative)was submitted with this application, included in Section VIILF that depicts 46 15 extra off-street parking spaces in the townhome portion of the development and a total of 505 497 on- street parking spaces available for guest parking. A total of 16 off-street parking spaces are proposed for the 3,750+/-square foot clubhouse and swimming pool facility. Staff is of the opinion the proposed parking in the single-family and townhomes portions of the development should meet the parking needs. Off-street parking in the multi-family portion of the development will be evaluated with the conditional use permit application. Off-street parkin is s required to be provided for the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B for commercial uses with the exception of restaurant uses; off-street parking for restaurant uses is required per the standards listed in UDC II- 4-3-49. Off-street parkin is s depicted on the conceptual Master Plan in accord with these standards and will reviewed again with the final design of the site to ensure consistency with these standards. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts segments of the City's multi-use pathway system across this site. In accord with the Plan,the Park's Dept. recommends detached 10' wide multi-use pathways are provided within the street buffers in the following locations: along N. McDermott Rd.,W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26,the east side of N. Rustic Oak Way from Chinden to the southern boundary of the site, and along W. Ramblin St. from Rustic Oak to the school site. These pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement. Page 16 Page 21 Item#1. Other pathways and micro-paths through common areas are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access within the development. Two(2)micro-path connections to the school site are proposed in addition to the multi-use pathway connection from Rustic Oak that extends along the northern boundary of the multi-family development. All pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaping shall be provided on either side of the pathways as set forth in UDC 11-3B-12C. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 : Detached sidewalks are required to be provided along all arterial and collector streets; attached(or detached) sidewalks may be provided along internal local streets. Sidewalks are proposed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17, ept for along the east side of Rustie Oak north o W. Lost Rapids St.,where an a4taehed 7' wide sidewalk is pfopesed. This sidewalk should be detaehed from the-eu-r-b-�a eeera with UDC 11- — r. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed adjacent to the north/south collector street(N. Rustic Oak Way) and are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. AWe. The Master Plan inel •a a Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Street buffers are required to be provided within the development as follows: a 35-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd., an entryway corridor; and a 20' wide buffer is required along N. Rustic Oak Way,'`T N 4eF ffw t D a. and W. Ramblin St., collector streets, landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25' wide buffer is required on the C-G zoned property to residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The buffer area should be comprised of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover that results in a barrier that allowed trees to touch at the time of maturity. A 30-foot wide buffer is proposed with dense landscaping along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as required. Parkways where provided are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The total linear feet of parkways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the required standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of pathways with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. 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 with the required and proposed number of trees should be included in the Landscape Calculations table on the final plat landscape plan to demonstrate compliance with the UDC standards. Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in the commercial portion of the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-8C. If any existing trees on the site are proposed to be removed,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins, Page 17 Page 22 Item#1. the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements if any existing trees are not proposed to be retained on site. Noise abatement is required to be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A detail/cross-section of the proposed noise abatement should be submitted with the final plat application for the commercial portion of the development that demonstrates compliance with the required standards. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the residential portion of the development. Based on 4405.05 80.42 acres (excluding the 28-acre school parcel), a minimum of 40.54 8.04 acres of qualified open space should be provided. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted, included in Section VIII.E,that depicts 41.56 12.4 acres(or 44.9 15.41%, excluding the 28-acre school parcel) of open space consisting of the entire buffer along collector streets(McDermott&Rustic Oak),open space areas of at least 50' x 100' in area and linear open space in accord with UDC standards. Note:Although a couple of the lots (i.e. Lot 30, Block 1 and Lot 29, Block 9) counted toward qualified open space don't meet the minimum dimensional standards of 50'x 100', the rest of the area does qualify which still exceeds the minimum standards. Because the multi-family portion of the development is proposed to be subdivided with each 4- plex on its own individual lot for the option of separate ownership of the 4-plex buildings, Staff recommends a provision is included in the DA that requires one management company handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire project to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 A minimum of(1)site amenity is required for every 20 acres of development area. Based on the residential area of the proposed plat(105-95 80.42 acres), a minimum of€rve four(5 4)qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. A site amenity exhibit and renderings are included in Section VIII.E. A 3,750+/- square foot clubhouse with restrooms, an exercise area, office and meeting room with an outdoor patio and a 54' x 30'+/-swimming pool, one large tot lot on Lot 1,Block 9 and(2) smaller tot lots on Lot 1,Block 13 and Lot 12,Block 6 with children's play equipment, an enclosed 5,500+/- s.f. dog park(although this area may be just a pocket park with no dog facilities depending on what is desired by future residents), segments of the City's multi-use regional pathway system, and additional qualified open space exceeding 20,000 square feet are proposed as amenities in excess of UDC standards.Amenities are proposed from the following categories listed in UDC 1I- 3G-3C: quality of life,recreation and pedestrian or bicycle circulation system, in accord with UDC standards. Details of these amenities should be submitted with the final plat applications for the phases in which they are located. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-IS): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. Sub-surface drainage is proposed but swales could be incorporated if needed. Page 18 Page 23 Item#1. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided in each development as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. This property is within the Settler's Irrigation District and the Nampa& Meridian Irrigation District's boundaries. Waterways(UDC 11-3A- : The West Tap Sublateral runs east/west across the southern portion of this site within a 20' wide drainage district easement;and a 15' wide irrigation easement runs east/west across the northern portion of the site as depicted on the Peregrine Heights subdivision plat. This waterway is planned to be relocated and piped. If the easement(s)for the waterway is greater than 10' in width,it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20' in width and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-6E. All waterways are required to be piped unless used as a water amenity of linear open space as defined in UDC 11-1A-1 in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. Fencing(UDC 11-3A- : All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. Fencing is depicted on the landscape plan. Fences abutting pathways and common open space lots not entirely visible from a public street is required to be an open vision or semi-private fence up to 6' in height as it provides visibility from adjacent homes or buildings per UDC 11-3A-7A.7. Staff is concerned there is not enough visibility from the street of the common area on Lot 1,Block 2 located behind building lots and around Lot 37,Block 12 and recommends the fencing type is revised on the perimeter of these lots to comply with this standard. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations and renderings of the different home types planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VIII.G.Homes depicted are a mix of 1-and 2-story units of varying sizes for the variety of lot sizes proposed. Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials with stoneibrick veneer accents. Because the side and/or rear of 2-story homes that face collector streets (i.e.N.McDermott Rd.,N.Rustic Oak Way and W.Ramblin St.)will be highly visible,these elevations,should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Conceptual renderings of the hospital and medical office buildings were submitted as shown in Section VIII.G. The hospital is proposed to be a 3-story building and the medical office building a 4-story building. The elevations for the medical office building incorrectly depict a 3-story building; these elevations should be revised prior to the City Council hearing to reflect the correct number of stories. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the medical office building, hospital,clubhouse, swimming pool facility, single-family attached,townhome and multi-family structures. The design of such is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.Design review is not required for single-family detached homes. Page 19 Page 24 Item#1. C. Private Streets (UDC H- A private street loop(N. Highfire Loop)is proposed for access within the portion of the development where townhomes are proposed on Lots 17 78 17-44 and 54-67,Block 8 adjacent to the southern boundary of the commercial development. The Applicant believes a private street in this area will enhance safety and vehicular circulation by creating a clear path of travel for emergency vehicles and residential traffic. Mews nor^ gated developme t A mew is proposed but no gates are proposed as the Applicant believes a gate would detract from site circulation and would physically and figuratively disjoint the townhomes from the rest of the community. Private streets are not intended for townhome developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development per UDC 1I- 3F-1. The applicability may be extended where the Director or Fire Marshall determines that private streets will enhance the safety of the development. The Applicant t requests alternative^ rrianee to UPC 11 3F I to " t � • as proposed,without (s) or agated �Alternative -�a�=o��v-c�c�e ci�� cc�=w��vR��c� � Compliance is no longer necessary as a mew is proposed on the revised plan. As noted above in Seetion AILB,Lot Layout, Staff r-eeofamends ehanges to the layout of the portion of the plat where the private street is proposed. Staff and the Fire Dept. does"Ot believe safety is enhaneed by the provision of a private street in this area with the density and likelihood of vehieles parking iH fiFe lanes due to inadequacy of par-ling for guests and overflow par-ling. TheFefffe, Staff does not reeommend approval of the private street as redesign. D. AlteMative Complianee (UDC - B-�} pr-wvided when townhemes ---p-oposed is also—quested. The Applieant's r-e"est is based on thei belief that the tovmhoine poftion eft Ohio�-P-.Velepmeat will better-ifftegr-ate with the fest of the Pr-esee#Ridge eemmunity and will be easily aeeessible a-Rd usable without a gated eff"a-ad will pr-evide a safer-path of travel for-emer-geney vehieles, Reeause Staff is not supportive of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development with the private street,Staff is in turn not supportive of the request for- alter-native eomplianee.As noted abolve in Seetion ALLB,Lot Layout, Staff Feeommends ehanges to the layout of this portion of the plat.A subsequent request may be eonsider-ed if warranted by the .Because a mew is now proposed on the revised plans, alternative compliance is no longer necessary. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IX.A and denial of the request for a private street and alternative compliance per the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on(continued from July 16t'and August 20t1i September 17,2020.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to continue the subject AZ and PP requests to a subsequent Commission hearing in order for the Applicant to revise the concept plan for the commercial/medical campus and plat for the townhome portion of the development. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ Page 20 Page 25 Item#1. a. In favor: Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering&Patrick Connor(Applicant's Representative); Betsy Huntsin e�presenting the proposed hospital, Randall Peterman(adjacent property owner);Mitch Armuth,Providence Properties b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Val Stack and Paul Hoyer; Sue Ropski; Cory Coltrin; Randall Peterman d. Written testimony: Josh Femreite, Chief of New Schools for Gem Innovation Schools e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Joe Bon ig orno 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Gem Innovation School is in strong support of the project as their future campus lies aqpproximately 300 yards to the south and will be able to provide K-12 public education options for future residents; b. Would like 30' buffer extended along entire east and south boundaries of Peregr, ine Heights Subdivision for a buffer to higher density residential uses; would like more of a transition to the lots at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights Subdivision either with larger lots or common area instead of 5 building lots;not in favor of proposed access via Serenity Ln.; concern pertaining to future access for Serenity Ln. residents via Chinden; concern pertaining to obstruction of view sheds with proposed 4-story structures on commercial portion of development. C. Ms. Ropski's concern with location of trash dumpsters and parking ad to their ro e d. Preference for the hospital to be located closer to the Chinden/Rustic Oak intersection away from low density residential lots at west boundary e. Mr. Peterman is in favor of the proposed development as it will bring services to his property for development. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Preference for owner-occupied townhomes rather than rental or more multi-family in the portion currently proposed for townhomes; b. Preference for the Applicant to obtain the out-parcel at northeast corner of site in order to develop commercial(retail,restaurant, etc.)uses on the site; C. In favor of the variety in housing types and lot sizes proposed; d. Not in favor of the proposed design of the townhome portion of the development and the private streets—needs to be redesigned; e. The Fire Dept.'s preference for a direct unhindered access to the site via Serenity (i.e.not obstructed byagate,bollards or a chain) pposed to right-in/right-out at Serenity Ln./Chinden Blvd. as a fire engine will not be able to access the site from the east via Chinden. f. Conceptual development plan for the commerciaUmedical campus portion of the site needs to be revised as discussed. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items again on October 22'. At the public hearing on October 22',the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_: a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties (Applicant's Representative);Betsy Huntsin eg r,representing the proposed hospital b. In opposition: None Page 21 Page 26 Item#1. C. Commenting: Cary Pitman; Sue Ropski;Val Stack; Doug Haneborg; Heidi Wilson; Charles Hay; Bonnie Layton,WH Pacific(representing property owner to the west of Pere rgrine Hei hts d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Preference for the parking on the east side of the 3-story medical office buildingto o be relocated to the west side of the building and the building shifted further to the east so that the building is further away from adjacent residential properties; b. Concern pertaining to traffic on Serenity Ln. if it were to be open to the south and the safety of children as there are no sidewalks along the private street; C. Concern pertaining to future restriction of right-in/right-out access to Serenity Ln. from Chinden Blvd. and resulting delays for emergency services to Peregrine Heights; C. Request for provision of a fence or a gate at the south end of the Serenity Ln. cul-de-sac to keep it private-, d. Request for the larger estate lots that abut the south end of Peregrine Heights to be carried over to the south side of W. Tanker Dr.; e. Property owner to the west of Peregrine Heights is in favor of the proposed frontage road along Chinden Blvd. for access to the collector street. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. The provision of an electronic gate at the south end of Serenity Ln. for emergency access to Peregrine Heights and to keep the lane private; b. Impacts to the design of the site if the outparcel at the northeast corner of the site isn't purchased by the Developer and developed as part of this site; C. Trash enclosures should be located away from adjacent residential properties, d. In support of the reduction in height from 4-to 3-stories for the hospital and medical office building; e. Preference for the medical office building to be shifted further to the east and/or rotated; f. The provision of only one(1)mew in the townhome portion of the development. f. In general support of the revisions made to the concept plan for the commercial portion of the development. h. Would like the Applicant to work with ITD on noise abatement along the west boundary adjacent to SH-16; i. In favor of the walkability of the development and especially the medical campus; hi support of the changes to the townhome portion of the development and the additional open space; k. Would like the Applicant to work with Staff to reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary of the subdivision to provide a better transition to planned R-4 zoned lots in The Oaks subdivision. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Requirement for noise abatement to be provided along the project's west boundary along N. McDermott Rd. adjacent to the future extension of SH-16 (see Section IX.A.1a.7 and A.3a); b. Relocate the parking on the east side of the medical office building to the west side of the building and shift the building further to the east away from the adjacent residential properties(see revised concept plans in Section VIII.A); C. The Applicant shall work with Staff to provide an electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Dept. for access to Serenity Ln. from the south (see DA provision#A.Ia.6 in Section IX); and, Page 22 Page 27 Item#1. d. Reduce the number of lots along the southern boundary to provide better transition to the R- 4 properties planned to the south in The Oaks subdivision(lots were reduced by 5 along the south and southeast boundaries, see revised plat in Section VIII.C). 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street, meets the intent of the UDC(11-4-3-22),which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street.ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5. 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. D. The Meridian City Council heard these items on December 1,2020.At the public hearing the Council moved to remand the project back to the Commission in order for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties and Stephanie Leonard,KM Engineering(Applicant's Representatives) b. In opposition.None c. Commenting: Cary Pitman;Doug Haneborg; Cory Coltrin d. Written testimony: Randall Peterman(in favor) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Clint Dolsbv, Joe Bongiorno, Steve Sjddoway 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Concern pertaining to the width of the frontage road and access to site from Serenity b. Preference for the hospital to be shifted as far east as possible away from adjacent residents—concern that the 3-story building will overlook the rear yard of adjacent residential properties; c. Desire for a gated entrance to the medical campus portion of the site from Serenity Ln. to prohibit public access/traffic on Serenity Ln.; d. Concerns pertaining to light trespass on adjacent residential properties from the medical campus;noise; odors;need for more of a transition in lot sizes to lot at the southeast corner of Peregrine Heights where there are 4:1 lots proposed; concern pertaining to Fire Dept.response time; location of water& sewer stubs to Peregrine Heights; location of fire hydrants in relation to Peregrine Heights. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Fire response time to the site; b. Subdivision of the multi-family portion of the site allowingfor or separate ownership of individual apartment structures and concern pertaining to consistent exterior maintenance—should maintenance be governed by the HOA instead of a property management company to ensure consistent and timely pkeep of the development? C. Preference for the out-parcel at the northeast corner of the site to be included in the annexation area and development plan for the site. Council is not in favor of annexing the medical campus portion of the site without the out-parcel:remand back to the Commission for inclusion of the out-parcel in the annexation application. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 23 Page 28 Item#1. E. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on January 21,2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties; Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering (Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition: Cory Coltrin c. Commenting: James Jacobson,Attornerepresentin_ Peregrine Heights Homeowner's Association, Sue Ropski; Cary Pitman; Doug Haneborg d. Written testimony: Stephanie Hopkins,Applicant's Representative(response to the staff re ort e. Staff presenting gpplication: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Opposed to development of a medical campus directly ad to Peregrine Heights residential subdivision and request for C-G zoning to be denied; b. Concerns pertaining to where medical waste containers will be located, location of loading docks next to residential,opposed to 4-story medical office building structure which will obstruct views,location of frontage road/emergency access along north boundary of Peregrine Heights Subdivision from Chinden Blvd.; c. Not enough buffer between existing residential properties and proposed commercial development; d. Objections to a frontage road/emergency access driveway at the north end of Pere rg ire Heights subdivision along Chinden Blvd.; e. Concern pertaining to lightpass from the commercial site on the adjacent residential properties; e. Clarification from the Applicant that this is not a trauma center—most business will be related to women's health procedures and not emergency services. 3. Ke. ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Supportive of the continued changes that have made to the development plan by the Developer at the request of Staff and the neighbors; b. In favor of the proposed medical campus in this location of the City and belief it's an appropriate use for the MU-R desi Hated property, c. Empathy for the impacts to the residential property owners adjacent to MU-R designated property and proposed commercial development; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Add requirement for the buffer along the west boundary of the site to incorporate a 2- foot tall berm with an 8-foot tall wall on top of the berm to assist in blocking the noise from the commercial development. This requirement is contingent upon approval from the Peregrine Heights HOA; otherwise,if not approved by the HOA, landscaping and the wall shall be installed as proposed on the concept plan(see DA provision#A.lb.9 in Section IX). 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital via N. Rustic Oak Way, a collector street,meets the intent of the UDC(11-4-3-22),which requires hospitals that provide emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street.ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May S, 2020 included in the public record. Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. Page 24 Page 29 Item#1. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on February 23,2021.At the public hearing the Council moved to approve the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearin. a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties: Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Sue Ropski d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Concern pertaining to the frontage road and height of the proposed structures. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Concern pertaining to direction of potential legislation in regard to property taxes and hesitancy to move forward with this application until more information is known. Council moved to continue this application to April 13t'':public testimony will be limited to new information only. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None VIII. EXHIBITS A. Master Plan Conceptual Rendering&Medical Campus Conceptual Development Plan-REVISED U:9.HIGHWAY 351CHINDEN BLVD. --- PROPOSED PRE SCOTT -- MEDICAL CAMALIS I RIDGE MERIDIAN,IDAHn -9VUA45UUF-7OCW- --- F uTiAE ICHOOL - � 31TE l t III �___-_ i • o 0 0 FUTURE OAKS NORTH SUBDIVISION Page 25 Page 30 Item#1. Xote.--Ahhoffgh tree with detaeheds-idei�,abk&ar-enati9r-oposed the development whieh is also notpr6pos-ed. Page 26 Page 31 Item#1. Concept Plan#2 (including out par-eel)(dated: 1/19/21l: SITE INFORMATION W.CHINNEN VLVV, SITE u1FA: �9.1+ E6(Tt U.l445F7 wPPEHT MNINO: PUT PAAYFM 204K PAR(FAST.NEST,SOUTHI/4,R L-6(Pomu) �e�•s, .•V,.�._ r -UML- ,G•DGG 6F s STORY -IBI.R00 Y POMWI REWIRED: NIIDIHG--561.W 5F ui sRxss ~ — � vARgRG vR0'ulGm. 596 SPAGes �J Q m L C SI_ - VV SETBACxS fRR Cam: F1RCM C'RmLIRm 1 1' R C. mLIRm �.1 jIIIIII11L� III LLLLnI � s.11lllllllflllllllllll .— _ _ E crnyDi�aoR> :rR RmLlrm - Rnp ATE ENi;u�r£ 5T(I—n LORR7 h vmLl+SU "L y x/bcuT,x,T TJi RE51LEry X 2 5 REOI.IRED Q ~— Rax 9ylµa'xG uop1T: Gs 2 aRpW6E6 BYILYIxL HEIGHT: �M..v 4, x05RTAf =NDoea eL¢6�Y�rrnRc o� _ _ I RR OV LII — — I urooaR earn i"jkin LflTTTMfi t)111 l l l l I I I I RiI I. Pt}mti[o•.mnox vo R uwulzlz..iu_u I E N G 1 N E F AI I IN G - nw•E�®via Ex.z.o IR I I I I �WF66~N D s� w 7 1500 450 Plan I..smle=1"=15 I50' ��calkY mra6r66 Page 27 Page 32 Item#1. B. Annexation&Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps C—G HRJING LEGEND — — —— — n Er —k-15 I I RUT o 70 ti °ma m R-1� o� I rF _ I R-15 RUT }+ I I �• km ' R—8 � I R-S 1 OF 1d J R 4 R+ RUT _ — — `L7 6 300 607 R-8 R A plan scale::"=7nr Page 28 Page 33 Item#1. km E H G P N E E R I N G Decemf]er 17,2020 Project No.18.140 FAhibit A Legal Description for Annexation Presrotk Ridge SabdMOon A parmI of land situated In a portion of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 and a pprllorr of the West 1/2 of Section 29,Township 4 North,Range 1 West, Doise Meridlan,Ada County,ldaha and heing mare particularly described as follows: Connrnerncing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Sectlim 28, which bears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 fleet frorn art aFumirtum cap marking the North 1/4 cornerof said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89'27 L7"E A distance of 1,464-69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, 7hence following said northerly liner 589'27'17"E a distance of 1,124.74 feet to said aluminurn Cap marking the North 114 corner; Thence leaving said northerly line of said Northwest 114 and fellowirr�the northerly Ilne of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 2B,599'25'25"E a distance Of GO-00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly Ilne,SM"43'55"W a distance of 558.89 feet to a point; Thence S89`24'23"E a distance of 1,24E.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly Ilre of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28; 7herlte fol Iowia8 said easterl'y liner S00`36'13'W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence Iming said easterly line, N77-58'17"W a distance of 1,MZ2 feet to a 518•inch rebaran the easterPy line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly IIr~e, SW"43'55'W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch plpe marking the Center 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence la2virxg said easterly line,S00'43r5:V W a distance of 24.35 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S53'05'530W a distance of 16.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar, Thence N78'07'38"VV a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/8--inch rebar; Thence 589%8'46"Wa distance of45.49 Beet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N96"i4'4! Ord a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/Sinch rebar; Thence N88'50'04"W a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/8-inch rebiar; Thence N80'59'54'VV a distance of 36.99 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N70`77'41"4N a distance of 25.64 Beet to a 5J8-�inch rebar; Thence S89'15r0TW a distance of 20,04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; 7henoe N86'53'33"W a distance of 189,53 feet to a 5/8-Inch rebar; Thence 564'04'03"W a distarkee Of 27.64 feet to a 5/8•inch rebar; Thence N89`14'25"UV a distance of 784.53 feet to a point; -thence M0X5Z'21"E a distance of 16-96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 28- Thence fallowing the southerly Ilne of:he Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89'21'12"w a dlsoxie of 686.03 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly line,N01'00'37"E a distance of 400.00 feet to a paint; 9233 West Sta#s Street a 1WJl e,pdohiu S3714 . 208.539.6939 + kmvngllp.corn Page 29 Page 34 Item#1. Thence N89'21'12"W a dlStanoe of 625_i30 feet to a paint on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of Bald Section 28; Thenge following said westerly line,lK01'00'37"E a distance of 690-74 feet tP a po I nt; Thence leaving said westerly line,573'33'16%a Clistarice of 493_S0 feet to a paint; Thence 578'OS'16"E a distance of 589.77 feet to a paint; Thence S46'Sfi`01"E a distance of 299,29 feet to a point Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 48.41 Feet to a poilit Thence No0'52'17"E a distarweof 21S-98fe2t to a 1f2•inch rebar; Thence N7V32'13"E adistweof272AGfeet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 30-59 feet along the arc of a=ircular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet,a delta angle of 38'56'33",a r=hord bea-ing of N75'32'13"E and a chord dlistam*of 30.00 fleet to a 1/2-inch rebar; The nee N7532'13"E a distance of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; The rice NQO'32'13"E a distance of 1,497.29 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar, Thence S6-9'18'13ffW a distance of 270.56 feet to 2 1/2-Inch rebar; Thence N31'55'35°W d distance of$=_73 feet to a paint; Thence 53.14 feet along the are of a circular curve to the right,said Curve hawing a radius of 115.00 feet, a delta angle of 26'28'39 ,a chard bearing of N 18'41`13"W and a chord dicta nco.of 52.57 feet t4 a 5/9- inch rebar; Thence No0'32'43"E a distance of 125.29 feet to the POINT 4F UEGINKING- Said parcel contains a total of 128.207 acres,more or less_ Attached hereto Is Exhibit B and bV this reference is hereby made a part of. 12459 s OF % Client Project Name PAGE Page 30 Page 35 Item#1. o ALI11iINllM CAP p r POINT Or REGINNING N 1/4 CORNER t- BASIS 6F 8€ARING SECTION 28 ❑ _ 20 21 W.Chinden BW{Hwy 20/26i CL M _ _S89'27'17'E 2609,48' L7 29 28 ��EI4,66' — — 1124.74' — — - _ — _ 'o U c m POINT OF COMMENCEMENT = NwuMINUM CORNER P �iD 0, sa0-4.3'55"w O SMION 28 658.60 :/1 N rl m r` SW24'2S'E 1248.58' U) 2 Z < s E m CL` fV C 4 J O M� °0 250 500 1000 w 4A LLJ a dJ SCALL: 1"=544' Annexation Aran 198-207#AC. 8 S0428233640,R5991222210,S0428120950, ° ! S7v'33'Ie SO428131315,SO428131200,RE9 9 12 2 210 1&SO428211102 o Ala Current Zonfng:RUT d �0' S78'pg•Ts E t17 N a « v �8.77• 1.1fi Ci � Q 6 M1 d Q DATE OEEEEAEIERPOO PROJECT: U-M Na Q 113, SHEETIDF 2 a CENTE�Y-WESr }{16 DORNER OF SECTION 28 2- PIPE CENTER OF SECTION 28 NS9.2l'l2"'h' ,/ km SECTION 28 r LID �gy~ J' ENGINEERS-SURYEYOAS.AINdNERS 5233 VK5T STRTESTREET L}] L2 EIOISEr 1D MO 83714 �L12 L7 LB PNON[I2061('-039 `` —— —L4 FA%i708163Sk930 Page 31 Page 36 Item#1. a � v � LINE TABLE LINE TABLE � o LINE I BEARING I DISTANCE LINE BEARING DISTANCE w Ll 889'25'25"E 60.00 L15 NO'52'17"E 215.95 ' Q L2 $743'51'W 24.35 L16 N7532'131 272.40 i.3 553'05'5314 16.53 L17 N7532'13"E 219-13 L4 N76'07'3B1Y 18.68 Lib 56g'18'13'41' 270.56 115 S8918'46'W 45.49 L19 N31'55'3516 91.73 RP1 Z z L6 N96'14'49"W 63-62 L20 NO'32'43"E 125.2906 t L7 NBS'50'0419 85.57 N L9 N80'59'54"W 36.69 sr 2 1-9 N7927'4114 25.64 41 O N di L10 589't 5'00'14 20.04 W Lo � - 9 Li H6B'S3'39'W 169.$3 I.- CLJ f L12 S94"04'03'1M 27.e4 O ,n L13 O52'21"E 696 a 1 Lt4 al O !Z +r Q q CURVE TABLE DATE- DECEMEIER 2020 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD PROJECT-. - G1 45.00' 30.69' 30'56'33' N7932'13'E 30.00' SHEET: C2 115.U0' 53.14' 2E26'39' N18'4l'13"W 52.67' 2 OF 2 km monvigmizoul." ENGINEERS.SUNY&YM.PANNER5 9233 WEST STATE 5T K7 B0I54IDAHDB3714 PHONE12061639-5939 FAIT I0a1639 6M Page 32 Page 37 Item#1. km E Nr,; I N F E Ir I N G December 17.2020 Project N.D.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezpae tt C-G Prostott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Settiorl�8,Tow nshlp 4 North, Range i West,liaise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly descrl bed as follows: Commencing at an aluminum Cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89*27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40-eet from an aluminum cap marking the North 114 WrMr of said SeCtlon 2e, thence follavring the northerly fine of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, M'27'17^E a distance of 1,484.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following Bald northerly Hine,S39'27'17"E a dicta nce of 1,124.74 Feet to said aluminum cap making the North 1/4 corner; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Northwest 3{4r S00'43'55"W a distance of 586.55 feet t0 a 112-Inch rebar, Thence leavIng said easterly Ifne,5S9'?5'31"E a distance of 27.44 feet to a point; Thence S00'34'290W a distance of 397,44 Feet to a point; Thence N&9`25'31"Wa distance of826.54 feet to a paint; Thence NW32'13"E a distance of 837.62 feet to a 1/2-Inch relmr, Thence 569'18'13"W a distance of 270-56 feet tc a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N31`55'35"1N a distance of 81.73 feet to a point Thence 53.14 feet alogg the arc of a circular curve tin the right,said Curve haYing a radius of 115.00 feet a delta angle of 26'28'39",a chord bearing of N18'41'IrW arid a chard dlstanee of 52.67 feet to a 5/9- inch rebar; Thence M00'3243"E a dista rice of 125.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Sold parcel contains a total of 19.952 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit Band by this reference is hereby made a part of, 9z"Welt Stow 5k w a Mise,Idaho 93714 . 208.639.6939 mr rip 11p-cvm Page 33 Page 38 Item#1. D d EV t � 3 ❑ POINT OF BD'IHHING W.Chin hd den B (Hwy 20126) ALUMINUM CAP WN 1/4 CORNER BASIS OF BEARING �S1;CT10N 28 20 21 _ _ S99'27'17"E 20o9.4o' Q 29 28 48@"27'WE 1464.66' 3424.74' � G4 NOG 32'43 LA"f 0 7 ❑ 125.2E1' a,, v N31'55'351V Q 06 01.73' u°Vi Z3 4 CC a Rezone Area: 19.$5±AC. -I-, n, 50428211202,R6991222101,R6991222210(Portron), 0 ,n 50428220950{Pdrtiany,S0428120640{portion} o a IT— &5042813120a(Porti x L z � Current Zoning:RUT W v N Proposed Zoning:C•G 4 d � o � a M S8725'31'E 41 17.44' I DATE: DECE>a(�ER T010 Z f+ CURVE TABLE PNOIFCT; 18300 CURVE 1 RAIDIUS LENGTH DELTA CH RID RRG CHORE) SHEET: 1 OF 1 Cl 115.00' 53A4' 21m-39- NIB-41.13-W 52.87' 'v i � H89'25'31"1V 828.54' F�yy EEYY y� ENfiBYEEA3.SIlINEY0R5.PGNINEAS 0 100 200 4Q0 1 9233WE5T5TATE5T0EET 0mc OAH0 83714 PHONE 1M)E396939 SCALE: 1'=200° FAX W81B39593Q Page 34 Page 39 Item#1. km E N G I N E E R I N G April 7,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-8 Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of Section 28,Township 4 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows. Commencing at an aluminum cap narking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which (sears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89'27'17"E a distance of 2,609.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following the northerly line of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28,S89°2525"E a distance of 60.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,S00'43'55"W a distance of 658.89 feet to a point; Thence S89'24'23"E a distance of 1,248.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly line of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 29; Thence fallowing said easterly line,S00'36'13"W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said easterly line, N77`58'17"W a distance of 1,338.12 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar an the easterly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line, SO743'55"W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch pipe marking the Center 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence leaving said easterly line,S00'43'51"W a distance of 24.35 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence S53"05'53"W a distance of 16.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence N78"07'38"W a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S89"18'46"W a distance of 45.49 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'14'49"W a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N88'50'04"W a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence N80'59'54"W a distance of 36.69 feet to a 5/8-inch rehar; Thence N70'27'41"W a distance of 25.64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S89'15'00"W a distance of 20.04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'53'39"W a distance of 189.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S64'04'03"W a distance of 27.64 feet to a 5/8 inch rebar; Thence N89'14'25"W a distance of 799.53 feet to a point; Thence N00°52'21"E a distance of 16.96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 28; Thence following the southerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89'21'12"W a distance of 686.03 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly line,ND1'00'37"E a distance of 400.00 feet to a point; Thence N89'21'12"W a distance of 625.00 feet to a point on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said westerly line,ND1"00'37"E a distance of 690.74 feet to a point; 9233 West State Street • Boise,Idaho 83714 • 20-8.639,6939 • kmenglip.com Page 35 Page 40 Item#1. Thence leaving said westerly line,S71"33'16"E a distance of 483.50 feet to a point; Thence S78'08'16"E a distance of 589.77 feet to a point; Thence 545"56'01"E a distance of 299.29 feet to a paint; Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 4&41 feet to a paint; Thence NOO°52'17"E a distance of 21598 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75°32'13"E a distance of 272AO feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 30.59 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 45.00 feet, a delta angle of 38"56'33",a chord bearing of N75'32'13"E and a chord distance of 30.00 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N75'32'13"E a distance of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar.- Thence N00'32'13"E a distance of 659.67 feet to a point; Thence 589`25'31"E a distance of 279.95 feet to a point; Thence SOW34'29"W a distance of 420.05 feet to a point; Thence 589'25'31"E a distance of 27160 feet to a point; Thence.82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet, a delta angle of 31°3b'09",a chord bearing of S73"37'27"E and a chard distance of 81.69 feet to a point; Thence S57'49'22"E a distance of 138.82 feet to a point; Thence 275.78 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet, a delta angle of 31`36'09",a chord bearing of N16'22'33"E and a chord distance of 272.30 feet to a point; Thence NOD"34'29"E a distance of 233.13 feet to a point; Thence 589'25*31"E a distance of496.43 feet to a point; Thence ND4°36'19"E a distance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence 1\189°24'23"W a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence NOO°34'29"E a distance of 122.33 feet to a point; Thence N89°25'31"W a distance of 17.44 feet to a point on the easterly Me of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly line, NOO'43'55"E a distance of 586.55 Beet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 99.532 acres, more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of. - 1 ` I S T �- m 124 C OF % B Ilk Client Project Name PAGE 12 Page 36 Page 41 Item#1. POINT OF BEGINNING O ALUMINUM CAP 0 — N i/4 CORNER i SECTION 28 20 21 8A515 OF BEARING W,Chinden Blvd{Hwy 20/26) CL — —SB9'27'17"E 2609.40' L1 m p POINT OF COMMENCEMENT — — C' m Q ALUMINUM CAP 00 Q S00'43'55"W 1 SE14W CORNER 658.89' V1 N SECTION 28 u� ED �O °�' s L24 S89'24'23"E 124B.58' N V O Ln z z 1 L23 L22 S89'25'31"E ,h ro4 279.95' I 1 � p C S89'25'31"E a — .� 496.43' *—' a-' u 0 250 500 1000 0; m 2 -x VI O el w O m 61 N M SCALE: 1"=500' �, $ LIB w a O N 7y O N Z S77.33 B" Z C2 o a} 4a ' e Rezone Area:99.53±AC. "' t v so s7608'1s 01 50428233640,R6991222210(Portion),50428120950(Portion), Enc° V 589.77' Ctrs C1 SO428131315&SO428131200(Portion) a o A �2 Current Zoning:RUT `O S4611,56'01"E Proposed Zoning:R-8 DATE: APRIL 2020 299.29' �}k PROJECT. 18-140 N89'21'12"W N77-5817.W 133 SHEET: 625.00' w In tn 8.12' 1 OF Z b M O In In N a o p CENTER-WEST 1/16 CORNER o o OF SECTION 28 2" PIPE o g — CENTER OF SECTION 28 ` z N89'21'12"W 686.03' BRASS CAP L13 N89'14'25"W 789.53' _ — Ion W 1/4 CORNER ' SECTION 2S Jf�Tr L10 �q LS ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS.PLANNERS 9233 WEST STATE STREET 8015E,IDANC 83714 \_L12L71 L7 Lfi 1-2 PHCNE(209)639-6939 L3 FAx{206)639-6930 Page 37 Page 42 Item#1. o CL LINE TABLE LINE TABLE 0 f0 u LINE BEARING DISTANCE UNE BEARING DISTANCE C o L1 589'25'25"E 60.00 L15 NO'52'17"E 215.98 CO Q� � L2 S0'43'51"W 24.35 Lib N7532'13'E 272.40 m L3 S53'05'53W 16.53 L17 N75'32'13% 219.13 �0 f0 r L4 N7B'07'38"W 19.68 LIB 589'25'31"E 275.80 iz -Q cr L5 S89'18'4B W 45.49 L19 S57'49'22'E 138.82 O L/1 Z Z L6 N86'14'49"W 83.62 L20 NO'34'29"E 233.13 0J (D N UD o0 L7 NBW50'04'W 55.57 L21 NO'35'19'E 294.95 o ry LB N80'S9'54"W 38.69 L22 NB9'24'23'W 496.59 m O } +� u L9 N70'27'41"W 25.64 L23 NO'34'29'E 122.33 O N L10 S89.15'00'W 20.04 L24 N59'25'31'W 17.44 L Ln o X L11 N86'53'39'W 189.53 L25 NO'43'55"E 556.55 LLI a N L Y \ L12 56404'03"W 27.64 � N C L13 140'S2'21"E 16.96 O L14 NIU51-12-E 48.41 r m O C a + Q o CURVE TABLE DA1E: APRIL2M CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORDBRG CHORD ➢ROIECIC: �euD Cl 45.00' 30.59' 3856'33' N75'3243'E 30.00 SHEET: C2 150.00' 62.73' 31'36'09' S73'3727'E 81.59 Z OF 2 C3 500.00' 275.78' 31'36'09" Ni6'22'33'E 272.30' I= ENGINEERS.SURVEVORS.PIANNM 9233 WESTSTATESTREET MISE,IDAH083114 FAX(2DR rv2WN 6 9 P I 39-69309 Page 38 Page 43 Item#1. km E N G I N E E R I N G April 7,2020 Project No.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R-15 Prescott Ridge Subdivision A parcel of land situated in a portion cf Northwest 1/4 and a portion of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 28,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89"27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from an aluminum cap marking the North 114 corner of said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89°27'17"E a distance of 2,078.14 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly line,500°43'55"W a distance of 983.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence S89"25'31"E a distance of 546.59 feet to a point; Thence N00'34'29"E a distance of 275.11 feet to a point; Thence S89'24'23"E a distance of 496.59 feet to a point; Thence 500436'19"W a distance of 294.85 feet to a point; Thence N89°25'31"W a distance of 496.43 feet to a point; Thence 500`34'29"W a distance of 233.13 feet to a point; Thence.275.78 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet, a delta angle of 31'36'09",a chord bearing of 516°22'33"W and a chord distance of 272.30 feet to a point; Thence N57°49'22"W a distance of 138.82 feet to a point; Thence 82.73 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150_OD feet,a delta angle of 319V)9",a chord bearing of N73°37'27"W and a chord distance of 81.69 feet to a point; Thence N89'25'31"W a distance of 275.60 feet to a point; Thence N00'34'29"E a distance of 420.05 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains a total of 8.822 acres,more or less. Attached hereto is Exhibit 3 and by this reference is hereby made a part of. 4 � 12459 g OF Z. 9233 West State street Boise,Idaho 83714 * 208.639.6939 kmengllp.com Page 39 Page 44 Item#1. m a ALUMINUM CAP T r N 1/4 CORNER m + BASIS OF BEARING W.Chinden Blvd(Hwy 20/26) 1 SECTION 28 =3 20 21 _ S69-27'17"E 2609.40' / O 0 29 26 2078.14' — — — — — C a -a ,j _d o ¢ � a � POINT OF COMMENCEMENT ALUMINUM CAP �O : c NW CORNER I — — SECTION 2B w 0) O m i S89'24'23'E 496.59' — — — r4 '^ d GC `pcc O M e rn m y Z V 4� o Ln n I M > o I,//r POINT OF BEGINNING N r' � z X N S89'25'31"E 546.59' v Y L Rezone Area: 8.82±AC. i N89'25'31 W 496.43' p O c Z o R6991222210(Portion)& �, M Y o 0 50428120950(Portion) M Current Zoning:RUT a ¢ w Proposed Zoning:R-15 � I I DATE: APRIL 2020 N PROJECTS 18-140 M d I SHEET: Z I 1OF1 U N69'25'31'1N 275.60' C2 CURVETABLF N57'49'22"W 0 100 200 400 lam CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD 138'82 C1 5ao.00' 275.78' 31'36'09" S1622'33W 272,30' I SCALE: 1"=200' ENGINEERS.SURVEYORS.PLANNERS sTATr STREET C2 150.00' 82.73' 31'36'09' N7337'27W 81.69' 9z33wes'DAHO83714 BOiSE,IOAH083714 PHONE(208)53M939 FAX(203)53M930 Page 40 Page 45 Item#1. C. Preliminary Plat(date: 912812020 10,121 20 i i 20,/ 12/22/20),Phasing Plan u.Lot r .,, ou4 Exhibit- REVISED _ Y1GRm FNP:iLL PRESCOTT PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING Z — —~—� I w.allorN o<va A PARCEL OF LAND 5I7UA7EP INAPpRT19N OF THE NpRTHEAST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 O F S ECTI O N 28,TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WESi,MSL MLRI DIAN,ADA COUNTY.IDAHO f 1 K """•„' � 'ram ._�__ I OPEN SPATE LOTAREM ttnr am T".w :aCi 63 wh 08 _ _- i:':g:a.. -....,...... a .❑ tie: m a � ..- .. ,. ,.m.,��, ;5;;®® B a 1 m @ m�o ® } ® ai ® 3I::EI3!r;,;E:F?' m � B v B a `` ... •., ::"AI 7.N SPA:: 6 2:: _"6: 1L ® @ ® •• I PRESCCFTE RIOGESUBDIVIMON MERIDIAN,IDARO all @ 9 $F7 9 ®S;•.. a B E:1 0 i ® @ @ ®@ O C7 Oi Tj '`S ,km _r�in.r�zw,n �• PPLO LL Page 41 Page 46 Item#1. r .r4 o. (r �J•irY�,y .'& ^O O� sly b �': ® � �'�� f �� ..,© .r 1 �2 LAVdUT PLAN l', .:.�L I�a' •��n .4--I.'�� AHE5CUUMDUE 5U9oN15 IbAHD I ` 1 bt•TMfuN MATCH LINE 2.1 SHEET PP2.2 ® 1 \ - Ymil.-:�. V yII k T 1 ® ® BESCD7 FIDGE SUBDIV151py p A ® d ® _ O ➢ Q E7 a O �' m _ D MERIDIAN,ICAHO LAYOUT PLAN r --1 ...PP2.3 .. Page 42 Page 47 Item#1. _---.... — 0 . . •, ,, ., p , . ... 5-�--MATC�LfN��S�E3NEET PP2.3. ® .. 1 .� ` �� -•. r S® ------------------ ® k, . . :•: : '� o e n.•.••.• MATCH LINE•SEE SHEETPP2.1— �,:��;�;;;_;;;�;_;_; , � �.+ T LAY�VT PLRN rti.•.•..-..-. � ' - - - - 1 APcH ♦ n -q ... m AA2~�.. N�9.i//L. ��le- A"'•�'�°i�..�.ti/ �r arm w.'r" '•� BESWT F RIDGE SIIDDIVISI^ �rnnu _ . .: 71,2.2 1 1 ml f� zl 1 x al f� �1 It �1 Ig NI IN L44 � i RI -------------- MATCH LINE-SEE SHEET PP2.4 _ ---, — ----1 RESCOTT MIDGE SUBDIVISION� f MEND IMI,ID4HO f ® jp ' 5 m - E. i t ii MATCH LINE•SEE SHEET PPL2 4c PP2.3 g Page 43 Page 48 Item#1. -----f--.--------.-f��- 1 , Ir r r r� r i ' I ' I a' F ' I I ' I r � r ' I [t 1 i - Page 44 Page 49 FHA E NUILDARLE E, LC TS 77-f 65 T2 44 3 41 4 43 z 5 41 Q 6 1 37 2:2 PHASE 1 7 Z9 a 46 z 9 14 f z :E TOTAL UUILL)AULE 370 x LOTS 'PHA E ASE ........... u i p LLJ7 km I N 0 1 N I I I I G EL ITIASE 3 �77771777114LLLLQ� Plan Scale-1' 3OC' Page 45 Item#1. D. Landscape Plan(date: 4�7tivrrvrwzv i 0/9/2 20 11 n 940 12/22/20)-REVISED a_Wx P. 1• C � unm ..w 1 N r,c��r-•rt ww.ia�er. � E i� �—:---,----RISA ....�.��'� w--r MalA I� u - •*P: —n -_�L { xuA r.. 'W'OIL I PEN 5WE i EES —J R$Md � h � �. ISY�E7, t11E[[wILUL4fi[xi5 f1TREV311f�• �. �. -_ 4�� , f " t •.° PATH AY G4ICLIAilON.5 - ;� - •� CJ..A r r 1 Y d • � nri n in- •I+ r .S s,l' `'� mtuT�.a�euEa�GuuEo 1' - s - r 'MrrG/fi*I KAYIILEMWry To ALTa a i mrumnne o+uoeo PF&SM17 HIOGE SUSDFVISIFM y-•: -_ IK+A WRIOMN,IPAH4 c a 1 � - r � . r ,� r• s I .. u _ ° as u�o�uncrana llEe. ._ mrracR Mror.Ho� LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN —�� vvL1A Page 46 Page 51 Item#1. twl'+ri -- - ---•�.... i � �ii17Yriz4rs • i ' I �■ I 1 1 { I 7 � Ir L � • � 'Fr w,�-e � � ._=pia=_____ !-• I �. ��aRR-T� � TF•IwE ! i �—� { +_�~ •� f� -�Sti ` � - a ��a• sat •rf le � 1'*14MI4-* IIFS 1 Ak T • • F��Y wllt■ e•{l ti1Y1lia ��' �•• ", —_ Cl m � i y 5.7 1+ li' i • I; ,1 t 4_ i -- ■ I+ulr Page 47 Page 52 Item#1. _ n+ -----_-+. --- ------------------ _ ' i Ir �� ia4� 1 � • ��1 ,,r :I : i sa� 1 ylh � • 4J F` * it • `�} f + I � ` + �1 'ram �. + � • - - --• - I i ti�ti r� rr • • f --_.aui-i i-.Fa �• ' r' ' a 1 �' • .-a—a a�a-ai�-o • ` F + r � as a •1r��.. u: • terra arr�--_ I 1 LR�tiW L---------- -------------------------- J. �a 1 � 1' a� Page 48 Page 53 Item#1. Ftl...tl 1 W.sarr• ----��__ f — _ 1 1 1 • � 9 Page 49 Page 54 Item#1. E. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenities(dated: °"6"^ '0 9/2# ' 12/22/20)—REVISED PRESCOTT RIDGE SUBDIVISION F E MNANYP TOPENSPACEOATA °�"�'�`°" OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT a a a J • "°" a R ®B • Ilr o a a B i ® aBB® !� ®1 • B TO MA ENWACE ® uva� •• B®� � ® • • � •B® 4 ®® � i_fro-�..-wu w+�m vu awx a Ba®® ••a e n a Y I.�. ® a• ® e a s B e I a e I ® ®m m a � ®w••®e•w a n w B e B® ® mp a� a -- _ i —I I—��`� i B ® °®oar "a ®uaw w ® e ® e• a ® B • RESCOTT RIDGE SUBDIVISION • •••B B •••B a ® ® m A'®®�d • MERIDIAN,IDAHD ut OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT Page 50 Page 55 Item#1. AMEWHES v � ' A-POOL ANO CLU HOUSE TI- Yll=*+rU 136USf BU I LOING ..----- - ,� 54'83LPPOOL _ 17 PARKING SPACES r Ll B-L-ARGETOT lOT 4 - C-SMALL'TOT LOT D DOGPARYJPOCKET PART( PRESCOT'I- E-OPEN SPACE F•MEW RIDGE G-PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MERIDIAN,IDAHO -. E OFFICE.ENCLOSED BIKE STORAGE,CENTRAL ,�Iy F MAI=X CW5TER,AND „ti B I �I� -- ILL DIRECTORY MAP .....//1 A SCHEMATIC CLUBHOUSE — -j I' g LARGETOTLOT t T' SMALL TOT LOT pOG PARKIPOCKET PARK Page 51 Page 56 Item#1. F. Parking Plan(dated:4/8/20 10/21/2020)—REVISED -- • ��. _ a� ----��- litilli I S 1 I P4XIWG IN FROM}W I IVHL.:IS I I �- a 6 4 g� 4 �., L 111 •.•.•.•.•.:•:.... _ W J �- 7 1ttt 3 8 RR- 7 - -- ny I a OM HOMES PAFmING I ¢ 9 ,3 9 - � 3 � ��•�� lti�� - _ 6 E 5 km 3 5 6 5 3 3 3 e a -— F M13ut�tElN 3 16 I 10 � e PARKING t MIT szacieoFunvuWnc Page 52 Page 57 Item#1. G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives-REVISED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ` I RIDGE MEY CIA•NRlk] TOWNHOMES FOUR-PLEX FLATS Nor- jp pppl NMI i S 1 Page 53 Page 58 Item#1. Three-story Hospital Watercolor Rendering _ Mimi IIIIIIIIIIIIN.— MERIDIAN HOSPITAL A_=X MERIDIAWDAHO HCA-4L W.M2' Healthcare" Page 54 Page 59 Item#1. H. Parcel Status Exhibit IandproDATA Parcel Status Exhibit R6991222101 -Wheaton Legal parcel as a platted lot SO428211102- Roark within Peregrine Heights Legal parcel per e-mail Subdivision and e-mail from from Brent Danielson Brent Danielson dated e dated 8.26.19. 8.26.19• wy 20 W Chinden Blvd r SO428120640- Providence Illegal parcel,but will become ACHD z right-of-way per Christy Little e-mail dated 11.6.19. R6991222210- Roark Legal parcel as a platted SO428131200-School lot within Peregrine Illegal parcel,but included Heights Subdivision. with this application to S0428233640- Hon rectify illegal status. Legal parcel per e-mail from Brent Danielson dated 9.5.19. ❑ 0 SO428120950&SO428131315- Kuenzli House parcel is legal. �i Remainder is illegal,but will be rectified SO428233620-Thomson qh by this application. Legal parcel per e-mail from Brent Danielson q3°39'13.74"dated 9.5.19. N 115°27'15.48"W — Map cats 02019 Aug 25,2019-IandproDATA.com The materials available at this website are for informational Scale:1 inch approx 600 feet purposes only and do not constitute a legal document. Page 55 Page 60 Item#1. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION commercial,The conceptual development plan for the C G zoned portion of the site, shall be- Fevised and submitted to the City C!eF!i at least 4 0 days p4or to the City Couneil hearing FeReet eonfor-manee with the following guidelines in the COMPFehensive Plan for-Mixed Use • The buildings in the commercial C G zoned portion of the deVelopment shall be arranged to er-eate some form of >usable RFea, parks,the mixed use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (pg.3 43)-. not limited to plazas, > open space,libraries,-and- shall be provided in the Mixed Use designated portion of the site; outdoor seating areas-at annexation area does not satisfy this mquiventent as it is notpar4 o the AKmed U-se designate • Development of the Mixed Use designated area shall be eentered around spaees that are- well designed publie and quasi pubfie eenteFs of aetivity. Spaees should be aetivated and ineor-porate permanent design elements and amenities that fosteF a Wide Variety o interests ranging&om leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully integrated in • The 4 story medieal office building proposed at the southeast eorner of the commere development shall be shifted to the HOFth tO f-Font on the main entFy dFive aisle off N. Rustie Oak Way as a be�fte-r t-f-a-u-sition to the residenees to the south. • A eOMMeFeial land use type shall be ineluded on the plan in the MU R designated a retail, restaurants, 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. At the Applicant's request,three(3) separate DA's shall be required for each component of the project—one for the R-8 and R-15 zoned residential portions of the development, one for the medical campus and another for the school district's parcel. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, Development Agreements shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer(s). Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicants to the Planning Division for each DA prior to commencement of the DA's. The DA's shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA's shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the development: 1. Future development of the R-8 and R-15 zoned portions of the site shall be generally consistent with the master plan,preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, qualified open space & site amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VI11 and the provisions contained herein. Page 56 Page 61 Item#1. 2. Administrative design review shall be required for all single-family attached, townhome and multi-family structures. Compliance with the design standards for such listed in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 3. The rear and/or side of structures on Lots 2-6,Block 4; Lots 2-7,Block 1; Lots 8 and 9- 15,Block 9; Lot 16,Block 7; Lot 2,Block 12; Lots 2-14,Block 10;Lots 2-16 and 29, Block 14; Lot 68, 70, 81-83, and 77-78,Block 12; and Lots 43 4 4, 75 42,45 and-79 67, Block 8 that face collector streets(i.e.N. McDermott Rd.,N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.), shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 4. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for a multi-family development in the R-15 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27: Multi-Family Development. 5. One management company shall handle the leasing and maintenance of the entire multi- family development to ensure better overall consistent management of the development. 6. An electronic gate that is approved by the Fire Department shall be provided for access to Serenity Ln. from the south. 7. Noise abatement for the future SH-16 extension shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to N. McDermott Rd. constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. b. Medical campus/hospital: 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the master plan,preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevation included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. 2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. 3. Noise abatement shall be provided in the form of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-413. 4. A minimum 30-foot wide buffer with an 8-foot tall CMU wall shall be provided along the western and southern boundaries of the site adjacent to residential uses as proposed on the landscape plan in Section VIII.D. Dense landscaping consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative ground cover that results in a barrier that allows trees to touch at maturity is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The block wall shall be decorative and have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures—plain CMU block is not allowed. 5. A frontage road parallel to W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 shall be constructed as depicted on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.A in accord with UDC 11-3H- 4B.3e. 6. The hospital building shall be restricted to 3-stories in height as proposed. Page 57 Page 62 Item#1. 7. The entire first floor of the medical office building shall consist of retail and restaurant uses as proposed to provide a mix of uses as desired in the Mixed-Use designated area in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. 8. The final design of the site shall be consistent with the general Mixed Use and Mixed Use—Regional guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan(see pgs. 3-13 thru 3-15 and 3-18 thru 3-19). 9. The buffer along the west boundary of the site shall incorporate a 2-foot tall berm with an 8-foot tall wall on top of the berm to assist in blocking the noise from the commercial development if approved by the Peregrine Heights Homeowner's Association(HOA). If not approved by the HOA,the landscaping and wall shall be installed as depicted on the conceptual development plan. The City Council should determine if the proposed access to the hospital which provides emergency care from Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 via W. Rustic Oak Way meets the intent of the requirement in UDC 11-4-3-22A, which requires hospitals that provides emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. If so, it should be memorialized in the Development Agreement. If not City, GoH neil m eemigider a .a;r ation to the .to a Ua * -tpiet ,ah,,,..Hee; Hetfeas-ible as. a,,,,,,miH a by,Qq' Geu n Alternatively, Council may deny the emergency care component of the hospital use. ITD denied a request for direct access via Chinden Blvd. for the emergency care component of the hospital per the letter to the Applicant dated May 5, 2020 included in the public record. c. School Site: 1. The subject property shall develop with an education institution; any other uses shall require modification of this agreement. 2. A conditional use permit shall be obtained for an education institution in the R-8 zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2. The use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-14: Education Institution. 3. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. 2. The final plat(s) submitted for this development shall incorporate the following changes: a. Include a note that prohibits direct lot access via W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 unless Remove approved by the City and the Idaho �Transportation Department. b. Re��ot 1,Blook 15 as it's rL 21T�P right of d cannot 7e pla#ed as Teefmnen let. c. Depict cross-access/ingress-egress easements to adjacent MU-R designated properties to the west(Parcels#R6991221700 &R6991221600)and east(Parcel#R6991222101)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. e. Depict the easement(s)for the West Tap sub-lateral; if the easement(s)is greater than 10- feet in width, it should be placed in a common lot that is a minimum of 20-feet in width and outside of a fenced area,unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6E. streets(alleys aa&er-eammen driveways may be iaeer-peFated); or-,if pr-iv4e stFeets are proposed, eaeh unit should ffen4 on and be aeeessed via the private stfeet(s).fl. Re design the tev,%heme peftion of the d&velepmeftt(i.e. Lots 16 79,Bleek 8)with pub] Page 58 Page 63 Item#1. ffm4i family development(i.e. one stfuetufe en ene pfepeft-y with 3 er-mof:e dwellifig tiflits) with townhome style tmits ffii�be a development option for this area. A revised concept plan shall be presented P40F tO or-at the Commission hearing for review and a revised plat Fefleeting this ehange shall be submitted at least 10 days P40F tO the City Coun private streets should be provided in accord with UDC 11 3F 1.Also,provide updated density ealeulaflons-. g. Lots 70-83,Block 12 in the multi-family portion of the development shall be revised to depict parking and access driveways on a common lot with an ingress-egress/parking easement for each buildable lot. A r-ev4sed plat shall be submitted at least 40 days p to the City Couneff heaFiflg depieting this .Done h. Extend W. Smokejumper St. as a stub street to the out-parcel(Parcel#S0428233620) at the southwest corner of the site. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat application shall be revised as follows: a. Depict a detail/cross-section of the berm or berm and wall combination required as noise abatement within the street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 and N. McDermott Rd.; also address how the wall will be constructed to avoid a monotonous wall,that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. . c. Depict a detached sidewalk/pathway(as applicable) along all collector streets(i.e.N. McDermott Rd.,N. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St.) and W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26 in accord with UDC 11-3A-17.A detached 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is required within the street buffers along N. McDermott Rd., W. Chinden Blvd./SH 2O-26, the east side off. Rustic Oak Way and W. Ramblin St. d. Landscaping shall be depicted on either side of all pathways as set forth in UDC 11-313- 12C. e. If existing trees are proposed to be removed from the site,the Applicant shall coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. Mitigation information shall be included on the plan. If existing trees are proposed to be retained on site,they shall be depicted on the plan. f. A calculations table shall be included on the plan that demonstrates compliance with the landscape standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E(common open space), 11-313-12C (pathways), 11-3A-17 (parkways) and 11-3B-7C(street buffers); calculations should include the linear feet of pathways,parkways and street buffers and square footage of common open space as applicable, along with the required vs.provided number of trees. g. Revise the fencing type around the perimeter of Lot 1,Block 2 and Lot 37,Block 12 to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7 to provide more visibility of the common areas in accord with CPTED design strategies. h. Include a detail of the amenities proposed with each phase of development. i. The CMU wall proposed along the south and west boundaries of the commercial portion of the development shall have texture and a color complimentary to adjacent residential structures—plain CMU block is not allowed; revise the detail(i.e. reference photo) accordingly. Page 59 Page 64 Item#1. development in Bloek 9 in aeeer-d with the eta-ad tested in rT G 11 36 k. If a dog park is proposed on Lot 1,Block 2, demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.1h. 1. Depict a small tot lot on Lot 12, Block 6 rather than a large tot lot, consistent with that shown on the site amenities plan. m. Modify the landscape plan consistent with changes required to the plat above under condition IX.A.2 above. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6, 11-2A-7 and 11-213-3 for the R-8,R-15 and C-G zoning districts respectively. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 and for commercial uses in accord with the standards listed in 1I- 3C-6B;bicycle parking is required in commercial districts as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. A revised paFking plan shall be submitted PAOF tO OF at the Commission hearing for-the townhome portion of the development that Fefleets ehanges noted above in eondition#A.2f dfid that ffovides fOF adequate guest parking 6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application(s)that depicts the setbacks,fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via common driveways; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. 7. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 8. Common driveways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D. A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County Recorder for the common driveways,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. This information may be included in a note on the face of the plat rather than in a separate easement. plat in the townheme pei4ien of the developmefft in Bleek 8 are not approved. , 10. All existing structures shall be removed from the site prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 11. Pathways shall be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. 12. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the 10-foot wide multi-use pathways proposed within the site as required by the Park's Department, prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the phase in which they are located. 13. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the clubhouse and swimming pool facility, single-family attached,townhome, multi-family and commercial structures.All structures except for single-family detached structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Page 60 Page 65 Item#1. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1.1 This proposed development is not currently serviceable by the Meridian City water and sanitary sewer systems. Mainlines designed to service this development are within The Oaks North Subdivision to the south. Until utilities are available to the south boundary of the proposed development,the City of Meridian will not accept an application for final plat. 1.1.2 Sewer mainline/manholes are not allowed in common driveways or under sidewalks. Run service lines down common drive but make sure required separation can be met. 1.1.3 The planned sewer trunk line will enter this property at N. Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.4 The sewer line in N. Rustic Oak Way shall be 10-inch all the way to Chinden Blvd. 1.1.5 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$265.25 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.6 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$185.43 per equivalent residential unit(ERU). The reimbursement fees for the entire residential portion of this subdivision shall be paid prior to city signatures on the first final plat. 1.1.7 As noted in the Geotechnical Evaluation Report prepared by GeoTek Inc., all artificial fill materials on site must be removed. 1.1.8 New 12-inch water main will need to be installed in parts of W Sturgill Peak St,N Jumpspot Ave,W Parachute Dr,N Streamer Way,W Smokejumper St and N Rustic Oak Way. 1.1.9 Construct water main in N Streamer Way between W. Parachute Drive and W. Fireline Drive. 1.1.10 Water connections to the north need to be facilitated either by extension of a mainline or and easement in common area Lot 19,Block 1, or off the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line. This is dependent on how road connections to the north are designed and developed in the future. 1.1.11 Remove the water main proposed in N Serenity Avenue.At the intersection of N Serenity Ave and W Tanker Dr,Install a tee at the branch off point with an isolation valve directly attached to it and then cap off the outlet side of the valve. This allows the tap to be installed and pressure tested so if the existing County Subdivision wants to connect in the future they can easily do so. 1.1.12 Water& sewer need to flip locations in N Backfire Way. Currently these lines are not in the proper corridor. Water should be located on the east side of the road&sewer on the west. 1.1.13 Eliminate stub/dead-end water main at each corner of the townhome section off of W Wildfire Dr of the development. Services are only allowed in these areas just like common drives. 1.1.14 A water connection to the east(near N Static Line Ave and/or townhome section off of N Rustic Oak Way)needs to be enabled by either an extension of water mains to the property line or an easement. This is dependent on road connections to the east. Page 61 Page 66 Item#1. 1.1.15 Water modeling was completed both as an entire development and at each phase per the phasing plan included in this record. This development was modeled with the 12"mains through the subdivision as required above, and the rest of the mains were modeled as 8". Per this plan there are no pressure issues,but each phase will need to be modeled at Final Plat to verify there aren't any pressure issues. 1.1.16 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these recommendations to help ensure that groundwater does not become a problem within crawlspaces of homes. 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 Page 62 Page 67 Item#1. Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. Page 63 Page 68 Item#1. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188367&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiV D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188188&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=191860&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=189738&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=192646&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT(SID) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188429&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciLy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiU Page 64 Page 69 Item#1. X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E): Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8, R-15 and C-G zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and MU-R FL UM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for this property if the Applicant complies with the provisions in Section IX. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the mix of lot sizes and housing types proposed in the residential portion of the development will provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed medical offices and hospital along with recommended retail/restaurant uses will provide much needed services in the northern portion of the City in accord with the purpose statement of the commercial districts and with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety,and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Comments submitted by WASD indicate that existing enrollment numbers are below capacity in area schools that will serve this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section LY B. Preliminary Plat Findings(UDC 11-613-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat, with 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) Page 65 Page 70 Item#1. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section Mfor more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Private Street Findings (UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The Director finds that the proposed design of the private street deer met meets the requirements in UDC 11-3F-4A.6 as whieh are prehibite as. ether than these that er-e a common mew is proposed through the site design er . 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity; and The Director finds granting approval of the private street with the lot lalyout-, densky, pang�Ls proposed fire lanes are bleek-ed due to pa46ng in unaut-hei-ked ai-eas should not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Director finds the use and location of the private street streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the regional transportation plan. Page 66 Page 71 Item#1. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. (Ord. 10- 1463, 11-3-2010, eff. 11-8-2010) The Director finds the proposed residential development deer no incorporates_a mew or gate developme in the design. in ofder-to grant approval for-an altemative compliance applieation, the Director-shall deter-mine the following! z. StfiEt adherence aF applioation-of ther-e"ir-ements are Diet feasible; OF ; and 3. The altemative means will fiet be materially detFimeatal to the ptiblie welfare aF impaif: the intended uses and ehar-aetef of stfffounding pfoper-ties, Page 67 — Page 72 Applicant Presentation - PRESCOTT RIDGE _ . IDAHO - . s 5 r � r i AS Prescott Ridge Annexation, Zoning and Preliminary Plat City of Meridian City Council May 18, 2021 Housing Types f r• I r' Igo. � . IL[a,.• 3��tR �ii �i. 4 ait� r was cex. oa.c� R•Mff e a •� KIM FM OLIM IN I ESMA o. QO QI : . Medical Office Building: •' •"• • 4 stories U.S-HIGHWAY 26 CH I NU EN 8LY D. First floor Retail/Restaurant — — Top 3 stories: 60,000 SF of _ medical office FIRE ACCESS Hospital Building: 3 stories, 181,000 SF ,z �� 60 beds A o Boutique Medical Parking: 544 spaces required Campus specializing in 596 spaces provided • Women's health and w pediatric services 4ftdi • Out-patient operations • • Not a trauma facility n fire access - L 2 f ] itF"T i ' i Residential Eco • Impact Each home in Prescott Ridge will bring in 857 to Meridian in property tax revenue. This totals an annual revenue of $304,235 for all of the 355 homes. The 14 Multifamily four-plex buildings will each pay $2,636 to the City in property taxes. This totals an annual revenue of $36,904 for all 14 buildings. Total annual City property tax revenue from Prescott Ridge residential is $341, 139. Based on a valuation of$450,000 per single family home, $1M per four-plex building and including the reductions outlined in HB 389. Residential Eco • Impact The average value of a home in Prescott Ridge is $450,000 and pays 857 in property tax to the City. The average value of an existing home in Meridian is $360,480 and pays 690 in property tax to the City. Even with the effects of HB 3891, an average home in Prescott Ridge brings in 167 more or 19.5% more revenue to the City of Meridian for the same level of public services. Medical Campus Economic Impact The Medical Campus will be valued at $180,000,000. At buildout, the Medical Campus will bring in $474,452 .in Meridian property tax revenue annually. This is equal to the same property tax revenue from 553 homes valued at $450K. New High Earning Jobs: 300 (over 70% will be doctors and nurses) Annual Payroll: $24.7M There is extensive direct, indirect and induced economic impact from construction of Medical Campus and operations of the Medical Campus. The campus will be an anchor of economic activity and support further economic development in the Chinden/Hwy 16 region. 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 13, 2021 for Shafer View Terrace (H- 2020-0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Page 114 Item#2. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 13, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 9, 2021 for Shafer View Terrace (H-2020- 0117) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd./SH 69, Midway Between E.Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. A. Request: Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4 (29.82 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 115 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 PROJECT NAME : Shafer View Terrace ( H - 20 M117 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING May 18,2021 Legend L_J__ DATE: Continued from:March 9 and April 13, ( Project Lacfl for F-1 #0 2021 TO: Mayor&City Council -- � -- FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 - SUBJECT: H-2020-0117 ; Shafer View Terrace—AZ,PP ; LOCATION: East side of S.Meridian Rd./SH 69, - midway between E. Amity Rd. and E. r Lake Hazel Rd., in the SW 1/4 of Section _ 31,T.3N.,RAE. (Parcels#R7824220044 &#R7824220042) -, 11 do I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of a total of 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres) and R-4(29.82 acres)zoning districts; and Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 39.01 acres Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County/R-2 and R-4 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)(3 or fewer units/acre) Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 50 buildable lots/10 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units(type 50 SFR detached dwellings of units) Density(gross&net) Womml 1.76 units/acre(gross); 3.30 units/acre(net) Open Space(acres,total 5.26 acres(or 18.55%)overall common open space—4.05 [%]/buffer/qualified) acres(or 14.27%)of which is qualified open space Amenities Multi-sport court,tot lot,gazebo shade structure,multi-use pathway Physical Features(waterways, The McBirney Lateral runs along the southern boundary hazards,flood plain,hillside) and through the western portion of the site.Another Page 1 Page 116 Item#2. Description Details Page waterway exists on the eastern portion of the site between the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoned properties. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/13/20; 14 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) This property was previously platted as Lot 4,Block 1, Shafer View Estates,developed in Ada County and recorded in 2002(Bk. 84,Pg.9403). It was deed restricted and was only allowed to be used for open space as defined in the non-farm development section of the Ada County code and the planned development section of the Ada County code for a period of not less than 15 years from the recording date of the subdivision plat. This property was originally proposed to be annexed with the adjacent Apex development but was later withdrawn. B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(draft) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via E. Shafer View Dr.,local street,and E. (Arterial/Collectors/State Quartz Creek St.,collector street Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service ACHD does not set LOS thresholds for state highways. Stub No stub streets exist to this property and no stub streets are Street/Interconnectivity/Cros proposed to adjacent properties. s Access Existing Road Network S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 exists along the west boundary and E. Shafer View Dr. exists along the south boundary. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers exist along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69,a Buffers state highway,or E. Shafer View Dr.,a local street Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP}f Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • The intersection of Amity Road and Meridian RoadISH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened Improvements r to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2031-2035. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road/SH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2036-2040. • Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian RoadISH-6910 Locust Grove Road between 2036-2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road/SH-69 between 2036-2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian RoadlSH-6910 Locust Grove Road between 2036-2040. • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP for pavement rehabilitation and pedestrian ramp construction from Meridian Road7SH-69 to Locust Grove Road in 2022. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.5 miles • Fire Response Time Falls within 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 87%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater Page 2 Item#2. Description Details P • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service (open waterways) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service • Distance to 4 miles . Police Station • Police Response The average emergency response time in the City is just under 4 minutes(meets Time target goal of 3-5 minutes) Meridian Police Department-Shafer View Narth Location of new development- Las.-of N Merldlan Rd Between E Amity Rd&E Lake Hazel FLd ime Frame- Dl/01/2019-12/31f2024 Level of Service ILosl-Delivered By Reporting District IRD-M777) Calls for Service[CFS]: Response Times; Dispatch to Arrival(all units) Average Response Times by Priority- 'City of Meridian' PriorkV 3 3A3 Prrority2 fMPosvwawffhbstolom"esl 7:11 Priority 1 l+str Goof is w![14l015#0 20 mJrwfesl 10:37 Average RespbnSB TirdeS by Priorlty:'Iv1777' Priority 3 5A2 Priority 2 11:43 Priority 1 8:36 Calls for Service(CFS):Calls occurring In RD'M777' CFS count Total 55 %of Calls for Serwice split by Priority in'M777' *of P3 CFS 1.8% *of P2 LXS 74.5% Ag of P4 LT5 21.64L %of PO 0:5 0.0% Crimes Crime Courrt Total 22 Cr'aaltei 'Crash Count.Total 46 Analyst Note(si: Response Time and Calla For Service(CF51 by morlty-Most frequent priority tall types; •Pribei ty 3 balks involved Subject at the Door. •Priority 2 calls most frequently inmkved TrafFC Stapsr Stalked Vehides,and Welfare Checks 1911 Hang Ups)_ •Priority 1 calls m45t frequently involved N4 Contact Order Repgrtr VIN Inspections,and Citizen A55ift5- Crime loccurred date!-Most frequent crimes involved: Driving Under the Influence,and Liquor Law Violations(Open Container IDrlverl,Aloohollc Beverage Possesslon Under Age 21,etc.),and •druglNarcotic Ulalatlons(Possesslon of MarlJuana), 'Crashes-Most frequent crashes were; •41.1,%injury type crashes, •26.1-%property damage reports,and •324-M non-reportable crashes. arioelty Response rsmes ye8ned: Priority 0 type ca Its are no priority type of ca IIa Prliarlty 1 type calls are For non-emergency type of calls where the officer will arrive at the ea rilest oonwenlerKe,and shall obey all tMfit laws_ Priority 2 type calls require an urgent response where the officer will arrive as soon as practical,and should obey all traffic laws. Prlorh,y 3 type calls are an emergency response In which the Irghts and siren and driving as authorlmd far an emergency vehicle by Idaho Cade to facilitate the quick and safe arrival of an officer to the scene. West Ada School District • Distance(elem, ins,hs) Page 3 Page 118 Item#2. • Capacity of Enrollment Ca aci Miles [nn..m kh-1) Schools Mary McPherson Elementary' 481' 675 1.3 • #of Students Victory Middle School 868 IODO 2.8 Enrolled Mountain View High School 2218 2175 3.9 *Enrollment number is estimated for the 2021-2022 school year based on current enrollment and future growth in the respective attendance area.It reflects changes made to the Mary McPherson Elementary attendance area. • #of Students Predicted from 35 school aged children predicted from this development by WASD. this development Wastewater • Distance to Directly adjacent Sewer Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.02 Balance • Project Yes Consistent with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water ) IL • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's _ • Water Quality None • Project Yes Consistent with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 4 Page 119 Item#2. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend . (fLegend ' Proyeci Lcca-iar I Prnjeat Lorca n Medium Density Residenfial idnfi ed-Hig :�• - ensify - Residenfi Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R1 Legend RUT— ff ; 0Preyeci Lorca-nor IetProject Lacafkm -- R1 ;_1 City Limiit R-$ — Planned Parse R _ RUT R-4 w RUT RUIT A. Applicant: Mary Wall,Breckon Land Design—PO Box 44465,Boise, ID 83711 B. Owners: James Chambers, 39, LLC—5356 N. Troon Pl.,Boise,ID 83713 DWT Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 5 Page 120 Item#2. III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 1/15/2021 2/19/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 1/12/2021 2/16/2021 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 1/21/2021 2/26/2021 Nextdoor posting 1/12/2021 2/16/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Low Density Residential(LDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces,and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. The proposed development consists of a total of 50 single-family detached dwellings on large lots [i.e. 12,000 square foot(s.f.)minimum] on 39.01 acres of land at an overall gross density of 1.76 units/acre,which falls within the density range desired in LDR designated areas. This property abuts a County subdivision, Shafer View Estates,to the south and will provide a transition to future urban properties to the north, zoned R-4 and R-8. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one housing type, single-family detached, is proposed which Staff believes is appropriate due to the large lot sizes and density desired in LDR designated areas. The variety of lot sizes (i.e. 8,600-23,600 sf.) proposed will provide for diversity in styles of homes, which Staff believes will contribute to the variety of housing in the City to meet the preferences and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed density and lot sizes should be compatible with the rural residential homes/properties to the south on 1+ acre lots in the County and future urban residential development to the north and east in the City. Page 6 Page 121 Item#2. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to this site and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response times for Police Dept. and Fire Dept. meets the established goals. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd.ISH--69 as required by the Pathways Master Plan and UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A total of 4.05 acres of qualified open space is proposed along with quality amenities (i.e. sports court, gazebo, tot lot, multi-use pathway). • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)." (3.01.01A) The Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required by ACHD for this development. WASD submitted comments stating that approximately 35 school aged children are estimated to be generated by this development; enrollment at Mary McPherson Elementary School and Victory Middle School is currently under capacity and Mountain View High School is over capacity(see Section VIII.I).According to the Community Development's school impact analysis, enrollment at Victory Middle School will be slightly over capacity at build-out of building permits already issued in this area at 104%(Mary McPherson will be 95%and Mountain View will be 109%) (see Section VIII.J). The closest City Park to this site is Discovery Park, consisting of 77-acres, to the southeast on E. Lake Hazel Rd., Y4 mile east of S. Locust Grove Rd. A future City Park is designated on the FL UM within a half mile of this site to the west. • "Require all development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed site design features a 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 transition in proposed lots to existing lots in Shafer View Estates to the south. These lots are separated by an existing 41 foot wide easement for the McBirney Lateral which provides an added buffer between rural lots and proposed urban lots. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are proposed as required with this development. Page 7 Page 122 Item#2. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS( L0 A. Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 40.48 acres of land with R-2 (10.66 acres)and R-4(29.82 acres) zoning districts,which includes adjacent right-of-way to the section line of S. Meridian Rd./SH- 69 and to the centerline of E. Quartz Creek St. A total of 50 residential dwelling units are proposed to develop on the site at an overall gross density of 1.76 units per acre consistent with the associated LDR FLUM designation for the site. Although the proposed density is more consistent with an R-2 (Low Density Residential)zoning district,the Applicant requests R-4 in order to provide a transition in lot sizes between the existing rural residential subdivision to the south(Shafer View Estates)and the future urban residential subdivision approved to the north(Prevail Subdivision),zoned R-8. Larger lots are proposed adjacent to the southern boundary that gradually transition to smaller lots to the north. The property is contiguous to City annexed land and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area along with individual legal descriptions and exhibit maps for the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts are included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the development plan proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA is required with this application, containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed below. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat is a re-subdivision of Lot 4,Block 1, Shafer View Estates, developed in Ada County and recorded in 2002 (Bk. 84,Pg. 9403). This lot was deed restricted and was only allowed to be used for open space as defined in the non-farm development section of the Ada County code and the planned development section of the Ada County code for a period of not less than 15 years from the recording date of the subdivision plat. The required time period has elapsed and the lot is now eligible for redevelopment. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 50 buildable lots and 10 common lots on 39.01 acres of land in the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts. The subdivision is proposed to develop in three(3) phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.B. The first and second phases consist of 28.35 acres and is proposed to develop with 50 single-family detached homes at a gross density of 1.76 units per acre and a net density of 3.30 units per acre with an average lot size of 13,444 s.f. The third phase consists of 10.66 acres and is proposed to be platted as one large lot that will be developed at a later date under a separate application by the property owner. This portion of the site is under separate ownership from the rest of the site and was previously illegally split off, therefore,it's ineligible for development until included in a subdivision to create a legal lot for development purposes. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements on this property other than a private drainage facility on Lot 6,Block 6. Page 8 Page 123 Item#2. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted uses in both the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts per UDC Table 11-2A-2: Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2A): Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the R- 2 district in UDC Table I1-2A-4 and the R-4 district in(UDC Table 11-2A-5), as applicable. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets and block face. Block faces are limited to 750' in length without an intersecting street or alley but may extend up to 1,000' where a pedestrian connection is provided as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3F.3. City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions that include a large waterway or irrigation facility;block faces over 1,200 feet require a waiver from Council. A 90 degree turn in a roadway may constitute a break in the block face; however, overall pedestrian and vehicular connectivity will be considered when evaluating the appropriateness of block lengths greater than 750' in length—additional pedestrian and/or roadway connections may be required. The face of Block 3 exceeds 1,200' and does not provide a pedestrian connection other than the emergency access driveway which may serve as a pedestrian connection between the proposed subdivision and Shafer View Estates to the south. The Applicant requests City Council approval of the proposed block length due to existing site constraints that include the following: 1)the narrow configuration of the subject property; 2)the location of the McBirney Lateral, a large waterway/irrigation facility,that runs along the southern boundary and through the western portion of the proposed subdivision; and 3)the existing Shafer View subdivision that abuts the site to the south,south of the lateral,which does not include any pedestrian pathways or stub streets to this property.If not approved,the plat should be reconfigured to comply with this standard.An emergency access road for Fire Dept. is proposed between the end of the cul-de-sac and E. Shafer View Rd. but it's not a public access. The cul-de-sac length complies with UDC standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Direct lot access is proposed via E. Shafer View Dr.,an existing local street along the southern boundary of the site, for the lots south of the McBirney Lateral;the lots north of the lateral will be accessed via two(2)accesses from E. Quartz Creek St., a planned collector street along the northern boundary of the site. The UDC(11-3A-3)restricts and limits access points to collector streets where access to a local street is available. Local street access is not available to the northern portion of the proposed development. Due to the configuration of the property,without the easterly second access,the cul-de-sac would exceed the maximum length standard of 500' allowed by the UDC(11-6C-3B.4). Therefore, Staff is supportive of the proposed accesses. An emergency access for the Fire Dept. is proposed between the cul-de-sac and E. Shafer View Drive. A public street connection is not proposed to E. Shafer View Dr. for several reasons, including the following: 1)residents in Shafer View Estates were strongly opposed to the connection; 2)modification to the McBirney Lateral would be necessary to design a public road in that location and the lateral is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the process for modifications to their canal and an encroachment on their easement is very time consuming(i.e. 12+/-months)with no guarantees of approval; 3) approval from Nampa-Kuna Page 9 Page 124 Item#2. Irrigation District would also be needed has they have irrigation piping located in this area as well;4)a public road through that area would require a new pump system for the Shafer View Estates irrigation system as the road would go through the existing pump system—moving the pump system would also require moving/modifying a large BOR irrigation pipe that feeds the irrigation pump station; and 5)the cost of design and irrigation infrastructure work required to put in a public road is estimated to be $100,000.00 to$150,000.00(see Applicant's explanation for more detail). For these reasons, Staff does not recommend a connection is provided. Access to the R-2 zoned portion of the site is anticipated to be provided from the east as that portion of the site is planned to develop with the Apex development to the east. Direct lot access via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Quartz Creek St. is prohibited. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot. Staff is of the opinion sufficient parking can be provided for this development. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A 10' wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed as required within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 per UDC 11-3H-4C.4 and the Pathways Master Plan. The pathway is required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public use easement,which shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s)for Phase 1.If the pathway will be located entirely within the right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is not needed. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Where the multi-use pathway is required along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69,the pathway may take the place of the sidewalk. A combination of attached and detached sidewalks are proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along all internal public streets where detached sidewalks are proposed. All parkways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, an entryway corridor; and a 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E. Quartz Creek St., a collector street, as proposed. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require buffers to be planted with a mix of trees and shrubs, lawn,or other vegetative groundcover. Street buffer landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.C. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. At a minimum, one tree per 8,000 square feet of common area is required to be provided along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC standards as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.C. Landscaping is required adjacent to the pathway along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. A 5' wide landscape strip is required on both sides of the pathway planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative ground cover. The Landscape Page 10 Page 125 Item#2. Requirements table should include the linear feet of pathway with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B- 7C. The Landscape Requirements table should include the linear feet of parkways within the development with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. There are existing trees on this site at the fronts of Lots 1-5,Block 6 along E. Shafer View Dr. If any of these trees are proposed to be removed,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. Contact the City Arborist,Matt Perkins,prior to removing any trees from the site to determine mitigation requirements. Noise Mitigation (UDC 11-3H-4D): Noise abatement is required for residential uses adjoining state highways as set forth in the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A 4-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall solid wall by Simtek is proposed along S. Meridian Rd. as noise abatement as depicted on the detail on Sheet L 1.0 of the Landscape Plan. Architectural elements are proposed to break up monotonous wall planes as required. A detail of the proposed wall that demonstrates eomplionee with the standftFds listed in UDC 11 3H 4D should be submitted with the final plat for-the first phase of development.—Depicted on the revised landscape plan. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3 A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313 is required for developments over 5 acres in size. Based on the area of the plat, 39.01 acres, a minimum of 3.90 acres of qualified open space is required. A total of 5.26 acres(or 18.55%) of common open space is provided within the overall development,4.05 acres(or 14.27%) of which is qualified per the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B, which exceeds UDC standards(see open space exhibit in Section VILD). Qualified open space consists of half the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, all of the street buffer along E. Quartz Creek St., 8-foot wide parkways, linear open space, and open grassy areas of at least 50' x 100' in area. Lot 9,Block 3 does contain a pond but it does not encompass more than 25%of the required open space area as required. The pond is required to have recirculated water and should be maintained such that it doesn't become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 A minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required for developments over 5 acres in size and up to 20 acres,with one(1)additional amenity required for each additional 20 acres of development area. Based on a total of 39.01 acres of development area, a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required. A multi-sport court,tot lot, gazebo shade structure and segment of the City's multi- use pathway system is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Limited Geotechnical Engineeringeport for the subdivision. The preliminary plat depicts an existing private drainage facility and existing&proposed ACHD drainage facilities and easements. Page 11 Page 126 Item#2. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 : Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The McBirney Lateral is a large open waterway that lies within a 41-foot wide easement along the southern boundary of the site and through the western portion of the site. Another waterway 38' wide) exists on the eastern portion of the site between the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoned property within r€eel wide NN P a-ad B m easement;the Applicant verified with the Boise Project Board of Control that the waterway is not within an easement. This project is not within the flood plain. The UDC allows waterways such as this to remain open when used as a water amenity or linear open space as defined in UC 11-1A-1; otherwise,they are required to be piped or otherwise covered per UDC 11-3A-613. The decision-making body may waive this requirement if it finds the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved. The Applicant is not proposing to improve the McBirney Lateral as a water amenity or linear open space but is proposing to install a 6-foot tall wrought iron fence along the waterway to deter access to the waterway and ensure public safety. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from Council to allow the waterway to remain open and not be piped. The Applicant states the Boise Project Board of Control opposes any improvements within their right-of-way.The other waterway should be piped or improved as a water amenity or linear open space as required. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C for fencing along waterways and the general fencing standards in 11-3A-7. A mix of 6-foot tall wrought iron and 6-foot tall solid vinyl fencing is proposed adjacent to common areas; 6-foot tall wrought iron fencing is proposed along the McBirney Lateral. There appears to be gaps in the fencing along the lateral on common lots that abut the waterway; fencing should be included in these areas to prevent access to the waterway and to ensure public safety. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations have not yet been prepared for this development. However,the Applicant did submit several sample photos of 2-story homes that will be similar to those constructed in this development, included in Section VII.E. Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because homes on lots that abut S.Meridian Rd. and E. Quartz Creek St.will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on lots that face those streets should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Page 12 Page 127 Item#2. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 4, 2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jon Breckon,Breckon Land Design((Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Marvin Ward, Gayle Ward d. Written testimony: Mary Wall,Breckon Land Design e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Concern pertaining to safety of access to Lots 2-5,Block 6 accessed via Shafer View Dr. with the configuration of E. Shafer View Dr. and change in grade in that area; b. Preference for 1-acre lots to be provided on the south side of the McBirney Lateral consistent with adjacent existing 1-acre lots in Shafer View Estates. c. Applicant testified they are willing to add more landscaping at the entry to the development near the S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. intersection. 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. In favor of the provision of additional landscaping at the entrance of the subdivision at the intersection of S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Shafer View Dr. as offered by the Applicant; b. Possibility of reducing the number of homes in the area south of the McBirney Lateral (Lots 2-6,Block 6)to enhance safety in that area; C. Concern pertaining to lack of comments from ITD; d. Would prefer a better transition in lot sizes to the south, specifically Lots 15-17,Block 3 (maybe lose a loth e. Discussion regarding the proposed amenities; f. Opinion that the style and size of the proposed homes should be compatible with adjacent homes in Shafer View Estates. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. At Staff s request, include a condition for the 38' wide slough/drain on the eastern portion of the site to be contained entirely within a common lot(s)with fencing required on both sides of the drain consistent with the standards in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b per UDC 11-3A-7A.7a; b. At Staff s request, include a condition requiring the common lot(s)containing the slough/drain to have vegetative groundcover to prevent fire hazard and unsightliness if the waterway is piped; and, C. At Staff s request,modify condition#9 to allow the option for the waterways on the site to be improved as a water amenity as an alternative to being piped as allowed by UDC 11-3A-6C.2 with submittal of construction drawings&relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho that demonstrates compliance with the requirements for water amenities as defined in UDC 11-IA-1. d. Include a condition for the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Shafer View Dr. to be improved with additional landscaping as offered by the Applicant; Page 13 Page 128 Item#2. e. Include a condition for one(1)buildable lot to removed in the area of Lots 2-5, Block 6 south of the McBirney Lateral. 5. Outstanding issues for City Council: a. The Commission requested an ITD review of the project and comments prior to the Council hearing; comments from ITD are included in Section VIIIA b. The Applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6 to allow the McBirney Lateral to remain open and not be piped; c. The Applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-6C-3F.3b to exceed the maximum block length allowed of 1,200' as allowed by UDC 11-6C-3F.4; and, d. The Applicant's request for a waiver to UDC 11-3A-3 to allow two (2) accesses via the collector street(E. Quartz Creek St.)along the northern boundary of the site. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on March 91'-At the public hearing. Council moved to continue the subject AZ and PP requests to the April 13'hearing in order to have more information on SB 1808 before acting on this application. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Jon Breckon,Breckon Land Design(Applicant's Representative) b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Marvin Ward d. Written testimony: Charles Bovd and Deborah Bovd e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Opposition to the lot sizes of the(4)lots accessed via Shafer View Dr.:would like lot sizes of at least 1-acre in size comparable with the 1 to 1.24-acre lot sizes in Shafer View Estates: b. Safety concerns pertaining to driveways so close to Meridian Rd. and the topography in that area which creates poor visibility because of the immediate incline from Meridian Rd.—requests the number of lots are reduced to 2 in that area to ensure no driveway_ s are placed near the top of the hill. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Council asked the Applicant if they were willing to pay their proportionate share for a right-turn lane as recommended by ITD—the response was ves,they are. Council would like more information from ITD in regard to when the turn lane would be constructed if funds are allocated for the improvement: what are future plans for widening/turn lanes for this area,how much money needs to be collected for turn lane before it's constructed?Does ITD have any other means of collecting funds for these improvements except through development. b. The safety of the access onto Shafer View from S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and additional homes with driveways near the intersection conflicting with the topography in that area (incline from Meridian Rd.); C. The Applicant's request for a waiver to exceed the Cit_v's maximum block face standards. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 14 Page 129 Item#2. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map ��1 tics .,ACCURATE F SURPE TIN 6 6 NAP�INS -#titP1� Annexation Land Destriptiorr A parcel of land being a(portion of the north Half of the Southwest Ouarter of Section 311 Taurnsh ip 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise MQridian,Ada County,Idaho and all of Lot 4,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded in$vok 54 of Plats at Pages 94C3 and 9404, Et-eonrds of Ada-curdy,said Iparcel is local-ed irr the North Ha if of the Southwest Qwi§rter of Section 31,Townslhip 3 North,Range 1 East of the Bocce Merldkan,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularity de bed as folbws, l3E:GINN ING at the found aluminum cap man ument at the QUartar-amer common to Section 31.TNN,RIE and Section 36.T3N,R1W as iperpetuated bV document 103052690.Records of Ada--aunty,from which the fnu nd brass cap at the township corner common to Township 3 North.Ranges 1 East and I West and Township 2 North,Ranges S East and 1 west as perpetuated by document 20194)15470,Records of Ada County hears 5 07 E15'17"E a distance of 2669.99 feet; Th ence H 83'57'19"E a long the m id-seEbon line for a distance of 2507-75 feet to the northeast{Omer of said Lot 4; Thence S OW 17'00"W alan�the Qasterty line Qf swiW Lot A for a distance OF 1342-40 feeC Thence along the wulhi!riy boundary of said Lot 4 th a following fi courses and d istances= 1_) N 99'52'35"W for a d4stanoe of 130A0 fee, 2-) N 23'55'33"W far a distance of 17453 feet; 3-) N 16'35'10'W fora distance of 254.88 feet; 4.) H 14'42'14"W for a distaNxe of 194.57 feet; 5-) N 31'79'55"Vd for a distance of 113.67(eet; 6-) N gy°3X 47'°W fora distance of 147.74 feet; Th ence S 34'28'44"W for a dicta rice of ln43 feet to the mnterline of E.Shafer mew Drive; Theme N S5'19 49"W along said cent-erline for a distance of IGD.09 feet; Thence leaving said canterllne N 34'41'11"E for a distance of 10753 fett; Thence along the&Gutherly boundaryofsaid Lot 4 the following 15 courses and distances; 1-) N 04'09'19"E for a distance of 90-91 feet; 2,1 N 26'42'26"W fora distanoe of 85.32 feet; 3_) N 515°39'37"W for a distance of 97.95 Beet; 4_) N 75'35'35''W for a distance of 90-f!B feet; t 1 B02 W.Hays St..:&ude 306-Eini9e,ID 83702•Phckw:2054504-227. www.a c cu ra tt e e u r vey am.amn Page 15 Page 130 Item#2. �4, ACCURATE � r � e a � SURMEfl�l6 3 Ii�PPl�16 5_) N 86"33' 28" VV for a distance of 135.49 feet; 6_) 5 71'44'26"W for a distance of 111,98 feet; 7_) S 60°59' 28"W far a distance of 112.30 feet; &. N 76'52' 47" W for a distance of 210.54 feet; 9j 5 78'31'59"W for a distance of 45.73 feet; 10_) S 51`53' 13" VV for a distance of 147,64 feet; 11.) 5 65'24'ST W for a distance of 258.22 feet; 12.) 517'39'49"W for a distance of 98.75 feet; n_) S 03'59'SY E for a distance of 50,00 feet; $a-3$fetm 3 longzhc arc of a 275.00fout radIuscurve rlght h"nga central angle of 18'24' 12"and a long chord bearing N 84'38' 15'W a distance of M_00 feet; 1S.) 5 28'48'47"HIV for a distance of 206-91 feet to th-e centerline of E.Shafer View Drive; Thence along said centerline the following 4 tourers and distances., 1.1 103.63 feet along the are of a 500.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 91'52'2V and a long chord bearing N 47'59'54" VV For a distance of 103,44 f eet; 2.� N 42"01'36'' W for a distance of 107.12 feet; 1.) 83.86 feet along the arc of a 100,00 foot radius curve left having a central angle of 48"02'45"and a long chard beating N 86'02'56"W a distance of 91.42 feet; 44 5 89'55'39'W for a distance of 219_88 feet to the section line; Thence N 00'45' 17" W along the section line for a distance of 802_03 feet to the REAL P01NT Of BEGINNING, Parcel conta Ins 40.463 acres,more or ie5s- 1602 W. Hays St.,Suite 305 Boise_ ID 887W Phone;20"86422~7 www.arcuratesurweyars corn Page 16 Page 131 Item#2. AIVIVEXA TIOIV MAP PARCEL LYING 1N I•HE N 112 OF ME SIN 114, .SEC 7701V 31, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M. 36 3i 7 f4 COR. CP&- rNST No.103052680 N 89'57'1 8" E 2507,75' ^� M LOT 4 BLOCK 1 Cy N SHAFER VIEW ESTATES ZQ 40.4a3t ACRES co r rLl$ 05 L14 y3 07 �1$ o ti� j2 SCALE: 1"=300' �s O A ~~ ° L6 L22 �+ g L25 C3 C 1 o NOTE., SEE SHEET 2 FdR C " UNE AND CURVE TABLES L to a E. SHAFER VIEW DRIVE ° 1146 3 L 1 LEGEND ANNEX A�4Y ACCURATE � ---------- SE LINE C770N LINE � � T3N R1 W 38 3T T31V R2W � a , FOUND 3 i 1/2" BRASS CAP A40MUMENT � r SURVEYING & MAPPI1.P r2N R I W T 8 f2N R2W r 1682 W.Hays Street#306 FOUND 2" ALUMINIUM CAPlt Boise,Idaho 83702 CP&F WST, No. 11A (248)488-4227 201 9-0 154 70 ❑ CALCULATED POINT qtf w www,accuratesurveyura.mm RYI� SHEET I OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 17 Page 132 Item#2. LINE TABLE UKE BEARif4G E115TANCE L1 N 89.52'35 W T30.4U' L2 N 23755'33" W 170-53' 0 N t 6'35'10" W 254_68' L4 N 14'41'14" W 194-52' L-5 I 'N 31'29'55" W 113.67' Lb N 89'34'347" W 147-74' L7 S 34` 8'44" W 190.4,3' LB N SY18'49" W 100_09' 1-9 N 34741'}1" E 107.53' L10 N 04'00 19 E 90-81 i-11 N 26'42'26" W 85.32' L12 N 56730'37" W 87.95' L13 N 75.33'35" W 90.66' L1 d N 86'33'28" W 185.49' L15 S 71`44'26" W 113.68' L16 S 60'59'28" W 11 -aD' L 17 N 76752'47" W 210-54' L113 8 78-31'59- W 45-73' L 1 9 S 51'-53'13" W 147-64' L20 S 65'24'50" W 258-22' L21 S 17`40'26" W 98.75' L22 S 03'59'33" E 50-80' L23 S 28'48 47 W 206.91 L24 N 42701 36 W 107.12` L25 5 89'5.5 39" W 219.W CURVE TABLE CURVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 88.35' 275.00' 1 T24 50 S $4735'15" E MOO' G2 103.153' 500-00' 11'52,28" N 47 n,3'54 W 103.E C3 a3.86' 100.00' 40'02'45 IN 68'02'58 W $1.4.2 4. ACCURATE 11463 � un4Erl$6 NrYrau Ba19e.Idaho 33702 } 4208�"E-4227 w n w.acc u ra c e su r veyomco ro Piro I 1 SHEET 2 OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 18 Page 133 Item#2. R-2 Legal Description: krn ® 9233 WEST STATE STREET I RUSE,0 83714 1 208.639.6339 j FAX 208.639.6930 January 6,2020 "ed NO.�8 037 Legal Description Portion of Lot 4,Block 1 of Rafer View Estates Exhlhit A A parcel of la nd being a portion of Lot 4, Block 1 of Shafer View(:states(Book 84 of plats,Pages 9403-9404, records of Ada Cou rty,I daho)which is sit uated in the N orth 112 of the Southwest 1/4 of SeCtipn 3 jg wnsh ig 3 Nurthr Range 1 East,Boise Mericlliarr,City of Meri{i8n,Ada cau nty,Idaho,and being more particu larly described as follows: BEGINNING at a V13.1rich rebar marking the Cerkter of said Section 31(also being the northeast corner of said Lot 4,Block 1),which bears N89°57'15"E a distan€e of 2,507.62 feet from an alurninom top marking the West 1/4 Comer of said Seffion 31,t henee following the easterly line of said North 112 of the Southwest 1/4, S00°16'52"W a distance of 1,342.44 feet(formerly 500°15'38"W a dlzstan€e of 1/342.81 feed to the southeast Corner of said North F/2 of the SoulhwW V4(a65o being the sout heart corner of said Lot 4,Block 11; Thence leaving said easterly flee and fallow Ing the southerly I ine of said Nort h 1/2 of the Sout hwest 114, N$9"52'31"W a d Istance of 130-43 feet to the lout beast corner of Lot 13,Block 1 of said Shafer View Estates; Thence leaving said southerly II ne and following the boundary of Lot 4,15 lock 1 the#allowing courses: 1. N 23°S5'33"w(formerly P4235632"WI a d istance of 170.57 feet; 2. N15'35'10"W(formerly NW36'09ffVY1 a dlstanee of25.4.38feet; N14"41'01"W(f arm erly N1ir42'W M a distance of 193.75feet; 4. N31a15'14"W(formerly N31"ifi'1 -W° a distance of 224.54 feet to a found 1/2-inch rebar, 5- N89'52'31"W(formerly W?53'3V W)a d ista nce of 23.81 feet to a polnt on t h e northe rly line of t he 41-foot wide McBlrney Letexal easement; Th ence Ieavin,g the houndary of sa Id Lot 4,Block 1 and following said northerly line the following courses: 1. N77'19'36"E a distance of 75.47 feet;; 2_ 1475'37'04"t:a distance of 77-3a Net to a point on the centerline of the 38-foot wide drain ditch easement shown on said Shafer Vlew Estates su6dlvkslpn plot; Thence leaving said northerly Ilse and following sald centerline the fvll4win8 courses; 1. N06°2W52"W a distance of'151.79 feet; 2_ N17°292rW a dEstance Of 170.33 feet; 3. N25°5V09"W a distance of 63.g6 feet; 4_ N36'4 r3o"w a dkstar+ce of 99.39 feet; 5. N 50°03'15"W a distance of 94.54 feet; 6_ N55"05'SrW a distance of 124.96 feet; 7. N 51°4e38"W a distance of 99.63 feet; 9. h61 W51-W a distance of 33.41 fleet; 9. N 67'05'46"W a dlstan€e of 68.04 feet to the northerly line of said North 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 (also being the north"line cf said Lot 4,Block 1): ENGINEERS I SURVEYORS I PLANNERS Page 19 Page 134 Item#2. Tlrarnce lea wing said oenterline and following so id.northerly line,N99'57'15"E a distance of 799.30 feet to the POINT OF BEG INNING. Sold parcel contains 10.66 acres,more or less, kL r,Lt {s 1245 A 0F � L_ ValA�' PAGE 2 Page 20 Page t 35 Item#2. F T89.30 Y P P -1 i S a 'ik t � F Y � 3 a th a S M �3 JPSPJ]L I]F/p Title; mate; 01-06-2020 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File: Trw 1: 10,661 Acres; 464381 Sq F ;Gomm n63.4107w 0.01 Feel: FYecision=U331449= P'eximew=39458 Feet 001-s00.1652w 1342.44 M-n77.1936e 75.47 015-n55.0559w 124.96 002-n69-M I w 130.43 009-05.3704le 27-30 0 M--51.4638w 94.63 003--n23.5533w 170.57 410--nO62852w 151.79 01 33.43 04 16.351 Ow 254_$,9 01 1= 17.2622w 120.33 01$--rbG7.054{,w 0.04 005�t14.4101 w 193,75 01'2=Fk25.50Ww 63-86 019=09.5715e 799.30 006=6 .1514w 1144.54 013=06.4130w 99.39 CV-nS9.523I w 23.81 014=n5O.O3 i 5w 84.54 Page 21 Page 136 Item#2. ACCURATE �r { SDR>IEYIND 9 MA, P190 `rfypyyt� R4 Rezone Land Descrigtian A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 4,Block 1 of Shafer View Estates Subdivision as recorded in gook 64 of Flats at Pages 9403 and 9404, Records of Ada County,said parcel is located in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 31,Township 3 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the found aluminum cap rnonurnent at the [kuarter Corner common to Section 21,T3N, R1E and Section 36, T3N, R1W as{perpetuated by document 103052680, Records of Ada County,from which the found#grass cap at the township corner common to Township 3 North,Ranges 1.East and 1 West, and Township 2 North, Ranges 1 East and 1 West as perpetuated by document 2019-015470, Records of Ada County bears S 00'05'17' E a distance of 2669.99 feet; Thence N 8T 57' 18" E along the mid-section line for a distance of 1718.45 feet to a set 518°" inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 67'05' 19"E for a distance of 68_04 feet to a set 5/3kh inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 61'36'51"E for a distance of 33.43 feet to a set 5/8'h inch iron pin with a tap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 51'46' 38'E for a distance of 99.63 feet to a set 5/Su'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 55'05' 59"E fora distance of 124.96 feet to a set 5/81"inch iron pin with a cap stamperf PLS 11463; Thence S 50'03' 15"E for a distance of 84.54 feet to a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 36'41'30"E for a distance of 99,39 feet to a set 51 V inch iron pin with a cap Stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 25'SU 09'E for a distance of 53.86 feet to a set 5/8th inch iron pin with a cap Stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 17' 26' 22'E fora distance of 120.33 feet to a sett 5/81"inrh iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463, CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) I 1602 W.Hays St..Suite 306•Boise.ID 83702 • Phone:208-488-4227 www.accur,4e tlrveyars.com Page 22 Page 137 Item#2. *A rtr ACCURATE SURVEYING II: MA9fING Thence 5OF 28' 52" E for a distance of 151.79 feet to a set 5/81° inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 75'37'W W for a distance of 2730 feet to a set 5J81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 114,53; Thence 5 77*19' 36"W for a distance of 75.47 feet to a set 5/811 inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 99'38'35"W for a distance of 224.09 feet to a found 7:inch iron pin, replaced with a Set 518tn inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 34'28'44"W for a distance of 190,43 feet to the centerline of E-Shafer View Drive; stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 55' 18'49"W along said centerline fora distance of 100.09 feet,- Thence N 34'41' 11" IF for a distance of 107.53 feet to a set 5/81" inch Iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 04'O9' 19" E for a di9anre of 90-81 feet to a found M inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5/Slh inch iron pin with a rap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 26'42'26"W for a distance of 85.32 feet to a found'A inch Iran pin, replaced with a set 5/8th inch iron pin with a rap stamped PI-S 11463; Thence N 56'39'37�W for a distance of$7.95 feet to a found' inch iron pin,replaced with a set 5/8tn inch iron pin with a tap stamped PLS 1141523; Theme N 75'35'35"W far a distance of 90.88 feet to a found )S Inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5f g,h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence N 86"33' 28"W for a distance of 185-49 feet to a founcl inch iron gin, repiacEd with a set SlVh inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 71'4-' 26"W for a distance of 113.88 feet to a fou nd'A inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5f81" inch iron pitt with a cap stamped RLS 11463; Thence 5 6D'59' 28' W for a distance of 112.30 feet to a set 5/8" inch iron pick with a cap stamped PLS 11463; (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) 1002 VV. Hays St.-Suite 305• Boise. ID 53702 • Phone: 206-488-4227 www.occk1 ratesu rveyors.cum Page 23 Page 138 Item#2. ACCURATE �. 4 SII11MEYIM9 t MAPPINe s '�f�PY1C� T# ence N 76'52'47" W for a distance of 210.54 feet to a fount} inch iron pin, replaced with a set 5/8u'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence 5 78`31'59"W for a distance of 45-73 feet to a found Y2 inrh iron pin,replaced with a set 5/8"n inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 5V 53'13"W for a distance of 147.64 feet to a found Y4 inch iron pin, replaced with a set 501h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence 5 65' 24'50"W for a distance of 259-22 feet to a found%inch iron pin, replaced with a set 518"'inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463: Thence 517'39'W W for a distance of 99.75 feet to a found Y2 Inch 1ron pin,replaced with a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 03'59'33" E for a distance of 50-00 feet to a found inch iron pin, replaced with a set 51V inch iron pin with a cap stamped PI-5 11463; Thence 88.39 feet along the arc of a 275.DO foot radius curve right having a central angle of 18' 24' 12"and a long chord bearing N 94'38' 15" W a distance of 88.00 feet to a set 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence S 78°48'47"W for a distance of 206991 feet tothe centerline of E.Shafer View Drive; Thence along said centerline 103.63 feet along the arc of a 500.00 foot radius curve right having a central angle of 11'52' 2V and a long chord bearing N 47'59' 54" W for a distance of 103.44 feet; Thence continuing N 42'01'36"W for a distance of 107-12 feet to a set 5/9"inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463; Thence continuIng93.86 feet along the arc of a 10D.00foot radius curve left having a central angle of 48'02'45'and a long chord bearing N 66'02'Se W a distance of 3 1.42 feet; Thence 5 89`55'39"W for j�distdnC2 of 2 19.99 feet to the centerline of S.Meridian Road (State Highway 69); Thence N 00'OS' 17'W along said centerline for a distance of 802.03 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel con#ain5 29-822 acres, more or less- 11463 zooz 1-1-74o 3 4 OF 1t� 1602 W. Hays 5t.,SuiW 306 a Boise, id 83702 +Phone:209-489-4227 • ''fiQ f J. www.accuratesurveyors.com Page 24 Page 139 Item#2. R4 REZOIVE MAR PARCEL LYING IN THE N 112 OF THE SW 1A SECTION 31, T.3N., R.1E., B.M. cP�F rNsr. No. 114 COP. CP&F ]000100 36 31 wsr No.103052660 N 89'57'18" E 1778.45' S 89'57'18" IN PLS 4398 4,r -c,�-789-30'---- M nor 4 BLOCK i 2 CA SHAFER VIEW ESTATES Cy CQ oar 29.922E ACRES � 6' L24 421 L20 1g r '�+ h L23 ��Z 76 w d SCALE: 1"=300' �� r Q o �Z6 0 A co U to P, NOTE. SEE SHEET 2 FOR '�� r L12 L1� N N LINE ANO CURVE TAR4ES ~ ^] w L28 1 v Ao^ L31 C3 C 7� a f� g N wma '� A E. SHAFER VIEW DRIVE 1j4671q R� LEGEND BOUNDARY J. D��G ------ SECIIDN LINE ' FOUND 3 1/2" BRASS CAP MONUMENT q 1 r f�bI ACCURATE T3N R7W 36 31 T3N R2W JR FOUND 2" ALUMINUM CAP m _ SURVEYING $ MAPPING T2N Rl W 1 T2N R2W FOUND 1/2" IRON PIN, REMOVED d 6 AND REPLACED WITH 5/8" IRON AN, 1602ome Mays St8370reet 306 P"ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 11463 r Boise,Idaho 42202 CP&F INST Na �; {2087 488.42Z7 2019-015470 O SET 518"IRON P)N, 2" ALUM. CAP, PLS 1 f46J ,P E www.accuratesurveyors.com ❑ CALCULATED POINT ER Y 1 C SHEET 1 OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 25 Page 140 Item#2. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L i S 67`05'19" E 68.04' L-2 S 61'36'51" E 33.43' L3 S 51'46'38" E 99-63' L 4 S 55'05'59" E 124.96' L5 5 5G-03'15" E 84.54' L6 S 36'41'30" E 99-39' L7 S 25'50 09" E 63.86' L8 S 17'26'22" E 120.33' L9 5 06'28'52" E 151.79' L10 S 7535'46" L 1 i S 77 19'36" W 75.47 L 12 N 89'38'36" W 124.09' L 13 S 34'28'44" W 190.43' L_7 4 N, 55'18'49" W 100-09 L 15 N 34'41 11 E 107.53' L16 j N 04'09'19" E 90.51' L17 N 26'42'26" W 85.32' L 1 S N 5639'37" W 87-95' L19 N 75'35'35" W 90.88' L20 N BV33'28" W 1 MAT L21 S 71'44 26 W 1 13-88' L22 S W59'28" W 112-30' L23 N 76 52'47" W 210.54' L24 S 78'31'59" W 45.73' L25 S 51'53'13" W 147-64' L26 S 65'24'5{D" 1W 258.22' L27 S 1739'49" W 98.75' L28 S 03'58'33" E 55.00 L29 5 DY48'47 W 206.91 L30 N 42'01'36" W 107.12' L31 S 89'55'39" W 1 219-88' CURVE TA8LE G,URVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 S&M, 275.00' 1 T24'50" S 84'38'15" £ MOO' C2 103.63' SOD.00 11'52 2B N 47'59'54" W 103-44` C3 83.86' 100,00' 48'02`45" 8 56'02'58" E 81-4Z' L Ar, ACCURATE MAPP 1146353 2- 16W W.Nays Street 4306 , ,1*T-%P Boise.Idaho &1702 4 P t4$)488,422? le It xrnw a€rura"urweyors€om 5HEET 2 OF.2 109 2W mmmml Page 26 Page 141 B. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 11/18/2020 3/9/2021) PLAT LEGEND CONTACTS FOR 0—RUCTIO TYPICAL 417 R.O.W.ROAD SECTION ----------- PH�IP NOTES '.11ITI�.AP --------------------------------- "2.t"aj,4-*" 0 Z- co ;119 co X DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION cl 7, Lu E w > Fu < co + �F'UT.U�E�= PRELIMINARY PLAT Ppio V TITI I L�vm I I I PHVLSE I PIHI A S:E 2 PHASING MAP 500 Page 27 Item#2. C. Landscape Plan(date: 5��^7�0 2Y2 M 3/9/2021) 'Amp d - 1 a AP \ /T SHAFER VIEW TERRACE MERIDIAN,IDAHO - Page 28 Page 143 Item#2. . I "" r' � PROJECT INFORMATION •�,n iCITY OF MERIDIAN� -""�-�1~�( \ 1 _ LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS o .� �W-g I co< ay ERALL LAN 51 LANDSCAPE NOTES "��"<�""•' �•M "�'. ". .� � .. ' R 1' " W"'.,,..........,k.,,n".,....d......, t BERMADJACENTTO MERIDIAN ROAD 2 t Lld I lie Lu z $ N404 20 . 19 Z O 'in �D. APF PLAN w=4�Lu •! LANDSCAPE LEGEND CALLOUf LEGEND w.;,:m` 2 ® r Page 29 Page 144 Item#2. wrcixi�.�esc¢ i :mac -71' flf OCK L S��ifi it i� GL OCx 6 O 4 / I z I z fiR\L6HDWA2E ELM-6RE6 TWOa r Ti1RF AREA PREPARATICNaNOTES: =w j LANDSCAPE LEGEND CALLOUT LEGENDNt �� e r8o -„..._,p Yid� zSFCr�� ----_ anrre ru—re..l,w.r.wi.rn,x.r.i.. 'n��uii�`•iwnwwrizrs mxeem�inwn.ie.�e wn.warmam yy WF i S T f `: . I w N= i z�o�d >4 g F i ND PEP - REA THREE I a y p a - WEED ABATEMENT NOTES` _ ((GAL 'p LAND9CAPE LEGEND CALLOUT LEGEND ;m 'L�`•"�" ,, ""p'' "`p y W CJ .. _ �..� Il ill unnmf US Page 30 Page 145 Item#2. { � i , • ::...: :. : •: ::..:. n. LANDSCAPE LEGEND e T30 A. BLOCx2 , CALLOUT LEGEND 64OCX3 44: - iiEGG Q« i 14 I �.o.o.P,•..�...P....n..,... NLL is �=� LLZLL WJSW 93 13 TW4hqFA FOUR 1T PLANTER REG Cl1T EDGE Z eWROUGHT IRON FENCE L1Q -_ -_ -_ -_ -_ —__—__—__—__—__—__—__—__— IN _ LANDSCAPE LEGEND 0N e�lt��1'1 it ®. CALLCUT LEGEND,.ep =I7 ® •, Z3fO 1} n wa¢W TOPSOIL NOTES ��'��II� MID It RJA FIVE Page 31 Page 146 Item#2. LANDSCAPE LEGEND130 .::. gum Y 1 XX :< , : :fi CALLOLIT LEGEND --__ _ a, . x v aFD ® Qo�rr cc z six Z o : r W� '�y V axmaem�wiiercnwwen."�cA.aees 1 � /1 VINYLWFENGE PANEL �� 2 L1.6 T- - -—--—--—--—--— --__—__—__—__—__--- LANDSCAPE LEGEND GALLDLfT LEGEND F ..�. ems. ED W -- NW y 5;,r gNcl¢ •k mw�z F I L4NOSCA �FS�EA SEVEN a lr1 Y _ " Ll7 9 Page 32 Page 147 Item#2. STORMWATER POND REVEGETATION REQUIREMENTS R— m --- UZ »,_ ., •.=„••H w ��BOl1LOER IN57ALLA710N �3 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING cc 0 a Z W=Lu MO d o W W 3 TREE MITIGATION:.n,�.,�„ Az-mm' e _ MWba- - �•.. Foil ri.'II� 2..aN DETAIL, MwCONIFEROUS TREE PLANTIpN,�G�� L1.8 Page 33 Page 148 Item#2. SIM TEK FENCE 1330 WEST 400 NORTH ORE M.UT B4057 *Ii T 'Y TOLL=REE:1-a66-6 94M PHONE:(E*l}655-6236 FENCE FAX:(aOl)80,Q40 wi w,slmt@Mrx e,rom PAST rIENTERS i=V'-:TUNE s I I W 130LETR1CL1EY1' � -AWNDL:'.= ' I GROUNOLEYEL 74,2fi' €-I=FENER LENGiM POST 1Sx1.51E GAUGE GALVANIM STEEL STIFFENERASTMA513 u 10'•12' Gv5 NOLEDMETER CCNCR[-rOCT1Ne CIAVETER 11Y TO 12•L9N, +l4=7C'_21a-C CEP 1%.IV ACCCFMANCE sN - .0"W4DIT14Ns,CODR.Aft€TJOVARC vr%�- 5*riLINEAR LQJNEENFITYPi3LYETHYLENE KlILDW PRACTICES PU,TIv:L-.PE). ELEVATION VIE'A AvTU.L PANEL CNENSIONS:72•NjLN.MM PkfL WEIGHT 5&LOP TOLERANCES ARE f.V a 1.L2 0ATENTS 7,47E,7971 T.M114 FOREIGN 3ATENTS PENCINC, 1. INS ALLATIONTOEECOMPLETECIYACCCRC.1yCC411-„GXN.=.CTURER'SSPECIFICATlOf . 1.ALL DIMEWKS ARE CMICEREDTRUE Aq:k:FLEYT 10ANUFACTOKII's SPECIFIW WN 4. DO NOT SCALE DRAWM. S,OONTRACTOR9 NOTE,FORPF*DLbCTAND COMPANY W-ORMATION VISIT www,Cp.DwAIhoowKn REFERENCE NUMBERJM24X7, IMTEK FENCE MOD LHOW124r 10EMgM L5 HXE!W RECISION DATE Wedi2014 Page 34 Page 149 Item#2. D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: '7%0 3/9/21) CITY OF MERIDIAN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS X COMMON OPEN SPACE � As DEFINED BY 7HE 1-�VIAX RrbuuID £�2E2 IAX.II�°J C,00E REiiiIIIYEMEHiS fgg(iIIALIPICD 2WJ 4(E83 AG) OPH'15PAC�J 79J3h QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE A5 DE*IIM BY YNE MMUTAH VLC.II�l6-S GOGE i�QUIREMEHTS I�'J,SA�{�.84 AC.1 IY476Y f4A5 AC.1 ID% 14.27% sEalgEv- LANDSCAPE LEGEND QoLlf-im OFM SPA= QUARTZ CREEK ST. AREA--46,180 SO.FT- - r � I Ll I I it I 1 Imo. . I� AREA--MAP[)5Q.F- LL AREA=50,655 SYl FT- D cr w .� SHAFER VIEW NORTH PROJECT #20021 MERIDIAN, IDAHO OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT X1,0 Page 35 Page 150 E. Conceptual Building Elevations .. ..... .... Page 36 ate•." � - w f Item#2. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations. b. A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required to be constructed along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 in a public use easement in accord with UDC 11-3H-4C.4. c. Noise abatement is required to be provided within the street buffer along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. d. A final plat shall be recorded that includes Lot 1,Block 7 prior to any development occurring on the property. 2. Development of the subject preliminary plat shall be consistent with the phasing plan included in Section VII.B. 3. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E. Quartz Creek St. b. Block 3 exceeds the maximum block face standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F; the plat shall be revised to comply with these standards unless otherwise approved by City Council.A waiver is requested from Council to exceed the maximum block face allowed of 1,200 feet to allow the block face as proposed. eommen let(s).Depicted on revised plat. d. Remove one(1)_ buildablezvcar the�zcnac-y-vr Lots z 5;vivcav south vr the �vxcvrrrrc-y T Depicted on revised plat. 4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.0 shall be revised as follows: a. with the standards for-pathway(P1-3B42-,- inelude ro «Ρoa vs. pr-evided ..ber- ft fees.Done b. Done c. Inelude a detail of the befm and ,,vall r-e"ir-ed for-noise aba4efnent along S. Mer-idian Rd./S14 69#ivA demonstrates eempkanee with the standards listed in UPC 11 314 4D. Done d. 1-neltide mifigmien infefmation for-any existing tfees thm are removed ftofn the site in Page 37 Page 152 Item#2. Done �listed in UP�l1 3z- A.7b i3er UDC 11�T . Done f-. if the drain on the eastem portion of the site is piped, depiet vegetative mrotmdeover o-n- r i tW eo-ntaiaiaii�the a-ai t o e f4 fire i..,zaf a-E , h fli ess.Done g. Depict additional landscaping at the entrance to the subdivision at the intersection of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and Shafer View Dr. as offered b, t�pplicant. h. Remove one (1)Wildable lot in the vieiait�,,of Lots 2 5,Bloelc-6 south of the Later-a!, istepg with thg sheA:.a r+i.o oar-elif.,inap,plat.Done 5. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathway along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 prior to submittal of the Phase 1 final plat for City Engineer signature. If the pathway is located within the right-of-way, a public use easement is not required. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district and 11-2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district.. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The rear and/or sides of structures on lots that abut S. Meridian Rd. and E. Quartz Creek St. shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 9. All waterways on this site shall be piped unless otherwise waived by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B. As an alternative,the waterway may be left open if improved as a water amenity as defined in UDC 11-IA-1 (see also UDC 11-3A-6C.2). The Applicant requests a waiver from City Council to allow the McBirney Lateral to remain open and not be piped. 10. The pond is required to have recirculated water and shall be maintained such that it doesn't become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.7. IX. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 The angle of sanitary sewer pipe going into and out of manholes needs to be minimum of 90-degrees. 1.2 All sanitary sewer manholes require a 14-foot wide access path that meets City requirements. 1.3 Sanitary sewer manholes should not be located in curb and gutter. 1.4 Add an 8-inch water mainline in Crystal Creek Way, and stub to the north for future connection. 1.5 The water mainline needs to be 12-inch diameter in Prevail Way,portion of Terrace Ridge Dr,portion of Terrace Ridge Circle and south out to E Shafer View Rd. Page 38 Page 153 Item#2. 1.6 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6 of the City's Design Standards. A future installation agreement and funds are required for the required streetlights on S. Meridian Road pursuant to Section 6-4 B. of the Meridian Design Standards. 1.7 The geotechnical investigative report for this development,prepared by Materials Testing &Inspection, dated 02/10/2020, does not indicate a specific concern with regard to groundwater. Applicant shall be responsible for the adherence to the recommendation presented in this report. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.4 Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff, the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313- 14A. 2.5 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.6 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.7 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years.This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing provided by the owner to the City.The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.8 In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non- health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. Page 39 Page 154 Item#2. 2.9 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.10 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.11 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.12 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.13 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 2.14 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.15 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.16 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.17 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.18 Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 2.19 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20- feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor.DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Page 40 Page 155 Item#2. 2.21 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Water Department at (208)888-5242 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources. 2.22 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year- round source of water (MCC 9-1-28.C.1). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to development plan approval. 2.24 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219456&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.orgJ ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=220250&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=222017&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=220261&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=220014&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220034&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=220564&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv Page 41 Page 156 Item#2. J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=221041&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty K. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.meridiancity.orF WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=219526&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty L. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219424&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty M. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222031&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky N. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222250&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: l. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-2 and R-4 and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of single- family detached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Page 42 Page 157 Item#2. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health,safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 43 Page 158 Applicant Presentation SHAFER VIEW TERRACE Meridian, Idaho SUBDIVISION Site along Meridian Road84 -2.8 miles south of I◦Hazel RoadAmity Road and Lake Midway between ◦E. Quartz Creek Drive◦Location Proposed light grayCity property shown ◦Annexation Zoning Map zoning4 -2 and R-Proposed R◦ Schools mies3.9 –School Mountain View High ◦2.8 miles–Victory Middle School ◦1.2 miles-Elementary School Mary McPherson ◦ Emergency serve the subdivisionsewer) are available to Public utilities (water and ◦for both Departmentsminute response time -5–3◦4 miles to Police Station◦3.5 miles to Fire Station #6 ◦Services Proposed open space (18.55%).5.26 acres of common ◦s.f.23,600 to s.f.◦family -50 single◦Site Plan Neighborhood north. neighborhoods to the -the 1The lot layout provides ◦Transition MERIDIAN ROAD BERM & FENCE Planned structure & seating area A park with a shade ◦sport Court-A Multi◦A Children’s Play Area◦along Meridian Roaduse pathway -A multi◦AmenitiesLandscaping and Waivers and additional cross streets property prevents -◦Control per Boise Project Board of No access or landscaping -of canall.f.Over 2100 -for safetyInstall open vision fence -◦Creek Streettwo accesses to Quartz -Street access waiver◦Exceptions Housing to 23,600 s.f.Lot sizes from 8,600 s.f. ◦Single family homes◦Style 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 2.15 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. Page 193 Item#3. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: May 18, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. A. Request: Annexation of 2.15 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 194 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 18, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Roberts Annexation ( W2021 - 0013 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO � 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I 12 13 14 15 Item#3. STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 5/18/2021 Legend --M1- - DATE: Project Lncaffi:n - - TO: Mayor&City Council 14 , LL, FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner r FM 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton,Development - Services Manager 208-887-2211 SUBJECT: H-2021-0013 Roberts Annexation -- EE LOCATION: 1630 E. Paradise Ln - -- r_3 r I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a proposal to annex 1.77 acres of land from the R-1 zone in Ada County to R-2 zone to construct a new single-family residence. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.77 acres Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residence Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 2(to be consolidated into parcel with a future PBA application) Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type 1 house with detached shop and RV garage of units) Density(gross&net) 0.56 du/acre Open Space(acres,total N/A [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities N/A Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of February 9,2021,2 attendees. attendees: History(previous approvals) Heritage Subdivision No 2 Page 1 Page 195 Item#3. A. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District No comments Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Property will be accessed from E Paradise Lane(local). Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service N/A Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross N/A Access Existing Road Network E.Paradise Ln Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is existing curb and gutter on east side of N.Locust Buffers Grove Rd.E.Paradise Ln is a rural local road with no sidewalk on either side. Proposed Road Improvements None required Distance to nearest City Park(+ 1 mile to Champion Park size) Distance to other key services Fire Service No comments Police Service No comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer 1,400 feet+/- Services • Sewer Shed North Slough Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.08 • Project Consistent with No.Property will be on septic until utilities are WW Master Plan/Facility available in the area. Plan • Comments • Flow is committed • Sewer is currently in N.Locust Road about 1,400 feet away from property. City Engineer has approved a waiver to allow septic service until the sewer line is extended. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Water is located in N Locust Grove Road.Water main must be extended into Paradise Ln to the east property line.Applicant requested a waiver to only have to connect service line rather than extending the water main.City Engineer denied this waiver. Page 2 Page 196 1 1 1 4 �IN IN IN A, MIS ■gl■■■■,1■ IIIIII = 11 1 NI nl� I ' - ' . _..,.. -.-,.. �. � . IIi IIIHIIIII ZCCr 11 11■ _ �7r' . -� III — IIII� ■ � gill gim �IN ■_� No - II �H 11■1 I 1 n �.� I�rLFK)iLLA IL -LI uNEONMONO m 11 mm ■ I■■■■ ■ IIIIII 1= 11 1 NI nl I ■ I■■■■ ■■f rlllll = 11 1 NI nl� i 1 IIIHIIIII - Z 11 11■ 1 Ill�liifi m(D 11 u■ on 11 ■ � + ■■ ■ �� ■■ 11 d 19111 ■! IINII- - IINII = = 1111111111111 ■� _ gill gillin in l INII I I III ■� _ ■IIII IIII� INlli I 111 Cm oil ■ �� tt i m - Item#3. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Benjamin Semple,Rodney Evans and Partners— 1014 S. La Pointe St., Ste 3,Boise ID 83706 B. Owner Denton Roberts—4461 N. Diamond Creek Ave,Meridian, ID, 83646 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification published in newspaper 3/26/2021 4/30/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 3/24/2021 4/27/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/2/2021 5/7/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 3/24/2021 4/27/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The property is comprised of two lots presently zoned R-1 in unincorporated Ada County, of which the southern lot until recently had contained a 4,000 sq. ft.residence. The applicant demolished this single-family residence in anticipation of building a newer 6,000 sf ft+/-house with detached shop/ RV garage. The applicant contacted Ada County to merge the lots together and construct the larger house and was told because the property directly abutted City limits, it would need to be annexed. There is a 5-foot drainage,utility construction and maintenance easement platted between the subject lots(Lots 2&3,Block 1 of the Heritage Subdivision No 2). Following this annexation and prior to building permit,the easement will need to be vacated as part of the consolidation of lots. The nearest available sewer main is located in N. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1,400 feet north of the subject property. The applicant has received City Engineer and Public Works Director approval for a utilities waiver from UDC 11-3A-21 to not connect to City sewer at this time. Staff finds that making a singular property owner pay for extending a sewer main 1,400 feet for one residence is neither fair nor necessary.However,the development agreement will require connecting to City sewer if and when a sewer main is extended in the future. The applicant will need to apply to Central District Health(CDH)for a temporary septic system. The applicant will be required to extend a water main from the intersection of N. Locust Grove Rd and E. Paradise Ln along Paradise Lane to the eastern property line to serve adjacent properties in the future. The applicant has also requested a waiver from this requirement, stating it would be cost prohibitive and not necessary as adjacent properties to the east and south are remaining in Unincorporated Ada County and already have wells providing water. Instead,the applicant prefers to only be required to connect a service line from the main to the new home. The City Engineer denied this waiver request. Page 4 Page 198 Item#3. A. Annexation: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. As mentioned above, all development is to be connected to the City of Meridian water and sewer system,unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The City Engineer has approved the waiver for the new house to be served by individual septic system until a sewer line is extended south down N. Locust Grove Rd. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. B. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/eompplan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designates the property for Low Density Residential(LDR). This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. With one existing home proposed on 1.77 acres,the requested R-2 zone is consistent with the FLUM. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City" (2. 01. 01 G). The purpose of the proposed development is to annex and zone the property to R-2 to consolidate two lots into one and build a single-family residence. Ada County directed the applicant to annex because the property is directly adjacent to the City limits. The property is surrounded by single family detached homes on greater than one acre lots. This annexation will not change the existing character of the surrounding development and will add an additional single-family home for the City of Meridian. • Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools,fire,and parks" (3.02.01 G). Staff finds that the existing conditions in this area create conditions that do not allow for this property owner to connect to City sewer services as required by code at the present. Public Works, Meridian Police Department and Meridian Fire have no objections to this one house residential project. No other services should be affected as the existing access is to remain. • Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided. (3.03.0) The property can be provided fire and police service.Neither agency expressed any comments on this proposal.As mentioned above, the applicant was granted a waiver from the requirement to hook to sewer until the sewer main is extended. The applicant's request to not have to extend the water main all the way up E. Paradise Ln to the east property line was denied. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. E. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2A-2) Single family residences are a principally permitted use in the R-2 zone district. Page 5 Page 199 Item#3. F. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): UDC 11-4-3-13 allows only one single family residence per property.No fixture subdivision may occur until this property is connected to both water and sewer. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The R-2 zone requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 sq. ft., 80' of street frontage, street setbacks of 20 from a local street, 25' from an arterial, side setbacks of 7.5 per story, and rear setbacks of 15'. The concept plan as submitted indicates the proposed home meets these requirements. H Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Existing access occurs from E. Paradise Ln, a rural local street with no curb,gutter or sidewalk. Future access will continue from E. Paradise Ln. ACHD noted they had no comments on this proposal. I. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-6 requires at least 2 parking spaces per single family dwelling unit,with additional parking spaces required for residences with more than 2 bedrooms. Parking will be ascertained at time of building permit. J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): There is existing sidewalk on the east side of N. Locust Grove Rd. Otherwise,the Heritage Subdivision Filing One and Two reflects rural character and it does not appear any of the right of way within this subdivision contains sidewalks (E. Paradise Ln.,E Star Ln.,N. Spangle Dr.,E. Freedom Ln). However,UDC 11-3A-17 does require sidewalks along both sides of the street,or only one side of the street when the average lot frontage is more than 150'. ACHD has not commented on this application regarding any additional improvements. The Planning Commission and City Council should determine whether requiring sidewalk along the property frontage should be required with the development agreement. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): Per UDC 11-3B-2, a landscape plan shall be required for all development,redevelopment, additions,or site modifications except detached single-family and secondary dwellings. Therefore, a landscape plan is not required. L. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): No ditches or waterways traverse the property. This application was referred to both Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District and Parkins-Nourse Irrigation Association.Neither expressed concerns with this application. M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): Any new fencing will be required to meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-7. N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Water is located along N. Locust Road to the N. Locust Grove Rd/E Paradise Ln intersection. The applicant is required to extend the water main along Paradise Ln to the east property line to serve future properties. The applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement with the explanation that this would be cost-prohibitive, and not serve any other properties in the vicinity, as the remaining adjacent properties to the east and south are remaining in Ada County and already have wells. The applicant requests to connect only their property to the main via a service line. The City Engineer denied this waiver. Page 6 Page 200 Item#3. Sewer is currently in N. Locust Road about 1,400 feet north of the property. The applicant has requested a waiver from UDC 11-3A-21 to not connect to City sewer at this time. The City Engineer has approved this waiver request. Staff recommends the development agreement require connection to public sewer when a main is extended along N. Locust Grove Rd near the adjacent to the subject property. O. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Staff has not requested architectural elevations with this application. The applicant proposes one single family residence. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation with the comments noted in Section VIII. and per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on April 15,2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to approve the subject annexation request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Ben Semple b. In opposition: Eric Reece,Nicole Carr, Chris Ilgenfritz, Silvia Wilmock C. Commenting: Ben Semple mentioned the applicant would seek a Council waiver from requiring the extension of the water main to the east. d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Why are they extending water lines just for one project? b. Is this the lowest density and would this allow more lots to be developed in the future? C. Desire to keep the rural nature and do not want to see City limits extended into their area. d. Concerns re ag rding whether the infrastructure extension is setting p for more development in their area. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Comments about why they got rid of rural designations in the City. b. Whether not requiring sidewalk would set precedent for future projects. c. Clarified that any future development would require public hearings. Page 7 Page 201 Item#3. d. Discussed whether it was reasonable to require the applicant to extend the water main to the east or whether a service line was sufficient. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission recommended the applicant not be required to extend the water main to the east. b Commission did not believe applicant should be required to install sidewalk. Page 8 Page 202 VII. EXHIBITSSITE PLAN : %/26/2021) ------------- FEW / | | | | / | | | . � | / | � | 5 | ' | � U . . | ' 1 | | ' / | . | | ` | | s" | / -------- | | | | � _-_-_-_.___-_-_-_-____—�_ ' pARAD19E LN Item#3. A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit(date: 2/3/2021) ANNEXATION ROBERTS PARCEL LEGAL DECRIPTIOIN Lots 2 & 3, Block 1, Heritage Subdivision No. Z,situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range I East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as folfows: COMMENCING at the Corner of Sections 30, 29, 32, & 31 monurnented by a found aluminum cap as described in CP&F Instrument No. 111099263 at the intersection of E, McMillan Road and N. Locust Grove Road, from which the Quarter Corner common to 5ec:tions.32 and 31 monuirnented by a found aluminum cap as described in CP&F Instrument No. 102102462 at the intersection of E. Leighfield Drive and N. Locust Grove Road bears, South 00"33'0-S" Vest, 2,659.05 feet, thence South 00'33'08" Nest, 1,988.86 feet to the POINT OF BEGI NNING; Thence along the Northerly Bounda ry of Lot 2, South 89'31'13" East, 287.63 feat to the Northwest Corner of Lot 4- Thence along the Westerly Boundary of Lot 4, South 00"32'52" West, 325.00 feet to the Center Line of E. Paradise Lane,- Thence along said Center Line, North 89'31'13" West, 287_65 feet to the to the Center Line of N. Locust Grov-e Road and the Westerly Boundary of Section 32; Thence North 00#33'08° East, 325.00 feet to the POINT OF Bi GINNII NCI_ Containing 2.146 acres, more or less. End of description Prepared By: F Ronald 1u1_ Hodge ` 7 4r OF Page 10 Page 204 Item#3. D 29- — — '.—Road ANNEXATION MAP lZ 77 LEGEND TTT AININLYATION LINE jll � —S�FTZN y -T-F— MERIDIAN CITY UMITS gq ANNEXATION AREA 4- FRIDIAN MY UMITS -TT-— — L -L T M-7 T r- — T- L-u -L r -F T-i-t-v@ I I I I I lu JIL -LL-J-LJII I 2 00-1 1 i RF , I DIAN CITY LIMITS. - -32=L-clofiga-urly—e 00 lodc'AfoTa c"ll NQT�E-.7HIS A VISUAL REFERENCE ONLY. Page I I Item#3. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS 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 conceptual site plan for the single-family dwelling included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. When the sewer line is extended to the N. Locust Grove Rd/E. Paradise Lane intersection,the existing septic system shall be abandoned and the applicant shall connect the new residence to City sewer and pay any applicable sewer assessment fees at the time of connection. c. The existing well shall be abandoned,unless used to irrigate the property. The new residence shall connect to City water and pay any applicable water assessment fees with the building permit. and Paradise Lane .,1.,ng Paradise Lane e to the easto,- p ..eAy 1; 0 £ Prior to building permit,the applicant shall vacate the 5-foot drainage,utility construction and maintenance easement platted between the subject lots(Lots 2&3,Block 1 of the Heritage Subdivision No 2)and merge Lots 1 &2, Block 1 through a parcel boundary adjustment. B. PUBLIC WORKS 2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval 2.1.1 Sewer is approximately 1,400 feet North on Locust Grove, it is a requirement of annexation to connect to both City sewer and water. Any deferral or waiver to this requirement must be provided in writing from the City Engineer. 2.1.2 Water-must be ex4ended in4o D.,,.adise Lane e to the East p ...el4y 1;ro 2.2 General Conditions of Approval 2.2.1 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. 2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. Page 12 Page 206 Item#3. 2.2.3 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. 2.2.4 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. 2.2.5 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. 2.2.6 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. 2.2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.2.8 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. 2.2.9 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. 2.2.10 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. 2.2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. Page 13 Page 207 Item#3. 2.2.12 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. 2.2.13 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. 2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.2.17 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. 2.2.18 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. 2.2.19 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. 2.2.20 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. 2.2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.2.23 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. Page 14 Page 208 Item#3. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224605&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223933&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224834&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC F. PARKINS NOURSE IRRIGATION ASSOCATION https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224834&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC 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; The Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-2 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan LDR FL UM designation for this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the size of the proposed house and lot will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts will be compatible with the low-density rural character. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Commission recommends the Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with City/Agency comments and recommended development agreement provisions in Section VIII Page 15 Page 209 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21-1928: An Ordinance (H-2021-0008— Meridian South Fire Station) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Situated in a Portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 4.00 Acres of Land From RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Page 226 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-078848 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 05/19/2021 11:02 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1928 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2021-0008 — MERIDIAN SOUTH FIRE STATION) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS T THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY F MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE E LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 4.00 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED UI Y LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY F MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: City of'Meridian. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. Page 1 of 3 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Meridian South Fire Station(H 2O21-0008) Item#4. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two(2)separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 18th day of May, 2021. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 18th day of May, 2021. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 18th day of May ,2021,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian,ID MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2022 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Meridian South Fire Station (H 2O21-0008) Page 2 of 3 Page 228 Item #4. CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L.M . Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . a i. William L. M. Nary, City Atto SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 214928 An Ordinance (11-2021 -0008 — Meridian South Fire Station) for annexation of a parcel of land situate in a portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 5 , Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise 1 Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 4 . 00 acres of land from RUT to R- 8 (Medium Density Residential) zoning district; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B . ] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — Meridian South Fire Station (H 2O214008) Page 3 of 3 Page 229 Item#4. Annexation Legal Exhibit EXHIBIT"A" ANNEXATION J REZONE MER101AN RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT MERIDIAN FIDE STATION#S A parcel of and situate in a portion of Government Lot 3 of Section 5,Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as fol lows; BEGINNING at the North One Quarter Corner of said Section 5,(from which the West One Sixteenth corner ccmmon to Sections 5 and 32 bears North 89"58' 22" West, 1331.92 feet, distance); Thence on the north-south mid-section line of said Section 5,South 00'01'18"West, 500.00 feet; Thence North 89'58' 22" West, 348.63 feet; Thence North 00"02' 18" East,500.00 feet,to a paint on the north line of said 5ecti0n S; Thence on said north line, South 89"58'22"East,348.48 feet,to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 174,277 Ft'(4.00 acres)more or less. PREPARED BY: NI,LA The Land Group, Inc, `�0 N Michael Femenia, PLS ry � i 1 5 S. Meridian South Fire Station#8 -H-2021 -0008 Page 230 Item#4. �589°570WE 1331.97' N8958'22'W 983.44' EAST LAKE HAZEL O D 79-7 2"E 348.48' NW C4R SEC.5 WEST 1J16TH P�8 N1t4 5E0.5 CP&F#2015-011238 CP&F#111068375 Z T Cn 2385 E LAKE HAZEL RD MERIDIAN RURAL FRE PROTECT10N DISTRICT MERIDIAN FIRE STATION#8 Y a ry a o APN:S1405212420, ' ZE - 0 174.277 Ft'-(4.00 Acres}± w � a Annexation Rezone far Meridian Rural Fire Protection District Situate in a Portion of Lot 3 of Section 5 Township 2 North,Rangee 1 1 E East,Boise Meridian Ada County.Idaho N89 58'22"W 348.63` 2021 Cq 4D Grp �GT .:p � �- a� � I U3 �• �n 01J4 SECS CP&F#114018231 L�1143f2U2'� r. Exhibit ,V, Page 231