The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-06-01 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 01, 2021 at 6:00 PM 6:12 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87910310401 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 879 1031 0401 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Treg Bernt Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilwoman Jessica Perreault PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 1. Approve Minutes of the May 13, 2021 City Council Joint Meeting with West Ada School District 2. Approve Minutes of the May 18, 2021 City Council Work Session 3. Approve Minutes of the May 18, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting 4. East Ridge No. 2 Fire Easement 5. Edington Fire Access Easement Agreement 6. Final Order for Apex Southeast No. 2 (FP-2021-0032) by Brighton Development, Located on the East Side of S. Locust Grove Rd., Approximately ¼ Mile South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. 7. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 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. 8. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. 9. Addendum to the Development Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Mark Bigelow (Owner/Developer) for 1450 W. Ustick MDA (H-2021-0016), Located on the Northeast Corner of N. Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. 10. Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Meridian and the Idaho Transportation Department for Landscaping Maintenance (Project No. A019(944), Key No. 19944), Located at US20/26, Locust Grove Rd. to Eagle Rd. 11. City of Meridian Financial Report - April 2021 ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] 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. 12. Public Hearing Continued from May 18, 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. Approved 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 approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 13. Public Hearing for Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 14. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2021-0034) by CSHQA, Located at 6308 N. Linder Rd. Approved A. Request: Modification to the Use Area Plan in the Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-028376) to allow financial uses in the area currently designated for specialty retail and restaurant uses. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener 15. Public Hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. Continued to July 6, 2021 A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City’s Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. Motion to continue to July 6, 2021 made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 10:10 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council Regular Meetinq June 1, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:12 p.m., Tuesday, June 1, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt and Liz Strader, Members Absent: Brad Hoaglun and Jessica Perreault. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson,Alan Tiefenbach, Jamie Leslie, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is June 1st, 2021, at 6:12 p.m. We will begin this evening's meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item is the community invocation, which will be given tonight by Vinnie Hanke with Valley Life Community Church. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Hanke: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, thank you, again, for the invitation to be with you all and pray for you. God, we thank you for this evening. We thank you for the privilege and freedoms to gather together to lead in the community. I pray for each member of the City Council, God, that you might grant them wisdom to lead as servants and to seek the greater good of the community that they lead. I pray for their constituents, God, that they would honor them with respect. I pray for the community members tonight as they speak. God, would you just give them a spirit of fellowship as we seek to be a city that loves our neighbors as ourselves. We pray for the first responders, the teachers and healthcare workers, God, who continue to serve our community. We ask all of this through Christ's name, amen. Page 7 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 2 of 76 ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item up is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the May 13, 2021 City Council Joint Meeting with West Ada School District 2. Approve Minutes of the May 18, 2021 City Council Work Session 3. Approve Minutes of the May 18, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting 4. East Ridge No. 2 Fire Easement 5. Edington Fire Access Easement Agreement 6. Final Order for Apex Southeast No. 2 (FP-2021-0032) by Brighton Development, Located on the East Side of S. Locust Grove Rd., Approximately '/4 Mile South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. 7. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 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. 8. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Roberts Annexation (H- 2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. 9. Addendum to the Development Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Mark Bigelow (Owner/Developer) for 1450 W. Ustick Page 8 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 3 of 76 MDA (H-2021-0016), Located on the Northeast Corner of N. Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. 10. Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Meridian and the Idaho Transportation Department for Landscaping Maintenance (Project No. A019(944), Key No. 19944), Located at US20/26, Locust Grove Rd. to Eagle Rd. 11. City of Meridian Financial Report - April 2021 Simison: Next item is the Consent Agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: No changes to the Consent Agenda as well. So, I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, for the Mayor to sign and for the Clerk to attest. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the Consent Agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Simison: There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: So, Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under Public Forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have one sign up, Sally Reynolds. Simison: Okay. If you would like to come forward for three minutes. Reynolds: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council. Sally Reynolds, residing at 1166 West Bacall Street in Meridian, Idaho. So, recently I reviewed a petition forjudicial review summary handed down by Judge Norton in favor of the City of Meridian and I remembered a topic I wanted to bring before City Council for discussions at a later date. You may end up addressing it internally or at a work meeting or not at all, but I would like to state it on the record for information for the public. My request is that the direction for public hearing state that if you are representing a group of people and are given ten Page 9 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 4 of 76 minutes, that you retain your three minutes as an individual citizen to address concerns with your own personal property. Here is the reason for the request. In the judgment the question of standing was addressed, basically, and this is quoting directly from the judgment -- LUPO only allows an affected person, defined as a person with a bona fide interest in real property, which may be adversely affected -- affected by land use decision to challenge the decision. In order to satisfy the requirement of standing the petitioners must allege or demonstrate an injury, in fact, and substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested will prevent or redress the claim injury. The petitioners must establish a peculiar or personal injury that is different than that suffered by any member of the public. Proximity is an important factor of standing and a court is more likely to find standing where the landowner property is adjoining the proposed development or adjacent to it, closed quote. Two of us, Mr. Eastman and myself, live on adjacent land. But Mr. Eastman's standing failed based on the fact that he -- he only addressed traffic concerns in his testimony. We did not realize each person had to speak to each alleged harm, so he was raising traffic concerns for everyone. While I did offer ample testimony about how noise, lights, and odor would affect neighbors from the adjoining development, I was only speaking on behalf of the larger group and never directly personally cited my own property. The judgment reads: While Reynolds raised general concerns within the neighboring commercial development that was actually approved, she presented no evidence during cited testimony that her residence was directly impacted by noise, odor, or lights from the development approved by the City Council. Reynolds failed to show that the location of her property exposed her residence to a particularized harm from the lights, odors, or sounds of the approved development. As a side note, I would like to state that over the past year I have been sleeping with noise cancelling headphones, there is a light that shines directly into my bedroom window throughout the night, and I have as of recently two weeks called non-emergency dispatch regarding illegal activity going on at the property. I don't say this to complain, I say it to show that reality and what a judge says is reality can be completely different. Three years ago I know that if I had asked the prior mayor and prior city council to grant me an extra three minutes to address my personal property I would have been denied. Now, the more educated part of me wishes that I had requested that, because if I had been denied I could have filed a petition on that basis that my due process rights were violated to protect my own personal property. But you live and learn from your mistakes and I hope that someone can learn from mine. I would advise any member -- oh. Simison: You can finish your comment. Reynolds: I would advise any member of the public speaking on behalf of their group request that their own three minutes be retained so they can illustrate how their own personal property will be impacted by a future development. I also urge residents who are close to a development to address every issue that will affect their property. If the City of Meridian is serious about allowing residents the opportunity to address their personal property rights, I request that that clarifying verbiage of citizens rights be added to public hearing instructions. Thank you. Page 10 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 5 of 76 Simison: Thank you. We will take that under advisement. Council, just a moment of personal privilege at least from my perspective. I have not been asking when people say they are there to testify on the HOA, asking others to raise their hand to showcase that, I'm allowing everyone the opportunity to provide testimony in this format, that the HOA representative does not preclude your right to provide testimony. That's how I have been handling these just moving forward. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Is it appropriate just to make comment or is that -- Simison: Would you like a point of personal privilege? Bernt: Yes, please. Mr. Mayor, personal privilege. Simison: Okay. Bernt: I just think that what Ms. Reynolds said is incredibly important and I think that -- think that as a body we will take that under advisement. I think Mr. Mayor has already been handling that, but I think that we probably need to reach out to Planning and Zoning, so that they are under the same guidelines as well. Nary: We can do that, sir. Simison: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, anything -- anybody else -- Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was all. ACTION ITEMS 12. Public Hearing Continued from May 18, 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 11 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 6 of 76 Simison: Okay. Then we will move into our Action Items for this evening. First up is a public hearing continued from May 18th, 2021, for Shafer View Terrace, H-2020-0117. will ask staff if they have any comments that they would like to make as we move forward. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This project was continued in order for staff and the applicant to work with ITD on the northbound right turn lane on South Meridian Road, State Highway 69, onto East Quartz Creek Street and immediate versus long term needs for that. The applicant did offer to construct a right turn lane with development of this site at the last hearing and they did submit a concept drawing of the turn lane, which has been conceptually approved by ITD. Therefore, staff is recommending a development agreement provision is added that requires the developer to construct a northbound right turn lane on South Meridian Road, State Highway 69, onto East Quartz Creek Street with the first development phase in accord with ITD standards. And just to remind you, there are three requests for waivers that are associated with this application. They are highlighted in your hearing outline tonight. Would you like me to go through those or is that sufficient for you? Simison: Council, would you like anything further from staff at this time? No? It sounds like we are good. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. I see the applicant is with us. Mr. Breckon, would you like to make any comments? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, yes, if I could I would like to just pull up the sketch that we prepared that depicts the right hand turn lane. So, here is the sketch that we sent to IPD. Meridian Road. North is facing to the right hand side of the page. Here is East Quartz Creek Street and the Bernie Lateral on the south side and the right hand turn lane is depicted in the blue color. That was tied into existing improvements and also proposed improvements on the south side of East Quartz Creek Street. The green strip depicts what we expect to be additional right of way dedication and dimensions here that depict what would show the taper, as well as the decel lane to allow for a right hand turn. The improvements along the edge here are the same as were previously shown and I would stand for questions. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Breckon. Council, any questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Jon, it looks like all of the existing plan was just compressed 12 feet -- everything shifted east a lot -- are the ones that absorbed the 12 foot shift to accommodate the lane. Is that a fair summary? Page 12 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 7 of 76 Breckon: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, that's correct. The right hand turn lane was added, along with shoulder and, then, everything was shifted over accordingly to allow for the turn lane. Borton: Follow up, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Is it -- is it contemplated to staff's comment about the installation of this, that it would be complete and approved by ITD and prior to, for example, the first CO or first permit? When would this need to be completed? How would we condition that in the DA? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, I -- I guess I presume that this right hand turn lane would be conditioned as part of the first phase of the construction of the proposed development. So, this would be included in the -- the construction documents and we would work with ITD to refine it as need be, but it would need to go in right away or the first phase. Borton: Okay. Thanks. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the audience that would like to provide testimony on this item, if you would like to come forward to the podium at this time and do so or if there is anybody online that we would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the zoom platform. Seeing nobody, Mr. Breckon, would you like to make any final comments? Breckon: Mr. Mayor, no, I would stand for questions. I believe we have talked through all the items. Is there is any -- any other questions I would be glad to address them. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Either for Sonya or Legal. To that question I had asked about the trigger point for completion of this northbound right hand turn lane, that it would be installed, completed prior to blank. I'm thinking of construction traffic, even though it might not be a lot of northbound, just so there is some clear metrics as to when it has to be done in the DA. Page 13 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 8 of 76 Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess from a tracking standpoint -- I mean it's either -- for the city it's either based on building permits like -- or before first occupancy and so there has got to be some -- some significant point that would make sense. You know, ITD, as they state in the updated staff report, don't have a timetable on when that road widening may occur. It could be five years from now, it could be ten years from now. So, if the desire of the Council is that -- that there be a right hand turn lane, decel lane installed, it really is whether you want it on the -- the first building permit to be issued or the last CO to be issued and I think that's the best way for us to track it I would think, unless Sonya has a different perspective. Pardon me? Right. So -- yeah. Yeah. So, first CO -- so, Sonya was saying -- so silently -- the first -- either the first building permit or the first CO, that that's the -- a trigger point that they can keep track of that can be managed. The other question is that the -- is this turn lane for the part north of the canal and not the four houses south of the canal? Is that right? Allen: Yes. Nary: So, I don't know what the sequence of construction is intended. So, I don't know if -- if -- again, if it's the first building permit or first CO of the buildings north of the canal, so -- Borton: Got it. Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: From the --from the prior conversation and appreciate the applicant getting back with ITD and being willing to add a safety feature like this and ITD was willing to accommodate it and understanding it's a little compressed and everyone seemed to cooperate to try and account for some added safety, if it -- if there wasn't an objection to having it installed prior to the first building permit -- I mean it errors on the side of safety to the extent there may be some construction traffic at the start that it could mean a little bit earlier if that metrics is acceptable, the first building permit and it's measurable and errors on the side of safety. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Mr. Borton. Simison: Okay. Council, what's your -- what's your desire at this time? Would you like to close the public hearing? Leave it open? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just to kind of close the loop on the waiver conditions that staff had alluded to, the three that are in the report, it didn't sound like from the prior discussions that staff had Page 14 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 9 of 76 any -- any overwhelming concern with them in light of the site. Some of the site constraints that you have referenced seem to justify the requests here. Allen: Yes. I got it. I got it. Give me a second. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, yeah, staff has no major concerns with that, if Council should wish to approve that. Thank you. Borton: Okay. Thanks. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I guess my only question on that condition for Sonya was just for the --the waiver to allow the McBurney Lateral to remain open if we feel like we have adequate fencing to preserve public safety. Allen: Is that a question of staff? Strader: Yes, please. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman, they have -- I believe it's wrought iron fencing along there. If the applicant would confirm. Breckon: Yes. That's correct. Wrought iron fence. Allen: So, yes, that's sufficient for staff-- Strader: Thank you. Allen: -- to meet the code requirement. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: If there is no discussion, I'm going to go ahead and close -- or make a motion to close the public hearing on Item 12, H-2020-0117. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 15 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 10 of 76 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think this application, which we saw earlier, it makes good sense -- the zoning and plat itself makes particular sense at this location. The added turn lane really was one of the primary concerns that has now been addressed. So, I'm going to make a motion that we approve H-2020-0117 as presented in the staff report of June 1 , 2021, and to include the DA provision that requires the right-hand northbound turn lane on Highway 69 to be completed prior to the first building permit and to approve the waiver of UDC 11-6C- 3F to allow Block 3 to exceed 1 ,200 feet due to the existing site constraints as requested and set in the staff report to approve the waiver of UDC 11-3A-6B, allowing the McBurney Lateral to remain open and not piped. It will be fenced as previously discussed. And to approve the waiver of UDC 11-3A-3, addressing the access points to collector streets as set forth in the staff report. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Before we vote I just want to at least give my thanks to the applicant for bringing this needed safety improvement to the road. I know they are not fun, but they are needed, especially as we are developing along state highways, which have even less tools to actually see improvements done in a timely fashion than ACHD. So, thank you for that. So, with that clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, absent; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Simison: Thank you very much. Best of luck on your project. Breckon: Thank you. 13. Public Hearing for Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for H-2021-0014. We are going to open this public hearing with staff comments. I was not going to try that word right now. Page 16 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 11 of 76 Allen: Alrighty. Just one sec here. Alrighty. The next application before you is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat and this site consists of 19.26 acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 1690 West Overland Road at the northwest corner of Overland and Linder Roads. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed employment, which is the 13.4 acres shown in gray there on the center map and mixed use commercial, which is the brown 5.9 acres in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Annexation and zoning of 25.67 acres of land with a C-G, general retail and service commercial, zoning district consistent with the associated future land use map designations. The proposed use will include sales and service for commercial fleet operations for large commercial trucks and motorhomes and vehicle accessory sales, an installation facility for customizing vehicles, parts develop -- excuse me -- parks department and reconditioning facility for used cars for Kendall Ford Auto Center. The applicant anticipates the future uses and the six slots located along West Overland Road and adjacent to South Spanish Sun Way to be retail and office space. As a provision of annexation staff recommends a development agreement is required to ensure future development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. Because a conceptual development plan was not submitted for the commercial and office uses on the southern portion of the property staff is recommending the agreement is modified prior to development of that area to include a concept plan that is consistent with the comp plan. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of nine commercial buildable lots on 19.26 acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Lots range in size from .51 of an acre to 9.7 acres, with an average lot size of 2.01 acres. The plat is proposed to develop in one phase. One public street access, South Spanish Sun Way, is proposed via West Overland Road and one stub -- excuse me -- stub street, West Tossa Street, is proposed to be at the west boundary for future extension in accord with the transportation system map in the Ten Mile Plan. Linder Road is scheduled in the five year work plan to be constructed as a new four lane 1-84 overpass and widened to five lanes on each side of 1-84, with a level three bike facility from Franklin Road to Overland Road in the future. The Overland-Linder Road intersection is listed in the CIP to be widened and signalized between 2036 and 2040. A ten foot wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed as required within the street buffer along South Linder Road in accord with the pathways master plan. Detached sidewalks are required along all streets with street trees. The Hardin Drain crosses the northeast corner of this site and is proposed to be piped. And this is just a copy of the ACHD preliminary lines map. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the Kendall Ford site as shown. Two single story structures are proposed on Lot 1, Block 1, with building materials consisting of ACM panels, which are aluminum composite, corrugated horizontal metal panels, CMU in two different colors. Metal sunscreens and canopies are proposed over some windows. Overhead doors are proposed on the north, east and west sides of the building. Final design must comply with the design standards in the Ten Mile plan and the design standards in the architectural standards manual. The Commission did recommend approval of these applications. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, the applicant's representative, testified in favor and also submitted written testimony in agreement with the staff report. No one testified in opposition or commented on the application. Key issue of discussion by the Commission. They were in favor of the location of the proposed use and the site design. There were no changes to the staff Page 17 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 12 of 76 recommendation by the Commission and no outstanding issues for Council. And there has been no written testimony received since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is present in chambers to testify. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Sonya, is there right of way dedication with this different than what would normally be? If just the expansion of the road, meaning more right of way to account for overpass facing? Allen: I am not sure without looking at the report. It's covered in the ACHD report. If you would like that answer I can look. Borton: At some point. I presume we would have covered that and tried to address to make sure that if there is going to be a future overpass that there is right of way necessary -- Allen: Yeah. Borton: -- for it. Allen: Yeah. Borton: Okay. Allen: He is planning for that. So, it's covered in their report. Borton: Thanks. Simison: Counsel, any further questions at this time? Okay. Then I will ask the applicant to, please, come forward. If you can state your name and address for the record and be recognized for 15 minutes. Stiles: My name is Shari Stiles. I'm with Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario Street in Meridian. Thank you, Mayor Simison and Council Members. I'm here tonight representing Idaho Auto Mall, LLC, on this annexation and zoning and preliminary plat application. I won't repeat what Sonya has very adequately -- adequately covered in her staff report. I will just add a couple of things. Just one note. There will be no vehicle sales or major auto body repair at this location. It will be strictly for the servicing and -- and the -- and the other uses. Reconditioning cars in the fleet operations, accessories, that kind of thing. So, just --just so you know, that-- it's not going to be a sales lot. Idaho Auto Mall and Kendall Ford chose this particular location because of its proximity to the Page 18 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 13 of 76 Ten Mile interchange. That was a big draw. Visibility from the freeway. And another big draw was that they were located right just west of Camping World, which uses the Ford chassis and -- on a lot of their motor homes that -- that if they want accessories added or need warranty work or services done, Kendall Ford would be there available to do that work. We are going to be consolidating all of these light services into this one location. We have multiple locations throughout the area that perform these types of services, but they wanted one central location that they could do that. Right now they have moved their company's headquarters. They are -- into Meridian. They have purchased a lot and a building off of Copper Point Way in Silverstone Subdivision and all of their -- their corporate headquarters is now in the City of Meridian. We are hoping to get it all at the same location, but some of the design constraints and the timelines didn't mesh, so -- so they are glad to be able to locate that facility as well. Just one note on Sonya's report. The Hardin Drain has now been piped. We went through Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and obtained a license agreement with them and wanted to beat the irrigation season. So, that drain has been completely piped and as well the irrigation pipe to the property to the west has been completely piped and -- and approved by the adjacent neighbor there that's on the rural agricultural property right now. You have had careful attention given to the architectural design of this center. The architect Adam Garcia was working diligently with the staff and the design guidelines for the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan to make sure the architecture meets those guidelines. Initially we had one building and, then, they broke it into seemingly two buildings and reoriented a building, so the mass from the interchange wouldn't -- wouldn't seem so great and -- and we are really excited about this facility and it's over 90,000 square feet. Infrastructure and building costs initially will be 20 million dollars. They are just excited to add to Meridian and the neighborhood. We had two neighbors appear at the neighborhood meetings and they were both in support of the project. We have asked for building permits to be allowed prior to actual recordation of the plat for you to decide and the facility and the length of the time it will be to do the site prep work and -- and get the initial facility. The other lots will come as they get users for those lots and -- and come up with a -- a more specific concept for each of those areas. In summary, we are in agreement with all the staff and agency recommendations. Oh. And one more thing I just forgot. To answer your question, Councilman Borton, we are dedicating 60 feet from centerline on Overland Road for this property. That's basically an expressway width. It is the widest width we have ever been requested of ACHD on a roadway within the city limits of Meridian. So, there has been ample right of way dedicated for that. With that we are really excited to expand Kendall Ford's positive contributions to the City of Meridian and I will stand for any questions you may have. Simison: Thank you, Shari. Council, any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. Stiles: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, only the applicant signed up. Page 19 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 14 of 76 Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the audience who would like to come up and provide testimony on this item, please, do so at this time or if you are one of our attendees online and you would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand feature on the Zoom platform. Seeing no one coming forward or raising their hand, would the applicant like any final comments? Shari, would you like any final comments, since no one's provided testimony? Okay. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I know we don't normally allow issuance of a permit prior to recordation of the final plat, but any concern in this one for that to occur? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess without talking to the building department, I mean you are right, normally we wouldn't do that, because, again, there is some other issues, but if the Council wants to direct that -- that you are okay with that, if it meets the building officials' metrics or whatever they feel the most comfortable with, I think that would be okay. I -- again, I don't know whether either Mr. Freckleton or Mr. Zahorka have some specific things that they require before they do that, so -- Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Thank you for that -- framing that well. I don't know if the applicant has a thumbs up or a concern -- a question with that -- those sideboards. It looks like maybe you did. Stiles: Shari Stiles. Engineering Solutions. You are asking about the building permit? We -- we would like to get the -- it's eligible for one permit right now. It's an illegal parcel. It hasn't been divided. So, similar to other commercial projects within the city I know I have been granted building permits prior to actually recording the final plat, but realizing, you know, we have got to have all the fire safety and, you know, meet all the conditions for public safety issues, you know, any signage that needs to be put in, but they are really anxious to get started. It's been a long process. Not with you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think we are all saying the same thing. So, if -- if we were to approve it with those sideboards that our building -- you know, subject to approval by our building department, it's exactly what you are saying, but it still gives us the comfort that nothing gets messed up. Stiles: That we would be great. I'm sorry. Page 20 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 15 of 76 Borton: Okay. No worries. Thank you. Stiles: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: If there is no discussion, I'm going to make a motion to close the public hearing on H-2021-0014. Strader: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Love seeing Kendall Ford grow and continue to invest and make Meridian home. So, that is greatly appreciated for sure and this -- this application at this location seems to be spot on. I think the -- so, I'm going to make a motion that we approve H-2021-0014 as presented in the staff report of June 1 , 2021, and to allow the issuance of the building permit prior to recording the final plat, subject to the approval of our building department as described by legal. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I will second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, absent; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Best of luck to Kendall moving forward. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Page 21 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 16 of 76 14. Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2021-0034) by CSHQA, Located at 6308 N. Linder Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Use Area Plan in the Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-028376) to allow financial uses in the area currently designated for specialty retail and restaurant uses. Simison: Okay. Council, next up is a public hearing for Linder Village, H-2021-0034. I will open this public hearing was staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application is a request for a development agreement modification. The site is located at the southeast corner of North Linder Road and West Chinden Boulevard and is zoned C-C and R-8. The applicant proposes to amend the existing development agreement to update the use area plan to allow for a financial institution in the area currently designated for specialty retail and restaurant uses at the northwest corner of the site. No other changes to the uses shown on the plan are proposed. Substantial compliance with the approved use area plan is required as a provision of the development agreement to ensure a minimum of three land use types, commercial, which includes retail restaurants, etcetera. Office, residential, civic, which includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, et cetera, and industrial are provided within the development, consistent with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the associated mixed use community future land use map designation for this site. The conceptual development plan and site circulation plan have also been updated to reflect the proposed reconfiguration of the site layout in the area where the financial institution is planned. The adjacent building footprint to the east now includes a drive through. The pedestrian circulation plan depicts reconfigured pathway locations consistent with the new site design. The proposed change to include financial, along with the retail and restaurant uses, will still ensure a mix of land uses are provided as desired in the mixed use community designation. Because the proposed change increases the types of uses planned for this area, which is desired, staff is supportive of the requested amendment to the development agreement. Staff is recommending approval of the requested modification. Written testimony has been received from Norman and Julie Davis and they are not in favor of the proposed change to the use area plan to include financial institutions. They prefer a restaurant and specialty stores in this location, since there are two other financial institutions within walking distance of this site. And, lastly, a letter was received from Sally Reynolds. She is against a TCO, temporary certificate of occupancy, being issued for Winco before the Chinden and Linder Road improvements are complete, as the development agreement requires all improvements required by ITD and ACHD associated with this development to be completed within the time frame required by those agencies in accord with the STARS agreement and consistent with the traffic impact study prior to issuance of the first C of O within this development. And just a note that this issue is not the subject of this application. However, a TCO has already been issued by the building department to allow shelf stocking and set up of the store, which will expire on June 14th prior to the store opening. Staff will stand for any questions. Page 22 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 17 of 76 Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. Just a couple questions about that last comment and I understand it's not the subject of this application, but it did come up. So, if they wanted to actually open the store prior to the road improvements being completed would that come back before City Council? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Council, it's -- it's not allowed currently by the development agreement, so those improvements would need to be complete prior to issuance of their certificate of occupancy. There -- there may be a temporary occupancy issued for like not--you know, the landscape buffer along the -- Linder Road and Chinden possibly, if they aren't able to get that done. That's something that we regularly do. But the road improvements are required to be complete. Strader: Got it. It's just a follow up. So, there is a temporary CO that's been issued, but that's not sufficient for the store to actually open for business, so to be clear? Allen: No. They are planning to open on the 21 st, I believe, of June and it's set to expire on the 14th. Strader: Sorry. But it's temporary -- sorry, Mr. Mayor, didn't mean to step over you. But -- so, it's temp -- so, it's a temporary CO, but the trigger for the store to actually open for business is a full CO and that has not been issued. Allen: That's correct. Strader: Thank you. That helps my understanding. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council -- or Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so it would be to follow up on Councilman Strader, since I don't want to mix it into the record of this, but since you asked the question, I have been in contact with the building department, development services, and -- and the economic development team on the process of the store opening and so if the Mayor would like or the Council would like us to kind of bring that forward next week to answer those questions, like the roadway and the improvements, we could certainly do that. Because we do know there has been some concern expressed out there about that and we have been working really closely. There is a lot of timing that has to occur. Also a lot of timing that is not necessarily the applicant's responsibility either. So, we can have that Page 23 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 18 of 76 conversation next Tuesday if you would like and that way it doesn't get mixed into this conversation about this specific item. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think if we need to have that conversation we can. It sounds to me like if -- it's pretty simple to me. If they want to open for business and modify the DA before they have completed these improvements, staff just told me they have to come back before us. That's fine for me personally. Nary: So, let me make it clear. Yes, to modify the DA. If it's compliant with the DA with what they are doing, then, that's normally a staff level decision. I just didn't know if the Council would want to note, since you have had some public outreach about it, so -- Simison: All right. Council, any further questions for staff at this time? All right. I will ask the applicant to, please, come forward. Marsh: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, for the record Jim Marsh, CSHQR Architects. 200 Broad Street in Boise. Thank you for having us and pleased to present you for this development application modification request. I believe Sonya has covered the item well and we are in agreement with the staff report. We do have representatives from ICCU and ICCU's architect, as well as a representative from the property development. And at this time I would just stand for any questions that you might have. Simison: Council, any questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. Did you guys try to, you know, find other specialty retailers? How did that process look? Do you feel like the market is -- well, give us a flavor for why this change now. Marsh: Yeah. I mean a lot of this is -- as we developed the concept plan -- this was a few years ago. As things have changed, those -- the tenant mix and stuff has changed as well and I can bring up the landowner developer, property development representative to give you a little bit better breakdown if you would like, but right now we are really pleased to have a lot of specialty retail coming in as restaurants as well, small restaurants and some local restaurants. So, I think we have a really good strong mix. Part of the piece that -- that we are really concentrating are -- are kind of our gem of our whole development is the very center core of the development, which is the library and, then, the -- kind of the market main street plaza shops right north of those and that's where we are really concentrating some of those real kind of boutique types of uses into those Page 24 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 19 of 76 areas, but we have been real pleased with the mix of restaurants and retail that we have already had that come on board. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: If you don't mind if you -- there is a lot of public interest in this development. There has been for a long time. If you are able to disclose who some of those specialty retailers or restauranteurs are, I think that there would be a lot of interest if you are able to discuss that. Marsh: Yeah. Why don't I have Dave McKinney come up, who is with -- he can describe some of those that he is working with -- McKinney: Council, my name is Dave McKinney. I'm with DMG Real Estate Partners. 2537 West State Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Would you like me to address other people you were talking to or -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. If you are able to describe, you know, the specialty retailers and others that are coming in? I think part of the concern is that there was a very specific plan, at least from my review, that was -- you had kind of given -- you are pivoting a little bit. I'm curious how you are -- how you are meeting that original intention of having specialty retailers and in restaurants and kind of a mixture of that sort of those different uses. McKinney: Sure. First of all, when we started talking with the banks, you know, at this location, we were thinking that was specialty retail. Retail banking. Now in talking with staff it was determined that it was more financial use or office use. So, that's why we are here tonight. Other uses that we have -- other people that we have signed leases with stretch from restaurants, sit down restaurants, family style restaurants, more quick service restaurants. We do have a lot of drive through uses now with COVID. Other retailers, other than Winco, we have talked with Pet Category. We have talked with Home Improvement. You know, quite a few different uses. Now, is there something specific or -- I could give names, but, you know, what -- it is somewhat confidential, so -- Strader: I don't think we are asking you to disclose anything confidential, but it just feels like there was one direction that it was going and now this feels a little bit different. So, just wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about the vision now for this development. McKinney: We think the vision is pretty close to what we have always talked about. It's a mixed use development. We will have residential, office, civic. We do have the library lease signed also. In fact, I believe we have a building permit ready to go with that. So, Page 25 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 20 of 76 we think it's consistent with what we have always talked about. We are making some enhanced pedestrian area and plaza area that we think is really exciting that people will really enjoy and so I think we are consistent with what we have always talked about. Simison: Council Woman Strader, anything else? Strader: I'm good now. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. McKinney, I -- I appreciate again wanting to respect the confidentiality of your -- in the process of working deals and we don't want to -- want to step into the mud on that. But I think what -- what Council Member Strader is getting is probably the same place that I'm at, which is that I think we all left a number of years ago really excited about this plan and I think what Council Member Strader is trying to get to, is where I am, too, is helping me understand how what you are doing gets to the intention of what Council supported when this was last before us and what I'm hearing is you think that the bank, even though you view that as financial, you have viewed that as specialty retail and I'm just trying to figure the nexus with that. McKinney: Well, that's what we thought, but we were informed that, no, that's more of a financial institution and that we still would like to do a financial institution and so we now have it under contract to do for ICCU to take that space. That's why we are here tonight, to make sure it's okay with everyone. Simison: Okay. Thanks. So, Dave, I don't know if this is a question for you or the architect, but recently sent a letter to ITD concerning -- if they are going to use -- do CFIs or not moving forward. Do we -- you know, there is one envisioned here. That's why we have this nice giant buffer on the northwest corner. If they come back and say, yep, CFIs are gone, traditional intersections are what we are all about in this area, does -- how -- how or would this northwest corner potentially change in your mind, if that were to be the case? Is there a broom up there that you would want to come back and put in something else in the future? Are you thinking about that or is this just lost at this point in time? McKinney: I think what we would do is just enhanced landscaping, gateway signage, make sure that the presence on the -- at the intersection looks really nice. We are trying to do that anyway, but as you know in -- in ITD right of way we need permission to do that and -- but as far as building a building or something in that area, that's not in the plans. Simison: Okay. Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have everyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we would one. Sally Reynolds. Page 26 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 21 of 76 Simison: Okay. Reynolds: Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council, Sally Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street. If you will permit me just a personal -- a doctor unexpectedly paralyzed my vocal cords today at 2:00 o'clock and I used up a lot of -- of that talking on my last three minutes. So, excuse me if I -- for the whole team speech. So, I have been actively involved -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Sally, do you want some water? Would that help? Hoaglun: No, I'm good. I have some. It's just -- it just needs to come back. So, I have been actively involved in this application and I attended the neighborhood meeting on this particular change. I knew when this development was approved that the developer would make lots of requests to modify the development agreement and this is the first of those. So, I'm grateful for the city code that requires the public to be notified when substantial changes are requested. Now, while this change merited another public hearing, in my mind it is not a change that materially alters the development. Sure, the residents would really prefer more restaurants over another bank. We have tons just in that square mile. Like the Davises said, to just opened up in the last month and there is actually an ICCU already in the parking lot right across the street at Fred Meyer. We have got two, you know, car washes and now we are going to have two ICCUs. But I realized the developer cannot control the demand for land and those residents we cannot dictate exactly what businesses we would like to see in a development. So, because the change is another use that would fit within the mixed use community, like staff said. I'm not in a opposition to the application. But I do fear that this is the first of many to come and I would like the Council to consider the question when a development is approved how closely to the approval do we expect the developer to stay? How many and what kind of changes are too many? Sure, when they are brought over one by one by one over months and months they may not seem big. But I would urge Council to consider the past public hearing of an application and any past modifications that the developer requests, including changes that may not merit a public notification, such as, like they said, the completion of landscaping, which may be -- be delayed in this development and any other requirements for COs. I did want to make one -- because I did provide that testimony on the TCO, I actually am fine with the TCO that has been issued. I feel good about that. It's not a TCO that allows it to open to the public and when I reached out to the building permit he -- the person who issued that he read me the parameters and I think it's completely fine that they have stockers and everyone in there. I mean if they want to -- if they want to stock everything and the roads get done and they take that last cone off and flip on the lights to Winco, fine, I am completely fine with that. So, my question on the certificate of occupancy is mainly for public safety, just that those roads be complete and I have realized that there are things that the applicant cannot control on roads, there is a lot of moving parts, but they can control when Winco opens and when that traffic starts flowing. We have not seen any calming measures on Bacall and Bergman. They might have them, I haven't been updated as to where they are at with ACHD and that's in the development agreement as well and I will not -- for the record I will not be here next week to speak to that if it is set. And I will stand for any questions. Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 22 of 76 Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Borton: Madam -- or -- Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: Mr. Mayor. Old school? Wow. Sorry. Simison: I know old habits -- Borton: That's a great question. So, to answer your concerns, which is spot on that you have them, I think the frequency of the DAs and the magnitude of the DAs -- so, when you see two or three -- if you were to see two or three successive requests, you know, one bite at a time to modify a DA, that causes great concern. Each one causes greater concern and, then, any individual request that strays too far from the original approval and the basis for -- this is a big project that we had really robust discussion as to why it was approved as what it was and so I think that will take some pretty high scrutiny to justify modifying any component of the DA. It's a complete package as is and that's exactly what we expect. So, it's difficult to make changes. I think it's intentionally difficult. So, this one very well may make sense. But if that gives some answer to -- we are all very aware that we all signed a contract for a particular reason and that's exactly what the city expects to see. Reynolds: That's wonderful, Council Member Borton, Mr. Mayor. Councilman Borton, I really appreciate that comment and that does provide some extra comfort to me and I -- also to the public, who was so involved in this application. Borton: Good. Reynolds: If I could ask one question, just off of something that the developer said, he said there was a building permit for this building already. So, I am very hopeful -- have they recorded the final plat and I will say this with the caveat that I want them to record the final plat. We all do, because they were only allowed one building permit before they could start building and we want the library and we want the restaurants and we want the banks --we want it to start going and it's just been -- so, I'm hoping that they recorded the final plat. Has that changed, Bill, since last time we talked? Yea. Okay. I would like to say the residents are -- at least some of the ones that I know -- I'm not going to speak for a group again, because that got me in trouble, but the ones that I know will be very happy to see that construction started on the other amenities that the residents were promised back there. That's great. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 23 of 76 Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the things for Ms. Reynolds -- or all the other public that watch this, planning staff is really good in your staff reports to give you that history. When it got approved. When changes were requested. What was done. What decisions were made and -- and this Council has -- this Council has always been good at asking the same question Council Woman Strader asked tonight is why this change? What's changed in the market? Why is it different. But just so Ms. Reynolds and the other neighbors know, I mean that's a fairly common portion of staff reports is a history of the property and what's gone on and what's been requested. So, that -- that's always captured there, too, so -- Reynolds: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Nary, thank you. I really appreciate that. And, yeah, I'm neutral on this application. So, thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. If you would like to come forward. And if there is anybody online that would like to provide testimony, please, use your raise the hand feature at the bottom of the Zoom platform and we can have you unmute yourself. All right. LaFever: Hi. Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way. As far as this application goes, I'm concerned with the practice of -- we have a credit union right across the bank -- and, by the way, that is my bank and I like the bank and I go to that one quite frequently. But we have one right across the way and we have a new one proposed there. I'm concerned about what is the plans for once we go back through and abandon that building? Is it going to become blight? What is the plans for that? You know, that's an impact on the city, especially since we are moving toward --you know, their advertisements for the bank is a bank in your pocket. You know, we are moving towards online. And so right in that area we have the Zion bank that just opened in that area. You have ICCU credit union across the way. You got Beehive just around the corner. And there is another one that just opened next to Saltzer. I can't remember what it's called. Icon or something like that. I don't remember the name of the bank. But you already have so many in close proximity. I was kind of, you know, mixed about the Village --you know, the Linder Village. I testified on that. But I was excited about the fact that we were going to have more services for residential, more services for restaurants and other great things for people to go and do things with. Another bank I'm not quite as excited about and less excited unless they were going to come forward with a plan how you are going to make sure you don't have blight on the one building that's over there and I understand their excitement, it's going to have left-hand turning lanes. I mean left-hand control lights, both sides of that development. Like I said, I'm neutral. I'm just extremely concerned about the blight. I am concerned about how that building is going to be repurposed across the street. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: It's nice to see you in living color. LaFever: What did you say? Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 24 of 76 Cavener: I said it's nice to see you in living color, Denise. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item at this time? If you would like to come forward, please. And if you can state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Wolstenhulme: I'm Dusty Wolstenhulme and I am a project manager -- project manager for real estate development for Idaho Central Credit Union and I'm the one who wants to put a branch here and what I would really like to do is give our local members in this area better access and not just the easy turning lanes off the streets, but our existing location we tried really hard to shoehorn it into a small location and -- and what we are finding is our memberships are coming out of the drive up, coming head on with a lot of traffic coming out of Taco Bell and we don't have the right of way, because we are coming in from the left side, while the Taco Bell folks are coming in from the right and they are able to get out and our members aren't loving the access they have. We will do our very best to find a good buyer for the other location. We will maintain it. We will take care of it. It's not going to become an eyesore. We just would really like to build something here that takes good care of our membership. I would also like to state for the record we are -- we are not a bank. The difference between a bank and a credit union is we are a not for profit financial cooperative of our members. We take care of our members. We are not out for some big investors or board -- board appointees from some big cooperative of investors somewhere, we are out for the little guy and that's what we are doing here is taking care of our members -- our average members. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a comment. Thank you so much for that clarity on the two locations right across the street and for the background on your thought process. I'm a customer and appreciate your company and glad you are in our community here as a local business. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Dusty, appreciate you being here. I, too, am a ICCU member. Got my little green card in my wallet. I have noticed that a lot of your projects -- I think of the location on -- on Vista, the project that's coming along on Ten Mile, seemed to have a little bit of a larger footprint than what I'm used to seeing from ICCU branches. Is that kind of your new model? Is that kind of your gold standard moving forward or is it just we happen to see some larger projects in different segments of the valley? Wolstenhelme: I think it's because we -- we keep doing what our members like. Our members like to be able to get in and out. Our members like to come see us. We tried really hard to build the technology and we have some of the best technology in the state Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 25 of 76 for getting -- like our sweet member over there said, about getting your financial institution on your phone and that should be able to happen. But if somebody is ashued that and they didn't call us and they didn't get on the internet and do a face-to-face video conference with one of our people and they didn't get on their app, they drove somewhere and waited in line and parked and dealt with all of that to come see us, we do our very best to make sure they can, because they really want to, you know what I mean? And a lot of financial institutions are getting smaller and a lot of financial institutions are getting rid of their physical locations and a lot of financial institutions are getting rid of safe deposit boxes and they are getting rid of drive throughs and they are getting rid of people and putting in ATMs that replace people and that's not what Idaho members want in their credit union. They want good service and they want to be able to come sit down with somebody who knows their name and cares about them and if you have been in an Idaho Central Credit Union you will know that's the difference between us and your nearest fat cat bank with a big cigar. We are going to know who you are. We are not Pete from the old Disney shows. We are your local friends and neighbors who are taking care of you. Simison: And, Councilman Bernt, I can't wait for this. Bernt: I don't have anything to say,just thought that that was a pretty good plug for ICCU. I mean -- sort of fun. Simison: Thank you, Dusty. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on the item at this time? And nobody online to raise your hand? Okay. Well, if the applicant would like to come forward and make any final comments. Marsh: Thank you again. Jim Marsh, CSHQA. I think the last sets of comments from ICCU probably said it best on most of this and although a lot of times when we get development and modifications, DA mods come in somebody is asking for something that wasn't quite forecasted from years ago, but when --when we do have these and we work with great clients like this, there is also that opportunity that these DA modifications are actually going to bring an improvement and heighten the development and the aesthetics to those developments. So, it's not always necessarily a negative thing when we come in for requests on those, but we are trying to actually enhance developments as well. But if you have any other questions feel free to ask anything you might have. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: If you could -- just a couple of things. Ms. Reynolds mentioned that she hadn't seen calming measures on Bacall or other areas throughout the Paramount Subdivision. If you could mention that or have a response to that. And if number--the second question that I have as it relates to the -- and it's not related to this particular application that we are discussing right now, but if you could remind me what street -- to what street are you -- are you improving on Chinden. I don't remember if that was Linder to Locust Grove -- I don't -- I don't remember. If you could remind me. Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 26 of 76 Marsh: Sure. To start off with the street calming pieces -- and I might have to have some help from staff, too. But for the most part we --there are some pieces in there, just getting the road narrow. Some of the street calming measures that would be nice to have -- I mean they are all within ACHD's jurisdiction to approve those standards and right now I don't believe there is anything --there is no traffic bumps or those kind of traffic measures. I think if anything it's just basically narrowing the street for -- to slow traffic. I would have to go back to our civil engineer to probably get more specifics on that. But, yeah, that has been something that we have had that -- those discussions with ACHD on. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: But no ultimate decision has been made, just conversations with ACHD is what you are saying? Marsh: As far as I know and I apologize that I don't have -- I don't have a ready answer for that. Bernt: Okay. Marsh: But, yeah, no, that has been a point of conversation with ACHD. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, follow up. I think it's just really important those -- those folks over in Paramount -- I know that one of the things that -- one of the -- one of the concerns that they had during the application process when it was approved previous and so I think that they would really appreciate some finality to that as well. Marsh: Okay. I do believe that Dave is better versed on this. McKinney: Mayor and Councilman, Dave McKinney. We are improving from Linder on Chinden all the way to Meridian Road in the first phase and, then, the second phase we will tie into where ITD left off at Locust Grove. That's next year. And, then, made some widening to Linder and, then, also we built the entire road that you see -- if you have been out there, you see the -- we call it West Plaza Drive, which runs from Linder and it will be signalized all the way to Fox Run and, then, up to -- Bernt- Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, just -- and I appreciate you, Dave, for reminding me. What you are saying is from Linder to Locust Grove or Meridian did you say? It's going to be widened. McKinney: First phase is Meridian. Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 27 of 76 Bernt: Okay. McKinney: Then there is a second phase to Locust Grove. Bernt: Okay. McKinney: So, when ITD improved from Eagle Road west, they actually stopped and, then, tapered, okay, and when we improve from Linder to Meridian, we will taper, you know, past Holy Apostles church and so forth and they will tie together, slow break, and, then, in the second phase next year we will complete the actual widening from a taper to widening. Like that was always the plan. Bernt: Mr. Mayor. I don't remember that. I just -- for some reason. McKinney: Yeah. It's part of the STAR agreement. Bernt: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Simison: Mr. Clerk, did we have Mandie that was going to speak as part of the applicant team? Johnson: And, Mandie, with your -- she's with the applicant team -- had her hand raised and wanted to be acknowledged. Brozo: Yeah. Mandie Brozo. CSHQA. 200 Broad Street. And just the concerns of the traffic slowing on Bacall, we have taken into consideration working with the traffic engineer to slow all the traffic going across West Plaza Shop Drive, not making significant through traffic connections from Linder Road or Chinden to the residential subdivision to the south. Along all of the roads that we are able to we have narrowed and provided slower intersections, bump outs, landscaping around each of them, to kind of make that, you know, consideration to slow people down as they start traveling into the existing subdivision. So, from the developer's standpoint of what we have control of, we have made those considerations to help slow traffic down, not make the thoroughfare, not make it into a continuous connection from the major highways down and do what we can to slow people down before Bacall. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you very much, Ms. Brozo. Just so I can understand one of your comments that you just made, are you saying it's within your control not to complete the connection to the roads to the south on Bacall until the end of your development and what's your intention? Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 28 of 76 Brozo: Well, those part of the -- I believe the existing construction that they are doing right now along West Plaza Shop Drive structure. They do have -- like I was saying at the intersections, the bulb outs that slow traffic down before they take that turn down onto the residential -- future residential subdivision and, then, extend onto Bacall. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sorry, I'm -- maybe I'm just not quite -- not quite getting it. So, I understood that you are narrowing -- you are doing traffic calming on the parts of the property that you control. Are you able to not make that connection to the south until the end of construction? Is that what you are trying to say? Until all these shops are open or -- or are you going to go out and make that connection, but you feel like you are doing all the traffic calming within your parcel? Just help -- help me understand what you are saying. Brozo: We are trying to make sure that we don't make a straight run from Linder -- from Chinden all the way through to the South Bacall -- at Bacall. Where we have West Plaza Shop Drive bisecting the lower side of the site from the residential to the commercial, we have our traffic calming measures and, then, as you move down into the residential subdivision we are also including those same traffic measures to slow it down. There you go. As we kind of come through and connect to the existing residential. Strader: Thank you. Brozo: You can kind of see from this concept plan -- you can see where Chinden comes down, but we have turned traffic across to the west, so they can't actually get all the way through. So, they can't use that as a straight shot from Chinden down to the residential and we have used kind of a sweeping line to help slow traffic down at all those intersections. We have narrowed them down, like I said, with the pedestrian bulbs, landscaping, and things like that, to help just calm the traffic. As far as what they are doing in Bacall, I was not aware of any kind of agreement for us to, you know, redo their streets. We are -- I'm concerned with kind of our Linder Village portion part plats and what we are controlling with the future residential and the commercial. Did that help answer your question? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think so. I think it just opened up -- perhaps opened up some additional rabbit holes to go down. I guess I would ask staff to -- if it's possible, Mr. Mayor, maybe too follow up -- not having been on the previous city council -- in terms of if there were DA provisions that there were improvements required actually on Bacall. I'm not aware of that. But that might be a good thing to double check. Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 29 of 76 Brozo: And part of our improvements are part of the final plat that has been improved, so we can show the roadway improvements for West Plaza Shops Drive and what we have done for the calming of the traffic along there. Simison: Council, any -- does the applicant have any final comments in addition or Council have any questions for the applicant? Marsh: Thank you. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe I will just kick us off on a discussion before we actually close the public hearing. You never know. We run into hot water sometimes closing it. Appreciate the presentation. I'm not like going to lose sleep at night about the change for, you know, the Idaho Central location. I don't think that's totally inconsistent with the intention for this property under our future land use map and everything. I guess I -- I would just caution the applicant DA modifications to this property are clearly a pretty big deal. I think you have heard that from most of City Council at this point and I just think if you could do a little bit of a better job -- maybe if you have future requests to paint a picture for residents to get excited about what's coming and, you know, kind of get them pumped up about it, about what they are going to get here, instead of just the minutiae, I think that's a good thing and I guess just a general comment. I see Brighton's in the room as well, that we are really focused on the pedestrian safety aspect of this and so, you know, I would love for us to double check what -- what requirements need to happen when on these traffic calming pieces and, hopefully, we can just focus on that going forward. I am in support of it. I don't know if anyone else has any comments, but those are just my main concerns. I think people need to, you know, really come prepared and -- and sensitive to the public about this. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I tend to agree with Council Member Strader. No -- no heartburn over a well built credit union bank, financial institution in that corner, but I think your point is -- is well heard. Previous councils, previous planning and zoning commissions, previous applicant work, public testimony really resulted in what I thought was a really good plan and so I am always going to be a little skeptical or hesitant to make those changes to the plan. I think I'm supportive of this request. But I like, Council Member Strader, is your encouragement of the applicant to do a little bit better job of engaging the neighbors and the public around what they are doing and demonstrate to them the Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 30 of 76 benefits, not just for the neighborhood, but for our community as a whole. I think that's good advice. Simison: Any further comments? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we close the public hearing. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Unless there is further discussion -- I don't sense any. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2021-0034, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1 st, 2021. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, absent; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you and we look forward to getting that library moving forward real real soon. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 15. Public Hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 31 of 76 Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. Simison: Okay. Next item up is a public hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment, ZOA- 2021-0002. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: One second here, Mayor, as I get things pulled up here for all of you. Simison: Why don't we go ahead and take a three minute recess while we get things set up real quick. Parsons: Appreciate that. Thank you. (Recess: 7:33 p.m. to 7:38 p.m.) Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and come back from recess and as we stated, we opened the public hearing and turn this over to Bill for staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council, pleasure to be here with you this evening. As you recall, I was here last week going over the first round the UDC changes before you and tonight is -- is part two of that. Obviously, with a larger -- more topics to discuss this evening, put it -- put it that way. So, if you have had a chance to look at the public record and the staff report, you can see we are basically tip to tail changing many sections in the UDC with this current round of changes and many of them have been spearheaded with different groups. As you know, I manage the UDC focus group and our planning manager Caleb Hood actually spearheaded the open space and amenity committee, which Council Member Bernt was a member of. So, before I kick off into all of the changes this evening I just wanted to extend my sincere appreciation to all of those that were part of that -- that process. I know it can be very tedious, it takes over many many months. There is always a give and take. There is winners and there is losers and -- but at the end of the day the goal is we all have consensus and we all kind of move forward and agree to champion the changes that are presented to you and ultimately get codified through this body and through all the other -- everybody else's actions. So, hopefully what I'm providing to you this evening does that for everyone that participated in this process. So, as I mentioned to you tonight's presentation will coincide with essentially five exhibits. Exhibit one is something that came forward as part of our code enforcement division. I know Councilman Cavener has a passion -- has a passion for RV parking in our community and so he has continually brought up this topic on multiple occasions, but really exhibit one tonight is really to clean up some definitions in our UDC and -- and also provide -- you know, try to clarify where recreational vehicles can be -- basically any vehicle where it can be parked on the property. Lacy Ooi, who is the code enforcement supervisor, is here to basically go through these changes with you. So, it is a tag team tonight. She is going to do exhibit one and, then, I will carry the torch for the remainder of the changes. But I thought it was important to note that we will let her go ahead and answer any questions you have with these proposed changes and that way Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 32 of 76 she can get to her evening and, then, we can continue our business with the other exhibits. So, I'm sure the Council's had a chance to look at all these changes. I won't go through all of them line by line with you, but you can see the first page here we are going through some definitions, clarifying -- Lacy can probably let you know some of her experiences with litigation -- litigating some of these cases and so that's where a lot of these changes come from, working with the attorney's office and making sure that we have our definitions right, so that we can enforce our code better. This one's probably -- Councilman Cavener, this is the one that I had mentioned to you. This is where I -- again, I want to extend kudos to Lacy and even the city attorney's office for even trying to tackle this issue, because it's not an easy one to handle. A lot of us have different opinions of what we can do on our property and that's what we are all about. But at the same time we want to make sure what we have in the books is enforceable and it's understandable by -- for people and I think Lacy's done a great job of explaining that and defining that better in our code. And, then, again, this kind of coincides --and, then, the other coincides with the improvements that you need to have parking in front of your home. So, with that I will turn it over to Lacy and see if she has any context for you and, then, you can ask her any questions with -- regarding these proposed changes. Ooi: Am I on? Okay. I'm Lacy Ooi and I'm a little more versed this time to come with some information for you guys. So, I'm just going to give you my background as to why the changes, other than appeasing Councilman Cavener. Cavener: All right. All right. It's going to be one of those meetings. Ooi: So, bringing this forward just to try to resolve years of discussion that we have had and I think between the Mayor's Office and Council and the Police Department we get this a lot and just trying to come up with something that's reasonable. So, currently on parking standards, any recreational vehicle, including motorhomes, campers, utility trailers and boats are not allowed on the front of a residential property, which includes their driveways. All these vehicle types must be stored behind a solid screened fence. Many people bring these vehicles home before and after a trip and find it difficult to be able to prepare or clean their vehicles given the standards as written. The best option for these citizens is to attach their trailer or boat to a vehicle or park the recreational vehicle on the public roadway, which they are allowed for 72 hours before moving them. In some areas this causes congestion and diminished visibility in the neighborhoods, but is within the parking regulations, therefore, it's allowed. This standard requires a violator to be notified by mail with a reasonable time frame to comply by removing the vehicle from the property or screening it behind a solid six foot fence. The violation is listed with a misdemeanor penalty. Code enforcement is oftentimes placed into a revolving cycle when trying to enforce the standard. We notify the owner, sometimes with a verbal or hang tag warning first, and, then, a written notice of violation, which usually gives a ten day compliance, which is what has been suggested to be reasonable and, then, return to the property to see whether the vehicle is moved from the property. Oftentimes we find the owner waited until the day of the deadline, moved the vehicle onto the roadway and will leave it there for a bit and, then, place it back into their driveway until we respond for a new complaint. Because the violation is corrected each time the vehicle is moved from Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 33 of 76 the property we are forced to continuously respond each time a new violation is created. Due to the cycle of enforcement our current code does not give us anymore authority than an effective HOA. This parking standard is not equally enforced, as we generally respond to this call type reactive to a complaint. Many newer neighborhoods have CC&Rs that regulate this type of vehicle within their subdivisions. We are oftentimes utilized to enforce the -- the CC&Rs per the request of the HOA or a property management company. When they receive the complaints or complete routine drive throughs in the area, they will give us a list. Older areas without CC&Rs request service less frequently. Therefore, those areas are created a new neighborhood norm where a large percentage of the homes have either one boat, trailer, or recreational on their street yard. When code enforcement responds to older areas it usually creates friction within this -- with the citizen that has had their vehicle on the property for several years and now feel like they are getting picked on. When code enforcement receives a complaint we utilize a philosophy of enforce in, enforce out, attempting to gain compliance for similar violations within the area. Enforcing this code on privately owned residential properties is the most common confrontational response we receive within code enforcement, oftentimes creating a dangerous situation for our officers. Code enforcement, Council and the Mayor's Office have received complaints from citizens regarding this parking standard. They feel like the regulation should be changed, therefore, I'm requesting these amendments to the parking standard as written. When I looked up stats for 2020, we had received 173 separate calls for parking standard violations, which included 200 vehicles in those enforcement calls. With the new code as written it would be a 59 percent decrease. One hundred and two of those calls would become compliant and only 71 would still create calls for service. The other 45 of those violations was simply moving a vehicle from being on the grass or unimproved surface onto their driveway would resolve in the additional 45. With only 53 of those calls for service remaining or vehicles involved in them, included more than one vehicle or in addition to having the vehicle, plus being on an unimproved surface, possibly with a vehicle with registration, inoperative, something that would still be handled under different regulations. So, those standards don't change, we would still be able to change them if there was multiples unregistered or inoperative or unlicensed vehicles in the driveways. We also added the 16,000 pounds, instead of what was previously written would have made them -- anything that was over 12,000 pounds couldn't be on your driveway, which almost a standard 350 is registered at 12,000 pounds. So, this gives us a more reasonable gross vehicle weight rating that would be enforceable as well. I stand for questions. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Lacy, I appreciate your work on this. I just was curious of the amount of calls that your department received, if you were able to track what percentage of them came from a property management company versus an individual citizen. Ooi: I didn't even try to do that. Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 34 of 76 Cavener: Okay. Ooi: It's not easy to pull the data in the current system that we have, so I would have had to look at individual calls, like I did to actually get the information that I gave you. Cavener: Okay. Thanks. Simison: Council, further questions on this -- Lacy, are you done with your -- Ooi: Yes. Simison: -- comments on this area? All right. Then, Bill. Ooi: Thank you. Simison: Bill, you can take it from here. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor. I will transition. So, my goal is--tonight is, again, go through each one of these exhibits, pause at the end of each one of them and, then, just ask questions for each one of those different sections. That way we don't get everything -- all the record confused as to what we are talking about. It's very clear for us staff to go make changes if necessary. As we talk about these items this evening. So, the next round of changes it would be what I call in exhibit two and these are the changes that primarily came through me and working with the UDC focus group. As you are aware, the UDC focus group is made up with area residents, stakeholders, design professionals, developers, city staff. So, there is -- there is a plethora in expertise that goes into sitting on this and coming up with these proposed changes. Not all of them come -- come to you the way we intend. Some of them get removed and, then, shelved and, then, looked at again, revisited as we come up with better solutions, but for the most part the ones that I brought last week to you were ones on this list, but, again, at your request I expedited those and removed them from this table. So, again, tonight I won't go --for this particular exhibit I won't go through all of the proposed changes. I'm just curious as to whether or not the Council has anything that's piqued their interest on this list. I'm going to highlight a few of these for you. One, we are going to actually increase the height of the -- of the schools in residential districts. We are seeing that some -- some of these -- sometimes we get taller schools than what our zones allow. So, allowing them to go taller without having to go through a needed application processes seems to be prudent, especially if we have a two story school. Hospitals are going to be allowed -- or a conditional use in the M-E zone. Installation for extension of time extension for installation of landscaping, this is coinciding with our building official and also some of the changes that we have heard from our UDC focus group. What's -- what's happening is -- if you had a chance to look at the Planning and Zoning Commission you have probably seen the discussion on this particular item, but really what's happening is we were having people that need to get in their homes faster than the developer can complete the subdivision improvements and we understand that sometimes things are out of our control. There may not be enough building supplies. There may be a short hand of qualified contractors to do the work and Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 35 of 76 so timing -- there is always a finesse to getting the timing right for these developments and so we were able to come up with some of this language to allow some residents to get into their home as we continue to work and, then, hold what we call a surety, which is, basically, guaranteed money for those improvements. So, we are just defining that process a little bit better in code as we are moving forward based on some of the feedback that we have heard from the group. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I just had a quick question about the surety. It -- you know, things are going gangbusters now, but things could change and maybe the world falls apart and we have a bunch of unimproved things. Is the amount of the surety sized and held in escrow to -- is it sufficient to complete all of the landscape improvements or how is that sized? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Council, great question, Council Woman Strader. So, essentially, the way the code is written is we break up surety into two different types. We have a warranty surety and a performance surety. For planning we deal with performance surety. So, we request the applicant to provide -- there is an application and fee and as part of that process they submit detailed bids for the itemized work. We ask for that to be itemized and, then, we times that by 110 percent. So, we add ten percent on top of those costs to handle that inflation, if you will, if we have to cash it and, then, the developer can either put that up in cash, letter of credit, or bond and, then, we hold that for the duration of the project and do not release that until the project is complete and we go out and do that inspection. Strader: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And so it's actually a bond, it's not that they are -- proof that they are bondable. Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the -- yeah, it's an actual bond that we get verified by our Finance Department. Strader: Great. Thank you. Parsons: Next page here I want to bring your attention to our multi-family parking standards. So, you can see here we are increasing or adding some changes to that. So, we are defining how many parking spaces are required for a studio apartment and, then, also defining how many are required for guest spaces and this name -- this number came from -- directly from the city of Boise's code. It seemed to be a good number. I have tested this against some other multi-family developments and it doesn't seem to be too onerous for the group to be able to provide additional parking for guests. Flex space. On this particular one we are actually going to allow loading docks in commercial zones, Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 36 of 76 provided that they are not visible from a public street. Before they were prohibited and we are starting to see more momentum in our M-E zone, which is our mixed employment zone, which does encourage industrial type uses similar to what Kendall was doing this evening on their property and so we want to be flexible with that and make sure we attract the right business, but we want to make sure whatever you do is still attractive and not an eyesore from the public street. Here is one that was a big deal to Planning and Zoning, was just basically public hearing signs and just basically solidifying our code as to what's required for proof of posting. I would note -- mention to the Council that at one point the city was toying with the concept of us taking over posting a property. After meeting with this group we all agreed that it may be more liability for the city to take that under at this time than just leave it status quo and so we did take that portion of it out of it, but we did strengthen -- the applicant is supposed to provide still a notarized statement and, then, even a map depicting where they are placing the sign, so that we can share with the public that the site has actually been posted per city requirements. Next item -- something new that I have requested to be added and something that you will see probably in the near future is we are currently integrating Project Doc software as part of the planning process and as part of that software package we will have the ability to have the applicant upload revised plans prior to them coming to you, so that we can have a memo or staff report modified or something that says we reviewed the plans before you see it and so what I have tried to do with this particular verbiage in the code here is just give us more time to do that. So, currently we -- we have always had a condition of approval that when we want to revise plans we require that to be to us ten days prior to the public hearing in order for us to look at that and get that in part of the public record. We have noted -- we realized that's not long enough and so we are asking that to be extended. We are codifying it now. It was never codified, it was more of a condition of approval, but now we are codifying that and now if Planning and Zoning Commission recommend changes to you and those are to happen between the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council hearing, the applicant will have the ability to upload that, it will get uploaded into Iaserfiche and we will be able to give you that information a lot quicker and the public will be -- can see that faster as part of the public record as well. So, I think that's a pretty nice innovation that we are trying to bring, not only to you, but also our public. We are still working and testing on some of -- testing that -- that software out, but I'm hoping at some point we can share that information with you in the near future. Again, the next one coincides with the TCL process and how that works. Just some more tweaks to define that. And, then, the last item on here is the density formula for a PUD. So, as you all know we don't have density requirements for any other districts -- zoning districts in our code, it's all comp plan driven. So, we saw this as a holdover from that and so we are just taking that out to make sure it coincides with the rest of the code. So, in a nutshell, that's what -- what I had been working on with the UDC focus group and I will stand for any questions you may have regarding this exhibit. Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions on this section? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 37 of 76 Borton: One thing that jumped out, Bill, was as to the 15 days, you used the word shall, that it shall be continued, as opposed to may. That's both ways, so is that -- do you mean shall or -- if it shows up in 13 days and it's pretty innocuous, not in contention, you are okay with it's prohibited to be heard? I mean this language wouldn't allow us to go forward, even if we were able to and even if the public didn't object and -- Parsons: Yeah. Mayor and Members of the Council, that -- I think that's a valid point. In planning's world we like the word shall, because we want it black and white for all of us. But, again, I almost like the suggestion of may and I think that -- I think the UDC focus group would probably appreciate that, to be honest with you, because they -- that -- that may -- it does -- like you said, maybe it's not a contentious project, maybe there is not -- that we are all on the same page, it's just more of a formality and that we can react quicker to it. So, giving all of us the flexibility to do our jobs I think is a good -- I think it's good to change that and maybe give us that flexibility. That's what we have done in the surety. We have said may. We don't use shall. But if that's the pleasure of the Council I'm more than happy to change that. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: If that's the intent. I didn't think you were going to be agreeable as quick on that issue, because I could see the intent that you wanted to have a firm message that don't be late, don't get your -- your amendments to staff and, then, to the public so they can't be analyzed in detail prior to the hearing. So, I get the intent of the shall. Giving you discretion to say may still might work, but -- Simison: Council, if I could put out something to get your legal mind around something. If you look at the first part of that sentence, though, if revised plans are required. So, are required and may, does that really seem to align typically -- and I mean if provided plans are considered by the director, the applicant may provide those. I mean -- Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Just trying to get my head around -- when you say are required, I'm wondering why are they -- I'm asking the question kind of more to like why are they required? What is -- what is contemplated the requirements in the first place as -- and, then, we may or may not hold you to a date, whether or not we think it may or may not be contentious or not, so that's what I was really trying to look at. Borton: So, to be clear, it's the last shall that I'm talking about. Simison: I know it is, but I'm asking in conjunction with the first are required. You know, that's where I'm kind of going to. Why are we requiring them in the first place? That's the question I don't know. That's -- Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 38 of 76 Borton: Mr. Mayor, I would think as Planning and Zoning said, this looks great, except you want some modifications in the plat and the applicant says sweet and we will do it and we will get it to staff in time for the Council meeting and you want to take a look at it. I mean that scenario happens at times. Simison: Is that a requirement or is that you kind of want it? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor-- Mayor, Members of the Council, I think-- I think a good example was even last week where we wanted changes and we didn't get them and the applicant still has a right to come forward with the plan that they want to show. I mean that's the -- that's the reality that we live in sometimes, you know. Is that -- is that the right process? From staff's perspective, no. We want to come and bring you -- we want to make sure our conditions are adhered to and we get revised changes. I mean a lot of times we might say lose lots, because you have too many on a common lot or the Commission -- or we want more consolidated open space or we want you to add an amenity and we want you to see that. We want you to see that what we have asked for and what the Commission's asked for have been -- been satisfied and so we don't try to monkey up that record as we transition between the Commission and the Council. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think that question that the Mayor brought up is the word required, not to get too deep on it, but if those types of changes aren't technically required they are requested or recommended -- Parsons: That's a good point, too. Borton: Does that hit on what you are getting at? Simison: Yeah. I mean if we are requiring -- I'm trying to tie the two concepts together in what is really being done here. If it's that important that we say you have to do it, I think we should tell them when they have to do it by, as compared to saying you have to do it, but when you do it we are up to interpretation on when you really should do it. Borton: Mr. Mayor, I think -- I think it all stays the same. If you have to do it you shall do it 15 days prior period. Now, if you fail it's the last shall becomes may. Now, if you fail to do so, you may be continued -- you might not. Simison: I think that works. That gets to the intention. Borton: Yeah. That's the last shall in the last sentence is -- would become may, but everything else stays. So, the mandatory requirement to do what's requested doesn't change. Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 39 of 76 Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that -- again, that goes back to some of the -- and I can give you that context of that discussion with the group is that's some of their reservation of codifying this is because it may not always be required or, you know, it -- so, to them they don't want to slow -- the developer doesn't want to slow down the process. They want their -- their time in front of the Commission and they want their time in front of City Council and as you know time is money. But, again, our -- we are tasked with doing the job right and bringing you good projects and so that's why, again, I added this as a change. If, again, we could add -- you can change shall to may, I'm very comfortable with that. I think it gets -- still keeps to the intent as part of this condition or you also have the ability to strike it all together, because we don't have it codified. Again, it was -- it was kind of my -- my way of trying to appease my team that has to work on this and make the -- make sure they keep track of all the work that comes in the door and gets -- and give them adequate time to do their job is kind of where I'm coming from as their supervisor. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, so when they aren't happy with Bill's answer, then, they usually call me and so I think what staff is wanting is what is your desired direction from the staff. I mean this can go all the way to the point of the staff will recommend denial, because they will not make the change that staff feels is important to the code or to the project, to we won't recommend -- we won't recommend approval, but, again, you can move it forward and the common thing we tend to hear is, you know, between Council and Commission could be approximately five weeks. I have to go back to my architect, redraw this plat, that all cost money, when I'm going to come to this Council to argue that I want the original plat. So, now I have to go spend money on something else, because the Commission made a recommendation that you are able to -- to reject. So, I think that's the balance we are looking for is there are certain things, obviously, in code that are required and that clearly we cannot even accept the application if it's not done that way. There are other things that staff and the applicant work together to try to get a good product in front of the Commission and the Council and there usually are one or two occasional sticking points on amenities, location, building location, sizes, directions that there may be some sticking points and they may have from the -- from the applicant's perspective sound, legal, business reasons why they want it the way they want it and they disagree with staff's perspective or the Commission's perspective. So, that's where the question of required I think really is critical to the staff's review. If the -- if -- if the staff says we want a tot lot, instead of climbing rocks, is that required or is that recommended? If the staff says we want a roadway versus a private lane, that may be required in code or maybe our interpretation of code. So, I think that's the direction we are seeking and if I'm speaking out of line, Bill, please correct me, but I think that's sometimes where the rub comes. It's more of the -- the details towards the end of the project. We have worked out a lot of these things and, then, you get to -- I want to have this, not that. I don't want that at all ever. You know, those are the ones that -- again, is that -- and, again, the common -- the common request I get from their attorneys are that Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 40 of 76 costs me money and we are going to be standing there arguing we don't want this, so why am I going to pay for it. Now, if the Council makes me do it, yeah, we will go draw it, because that's the way it works. But until the Council says we got to do it, I don't want to spend the additional dollars in time, because maybe I can't get it done in now two and a half weeks, so I can get it to city in 15 days or I will get continued or it might get continued. Those are the rubs that I -- that I end up having to deal with, so -- and, then, talk with Bill and say what can we do here to make this work? Simison: Well, Mr. Nary -- and when I read the -- add a new provision that specifies when revised plans are due to staff review, you know, to me the -- it almost seems not in alignment with the proposed language, because, really, the -- does it matter who it comes from when, other than we just want to have time to look at it under any circumstance? Is that the -- Bill, what we are really trying to get to, is any new plans you want them within a certain time frame, no matter what, no matter why, whether it's because the applicant wants to change it or someone else asked for a change. Is that the crux of the issue? That's what I read it in the third column, as compared to the -- Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, that -- that's the problem I'm trying to solve here with this code change is -- you are right, it's -- it can be all three. It could be what staff wants, what the Commission wants. Simison: What the applicant wants. Parsons: What the applicant wants. Sure. They could say -- you know, they-- oftentimes with my experience I have seen it where they might not have done exactly what the Commission wanted or staff, but they have tried to do something that met the intent and, then, we are like, okay, let's -- let's analyze it. Okay. We can get on board with that. Not exactly what they asked for, but it still works if you get us closer to what we were asking for and we compromise that way, too. So, I see your point here as far as the shalls. But, again, if it doesn't have to be codified, we don't need to include it, we can strike it, but liked the idea of Mr. Nary's suggestion of give me some direction on what -- how you want us to communicate to the applicant. What's your expectation if staff or the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend changes to the plans, what's -- what is your expectation that they get those to us, so that we can get you the right information, not only for us to do our job, but also for the public. They want to see it, too. And I know you guys hear it all the time. They want to know those plans. They want to see the revised plans. We get it all the time. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I think the word that was used is intent and in my -- in my opinion I believe -- I believe that the intent is always -- you know, there is always good intent for sure and I get sometimes the applicant makes some -- you know, sometimes I would say that -- that, you know, the applicant actually listens to the -- you know, the residents and they make Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 41 of 76 last minute deals and it may not be their -- maybe vice-versa and maybe the residents don't quite -- you know, didn't have a chance to see the revisions and the next day is the scheduled public hearing and so I totally get it -- I totally get it, but I think it's important that everyone has a fair chance to review the document. I think that that's really important, whether it's -- whether it's us or whether it's the -- the -- you know, the homeowners who have concerns or not or -- and so I don't want -- the word shall maybe -- that's pretty directive and maybe highly recommended. I don't know exactly what word we can use, but I think that it makes sense for the process. I think -- and it -- at the end of the day I get that there is a -- there is -- money is time and I totally understand. I get it. But at the same time I think it's really important that we get it right. That's the most important thing is we get it right and, thankfully, at the city, you know, we -- we have great, you know, development partners who, you know, this doesn't happen a lot, but when it does it seems to be a little bit of an issue. But, again, I don't want to make it sound like there is bad intent. I don't think -- I have never -- it's -- I can't think of a time I have ever thought to myself, ah, tricky. I don't -- I don't think I have ever -- I remember a time that it's ever happened. I think the intent is great, I just think that sometimes we get busy and the process gets a little rushed. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think if we change the second shall to may, I think it does give a lot more flexibility; right? So, first it was required, which is a strong word. This assumes it was required and, then, if someone wants to move forward, then, they are rolling the dice and they may be continued and that's an outcome that could happen if they don't, you know, provide it in advance and I feel like that gives -- I hope that would give staff a lot of flexibility, but at least, then, it--there is a clear expectation set and they can communicate clearly. If it's required, then, that, hopefully, would set the right expectation at that point. Simison: It's -- I believe, if I was rewriting this, I would say revised plan shall be provided X amount of days prior to the scheduled hearing for review. If plans are not received within the established time frame the project may be continued. I mean that's really the crux of what we are trying to get to. The question would be what is the time frame? Fifteen days? Ten days? I think you could not be as strict in the wording to get to what we want to accomplish and I would be fine with ten days, but why -- why 15? Why ten? I don't know. I don't do the work. Will you take that feedback, Bill. May. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Parsons: Mayor, Council, I think I -- I heard you loud and clear. I almost like your language, too, Mayor, so, yes, I can certainly get that changed if that's the direction of the Council. Ready to move on I take it? All right. So, exhibit number three has to do with some changes to our landscape ordinance, which is 11-3, Chapter 11. Or excuse me. Title 11, Chapter 3, Article B. This is not quite a rewrite, but just basically going through the ordinance and cleaning it up and trying to define that we really want to start having Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 42 of 76 enhanced street buffers along arterial roadways -- more than just arterials, but along our street buffers. Mostly collectors and arterials. So, you will see a lot of strikeout, underlined changes. For all of you that haven't gone through this process before, underlying means it's new text. A strikeout is the old text being removed and replaced with new potentially. But what I really wanted to point to your attention was really the -- probably the biggest change that came about to this -- there were some modifications from Planning and Zoning Commission to this body and that has to do with my work and, really, Brian McClure's work with the city arborist to try to nail down some appropriate tree species for our community. All of you probably know Matt Perkins, he's passionate about urban forestry and he will be coming before you on an urban forestry plan moving forward. But that's where a lot of this -- this -- again, this got sent out to a lot of different experts, design professionals to provide commentary on it, more than what my expertise is. All do is try to enforce it and understand what we want to achieve here. But what we have added here since the Planning and Zoning Commission -- here is all of these tree species and I'm not going to pretend to know -- I know how to pronounce all of them, but you can see there is quite a few here. So, there is only -- these are some preferred species for the city and, then, there is also preferred -- a lot of you may not know that we do have waterwise conserve -- conservation in our landscape buffers, too, and so he has gone in and struck out all of the previous trees and he's given us another new updated list to include as part of this effort. And, again, I have to commend him for getting that to me and getting this added. Quite a few trees here that we can -- can utilize as part of this the waterwise concepts. And, then, that kind of coincides with some of this verbiage -- ties back into kind of his revised list and, then, we also have a -- what we call a Treasure Valley tree selection guide. That's found on our website and that has all of the various tree species that do well in this region as well. Kind of explains the characteristics of those trees. And, then, I also want to get down to the other crux of at least the meat of this discussion tonight is really landscape buffers and just trying to enhance how those look along the street buffers. So, Matt -- I -- I have to really commend again, Brian, he did a lot of this and wrote a lot of these standards, I'm just kind of carrying the torch for him this evening. But he went ahead and proposed a lot of changes to clarify that a street buffer along a road is more than trees and lawn, it needs to be enhanced, it needs to have boulders, perma bark, a mixture of shrubs, ornamental grasses, you know, just a variety of plant materials to really look enhanced and attractive and this also coincides with some of the changes that I will be discussing with you in the open space standards. It sends you back to this section of code and that's why we -- we dove in on this and made those changes to coincide with the open space changes and so what Brian has done, he's kind of defined what this -- to look at and how much limited lawn you are supposed to have as part of that buffer, but as part of this effort he also provided us some nice figures. So, essentially, all of this new text that you see here coincides with these figures in the code to show a developer or an applicant how they can achieve an attractive buffer along the street and, again, when we get to the open space standard you will see where buffers count towards that open space. That has not changed and that is current -- it is currently in code that we allow those to count. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 43 of 76 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Is this the right section to talk about the fee in lieu concept or -- Parsons: I'm going to get there, too. We are transitioning to that one. But I wanted to do -- I think that's a discussion that I do want to have with Council this evening. And, then, again, we are just chatting -- a lot of this is existing code and just, again, improving on verbiage and removing old language. So, again, not a lot to really discuss here as far as code changes with you, just more clean-ups. But here is one where, you know, we are always in front of you asking about land -- land use buffers when we have residential up against commercial -- or commercial up against residential and the applicant has the ability to ask for a waiver. Well, the way that code is currently written it says trees touch at maturity. Well, on this particular change we want the trees to touch at five years. So, that's -- that -- what that means is you are going to have more trees in that buffer for a denser buffer. So, a lot of the landscape plans that you see before you on the screen are showing that maturity -- landscape plan showing at maturity. So, this is something that will be within your purview as we come forward with, you know, if the applicant wants a reduced buffer that's something we will have to take into consideration, whether the buffer is large enough to accommodate additional trees. Is it -- is it wide enough. Is there enough area to plant trees in that area. So, something to take into consider this evening -- consideration this evening. And, then, going back to Council Woman Strader's discussion leading into the in lieu fee, so I know this body is very aware of -- and this came up at Planning and Zoning Commission, too, is we are starting to see a lot of farm ground getting eaten up and a lot of these farmers have beautiful mature trees on their property and usually when you have a large development over multiple acres it's pretty easy to mitigate existing trees, but when you start getting these in-fill properties, it's getting more and more difficult and the most recent one I can think of is Lupine Cove, which is a five acre development off of McDermott Road, which had over 1 ,300 -- or almost, excuse me, 1,900 caliper inches to mitigate. A five acre development cannot accommodate that many trees on it with 30 homes on it and so we are trying to work with the Parks Department to come up with other ways to mitigate trees. You guys are always part of the budget process. We always got enhancements to our parks, always changing out trees in downtown. Matt Perkins and myself actually reached out to the city of Boise to try to understand their system. They do the same thing here. So, for the most part our code does align with a lot of the different jurisdictions in the community. What we don't currently have in place is this fee in lieu and, essentially, the way it works in the city of Boise is they basically charge you 200 dollars per caliper inch you are going to mitigate and, then, basically tree bank that and use it to enhance their parks or add trees elsewhere throughout their community. I was hoping to have some of that further vetted for you this evening, but I didn't feel it was important to take this out yet. I think this is -- again, I don't want to spend a lot of discussion on this tonight, because I think it really should be -- this is something that I think parks should probably champion for you more than the planning department, although it's in our code. The city of Boise's fees is in a completely different section of their code than even their zoning ordinance. But I told Matt that I would have somewhat of a -- I would have a discussion with you this evening and just take the temperature of the Council and see if that's something they even want to Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 44 of 76 entertain moving forward. Is that something that you want planning staff and parks department to work on and bring back something as part of the fee schedule in the future. As you know, our fee schedule is coming up in front of you here soon with the budget. We want to make sure our food -- our fees are in alignment with our services, but, really, these -- these are a lot of the -- the meat of the changes tonight is really the street buffers for this -- this particular exhibit it's the street buffer changes and, then, how we mitigate trees elsewhere in the city. So, with that I will just conclude my remarks and stand for any questions on this particular exhibit. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, with the fee -- it's an interesting idea. I guess one of the things I was thinking about -- it seems like it's worth exploring. I guess part of the challenge is it may not be as simple as just replacing something; right? So, I have been getting for some reason a lot of calls lately about trees and -- all the tree folks are talking together and giving me calls. But there have been, you know, some cases where there is a special species of bird in a certain tree, there are also just really old trees that provide a lot of shade, a lot of carbon sequestration -- I mean there is a lot of different benefits that come from trees. So, I guess I was curious about this concept as kind of like our method of alternative compliance. Like if there was a level of discretion where staff could say, okay, maybe the arborist or parks says it's really not practical in this case to preserve certain trees, then, they could approve it as a method of alternative compliance. That made more sense to me than -- the way it was written here it made it seem like automatically someone could just pay and there could be additional reasons or considerations with certain trees. I guess I didn't see a level of discretion here, so I guess I would ask you to sort of react to that concern. Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that that's a lot of the discussions we had. You hit it spot on. We have in the past used the arborist's discretion to allow trees elsewhere, but in the past we have had a lot of parks coming online, like Kleiner, which could use a lot of trees. We have had Reta Huskey Park. We have had Keith Bird Park. I mean a lot of these -- Heroes Park got expanded and added trees. So, we have had the opportunity -- opportunity to do that and, you're right, that is the mechanism that we could use right now is alternative compliance to do that and that's where I want to --that's where I'm at tonight, where I'm not comfortable with saying we should be charging a fee for this until we fully -- fully understand what that is and continue to use that alternative compliance method where maybe the applicant can work with the -- that's why I think it's important that the Parks Department bring forward that plan to you and share what their vision -- vision they have for their urban -- urban forestry guide or whatever, I forget what Matt used for the terminology. They are just sharing their vision for the department and what they plan on doing in the future and kind of marrying up this process with what they plan on doing in the future and settings some of these trees elsewhere in the city. I think there is a lot -- a lot of value to do that, to be honest with you. So, again, if the Council would like to explore this more -- we certainly don't have to approve something like this Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 45 of 76 this evening, we can -- we can strike it or we can keep it in as a placeholder until we do define something and just know that we are not going to enforce it until we actually have something in place to do so. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I -- you know, the -- the only other place I can think of that has a fee in lieu is the downtown parking and, of course, that's tied directly to a parking facility being built, so that was the intent of that and that's pretty common. So, I -- I know Mr. Baird from my department was the parks attorney in Boise a while back and I don't know if he had a part of that, but there is no harm in putting it into place, because until we actually establish a fee we can't collect it. So, I think there is some research that needs to be done on how these are establishing and what do you base them on and -- and is the Council comfortable with -- with saying, well, instead of you having to put-- replace a tree on your property, you are going to replace a tree somewhere else or where ever we decide that to be and so I think we are -- I will need to do a little bit more research into that, but, again, I don't have a concern if you want to put it in, so it's aware that that's out there, because until we pass a fee we are not going to do it anyway. Simison: Just two cents to throw into this, is kind of like impact fees that you pay for parks are part of your tree replacement program on any property you do. I understand trees may be viewed a little differently, but what about a farmland mitigation in lieu of fee? Where are you going to replace the farmland that you are doing. You can take this to whatever level you want from that standpoint. So, personally, I don't know I'm a fan of this and I would not put something in our code unless we are going to do a fee, because I think it -- I don't know what message it sends just by leaving it out there. So, I would at least ask for greater consideration before we just add it without a plan or purpose or a thought. And while we are on this section, since we added a bunch of trees, I saw one -- can we take out the Ohio Buckeye tree from our list? Just throwing it out there. I don't know if we really need that one. Sorry, Chris. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Think it would be okay with leaving it in just for further discussion, but there is a lot here that we need to discuss. Maybe some -- some of our development partners have some thoughts about this and some residents I know, some -- some folks that were on the open space committee that are here as well, maybe they have some thoughts on it as well. Be more than happy to listen to what they have to say. Parsons: Mayor and Council, I will go ahead and proceed and that way we will -- maybe we will circle back at the end of the discussion, if you wouldn't mind. Any other questions on this section? All right. Now, we are going into some of the rewrite of our open space. Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 46 of 76 Yeah. There is a lot of meat here, if you want to use that -- coin that phrase there, but I think this commission -- this body, the Council, realize -- understands that in the last five years we have been trying to do something with open space standards. I have brought numerous proposals to you. We have made some minor tweaks, but this time, after the adoption of the -- the plan we -- we heard from the residents and we heard from you that we need to look at our open space standards. I wanted to let the -- the Council know that Council Woman Strader reached out to me with an e-mail today, asked me to kind of vet these -- some of these open space standards and asked me if I would look and share with you some of the developments that are out there that would meet these standards and, then, look at other jurisdictions throughout the valley to give you that insight as to what they are requiring for open space. So, what I'm going to do is probably just go through a lot of these changes with you and, then, share that -- that feedback and that information with you. I won't probably share a lot the developments in the community with you. I think we have experts here that do this for a living that can probably testify on -- from the public comment that I received in particular to this change, they have some discussions with you tonight on this topic, this particular exhibit, so I will let them go ahead and give their perspective of whether or not the proposed changes are achievable or meet the vision of the plan. But what I can tell you is there is -- there is a lot of time and effort that went into this and hopefully you guys -- again, I concur with some of the proposed changes tonight. So, really, we wanted to align our open space and site amenities with our Comprehensive Plan, which we have done here, trying to align that a little bit more based on the vision from the feedback that we heard and what we are trying to do here is really just increase the quality and the quantity of available space and the amenities. We want to give the developer flexible, but we want to make sure that we give them enough tools to do that and, hopefully, some of the testimony here tonight you will see that. We have done that or at least got to that goal. A lot of -- the other particulars -- difference between this change and the next exhibit, what we have tried to do here is I have actually -- we have actually split out the multi-family standards from this section of code and better defined it in their own section of code. So, we have tried to bi -- bifurcate those two standards, so it's clear. This is really for residential and, then, the specific use standards for multi-family had their own open space requirements. So, you can -- you know, the current code is to ten percent. A few years ago we did come forward with a proposed code change that when you had 16,000 square foot lots in your development you only had to provide five percent, that is staying on the books. Probably the biggest change tonight is really this table that's before you and how we are going to require open space based on the zone that you request for development. Now there have been some slight tweaks to this from Planning and Zoning Commission to you this evening. I realized after the Planning and Zoning Commission that we did not have any TN&R or TN&C zoning addressed in this matrix, so that was added to the 15 percent criteria. So, here in the R-2 zone we are going to require that if we have an R-2 development, ten percent and, then, as you increase in the zone in the density, the idea is you get more open space as you increase the density. That's really the premise of-- of the change here tonight. All of us had difference of opinion on the committee as to what that number should be, but, again, these are the changes that are before you tonight and I know some of the applicants in attendance tonight -- or not the applicants, but some of the public testimony today will be asking you to probably modify some of these open space numbers here. Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 47 of 76 One thing that was brought up is what if you have multiple zones in a development and that -- you can have that. We often see R-4 and R-8 developments and so, basically, we are going to take that aggregate and, then, divided by the number and get a baseline, just like an average between the two and come up with a number. Here is how we kind of justified some of the open space standards and how the applicant should demonstrate -- a lot of this verbiage that you see in section two here is really incumbent upon that applicant to tell us that in their narrative. I'm going to tell you some of these -- these standards are subjective. They are left up to interpretation, not only between us, staff and the applicant -- and we spent quite a bit of time discussing that as part of that open space committee and we felt that -- we were all in consensus that the applicants can do a better job of telling us how this open space is supposed to be utilized and how they -- what demographic they are trying to serve. I think -- from my standpoint I think that helps us as staff to clearly communicate what the development is trying to achieve, not only share that with the P&Z Commission, the Council, but also the public, so they know how we derive to our recommendation to both of you, both the Commission and the City Council. The one -- the one item -- the one thing that I do appreciate about the changes tonight is defining how -- you know, some of these proposed changes are better served by showing you it in a graphic than showing you in text and I know some of the representatives here tonight want to talk about some of these changes with you, particularly this one in front of you where we have 50 percent -- 50 percent of the homes fronting on the open space. That was quite a bit of a topic of discussion not only at P&Z, but also during the committee meetings. A lot of the development community felt like that was -- the 50 percent was a little high and so we did receive public testimony and there will be a presentation tonight where the development community is actually asking you to lower that to 30 percent. In some cases go down to 20 percent if there is an intersecting pathway and it's -- it's important to note that some of these photos that are in this -- this text amendment or these texts -- or at least in this part of the exhibit, they are actually from actual developments in Meridian. This one here is in Hill Century Farm, if I'm not mistaken, the one on the left, and the other one is part of Paramount Director where all the homes are fronting on open space. So, again, just defining what you can count as -- as open space and, again, more graphics to go -- kind of coincide with what that verbiage means, which I think is good. Everyone -- a picture says a thousand words; right? Here is where we come back to the buffer width and how some of that would be enhanced going back to what we have talked about in the previous exhibit and how you would make -- you know, if you do those certain things you get to count one hundred percent of it. Simison: Bill, if we can go back to that -- or just -- why does it matter front -- fronting or backing on the house? Can you explain the rationale, why there is a -- why is that a differentiator? Parsons: Well, if you look at -- if we can go up, there is a couple different reasons for it. One is we want to make sure -- it really comes down to having your eyes on open space and that can be handled in many different ways. You could have the fronts of the units on the open space, you can have open fencing on the back of the open space. What we want to do is not wall it off and you got to have it open from the street. I think that's really the -- what the goal is, but for whatever reason I think the idea is just to have people's Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 48 of 76 eyes on it, create that sense of neighborhood community when you have people orienting the front doors on open space, it just seems to be more inviting. But there is -- there is multiple reasons why we do it, but for whatever reason this particular 50 percent, the consultant that we worked with proposed that number, found some examples. I can tell you we spent quite a bit of time discussing it. A few of the committee members actually wanted to remove it, because they weren't quite sure what that meant. But, again, I -- I have seen some of the language has been proposed by the applicants -- or not -- excuse me -- not the applicants, but some of the committee members as part of the public record and I tend to agree with them. I like the idea of-- maybe 50 percent isn't the right number, maybe 25 percent is, as long as you have an intersecting pathway. I don't know if that answered your question, Mayor, but the intent is really to keep eyes open on it and just make it more inviting. Simison: Yeah. Parsons: Make it to the street. Simison: I see it on one hand, but I'm like -- if it was my house -- we spend all of our time in our backyard. We never spend time in our front yard, so our eyes would never ever be on that space. Now, maybe it would be different if it was in front. I don't know. But that's kind of what --what is the defining factor, other than a design choice, because that's what it really seems to be is a design choice, as compared to be a practical standpoint. That's -- you know, we -- you know. Anyways. Okay. Just wanted to see what the rationale was and I'm hearing just because someone recommended a number to us. Parsons: And my record -- yeah. In my experience with it is typically it is alley load; right? You would have an alley -- you don't really have a front yard, so you -- you have compact housing, so you want this grand open space for people to front on and use it, because they don't have a lot of yard when you have alley loaded homes. Okay. Thank you. Parsons: But I will let -- again, I will let some of the public testimony share their ideas and what they want changed there as part of those. And if I remember -- I recall a few years ago actually came forward with a fencing standard change to where we would -- in certain cases we wouldn't even allow fencing or require fencing if that was the case. It would be homes clustered around open space and just made it feel like it was part of a -- more of a cluster development and open space, rather than individual yards, but, again, like you said, Mayor, that's -- that's personal preference. Again a lot of these are just more taking certain sections out of the code and just clarifying them and others, so not -- not a lot of changes here. Here is one that -- particularly waterways that are part of an open space. I think you guys have seen this on a number of occasions where it can't count more than 25 percent, you got to have it in conjunction with an amenity so that it counts. Again, you can see an example of that. And, then, really another modification or at lease a big change to this section of code is the site amenities. I think it's pretty amazing how -- how much we have expanded that list and now we are kind of -- we are -- we are actually proposing before you this evening to do that as part of a point system. So, now the developer -- or anyone wanting to develop their land can either come in with one grand Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 49 of 76 amenity or multiple amenities, it just depends on what they want to present to you as part of their -- their development. It's almost like a menu. You get to pick and choose what you want as part of your development. Again, this was something that was -- was highly talked about and rightfully so. It's -- when you look at this list of amenities here you can see here each one of them have a point value, but who is to say one is more valuable than the other. One could be an important point to somebody else. Somebody may love having a clubhouse and somebody may find a multi-use pathway more beneficial to the community. Again, this -- this point system was something we discussed at length and don't know if it's the right number or not, but, again, this is where we have landed based on some of the feedback that we got. But you can see we have extensively extended this list and I have actually took some of these amenities and applied them to the multi-family standards as well to give some greater flexibility to those as well. But I wanted to pause there and --and, then, again, I will kind of--this section of quality of life amenity standards, this is basically looking at all of those and, then, further defining how those are supposed to be developed on the property. The standards, if you will, that coincide with those particular amenities. We wanted to make sure whatever we were -- if we were going to give you a point for it, we wanted to make sure that there were specifics on how they were supposed to be developed on the property and we don't currently have that in code. So, it's nice to add that and define that a little bit better in the code. But with that that really concludes the proposed changes here and I will stand for any questions. Oh. Actually, wanted to touch bases back with what I said in my opening remarks about other municipalities and what they are doing. So, if you recall -- I will go back up to that exhibit here. Now, in Meridian this is what we are doing. This is pretty common. I have seen this in other codes in the valley. So, Boise, if you do a standard subdivision, there is no open space requirements. If you do a PUD you are providing ten percent. Eagle, 18 percent and 15 percent of that has to be active open space. And Kuna no standard open space for standard subdivisions. PUDs ten percent. And, then, lastly, I had a chance to look at Nampa, nothing for a standard sub. It talks about open space, but it doesn't have a number. But in Nampa if you do a PUD minimum 15 percent. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Bill, just to reiterate, can you share with us again -- I heard 18 percent for Eagle, with 15 percent active? Parsons: Yeah. Shall be active. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. What is -- sorry, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: What's active open space? Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 50 of 76 Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, I -- that's their definition. I don't enforce their code, but I'm sure there is probably a definition in their code that defines what that is. Again, we have other experts in the -- in the audience that do business in other municipalities and maybe they can give you insight what that means. Simison: Must include running water. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: This kind of fits not only the single family, but the multi-family, I guess. I wanted to understand the rationale and kind of what the work was that came out of the open space committee. So, it looks like with the zoning, as you go up in zoning, which makes sense. It's more likely you are going to have density. You are going to go up, you know, from ten percent. These folks have yards. Bigger yards now you are -- you are requiring more open space. What was the rationale behind setting the cap on the multi-family at 15 percent in light of the R-15 at 15 percent? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, I -- I can hold off on that question until we get to that section and share that with you if you want to dive into that, but I think the crux of it is is when we -- we sat down with the open space committee and we were toying with changing -- taking the two standards and we wanted consistency and that's really what it comes down to. What I did is -- when we met with -- we had a sideline -- we had some meetings after the UDC focus group with a handful of committee members that volunteered to meet with us to talk about open space for multi- family and they were concerned that the multi-family developments were requiring more open space than this section of code and so when we met with them, they had spreadsheets and we talked about what the intent behind -- again, going back to that -- the intent of the code was and we were realizing that although we were saying 15 percent open space in residential, in multi-family we were requiring ten percent, plus we were requiring more common open space based on the square footage of the unit and in most cases it was going -- it was in excess of 15 percent and so what we agreed to as committee members, what we agreed to saying that you could have more than 15 percent, but the intent would be the minimum is 15 percent if you hit all of that other criteria and I will expand on that, because that was something that was discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission and they didn't quite like my verbiage, so I went and tweaked that for tonight's discussion to clarify that point a little bit more for you. That's why I said if we can hold off until we get to that exhibit five, provide that clarification for you. And, then, as far as your question about developments that are meeting these standards currently, one that I can think of is TM Apartments, TM Creek Apartments over there off of Ten Mile and Franklin. I did -- we did that phase two project and I believe they had in excess of 22 percent open space, if I crunched the number. Under the code that I'm proposing this evening it would be max -- minimum 15 percent or they may exceed that if they chose to. In this case I would imagine they are going to choose to do that, because they are -- they are able to. Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 51 of 76 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. That's really helpful and I know we are -- we are having conversations kind of open and we will see where it goes. I guess part of what I was trying to ask with my request related comparable analysis with other cities is to sort of understand what other communities are doing and I think it's great to know what the other communities here in the Treasure Valley are doing. I also think it might be interesting to pick one or two, you know, kind of who do we want to be when we grow up examples and --that might be hard to find agreement on, but maybe to just get some examples nationally as well of what's worked for people. Like I would be curious, like Boulder or a place like that, kind of what their standards are. But, yeah, I went back and looked through a couple of examples myself and I have seen a lot of really fantastic developments that have well exceeded the 15 percent and so just wanted a flavor for why we -- how we pegged that 15 percent as kind of our high watermark. Have a little bit of a flavor for that now. I'm sure we will hear some public testimony and, then, just wanted to understand following the UDC focus group and in the UDC focus group what was the engagement with -- not just the development community, but the community as a whole, whether it's, you know, groups of interested neighbors or folks that commented on the Comprehensive Plan, what kind of opportunities have there been for public input. Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, I can't speak to that. I didn't really spearhead the open space committee section, but I know they were invited -- I don't -- I know Sally was part of that committee and hopefully she shared that with -- with everyone out there, so they were getting an understanding of where we were going from the standpoint of open space and site amenities, because, again, we did hear -- we did hear everyone loud and clear, but did we do a formal rollout and have town hall meetings to discuss all of that? No. But what we did do is we did send out an open space survey and we took those results and kind of landed on that and build from there and that's how we got to where we are tonight. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Is it -- it doesn't have to be right this moment, but I think it would be great if we could take the results from the survey and kind of ground back how we think that's meeting what we have heard at some point. It doesn't have to necessarily be this exact meeting or this moment, but I do think it would be really important to try to connect back, okay, this is what we heard, this is how we think we are meeting what we heard and sort of show that direct connection between the feedback from the community and how we are trying to meet that concern. Simison: Bill, just a question. The R-8, R-15 are both at 15 percent. I'm sure this came up as why not 15, 12, ten and eight, for example, instead of both the 15? Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 52 of 76 Parsons: Mayor and Council, I wish I had an answer for you, Mayor, on how. I -- I didn't -- I wasn't able to attend all of the open space committee meetings, so I'm not sure that that was one that I wasn't able to attend. Maybe Councilman Bernt can give you some context on that. I know at one point when we started out we were actually five, eight, 12, 15 and next you know I showed up at the meeting and it was changed. So, I think there was just more consensus that we should still stay with ten percent and, then, work our way up from there and that's where the group landed on it, to be honest with you. Anymore on this topic? Any questions? All right. Perfect. And I will transition to the last exhibit of the evening and, then, we will open it up for public testimony here. So as I mentioned to you previously, this has been separated out now. Before what was happening -- if we had a multi-family development in the commercial districts, we weren't applying UDC 11-3G-3 standards to multi-family, because it wasn't in and R zone, but if we had a multi-family development in an R zone, we were double dipping, we were actually making the applicant comply with 3G standards and complying with the common open space standards in 11-4-3-27. So, we realized we needed to get that clarified. So, what we did is -- as I mentioned to you, we have basically bifurcated these two and -- and made it clear in the common open space that multi-family is subject to its own open space regulations. So, again, tying back -- again, for consistency, we have tried to tie in the purpose statement back to the Comprehensive Plan, which is, again, identical language to what we had in exhibit four and, then, remembering everything and, then, really, the -- the gist of the changes for you tonight is how we get to that open space and what we are going to require. So, currently, what we are doing anything -- over five acres we are going to require a baseline at ten percent open space. Again, they are going to have to demonstrate how they are meeting these standards through -- through their design and through their narrative and, then, also this is what I was alluding to earlier where I said anything over 20 -- anything over 20 units will have to now provide a 50 by 100 area -- minimum area for a consolidated open space as part of the development and, then, as the development size increases we are going to leave it up to staff and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine if a 50 by 100 area is large enough for a multi- family development with 300 units or should that central open space be increased, be commensurate to the size of the development and I think that's pretty consistent with other language that we have in the code. That leaves it up to our discretion and also the Planning and Zoning Commission's discretion to determine whether or not there is adequate open space and, then, of course, if they can't meet the standards, then, it would be eligible for alternative compliance. You could get a project downtown where it's in-fill and may not be able to get all that open space and we want to certainly make that flexible for in-fill projects moving forward. And, then, in addition to the baseline -- this isn't anything new to code, this is typically what we have in code just in a different -- presented a different way in a different section, but, essentially, you have to provide a certain amount of common open space per the square footage of the residential unit. These numbers have not changed and so -- and, then, here is the certain dimensional standards from which they comply. So, when you take all of this together there is the very real possibility that you are going to exceed 15 percent open space and so based on the discussions that I had with Planning and Zoning Commission I went back to the drawing board and -- and wordsmithed it. So, basically, what I'm saying is if the development committee meets all of those requirements -- complies with all the requirements of the subsection, the Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 53 of 76 minimum qualified open space for the overall development shall equal 15 percent or may exceed. So, essentially, the minimum is going to be 15 percent, but the applicant will have the ability to have more if they chose -- if they choose to. And I would let you know that I -- so, what I did this afternoon -- I looked at this standard and I took a five acre development with 50 units proposed on it and it came out about 15 percent open space. Now, I took another development that was a hundred units -- 112 units on five acres and it was over 18 percent open space. So, the reality is you are going to get more open space, but there is a chance that someone can say I only have to provide 15 percent. So that -- that's a real possibility and that's -- and that's some of the discussion that we had as part of the group. So, hopefully, that verbiage makes sense to all of you. I try to leave it flexible. But, again, the intent here is that you still have to do all these things, but the minimum is going to be -- you are going to be capped -- the overall development, if it exceeds all of those criterias, would be 15 percent and, then, here is some of the open space standards that I changed. I have been seeing a lot of dog parts as part of developments, not only residential, but multi-family, so I thought that was a good add. I like the idea of that commercial outdoor kitchen where people can barbecue and create that sense of community. I thought this was a great quality of life amenity. And, then, a lot of our multi-family developments are starting to get multi-use pathways, so why not -- along our creek corridors, so why not allow fitness courses as well. So, I thought that was a good amenity add. Here I also thought a picnic area -- again anytime we can get people congregating on open spacing and building that sense of community and getting to know their neighbors I think it's important to a development. So, I thought that was a good add as well. And, then, one thing that you saw as part of the common open space standards were this concept of multi-modal amenities and certainly as we develop these multi-family developments along our transportation corridors, we have to be ready -- I mean our transportation network requires multi-use pathways, it requires bikepaths -- or bike lanes as part of the road improvements, so why not add those as amenities if-- if the developer is willing to add bike stations, park and ride lots, transit stops -- I have seen that quite in few of our multi-family developments and even Boise has just recently changed their code to allow charging stations for electric vehicles. So, I thought that was also a good idea to kind of mimic what we are doing in the valley and kind of be proactive here. So, I still think there is some value add for having these multi-modal amenities as part of multi-family developments. With that everything else is pretty much status quo in code and I'm happy to stand for any questions on this exhibit five as well. Simison: Council, any questions on this section? Bill, just on -- how many amenities -- can you explain the expectations in the amenities on the numbers? You know, just two cents on the charging stations. To me I think -- I look at charging stations as a -- and I guess it's all a business decision at some point in time. Do you want to reward people for doing a smart business thing? Does that really meet the intent of the character and quality of the development that we want to see? Just curious. So how -- yeah. Parsons: Yeah. Mayor and Council, this is not a point system. So, essentially, amenities are based on the number of units and the higher you go the more you provide. Keep it simple. That way we have not proposed any changes like that. So, for example, if anything's over a hundred units you are going to -- it's going to be whatever Planning and Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 54 of 76 Zoning Commission wants to see in it. So, if they have more -- if they have -- typically we see five or six amenities with our larger developments and we -- we usually tell the Commission that seems to be sufficient for a development of that size, but they are more welcome to add more if they choose to. Simison: Council, any further questions? All right. Thank you very much. Well, this is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up in advance? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have a few. First was Jonathan Wardle. Simison: Okay. Mr. Wardle, if you would like to come forward and you will be recognized for three minutes. Wardle: Good evening, Mayor and Council. For the record my name is Jon Wardle. My address is 2929 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. And I do work for Brighton. We have been involved in this process -- in fact, I was going back to look through my notebook today. The first open space committee group we had was May 18th, 2020, and there were at least seven work sessions that were held as a group, as well as some other discussions. Do I have control of this, Bill? Okay. I did provide a letter to you today. apologize it was late in coming. I was out of town when the Planning and Zoning Commission met earlier in May, but I wanted to generally say I -- we are in support of the changes here. This was noted in the -- in the Comprehensive Plan process of making updates to this and I think it was -- it was time well spent, needed for some changes to make sure that we are elevating amenities in our community on a go forward basis. As I noted my letter here, staff took a lot of time on this and I know that there were some other extenuating circumstances and all of that, but I want to commend staff for the time it has taken to pull together the things that the community has asked for into a document that can be discussed tonight and perhaps continued onward into the future as we look at positive things in the community. The item that I wanted to discuss specifically -- and it was noted earlier was the requirement for 50 percent of the open space be front-on housing and there is also another section that actually says a hundred percent and I thought the best way to do that was simply to go back and look at a community that's already established and the community I looked at was Paramount. I made a table here in the slides showing the different areas that I evaluated and this was pretty much all of the common areas in Paramount from the clubhouse all the way down to some small -- small common areas you will note that they all would qualify for the 50 by 100 requirement for a grassy area, but, actually, none of them would qualify or meet that requirement for 50 percent open -- 50 percent front-on and -- and even worse is that none of them would meet the hundred percent. The best way to show you that was to kind of go through some aerial photos, which I -- which are in your documents as well. This highlights the areas that were in Paramount that I looked at and, then, I broke it down by section. This first one, the clubhouse, I said does not qualify and, then, I put a maybe. It actually could qualify under the linear open space, because it does open down below, but if you take away that linear connection it would not qualify, even though it is -- let's see here. It's over three acres in size. The next one that would not qualify as Crosby Park. It's actually 3.32 acres. The perimeter is 1,800 feet. There is 753 feet of front on, so there is homes Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 55 of 76 that are looking onto this across a road and all the homes around this one -- and, in fact, in all these common areas in Paramount have an open metal fence behind. So, there is complete visibility into these parks, but it wouldn't meet that criteria and you can look through all of these, which are in the memo I sent to you today, but not a single one of these parks would qualify under this condition and it -- I don't think it was intended to be that way. I think it was -- was something that was proposed by the consultants and until I started digging into it I realized, boy, if we look at Paramount, we couldn't meet any of those requirements for front-on housing. Should front-on housing be required? Absolutely. I think there is a place for it--for visibility, not just a narrow neck, but expanded area on that as well. And my I guess request to you in my e-mail was that it be 30 percent front on. The city already has a code where the fencing that -- on all common area must be open if it can't be visible from --from the street and so anywhere we would have these large triangle areas, it's open metal fencing anyways, these backyards are looking into them. It's highly desirable. It could be reduced I think maybe down to 25 percent if you provided another point of access. I think there is some areas in Paramount where we maybe missed that. Crosby Park is a good example. Large triangle, but the only way you can get to it is you have to walk all the way around, unless you can sneak through your neighbor's house and I can tell you where that is, but you have to walk all the way around to get to it if you were on the other street and I'm on Fox Run, so I have got to walk around to get to it. It would be nice to have some additional pathway access points and maybe that's a way to maybe reduce that front-on housing. In general -- Simison: Jon, if I could get you to conclude. Wardle: Yeah. I'm going to conclude right now. In general, like I said, these conditions -- the changes are very good. We just think there needs to be modification to this front- on requirement and request that it be at 30 percent. I would stand for any questions that you might have. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Wardle: Okay. Simison: Well, I'm going to ask a general question just out of curiosity, just because we haven't seen them. How would you go about effectively putting everything on front-on typically? What's that--what--what does that--what would that look like in a community where you did have that? I have just been trying to like picture it in a realistic environment. Wardle: So, I have three examples. The one we did most recently was in Paramount at Cadence at Paramount. We have a couple of areas where there is common space in between these small lots, which are all alley loaded that are fronting onto a common area. It does work really well in that scenario where you have an alley and that front yard is that common area. We have two other communities, however, where I don't know that circling it with just a road made the most sense. One of them was Heritage Commons. You come into Heritage Commons, very large park. It's underutilized, because it is surrounded completely by four roads. But it is -- has complete houses looking on top onto that green. Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 56 of 76 But except for the occasional Memorial Day or July 4th, it's not used as much as you think it would be. The third one is in Bainbridge. Bainbridge we changed it up a little bit. We actually put a pool there and a playground area. It is completely surrounded by roads. The homes all look onto that one. That one's better, because we had more amenities in there, but, again, you do feel a little odd going into the middle of this playground area in the middle of roads. There is one case in Lochsa Falls they have a large roundabout. They actually have a couple of frisbee golf stands in there. It's not used. It's beautiful. But it's not used. And so I think is there a time and place for it? Yes. But, generally, these larger spaces that are isolated by roads are underutilized for what we do. That's just my opinion. But those are three examples in Meridian right now with how I think we -- and those are all projects, with the exception of Lochsa Falls, that we did. Simison: So, it's not more complex than it sounds, it was either you had to put a road between the homes and the park or you got to alley load to get the front door right there on the green space -- Clark: Yes. Simison: -- to accomplish it. Okay. Thank you. Clark: Thank you. Simison: Council, any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor, question for staff maybe. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks. Was there a desire for the front yard concept or the frontage concept with the open space, was that -- was that in part trying to address it being centralized? Do you think that was a part of the reason for that requirement? Was it visibility? What do you think was driving that specifically? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, that's a good question. I -- I don't know where that came from, to be honest with you. I don't know if the committee members were present more than I were a lot of times, so -- I tried to chime in and help out where I could give insight, but, yeah, I'm not sure. I'm not aware of any discussions around that particular code change. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. And, Bill, just kind of sticking on this real quick for one second. I'm just trying to find -- I keep going back to Renaissance Park, which, you know, everything is -- we have half backloaded, but it's on an arterial. We don't allow front loading on arterials, so, in essence, open space in this scenario, if it's on an arterial, we are really not going to allow it to a certain extent, because you can't do it unless we go change that Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 57 of 76 portion of our code to turn our houses for a collector. Is that a collector that -- this is a collector, not an arterial. This is a collector road. It doesn't allow fronting, so -- Parsons: Council, that is correct. We do not allow -- well, we allow front-on housing on the collector, you just -- you can't have your driveway there. But, yeah, I think that's one of the presentations you will see tonight from Hethe and his crew. Same thing is every city park is that way. You have backyards backing up to city parks. Simison: Okay. All right. Didn't mean to get ahead of our testimony. Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Next is Laren Bailey. Bailey: Okay. Again, my name is Laren Bailey. Work address 4824 West Fairview Avenue in Boise, Idaho. Tonight I'm here representing DevCo, Conger Management Group, and BlackRock Homes. I'm going to start the presentation and, then, Hethe is going to kind of finish it. One of the -- I don't want to waste time with this, but we had kind of assumed maybe each portion of the code that was getting updated, you know, with the four or five sections -- maybe we would have time to speak on each one, so three minutes is going to be real quick here, so I hope you will ask me some questions so I can follow up. So, first, I want to talk about the impacts of open space and how that increasing the open space is going to affect the community. More open space increases the cost to each lot to develop. The cost will be passed on to the buyer. Increased HOA fees and maintenance costs, landscape maintenance is the single most expensive line item on HOA's budget. So, obviously, increasing open space is going to increase those homeowner dues. Decreasing property tax revenue and impact fees, increasing open space from ten to 15 percent will result in approximately a seven million dollar reduction in taxes per year. Increasing open space from ten to 15 percent, again, we will -- over the -- the lifetime of the remaining developer property in Meridian will be a 25 million reduction in impact fees. Other groups are affected by that that aren't just the city, include ACHD, schools, and other county services. So, we are proposing really a minor change here in the R-8 and R-15. We would like to see 13 percent, rather than the 15 percent. Thirteen percent is still going to be a 30 percent increase in the amount of open space in neighborhoods. So, that's -- that's a 30 percent increase in those HOA dues and 30 percent increase to costs. Real quick just wanted to touch on that front -- front-on housing. I wanted to just show you a few of the prominent parks in Meridian that would not meet the standard today. As Jon said, you have got Paramount, you have got Settlers Bridge, Champion Park is all ringed with backyards. Woodbridge. Bear Creek and, obviously, Havasu as well. I just wanted to run through few of those. Our solution -- you know, Jon threw out 25, 30, you know, I think in that range is a reasonable number. It would provide for the good visibility that the city desires, but still would allow for a creative design and it's consistent with many of the amazing neighborhoods that are already in Meridian. Another item -- this is -- this is one sentence. We like the open space quality standards, but there is one sentence in there that we think is difficult and it's open and grassy areas that are crooked or jagged in shape, disconnected or isolated, do not meet the standard -- Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 58 of 76 Simison: I had flexibility. He got another minute, minute and a half. Bailey: Thank you. Appreciate that. We feel the statement it's too arbitrary and it leads to a lot of disagreements between staff and -- staff and applicants. We think the sentence -- if it could just be deleted it would solve a lot of problems. We don't disagree that, you know, sometimes open spaces need to be -- you know, they need to be a priority, we agree with that, but we think, you know, if there is a question it should be left up to Council to decide if it's -- if it's adequate or not. Parkway driveway width. It was determined that the driveway should be always counted as 26 feet wide. We think there should be an option for a two car garage that should be 20 feet wide, instead of always only allowing 26 feet to be deducted. And, then, lastly, we have got open water areas, we have got stormwater detention facilities. Currently the proposal is that only 25 percent of that would be able to count towards open space. We feel like ACHD's requirements for drainage is that they have to drain within 24 hours and if it's a nice green space, such as Vienna Woods, should be able to count -- at least -- we were proposing 75 percent of that should be able to count towards open space. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Bailey: Oh. Excuse me. Bernt: Laren -- so I'm familiar with Vienna Woods. So, we ate talking about that big open space in the middle of Vienna Woods is actually a storm drain? Bailey: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, yes, that is the case. That is a recessed detention facility. Bernt: Interesting. I didn't notice. You are right. It's good. Bailey: Yeah. I used to live over there. Bernt: Yeah. Bailey: You never know -- you would never know. Bernt: Right. No. Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: But wouldn't you agree that that's not the norm, Laren? Bailey: Well, I don't -- I'm not going to say the norm, but I think that good design is good design and poor design is poor design and so I think that things can be designed well and taken care of, but to just say across the board we are only going to count 25 percent throws out the opportunity for good design. Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 59 of 76 Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, what's your solution, Laren? Bailey: Well, I think, again, like anything, it needs to -- I mean it needs to have Council's discretion. Is it a good project or not. Is it a good option or not. But I think 75 percent is more fair, especially when you can do something as nice as Vienna Woods. Only counting 25 percent I think is, you know, pretty low -- pretty low number. Bernt: So, what -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: With my experience when I was -- even when I was on P&Z, I remember this was even a hot topic back then and -- and I would -- I would have to say -- and I think that you know, I never knew this, but I think even Woodbridge where I live there is this the the open space that's behind the pool is actually -- and there is never any water on that -- on that field ever. I have never seen it. There is other spots that have it, but I think that there are some instances where -- you nailed it on the head, Laren. Good design is good design. Truly I -- you and I are in one hundred percent agreement with that. But the problem is is I would say most storm -- storm -- you know, water detention facilities aren't that great of design and when there is not water in them they look terrible and so -- and that's the issue that we face with Council is the select few developers who choose on their own, you know, will and choice, to have the --you know, to --to --with their design provide those type of storm detention facilities and the problem with that is that we are faced with a situation where, according to our code and I think that we are well aware of, you know, following code and, you know, past discussions on -- on applications and what -- what that looks like and what it doesn't look like, but we are sort of caught, you know, that -- where we don't have enough teeth to make sure that we are approving good design. Does that make sense? Bailey: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, I would agree with that. I think the problem, though, is if-- if you say it's only 25 percent can count, that means I can still do 75 percent that's garbage; right? I mean we can still have the crappy storm drainage. I would -- I would argue maybe it needs to say up to 75 percent and, again, leave it to Council's discretion if it's a nice facility that's not -- I agree with you, I don't want it to be a sandbox that the cats are using as a litter box. I don't like that design either. But I think there are opportunities to do things that are nice and well thought through and to just say, well, because some of them might be bad we are not going to allow any of them, I think that's short sighted. Simison: So, Laren, what--what percentage, if you were guessing, of a project is a storm drain retention facility? Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 60 of 76 Bailey: You know, that -- that's really hard, because a lot -- I mean we try and put everything underground we can. If the soils are good we are going to put it underground, because we don't want to see it either. But there is times where that's just not an option. There is times where soils don't work or just the location just doesn't work. That's more of an engineering challenge or call. So, it's really hard to say, you know, this one or that one works better or worse. Where you run into trouble is where you get -- especially you are going to start seeing south of town you are going to get into the salt rock, which you probably don't have a lot in town in -- in Meridian -- haven't had in the past and in some of those cases you just have to do a pond above ground, you can't do anything below ground. But, again, I believe there is ways to -- to design property that would still look good, there is also a way to make them look terrible. But -- but I think to just cut it off at 25 percent you are taking opportunity away to do something creative or inventive or nice. Simison: I guess where I was -- what I was going to suggest, but you didn't give me a good answer, was maybe we dropped down the open space, but we don't count any of them, because, really, I mean they are a function for another purpose, not a function for open space. You know, there -- it's like a pond. A pond is good when it's got water in it. When it doesn't have water in it it's just a hole in the ground. So, you know, what can you use when and why. But the same thing can be said for a pool. You don't use a pool year around, you use it for nine months out of the year or three months out of the year, maybe four. So, I get it, there is various factors, but -- Council Woman Strader, did you have a question? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I did. Thank you. Housing affordability is important. I think we know that. I think it's also important for us to listen to the residents of Meridian and hear their comments that they gave us through the Comprehensive Plan process. One thing that caught my eye -- I guess if you could follow up, maybe not in this meeting, but it looks like Eagle is requiring 18 percent open space. That's a lot more than 15 percent. And I recently was looking for an apartment for a family member there and I noticed that their rents were dramatically different. So, I guess if maybe there could be some follow up or if you have some comments on, you know, housing affordability as it relates to open space -- I guess I'm just not convinced that it's a direct linear relationship. Bailey: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, so Mr. Clark and I just looked this up in Eagle's code while we were setting here. So, the difference between Eagle's code and Meridian's code is Eagle counts -- it's 18 percent, but they count everything. We don't have this 50 percent of an arterial buffer. We don't have linear open space requirement. We don't have, you know, some of the -- some of the requirements that Meridian has. Meridian has tried to put rules on it and I get that and I'm not against that, but what Eagle has done is said, well, everything counts. So, all that roadway frontage counts. Anything -- you know, we have got -- we are doing one in Eagle right now that is up against -- it's got a creek and a pathway and things and -- and they are allowing us to count all of that. Some of it is riparian area that really isn't usable by anyone, but it's wildlife habitat and so we are -- we are counting that. So, that's the difference in the two codes. I think, really, if you sat down and really figured out the actual square footage, they are probably very close to apples to apples. I think we are all thinking, well, Eagle is 18, we need to be 18 Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 61 of 76 and have all these requirements. Well, then, you are really going to be like 25 and so that's the point we are trying to make. I know it sounds like maybe we are -- we are splitting hairs, but I think -- I think you are right, the rents aren't different, because it's roughly the same number. Strader: Thank for the insight. Simison: Council, any further questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Laren, early on you touched about the open space and the cost being passed along to the homeowners association and you guys build pretty quality stuff that people are choosing to live to. Do you get a lot of negative feedback about HOA dues from your -- from your residents? And let me give you some context; right? So, I grew up in Old Town and we had a homeowner's association and our -- I think our family's HOA dues were like 40 dollars a year. We had -- to call it a patch of grass is a gross overstatement. I mowed the lawn as a kid. It took me eight minutes, I got paid eight dollars, it was the best job I ever had in terms of compensation. But inevitably the HOA, because it wasn't usable, theyjust paved it over and so to me that's --that was my first kind of context about open space until we moved to the south side and so help me get a flavor for what you hear from your residents. My assumption is is that this open space, green space that's usable, is something that people are choosing when they are looking at where they are going to live. They are -- they are wanting that type of space. So, maybe give us a little flavor about what you hear from your residents. Bailey: Mr. Mayor, Mr. -- Councilman Cavener, so we do -- you know, as we are building a development we are in charge of the HOA through the -- how many ever years that development is going on. So, we hire a management company to handle that to be that interface and collect dues and do all those things. So, we do see firsthand those comments from our neighbors and homeowners and, like I said, the number one expense -- if you go look at the balance sheet -- Bernt: Right. Always. Bailey: -- 80 percent of it's -- Bernt: Not even close. There is not even a close second. Bailey: Yeah. Yeah. Nothing else even comes close. So, as you add open space that cost just goes up proportionately. It's not -- I mean I don't think it's hard to understand that that's -- that's the case. What we hear a lot from homeowners, especially ones coming out -- from out of state, it's dues here are higher than what they are -- they were used to, which surprised me. I would have figured in California it would be much more. I Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 62 of 76 think part of it's a labor issue and I think part of it is, you know, we have to -- we have to irrigate a lot more than I think some other places, especially people coming in Washington and Oregon aren't used the irrigation aspect of it. They are not paying for that there and so I think those costs are higher. But year over a year those costs just keep going up. It's not something that's static and this is what it's going to cost. Every year it's going up. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you, Laren. Bailey: Thanks. Simison: And, Hethe, you will get your own time. You are on three minutes. Clark: I will talk fast. It's good to see everyone. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. I'm working with Laren tonight to provide some comments on these -- on these amendments. Again, just want to compliment everybody on all the work that's been done. We are hoping to be a productive part of the conversation to just try to get this right. So, with regard to the qualified amenities, we are certainly happy to see a more robust point system. We think that's a great idea. What we would like to do is just provide a couple quick comments on that and it really comes down to some of the subjective elements of the amendment and that really comes down to the fact that it includes maximums for these points and you have to ask yourself what does that mean if it's a maximum of those point values. You know, all we know right now is that points can be taken away for a number of reasons that include size, quality, ease of maintenance, durability, integration with other amenities and year around usability. So, very similar to some of the points that the Mayor just made with regard to swimming pools. So, example, sports fields, they can get up to five points, but a sports field, if it doesn't integrate with other amenities, you know, if it-- if it has to be mowed and maintained all the time, you can't use it in the winter, seems that it would be subject to being deducted under that instance and we would just like to understand, you know, how that would be, what -- what that would mean. You know, other examples would be something like, you know, the fitness facility. You can get four points for a 5,000 square foot -- or a maximum of four points for a fitness facility. What's the difference between a 5,000 or a 10,000 square foot fitness facility or a park and ride if you provide 40 parking spaces, is that the maximum, or is it that if you can do the minimum of 20 do you get the maximum points? You know, ultimately we think that the -- the amenities should either qualify or they should not. So, we are -- our suggestion is let's get rid of the maximum label. Let's just be a little bit clear on -- on what qualifies as that type of amenity and, then, remove the -- what I have been calling the demerit system from this. You know, either it qualifies or it doesn't. We think that that will give a lot more predictability to the process and, then, obviously, you, as Council and P&Z would have the opportunity to comment on the specific package that's being suggested. On a similar note, you know, we were thinking about regional parks and kind of went back and forth on this. You know, a suggestion that we wanted to make was that perhaps with -- if you are proposing a project that's near a regional park, that there would be a reduction on the amount of amenity points that are required. Still need to require at least one amenity, but a reduction of say 30 percent we think would make sense. That would help promote housing and density near regional facilities. Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 63 of 76 Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I don't want to interrupt, you will get your time. I promise. Clark: Okay. Bernt: I'm actually going to give you some more time, so you should thank me. So, if you are -- because I like -- we -- this was a big discussion point when -- when I was on this -- you know, a little bit of horse trading involved with regard to amenities next to regional parks and so in my -- and I don't disagree with what you are saying, I think it actually sort of makes sense to some degree. So, what else would you do? So, if we are going to allow you to have less amenities because there is a great park down the street, what would you do as the developer or the -- or the -- the presenter in your case or whatever to -- I mean what -- what would that horse trade look like do you think? And I don't need --just give me some examples in what do you think that looks like. Clark: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, I was thinking about this this afternoon and, you know, what does this look like. You know, you want to have -- we want to be encouraging in-fill near areas that have the facilities that we have built that we want people to use; right. So, we wouldn't want to say, hey, you have six acre in-fill, you just get a 30 percent reduction and now suddenly you don't have to provide any amenities. So, you know, from my perspective you got to have at least one amenity that would be provided and it could be anything from this list. You know, it could be, you know, a public art installation, but people are going to be coming out of -- what you would want and the reason you would buy near to that regional park would be so your folks could come -- come out of your project and go use that. Bernt: But what would --what would you give -- if you were saying less, but we are willing to give X? Clark: Well, I think that when we are building near these regional facilities, one thing I think we would want to see more is more density. We would want to see more people living near those -- near those areas and that's one of the reasons why we would want to concentrate it. You know, in terms of specifics, you know, I think we would have to -- you know. Yeah, it would be very much subjective. Bernt: I get it. Clark: So, with that I did -- Laren and I put together this chart of the specific items that we thought it would be good for folks to have in front of them as we go forward here and I will just kind of summarize a few of these, because I think I might be able to add a little bit to the prior conversation. So, again, with regard to the amenities, the suggestion is to remove the maximum concept and the demerit system. I think just -- does it qualify or does it not and let us move on. And, then, on this same comment on the regional parks. Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 64 of 76 With regard to the minimum open space requirements, again, our suggestion is 13 percent for R-8 and R-15. On the shape of open spaces, you know, we are living in a post House Bill 389 world. You know, in-fill is going to be -- it's always been important, but it's going to be even more important now and with in-fill there is going to be crazy shaped lots and crazy shaped open space and so I think an across the board disqualification just based on space doesn't make sense. As mentioned, we do believe the 30 percent for front-on housing is appropriate. Simison: Hethe, if you can wrap up. We have given you that extra minute and a half and I think we have already gone over these, so -- Clark: Appreciate it. I think the last thing I would say, Mr. Mayor, then, is on the -- the 75 percent for the stormwater detention facilities, just one thing to add to that, you know, a couple of great examples of that are in Tuscany. Across the street from Sienna Elementary there is a great one. There is one over on Tiber. But I would point you to the language of the code speaks to the -- as long as the standards of 11-3D-11 are met and those are landscape standards for stormwater and so -- and they speak to it being landscaped and having trees and all that sort of thing. So, I think that the answer to the question is actually already in your code. So, with that I will go ahead and wrap up and call it a night. Simison: Council, any questions? Clark: Thank you. Simison: Which was the second one in Tuscany that you were referencing? Clark: Tiber. It's a little bit-- it's a couple blocks south next to one of the community pools. Simison: Okay. Because there is also ones that are just an open field -- or an open piece of property that don't do anything for anybody as well. The across from Sienna is beautiful. Clark: Yeah. The one -- like Laren mentioned, it's all about good design and that's what we want to incentivize. Simison: Thank you. Mr. Clerk? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have no additional sign-ups. We do have people on -- one personal online and people in the room as well. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody that would like to provide testimony on the item? If you would like to come forward now or use the raise your hand feature on Zoom and we will bring you in or unmute you. I keep saying that. Come on up. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I thought we were going to close the public hearing. Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 65 of 76 Reynolds: Come on. Third time is a charm; right? Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council, Sally Reynolds. 1166 West Bacall Street. A lot to cover in three minutes, so I'm just going to go through bullet points and, then, you can ask me questions. So, I was a member of the open space committee. I think I only missed one or two meetings, if memory serves. So, it was kind of a long process and I am trying to give you the best background I can with my memory. So, I will just go through these. Number one. I support the open space schedule as proposed with a small exception on the multi-family. I don't think that 15 percent is too big of an ask. It was a really good compromise with everybody there. As we did a study of subdivisions that were already in existence most of them met 15 or exceeded 15 percent and that was even presentations given by some developers on the committee. And most of those subdivisions are what you would call quality neighborhoods in Meridian and so I think that 15 percent is, as Susan Karnes would say, setting the bar high and, you know, that's -- that's what we are trying to do in Meridian. That's who we are trying to be when we grow up; right? I'm really proud of the points amenity system that we have. Really supportive of it. I think that it makes for a lot of creativity. I do agree with the letter from BCA that says let's see how it's going and review in a year, because it's something really new and we don't know how that's going to flush out. So, I say come back in a year and see how it's going. So, the point of the trees -- agree with everything Mr. Mayor said. I don't think we should include verbiage that we aren't ready to employ. I don't love the idea of fee in lieu schedule for trees. I think it sets a dangerous precedent and I will just -- a quick example, there is already some like horse trading in the code about like -- and I will just use Winco as an example that we were talking about earlier tonight. They were supposed to be capped at 60,000 square feet, but if you have more open space you can go up to however many square feet and so we have got things in the code trading square footage for open space already. So, you start adding trees to that -- I just don't know how complicated that gets. Storm drains. If it's in the code I think we would see much better storm drains already in Meridian. I'm in favor of counting it at 25 percent. If a developer comes before you and can say this is exactly what we are going to do, because that piece of land has an extremely large piece of the storm drains, then, have to make a case for 50 percent, go through alternative compliance, I don't see any reason why not. Frontage. Okay. You might be surprised. We don't know where the 50 percent frontage came from either. So, that might have been a meeting that I missed as well. But personally I am not supportive of the 50 percent frontage. I would be supportive of decreasing it to 30 percent. I do live in Paramount where most of it, like Jon said, is all backed and our parks are very, very, very well used. Lochsa is not. To the point of Vienna Woods, they have trunk or treats around there. I mean it was a storm drain, but that is well used, so I think it -- some of it depends on the residents. To the survey that you were asking, if my memory serves -- and it was a long time ago -- I think there was a survey that I think there was less than a hundred responses and a lot has happened in a year. So, I would say especially with the market I would support Council Member Strader's idea to circle back to the public and do it again, not as a way to guide future discussions, but just to see if what we have done meets what the public wanted. Just want to say a reminder of alternative compliance is there to allow for creativity and innovative development. I think there are some developers in Meridian who do that really well and there are some that use it to skirt the UDC and I think that this Council can tell the difference between the two. So, I will leave it at that. As far as the Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 66 of 76 parks going next to high multi-family or whatever, you know, that's one I do have a little bit of an issue with, because the developer is going to get a better price for their land at the expense of something that the city has done and maintained; right? And that project is going to -- it's going to pencil better. So, I don't feel like that's something that somebody should be profiting off of. I think that there could be some, as Council Member Bernt said, horsetrading, but I would hope that they could come up with some amenities to replace that open space. Maybe we say, hey, it's not open grassy space, because we have got a park right next door and, hey, the city is providing that for you, so what can you come back with in terms of amenities. I just got back from Seattle at 2:00 a.m., actually, last night and I was in two high rise buildings where I saw one had a private movie theater for the residents and -- as an amenity in a multi-family. I mean it only had 12 seats, but you could rent it out and it was really cool. And they also had a private spa, which I don't know if we are at that point yet, but, you know, the movie theater would be really cool and there are some great things with Doordash and Uber Eats and providing a refrigerator for when your groceries are dropped off and it's in the refrigerator down in the -- you know, little area. So, there are really some creative things we can do with multi-family and I would just be slow to say -- let's just say we built next to a park, so we are good. Three minutes are probably up. So, the last one is multi-family. I would like to see it at 18 percent and just because -- and if not at 18 percent, then, some language, like I said, to go with some of those creative amenities and I do think that there should be a definition in the code right now, as Bill said, it's just open, you just say there is multi-family and it's subjective how many amenities they can provide. So, I think that that should be defined in code. Are we saying over a hundred is two amenities? Over 500 is three? I'm not really sure. So, with that I will close and stand for questions and I will echo everyone else's sentiments. The meetings I thought were productive. We had some good discussion. I really appreciated everybody who sat in on them and I learned a lot and I think that everybody had some valuable contributions to it. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sally, congrates on the hat trick. Question for you. We heard a lot tonight about increasing open space for higher density use. I haven't heard a lot of conversation about reducing open space for some lower density use and I don't know if that was discussed or contemplated at the committee and if there is any feedback or findings you can share with us. Reynolds: Yeah. So, personally -- personally -- okay. R-2. Ten percent. I'm going to say personally if that went down a little bit -- personally I would be okay with it. I don't think that there are residents out there who would be and maybe that's something we can put in our survey, only because the RD designation is kind of gone. That lower rural designation for residential -- the lower density residential, that designation has gone off of the comp plan -- off of the comp plan and I think that in the comp plan we are saying Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 67 of 76 preserve our farmland, preserve our heritage and some of that feeling is the open spaces; right? So, I think that the reason the ten percent is there for the lower density and this is just my opinion, this could be completely wrong, is because I think as residents we are scared that we are not going to get enough in other places. Does that make any sense? That's -- and that's pure conjecture on my part. That's kind of how I feel. Cavener: Appreciate you sharing that, Sally. Reynolds: Yeah. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks a lot, Sally. I didn't quite catch the very beginning of your comments. I didn't want you to feel rushed. If you could just go back through your comments about the table with a minimum open space requirements. Do you feel like in general coming out of that open space committee you feel supportive of this table and it sounded like the multi-family you think is low. Did -- are you supportive overall? How strongly do you feel about that multi-family piece? Reynolds; Overall, but the table that's there I'm supportive of it. I mean 15 percent -- I mean in a perfect world, yeah, we would have loved to see 18 or 20, that's kind of what the residents were saying and we compromised with a 15. So, I'm supportive of it as far as a compromise and the ones that are there I feel good about. The multi-family I do think it should be 18 and I don't know if we want to do a sliding scale with the number of units, but it just feels like we are getting a lot of density in Meridian and if there is going to be so much density, you know, 15 or 18 percent of such a small area really doesn't even come out to be that much when you are looking at the footprint depending and I'm not a developer, so I can't speak to, you know, how the project's all flushed out and whatnot, but I would like to see a little bit further study on multi-family and what is that -- what are some of the applications that are being built right now, what do they have, what do they look like? And I mean if they are all at 15 and they look great, then, great. Or maybe we say it's 18 and you do get credit, you can get it reduced if you have some cool amenities, but that is where I'm at with multi-family. I'm not a hundred percent supportive of that. I would like to see that pushed that direction a little bit. Strader: Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Interesting thought about the multi-family portion of it. I would like to know how when -- Bill, when you were doing your calculations were you using some type of a formula, you know, maybe for -- you know, Sally's mentioned it tonight and others have Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 68 of 76 mentioned and I was -- I was thinking it, you know, having a formula based -- based upon how many units, not necessarily like an exact amount. I don't know. Just something to think about. Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Council, Councilman Bernt, that's how we -- that's how we do it now. We -- we don't have a formula, but, basically, it's -- if you are between a certain square footage unit you times it by X amount of square feet and that's how you get the number of common open space that you provide for a multi-family development. The changes that we are talking about tonight would add that base line amount of ten percent. In addition to that if the development is overfive acres. And what's --what Sally's referring to is the fact that we are putting a minimum cap at 15 percent, unless the developer chooses to do more. I think that's what her beef is with. We -- I can tell you based on a lot of the developments I have tested out there it's coming out 18 to 20 percent for multi- family it really is, based on -- on that formula. I'm hopeful that most of the development community or those who want to come do business in Meridian will want to provide more open space than that 15. But, again, that's some of the discussions that I had with some of the open space committee members and they were comfortable with at least saying no more than 15 percent or at least cap them at a minimum if you hit all of that criteria. But they were more willing to provide more if they had to, they just didn't -- again each project is different. It's -- it's hard to develop a code that says everything fits in this box, because that's why we have alternative compliance and that's what that tool is meant for. It's meant to do something innovative. Not to get you out of code, but to do something that wasn't contemplated in code and still meet the intent of the code and the Comprehensive Plan. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Shout out to Susan Karnes. Miss her. When I --when I was first elected we didn't start off on the right foot, her and I. I'm not going to lie. I don't think she was my biggest supporter. But over the years she became a dear friend. I hope she's -- God bless her. God bless her husband. You know, I know that they have moved, but I miss her. She's -- our discussions. That's how discussions need to be, like you find someone who you completely disagree with on every level and after a half an hour of looking someone in the eye, finding something in common and building on that. I think that's so important. And that was Susan Karnes that I miss her. Reynolds: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, I definitely agree. I do as well and she had a good way of bringing everyone to a win-win and a good compromise. Bernt: She was great. Reynolds: Being respectful. Bernt: A thousand percent. If I may, I have, Mr. Mayor, one question for Bill on that multi- family. How much, Bill, do you think it would change? Because I know we are doing it Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 69 of 76 on square footage. But number of units is really like bodies in the building; right? And that's families. So, do you think that that equation would change much if we were saying, hey, numbers of units are not necessarily square footage for open space? If that makes sense? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, it's a good point to look at, but don't think I have ever seen it that way, to be honest with you. But, of course, I haven't gone out to every code out in the nation to see what they have done. I don't know how that would -- would shake out. I don't know what number to apply for a development at a hundred units versus 50 and say you should provide an acre of open space. Well, I'm not sure at this point if -- Reynolds: Mr. Mayor, Council, just a question. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I -- one last comment if I might. As it is I think that -- I mean the definitions that we dug into and the amount of time that we did spend going over things, I am really proud of the direction that this code is moving. I think there is more work to be done, but I'm really happy with the changes that -- most of the changes that have been made so far and I like to commend everybody -- who worked on that and I would love I hope that other cities do take note of what we are doing and maybe they will follow us. So, thank you. Simison: Thank you. Denise, come on up. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, if Denise agrees with that last statement we are having a party after this Council meeting. LaFever: Hello for the third time. My name is Denise LaFever. 6706 North Salvia Way. And as some of you know, this was a really big subject for us during the Comprehensive Plan and it was an area that we took exception to, Susan Karnes and Sally and I and -- we were really adamant about that. I'm really happy that they have spent the time to go back through and spend some time on it and I'm happy for Sally and Julie to spend time going through and sitting as residents. I do have some concerns. One, I'm opposed to all the things that DevCo recommended, with the exception of the 30 percent front. We will lay that out there. I have one issue here that's really big for me and that's 11-3G-4B3, which is the alternative compliance. I have had issues with that on the open space and in the multi-family. I have watched so many of these Council meetings and sat through these and testified over a long period of time and I can almost tell you a lot of people come up and talk about schools, roads, and open space. It's real disheartening when you spend all this time talking to individuals and they have a plan in front of them and they think that's what they are going to get and, then, alternative compliance happens and now you have the development -- Carmen -- Cameron -- Cameron in charge of making those changes that don't align with what the people that came to the public meetings had to say. So, I'm just not okay with that. I have bigger issues with that. I also agree with what Sally said moving from 15 to 18 percent and I'm really concerned about the process that happened with multi-family. The meeting was pushed to a separate meeting in which developers and ex-Mayor Tammy were involved in and excluded the full committee. Going on to some other -- Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 70 of 76 Bernt: What did you just say? LaFever: What's that? Bernt: I didn't hear your last statement. LaFever: During the multi-family it got pushed to a separate meeting. Okay? And during that separate meeting that -- it was done with the developers and ex-Mayor Tammy. It was not the full committee. It wasn't vetted with the full committee and I take exception to that. Julie's in the audience and I know she doesn't want to come up, but I would really like you guys to hear what she has to say as a member on the committee. I read her letter and I was really concerned about what she had to say. Those are a lot of the concerns that we felt when we went through the Comprehensive Plan. The other areas that I have concern about is the restricted height change. If that's all about schools, then, say that. Lock it down and restrict it to all about schools. My other concern is frequency of UDC changes. I think we should do that less often and not every single time we want to make a change. There is -- this is a pet peeve of mine. I have said it more than once. The lack of transparency for the UDC focus committee or the UDC advisory committee. I like to see that come as an agenda item, shown as a meeting, actually people could show up and sit through it and listen to it. It's an invisible, nontransparent meeting. The UDC is the cornerstone for how Meridian develops out. It's also the cornerstone for the codes. I just really think it needs to be transparent and I'm still not sure of who the current list of the -- the committee and who are resident -- if Ann is still doing that. I know it was hit and miss when it was Susan there. The last one is -- is -- as -- as some of you know I testified about due process once before when we changed it to public meaning cutting off at noon. Here we are today and Bill had made changes up until this afternoon. I wanted to go see if that was, in fact, the case and I looked. The C-C common space and site amenity document was, in fact, changed on the public site. It was done at 6/1/21, 4:41 and 33 seconds p.m. today. This doesn't allow your public time to really digest and see what those changes are. So, if we are going to have it at noon I think we should have it at noon all the way across and not make these last minute changes. Once again, if Julie doesn't come up and testify, I really urge you to go back through and read the letter that Julie put on file. I -- I have a real passion that residents and the community members need to be able to have a voice here and it's not all just about development and, yes, love commercial development, I will be honest, but I do think that people have to have a voice here. They live here and at the end of the day they are your property taxpayers and they are footing the bill. So, I would really like to see you guys come back with another approach and make sure that these meetings and these committees are not stacked, that the residents do have a say and that their concerns are not just pushed forward or, oh, we have got to hurry along or whatever the case would be. So, I really urge you, while Julia is in the audience, to bring her up and talk to her about her experience that she had on the committee. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 71 of 76 Simison: Is there anybody else in the public that would like to provide testimony at this time? Okay. Seeing no one that's willing to provide -- or wanting to provide testimony, Council, you have heard some conversations today and this is a public hearing and I'm not exactly sure -- honestly, a few -- from everything we have heard today I think there is a lot -- a lot in here and, quite frankly, and there is -- I'm going to -- I'm going to pull out my Mr. Cavener hat. There is a lot that the community needs to know that they don't know about. For example, the very first thing we talked about with parking and driveways. You know, I think those are some pretty big changes that have not been effectively communicated with the community and before any further action should be taken, in my opinion. You know, the --this is all about-- if everything in this document--well, I shouldn't say everything. In my opinion this is all about subjective -- subjective standards about how we want to have our shared values in our community and I think it's important that we get those shared values out in front of our community when we are going to make changes, which some of that -- these can be very big changes from that standpoint, regardless of who enforces those changes or how that goes, they are changes. So, I don't know what your feelings are about how we move forward and where or what we should do, but I would love to hear some thoughts on appropriate next steps since we are in an open public hearing. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Appreciate you bringing it up. It kind of leads maybe to -- at least my question to get the conversation started. Is there an immediate request or desire from staff to have some action on this in a certain time frame? Recognize a lot of work has already went into this. Want to make sure that we cross the finish line the right way. I just don't know if there is a timeline expectation for staff about this. Parsons: Mayor and Council, Councilman Cavener, it's up to you guys. I mean, really, you know, as Ms. LaFever brought up, you know, here I -- you know, I want to make sure -- all the changes that got modified from Planning and Zoning Commission until now were things that were discussed at the hearing. It was actually going back and looking at exhibits and making sure we are getting it right, because we do take it serious. I mean when we change a code we are changing it for the city. We are not changing it for the developer, we are not changing it for Council, we are not changing it for me, we are changing it because we want to get it right and the last thing I want to do as a staff member is get something in effect that's going to create more problems for us and so those changes that you saw today -- one was a cleaned up version. I thought with all the strikeout, underline changes it might get confusing to read through those documents, because there is so -- there are so many edits to read over and I thought it might be something you guys wanted to look at. So, I just went ahead and sent that to the clerk at the end of the day to make sure you had that as part of the record. But overall, again, the -- the purview is yours. If you think these are things that you want further addressed and further vetting and shared with the community, then, absolutely, continue it out. If you feel like you have enough information to make a decision tonight, give me some clear Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 72 of 76 direction, I will make the edits happen, coordinate with Legal and we will get the ordinance approved and passed within a couple of weeks. I'm flexible either way for you. I just -- just know this was important, not only to us, we -- we started this process in the fall, we are here in the spring, early summer here and we don't have resolution to it and I think that's -- that's where staff wants to be. We want a resolution, either we like what we have or we pause and get it right until we have the right information for you, where you feel comfortable with the changes. Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: So, to that point, you know, you -- you read the information that staff presents and having this presentation from Council or from staff, feedback from -- from the public to kind of take that all into --without maybe having to make a decision tonight is something I would be supportive of and I appreciate with the last round having the opportunity, after all this has been presented, to go and meet with staff and kind of talk through and help me kind of see where staff is coming from and weigh that against the public was helpful. So, selfishly, I would like to repeat that process again and have a little time to digest and to the Mayor's point to allow maybe a little bit greater request from the public, if they have got feedback on any of this, to invite them back and share that information with us. It's a small crowd tonight, perhaps there will be more people that feel as strongly as I do about parking trailers or boats in driveways or open space and they have the opportunity to come back and share that. Simison: And, really, for me where I look at it -- I look at this in two very different buckets. We have the bucket that can impact everybody in this city tomorrow if it's passed and we have the bucket that's going to impact how we move forward and make decisions as we continue to grow and develop and, yes, that can impact our community feel and character, but it's not going to impact how we -- everybody the day it's passed, you know, what we decide for ten, 12, 15, 18 percent open space has no bearing on the person living in Tuscany today, tomorrow, the next day. So, that's really where I would want to make sure we at least, as a community, understand the changes that we are proposing. They are going to -- to me it's like a law change. I mean that's what it is. I mean -- and we need to make sure that they are aware of law changes and how they impact them versus open space is a little different. That's a touch point. That's -- do we feel like we have got this right now. Now, are you prepared for this change to your community character tomorrow. So, two cents. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. It feels like the parking one, especially, is kind of like that third rail. I think that we -- we maybe want to highlight or bubble that out there for the community to get feedback specifically. But I -- I just think with all these changes I would love to see Page 78 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 73 of 76 something -- and it's tough to simplify all these changes, but I would love to see something maybe come out, like just a summary of what we are considering in some type of a town hall format or some way to connect back. Maybe publicize it in a way that it's not the full Comprehensive Plan, we don't have to have like ten different meetings throughout Meridian, but I would love to have this highlighted a little more for people, so we get a little more feedback from the community personally and I think there has been a lot of good exchange of information here and it would be good to chew on it a bit and take a few more swings at it personally. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I'm pretty close. There is some concerns and some things I just want to wrap my arms around just a little bit more. Go over my notes. And also I would like to look at Julie's e-mail. I skimmed through it, I didn't -- I didn't read it as closely as I should have. So, I want to go back and read Julie's e-mail as well. I think she deserves that. But, most importantly, this is -- I think we are all in agreement that this is a really important -- I mean this is a -- this is finality to many months of preparation and deliberation and time and effort, not only made by staff and -- but -- but in -- but, you know, our friends, the development community, but citizens who have volunteered their time and -- to give their opinion and, quite frankly, we have two Council Members that are absent tonight that would bring fantastic perspective as well. So, for that purpose I think it makes a lot of sense to continue this. Simison: So, Mr. Nary, since this is not land use, let's pretend like we continued this for a month and found a way to go out and get additional community feedback in some fashion. What limitations, if any, are there in seeking feedback, having dialogue through a town hall or through a survey on NextDoor or anything? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that was a great question and, again, because this is a legislative action, it -- it definitely needs to be funneled into the public record somewhere. So, whether it's a public hearing or a public meeting, if there is notes kept, minutes kept, those types of things, they probably should make it to the public record. But feedback from your community members, feedback at the grocery store, feedback all of those things, are certainly welcomed. You are allowed to do that. I mean, again, when the Council is making a decision and you are going to make a decision on what Joe told you at the grocery store, then, please, tell us what Joe told you at the grocery store. So, we are at least clear where you are getting your information from, but it is -- it is -- you are welcome to accept whatever information however you want to get it. So, a survey is fine. Atown hall meeting is fine. Coffee with the Mayor is fine. Whatever method to get public feedback. I always encourage them -- and please write it in an e-mail and send it to us. We would like to have it just for the record so people can see. But they are not limited to that. They don't have to only do it that way. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 79 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 74 of 76 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I agree with all the comments. I didn't, quite frankly, even contemplate deciding tonight, knowing that we are going to get some input from the public and community and whoever happened to show up and -- and there is just a lot to consider and think about. So, if it's a next date at least for us to consider as a continued public hearing on this to a date certain, and, then, the Mayor's office provides some outreach to the community through social media at least, maybe a plan of -- if it's a town hall or a Coffee with the Mayor or something more robust, at the very least we have got some ability to do some outreach. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, one thing that Council has done in the past when you have a very large project like this, is to break it into chunks, so that way -- we spent about two and a half hours on -- on all of it tonight, but, you know, is it more beneficial to all of you to have a focused discussion or focus survey or a focus concentrated period to, then, talk about just the open space or the other changes that affect the code and code edits and not cutting, because, again, like some people said, if you get three to four minutes, but you are trying to talk about stuff that was presented for an hour, that's pretty challenging and they are all varied greatly. So, that might be a way to help all of you get the information in pieces that are more digestible to, then, make a decision and direction at some point. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, maybe we start July 6 and, then, we do it again July 13th and break it up half and half. I think that gives an opportunity for outreach, whatever that looks like to you, Mr. Mayor, and your office and it gives us an opportunity to break it up, so we are not having -- you know, I mean -- I know we all love talking about UDC code, but maybe -- you know, so bring it-- separating it in two different nights would be -- I think what Bill said makes sense. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Nary pointed out it may be a little challenging coming off of a holiday week that first week, so maybe staggered it from, what, the -- maybe the 10th and the 23rd or something along those lines. Staff I think can -- I guess, Mr. Nary do we need to continue it to a specific date certain or can we say we are going to continue it and Mayor and Council President can determine an appropriate date in the future. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, because it is legislative it is just an agenda setting, so you can set it -- I just recognize this sometimes, but Tuesday immediately after a three day weekend is a challenge both for staff and the public. Page 80 Meridian City Council Item#2. June 1,2021 Page 75 of 76 Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Clerk. Johnson: Just want to point out you do have a special meeting on the 29th. You have scheduled for one application that was continued and, then, July 13th you have two Council reviews now of a land use project Planning and Zoning approved. So, that might be a long evening on the 13th. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: What does the 6th look like, Chris? Johnson: At this time there is no notices we put have out. We have not hit that deadline yet. So, it's possible something could be coming forward from Planning, but right now it's open. Bernt: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I don't -- I -- I'm okay with just continuing it to the 6th and if we need to -- if we need more time after the 6th we will do it again. Simison: Yeah. If it's -- we can only accommodate all what -- you know, give direction on one or two items on the 6th, we can see where we are based on conversations we have had at that point in time. So, with that do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we continue Item 15 to July 6th. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 15 to July 6th. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the item is continued. Thank you very much to those who came to speak. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Cavener: We have groupies in the house. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: That's right. Council, anything under Future Meeting Topics or do I have a motion? Page 81 Meridian City Council Item#3. June 1,2021 Page 76 of 76 Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn. Cavener: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:10 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 6 / 15 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 81 Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active Land Use/Development Application. By Law, no decisions can be made on topics presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request that a topic be added to a future meeting agenda for more detailed discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving the matter following the meeting. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : June 1 , 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 i 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the May 13, 2021 City Council Joint Meeting with West Ada School District Page 4 Meridian City Council-West Ada School District-Joint Item#1. May 13,2021 Page 14 of — do the census every ten years. They will still put out numbers from last year, though. So, that's what we are using. Also the census data typically pulls in the American Community Survey data as well. So, that is being updated also. But I just lump it in. When I say census data that typically has the American Community Survey data in as well. Johnson: We also have on our website now enrollment -- even what are the enrollment at each school just for a current base, but I wouldn't use that for forecasting. Simison: Any additional questions or comments? Well, with that let's -- let's add a third item under discussion topics real quick. It is someone's birthday in this room. Miranda's birthday. And there is some stuff that was brought in the -- in the back, but I would love it if everyone could join us in a round of Happy Birthday to Miranda. (Happy birthday sung to Miranda Carson.) Simison: With that do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn the Meridian City Council meeting. Discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and Meridian City Council is adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:21 P.M. POST-MEETING SITE TOUR AND NOTICE OF QUORUM 3. The Meridian City Council and West Ada School District Board of Trustees will attend a guided tour of Owyhee High School, 3650 N. Owyhee Storm Ave, Meridian, ID 83646 following adjournment of the meeting. Although a quorum of members will attend, there will be no business conducted and no minutes will be taken. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: 6 1 2021 DATE APPROVED CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 18 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the May 18, 2021 City Council Work Session Page 19 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#2. May 18,2021 Page 23 of 23 Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 6 1 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 42 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the May 18, 2021 City Council Regular Meeting Page 43 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 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: East Ridge No. 2 Fire Easement Page 107 Item#4. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-085891 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 06/02/2021 11:15 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this I St day of June , 20 21 ,between C4 Land LLCJ ,hereinafter referred to as "Grantor" and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian is requiring an access area for emergency vehicles as a condition of development approval; and WHEREAS, Grantor desires to grant an easement for ingress and egress across those certain parts of Grantor's property defined herein to allow for emergency vehicle access; and WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct certain improvements upon the easement described herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property, described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit`B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a non-exclusive easement and right-of-way on, over, across and through Grantor's property with the free right of access to such property at any and all times and for the purpose of allowing egress and ingress to and from the property for emergency vehicle access. Pursuant to the International Fire Code, this access road shall be constructed of an improved surface capable of supporting 80,000 GVW; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever; THE GRANTOR,hereby covenants and agrees that no structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon the surface of the easement area that would materially impair the normal operation or use of the easement area for emergency vehicular purposes. No parking of vehicles within the easement area shall be permitted. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement,which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that the Grantor shall repair and maintain the access roadway improvements. EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT,PAGE 1 02/14/202 F�age 108 Item#4. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street,then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and year first hereinabove written. GRANTOR C4 Land LLC A /\ N\ / Jim Conger em r STATE OF IDAHO ) )ss County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 6-17 cV (date)by " Ctrnul n , on behalf of ,in the following repregentative capacity: (type of authority such as officer or trustee) .•'�Coo «•••«••��''s tAoTARY i J �•� = Nota Signature in U l My Commission Expires: •� aco, BL G� .• '00,• s.�, tv O ,•••�eeoOoFaoe°°°�° EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT,PAGE 2 02/14/2020 Page 109 Item#4. GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simison, Mayor 6-1-2021 Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-1-2021 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 6-1-2021 (date)by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022 EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT,PAGE 3 02/14/202 page 110 Item#4. 5awtooth Land Surveying, LLC err orb P: (208) 398-81 04 F: (20(5) 398-81 05 2030 5. Washington Ave., Emmett, ID 83G 17 May 12, 2021 Offsite Fire Access Easement Description BASIS OF BEARINGS for this description is N. 89059'28"W. between the 5/8" rebar illegible cap marking the E1/16 corner common to Sections 32 and 5, and the brass cap marking the S1/4 corner of Section 32, both in T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. A parcel of land located in the SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 32, T. 3 N., R. 1 E., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a brass cap marking the S1/4 corner of said Section 32; Thence N. 0108'57" E., coincident with the west line of said SW1/4 of the SE1/4 of Section 32, a distance of 529.62 feet; Thence leaving said line, S. 89159'28" E., 113.90 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N. 0000'32" E., 233.07 feet; Thence N. 45000'32" E., 34.42 feet; Thence S. 89159'28" E., 175.84 feet; Thence N. 0000'32" E., 111.00 feet; Thence S. 89159'28" E., 20.00 feet; Thence S. 0100'32"W., 131.00 feet; Thence N. 89059'28"W., 187.56 feet; Thence S. 45°00'32"W., 15.85 feet; Thence S. 010032"W., 204.79 feet; Thence S. 89059'28" E., 126.37 feet; Thence S. 0100'32"W., 20.00 feet; L cE Thence N. 89159'28"W., 146.37 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. �'c 1 4 0 The above described parcel contains 0.313 acres more or less. qrt OF ID1+1'� Jf'�F BEAO� I P:\2019\19116-IMPRESSIVE EASTRIGE 2\Survey\Drawings\Descriptions\19116 OFFSITE FIRE EASEMENT.docx � Page 111 Item#4. CORNER SECU SECT70N 32 I� WI z' -5 89°59'28°E 175.84' w � R3L9AGt i�H 8r54'28^W 187.%' ci I LINE TABLE NG O LI N45°L'0 "E 32.42' w� ,3 LI 589°59 'E 29.00' 54s ^w Is.Rs i I L4 s OQ •W 126.37' S 99°5925"E �113.9P N 89°592G"w pOBJ 146.37' _ �C.E et G � � 1574 JI or io FF 8EAG�� w S1/4 CORNER E.LAKE HAZEL ROAD T.3 N. UP 2015-013745 32133 __ _ ,.. SECRON 32 —-- W 1329.49' __— - T.2 N. E1116 CORNER N 90°00'00"E 1329.66' --- 5 4 CPF 1/1066375 BASIS OF BEARINGS SECTION 3215 ILLEGIBLE ILLEGIBLE NTS PROJECT: OWNER/DEVELOPER: DWG# ID 8 EMMETT, D 36 IMPRESSIVE EAST RIDGE 2030 S. WASHI 361 7ON 19116-EX PHASE 2 OFFSITE CMG „ P: (208)398-8104 PROJECT# FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT F. (208)398-8105 19116 CITY OF MERIDIAN, SHEET ADA COUNTY IDAHO DATE: 512020 LanSSurueyinq L4G WWW.SAWT'OOTHLS.COM 1 Page 112 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Edington Fire Access Easement Agreement Page 113 Item#5. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-085892 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 06/02/2021 11:15 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT AGREEMENT TH E.MENT made this 1 st day of June , 20 21 ,between 9 Land LLC ,hereinafter referred to as "Grantor" and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian is requiring an access area for emergency vehicles as a condition of development approval; and WHEREAS, Grantor desires to grant an easement for ingress and egress across those certain parts of Grantor's property defined herein to allow for emergency vehicle access; and WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct certain improvements upon the easement described herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property, described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit`B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a non-exclusive easement and right-of-way on, over, across and through Grantor's property with the free right of access to such property at any and all times and for the purpose of allowing egress and ingress to and from the property for emergency vehicle access. Pursuant to the International Fire Code, this access road shall be constructed of an improved surface capable of supporting 80,000 GVW; TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever; THE GRANTOR,hereby covenants and agrees that no structures shall be constructed, erected, or placed upon the surface of the easement area that would materially impair the normal operation or use of the easement area for emergency vehicular purposes. No parking of vehicles within the easement area shall be permitted. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement,which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that the Grantor shall repair and maintain the access roadway improvements. EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT,PAGE 1 02/14/202 F�age Item#5. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the easement hereby granted become part of,or lie within the boundaries of any public street,then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and year first hereinabove written. GRANTOR C4 Land LLC A A P I / Jim Conger, e er STATE OF IDAHO ) )ss County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 5-/3-tvz! (date)by -Jin t. Comae., ,on behalf of k&scd.&L4 , in the following representative capacity: � �� (type of authority such as officer or trustee) �,r1NE Jp�'••. Awl N AOTAR}. '� ' PIA30C Notary Signature •� • ' N•.• a My Commission Expires: w ' EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT,PAGE 2 02/14/2020 Page 115 h�� Item#5. GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simison, Mayor 6-1-2021 Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-1-2021 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 6-1-2021 (date)by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022 EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT,PAGE 3 02/14/202 Page 116 Item#5. ASawtooth Land Surveying, LLC r,�/ 2030 S. Washington Ave. 1 044 Northwest Blvd., Ste. G 14 1 1�`Avenue East �Al/l/TOQr Emmett, ID 836 17 Coeur d'Alene, ID 53614 Jerome, ID 83338 P: (208) 398-81 04 P: (208) 714-4544 P: (208) 329-5303 F: (208) 398-81 05 F: (208) 292-4453 F: (208) 324-382 1 Off-Site Fire Access Legal Description A 20.00 foot wide easement located in the W1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 of Section 36,Township 4 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the southwest corner of said Section 36, from which the W1/4 corner of said Section 36, bears North 00114'51"East, 2637.56 feet; Thence North 00114'51"East, coincident with the west line of the SW1/4 SW1/4 of said Section 36, a distance of 332.44 feet; Thence South 89045'09"East, perpendicular to said west line, 48.00 feet to the easterly right of way line of N. Linder Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence North 00014'51"East, coincident with said easterly right of way line, 20.00 feet; Thence South 89045'09"East, perpendicular to said west line, 115.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left; Thence northeasterly, 43.98 feet along the arc of said curve to the left, having a radius of 28.00 feet, a central angle of 90000'00", and subtended by a chord bearing North 4511451"East, 39.60 feet; Thence North 00014'51"East, parallel with said easterly right of way line, 248.00 feet; Thence South 89045'09"East, perpendicular to said west line, 20.00 feet; Thence South 00014'51"West, parallel with said easterly right of way line, 248.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the right; Thence southwesterly, 75.40 feet along the arc of said curve to the right, having a radius of 48.00 feet, a central angle of 90100'00", and subtended by a chord bearing South 45114'51"West, 67.88 feet; Thence North 89045'09"West, perpendicular to said west line, 115.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described easement contains 8,454 square feet or 0.194 acres, more or less. BASIS OF BEARING for this description is North 00114'51"East, between the southwest corner and the W1/4 corner of Section 36,Township 4 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian. ! 10561 �y,sln�z� OF M. B P:\2019\19292-EDINGTON SUBDIVISION -CMG\Survey\Drawings\Descriptions\19292-Off Site Fire Access Legal.docx 11 Page 117 Item#5. 35 36 W114 CORNER W112 SWI14 SWI14 SECTION 36 SECTION 36 PLS 14221 T. 4 N., R 1 W., B.M, COR.REC.2019-092669 n ai i S1/16 CORNER SECTION 36 PLS 14221 COR.REC.2019-092670 S 89045'09"E NTS 20.00' 4r i r I 0 0 N N m W 00 o $ Z tn M N W w oNpl LqN� �° ENs L "- 10561 6 N 00°14'51"E G1 qrE OF 10A� 20.00' S 89045'09"E 115.00' �j r\�� 7T/7-/7T/78,454 SQ.FT.10.194 AC.S 89°45'09"E89045'09"W 115.00' 48.00' N POINT OF M BEGINNING CURVE TABLE CURVE ARC LENGTH I RADIUS I DELTA ANGLE I CHORD BEARING I CHORD LENGTH Cl 43.98' 26.00' 90°00'00" 1 N45°14'51"E 39.60' SDUTHWEST CORNER I C2 75.40' 48.00' 90000'00" S 45°1451"W 67.88' PLS 5291 35 36 COR.REC. 109109699 ——_ W. USTICK RD. 1 1 2 --- PROJECT. OWNERIDEVELOPER: 2030 S. WASHINGTON AVE. DWG# FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT EXHIBIT EMMETT, ID 83617 19292-EX CONGER GROUP EDINGTON COMMONS NO. 1 P: (208)398-8104 PROJECT# "CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY �j��OOT" F. (208)398-8105 19292 IDAHO J SHEET DATE' S/2021 Lons 5urueyi LLG WWW SAWTOOTHLS.COM I Page 118 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Order for Apex Southeast No. 2 (FP-2021-0032) by Brighton Development, Located on the East Side of S. Locust Grove Rd., Approximately% Mile South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. Page 119 Item#6. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: MAY 18, 2021 ORDER APPROVAL DATE: JUNE 1, 2021 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT ) CONSISTING OF 78 BUILDING ) CASE NO. FP-2021-0032 LOTS AND 21 COMMON LOTS ON ) 20.34 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R-8 ) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR APEX ) APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT SOUTHEAST NO. 2 ) BY: BRIGHTON DEVELOPMENT ) APPLICANT ) This matter coming before the City Council on May 18, 2021 for final plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6B-3 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete by the Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat, the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of"PLAT SHOWING APEX SOUTHEAST SUBDIVISION NO. 2, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4 AND THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, B.M., CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR APEX SOUTHEAST NO. 2 FP-2021-0032 Page 1 of 3 Page 120 Item#6. IDAHO, 2021, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 4/9/2021, by AARON L. BALLARD, PLS, SHEET 1 OF 6," is conditionally approved subject to those conditions of Staff as set forth in the staff report to the Mayor and City Council from the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department dated May 18, 2021, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked"Exhibit A" and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Jon Wardle, Brighton Corporation, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked"Exhibit B" and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 2.1 The plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2.2 The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash surety has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight(28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR APEX SOUTHEAST NO. 2 FP-2021-0032 Page 2 of 3 Page 121 Item#6. issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian,pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty- eight(28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review pursuant to Idaho Code§ 67-52. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 1st day of June , 2021. By: Robert E. Simison 6-1-2021 Mayor, City of Meridian Attest: Chris Johnson 6-1-2021 City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 6-1-2021 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR APEX SOUTHEAST NO. 2 FP-2021-0032 Page 3 of 3 Page 122 Item#6. EXHIBIT A WEI� DIAN --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1! A H 0 HEARING May 18,2021 ` DATE: TO: Mayor&City Council E.LAKE RAZEL'RD — FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 a SUBJECT: FP-2021-0032 Apex Southeast No. 2 LOCATION: East side of S.Locust Grove Rd., approximately'/4 mile south of E. Lake . Hazel Rd., in the NW 1/4 of Section 5, Township 2N.,Range IE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat consisting of 78 single-family residential buildable lots and 21 common lots on 20.34 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kody Daffer,Brighton Development—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: SCS Investments,LLC—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste.400,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Mike Wardle,Brighton Development—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian, ID 83642 III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat(H-2020-0057)in accord with the requirements listed in UDC 11-613-3C.2. In order for the proposed final plat to be deemed in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as set forth in UDC 11-6B-3C.2,the number of buildable lots cannot increase and the amount of common area cannot decrease. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and the number of buildable lots has decreased by one(1)from what was shown on the original preliminary plat;the common open space area has increased from that shown on the qualified Page 1 Page 123 Item#6. open space exhibit approved with the preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff deems the proposed final plat to be in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. The proposed emergency access exhibit in Section VIII.E has been approved by the Fire Dept. IV. DECISION Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions noted in Section VI of this report. V. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(dated: 5/1/2020) APEX SOUTHEAST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT Ew P R ei ulNnxv rin..n.a A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 5, n ..m.... TOWN51i IP 2 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA,COUNTY,IDAH❑ _ —W w �a `� m wwm�sa xrEw'r . — UsENo " € : •g ... • 9 • • R a ��..t. ,.. o F - • m w..awra o •IQ - • 0 0 oa p Q • - a E • APE%SOIliHE4Sr S.1BEINLYION d�� '�`W'm"'``p • MERIDIAN,IDAHO gqvvxxxx CO,ln fX!!� •....i.... FEE: 9H GMT PP1A Page 124 Item#6. B. Final Plat(dated: 4/9/21) eR�qP Plat of Apex Southeast Subdivision No.2 31 32 A panel of hnd slrtuated In a prxtlon of GovemmeM laR a and E.Gke Ha'cel Rd. the 50 dK~1/4 of the Northwest 1/1 of S-1-5, Plen kak:1'•l00' 6 5 TowrW IIo 2 N04h,Niege 1 Gsf.f1.M.,City of lAea'Idlan,Ada CnuMv,Idaho m1 Sheet Index I I 91F£T 1 -b,Ewli 9J�EUIIMN 0.HA 1a r� 3 f4 Ip ! ] ra IT !6 f to IS ]E£T 9 -oETla.HAT law tY.U'W] II 5 Apex SouMeu[ BEOLrtr] _oeTalL HAT law no id ! supdw111on Nn� 1® a 3 uHE/am¢rnela's Ne79S'a7'E 1.6a' S g NeySE'uR ltB nt' EM£!a -LQmfNiltt OF tlRNER6 iWL NRH r s � r SOPH4'SS"E !9 NpPp1'l3'N � �3 -LERIIRILltt3 AVO APPR�I'x.3 120. eLccRe 1mee Q Q C3 OlLOCT f S E. re SL S FGOIY B FS9 GP F4 NOrc➢ ® S 0 Ruw 5/6^KW LU D'A e,12159" unlash RuaEu arMHalaE Q !o n f➢u�W 1/��mRE�WiMm'flH 1aa3B� O Q Q m t 1 z � O D O s � s . ;�I�-,I;s�- 1�6>P a Heasa'u^E iTa.te' ` q E&'ngley St i e ! ® SR I/2'RENYt PJS}IL[M 0.4'RREO iN6 tl S�' - e1gR8 � � B4IXYi /� ��RJC�(RnN RRGNEpC INSErlr] © ® © 11 V R©e 0 4 6 C4CLNSW plNl.NpmHp TAIp 6n SEr L'T - © LOT IReaaW E.Rmbldon St. S.C©a2palPne Am. � aeufF a q�flEe lel rwml 0 1 e 9oRON RoNHpwi UHE 0 o e ] ® '� O se sersR'I�r'w ITs,op a ff o p D Q g 66.e1' �——�— MYLfM ROi JNE © 13 °' N0001'ae"W R6w¢mwune � � 19 BLO[K II � YOLC 10 •.• 103.H2' 66Y33'a21i a50o0' ---——— SH:nOu LaaE JNE F g ® �j ® ® .' O a VnOitted itM hwlFrR fsf£Nel[te1 C Q 7�5'se'w Referen[es E.AdleT Hof St Ils.tw' WS raRIE R1. PIAi Of IAE%Spin(ASI SV9CM90N Ha i.900R—IX PUTS © 1 sOPO{'3S"E Rle aT w,OE6 REOpRpS pE apa WJmm,IWO O SpY53'25"W IHp.OG' Lt rw•u`aet weo R1. RI—D Of SLF!£Y Ne.T182.PE'OR03 ay IM CpAT.eVJf]. ® � u vvsvasw Nit R1. RE5R0 M eNe,E�No.lie].R[LGIb3 0I 16L CGJNTI.dwM. J: 6ersrasw lam rsmrns x!d.wuNn,iow ® Q 1lnpmmd w. Rearm eF sumsr N..was. R. $ oTRVE ruIE b f 0.WYIR alia cman [Mtl SIY✓eY Nealetive © t!RlsE am' eS.Se aTa3'a3"�6}H'aal aS.T1' UMMU MIME 6LIXKIa n FIM[ 6 Rai ett'aRR Rx wr muRn REaE 9A'Na1 1EREdl q) F e R Q dau as 3BYs6'1ion 2"TI�� 4 seYs3•axls 12459 yei E- e TEa rwc�.xs' srr2z'�s-w9• 6-,'3� ' .� y3 a eo.u1' k[ehL dgn u [NGIH![0.1NG Oevelaper 6 ae Brighton ~� Corporation maddlan.Idaho Page 3 Page 125 / /® �m®0C i, --------------- % /'///� / A%" i 9 r '� /� 11 _.. .. e 0� I ,W $� z'as�aoi�°' �IIIIIII asaaawRc;�uaai�a - — - O_. f O ----------- AIIIIIII aoi i p � I Q ��I ASio�o Item#6. 0 n — 7 1 1 1 r� 1 1 NO F. 11 LANDSCAPE PLAN 13.0 (D o :Z- a n m� im- 11 1� 4 La.0 Page 5 Page 127 Item#6. D. Common Driveway Exhibits BVILDING p DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 33 BLOCK 3 BVILOING ENVELOPE- TO BE LOCATED ON THE OPPCSTIE ENVELOPE. TYPICAL A SIDE OF THE SHARED COMMON TYPICAL. .: DRIVE PROPERTY VNE r�. LOT S OWNER RESP ONSIBLE PONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING --T A a =TI_ 4PI— A9vI AND MAINTAINING f SIDE LANDSCAPING FS SIDE AND IRRIGATION 0 n 12' N THESE ARE0.5 •.• 2p. 12' 401 H � LOT 25 IS A `'/ I 33 Q p m n IN 2fi w / Z 2 ==x m COMMON LOT INGRESS/EGRESS GARAGE E.AMBITION ST. .`� \ 2 7 EASEMENT IN1._'_ { H a A FAVOR AN LOTS FRONT - �_SIDE J ]- C3 26 AND 23 0 Z O BLOCK 3 1'SIDE J ::�/,y �tG O 2 y 24 _ 1'1 SIDE ¢ O n 3 ` SIBE C 12 �! U I � ' nM O "' 12 LOT 36 IS A C�7 W 2 e NON-BUILDABLE x W AO�tl 2T ' COMMON LOT i WITH A BLANKET BLOCK3 20' NGRESS/EGRESS _ I D, EASEMENT IN 10'W BlACK3 in FAVOR OF 7 SIDE J _ LOTS 34 N H' W _LSIDE J 35,BLOCK 3 W 37 W W 4 SIDE — � FRONT GARAGE 12' E.SPIRE ST. a , 12 }U ® A 35 km ENGI N I EI I NG 74 II..� erg na ISIGE — _ — — — -J-SIDE — J LOT 27 OWNER y •P.I --- a- -- -- -- 1 OF 3 IS RESPONSIBLE DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 28 BLOCK 3 FOR INSTALLING TO BE LOCATED ON THE OPPOSITE NAND AND MAINTAININGm DSIDERIVE OF THE SHARED COMMON �EOF( LANDSCAPING m ORNE PftOPERtt LINE �(P '�Hp AND IRRIGATION ,+ySAY IN THESE AREAS c * y m a m LOTS 2428,BLOCK 3 LOTS BLOCK 3 1 =30 WHEN PRINTED AT I1 x17 =30 'WHEN WHEN PRINTED AT 11%1T �OlpQ Page 128 Item#6. BI ILPING ENVELOPE- TYPICAL. � — — 2'A SEWER ElSEMENT SIDE N� W oly n r 12 25 m GARAGE AGE Z 2 U 1 FRONT ~0 � ,islDE f ` jm xZ &Po Da I- o xm SIPS 12• 2p' LOT 24 I$A NON-BVILOaeLE COMMON 10' - d m W LOT Will A BLANKEL INGRESS/EGRESS —�?— DlDCK7 V EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS 25.26 f`SIDE AND 27•BLOCK 7 ° I SIDE 17 . +12' 27 2G —'�SIDE ESPIRE ST. SIDE ENGIN EEKING 12• 28 Ip• smgr 10' m 'E LOT 27 OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING AND SIDE T MAINTAINING LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION IN THFRE ARFAS 2 OF 3 DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 28 BLOCK 7 N TO BE LOCATED ON THE OPPOSITE ry �N1 S10E OF THE SHARED COMMON Z .�QO F)Qq 4y DRIVE PROPERTY LINE "s we m LOTS 2 BLOCK 7 1 =30 WHENHEN PRINTED AT 11%17 Page 7 Page 129 Item#6. DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 3 LOT 4 OWNER IS LOT 7 IS A s LOT 1$IS A LOT 21 OWNER IS BLOCK 11 TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR NON-BUILDABLE COMMON NON-BUILVAULE COMMON RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATED ON THE INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING LOT WITH A BLANKET LOT WITH A BLANKET INSTALLNG AND MAINTAINING OPPOSITE SIOE OF THE LANDSCAPING ANo INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT LANDSCAPINC AND DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 22 SHARES COMMINJ DRIVE 2 IRRIGATI TON IN THESE AREAS IN FAVOR OF LOTS 4,5. IN FAVOR OF LOTS 19, IRRIGATION IN THESE AR BLOCK 11 TO BE PROPERTY LINE ❑ AN 6.BLOCK 11 20.AND 21,BLOCK 11 Ij LOCATED ON THE E ❑ OUT E S1DE OF THE � SHARED COMMON ORNE PROPERTY LINE S.ZENITH AVE. S-ZENITHAVE ; -IF { --- --- - SIOE SIDE 0. :. Q ~ � 1j al �o oZ a { mod' CDMMDIti " N °COn�MON_a vO �' } { a { p ti BRIVE ^2D' �RONi �FM1NT FRONT (FRONT T GARAGE O v GARAGE a o 6LOCN Il E 4 III GARAGE I II II II II II II II I ml ml ml ml ml ml ml I-�—B' FAp FAR� m _ Eep� E Nunxsrsn,rt�N G REA1R L R� LRFM� N RFAR L RJ L J R , � N RJ a ®n+la 30F3 II ENVELOPE. I'-3'WHEN AND ED AT it BLACK 11 TYPICAL. EOF 1 30 WHEN PRINTED AT 11 17 P��OR�4AyO i55A Y S Ot�n�nAAO Page 130 Item#6. E. Emergency Access Exhibit Emergency Plat of Apex Southeast Subdivision No.2 Access 31 32 E.la eH iRd. Ppa nl Wntl ated Ina por ion ofrm` ' TW aip Tt hxeprth,aWange t 14 ot he N„rtihw V4e :Sa, Ea,&MCryoMndlanAtlaCou Mantl,IdahoExhibit k cork l'•Iar ffitInde« I 1,4tl S swtsl t - srvnwx Ww rl �x5oulhe� I ] _o a 6rcr Wra un 601vbI0R N0.1 �� r e € ra uxe/w^re anus xer3Y •r a.oa• R„•3,•,a�., 6.f,� NW'01'A3 ®T 8 E.spresr. 0 muw svwss uc As xotm n wr RE=xxxrx. Ix,6 wm r M Y xptEy mxtSC T o muxv,iv�xEm wla�m•Ke rvasv © (3 m ] s x ] • G) uxlxss x x �• az•x � e �, ® � • SET s/a'xE9w;'mx xlsnc w wnxm•rve Iz.m• urRRm'ue Ixud' O � � �e © � Q � �° ® � 0' ® � R©e $, • ..w..n we rs.IRRrm wc�nc ixs� e rxwutm.ciM,u-,txxlc m.R,p:sEt Q Eflx xuRew E.Ambluon R. S.Lapaenr Ave. © RNUEart Rudlm tm xweRn O T 58e'36'1T•W 115.W /�,� �a eWxpwr uM O '`••T t 66 Y 54'W 4 © 'V° INa1YM lOi uM --- xa $ e xR r.•W 56> —---— xam�xm xE � Q elxxss 6 �los.vz' 'ax�r.so.ao' zoom ® O ® ® O S unvlmw r oWM n�xo tel �s-W m aerzrexm: L. Hofsf. sw © t I t50PW'a3"[ RI MACES-4UNHA5, Rfx�RF ah�tuMY�iowo� O P5526 W 1x0.0a SRde RI.R[CCRR Of SL�ReF(Hn.T)83.Pm`OxR3 UlLIRCIRAm',rNll1 a� V R1.R[.xRh Oi Si.WM:S Ho.ltt].KLOM6 M AG lAUHM,dwM. ® Q unplaaee xuRvrrAalr m na.x� © � � $ sxrvev Narmnxe •47n," •axw 12459 ; rkx�aveT a Brighton Corporation cas rrur re vvssnT eHdEax,mann „,.r�r .... Page 9 Page 131 Item#6. VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: 1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development(H-2020-0057; Development Agreement Instrument Number 2020-178120). 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the subject final plat within two years of the City Engineer's signature on the first phase final plat; or apply for a time extension, in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature,have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. The final plat prepared by KM Engineering stamped by Aaron L. Ballard, dated: 4/9/2021, included in Section V.B shall be revised as follows: References(Sheet 1): a. R1 —Include the Book and Page numbers of the Apex Southeast Subdivision No. 1 plat. Notes(Sheet 3): b. Note#6: Clarify the last sentence of this note. It appears that"6."is misplaced. c. Note#10: Include the recorded instrument number of the ACHD landscape license agreement. d. Note#11: Include the recorded instrument number of the ACHD public right-of-way easement. e. Note#12: Strike note(not in this phase) f. Note#13: "Direct lot or parcel access to S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Lake Haze!Rd. is prohibited. . ." g. Note#16: Does Lot 1,Block 11 contain the referenced easement? If not, delete. h. Note#17: Include the recorded instrument number of the CC&R's. A copy of the revised plat shall be submitted with the final plat for City Engineer signature. 5. The landscape plan prepared by KM Engineering, dated 4/l/2021,included in Section V.C, is approved as submitted. 6. The rear and/or side of structures on lots that face S. Locust Grove Road, an arterial street, 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. 7. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer,the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of mailboxes. Contact the Meridian Postmaster, Sue Prescott,at 887-1620 for more information. 8. All fencing shall comply with the standards of UDC I I-3A-7C. 9. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. Page 132 Item#6. 10. Off-street parking is required to be provided for residential uses in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 11. Address signage shall be provided at the public street for homes accessed via common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. 12. 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 as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D.8.A copy of said easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the final plat for City Engineer signature. As an alternative to a separate easement document, this information may be included in a note(i.e. note#6) on the face of the plat; include language from aforementioned code section. 13. The setbacks and/or driveway locations for lots accessed via common driveways or abutting common driveways shall be as shown on the exhibit in Section V.D(applies to Lots 26-28 and 33-35,Block 3; Lots 25-28, Block 7; Lots 3-6 and 19-22,Block 11). 14. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat(H- 2020-0057) and/or Development Agreement(Inst. #2020-178120)does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. Public Works General Conditions: 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. 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. 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. 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 11-3B-14A. 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. 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 Page 11 Page 133 Item#6. Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 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. 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. 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. 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. 11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-413. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 Page 134 Item#6. 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. 20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 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. 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. 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. 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. Page 13 Page 135 EXHIBIT B Item#6. From: Jon Wardle To: Sonya Allen;Adrienne Weatherly;Charlene Wav;Chris Johnson Cc: Bill Parsons;Mike Wardle;Joshua Beach; Lachlin Kinsella; Donna Wilson Subject: RE:Apex Southeast No.2 FP-2021-0032 for Council on May 18th Date: Wednesday,May 12,2021 7:43:06 AM Attachments: imaae006.ona Apex Southeast No.2 FP-2021-0032 Staff Recommendation to Council.pdf External Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. We are in agreement with the Conditions found in the APEX Southeast No. 2 Final Plat Staff report. Jon Wardle BRIGHTON—Creating GREAT Places O: 208.378.4000 D: 208.287.0518 C: 208.871.9361 E: jwardle@brightoncorp.com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent: Friday, May 7, 20213:55 PM To: Adrienne Weatherly<aweatherly@meridiancity.org>; Charlene Way<cway@meridiancity.org>; Chris Johnson <cjohnson@meridiancity.org> Cc: Bill Parsons<bparsons@meridiancity.org>; Mike Wardle <mwardle@brightoncorp.com>; Jon Wardle<jwardle@brightoncorp.com> Subject:Apex Southeast No. 2 FP-2021-0032 for Council on May 18th Attached is the staff report for the final plat for Apex Southeast#2.This item is scheduled to be on the consent agenda at the City Council work session on May 18th.The meeting will be held at City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Avenue, beginning at 4:30 pm. Please call or e-mail with any questions. If you are not in agreement with the provisions in the staff report, please submit a written response to the staff report to the City Clerk's office (cityclerk(@meridiancit)l.org) and me as soon as possible and the item will be placed on the regular meeting agenda at a subsequent meeting for discussion. Thanks, Sonya Allen I Associate Planner City of Meridian I Community Development Department I Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Ave., Ste. 102, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208-884-5533 1 Direct/Fax: 208-489-0578 4fE II I Built for Business, Designed for Living 0®©00 All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention,and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. Page 136 Item#6. Page 137 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law 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. Page 138 Item#7. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI N, AND DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Annexation and Zoning of 128.21 Acres of Land with R-8(99.53 Acres),R-15(8.82 Acres) and C-G(19.85 Acres)Zoning; and Preliminary Plat Consisting of 371 Buildable Lots [102 Single-Family Attached,215 Single-Family Detached,38 Townhome, 14 Multi- Family,One(1) Commercial and One(1) School],42 Common Lots and Six(6) Other(Shared Driveway)Lots on 124.81 Acres of Land in the R-8,R-15 and C-G Zoning Districts for Prescott Ridge Subdivision,by Providence Properties,LLC. Case No(s).H-2020-0047 For the City Council Hearing Dates of. February 23,April 13, and May 18,2021 (Findings on June 1,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18, 2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § I I-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR PRESCOTT RIDGE—AZ,PP,PS H-2020-0047 - I - Page 139 Item#7. Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18, 2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted,it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Annexation&Zoning and Preliminary Plat is hereby approved with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in the Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-613-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC I 1-613-713). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with I I-6B-7.A,the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 1I- 6B-7C). Notice of Development Agreement Duration The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-651 IA. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR PRESCOTT RIDGE—AZ,PP,PS H-2020-0047 -2- Page 140 Item#7. property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the modification. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval period. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR PRESCOTT RIDGE—AZ,PP,PS H-2020-0047 -3- Page 141 Item#7. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 1st day of June 2021. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TREG BERNT VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-1-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson 6-1-2021 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 6-1-2021 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR PRESCOTT RIDGE—AZ,PP,PS H-2020-0047 -4- Page 142 Item#7. EXHIBIT A 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: Mayor&City Council - 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 42345-3 124.81acres 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. Altemative Gemplianee to UDG 11 3 F 4 A.4, when*,,...nh,mes are pFepesed, is also requested.Alternative Compliance is no longer required based on the revised plan which includes a mew. Page 1 Page 143 Item#7. 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-3-63 2.96 units/acre(gross);7.M 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 4r 12.43 acres(or 44.,8 15.41%) [%]/buffer/qualified) (49-54 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 144 Item#7. 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 145 Item#7. 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 146 Item#7. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend tsi8enfial Legend f 0 Project Laca-fion 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 Laca-fion 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 147 Item#7. 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 148 Item#7. 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 149 Item#7. 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 150 Item#7. 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#mat 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. • "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. hearing to rej7eet e9mmon usable area smeh as a plaza or green spaee more eentm!to the development with bugd&p anwnged oround the eommon area in aeeord with this prov&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 151 Item#7. 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±rtt 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 guid-eline, Staff reeoniniends the eoneept plan " 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 152 Item#7. • 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 si-x-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 153 Item#7. building with retail and restaurant uses is proposed to develop on this site. As dise ss a .,L.oy Staff recommends commereial •Fetail, restaurant, ete.) uses are also provided as p in the C G zoned area as desired in Alixed Use and speeifleally 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 154 Item#7. 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 155 Item#7. 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 standaFds 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. - . - Meh at the number- 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 inelude 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 Y-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 serwe this portion of the development.A revised eoneept plan and par-king plan should be submitted prior-to or-a Commission hearing for-review 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 foff-e-aeh hffl--�- 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 156 Item#7. 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 157 Item#7. 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 158 Item#7. 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 f r along the east side of Rustie Oak north o W. Lost Rapids St.,where an attaehed 7' wide sidewalk is proposed. This sidewalk should be detac-hCd from the in aeeor-i-"with iTcir v C 11 3A rr. 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 MN.. eo- Plat ine!Hded 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 ffm 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 159 Item#7. 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 105.08 80.42 acres (excluding the 28-acre school parcel), a minimum of 40.5f 8.04 acres of qualified open space should be provided. A qualified open space exhibit was submitted, included in Section VIII.E,that depicts 11.56 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(105.09 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 160 Item#7. 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 I-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 161 Item#7. 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 development as Ion e , thout (s) or agated �Alternative -�a�=o��v- �cc�=��r��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-eeommends ehanges to the layout of the portion of the plat where the private street is proposed. Staff and the Fire Dept. does n 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 inadequaey of par-ling for guests and overflow par-ling. TheFefffe, Staff does no!reeommend approval of the private street as redesign. D. AlteMative Complianee (UDC- 11 B-�} belief that the townhome poftion eft the--,�-P-,Velepment will better-in4egr-ate with the rest of the Pr-esee#Ridge eomffmnity and will be easily aeoessible and usable without a gated eatFy a-Rd 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 suppor-five 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 162 Item#7. 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 Pere rg 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 commercial/medical 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 163 Item#7. 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.la.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.la.6 in Section IX); and, Page 22 Page 164 Item#7. 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 165 Item#7. 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 166 Item#7. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on February 23,April 13.and May 18,2021. At the public hearing on May 18',the Council moved to approve the subject AZ and PP requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing a. In favor: Patrick Connor,Providence Properties; Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Sue Ropski:Kristy Inselman,ACHD: Val Stack 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: b. Clarification on the number of rental properties allowed within the development(up to 20%)through the CC&R's: C. Concern pertaining to safety and access to the commercial portion of the site. 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 13';public testimony will be limited to new information only- b. Differing opinions pertaining to whether or not the hospital should serve as a trauma center(with associated uses)with an emergency room—some reasons against were because access isn't available from an arterial street and because of impacts to residential neighbors(i.e.helicopters); 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. Council deemed access for the emergency room via Rustic Oak, a collector street,meets the intent of the requirement in UDC 11-4-3-22A for direct access to be provided on an arterial street; also,that the hospital would not pursue being designated as a trauma center. Page 25 Page 167 Item#7. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Master Plan Conceptual Rendering&Medical Campus Conceptual Development Plan-REVISED US-HIGHWAY 251CHINOEN BLVD a171 � -- PROPOSED , PRE SCOTT __ MEDICAL CAMPUS RIDGE MERIDIAN,IDAHn CONCEPRfA4 suaie.�rrocrrArv�e �.._ .,I�--- r --- - ILITURE i - SCHOOL SITE I o - HYTURE OAK5 NORTR SUBOIV1530N reposed Page 26 Page 168 Item#7. Concept Plan (dated: 1/19/211: SITE INFORMATION W.CIIINOEN�Cyp, SIiE utEA: 19.3+vAES Cn U.34a SF) wRRE.rr zaxlxa RUT PRCPOSEO MNING. C-G CVI�Gk�Nlyym PLWGEM 20NN6'. IaR(FAST.NEST,53x1H}/Nz R L-6(TpRIH) SF x x.nWxGs Noa fa sroxrl 2 Ill. V JIII RSTNE- •G,coo � 6�ESTwruur-'m°o�oo sF rns.ttEss { nx wuxnum Hosvxu C.erns) Euor.�•[Fn ice[ '•e_ �••. ,,,_� F'= L� f— = Q nn MM REWPM: WIOIHG --261.0 5F 1 - I:` •E — - = sEiNacNs R[n c� 2 m SPI.eeS �� X_ 'I f Vg REquREN ~� W READ 0 REauREG O W Itif�lll lII1Lnl r RIIIIII1Ilf11Illlllllll. sMrtE (auEceoRy 2.NaEourtID 9m ST4Esi IEMR2 LORR) ,15'REONRER _ Y xf In/wcln urt TO NESI�ENINL 25 xEOUNEe a a WNG HEICM: ss 2 ^v + rxs v $E3 GI HEIGHT: 53 — — uTNooR eu2A� Nrnlic zc� _ — - xOSRiAs Mrx SGIIxG NVArtu _ J Y arm 36 rya e� Ns�rA a HnWT cW WAIL � xs _ ut2m+�co••Ernox vo LL1l�J R I�1- ll111I E N G I N E E ES'�_N G km awrc via 8'HfRHT py NeIL -- P�'� b� �W / s� w 7 150300 450 Pi.. stale=1"=3.50' ��fAY mrar+66 Page 27 Page 169 Item#7. B. Annexation&Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps C-G HONING LEGEND ` — — —— — n Er —k-15 I I RUT o r °ma m R-1� o� I I RUT I �• lam ' R— ry G ry E E A I N G s _ 1 OF 1d r® J R-4 ��II RUT Lf— .. - LA=L _ _ `L7 6 300 607 R-8 R--A plan scale::"=7nr Page 28 Page 170 Item#7. km E H G r N E E R I N G December 17,2020 ProjKl:No.18.140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Annexation Rresratt Ridge Subdiv Mon A perreI of land situated I n a portion of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4-0nd a pgil lark of the West 1/2 of Section 29,Township 4 North,Range 1 West, Doise Merldlan,Ada County,ldaha and heing mare particularly described as follows: Con rnerticing at an aluminum cap marking the Northwest tourer said Section 28, which bears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40 feet from irrl alurnlrtum cap marking the North 1/4 cornerof said Section 28, thence following the northerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, S89'27 L7"E A distance of 1,484.69 feet to tha POINT OF BEGINNING, Thence following said northerly liner 589'27'17"E a distance of 1,124.74 feet to said aluminurn Cap marking the North 1/4 corner; Thence leaving Said northerly line of said Northwest 114 and fellowirr�the northerly Ilne of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 213,5&9'25'25"E a distance of 60.00 feet to a paint; Thence leaving said northerly Ilne•SO0"43'55"W a distarkre of 558.89 feet to a point; 7herlce S89`24'23"E a distance of 1,24E.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the easterly We of the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence fol lowirr$said easterly liner SW 6'13'W a distance of 1,615.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence Ieaving said easterly line, N77-58'17"W a distance of 1,33E-Z� feet to a 518•inch rebaran the easterPy line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28; Thence following said easterly 114% S0O"43'55'W a distance of 625.95 feet to 2-inch plpe marking the Center 1/4 of said$et#ion 28; Thence la2vinLg said easterly line,S00'43'5: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"U4r a distance of 19.68 feet to a 5/9.inch rebar; 7hence 589%8'46"W a distance of45.49 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Than N$6°14'49"Ord a distance of 63.62 feet to a 5/Sinch rebar; 7hencia N88'50'0eW a distance of 85.57 feet to a 5/34rich rehsr; Thence N80'59'54'VV a distance of 36.99 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N70`27'41"VV a distance of 25.64 feet to a 5J8-inch rebar; Thence S89'15'0O"W a distance of 20,04 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N86'53'33"W a distance of 189,53 feet to a 5/8-Inch rebar; Thence 564-04'03"W a distance of 27.64 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N89` A'25 UV a distance of 784.53 feet to a paint; -thence M0X5Z'21"E a distance of 16.96 feet to a point being the Center West 1/16 corner of said Section 2$; Thence fallowingfallowingwing the southerly IIne of:he Northwest 1/4 of said Section 28, N89°27'12"W a dk5oxe 0{ 686,O3 feet to a paint; Thence leaving said southerly line,N01'OD'37"E a distance of 400.00 feet to a paint; 9233 West Sta#s Stroet & Boise,PdO110 83714 * 208.538,5939 + kmvngllp.wrn Page 29 Page 171 Item#7. Thence N89'21'12"W a dl5tance of 625_-00 feet to a paint on the westerly line of the Northwest 1{4 of sold Section 28; Thence following said westerly line,I~01°00'37"E a d lstaoce of 690,74 feet t0 9 paint; Thence leaving said westerly line,S73'33'16"E a dlstance of 483.50 feet to a paint; Thence 578'W16"E a distance of WE feet to a point; Thence S46'W01"E a distance of 299,29 feet to a point;; Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 48.11 Feet to a point; Thence N00'52'17"E a distance of 21S-98feet to a 1/2--inch rebar, Thence N7S'32'13'E a dis[we of 272.40 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence 30-50 feet along the arc of a Jrcular curve to the left,said Curve having a radius of 45.00 feet,a delta angle of 38'56'33",a chard bea-iri8 of N75'n'S3"E and a Chord dEsta of 3Q_00 fleet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N7532'13'E d distame of 219.13 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence NOX32'13"E a distance of 1,497,29 feet to a V2-inch rebar, Thence 569'19'13"W a distance a#270.56 feet to a 1/2-Inch rebar; Thence N3VW35"W d distance of 8'-73 feet to a point; TherWe 53-14 feet along the arc of a[ircular curve to the right,said curve having d radius of 115.00 feet, 2 delta angle of 26'2WW,a chard bearing of K18'41'13"W and a chord distance of 52_67 feet to a 5/8- inch rebar; Thence N00'32'43'E a distance of 125.29 feet to the POINT 4F UEGINNING- Said parcel contains a total of 128.207 acres,more or less_ Attached hereto Is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby n1 ade a part of. ST 12459 b ' OF % L SOX, Cilem Project Name PAGE i 2 Page 30 Page 172 Item#7. FWLAINUiA CFP p o POINT OF REGINNING N 1/4 CORNER t- BASIS 6F 8€ARING SECTION 28 ❑ C 20 21 W.Chinden BW{Hwy 20/26i CL ❑ _ _S89'27'17"E 2609,48' L7 ❑ 29 28 ia64.66' — — 1124.74' — — - _ _ '� u c m POINT OF COMMENCEMENT = ALUMINUMWW CORNER P L1B Mt9 tSST29�V23"E Q -1 SECTION 28 fl N rl P N (] � o � m r` 1248,58' C U) 2 Z W < Q} s H " tm + Cc ❑ C1` fV C 4 J O M� fl 250 500 1004 a w LLxJ a J O SCALE: 1"=540' Annexation Area 198.207±AC, 8 50428233640,R5991222210,S0428120950, ° ! S>v'33'}e SO428131315,SO428131200,R6991222101&S0428211102 o 4a Current Zoning:RUT d a '�0' S78•QS•Ts E tti� � a « v �8,77• 1.Sfi C} � Q 6 M1 548.68•U}"E J DATE: DEEEPABERPWQ PROJECT: U-IQ N89'21'12"W M7Tsa'T7 SHEET: 825.OQ' W 1 OF 2 o M1 b 40 _ O � 0 o CENTE(t-WESr }/16 DDRNER a OF SECTION 28 2 PIPE E CENTER OF S£C710N 28 z N8ff 2l'l2"W 68&03' f y y BRAS_ CAP LI N89'}4'25"W 789.53' �, — — W 1/4 CORNER km SECTION 28 r LID L9 ~ J' ENGro1EEAS-SURYEYOAS.AVNNERS 5233 VK5T STRTESTAEET L}1 L2 EIOISEr 1D M083714 �L12 L7 Lfi PNQN(I2osl(J9 5935 L6_— —1-4 L3 FAN WGI 6394910 Page 31 Page 173 Item#7. a � ,r a, `a e LINE TABLE LINE TABLE ° � zo LINE I BEARING I DISTANCE LINE BEARING DISTANCE ov Ll SOF25'25"E 60.00 L15 W52'17"E 215.98 t} Q L2 S743'51"W 24.35 L16 N75'32'131 272.40 i.3 553'05'5314 16.53 L17 147532'13"E 219-13 m L4 N75'07'381Y 18.t38 L18 S6Wl8'13'W 270.56 N „0 115 S8918'461W 45.49 L19 N31'55'3516 91.73 V) 2 z L6 N96'14'49"W 63-0 L20 1d0'32'43"E 125.29 Ku s L7 NBS'50'0419 85.57 I "6cc O La N60'59'54"W 36.69 t p ri a7 1-9 N70'27'4114 25.64 �1 C] N v L10 589'15'00'14 20.04 W 4 L1 1 N9B'S3'39"1V 1 89.53 >_ f L12 554"o4'o39A' 27-94 ~ L13 W52'21"E 16.96 C L14 N75'S1'12"E 48.41 i y O !Z +r � O CURVE TABLE DATE- DECEMBER 2020 CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CNDRD BRG CHORD alaaEcr, M.14 01 45.00' 30.59' 38'56'33- N7932'13'E 30.00' SHEET: C2 115.U0' 53.14' 2E26'39- Nl8'4l'l3"W 52.67' 2 OF 2 !on ENGINEERS.SURYE1'W"NRERS 9233 WEST STATE STREET 09I541DAM 83714 PHONE12061639-CIM FA%I2m1 fiasco Page 32 Page 174 Item#7. km E N G I N E E R I N G December 17,2020 Project N.D.18-140 Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezurm t!]C-G Prescott 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 Section 7$,Tow nshlp 4 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an aluminum Cap marking the Northwest corner said Section 28, which bears N89'27'17"W a distance of 2,609.40;eet frorrh an aluminum cap marking the North 1/4 cormrof said Sertlon 2$, thence following the northerly [ine of the Northwest 1{4 of said Section 28, M'22'17"E a distance of 1,484.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following Bald northerly line,5S9'27'17"E a distance of 1.124.74 Feet to said aluminum Cap making the North 1/4 earner; Thence leaving said northerly line and following the easterly line of said Northwest 1/4,S00'43'55"W a distance of 586.55 feet to a 1/2-Inch rebar, Thence leaving said easterly line,5S9'?5'31"E a distance of 17.44 feet to a point; Thence SOT34'294W a distance-oF397,44 Feet to a point; Thence N89`25'31"W a dicta nce of 826_54 feet to a po int; Thence Np0°32'13"E a distance of 837.62 feet to a 112-inch reWr, Thence 569'18'13"W a distance Of 270-56 feet to a 1/2-inch rebar; Thence N31`55'3YW a distance of 81.73 feet to a pains;; Thence53-14 feet along the arc of a cirrular curve tDthe right,said Curve havl rig a radlusof 115.DO feed, a delta angle of 26'28'39",a chord bearing of N18'41'13"W and a chord dlstanee of 52.67 feet to a 5/9- inch rebar; Thence N00'3243"E a distance of 125.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. So Id parce l contains a tota l of 19.952 acres,more or less- Attached hereto is Exhibit Band by this reference is hereby made a part of. Cxk a' 1 46 s3 92"Vftpt5tote5k W r Balse,Idaha M1714 . 208.ON9.6939 * kmcnellp-cam Page 33 Page 175 Item#7. 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 176 Item#7. 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 177 Item#7. 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 point; Thence N75'51'12"E a distance of 48.41 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 NOO'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 2 Page 36 Page 178 Item#7. 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 179 Item#7. 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 0 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 180 Item#7. 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 181 Item#7. m a ALUMINUM CAP T r N 1/4 CORNER m + BASIS OF BEARING W.Chinden Blvd(Hwy 20/26) 1 SECTION 25 =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 182 Item#7. 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 $F7 9 ®S;•.. a B E:1 0 i ® @ @ ®@ O C7 Oi Tj '`S ,km _r�in.r�zw,n �• PPLO LL Page 41 Page 183 Item#7. r .r4 o. (r �J•irY�,y .'& ^O O� sly b �': ® � �'�� f �� ..,© .r 1 �2 LAVdUT PLAN l', .:.�L I�a' •��n .4--I.'�� AHE5CUUMDUE 5U9oN15 IbAHD I ` 1 bt•TMfuN MATCH LINE 2.1 SHEET PP2.2 ® 1 \ - Ymil.-:�. V yII k T 1 ® ® BESCD7 FIDGE SUBDIV151py p A ® d ® _ O ➢ Q E7 a O �' m _ D MERIDIAN,ICAHO LAYOUT PLAN r --1 ...PP2.3 .. Page 42 Page 184 Item#7. _---.... — 0 . . •, ,, ., p , . ... 5-�--MATC�LfN��S�E3NEET PP2.3. ® .. 1 .� ` �� -•. r S® ------------------ ® k, . . :•: : '� o e n.•.••.• MATCH LINE•SEE SHEETPP2.1— �,:��;�;;;_;;;�;_;_; , � �.+ T LAY�VT PLRN rti.•.•..-..-. � ' - - - - 1 APcH ♦ n -q ... m FF'PiiF�''�'`� e`�`s•.f}�$ �^-x« -✓� p .■I �4 � o - d;'v4'G". AA2~�.. N�9.i//L. ��le- A"'•�'�°i�..�.ti/ �r arm w.'r" '•� BESWT F RIDGE SIIDDIVISI^ �rnnu . ='I_ w PP2.2-^ 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 PP3.3 g Page 43 Page 185 Item#7. -----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 186 PHASE BUILDABLE E, LC TS 77-f 65 T2 44 3 41 4 43 z 5 41 Q 6 1 37 2:2 PHASE 1 7 39 a 46 z 9 14 f z :E TOTAL UUILL)AULE 370 x LOTS 'PHA. E. PHASE......... u i pIASF LLJ7 km IN 0 1 N I I I I G EL ITIASE 3 �77771777114LLLLQ� Plan Scale-1' 300' Page 45 Item#7. D. Landscape Plan(date: 4�7tivrrvrwzv i 0/9/2 20 11 n n/2n 12/22/20)—REVISED 1• C � unm •.w 1 N •w' �iT�'' � - . w M•yA I� u - •*P: —n •_�L { MGA •r 'W'OIL I PEN 5Pp{C i EES —J R$Md � h � ,. ISY�E7, t11E[[wILUL4fi[xi5 f1TREV311f�• `x � '� xa, • :� �� tt1i AL SIRE FT TR[FS 1 ....�5 � .i -il,Y"y�'A�^� I "1r� - �• '�' � iL �•u rpm w JCO -- 1 • .':I s f ImrrrATIPN KAYIILEMWTS " To � mrumnne pvneo � L Ih+A MSAIOMN,IDAHO I . - r u�owlnccna lie+ s -- I i� .,- mrr•cR�xro�uio• awl• Wp•e+li WlX•IYn_ - LANdS[APE SITE PLAN —�� vvL1A Page 46 Page 188 Item#7. 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 1+ li' i • I; ,1 t 4_ i -- ■ I+ulr Page 47 Page 189 Item#7. _ 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 190 Item#7. Ftl...tl 1 W.sarr• ----��__ f — _ 1 1 1 • � 9 Page 49 Page 191 Item#7. 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 192 Item#7. 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 193 Item#7. 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 194 Item#7. G. Conceptual Building Elevations/Perspectives-REVISED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ` I RIDGE MEY CIA•NRHU { TOWNHOMES FOUR-PLEX FLATS Nor- jp Film AWO i S Page 53 Page 195 Item#7. 1 + Three-story Hospital Watercolor Rendering _ Mimi MERIDIAN HOSPITAL TEST FIT H ;•� MERIDIAH,IDAHO W.M2' Healthcare" Page 54 Page 196 Item#7. H. Parcel Status Exhibit 10*1 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 197 Item#7. 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 Cler-k 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 arran ed to er-eate some form of >usable RFea, parks,the mixed use guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan (pg.3 43)-. not limited to plazas, outdoof gathering areas, open space, > site; —and—seho-olls shall be provided in the Mixed Use designated portion of the outdoor seating areas-at annex-ation area does not satisfy this mquiventent as it is notpar4 of 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 netivated 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 eommere development shall be shifted to the HOFth tO fFont on the main entry dFive aisle off N. Rustie Oak Way as a be�fte-r t-f-a-u-sition to the residenees to the south. • A eofflMeFeial 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 198 Item#7. 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 199 Item#7. 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. 10. City Council deemed access for the emergency room via Rustic Oak,a collector street. meets the intent of the requirement in UDC 11-4-3-22A for Hospitals providing emergency care to have direct access on an arterial street. 11. The hospital shall not pursue beingdesignated as a trauma center per direction of City Council. 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 otherwise approved by the City and the Idaho Transportation Department. . 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. Page 58 Page 200 Item#7. 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. fl. Re design the townhaffie pei4ien of the development(i.e. Lots 16 79, Bleek 8)with P41 multi family dei,elopment(i.e. one stmetufe on one pr-epet4y with 3 of:more dwellifig tiflits) with townheme style tmits might be a development option for-this afea. A Fevised eoneept plan shall be presented P40F tO or-at the Commission hearing for review and a revised plat refleeting this ehange shall be submitted at least 10 days prior to the City Cou hearing.if private stFeets are PFOPosed with a townhome development, a mew or-g ffiVate StFeets should beffevided in aeeord with UDC 1= 3F 1.Also,provide updated density ealeuladoftsv 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 Fe-Ased plat shall be submitted at least 10 days p .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. b. Remove Lot 1,Bleek 15 as it's AC14D right of way and eaflaot be platted as a e0faffien . 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 11-3B- 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. Page 59 Page 201 Item#7. 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. development in Bleek 9 in aeeer-d with the st�a�-Fds listed i UDG 11 30 3E. k. If a dog park is proposed on Lot 1, Block 2, demonstrate compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.Ih. 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. ehanges noted above in eondition#A.2f and that ffovides fOF adequate guest parking serve this POF00H of the developmen-G. 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. Page 60 Page 202 Item#7. 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. 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. Page 61 Page 203 Item#7. 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. 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. Page 62 Page 204 Item#7. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer,an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 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. Page 63 Page 205 Item#7. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciN.orgz WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=188367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188188&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciLy.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=191860&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity 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.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=192646&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity H. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT(SID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.asp x?id=188429&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity I. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=188183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiy J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) Page 64 Page 206 Item#7. https://weblink.meridianciV.oEgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiV K. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.ory/WebLink/DocView.asp x?id=188 71 7&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity Page 65 Page 207 Item#7. X. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E): Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in accord with the provisions in Section IX. 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 City Council 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 66 Page 208 Item#7. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 City Council 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 . a limited gated-residential development-, of whieh neither are 19ropes 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 pang�Ls proposed fire lanes are bleeked due to paF*4ffg in unautherized areas 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 meets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan or the regional transportation plan. Page 67 Page 209 Item#7. 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 impair- the intended uses and ehar-actef of suffounding pfopet4ies, Page 68 Page 210 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Roberts Annexation (H-2021-0013) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1630 E. Paradise Ln. Page 211 Item#8. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI N,, AND DECISION&ORDER A, In the Matter of the Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.77 acres of land with the R-2 zoning district to develop a 6,000 SF single family residence by Benjamin Semple,Rodney Evans and Partners. Case No(s).H-2021-0013 For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 18,2021 (Findings on June 1,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(ROBERTS ANNEXATION—FILE#H-2021-0013) - I - Page 212 Item#8. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for annexation and zoning is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Development Agreement Duration The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the modification. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval period. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521,any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 18,2021 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(ROBERTS ANNEXATION—FILE#H-2021-0013) -2 Page 213 Item#8. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 1st day of June ,2021 COUNCIL PRESIDENT TREG BERNT VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-1-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson 6-1-2021 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 6-1-2021 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(ROBERTS ANNEXATION—FILE#H-2021-0013) -3 Page 214 EX H I BIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 5/18/2021 Legend --M1- - DATE: P•ojeot Lcou lion -TO: Mayor&City Council , ' r FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton,Development - r Services Manager 208-887-2211 _ t SUBJECT: H-2021-0013 Roberts Annexation -- TIE LOCATION: 1630 E. Paradise Ln - -- r_3 El 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 215 Item#8. 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 216 1 1 1 ■Ft _ + _ . �■ =�.� 11 IIIIII Z .11l .1 � 1 IIIHIIIII :�IIIII ZCCr= 11 II■ - �7 -- _ -I,==:i:�� Nan . _ ___ __ _, •� +:��, - � . . l ■ u - ■ 1 lulll '■- 1� u� 1 Cm ■ I■11■111 11111 � 1 IJ � ' ■ I�nl R rlllll - ' 1 N1 1_ I 1 IIIHIIIII � Z � � ll■ IIITifiii -� ZC7- 111 11 � �■■ 11 I. d !■ 1 �_ Item#8. 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 218 Item#8. 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 219 Item#8. 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 220 Item#8. 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 221 Item#8. 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. C. The Meridian City Council heard this item on May 18,2021.At the public hearing,,the Council moved to approve the subiect annexation and zoning requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing a. In favor: Ben Semple b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Ben Semple 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. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Whether a dead-end water main at the east property line would be a health issue. b. Location and necessity of fire hydrant c. Need for a sidewalk along E. Paradise Lane 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation. a. Affirmed a water main must be extended along E. Paradise Lane to the eastern property line and fire hydrant must be installed. b. Required an asphalt pathway be constructed along the E. Paradise Lane property frontage. Page 8 Page 222 Item#8. VII. EXHIBITSSITE PLAN(DATE: 2/26/2021) �,�.y� Mtl'6mT l2fLp0]' I --'Fn 1!!�l��ll11RR+ii - I i II II I iI: II &0. I I I �.oF I I I i I xl = I i I I i I I - zszs7s zszs ' 'i � I SEEcrIC 'ems � �ipip�'IXssa,�g?L:keyee�' I 1k'LYLYL YL�k�ytiy,,YLYLYl LI'i'{';{�;. I I t�ifi Yi{i{i{i[t�'X}�c' it I WY!!■ }'}'}'l}'l}'l}'A}'A}'A}'A}' S71 S7 FFAllF3 c{{{{{{{{{{iti i'tiy.c I I I ''ctrtrtrt'cc{ �:'ct' I dtid C d aadada4.a :-T a s a�a�a�p �4.{iisjii �Si i I � 61e't e e e i I�I I r fC a I I n-0:ye: : I LOT LIFE TO9E fffxiGhEG I °ii°si$ �f!Rx I t�ta�t.} I r I I I irerrss�:s�:s�:z I R I 'd'tid'c:d'c:dc:dti dc:dti adti I FI FROM6EG S a..ati dc.dadadddd �q' i *tlA � �1t�tZt 1t 1t 1` to Ix, fit 'Sc:{c:Kc:K�:Kcl I S tK.li1£ ,wxe, •,'sue .� I i I ah �a i I Rq�r I ti N &V � i I :ieiPi I i I I I ' �p ri�ri�ri 1 y . I an�enr��a '.z yT^S Sz uaroo�a vneoo PARADI9E LN � Page 223 Item#8. A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit(date: 2/3/2021) ANNE ATUN ROBERTS PARCELS LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 2 &3, Block 1, Heritage Subdivislon No. 2, situated in the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 32, T-uwn5hlip d North, Range 1 Ea-St, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idahu, more particularly desr-ribed as f0ows: COMMENCING at the Corner of 5e tions 30, 29, 32, & 31 monumented by a found aluminum cap as described in CP&F Instrument No. 111D98253 at the intersectfon of E.McMillan Road and N, Locust Grove Road, from ,Mich the Quarter Corner common to Sections 32 and 31 monumented by a found aluminum cap a5 described In CP&F Instrument No. 102102462 at the intersection of E. LeIghfield Drive and N, Locust Grove Road bears, South 00'33'08" Westr 2,659.05 feet; thence youth 00"33'08" West, 1,989.96 feet to#I�e POINT OF 6EGINNING; Thence along the Northerly Round8ry of Lot 2, 5outfh 89"31`13'' East, 287.63 feet to the Northwest Corner of Lot 4; Thence along the Westeriy{boundary of Lot 4, South 00"32'52" West, 3 25.00 feet to the CeTlter Line of E. Paradise Lane; Thence along said Center dine, Niarth 8 °31'13"WeA,287.65 feet to the to the Center LErtie of N. Locust Grove Road and the Westerly l3aundary of Section 32; Tip enre N*rth 00-33`0:5" East, 325,00 feet to The POONT OF ReGlN ING Containing 2.146 acres, more or less. End of desc6pborl Prepared By, s r 1P Ronald _ Hodge 7 Et0�R�� 0 F 0H: Page 10 Page 224 Item#8. D 29— — — '.—Road ANNEXATION MAP lZ 77 LEGEND TTT AININLYATION LINE jll � —S�FTZN y -T-F- MERIDIAN CITY UMITS gq ANNEXATION AREA FRIDIAN MY LIMIFTS —FT- Rae tan@ f-1-7 T T r- - tp, L-Li -L T- r -F T-i-i--�)2 I I I I I I lu I I L -L L-J-1 JI I I I I- - — — I f L - 2 r J!r 00-1 1 3 1 RFr ERIDIAN CITY LJMIT2�� —�32=Lelghfie -DIlv—e 70 0 1 N QT�E.7HIS DRAWING 15 A VISUAL R E FERENCE ONLY. Page I I Item#8. 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. d. The applicant shall extend an 8-inch water main from the intersection of Locust Grove and Paradise Lane along Paradise Lane to the eastern property line and a fire hydrant shall be installed. e. The applicant shall construct a detached asphalt pathway along their E. Paradise Ln frontage. f. 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 extended into Paradise Lane to the East property line. 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 Page 12 Page 226 Item#8. 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. 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. Page 13 Page 227 Item#8. 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. 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 Page 14 Page 228 Item#8. surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224605&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr--1 D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=223933&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224834&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. PARKINS NOURSE IRRIGATION ASSOCATION https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224834&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv 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 Council 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 Council 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 Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Council considered 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 Council 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 Page 15 Page 229 Item#8. The Council 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 16 Page 230 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Addendum to the Development Agreement Between the City of Meridian and Mark Bigelow (Owner/Developer) for 1450 W. Ustick MDA (H-2021-0016), Located on the Northeast Corner of N. Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. Page 231 Item#9. ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-085890 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=10 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 06/02/2021 11:15 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: I City of Meridian 2. Mark Bigelow, Owner/Developer TfllS ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is dated this I St day of June .2021;("ADDENDUM"), by and between City of Meridian,a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho("C-ITY"), whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 and Mark Bigelow,("OWNER/DEVELOPER")whose address is 1716 N.Stagno Bello Place, Eagle, ID 83616. RECITALS A. OWNER/DEVELOPER has submitted an application for a Modification to the Development Agreement recorded October 29, 2014 as Instrument # 2014- 088000 in Ada County Records to replace the existing concept plan with the submitted development plan. The Meridian City Council approved said application with Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as in the attached Exhibit"A" B. CITY and OWNER/DEVELOPER now desire to amend said Development Agreement,which terms have been approved by the MeridianCity Council in accordance with Idaho Code Section 67-6511. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth -herein,the parties agree as follows: l. OWNER/DEVELOPER shall be bound by the terms ofthe Development Agreement recorded as Instrument# 2014-088000, except as specifically amended as follows: a. N. Linder Road access is prohibited in accord with UDC I 1-3A-3. Access to W. Ustick Road shall be restricted to right-in/right-out. b. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations shown in Exhibit V.0 of the Staffeport attached to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as in the attached Exhibit"A C. The Owner/Developer shall submit an alternative compliance application " concurrentwith the first certificate of zoning compliance application to allow the applicant to construct a 20-foot wide street buffer along Linder and Ustick Roads in accord with UDC 1 1-313-7C. Per the approved Council Waiver at the public hearing,a 15-footwide landscape buffer shall be constructed along the north and east boundary. This buffer shall include a 5-foot pathway that connects to the Tetherow Crossing to the east, a 5-foot sidewalk in Edington Commons and the 5-foot attached sidewalk on Linder Road and Ustick Road AI)DEN IJM TO DEVELOPMENT AGR1 EMENT-11-2021.0016—1450 W.Ustick-"MDA Pa e 1 oF3 Page 232 Item#9. AND landscaped with trees that touch at maturity in accord with UDC 1 1-313- 9C. d. Owner/Developer shall extend the public road from Edington Commons (Parcel 4S0436336054) into the subject site per ACHD policy. 2. That Owner/Developer agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Property shall be subject to de-annexation if the Owner/Developer,ortheirassigns,heirs,or successor shall not meet the conditions of this Addendum,and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian as herein provided. 3. This Addendum shall be binding upon and insure to the benefit of the parties'respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Addendum shall be binding on the Owner/Developer of the Property,each subsequent owner and any other person(s)acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereon and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees, upon written request ofOwner/Developer,to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Addendum if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion,had determined that Owner/Developer have fully performed its obligations under this Addendum. 4. If any provision of this Addendum is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Addendum and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 5. This Addendum sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition, and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relativeto the subject matter herein,and thereare no promises, agreements, conditions or under-standing, either oral or written, express or implied, between Owner/Developer and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided,no subsequent alteration,amendment,change oraddition to this Addendum shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant,with respect to City,to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City. a. Except as herein provided, no condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development of the subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended within the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s)in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 6. This Addendum shall be effective as of the date herein above written. 7. Except as amended by the Addendums,all terms of the previous Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. ADDENDUM TO DEiVELOPMEN'T'AGREEMENT-E-1-2021.0016-- 1450 W.Ustich-MDA Page 2 of Page 233 Item#9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF.the parties have herein executed this Addendum and made it effective as hereinabove provided. OWNER/DEVELOPE L Ma Bigelow CITY OF MERIDIAN Attest: Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-1-2021 Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-1-2021 STATE OF IDAHO ) )ss. County of Ada ) On thi day of_W W� ,2021.before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State..personally appeared Mark Bigelow known or identified to me to be the person who executed the instrument above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this r TAMMY L JONES COMMISSION NUM13EFI 2018-005T (VOTARY PUBLIC State of Idaho o blic br ho 2,0 My Commission Expires 01/12/2024 Residing at: —� — My commission . pires: STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this 1 St day of June ,2021,before me,a Notary Public.personally appeared Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson,known or identified tome to be the Mayor and Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City,and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Meridian, Idaho Commission expires: 3-2 -20 2 ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-fI-2021.0016—1450 W.Ustick-MDA Page 3 of 3 Page 234 Item#9. Exhibit A STAFF REPORT C: E IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 4/27/2021 Legend 4 DATE: p 0 Project Location CCL� TO: Mayor&City Council i_i City Limits — Planned Parcels R-4 R-$ FROAM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner h; � �� 208-884-5533 Li LP RUT SUBJECT: H-2021-0016 R-1-5 1450 W. Ustick MDA R1 RAT RUT C-C LOCATION: The site is located at 1450 W. Ustick R � RUT °o ° Road,the northeast corner ofN. RI TN-R Linder Road and W. Ustick Road, in ° _ R-8 the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 36, o - ® Township 4N., Range 1W. R RUT— I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development Agreement Modification to amend the Sugarman Subdivision Development Agreement (Inst. #2014-088000)to replace the existing concept plan with the submitted development plan,by Mark Bigelow,MRS Landholdings. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Applicant: Same as Owner B. Owner: Mark Bigelow,MRS Landholdings— 1716 N. Stagno Bello Place,Eagle,ID 83616 C. Representative: Same as Owner III. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes to amend the Sugarman Subdivision Development Agreement (Inst. #2014- 088000) to replace the existing concept plan and amend or add new provisions consistent with a new development plan. See Section V for Staff s recommended changes to the existing DA provisions. History: The subject site was annexed in 2014 under AZ-14-007 and was approved for a short plat at the same time consisting of four(4)building lots(SHP-14-00 1).The property is still shown as a singular lot so the plat was never recorded and is no longer valid. However, the DA and annexation ordinance were approved which means the property could develop with C-C uses consistent with the approved concept plan. Page 1 Page 235 Item#9. Exhibit A Concept Plan: The concept plan in the existing DA depicts 3 buildings; a gas station, a multi-tenant building,and a bank with a drive-through. The existing DA restricted the location of the drive-through through the hearing process. In addition, the existing concept plan shows a connection to the north directly in line with the Ustick Road access and shows a restricted access point to Linder Road. See Exhibit B for the existing concept plan. The new concept plan depicts eight (8), single-story, multi-tenant office buildings that could contain those uses allowed in the C-C zoning district.However,the Applicant has indicated that they only allow office uses within their developments. The site plan maintains the arterial access points shown in the approved concept plan but proposes a new connection point to the north due to recent approvals that were not known at the time of annexation in 2014. The proposed office complex also shows green spaces between all of the buildings creating a commercial mew and breaks up the building pads. Because of the proposed site plan, general location of the site, and limited accesses into the site, the probable uses will be personal and professional services, daycare group, flex space, information industry, retail uses, and healthcare/social services so Staff does not find it necessary to specifically limit the uses through the DA. See Exhibit C below for the proposed development plan. More specific review of the site plan will be done with a future CZC application. Access: Despite the existing access points being approved with the original approvals and concept plan in 2014, the adjacent property to the north has received plat approval and includes a public road stub on the subject site's northern boundary that was not part of the original approvals. The submitted concept plan shows the public road terminating on site via the commercial drive aisles requiring a public access easement on this property.This is not consistent with ACHD policy and requires the road to terminate in a cul-de-sac unless the applicant requests a waiver to this policy which may require ACHD Commission action. Per ACHD staff, this waiver cannot be requested until a future CZC application is submitted for review and approval. ACHD does not provide action or conditions of approval on development agreement applications. If the applicant does not obtain the waiver, it does affect the design of the proposed concept plan and would require a redesign to accommodate a cul-de- sac. A recommended DA provision requires compliance with ACHD policy. This would allow the applicant to move forward with executing the amended DA and submitting a CZC application for ACHD to review and provide the necessary determination on the extension of the approved stub street and access to Ustick Road. Furthermore,the access to Linder shown on the submitted site plan does not meet ACHD offset policy nor UDC 11-3A-3. This access point should be closed with the future CZC application submittal. The need for this access is further mitigated with an access through Edington Commons to the north that leads to a safer access to Linder Road. The closure of the Linder access on this site also furthers the integration of this site with the residential to the north which helps the project meet the integration desired on mixed-use properties like this. Waiver Request: In addition to the request for the DA Modification, the Applicant is requesting a Council Waiver to reduce the required landscape buffers along the northern and eastern property lines from 25 feet to 15 feet. feet. The properties to the north and east of the site are approved for residential developments which require a 25-foot buffer for the C-C zoning district, according to the UDC. The Applicant is requesting to reduce the landscape buffers adjacent to the residential developments because in addition to the buffers themselves,the site plan shows a drive aisle and parking spaces between the rear-yard fences of future homes and the commercial buildings.Overall,the buildings should be at least 45 feet from the eastern property line and 60 feet from the northern property line. Within the proposed landscape buffers to the residential developments the Applicant is proposing a micro-path throughout both buffers that connect to the sidewalks along Linder and Ustick.These paths will also connect to the sidewalks that will lead into Edington Commons to the north and a future pedestrian connection from the east(Tetherow Crossing). Furthermore,the Applicant is proposing single-story buildings and with the proposed pedestrian elements maintain the integration desired within a mixed-use designation. Staff Page 2 Page 236 Item#9. Exhibit A recommends the landscaping in these buffers be denser to help ensure adequate buffering—at a minimum, the planted trees should touch at maturity. Therefore, Staff finds the reduced landscape buffers along the northern and eastern boundaries offer an equal buffer to the code required 25-foot width when combined with the overall site design. The additional area of buffer that is shown as less than the required width is that area adjacent to the arterial intersection of Linder and Ustick. The only reason for this buffer being less than the 25 feet required is to make the site design work efficiently. Street buffer reductions require Alternative Compliance (a director determination) to be approved and should be applied for with the first CZC application. On a property located near a hard corner such as this it is more appropriate to place the buildings closer to the corner itself.In addition,requiring the 25-foot buffer in this area would not gain the City any measurable benefits. For these reasons, Staff supports the Applicant's request and does not see the change in buffer width as becoming detrimental to the adjacent developments or to the general welfare. IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the modification to the DA (Inst. #2014-088000) as recommended by Staff s analysis above and with the specific changes below. B. The Meridian City Council heard these items on April 27,2021. At the public hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject Development Agreement Modification request and the Council Waiver request for a reduced landscape buffer along the north and east boundaries of the site. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearin_g_: a. In favor: Mark Bigelow.Applicant b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Mark Bigelow d. Written testimony:None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony_ . a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Reason why Staff did not restrict any uses on the site through the DA Mod: b. Demand for office space following the pandemic: c. Pedestrian access to and from development but also within the project, specifically any pedestrian access between the buildings(Applicant confirmed only green space between the buildings and no paved pedestrian accessesl: d. Termination of the public road from Edington Commons and how that could function if e. ACHD does not approve the future waiver request: 4. City_ Council change(s)to the Staff Report: a. None Page 3 Page 237 Item#9. Exhibit A V. EXHIBITS A. Development Agreement provisions from the existing DA(Inst. #2014-088000): Existing Provisions: 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 5.1.1 Direct lot access to W.Ustick Road and N.Linder Road is prohibited except for the access points approved with the plat in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Access to N.Linder Road shall be restricted to right-in/right-out and access to W. Ustick Road shall be determined by ACHD. 5.1.2. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan shown on the landscape plan in Exhibit A.2, except for the drive-thru shall be relocated(ifproposed)internally and not be located along the east or north boundaries ofthe site adjacent to existing and future residential properties. 5.1.3. A drive-thin establishment shall not be located along the north or east boundaries of the site adjacent to existing and future residential uses. Staff s Recommended Changes: 5.1.1: "N. Linder Road access is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Access to W.Ustick Road shall be restricted to right-in/right-out only. 5.1.2: "Future development of this site shall be generally consistent the conceptual development plan and building elevations shown on the l ndseape plan in Exhibit V.C_, exeept for-the drive thpa shall be r-eloea4ed(if proposed) intemally and not be leea4ed along the east or-aet-4-h betindafies of the site adjaeent to existing and fittofe residential pr-epel4ies." 5.1.3: "A dr-ive t1wu establishm&4 shall fiet be leeated along the aet4h or-east boundaries of the site .,djaeent t existing and ftt�ur-e residential uses." Add Provision: "The owner/developer shall submit an alternative compliance application concurrent with the first certificate of zoning compliance application to allow the applicant to construct a 20-foot wide street buffer along Linder and Ustick Roads in accord with UDC 11-3B- 7C. Per the approved Council Waiver at the public hearing,A 15-foot wide landscape buffer shall be constructed along the north and east boundary. This buffer shall include a 5-foot pathway that connects to the Tetherow Crossing to the east,the 5-foot sidewalk in Edington Commons and the 5-foot attached sidewalk on Linder Road and Ustick Road.AND landscaped with trees that touch at maturity in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C." Add provision: "Applicant shall extend the public road from Edington Commons(Parcel #S0436336054)into the subject site per ACHD policy." Page 4 Page 238 Item#9. Exhibit A B. Existing DA Concept Plan: SUGARMAN COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION N NyOYr tl,ADA i;PU H,V,10M110 I lI _ 1 I - - I r - _Ii 1 { 111L I]rive-thru C] �r sTA n 1 3 aot approved p I 1 I S UI1 CR6l We 92 7 I 1 I Page 5 Page 239 Item#9. Exhibit A C. Proposed Development Plan: "MOFEMAUM n A Linder Road - — -IN; OXX- - m LLI 20 1 gym° m : c g a ii z z i — /� ro Is - -fs sl FT ez9 z9 . .� DIY1IATTFO ., .. _a- r r r.z r'r i Page 6 Page 240 ® Exhibit ConceptualD. Elevations: ��ri �,. 11 ' ��r Af.... �11 ' � �■ t Page 7 n{�i �r. ':ice=¢ � ■1 ■�� . _ � � -. �� d f ' i Item#10. E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Cooperative Agreement Between the City of Meridian and the Idaho Transportation Department for Landscaping Maintenance (Project No. A019(944), Key No. 19944), Located at US20/26, Locust Grove Rd. to Eagle Rd. Page 242 Item#10. Mayor Robert E. Simison E IDIA N�- Treg BeCity Council Members: rnt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault H O Luke Cavener Liz Strader MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Simison and City Council FROM: Mike Barton,Parks Superintendent DATE: May 21,2021 RE: Cooperative Agreement-Landscaping Maintenance The State has completed a project to widen US20/26 from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road, identified as project no. A019944. At the request of the City,the State has installed a multi-use path on the Meridian side that is separated from the curb. The City has requested this buffer area between the curb and the path be landscaped. The State has agreed to install landscaping(sod and sprinklers)at no cost to the City, provided the City will maintain the strip. The area to be maintained by the City is 1,000 feet long and is only in front of 4 county parcels. The rest of the strip is in front of already developed property and will be maintained by those owners. Should the 4 parcels adjacent to this strip redevelop,the landscaping will be maintained by the new owner/HOA. The yearly cost to mow, irrigate, and fertilize this strip is $4,500 and is already in our proposed FY22 base budget. We respectfully request approval of the attached cooperative agreement. Page 243 Item#10. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE) PROJECT NO. A019 (944) US20/26, LOCUST GROVE TO EAGLE ROAD KEY NO. 19944 PARTIES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1St day of June r 2021 by and between the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, hereafter called the State, and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, hereafter called the City. PURPOSE The State has programmed a project to widen US20/26 from Locust Grove to Eagle Road, identified herein as Project No. A019 (944) , Key No. 19944 . The project includes installation of landscaping and sprinkler systems as shown on the attached Exhibit A. The City has agreed to provide maintenance of the landscaping and sprinkler system installed as part of the project. This Agreement will set out the terms of this arrangement. Authority for this Agreement is established by Section 40-317 of the Idaho Code. The Parties agree as follows: 1 . The State will design and construct this project, including landscaping and sprinkler system as shown on the attached Exhibit A. 2 . The City will, upon completion of construction, assume responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and sprinkler system along with the existing well, as follows: • Operate and maintain the sprinkler systems . Maintain sprinklers so that they do not wet the roadway. • Maintain landscaping in a healthy condition, adequately watered and fertilized. • Utilize State approved highway safety procedures for City personnel during all phases of landscape maintenance. 3. This Agreement shall become effective on the first date mentioned above and shall remain in full force and effect until Cooperative Agreement (Landscaping) US20126, Locust Grove to Eagle Rd Key No. 19944 Page Page 244 Item#i0. amended or replaced upon the mutual written consent of the City and the State. EXECUTION This Agreement is executed for the State by its District Engineer and executed for the City by the Mayor, attested to by the City Clerk, with the imprinted corporate Seal of the City of Meridian. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ' strict Engineer ATT ST: "`""` CITY OF MERIDIAN 6iL City Cle k Chris Jo-fin-son 6-1-2021 Mayor Robert . SiAiison 6-1-2021 (Seal) By regular meeting on 6-1-2021 cf:19944 Coop Meridian.docx Cooperative Agreement (Landscaping) US20126, Locust Grave to Eagle Rd Hey No. 19944 Page 2 Page 245 Item#10. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Idaho Transportation Department, hereafter called the STATE, has submitted an Agreement stating obligations of the STATE and the CITY OF MERIDIAN, hereafter called the CITY, for maintenance of landscaping on US20/26 from Locust Grove to Eagle Road; and WHEREAS, the STATE is responsible for obtaining compliance with laws, standards and procedural policies in the development, construction and maintenance of improvements made to the Federal-aid Highway System when there is federal participation in the costs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1 . That the Agreement for Federal Aid Highway Project A019 (944) is hereby approved. 2 . That the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the CITY. 3 . That duly certified copies of the Resolution shall be furnished to the Idaho Transportation Department . CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a Resolution passed at a regular, duly called special (X-out non-applicable term) meeting of the City Council, City of Meridian, held on June 1 st 2021 (Seal) City Clerk Chris Johnson 6-1-2021 Cooperative Agreement (Landscaping) US20/26, Locust Grove to Eagle Rd Key No. 19944 Page 3 Page 246 Item#10. EXHIBIT A T4N. ME, BA. SEC 20 1 W� la ? /us17$ w J rn � I - - I jrI w > Luu I To � I r rr, I HE' u] I E. 0 J SCOW-- L"-8130' x 1 k 1 I I I i t (Existing W"ID 7'&a"er with Sod and S r+�RlbrS Irrigo;ed From '�'lellt4,IG Acres) I aF US 20126 rw— Iw R,w ' I RJ w Raw fw �L - Par:el8 Pc ce19 PC cel LO 13d p/L- W �WNONWKC 29 aLd} 77r I I Ia 1 I� a I— — — — � - - 1 — — I — - - — — — — — I Ty - - — — — PfL — - -J - - — — — — I Gty Of ADA L �sDA iL: o Meridion County Cown.Y -:<C LEGEND Ma�nteaunae Arso {Soo and Spr6*ers) • Exist � well I Locust Grove to Eagle Idaho Transportation Department Cooperative Agreement (Landscaping) US20/26, Locust Grove to Eagle Rd Key No. 19944 Page 4 Page 247 I SWItem#10. 4SW4SEC 20 V� SE SEC eorde SEC 2Q) Sheet�Y I 212-011A FIBERWATTLEr.swppp oos 221.00 FT 783+70.00(95.00 R)-785+80.40 Limits of T4N, R1E, B.M. �" I (93.37 R) Disturbance 212-095A 576.00 FT 784+06.13(96.00 R) 786+16.34 (313.00 R) .................. ............................ 784+34 455.00 FT 784+34.68(155.86 R)- /� 785+76.44(163.70 R) N783 784 \ 7 8 786 7 0 57.00 FT 784+74.16(145.80 R)- + US 20/26 784+91.01 (148.02 R) o0 C/L & Section Line S89°26'46"E (See Irrigation 196.00 FT 784+74.82(193.67 R) Sheets for r- 785+56.54(162.65 R) Q I Q 41.00 FT 784+97.04 148.84 R Sprinklers in ( )- 2669 26 Q New Sod Areas) 785+37.62(154.55 R) w I / 213-005A I w 163.00 FT 785+12.10(110.89 R) z y v 651-OIOA z 785+96.34(165.18 R) J 7) Ss -095A N I 96.00 FT 786+10.00(93.10 R)-787+00.00 QI SS SS SS SS SS Ss SS C. S I Q 212-095A INLET PROTECTION N g � 1.00 EA 785+43.00 58.00 R 1.00 EA 785+50.00 30.00 L �� AV �� y6 �a �o 213-005A TOPSOIL(6") N 64.00 CY 782+50.00(58.83 R)-785+90.00 o �aa) 784+0 R) i 230.00 CY 784+01.11 (80.50 R) 786+21.35 (318.00 R) Limits of �8437.00 CY 784+19.65(152.98 R)- Disturbance 785+99.56(157.82 R) 13.00 CY 786+10.00-787+00.00 66.00 R Limits of 21.00 CY 786+21.14-787+00.00 76.00 R ° ° ° ° ° ° °v ° ° Disturbance 621-005A SEED BED PREPARATION 213-005A ° °° ° ° °�°° 0.28 ACRE 784+01.11 (80.50 R)-786+21.35 318.00 R621-005A ° ° ° °° ° °`�° ° ° ° o `� ° ° ° ) ° ° °° ° ° ° ° 0.52 ACRE 84+19.65(152.98 R)- 621-015A ° ° 785+99.56(157.82 R) 621-015A ° ° ° ° o ° ° ° ° ° ° 0.03 ACRE 786+21.14-787+00.00 76.00 R 621-035A ° NW4NW4SEC 29 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° NE4NW4SEC 29 621-01OA SEEDING(TYPE 1) °° ° ° °° 0.03 ACRE 786+21.14-787+00.00 76.00 R } ° ° ° 621-OIOB SEEDING(TYPE 2) ° ° ° ° ° 0.28 ACRE 784+01.11 (80.50 R)-786+21.35 o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 0 ° ° ° ° ° ° (318.00 R) a ° 0 . ° 212-011A 0.52 ACRE 784+19.65(152.98 R)- w °° °° ° ° °° ° ° 785+99.56(157.82 R) ° ° 0 ° ° ° ° ° 621-015A MULCHING N o 0 0 ON ° 0.28 ACRE 784+01.11 (80.50 R)-786+21.35 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° (318.00 R) .0 ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 0.52 ACRE 784+19.65(152.98 R)- ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 785+99.56(157.82 R) ° ° 0.03 ACRE 786+21.14-787+00.00 76.00 R o ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° °°° ° °° ° ° ° S912-05C SP LANDSCAPE REPAIR 621-035A FERTILIZING ° ° ° ° °° °° ° ° °° 28.00 SY 783+70.00(80.44 R)-783+87.36 0.28 ACRE 784+01.11 (80.50 R)-786+21.35 ° ° (95.00 R) (318.00 R) LEGEND ° ° °° ° ° ° ° 15.00 SY 783+91.48(80.50 R)-784+01.13 0.52 ACRE 784+19.65(152.98 R)- o , ° ° ° °° ° ° ° ° (95.00 R) 785+99.56(157.82 R) o �� NEW SOD AREA ° ° ° ° ° ° 0 0.03 ACRE 786+21.14-787+00.00 76.00 R 8� � �� 8 8 LANDSCAPE REPAIR ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 651-01OA LAWN CONST(SODDED) 3285.00 SF 782+50.00(58.83 R)-785+90.00 ea AREA ° ° �� o �3 a (66.00 R) y ° ° ° SEED & MULCH ° ° ° 2oizs N 3 W 627.00 SF 786+10.00 787+00.00 66.00 R ° AREA ° U ° O o o. 0. 0 ° 0 W W TOP DRESSING �o rY r IDSILT FENCING ° ° °° ° ° KE FIBER WATTLE ° ° ° 0 ° 7 0 0 ° 0 0 ° o 0 %j INLET PROTECTION ° Scale (Feet) S�pNAL 0 ° 5 REVISIONS DESIGNED PROJECT NO. SWPP PLAN a �' KMD SCALES SHOWN IDA H O DAyp English 2046 70 m N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION CMM ARE FOR PRINTS III X ONLYT1 ��®��®� ? US 20�26, , COUNTY ADA �9 DESIGN CHECKED CHINDEN' a DETAILED CADD FILE NAME DEPARTMENT A9TATIOND�p A019(944) LOCUST GROVE TO EAGLE KEY NUMBER KMR 19944-sw -006.sht m DRAWING CHECKED DRAWING DATE: STA. 782+50 TO STA. 787+00 19944 �QyM Page 248 PSA September 2019 Pa ra m et rix SHEET 159 OF 275 Item#10. T4N, R1E, B.M. 212-011A FIBER WATTLEeetBorder.swppp 007 248.00 FT 787+00.00-789+47.74 88.00 R 103.00 FT 789+97.74-791+00.00 88.00 R SE4SW4SEC 20 212-095A INLET PROTECTION 1.00 EA 787+75.00 58.00 R 1.00 EA 790+25.00 58.00 R 1.00 EA 790+25.00 13.50 R 213-005A TOPSOIL(6") 51.00 CY 787+00.00(76.00 R)-789+47.74 (88.34 R) 35.00 CY 787+00.00(58.83 R)-789+54.95 (66.00 R) 15.00 CY 789+90.06-791+00.00 66.00 R 621-005A SEED BED PREPARATION J 0.06 ACRE 787+00.00(76.00 R)-789+47.74 a (88.34 R) 0 N CM621-01DA SEEDING(TYPE 1) 0.06 ACRE 787+00.00(76.00 R)-789+47.74 a (88.34 R) 621-015A MULCHING N I i 0.06 ACRE 787+00.00(76.00 R)-789+47.74 (88.34 R) ki C a2II C I C a?JI C bbI C b2II C 2:NT C NNI C N111 C NNI1 R/W R w R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W 0.06 A FERTILIZING �r�r�r�-�-�r�r�r �r �r �r �r 0.06 ACRE 87+00.00(76.00 R) 789+47.74 (88.34 R) - - - D Limits of isturbance I 651-01 DA LAWN CONST(SODDED) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _ _ � 1796.00SF787+00.00(58.83R)-789+54.95 (66.00 R) 0 7 :78:)8�� g g 7 9 0 7 0 756.00 S F 789+90.06-791+00.00 66.00 R + US�20/2�6 S912-05C SP LANDSCAPE REPAIR 00 C/L & Section Line S89°26'46"E 212-095A 0) 114.00 SY 789+97.73-791+00.00 78.00 R �I 261 - � (nl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IV) w w 212-095A / V, 2I - x- 1W - - -f/W - ---- ---- --R1W ---- -- --- -R/-W- ----x- R/W N R/W I2 c i 1 / / x / < m I 41 S912-05C o a�i�r Riw w Revy as O ° •� 8 8g G Q . . & Wr MEMO EkM % -X- LEGEND Limits of x T - -T - -T- TI Disturbance 212-011A NEW SOD AREA -41 m - - - - - - - -212_011A - 213-005A 213-005A W 8� � �8 8 AREA REPAIR 0 651-010A 621-005A W Limits of G Disturbance �& ° ° SEED & MULCH m (See rriga ion 621-010A � I 7�. I- - �w o N � ° ° ° ° ° o Sheets for 621-015A `� w AREA 3 Bir wa :aec.;'gbae„g;...?>:q;<,:wA.yEeg;, N I Sprinklers in 621-035A �� =3 W ;•. ,, . �• New Sod Areas) I 2oizs N a ;> :::d= o 'e4'': ;" TOP DRESSING 213-005A w o SILT FENCING o NON W4SEC 29 651-OIOA d oY Za FIBER WATTLE ID o (See Irrigation N �a W3 ' INLET PROTECTION Sheets for �Ymee m `� Sprinklers in F New Sod Areas) Scale (Feet) �pNAL S 0 c 20 0 20 40 REVISIONS DESIGNED SCALES SHOWN ��][�[® DAyp PROJECT NO. SWPP PLAN English a 2046 KMD m N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION CMM ARE FOR PRINTS III X ONLY71 TRANSPORTATION TION ? � US `20�26, , COUNTY ADA �9 DESIGN CHECKED CHINDEN' a DETAILED CADD FILE NAME DEPARTMENT A9TATIOND�p A019(944) LOCUST GROVE TO EAGLE KEY NUMBER KMR 19944_sw _007.sht m DRAWING CHECKED DRAWING DATE: STA. 787+00 TO STA. 791+00 19944 �QyM page 249 PSA September 2019 Pa ra m et rix SHEET 160 OF 275 Item#10. T4N, R1E, B.M. 212-011A FIBER WATTLE eetBorderswpppoos 138.00 FT 791+00.00(88.00 R)-792+19.48 (106.00 R) SE4 SW4 SEC 20 282.00 FT 792+45.00(96.00 10.0 R)00 ) 83.00 FT 793+81.00-794+26.00 36.00 L 212-095A INLET PROTECTION 1.00 EA 793+25.00 58.00 R 1.00 EA 793+25.00 14.33 R a 1.00 EA 793+25.00 30.00 L 213-005A TOPSOIL(6") 23.00 CY 791+00.00(76.00 R)-792+18.32 (101.72 R) 16.00 CY 791+00.00(58.83 R)-792+15.00 - (66.00 R) 30.00 CY 792+35.00(78.27 R)-793+97.74 - - - - - - - - - - - - - (86.08 R) a I 23.00 CY 792+35.00(66.00 R)-794+00.00 (58.83 R) 212-011A S912-05C I 0.03 ACRE 791E 00.00(776.00 R)D BED PREPARATION 92+ 8 32 s I (101.72 R) a 0.04 ACRE 792+35.00(78.27 R)-793+97.74 �a (86.08 R) aat c aai c aai c aai c aai c aai c aai c as c a c R/W R/W R/W R/W R/W I 621-01OA SEEDING(TYPE 1) �� 0.03ACRE791+00.00(76.00R)-792+18.32 (101.72R) Limits of Disturbance I 0.04 ACRE 792+35.00(78.27 R)-793+97.74 A I (86.08 R) (See Irrigation v 621-015A MULCHING o Sheets for �, o 0 1 792 793 cn 79 7 0 0.03 ACRE 791+00.00(76.00 R) 792+18.32 20/26 Sprinklers in 212-095A + (101.72 R) a, New Sod Areas) w 0.04 ACRE 792+35.00(78.27 R)-793+97.74 C ction Line S89°26'46"E 213-005A 41 � (86.08 R) 13 - - - - - 651-010A v Q 621-035A FERTILIZING �� - - 26 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - �� 0.03ACRE791+00.00(76.00R)-792+18.32 + z_ i w (101.72 R) y i v 14 0.04 ACRE 792+35.00(78.27 R)-793+97.74 ri U R/W $ R/W /R/W R/W I _ _ Fi�� aal �S aat �S 0 651-01OA LAWN CONST(SODDED) w Q i1 Q 806.00 SF 791+00.00(58.83 R) 792+15.00 x 7, x J- 1164.00 SF 792+35.00 66.00 R -794+00.00 m / �a �� o �� (58.83 R) ( ) Z I S912-05C SP LANDSCAPE REPAIR 0 o Rialy )JMT iw rtiw R/W42.00 SY 791+00.00-791+37.73 88.00 R i; 6 0 52.00 SY 793+91.00(36.31 L)-794+16.00 < 7Disturban P-- -P - - -x -- x- P/Fx---- - --x----x--P�x (36.27L) T - , T - T- - T - -T- - TLimit 212-011A Sound Wall Disturbance pp 213-005A &eIrrigaionaNans LEGEND for Details �& 621-005A y o 'o a 621-OIOA ��o NEW SOD AREA 00 o ar w L JK ¢ W< J N a 621-015A a� � �$ a LANDSCAPE REPAIR `� �� ,:C 621-035A �8 AREA 20i26 " 3 W w W Z o Q o 0 0 o SEED & MULCH ;�'< o AREA a =:a ,a TOP DRESSING N �a Z3 KEYmee NE4NW4SEC 29 SILT FENCING Scale (Feet) 5\ NAL FIBER WATTLE 5 <p� F w �) INLET PROTECTION 20 0 20 40 O� GIST C� REVISIONS DESIGNED KMD SCALES SHOWN IDA H O DAyp PROJECT N0. SWPP PLAN English � 2046 � m N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION CMM ARE FOR PRINTS III X ONLY71 TRANSPORTATION ? � US `20�26, , COUNTY ADA �9 ��^��P� DESIGN CHECKEDCHINDEN' a DETAILED CADD FILE NAME DEPARTMENT A9TATIOND�p A019(944) LOCUST GROVE TO EAGLE KEY NUMBER KMR 19944_sw _008.sht m DRAWING CHECKED DRAWING DATE: STA. 791+00 TO STA. 795+00 19944 �QyM page 250 PSA September 2019 Pa ra m et rix SHEET 161 OF 275 Item#10. IRRIGATION SCHEDULE GENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION DETAIL 1. All work shall be performed by persons familiar with this type of work and under the supervision of a foreman familiar with this type of work. The foreman shall remain on-site during all BUBBLER SHT. 190 landscape irrigation installations. Fixed flow rate (0.25-0.5 GPM) Flood Bubbler. 6 1401 1402 (NO MORE THAN 20 PER SIDE OF RISER) 2. Comply with all local codes and ordinances. S TURF ROTARY — Non—Potable #3, SHT. 190 3. Verify locations of all underground utilities prior to trenching 4" Pop—Up with in—head check valves, 45 psi pressure regulation operations. 5'x14' Side strip nozzles 4. Install irrigation system per design and adjust irrigation head li layout to fit field conditions, as necessary. TURF ROTARY — Non—Potable #3, SHT. 190 O $r 4" Pop—Up with in—head check valves, 45 psi pressure regulation 5. Irrigation plan is diagrammatic. Mainlines, laterals, and wires shall Adjustable arc and full circle nNozzles be placed within landscaped area whenever possible (sleeving shall be placed under all paved areas). 6. Do Not install mainline directly under path. Mainline shall be SHRUB ROTARY — Non—Potable #3, SHT. 190 located adjacent to back of path in landscape area. Sleeving g 12" Pop—Up with in—head check valves, 45 psi pressure regulation shall be required as noted on plans where crossings occur Adjustable arc and full circle nozzles. 7. Install no more than one tee or elbow off of mainline per remote m control valve and no more than one remote control valve per SYMBOL MANUFACTURER/MODEL/DESCRIPTION DETAIL valve box. Do not use manifold systems. 8. Coordinate installation/operation of irrigation system with other CONTROL VALVE #2, SHT. 190 trades. 1", 1-1/2", and 2" durable chlorine—resistant valves for reclaimed water applications with scrubber 9. Place "non-potable purple locator ribbon 3" above protective layer mechanism technology, purple flow control of soil on mainline trench only. handle, and pressure regulator module. � 10. Pipe lines shall be placed so that text on pipe is face-up. BUBBLER CONTROL VALVE #2, SHT. 190 11. Verify 'working' psi of existing irrigation system at maximum (SIZE TBD BASED ON FIELD ADJUSTMENTS) operating flow prior to irrigation installation and notify Engineer of i Size bubbler zones with no more than 40 gpm per zone. any deficiency (60 psi assumed). No more than 20 bubblers per side of riser. o Shrub = .25 gpm 12. Ensure that irrigation overspray is minimized onto paved areas or e .$, Tree = .50 gpm fences. r13. Submit as-built drawings per Specifications. 3 g Valve CallOut 14. There is an existing irrigation mainline paralleling and potentially Valve Number conflicting with the new soundwall. Protect or relocate the existing mainline wherever possible and replace fittings, and control # #. Valve Flow (GPM) valve wire damaged during construction. Sleeve all replaced mainlines where located underneath paved surfaces. #" Valve Size 15. Keep existing irrigation controllers operational so they continue to irrigate existing system south of the soundwall. The new Quick Coupler — With purple non—potable cover. #2, SHT. 189 controller is to control the new irrigation north of the wall only. 16. ENSURE THAT BRISTOL NEIGHBORHOOD IRRIGATION SOUTH OF SOUND w Gate Valve (same size as mainline) #1, SHT. 189 WAIL REMAINS OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTION. REPAIR 6 Ductile Iron Gate Isolation Valve. OP Nut. Some size as pipe. EXISTING MAINLINE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AS NECESSARY. DURING CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE EINSTOL NEIGHeoRHooD IRRIGATION g IC Controller —20 station capable commercial controller. REMAINS OPERATIONAL Mounted on a metal pedestal. Flow sensing and water management capabilities. Si Irrigation Lateral Line: Purple PVC Class 200 Contractor shall verify sizing to ensure flow does does not exceed 5fps. Irrigation Mainline: Purple PVC Schedule 40 (contractor shall verify sizing) IRRIGATION PLAN I S a — — — — — — — — Pipe Sleeve: PVC Schedule 40 (CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE SIZE) #1, SHT. 190 DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY — — — — — — — — Size shall be minimum twice the diameter of all pipe going through. MAINLINES, LATERALS, AND WIRES SHALL BE PLACED Exminimum for controller wire. WITHIN LANDSCAPED AREA WHEREVER POSSIBLE Extend sleeves 12" beyond construction edge. Contractor must verify sizes and quantities at all required locations prior (SLEEVING SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ALL PAVED AREAS). ♦TE OF 1,D to backfilling trenches. q� 5 O�♦ REVISIONS DESIGNED PROJECT NO. DETAIL SHEET Zvi SCALES SHOWN IDAH® o C English N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION ARE PRNFOR TS IONLYIT, TRANSPORTATION US 20�26,CHINDENt COUNTY ADA im A-1660 DESIGN CHECKED DETAILED FRI CADD FILE NAME DEPARTMENT Ar A019(944) LOCUST GROVE TO EAGLE KEY NUMBER ♦rtt Zvi 19944—Isc _771-812 GENERAL NOTES 19 Page 251 944 ��q / DRAWING CHECKED JRS ORAAuGusDtA2019 Parametrix IRRIGATION SHEET 180 OF 275 �I�DSC:♦♦ Item#10. 770 71 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 US 20/26 (CHINDEN BOULEVARD) NOTE: DO NOT INSTALL MAINLINE DIRECTLY UNDER PATH. 10' SHARED USE PATH W I INSTALL MAINLINE ADJACENT W Q In TO BACK OF PATH IN > S904-05L S904-05M p LO S904-05N I w LANDSCAPE AREA. INSTALL LOCUST GROVE TO STA 780+78 STA 780+78 TO STA 783+98 + loo- = SLEEVING WHERE CROSSING STA 783 98 TO 794 oQN ^ O = I+ 00 HARD SURFACES. 5 N I C J.--i W 0)Q = (n Scale (Feet) I(\ ~ p LOCUST GROVE TO BRISTOL HEIGHTS I �w o € 100 0 10o Zoo I�z N Cn 100 w Of $ I On m � I " 0 I THREE CORNERS m 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 US 20/26 (CHINDEN BOULEVARD) 9 10' SHARED USE PATH i COORDINATE WITH SCHOOL TO DESIGN AND INSTALL 7' x APPROXIMATELY 1305 LF OF IRRIGATION, IDENTIFY SOURCE USE 4" TURF IRRIGATION CONNECT ION D P LOCATION. SCHOOL PROPERTY ROTARYEFERED PETHEADS AIL WITH SIDE STRIP NOZZLESCSHEETS 189, 190, AND SPEIPERAIRR GATION SCHEDULE, SHEET 180. SPACE TO ACHIEVE HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE. W i Lo , e 'n ' o O e S904-OSL DESIGN AND INSTALL 11' x APPROXIMATELY 320 LF OF IRRIGATION, 781 782 783 PER DETAIL SHEETS 189, 190, AND SPECIFICATIONS. USE 4" TURF ROTARY HEADS WITH SIDE STRIP NOZZLES, PER IRRIGATION SCHEDULE, O SHEET 180. SPACE TO ACHIEVE HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE. US 20/26 (CHINDEN BOULEVARD) PROPERTY LINE � EXISTING SIDEWALK P7 LOCATE AND CONNECT TO EXISTING MAINLINE SOUTH OF PATH AND INSTALL THREE CORNERS PROPERTY NEW VALVES ADJACENT TO EXISTING VALVE CLUSTER. i, CONNECT TO EXISTING THREE CORNERS IRRIGATION CONTROLLER. BORE ANY S904-05M NEEDED CONDUITS AND/OR SPRINKLER LINES UNDER THE EXISTING SIDEWALK. o � X 0 784 785 786 787 788 7,99 790 791 792 793 4 w 0 0_ Q US 20/26 (CHINDEN BOULEVARD) I J N W W r,Q00 9 HREE CORNERS RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE RESIDENCE07 ( Qzw 10' SHARED USE PATH = LLI a N WV) CONNECT IRRIGATION TO EXISTING WELL. DESIGN AND INSTALL 7' x APPROXIMATELY 912 LF OF IRRIGATION, PE m m SEE ITEM S900-50C CONTINGENCY AMOUNT (WELL MODIFICATION PARCEL 6). DETAIL SHEETS 189, 190, AND SPECIFICATIONS. USE 4" TURF ROTARY �•• F a�� S904-05N REQUEST NEW POWER SERVICE FROM IDAHO POWER. INSTALL PEDESTAL- HEADS WITH SIDE STRIP NOZZLES, PER IRRIGATION SCHEDULE, SHEET 180. Scale (Feet) MOUNTED CONTROLLER, PER IRRIGATION SCHEDULE, SHEET 180. SPACE TO ACHIEVE HEAD TO HEAD COVERAGE. 50 0 50 100 AN REVISIONS DESIGNED ��o PROJECT NO. PLAN SHEET Eng h Zvi SCALES SHOWN II)AH® Zis 5 � N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGN CHECKED ARE FOR II' X 17' i PRINTS ONLY TRANSPORTATION US 20�26,CHINDENi COUNTY ADA •R: LA-1660 ,, A019(944) LOCUST GROVE TO EAGLE KEY NUMBER ♦F FRI DEPARTMENT •s DETAILED CADD FILE NAME ZVJ 19944_Isc _771-812 19944 ♦d Page 252 9 DRAWING CHECKED DRAWING DATE: STA. 771+00 TO STA. 794+00 �4.1 VDSC r, JRS August 2019 Parametrix IRRIGATION SHEET 181 OF 275 �♦ s• Item#10. VALVE BOX: VALVE BOX: INSTALL 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE IN TURF AREAS & 2" IN SHRUB BEDS. INSTALL 1" ABOVE FINISHED 2" MIN. GRADE IN TURF AREAS & 2" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE FINISH GRADE 'c IN SHRUB BEDS. FINISHED GRADE QUICK COUPLER VALVE SECURE WITH TWO (2) STAINLESS STEEL HOSE CLAMPS � GATE VALVE PVC NIPPLE SCH. 80 PVC NIPPLE TO 12" MIN. LENGTH DURA GASKET SWING JOINT OR APPROVED EQUAL. DIAMETER OF EXTEND 12'' OUTSIDE VALVE BOX. aSWING JOINT SHALL BE THE SAME SIZE AS THE QUICK COUPLER INLET. sxT C L� F USE SCH. 80 PVC COUPLER c` �TO CONNECT TO MAINLINE. rMT Ou 000 Q m 0 0 ov PVC TEE 1" MIN. MAINLINE MAIN LINE 000000$000$00 MIN. 3" DEPTH 3/8" PEA GRAVEL SUMP ' 00 00% 000 000 0o00000000� 2"x2"x24" WOOD STAKE � MIN. 3" DEPTH j 3/8" PEA GRAVEL SUMP c m ISOLATION VALVE / GATE VALVE QUICK COUPLER VALVE / Z $ NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE W O Q3 (J NOTES DRAWINGS DEPICT BLOCK LOCATION, NOT SIZE. FOR SIZE SEE TABLE �\� 1. SUBMIT FINDINGS FOR THRUST, THRUST BLOCK VOLUME AND BEARING AREA TO OWNER FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL. TABLE 1 : THRUST AT FITTINGS AT 200 PSI A. DETERMINE THRUST AT PRESSURES OTHER THAN PSI SHOWN, MULTIPLY THE THRUST OBTAINED IN TABLE 1 BY THE J D L RATIO OF THE PRESSURE TO 200 PSI. THRUST AT FITTINGS IN POUNDS EXAMPLE, THE THRUST ON A 6 INCH, 90- BEND AT 300 PSI. A B C D E 9 995 X 300 PSI = 14,992 LBS. TEST TEE AND 200 PSI g 45' BEND 90' BEND SIZE DRESSURE DEAD 90` 45' 22.5" 11.25' g PSI ENDS BEND BEND BEND BEND B. DETERMINE THE VOLUME OF THE THRUST BLOCK: THRU LINE DIRECTION CHANGE, 4" 200 3,140 4,440 2,405 1,225 615 EXAMPLE, (150 LBS/CF UNIT WEIGHT OF CONCRETE) CONNECTION, TEE TEE USED AS ELBOW 6" 200 7,070 9,995 5,410 2,760 1,385 14,992 LBS 150 LB/CF = 99.9 CF 8" 200 12,565 17,770 9,620 4,905 2,465 99.9 CF 27 CF/CY = 3.70 CY OF CONCRETE g C. DETERMINE THE BEARING AREA OF THE THRUST BLOCK IN SQUARE FEET (SF) SEE TABLE 2, BEARING VALUE OF SOIL TABLE 2 : BEARING VALUE OF SOIL EXAMPLE, FOR SAND AND GRAVEL BEARING VALUE FROM TABLE 2 IS 3,000 LBS/SF TEE SAFE BEARING 14,992 LBS 3000 LB/SF = 5 SF OF AREA SOIL TYPE LOAD LBS/SF 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE BLOCKING ADEQUATE TO WITHSTAND FULL TEST PRESSURE. �t THRU LINE CONNECTION, MUCK, PEAT, ETC. 0 $ TEE SOFT CLAY / ALLUVIAL SOIL 1,000 3. SHALL BE ADJUSTED FOR OTHER PRESSURE CONDITIONS SAND 2,000 4. THE FOLLOWING PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE OBSERVED WHEN CONSTRUCTING THRUST BLOCKS: SAND AND GRAVEL 3,000 A. BLOCKS MUST BE POURED AGAINST UNDISTURBED SOIL. a B. THE PIPE FITTING(S) AND BOLTS SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE. WRAP IN PLASTIC BEFORE POURING CONCRETE BLOCKING. SAND AND GRAVEL CEMENTED WITH CLAY 4,000 C. CONCRETE SHOULD BE CURED FOR AT LEAST 5 DAYS AND SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSION STRENGTH OF 2,000 WYE HARD SHALE 10,000 PSI AT 28 DAYS. D. RESTRAINED JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED, IN ADDITION TO CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKING, WHEN THRUST BLOCK CURIN TIME IS LIMITED. m E. BLOCKS SHALL BE POSITIONED TO COUNTERACT THE DIRECTION OF THE RESULTANT THRUST FORCE. ••E OF �♦ THRUST BLOCKING 3 5. ALL PIPE SHALL BE PROPERLY BEDDED. S K R O�♦ s NOT TO SCALE Q' I REVISIONS DESIGNED Zvi SCALES SHOWN IDAHO o PROJECT N0. DETAIL SHEET English NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION ARE FOR 11' X 17' DESIGN CHECKED FRI PRINTS ONLY TRANSPORTATION tAT US 20�26,CHINDENi COUNTY ADA - 66� 1 DETAILED CADD FILE NAME DEPARTMENT A019(944) LOCUST GROVE TO EAGLE KEY NUMBER •Pt< $ DRAWING CHECKED ZVJ 19944_Isc _771-812 19944 ♦O Page253 DRAWING DATE: IRRIGATION DETAILS �19A'DSCA JRS August 2019 I'a ra m et r I x SHEET 189 OF 275 �♦ e• TF EXTEND SLEEVES 18" BEYOND PAVED SURFACE. (TYP.3 GLOBE ELECTRIC VALVE PAVED SURFACE \y W/ FLOW CONTROL AND PSI CONTROL LOCKING LID VALVE BOX: INSTALL 1" ABOVE FINISHED GRADE IN TURF AREAS, & 2" ABOVE ° ° ° ° °> FINISHED GRADE IN SHRUB BEDS. n m FINISHED GRADE a 1" MIN. TOP VIEW VALVE BOX 45' 45' $r 45' PVC ELL � UNION NIPPLR� qua CONTROL 45° •� ,� et •+' •�' P•�'�•�'i� �. •.t•• S'6 E. VALVE- THREADED ® CENTER 8 PVC NIPPLE CONTROL 45' 45' PVC MAINLINE VALVE IN r /PVCATERAL/ BRICK MIN. 3" DEPTH UNIDN VALVE BOX em MAINLINE 1 OF 4 3/8'' PEA GRAVEL O PVC LATERAL/MAINLINE SUMP PVC TEE SLEEVE SLEEVE NOTES 9 FRONT ELEVATION SIDE ELEVATION 1. ONE REMOTE CONTROL VALVE PER VALVE BOX. NO MANIFOLD SYSTEM. 2. ALL NIPPLES AND FITTINGS SHALL BE THREADED AND SCH. 40 INSIDE OF VALVE BOX. NOTES : 3. ALL NIPPLES AND FITTINGS SHALL BE THE SAME DIAMETER AS CONTROL VALVE. 1. THERE SHALL NOT BE 90' JOINTS DIRECTING LATERALS AND MAINLINES INTO SLEEVES. MAXIMUM ANGLE SHALL BE 45' 2. INSTALL THRUST BLOCKS AT ALL JOINTS 2 1/2" DIA. OR LARGER. § PIPE SLEEVING �1� CONTROL VALVE IN VALVE BOX NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE W rQ f� J SHRUB OR TREE g� BUBBLER HEAD SHALL BE VERTICAL 10R'12' 3 1/2"M NPT X 1/2"BARB ADAPTER s FINISHED GRADE 3" HIGH WATERING BASIN SHRUBS o ��IrPpJ,l 1,1,p�l,WNAa 6„_8 PDP-UP SPRINKLER HEAD �7 lxR� SWING PIPE TOP DRESSING FINISH GRADE SPIRAL BARB FITTING SHALL BE 4 VERTICAL SWING PIPE INSTALL PLUG AT END OF LINE SPIRAL TUBING, 1/2" DIA. 18'' MAX. LENGTH 8„ 3/4 M NPT X 1/2'' BARB ADAPTER 1/2"BARB X 1/2"BARB X 1/2"BARB TEE PVC LATERAL LIN I" PVC RISER I" T X 3/4" T X 3/4" T PVC TEE --TEE OR TEE WITH CAP IF END OF LINE TEE a SPIRAL BARB FITTING NOTE: PVC LATERAL ALL BUBBLERS SHALL BE VERTICAL AND UNIFORM IN HEIGHT ABOVE TOP DRESSING a SPRINKLER HEAD 3 BUBBLER HEAD LATERAL AND RISER TO WATERING BASIN 4 !0E 0 F ,D • KKR 0 S NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE : P I • • REVISIONS DESIGNED Zvi SCALES SHOWN IDAHO " PROJECT NO. DETAIL SHEET En lisp set / ' o g NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION ARE FOR II' X 17' n DESIGN CHECKED FRI PRINTS ONLY TRANSPORTATION US 20�26,CHINDENi COUNTY ADA - 66 3 �w DETAILED CADD FILE NAME DEPARTMENTAT A019(944) LOCUST GROVE TO EAGLE KEY NUMBER ♦P� g ZVJ 19944_Isc _771-812 19944 ♦OL / Page 254 DRAWING CHECKED DRAWING DATE: Parametrix IRRIGATION DETAILS SHEET 190 OF 275 �NDSCA JRS August 2019 ♦ ■• Item#10. rametrix ENGINEERING.PLANNING.ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 7761 W RIVERSIDE DRIVE,SUITE 201 BOISE,ID 83714 I P 208.898.0012 December 11, 2019 Idaho Department of Water Resources 2735 Airport Way Boise, ID 83705-5082 Re: Application for Permit No. 63-34830; KN19944: US 20/26, Locust Grove to Eagle Road Widening Dear Ms. Kaiser, Thank you for your response letter dated, December 5, 2019, regarding our application for permit to divert water for irrigation use. I have reviewed your response with the applicant, Daris Bruce with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). You are correct that our water use will not exceed 13,000 gallons per day to irrigate the 0.2 acres required for our roadway widening project. Based on the information in your response letter, we understand that such use does not require a permit for use, so we are formally withdrawing our application for permit. I have attached the completed withdrawal form you provided. Our understanding is that no further action is required. Feel free to contract me if you have any questions. My phone number is 208.906.1180 and my email is tiohnson@parametrix.com. You may also contact the ITD Resident Engineer, Daris Bruce, at 208.334.8331 or daris.bruce@itd.idaho.gov. Thankyou! Todd Johnson, PE Cc: file 314-4006-058 _ l� Page 255 L t,^..J-�f..L�2�r.�. �L!"'.�GLE'-. !_t�t.�:J��.C-Z£'t t_ ..1 L'-o��s/G-4.c>'14x:3, Y'L1.!c/c=,L'K.4�. Gc. Gtl��✓�`�£ 'Z.2.'Lt L�f'.:, I Item#10. WffTHIDRAWAL OF APPLICATMN FOR P EII MRT I/We, D?/44)S /3jeu C e and (Applicant's Printed Name) (Applicant's Printed Name) and (Applicant's Printed Name) (Applicant's Printed Name) hereby withdraw our Application for Permit to Appropriate the Public Waters of the State of Idaho, No. b3 - M6 30 . Signed this ?;� day of � Cl R , 20 1 �l (Signature/Title of Applicant) (Signature/Title of Applicant) (Signature/Title of Applicant) (Signature/Title of Applicant) Page 256 Item#10. State of Idaho DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES Western Region • 2735 Airport Way • Boise, Idaho 83705-5082 Phone: (208) 334-2190 • Fax: (208) 334-2348 • Website: www.idwr.idaho.gov BRAD LITTLE GARY SPACKMAN Governor Director December 17, 2019 E CE E.=I V 3 s DARIS BRUCE IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPT PARAMETR!X 8150 CHINDEN BOULEVARD BO88E OFRCDE Re: Withdrawal of Application for Permit No: 63-34830 Dear Applicants: The Department has received your recent withdrawal of the above referenced application. For your convenience a copy of the withdrawal and application are enclosed. Please feel free to contact our office at 208-334-2190 if you have additional questions in this matter. Also, more information about water rights and other matters administered by this agency is available on the Internet at www.idwr.idaho.gov. Sincerely, 6nna aiser Water Resource Agent Western Regional Office Enclosures Cc: Todd Johnson (Parametrix) Page 257 Item#10. RECEIVED DEC 16 n119 WVTcR R CES WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT I/We, f3,et-A C E and (Applicant's Printed Name) (Applicant's Printed Name) and (Applicant's Printed Name) (Applicant's Printed Name) hereby withdraw our Application for Permit to Appropriate the Public Waters of the State of Idaho, No.0- M 6 3 0 . Signed this day of_ A (f15A8)E , 20 1 1y �U619&0- ,0/iGLi/" Er2 (Signature/Title of Applicant) (Signature/Title of Applicant) (Signature/Title of Applicant) (Signature/Title of Applicant) Page 258 Ltr_#,_o . eeyttr,,QB/'1 v E D STATE OF IDAHO CC ff DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES NOV 25 2019 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT To appropriate the public waters of the State of Idaho YVAUYES E 1�W 4 W i�1�01_4 V1_ 1. Name of applicant(s) Daris Bruce (Idaho Transportation Department) Phone (208)-334-8331 Name connector(check one): ❑and ❑or ❑and/or Mailing address 8150 Chinden Boulevard City Boise State Idaho ZIP 83714-1367 Email daris.bruce@itd.idaho.gov 2. Name of representative, if any Todd Johnson (Parametrix) Phone (208)-898-0012 Mailing address 7761 W Riverside Dr Ste 201 City Boise State Idaho ZIP 83714 Email tjohnson@parametrix.com a. ✓❑ Send all correspondence for this application to the representative and not to the applicant OR ❑ Send original correspondence to the applicant and copies to the representative. b. ✓❑ The representative may submit information for the applicant but is not authorized to sign for the applicant OR ❑ The representative is authorized to sign for the applicant. Attach a Power of Attorney or other documentation. 3. Source of water supply groundwater which is a tributary of n/a 4. Location of point(s) of diversion: Twp Rge Sec Govt ,/4 ,/4 y4 County Source Local name or tag# 4N 1 E 29 NW NE NW ADA groundwater LE 5. Water will be used for the following purposes: Amount 0.11 cfs for irrigation Mar 15 Nov 15 purposes from to (both dates inclusive) (cfs or acre-feet per year) Amount(cfs or acre-feet per year)for purposes from to (both dates inclusive) Amount(cfs or acre-feet per year)for purposes from to (both dates inclusive) Amount(cfs or acre-feet per year)for purposes from to (both dates inclusive) 6. Total quantity to be appropriated is (a) 0.11 cubic feet per second (cfs) and/or(b) acre-feet per year(af). 7. Proposed diverting works: a. Describe type and size of devices used to divert water from the source. Replace pump in existing domestic well and use well to pressure irrigate sod buffer(between curb and sidewalk) ti b. Height of storage dam feet; active reservoir capacity acre-feet;total reservoir capacity acre-feet. If the reservoir will be filled more than once each year, describe the refill plan in item 12. For dams 10 feet or more in height AND having a storage capacity of 50 acre-feet or more, submit a separate Application for Construction or Enlargement of a New or Existing Dam. Application required? ❑ Yes ❑ No c. Proposed well diameter is inches; proposed depth of well is feet. d. Is ground water with a temperature of greater than 850F being sought? ❑ Yes ❑✓ No e. If well is already drilled, when? unknown drilling firm unknown well was drilled for(well owner) unknown Drilling Permit No. unknown For Department Use Received by 1L-C Date Time •ZI m Preliminary check by Fee$ WO.pU Receipted by Receipt No. Date t Page 259 Item#10. 8. Description of proposed uses (if irrigation only, go to item 9): a. Hydropower; show total feet of head and proposed capacity in kW. b. Stockwatering; list number and kind of livestock. c. Municipal; must complete and attach the Municipal Water Right Application Checklist. d. Domestic; show number of households e. Other; describe fully. Change existing domestic well at 2005 East Chinden Boulevard (US 20/26) to irrigate <0.2 acres of sod along US 20/26 for owner(ITD) 9. Description of place of use: a. If water is for irrigation, indicate acreage in each subdivision in the tabulation below. b. If water is used for other purposes, place a symbol of the use (example: D for Domestic) in the corresponding place of use below. See instructions for standard symbols. FFT WPRGE SEC NE NW SW SE wNE NW SW I SE I NE I NW SW SE 11 NE NW SW SE NE NW I SW SE TOTALS 4N 1 E 29 0.2 Lh Total number of acres to be irrigated: 0.2 10. Describe any other water rights used for the same purposes as described above. Include water delivered by a municipality, canal company, or irrigation district. If this application is for domestic purposes, do you intend to use this water,water from another source, or both, to irrigate your lawn, garden, and/or landscaping? No other water rights will be used. The single family home is being demolished. Existing irrigation water rights will be retained but no longer used. 11. a. Who owns the property at the point of diversion? Idaho Transportation Department b. Who owns the land to be irrigated or place of use? Idaho Transportation Department c. If the property is owned by a person other than the applicant, describe the arrangement enabling the applicant to make this filing: 12. Describe your proposal in narrative form, and provide additional explanation for any of the items above.Attach additional pages if necessary. As part of the US 2026 Locust Grove to Eagle widening project ITD purchased this parcel to construct a storm water pond. The existing domestic well is retained but modified to pressure irrigate a 7'x1000' (0.2 AC) sod buffer within Ada County but outside the limits of both Meridian and Boise. The permit to change the use of the well from domestic use to irrigation will allow ITD to have aesthetic continuity along the south 13. Time required for completion of works and application of water to proposed beneficial use is 1 years(minimum 1 year). 14. MAP OF PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRED-Attach an 8'/"x 11"map or maps clearly identifying the proposed point of diversion, place of use, section#, township&range. The map scale shall not be less than two(2) inches equal to one(1) mile. The information contained in this application is true to the best of my knowledge. I understand that any willful misrepresentations made in this application may result in rejection of the application or cancellation of an approval. i natu�oAppficant�� A �® < Signature of Applicant Print Name (and title, if applicable) Print Name(and title, if applicable) Page 260 Application for Permit Paqe 2 Item#11. E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: City of Meridian Financial Report - April 2021 Page 261 Item#11. CITY of MERIDIAN FINANCE REPORT April 2021 - FY21 Report PAGE # Investment Graphs 2 Fund Balance 3 �I;ISIf it II � � r � IT 14 ® __ _ ____ im�nmm�nnmw �nTnTniuin�n�� nnnnr Page 262 F:\Monthly Reports\Finance Reports\FY2021\FY21-07 April Council Report 1 of 3 Item#11. c /rE ID As of April 30, 2021 aAHo City of Meridian Investment Portfolio CITY OF MERIDIAN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO YIELD BY INVESTMENTTYPE IDAHO STATE POOL IDAHO BOND FUND 1.74% CASH 0.00% FIB 0.26% ■FIB MoneyMarket$1,646,473 ■Cash$4,589,834 MONEYMARKET 0 ■Idaho Bond Fund$70,974,917 ■Idaho State Pool$105,270,845 City of Meridian I nterest/Investment I ncome City of Meridian Cash/I nvestments Balance by Major Fund by Major Fund $450,000 5120,000,000 $400,000 $350,000 $100,000,000 $300,000 $250,000 580,000,000 $200,000 $60,000,000 $150,000 $100,000 $40,000,000 $50,000 $20,000,000 $0 General Enterprise General Fund Enterprise Fund ■Total Budget ■Actual YFD ■FY21 ■FY20 Page 263 F:\Monthly Reports\Finance Reports\FY2021\FY21-07 April Council Report 2 of 3 is Item#11. C f1E IDIAN - 'oAHO April 2021-FY21 GENERAL FUND BALANCE ALLOCATIONS $100,000,000 $90,000,000 $80,000,000 $70,000,000 ----------------------- $60,000,000 ----------------------- $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $10,000,000 $- 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 9/30/2017 9/30/2018 9/30/2019 9/30/2020 ®Nonspendable ®Restricted R Committed ■Assigned ■Unassigned !Reserves ENTERPRISE FUND BALANCE ALLOCATIONS $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $40,000,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 — $10,000,000 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 9/30/2017 9/30/2018 9/30/2019 9/30/2020 ®Assigned ■Unassigned ®Reserves Page 264 F:\Monthly Reports\Finance Reports\FY2021\FY21-07 April Council Report 3 of 3 Fund Balance Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings City Council Meeting June 1, 2021 Item #12: Shafer View Terrace AERIALZONINGFLUM ITD Proposed Corridor Plan continuous flow intersections)lanes with -(currently, the plan shows 6 Annexation Area 2-R4-R Revised Preliminary Plat & Phasing Plan ACHD & Preliminary Lines Map Revised Landscape Plan Qualified Open Space Exhibit Conceptual Building Elevation Photos Item #13: Artemisia subdivision ZONINGFLUMAERIAL Annexation & Zoning and preliminary plat– Annexation area Preliminary plat Conceptual Building elevations fordkendall– Conceptual perspectives Item #14: Linder VillageModification to Development Agreement Updated Conceptual Development Plan Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Shafer View Terrace (H-2020-0117)  Annexation  Preliminary Plat th This application was heard by Council on May 18 and continued to tonight’s hearing in order get more info from ITD in regard to future plans pertaining to widening of Meridian Rd. and the northbound right turn lane onto Quartz Creek St.. ITD comments from 2/5. ITD comments from 4/17.  This section of SH-69 is anticipated to be widened to a 6-lane section at full build-out. The SH-69 Corridor Study is currently underway; specific ROW needs have not yet been determined.  A northbound right turn lane on SH-69 is warranted to ensure turning traffic can exit the through lanes on SH-69 and turn safety onto Quartz Creek St.  ITD can’t require the Developer to install the turn lane & instead requests proportionate share contributions to address the need for a right turn lane. If the Developer isn’t required to contribute their proportionate share, ITD recommends the City require the developer to install the turn lane.  The cost of the design, construction & ROW for a future RCUT at SH-69/Quartz Creek St. is estimated to cost $5,877,022; the Applicant is responsible for contributing their proportionate share of $59,358 (1.01%). ITD is doing a corridor study now. Currently the plan shows 6 lanes with continuous flow intersections (CFIs). They also state: “City plans include a detached, multi-use pathway running the length of the corridor. ITD design and city set-back policy will not preempt those facilities from being constructed.” However, there is an open discussion right now over whether they will actually do the CFIs. I am working on a letter to management there to find that out. ITD staff isnt sure what their management wants to do on that either. The story map is the easier way to find the info. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/3c4a2858d05d4b35ae92e6165acb057e 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 June 1, 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 June 1, 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 #15: 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) Application(s): UDC Text Amendment Size of property, existing zoning, and location: Citywide Summary of Request: The proposed update is meant to modify certain sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and overhaul the landscape and common open space and site amenities standards for residential and multi-family developments. Many of the changes coincide with the policies and feedback received during the update and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Last minute changes where added at the request of Code Enforcement to assist in their effort to enforce the code. The proposed text amendment includes a broad range of changes to the sections as follows: 1. UDC 11-3B – Landscape Requirements 2. UDC 11-3G – Common Open Space and Site Amenity Standards 3. UDC 11-4-3-27 – Multi-family Development: Updating the common open space standards to align with some of the changes being proposed with the Common Open Space and Site Amenities 4. Miscellaneous changes to code sections in Chapters 1-5 and Chapter 7. Staff anticipates further refinement to these documents as the project transverses through the hearing process. Except for the Code Enforcement changes, all of the proposed changes went through an extensive and collaborative review process over several months th between City staff, the UDC Focus Group and the Open Space Committee. An informative meeting with the BCA was held on April 13. In summary, City Staff believes the proposed changes will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. th Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval of the subject application at the May 6 hearing. Summary of the Commission Hearing: The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on May 6, 2021. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject ZOA request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Planning Division b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Kent Brown d. Written testimony: BCA e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons and Lacy Ooi f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Proposed changes to the RV parking standards. b. City assuming the responsibility for public hearing postings. c. New parking standards for multi-family developments. d. Flex space standards as they pertain to the placement of roll-up doors adjacent to public streets. e. Tree mitigation fee and whether or not this is the appropriate mechanism to allow trees to be planted off-site to mitigate the loss. f. Proposed changes to the open space and amenity standards. h. Adding more amenity options to the multi-family standards. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Added the City Arborist preferred tree species list to Exhibit 3. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Written Testimony Since P/Z Commission Hearing: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number ZOA-2021-0002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 1, 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 ZOA-2021-0002, as presented during the hearing on June 1, 2021, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number ZOA-2021-0002 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item#12. (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from May 18, 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 265 Item#12. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from May 18, 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 266 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 1 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 12 PROJECT NAME : Shafer View Terrace ( W2020 - 0117 ) 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#12. 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 267 Item#12. Description Details Page waterway exists on the eastern portion of the site between the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoned properties. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/13/20; 14 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) This property was previously platted as Lot 4,Block 1, Shafer View Estates,developed in Ada County and recorded in 2002(Bk. 84,Pg.9403). It was deed restricted and was only allowed to be used for open space as defined in the non-farm development section of the Ada County code and the planned development section of the Ada County code for a period of not less than 15 years from the recording date of the subdivision plat. This property was originally proposed to be annexed with the adjacent Apex development but was later withdrawn. B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes(draft) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via E. Shafer View Dr.,local street,and E. (Arterial/Collectors/State Quartz Creek St.,collector street Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service ACHD does not set LOS thresholds for state highways. Stub No stub streets exist to this property and no stub streets are Street/Interconnectivity/Cros proposed to adjacent properties. s Access Existing Road Network S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 exists along the west boundary and E. Shafer View Dr. exists along the south boundary. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers exist along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69,a Buffers state highway,or E. Shafer View Dr.,a local street Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP}f Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): • The intersection of Amity Road and Meridian RoadISH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened Improvements r to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2031-2035. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road/SH-69 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2036-2040. • Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian RoadISH-6910 Locust Grove Road between 2036-2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road/SH-69 between 2036-2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian RoadlSH-6910 Locust Grove Road between 2036-2040. • Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP for pavement rehabilitation and pedestrian ramp construction from Meridian Road7SH-69 to Locust Grove Road in 2022. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.5 miles • Fire Response Time Falls within 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—can meet response time goals • Resource Reliability 87%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater Page 2 Page 268 Item#12. 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 269 Item#12. • 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 270 Item#12. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend . (fLegend ' Proyeci Lcca-tor I Prnjeot Lorca on Medium Density Residenfial idnfi ed-Hig :�• - ensify - Residenfi Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R1 Legend RUT— ff ; 0Preyeci Lorca-nor IetProject Lacaion -- R1 ;_1 City Limits 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 271 Item#12. 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 272 Item#12. • "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 273 Item#12. 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 274 Item#12. 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 275 Item#12. 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 276 Item#12. 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 277 Item#12. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 : Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The McBirney Lateral is a large open waterway that lies within a 41-foot wide easement along the southern boundary of the site and through the western portion of the site. Another waterway 38' wide) exists on the eastern portion of the site between the proposed R-2 and R-4 zoned property within r€eet wide NNUP 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 278 Item#12. 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 279 Item#12. 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 280 Item#12. 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 along the Qasterty line Qf swiW Lot A for a distance OF 1342-40 feeC Thence along the wulhi!riy boundary of said Lot 4 th a following fi courses and d istances= 1_) N 99'52'35"W for a d4stanoe of 130A0 fee, 2-) N 23'55'33"W far a distance of 17453 feet; 3-) N 16'35'10'W fora distance of 254.88 feet; 4.) H 14'42'14"W for a distaNxe of 194.52 feet; 5-) N 31'29'55"Vd for a distance of 113.67(eet; 6-) N gy°3X 47'°W fora distance of 147.74 feet; Th ence S 34'28'44"W for a dicta rice of ln43 feet to the mnterline of E.Shafer mew Drive; Theme N S5'19 49"W along said cent-erline for a distance of IGD.09 feet; Thence leaving said canterllne N 34'41'11"E for a distance of 10753 fett; Thence along the&Gutherly boundaryofsaid Lot 4 the following 15 courses and distances; 1-) N 04'09'19"E for a distance of 90-91 feet; 2,1 N 26'42'26"W fora distanoe of 85.32 feet; 3_) N 515°39'37"W for a distance of 97.95 Beet; 4_) N 75'35'35''W for a distance of 90-f!B feet; t 1 B02 W.Hays St..:&ude 306-Eini9e,ID 83702•Phckw:2054504-227. www.a c cu ra tt e e u r vey am.amn Page 15 Page 281 Item#12. �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 282 Item#12. 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.X03052b8a N 89'57'18" E 2507,75' ^� M LOT 4 BLOCK 1 Cy N SHAFER VIEW ESTATES ZQ 40.4a3t ACRES co r rLl$ 05 L14 y3 07 �1$ o ti� j2 SCALE: 1"=300' �s O A ~~ ° L6 L22 �+ g L25 C3 C 1 o NOTE., SEE SHEET 2 FdR C " UNE AND CURVE TABLES L to a E. SHAFER VIEW DRIVE ° 1146 3 L 1 LEGEND ANNEX A�4Y ACCURATE � ---------- SE LINE C770N LINE � � T3N R1 W 38 3T T31V R2W � a , FOUND 3 i r 1/2" BRASS CAP A40MUMENT � SURVEYING & MAPPI1.P r2N R I W T 8 f2N R2W r 1682 W.Hays Street#306 FOUND 2" ALUMINIUM CAPlt Boise,Idaho 83702 CP&F WST, No. 11A (248)488-4227 201 9-0 154 70 ❑ CALCULATED POINT qtf w www,accuratesurveyura.mm RYI� SHEET 1 OF 2 JOB 20-227 Page 17 Page 283 Item#12. LIME TABLE UKE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N 89'52.35 W 130.44 L2 N 23755'33" W 170,53' L3 'N 1 W 35'1 G" W 254.88' L4 N 14'41'14" W 194-52' LS N 31-29-55" W 113-67' L6 N 89'34'47" W 147-74' L7 S 34` 8'44" tiW 190.43' L8 N SF 15'49" W 100_09' 1-9 N 34741'17" E 107.53' L10 N 0-'00 19 E 90-81 1-11 N 26'4-2'26 W 85.32' L12 N 5930'37" W 87.95' L1 3 N 75 33'3D" W 90.89' L14 N E1933'28" W 1 SS.0' L15 S 71`44'26" W 113,68' L 16 S W:59'28" W 112.30' L17 N 76752'47" W 210-54' L1$ S 7$-31'59R W 45-73' 1-19 S 51'53'13" W 147-64' L20 S W24'50" W 258,22' L21 S 17'40'26' W 98.75' L22 S 03'59'33" E 50-00' L23 S 28'48 47 W 206.911 L24 N 42'01 36 W 107.i 2' L25 5 89'S5 39" W 219,88' CURVE TABLE CURVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 88.38' 275.00' 1$'24 50 S -54735'15' 1- MOO' C2 103-63' 5D0-00, 11"152'25" N 47'59 .4 W 103.E C3 83.86' 100.00' 40'02'45 N 66-02 8 W 81.42 ° r RATE 11463 12 luEYiJ�Is � 19�;�trau 8019e.Idaho 33702 } 4208�4M-4227 t W".accuracesurveyomcorn SHEET 2 OF 2 JOB 20-727 Page 18 Page 284 Item#12. 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 following 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 63.86 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 285 Item#12. 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 286 Item#12. 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 287 Item#12. 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 288 Item#12. *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 a5.32 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 289 Item#12. 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 290 Item#12. 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 291 Item#12. LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L i S 67`05'19" E 68.04' L-2 S 61'36'51" E 33.43' L3 S 51'46'38" E 99-63' L 4 S 55'05'59" E 124.96' L5 5 5G-03'15" E 84.54' L6 S 36'41'30" E 99-39' L7 S 25'50 09" E 63.86' L8 S 17'26'22" E 120.33' L9 5 06'28'52" E 151.79' L10 S 7535'46" L 1 i S 77 19'36" W 75.47 L 12 N 89'38'36" W 124.09' L 13 S 34'28'44" W 190.43' L_7 4 N, 55'18'49" W 100-09 L 15 N 34'41 11 E 107.53' L16 j N 04'09'19" E 90.51' L17 N 26'42'26" W 85.32' L 1 S N 5639'37" W 87-95' L19 N 75'35'35" W 90.88' L20 N BV33'28" W 1 MAT L21 S 71'44 26 W 1 13-88' L22 S W59'28" W 112-30' L23 N 76 52'47" W 210.54' L24 S 78'31'59" W 45.73' L25 S 51'53'13" W 147-64' L26 S 65'24'5{D" 1W 258.22' L27 S 1739'49" W 98.75' L28 S 03'58'33" E 55.00 L29 5 DY48'47 W 206.91 L30 N 42'01'36" W 107.12' L31 S 89'55'39" W 1 219-88' CURVE TA8LE G,URVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH C 1 S&M, 275.00' 1 T24'50" S 84'38'15" £ MOO' C2 103.63' SOD.00 11'52 2B N 47'59'54" W 103-44` C3 83.86' 100,00' 48'02`45" 8 56'02'58" E 81-4Z' L Ar, ACCURATE MAPP 1146353 2- 16W W.Nays Street 4306 , ,1*T-%P Boise.Idaho 93702 4 P t4$)488,422? le It xrnw a€rura"urweyors€om 5HEET 2 OF.2 109 2W mmmml Page 26 Page 292 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#12. 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 294 Item#12. � 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 295 Item#12. 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 296 Item#12. { � 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 297 Item#12. 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 298 Item#12. 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 299 Item#12. 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 300 Item#12. 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� =_ a.59350.FT. AREA=23,490SQ.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 301 E. Conceptual Building Elevations .. ..... .... Page 36 ate•." � - w f Item#12. 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 303 Item#12. 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 304 Item#12. 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 305 Item#12. 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 306 Item#12. 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 307 Item#12. 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.orglWebLinkIDocView.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 308 Item#12. 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 309 Item#13. (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Page 344 Item#13. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Artemisia Subdivision (H-2021-0014) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 1690 W. Overland Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26- acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 345 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 1v 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 13 PROJECT NAME : Artemisia Subdivision ( W2021 - 0014 ) PRINTED FULL NAME or Against Neutral w to Testify YES OR NO 1 Y c s 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#13. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING June 1,2021 Legend DATE: ff TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0014 Artemisia Subdivision—AZ,PP LOCATION: 1690 W. Overland Rd., in the SE I/4 of ---- Section 14,T.3N.,R.1 W. (Parcel _ #S1214449107) I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and zoning(AZ) of 25.67-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district; and, Preliminary Plat(PP) consisting of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the proposed C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 25.67-acres(AZ); 19.26-acres(PP) Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County/C-G Future Land Use Designation Mixed Employment(ME)(13.4+/-acres)&Mixed-Use Commercial(MUC)(5.9+/-acres) Existing Land Use(s) Single-family rural residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Corporate office,parts sales, service,accessory center,RV maintenance Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 9 buildable lots/0 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 0 of units) Physical Features(waterways, The Hardin Drain runs along the northeast corner of this hazards,flood plain,hillside) site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 8/26/20;3 attendees&2/4/21;no attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) None Page 1 Page 346 Item#13. B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required. es/no Access One access is proposed via W.Overland Rd.,a 5-lane arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street along the southern boundary of the site. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Better than"D"(acceptable LOS is"E") Stub One stub street(W. Tasa St.)is proposed at the west boundary of Street/Interconnectivity/Cros the site for future extension s Access Existing Road Network W. Overland Rd.runs along the southern boundary of the site Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks exist along W. Overland Rd. adjacent to this site. Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIPu Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a new 4-lane 1-84 overpass and Improvements widened to 5-lanes on each side of I-a4 with a level 3 bike facility from Franklin Road to overland Road in the future. • The intersection of Overland Road and Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened 6-lanes on the north and south legs and 7-lanes on the east west legs and signalized between 2036 and 2W. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 0.1 mile • 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 • Risk Identification 4 current resources would not be adequate to supply service (large building with high fire loading) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 2,500 gallons per minute for two hours,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.08 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 Page 347 Item#13. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend Project Luca for � � � Project Lucafton - _ I Low �ier iry -IteS tl$� Reiden iol ial y p menf i]hrD Sify IY sidenfial Zoning Map Planned Development Map ffeegend R1 R1 (fLegend ( Project Lacai�on I Project Luca-ion +_i {'al}I Limit wlwa — Planned Parcels IRE] RI RUT -L - ` RUT-RLL" ---- TN-R R-15 TN-C CrI--C RUT R-1. TN-R R-8 R-8 R-8 r?4 Page 3 Page 348 Item#13. A. Applicant: Engineering Solutions,LLP— 1029 N. Rosario St., Ste. 100,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owners: Idaho Auto Mall,LLC—8854 W. Emerald St.,Boise,ID 83704-4830 C. Representative: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions,LLP 1029 N.Rosario St., Ste. 100,Meridian, ID 83642 III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 3/26/2021 5/14/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 3/24/2021 5/11/2021 Applicant posted public hearing 4/3/2021 5/15/2021 notice on site Nextdoor posting 3/24/2021 5/12/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the northern and western 13.4+/-acres of this site as Mixed Employment(ME)and the 5.9 acres at the southeast corner of the site as Mixed-Use Commercial(MUC). This site is within the area governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). The purpose of ME designated areas is to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may include a mixture of office,research and specialized employment areas,light industrial including manufacturing and assembly,and other miscellaneous uses. These areas generally do not include retail and consumer service uses serving the wider community. However, a small amount of retail and service establishments,primarily serving employees and users of the ME areas or nearby industrial areas, are allowed. ME areas should provide a variety of flexible sites for small, local or start-up businesses, as well as sites for large national or regional enterprises.ME areas should be designed to encourage multimodal travel and convenient circulation to supporting uses located within the area. Buildings are anticipated to range in height from 1-4 stories,have total floor areas of 10,000-1,000,000 square feet,with a FAR that will exceed .75. The purpose of MUC designated areas is to encourage the development of a mixture of office,retail, recreational,employment and other miscellaneous uses,with supporting multi-family or single-family attached residential uses. This designation requires developments to integrate the three major use categories—residential, commercial and employment. Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian-oriented focus are essential. Development within these areas exhibit quality building and site design and an attractive pedestrian environment with a strong street character. The northern portion of the site, designated ME, is proposed to develop first with two(2) single-story structures with a combined square footage of 92,307 for Kendall Ford Auto Center, a regional company;proposed uses include vehicle sales and service and retail sale of vehicle accessories. A Page 4 Page 349 Item#13. variety of lot sizes are proposed on the MUC designated southern portion of the site for future retail and office uses adjacent to W. Overland Rd. Staff believes the proposed uses are generally consistent with the associated ME and MUC FLUM designations and will contribute to the variety of uses already in this area and with future uses. Existing uses consist of single-family and multi-family residential uses to the south and southwest, which provide the residential component of the mixed-use area although not an integrated part of the development; office to the south; recreational vehicle sales,retail parts/accessories sales and service to the east; and future mixed employment uses to the west. Future development along Overland Rd. and internal local streets should incorporate street-oriented design consistent with the TMISAP for commercial developments. Transportation: The Transportation System Map in the TMISAP depicts arterial streets along the south and east boundaries of the site—Overland Rd. exists along the south boundary as a 5-lane roadway and Linder Rd. is listed in the IFYWP to be constructed as a 5-lane roadway and a 4-lane overpass in the future along the east boundary of the site. A local street is depicted through the western portion of this site from Overland Rd. to the west boundary of this site consistent with that shown on the proposed preliminary plat. Mixed-Use Commercial areas must include an integrated system of sidewalks,walkways and pathways that provide access to all structures and spaces within a development. Sidewalks should not be located immediately adjacent to the curb—they should be separated from the curb by a minimum 4-foot wide planting strip planted with street trees and other landscaping. A loop pathway is proposed on the landscape plan around the perimeter of this site as an amenity for employees and the public. Street furnishings such as seating,newspaper racks,bollards,trash receptacles,bicycle racks and other elements important to the functioning of an effective pedestrian environment should be provided as set forth in the TMISAP(Street Furniture,pgs. 3-28—3-29). Exterior lighting should be used to provide illumination for the security and safety of entry drives, parking, service and loading areas,pathways,courtyards and plazas,without intruding on adjacent properties. Site lighting should be architecturally compatible and consistent in design between sites. (See TMISAP,Lighting,pg. 3-30). Design: In commercial developments,building orientation and setbacks should be close to the street with the main entrance of buildings oriented to the street(Street-Oriented Design,pg. 3-33). For all new commercial and mixed-use buildings, a continuous unbroken frontage along required build-to lines to a minimum height of 30-feet should be constructed for at least 75%of the property frontage. Adjustments to this requirement may be allowed, such as modest setbacks to accommodate additional sidewalk space for caf6 seating,or breaks in frontage for the creation of pocket parks.New Buildings at street intersections should"hold the corners" and avoid introducing additional building setbacks unless a new public space is specified. At least 40%of the linear dimension of the street level frontages shall be in windows or doorways; street level windows shall be clear or tinted visually permeable glass(mirrored or reflective glass is prohibited). Window sills shall be located no higher than 3'6"above adjacent exterior grade;headers shall be located no lower than 8'0" above adjacent exterior grade.No wall frontage shall continue uninterrupted by a window or a functional public access doorway for a linear distance of greater than 12'. The principal doorway for public entry into a building shall be from the fronting street. Corner entrances may be provided on corner lot buildings (Commercial and Mixed-Use Buildings,pg. 3-33).No parking should be placed between a building and the fronting primary or secondary street(Commercial Activity Centers,pg. 3-37). The space between a building facade and the adjacent sidewalk or walkway should be appropriately landscaped with a combination of lawn, groundcover, shrubs and appropriate trees(Building Facades, pg. 3-38). Page 5 Page 350 Item#13. Low-rise buildings of 2-4 stories over much of the area is desired(Building Heights,pg. 3-38). Buildings should be designed with clearly delineated bases,bodies and tops(Base,Body and Top,pg. 3-39). Comply with the general recommendations for Activity Centers noted on pg. 3-40. Awnings shall be provided on building facades for climate protection for pedestrians and shall extend a minimum of 5-feet from the fagade of the fronting structure—8-feet is preferable in wider pedestrian environments(Awnings,pg. 3-45). Signs should be designed to contribute to the overall character,identity and way finding system. The colors,materials, sizes, shapes and lighting of signs should be compatible with the architecture of the buildings and the businesses they identify(Signs,pg. 3-46). High quality public art should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes,public buildings,parks, transit,infrastructure,and other public projects(Public Art,pg. 3-47). The Applicant proposes a focal point at the northwest corner of Linder&Overland Roads with a sculpture and masonry signage(see detail on Sheet LI AO of the landscape plan in Section VII.C). Open civic spaces should be provided in commercial activity centers/mixed use environments and should be located adjacent to an accessible from at least one primary street(3-48).Linear open space with a pedestrian walkway is proposed around the perimeter of the development; additional common/gathering area(s)should be provided within the commercial/office portion of the development. Comprehensive Plan Policies: The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "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 uses should be compatible with similar uses (Camping World&Bish's RV)and zoning(I-L) to the east,future mixed employment uses to the west, and multi family residential, office and future commercial uses to the south across Overland Rd. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The anticipated retail uses should provide shopping opportunities for area residents and employees of the proposed auto center and offices. The proposed auto center will provide jobs within close proximity of single family and multi family residential uses to the south across Overland Rd. • "Encourage the development of supportive commercial near employment areas."(3.06.02C) The proposed retail uses should provide supportive uses for the auto center and office uses. • "Require pedestrian circulation plans to ensure safety and convenient access across large Page 6 Page 351 Item#13. commercial and mixed-use developments."(3.07.02A) The landscape plan depicts a pedestrian walkway within the landscape buffers around the perimeter of the development and sidewalks along internal public streets.Additional internal pedestrian walkways should be provided between buildings within the site for pedestrian connectivity and from the perimeter sidewalks along Overland and Linder Roads to the main building entrances. • "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. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01 C) A 50 foot wide landscaped street buffer is required to be provided along the northern boundary of the site adjacent to I-84. The structures on Lot 1, Block I are proposed to be setback 315'+from I-84. • "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. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for this area per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Annexation: The proposed annexation is for 25.67-acres of land with a C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)zoning district,which includes the ITD storm drainage area at the northeast corner of the site and the right-of-way to the section/center line of adjacent streets. The proposed C-G zoning is consistent with the associated ME and MUC FLUM designations as is the proposed uses. The proposed use of the property will include sales and service for commercial fleet operations for large commercial trucks and motorhomes;vehicle accessory sales; an installation facility for customizing vehicles; parts department; and reconditioning facility for used cars for Kendall Ford Auto Center. The Applicant anticipates the fixture uses on the six(6) lots located along W. Overland Rd. and adjacent to S. Spanish Sun Way to be retail and office space. Vehicle sales and service,minor vehicle repair,retail sales, and professional services(i.e. offices) are all listed as principal permitted uses in the C-G zoning district per UDC Table 11-2B-2, Page 7 Page 352 Item#13. subject to the specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3 as applicable.Note:Major vehicle repair is prohibited in the C-G zoning district. 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 is 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 DA is required with this application, containing the provisions noted in Section VIII.A, as discussed herein. B. Preliminary Plat: The proposed plat consists of 9 commercial buildable lots on 19.26-acres of land in the proposed C-G zoning district. Lots range in size from 22,305 square feet(s.f.) (0.51-acre)to 422,643 s.f. (9.7-acres)with an average lot size of 87,625 s.f. (2.0 1-acres). The subdivision is proposed to develop in one(1)phase.Note: The portion of the annexation area at the northeast corner of the site that is the ITD storm drainage area is not included in the proposed plat as it's been dedicated as right-of-way. The Applicant requests approval to obtain building permits and develop the Kendall Auto site on Lot 1,Block 1,prior to recordation of the final plat. Staff is amenable to this request as the subject parcel is considered a legal parcel eligible for development;however,prior to issuance of building permits for any other lots within the subdivision,the final plat should be recorded. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site; the previous home and accessory structures have been removed. Proposed Use Analysis: A variety of uses are proposed on lots in the subdivision including vehicle sales and service and retail sale of vehicle accessories; retail; and office uses. Vehicle sales and service is listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district and is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-38. Retail sales and professional services (i.e. offices) are also listed as a principal permitted use in the C-G district. Other uses are allowed as noted in the Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts Table 11-2B-2. Dimensional Standards: Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C- G zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. 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. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) One(1)public street access(S. Spanish Sun Way)is proposed via W. Overland Rd. in alignment with that to the south. Direct lot access via W. Overland Rd. and S. Linder Rd. is prohibited. One(1) stub street(W. Tasa St.)is proposed to the west boundary for future extension in accord with the Transportation System Map in the TMISAP. A temporary cul-de-sac is required to be constructed at the terminus of Tasa St.until the street is extended in the future. Page 8 Page 353 Item#13. Cross-access/ingress-egress easements are required to be granted between all lots in the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)/Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Per the ACHD report,Linder Rd. is scheduled in the IFYWP to be constructed as a new 4-lane 1-84 overpass and widened to 5-lanes on each side of I-84 with a level 3 bike facility from Franklin Rd. to Overland Rd. in the future. The intersection of Overland Rd. and Linder Rd. is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north and south legs and 7-lanes on the east west legs and signalized between 2036 and 2040. A future traffic signal is planned in the CIP at the Linder/Overland Rd. intersection and scheduled for 2031-2035 but may be accelerated if the Linder Rd. overpass becomes a priority. For this reason, and because Overland Rd. is fully built-out, a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required by ACHD with this application. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C- 6B.1 for non-residential uses in commercial districts. Parking stalls and drive-aisles should comply with the dimensions in UDC Table 11-3C-5. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): A 10' wide detached multi-use pathway is proposed as required within the street buffer along S. Linder Rd. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. The pathway should 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).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; detached sidewalks/pathway are required along W. Overland Rd. and S. Linder Rd.,both arterial streets. and per the guidelines in the TMISAP. In accord with the TMISAP and UDC 11-3A-17E,Staff recommends minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are provided along all streets within the development. Sidewalks/pathways should include dedicated crosswalks at the intersection with all streets within commercial activity centers and should be distinguished from surrounding paving as set forth in the TMISAP (Crosswalks,pg.3-28). Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Parkways are recommended along all streets within the development in accord with the TMISAP,planted with street trees and landscaping per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees is 8-feet; the minimum with of parkway planters for Class I and III trees is 10-feet. Planter widths for Class 11 trees may be reduced to 6-feet if root barriers are installed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 50-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to 1-84; 25-foot wide buffers are required along W. Overland Rd. and S. Linder Rd.,arterial streets; and a 10-foot wide buffers are required along S. Spanish Sun Way and W. Tasa St., local streets,per UDC Table 11-2B-3,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Street buffers with detached sidewalks are measured from back of curb. All street buffers are required to be maintained by the property owner or business owners' association per UDC 11-3B-7C.2b. Page 9 Page 354 Item#13. If residential uses abut any of the lots at the time of lot development, a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer shall be provided, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-9C. A residential use currently exists on the abutting property to the west. Landscaping is required adjacent to the pathway along S. Linder Rd. 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. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B- 7C. There were existing trees on this site around the home that have been removed—the Applicant states these trees were diseased and trash trees that did not require mitigation. If any other trees exist on the site,mitigation may be required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. Contact the City Arborist,Matt Perkins,prior to removing any additional trees from the site to determine mitigation requirements. 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 Geotechnical En ing eering Report for the subdivision. The preliminary plat depicts an existing ITD storm drainage facility at the northeast corner of the site that is proposed to remain. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-151: Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. This property lies within the boundary of Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District;water delivery is from the Kennedy Lateral which is piped along Overland Rd. The Applicant proposes to install a pressure irrigation system along with a pump station adjacent to W. Overland Rd. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. An existing 12-inch water main is located within Overland Rd.with a second 12-inch water main within the Linder Rd.right-of-way. An existing 30-inch sewer main line is located within Overland Rd. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Hardin Drain is a large open waterway that lies within a 40-foot wide easement across the northeast corner of the site that is proposed to be piped with a 36-inch reinforced concrete pipe in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B.3. This project is not within the flood plain. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall chain- link fence exists around the ITD storm drainage facility which is proposed to remain. No fencing is depicted on the plan around the Kendall Ford; Staff recommends if fencing is proposed for security that it be of a higher quality than chain-link(i.e.wrought iron)—the Applicant should clarify at the hearing if fencing will be proposed and if so,what type of fencing is proposed. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the Kendall Ford site as shown in Section VII.D. Two (2) single-story structures are proposed on Lot 1,Block 1 with building materials consisting of ACM panels(i.e. aluminum composite), corrugated horizontal metal panels, CMU in two(2)different colors;metal sunscreens and canopies are proposed over some windows. Page 10 Page 355 Item#13. Overhead doors are proposed on the north, east and west sides of the building. Final design must comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation with the requirement of a development agreement and preliminary plat per the provisions noted in Section VIII,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 AZ&PP requests. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions b. In opposition:None C. Commenting d. Written testimony: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions (in agreement with staff rTort) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. In favor of the location of the proposed use and site design. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 11 Page 356 Item#13. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map Legal Description Annexation & -G Rezone - Proposed Artemisia Subdivision A parcel being a portion of the SE /4 of the SE f4 of Section 14, Township 3 Nortn, Range ' Wwit, Boise Meridiark,Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of said Section 14, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the southwest corner of the SE '.of said Section 14 bears N 89'1941'W a distance of 2861.68 feet; Thence along the southerly boundary of said SE X of the SE %, also being the centerline of VV. Overland Road, N 89"19'41"W a distance of 923-89 feet to a point; Thence leaving said centerline and southerly boundary N 0'44'19" E a distance of 1210-11 feet to point on the Centerline of Interstate 84; Thence along Bald Centerllne S 89`34W" E a distance of 921.31 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said SE V4 of the SE '1, also being thie centerline of S. Linder Road, Thence leaving the centerline of said Interstate 84 and along said easterly boundary and S. Linder Road oenteriine S 0`32'59" VVa distance of 1213-95 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel Contains 25.67 acres and is subOct to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W. Hansen, PLC Land Solutions. P p,i Lq s March 5, 2021 Tg IL I � �ons Artemisia Subdivision—AA tian&Rezone --' �rwww,�n ^nCwwng 3Db MD.19-72 P�ryR 1 of 1 Page 12 Page 357 Item#13. CITE' OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION & C- REZONE i E PROPOSED ARTEMISIA SUBDIVISION A POR7104 OF THE SE 114 OF THESE 114 OF SECTION 14, T-3N R.1W W. B.M. CITY OF MERIDIAN_ADA CiDUNTY, IDAHO ;Ii It p' 100` 209 409 r- L'39'34'd 1. 1- WSTATE 84 I S FE Y; 25.67 ACRES f- rd 1d 1737.7§' 92389' Polly OF RZGINNIN 14 I3 1�4 — 23 NM]9'41'w 2661.d8' W. OVERLAND RD, 2. 24 L{ r BASIS OF BEARING � T ` 5 �^ Latnd- luin Lead Surveying and Qmsulting OF g51 a: erw 37 $rF A O �0' E LRIOWY.to 83642 +� 12 0 91 291-.NG 6mal 2ee,7557!« ww.krKlxlullors 612 ,pg 1q 1g-7� Page 13 Page 358 Item#13. B. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 1/27/2021) PFAEUMIHARY PLAT gg ARTEMISIA SUBDIVISIO 3g wapgixx,lonxo I'�g � pp7ptl 6�e �2021�mr J t PFAMECT SFM j -------------------------------------------------------------------------- v + `•. �., �..� - '��•. '``t��''C�I r ix I.QI.I.—rw.,.. `I � xm��n<•u ys+nee� �O L T I Iwcn�/j i 6 r �Y o�aaulcJ — V7� EE Page 14 Page 359 Item#13. C. Landscape Plan(date: 3/1/2021) LANDSCAPE NOTES I U ig I I 0 � GENERAL NOTES.o 0 I � cur '•�`�,�� LLWILWIIIIIIIIII''I II IIII IIIIIIIIIII�lI III�II�II�I � III !I _=®��-�_- @fl l IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillllll IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII t I j I ON i IIIIIII ��I ILI ffv _ $F I ._. R 0NF_ ` ARE REE - _ _ pLAN0.5CAPE CALCULATIONS A TWO i ARE OUR 9 CWRALL LANDSCAPE PLAN, �e 9 N L7.00 PLANT SCHEDULE .-....-�-^•��r�•n-ter.-r-m _ WE o :r. I 0 _ s 7 �` •., :; �'�� III m �.» d euILOINc i euILOINc z o I. 0 MFTCHLINE-SEE SHEET L1.10 I � ' ` 1'i3' HLINE.3EESHEE r r1 F�n i—q R © L7-70 Page 15 Page 360 Item#13. PLaNrscnEouLE — — - -_-- - ---- ----_- -----IAM1TCHIIE-SEE SHEET L1.10 ----- I -__ �..� .I•g HLINE-5EE5HE ��e g SIR F ,€ T 4,¢ ---------- _ ------ --- q t� •' •I I a _ L �J RANTSCHENNLE ll :� I RUT $3sYlll . ' I 1 I 0 _ L : I la'm I0 &� m I AATCH'� ESHEFf LI 3H ' -f-i-----RTC' .iEE SHEET L1.40 - - iLl Page 16 Page 361 Item#13. o PLANT SCHEDULE I I ❑� �_ MATCH�B��SH�fL13C_ I I i' Ala fw i io = o. L>fLjN � o. i =� . . . . . . . TEN i C G U L LMILELim - - a L L�:VATIGN log FLAN VIEW :,� SIGN-DETAIL ° I y ——— VFUV'H"+ANOAT}— i -21 1 0 LANDSCAPE PLAN:AREA FOUR e© FL140 o LANDSCAPE SPECIFICATIONS k = w»o.�xs uw ; 32 Pi Nmmiiivneo uu'--ua,wr,rc.auv ' w �� i x.��:�i"��a°.'i'.«�w.A"��r✓x� m a+ss"'°-.��®ro.��..®wn. M17�li ' ` TIff RJWINO DETAL v COIF6iOIB liff PI-ANIYO LrEfIV< ,n xwP r.e + ° ..n �i eewnw uxrex I — o.em.�xr... � i x nxamw ns,exn annex evn y�,l';6 nLLa wnxvi uu.nxn rwve - .na-en.. i ii i i.. aepe 8NP1B%_ANRtl�ETALLO'� I' _ I.. Pi Vwwr ,i ii ixi iii n..iw..r iw i - ii y..l u.i n o W m a 0 0 0 ~Lzoo Page 17 Page 362 Item#13. D. Conceptual Building Elevations (dated: 2/2/2021) SG HELEVATION `vvW w @iY—• � J �• W 7 Z =ORiH ELEVATION d`�p S Y 0 5 a z W Y 0 w _ o avwR— Iv r1EA5T ELEVATION d�� .... ._ \WEST ELEVATION .+ RlEltl]It tClIXi ElEV0.T1M8 KENDALL OVERLAND KE , " LL SOUTH VIEW FUDoW IRIDIAN JUNIN Wpm% Page 18 Page 363 Item#13. KENDALL OVERLAND SOUTH VIEW ! SERVICE e ear KENDALL OVERLAND SOUTH VIEW ! SERVICE 3 KENDALL OVERLAND SOUTH WEST VIEW ! Page 19 Page 364 Item#13. KENDALL OVERLAND C NORTH VIEW ''' rrmrIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII KMVALL4fM KENDALL OVERLAND C � NORTH VIEW I(EN00.L. i'M .� KENDALL OVERLAND C NORTH EAST VIEW Page 20 Page 365 Item#13. KENDALL OVERLAND SOUTH EAST VIEW I ''' ' Page 21 Page 366 Item#13. 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, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations submitted with the annexation application contained herein. b. Prior to development of the commercial/office portion of the development,the development agreement shall be amended to include a conceptual development plan that demonstrates consistency with the land use,transportation and design elements of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP), including but not limited to the following: (1) Provide minimum 6-foot wide parkways/planting strips and detached minimum 5- foot wide sidewalks along all streets within the development(Pedestrian&Bicycle System,pg. 3-27). The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees is 8- feet; the minimum with of parkway planters for Class I and III trees is 10 feet. Planter widths for Class II trees may be reduced to 6-feet if root barriers are installed per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. (2) Sidewalks/pathways shall include dedicated crosswalks at the intersection with all streets within commercial activity centers and shall be distinguished from surrounding paving(Crosswalks,pg. 3-28). (3) Street furnishings such as seating,newspaper racks,bollards,trash receptacles, bicycle racks and other elements important to the functioning of an effective pedestrian environment shall be provided(Street Furniture,pgs. 3-28—3-29). (4) Exterior lighting should be used to provide illumination for the security and safety of entry drives,parking, service and loading areas,pathways, courtyards and plazas, without intruding on adjacent properties. Site lighting should be architecturally compatible and consistent in design between sites. (Lighting,pg. 3-30). (5) Future development along Overland Rd. and internal local streets should incorporate street-oriented design consistent with the TMISAP for commercial developments. (6) Building orientation and setbacks should be close to the street with the main entrance of buildings oriented to the street(Street-Oriented Design,pg. 3-33). (7) A continuous unbroken frontage along required build-to lines to a minimum height of 30-feet should be constructed for at least 75%of the property frontage. Adjustments to this requirement may be allowed, such as modest setbacks to accommodate additional sidewalk space for caf6 seating,or breaks in frontage for the creation of pocket parks. New Buildings at street intersections should"hold the corners"and avoid introducing additional building setbacks unless a new public space is specified. Page 22 - Page 367 Item#13. At least 40%of the linear dimension of the street level frontages shall be in windows or doorways; street level windows shall be clear or tinted visually permeable glass (mirrored or reflective glass is prohibited). Window sills shall be located no higher than 3'6"above adjacent exterior grade;headers shall be located no lower than 8'0" above adjacent exterior grade.No wall frontage shall continue uninterrupted by a window or a functional public access doorway for a linear distance of greater than 12'. The principal doorway for public entry into a building shall be from the fronting street. Corner entrances may be provided on corner lot buildings(Commercial and Mixed-Use Buildings,pg. 3-33).No parking should be placed between a building and the fronting primary or secondary street(Commercial Activity Centers,pg. 3-37). (8) The space between a building facade and the adjacent sidewalk or walkway should be appropriately landscaped with a combination of lawn,groundcover, shrubs and appropriate trees (Building Facades,pg. 3-38). (9) Low-rise buildings of 2-4 stories over much of the area is desired(Building Heights, pg. 3-38). (10) Buildings should be designed with clearly delineated bases,bodies and tops(Base, Body and Top,pg. 3-39). (11) Comply with the general recommendations for Activity Centers noted on pg. 3-40. (12) Awnings shall be provided on building facades for climate protection for pedestrians and shall extend a minimum of 5-feet from the facade of the fronting structure—8- feet is preferable in wider pedestrian environments(Awnings,pg. 3-45). (13) Signs should be designed to contribute to the overall character,identity and way finding system. The colors,materials, sizes, shapes and lighting of signs should be compatible with the architecture of the buildings and the businesses they identify (Signs,pg. 3-46). (14) High quality public art should be incorporated into the design of streetscapes,public buildings,parks,transit,infrastructure, and other public projects(Public Art,pg. 3- 47). (15) Open civic spaces should be provided in commercial activity centers/mixed use environments and should be located adjacent to an accessible from at least one primary street(3-48). c. Minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkways shall be provided from the perimeter sidewalks along Overland and Linder Roads to the main building entrances in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4a. d. Internal pedestrian walkways shall be provided between buildings within the site for pedestrian connectivity. Internal walkways shall be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks in accord with UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. e. All future structures constructed on this site shall comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. f. The final plat shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits for any structures beyond those on the Kendall Ford site(i.e. Lot 1,Block 1). The Kendall Ford site is allowed to develop and obtain building permits prior to recordation of the plat. Page 23 Page 368 Item#13. g. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-38: Vehicle Sales or Rental and Service is required. h. If fencing is proposed for security around the Kendall Ford site, it shall be of a higher quality than chain-link(i.e.wrought iron). 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access via W. Overland Rd. and S. Linder Rd. b. Include a note granting cross-access/ingress-egress easements between all lots in the subdivision in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Include a calculations table on the plan that demonstrate compliance with the standards for street buffer(11-3B-7C),pathway(11-3B-12C)and parkway(11-3B-7C)landscaping; include required vs. provided number of trees. b. Include mitigation information for any existing trees that are removed from the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-10C.5. Contact the City Arborist, Matt Perkins,prior to removing any trees from the site to determine mitigation requirements. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district. 5. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. 6. A 14-foot wide public use easement for the multi-use pathway along S. Linder Rd. shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s).If the pathway will be located entirely within the right-of-way, a public pedestrian easement is not needed. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 This project has been granted permission to sewer the northern portion of the property outside of its designated sewer shed. 1.1.2 The applicant shall provide a deposit for the future construction of an 8-inch sewer main along the North portion of property. The deposit shall be 125%of the construction bid. The deposit must be provided to the City prior to signature of the final plat. 1.1.3 The applicant shall provide a sewer utility easement for the future construction of an 8-inch sewer main along the North portion of the property. The easement shall be 20-foot-wide and free from any permanent structure including buildings,fences,trees,bushes, etc. There must also be a point of access provided for future access to the main. 1.1.4 Provide a valve to the North and West side of the water tee located in the future Linder Road overpass. 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 Page 24 Page 369 Item#13. 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 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 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. 2.8 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 Page 25 Page 370 Item#13. 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 I-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 26 Page 371 Item#13. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciV.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=224777&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=225351&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciN.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=225372&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=226077&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancioy.or,zlWebLinkIDoeView.aspx?id=224816&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=225900&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C ky 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 the proposed zoning map amendment to C-G 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 a mix of commercial/office uses which will provide for the retail and service needs of the community consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial districts in accord 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. Page 27 Page 372 Item#13. 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. 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. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use 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 28 Page 373 Item#14. (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2021-0034) by CSHQA, Located at 6308 N. Linder Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Use Area Plan in the Development Agreement (Inst. #2019- 028376) to allow financial uses in the area currently designated for specialty retail and restaurant uses. Page 374 Item#14. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Linder Village (H-2021-0034) by CSHQA, Located at 6308 N. Linder Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Use Area Plan in the Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-028376) to allow financial uses in the area currently designated for specialty retail and restaurant uses. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 375 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 1 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 14 PROJECT NAME : Linder Village ( W2021 - 0034 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 � 8 g 10 � 11 12 13 14 15 Item#14. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 6/1/2021 Legend DATE: letPrajeci Laca�ian TO: Mayor&City Council FROAM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner R-4 RT 208-884-5533 s .H T=R1 h+UJ SUBJECT: H-2021-0034 Linder Village RUT R- LOCATION: The site is located at 6308 N. Linder Road at the northeast corner of N. Linder R' Road and W. Chinden Blvd., in the NW RUT %4 of Section 25,Township 4N.,Range R-_ 1 W. �8C R 1 fia® R. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the Use Area Plan in the Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-028376)to include financial uses in the area currently designated for specialty retail and restaurant uses. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Applicant: Mandie Brozo, CSHQA—200 Broad St., Boise, ID 83702 B. Owner: Dave McKinney,High Desert Development Linder Village, LLC—2537 W. State St., Ste. 110, Boise,ID 83702 C. Representative: James Marsh, CSHQA—2537 W. State St., Ste. 110,Boise, ID 83702 III. STAFF ANALYSIS The Applicant proposes to amend the existing Development Agreement(DA)(Inst. #2019-028376)to update the Use Area Plan to allow for a financial institution in the area currently designated for specialty retail and restaurant uses at the northwest corner of the site.No other changes to the uses shown on the Plan are proposed.The Use Area Plan in Section V.B is included in the existing DA;the Plan in Section V.E is proposed. Substantial compliance with the approved Use Area Plan is required as a provision of the DA (i.e. #5.1a) to ensure a minimum of three (3) land use types [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.) and Page 1 Page 376 Item#14. industrial] are provided within this development consistent with the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the associated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for this site. The conceptual development plan and site circulation plan have also been updated to reflect the proposed reconfiguration of the site layout in the area where the financial institution is planned; the adjacent building footprint to the east now includes a drive-through. The pedestrian circulation plan depicts reconfigured pathway locations consistent with the new site design. The proposed change to include financial along with the retail and restaurant uses will still ensure a mix of land uses are provided as desired in the MU-C. Because the proposed change increases the types of uses planned for this area which is desired, Staff is supportive of the requested amendment to the DA. IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the modification to the DA as proposed by the Applicant. Page 2 Page 377 Item#14. V. EXHIBITS A. Existing Conceptual Development Plan(dated: 12/13/18) ... s - FUTURE OFFICEi RETAIL G�. f k DEVELOPMENT *to 'i. ti. .. k % LI W M �' - Ito x - tj . a ■ a5 ry � � 'S V FUTURE RESIDENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT I Y n1�,R�SEPT PLAN CSHOA CONCEPT SITE UW PLAN Page 3 Page 378 Item#14. B. Existing Use Area Plan(dated: 10/8/18): SPECIALTY RETAIL& FAST/CASUAL AUTOMDTIVEI j MIXED RESTAURANTS FOOD&BEVERAGE FUEL RETAIIIHEALTH& ---------� MEDIGAL — I ail _ IIUII� i ENTERTAINMENT FUTURE � OFFICE/RETAIL RETAILICMC .e� ¶ w .ISOFTGOODS DEVELOPMENT ------------- »� 2 I I COMMUNITY GROCERY &LIVEMORK RETAIL _ DEVELOPMENT FUTURE,., RESIDENTIAL _ - DEVELOPMENT -f 1 it I ' ll I I I I I I I I I II i I I i l l l l CSHOA USE AREA L I N 13T R CLIENT.oMSR.IN: ��„�.� PLAN Page 4 Page 379 Item#14. C. Existing Site Circulation Plan(dated: 10/8/18): CHINDEN IMPROVEMENTS PER STARS AGREEMENT ulnnn- noon nmm�ummummummunnnunnnwiliinnumunli�imulnminiiimniiliwiiin mommfimnuonnuioummmummunnnummulnmml -- --- ----- u - nu nlurl 1 I r I I r 1 I I I _ ------- -- _ lu nlu lun r .ee wmmilulnuuw.................... Z ? n N�In1n`+p`nn111ruruunmulnlNlluruuuuuluuluul Z �fY1Fh Mai 7 Uj W - = FUTURE OFFICElRETAIL 0 p +I; _ DEVELOPMENTEL O IIIILLII 1 W❑ lL=T ullllall lllllllllll 11}11111111111111151=_e. .c``1•1p P;``p`d`� ___S_ \— FLRE RQ6NAY JW CORCTa o ➢ EENPA a - 1 , - �1T1y11111111fllllllu111111t1111p - --- NEWBUSSTOF 771 � lu ..e� r `.r.'.. � 1,+, ul Vt1�• - __ ' - IXNIf�••XIIIN - ySNN111T11R1r1fl11r1111r11H11111111111rll 11 lllnllllllllll llllltll lli1111111j11 utiTllli�III - ---- II 1 IICIIII `� � 'il• = IIIIIIIIi IIiINIIINIUII IIiINIIININII IIiIUIIIUINII IIi lli 11114C II E STING ROADYYAY I 1�• = EKNN=IN ' III r+yiiluiuNllilllll FUTURE RESIDENTIAL - --. .................;..........�.......... C1]NNEGTIGN PaNrTn ....Inaw Hluuuuul_ _ _ J DEVELOPMENT = uew nww sueomsoN nn nu Illtyul _ _ uualll --- .---- N$iif Qe1;ITT1!_� �Fu4ID�TrINd-1IIniylllmi+ - uulq- ~ - h -- I++unulpnlrJlrmlgMTom*u+lu+i+rlululunu NEW STREET PERLI I I ACHD STANMRU3 DCIS'i1NG IffiIQNAY EX f@L:ION GONNEGiIDN ' POIrlT 1OA0.1AGENI SNBNIVLSI�N CSHNQ— Ac CIRCULATION L I N D E R� oa"lmxe ngne�clx�e va n,nall��" :z PLAN Page 5 Page 380 Item#14. D. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan(dated: 5/25/2021): it F Ob — .+ �• .; gym'is � t .. �� FUTURE OFE]CE!RETAIL' -- i 6EUELOPMENT -TIL, W AtFU DEV RESIDENTIAL FUTURERESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT .off.. � V ■ 1 ti a CONCEPT PLAN CSHONAW CONCEPT °� �; Orchard SITE PLAN �� Park Page 6 Page 381 Item#14. E. Proposed Use Area Plan(dated: 5/7/2 1): I SPECIALTY RETAIL, RESTAURANTS& FASTICASUAI AUTOMOTIVE1 MIXED FINANCIAL FOO1 .BEVERAGE FUEL RETAILIHEALTH& MEDRW L I- --IT[rFr- F- I C" LLL�' L ENERTAI N M ENTI FUTURE[ RETAIL/ V OFFICE/RETAIL IC SOF DEVELOPMENT -- ---------------- COMMUNITY GROCERY &LIVEANORK RETAIL DEVELOPMENT LI FUTURE RESIDENTIAL kk DEVELOPMENT --- ------- • CSH� Orchard USE AREA D�TE MJ77-, 8 B PLAN -INGTITLE Park Page 7 Item#14. F. Proposed Site Circulation Plan(dated: 5/7/21): CHINDEN IMPROVEMENTS PER STARS AGREEMENT II��IIIII��IIIIII��IIIIIJIIId�II IIIIIIIII;�IIIIII��II ...II�I IIII I��I IIII�Ih - - II,,DIDl�ill Ill�i,lllll�,ll �llllll�„I��,Illlli!lIIIIII„lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II'I�IIII —#- IIIIII I IIIIIIIIII I„II.IIII---IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII g I + - -IIIn1lIITQ11111iI nTn�urnl�ni+.l'lis<n+rl+n 1- D _ null IIIII,IIII Illnl all IIII IIII - k ,•IUIDIVl1\IH�1\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIRIIIIDI111 UII1111 11 111111 1 11111 111 4 - �I LU Z W LIJ Z ._o - - 1 - �.-: - ' O ° 9 FUTURE OFFICE/RETAIL O gE r o DEVEL©PMENT i 1, �A '.; -8gp _ ``,olnnluulnulued- ,. 1 1 Imrnllmm Du .. III _ IIIIIIInIII1111IIlIIIIIII I - _ _ LU _ W FUTURE ROADWAY CONNECTION POINT TO ADJACENT PARCEL IEW BUS STOP IIIi IRiHIHHHH + IIIry1pIIIIIiII11I I. Il III�� •• /\\\\\\\IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIn1111111 = -.— uullDuuulIIIIIInunnuuuumuuunuunuumuuuumo`•\ lln.11l.....lnlelnnnnl EXISTING ROADWAY 11111111�111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111` AAA.1 nt1111111111011111111111111111111111{Illlillll EXTENSION ,11111111111111111 FUTURE RESIDENTIAL 1111,,,,,111111= AD CENT POINT TO DEVELOPMENT 5 - ulaln - NlSnl '�--- SUBAGENT SUBDIVISION l T it _ _ IIII_?III IIII?III111till 11111Inll ll i IIIIIII II ---- NEW1111 IIIII]�111III-I STREET PER ACRID STANDARDS EXISTING ROADWAY EXTENSIONANNGON -1 s11 111-'i 1-111-1_1 I IIIIIIiI llllll 411-Y-Y�--- POINT TO ADJACENT SUBDIVISION � Hc CIRCULATION Orchard 7" Pa.l a,Da\w� PLAN Park Page 8 Page 383 Item#15. (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4, and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. Page 384 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 1v 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 15 PROJECT NAME : 2021 UDC Text Amendment ( ZOA- 2021 - 0002 ) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#15. C� fIEN , IN1, IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Bill Parsons Meeting Date: June 1, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for 2021 UDC Text Amendment (ZOA-2021-0002) by City of Meridian Planning Division, Located at 33 E. Broadway Ave. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment for text amendments to update certain sections of the City's Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to the Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 385 Item#15. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 6/1/2021 DATE: ' 16 44 55 0 TO: Mayor&City Council 26 FROM: Bill Parsons, Current Planning Supervisor 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: ZOA-2021-0002 — 2021 UDC Text Amendment Legend �. LOCATION: City wide AOCI County — 69 Line Future Road I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Meridian Planning Division has applied for a Unified Development Code (UDC)text amendment to update certain sections of the City's code as follows: • Landscape Requirements and Common Open Space and Site Amenity Requirements in Chapter 3; • Multi-family Common Open Space Design Requirements in Chapter 4; and • Various other Amendments in Chapters 1-5 and 7. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: City of Meridian Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Ave, Suite#102 Meridian,ID 83642 Page 1 Page 386 Item#15. III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 4/16/2021 5/14/2021 newspaper Public Service Announcement 4/13/2021 5/12/2021 Nextdoor posting 4/13/2021 5/12/2021 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS (Comprehensive Plan) A. Comprehensive Plan Text(https:llwww.meridianciU.or/p lan): 3.01.01B -Update the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code as needed to accommodate the community's needs and growth trends. Many of the requested code changes associated with this text amendment reflect the desire of the Community and maintain the integrity of the plan. 3.04.01B—Maintain and update the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. City staff keeps a running database of code revisions throughout the year. The Department's goal is to amend the UDC twice a year to keep the code current. This round of changes has been a result of a culmination of multiple revisions based largely on citizen input during the Comprehensive Plan update which has resulted in a major revamp of the UDC's open space, amenity and landscape requirements. Staff believes the proposed changes encompass the vision of the plan and is largely supported by those who participated in the process. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS (U !o In accord with Meridian City Code 11-5,the Planning Division of the Meridian Community Development respectfully submits a UDC text amendment application. The proposed update is meant to modify certain sections of the Unified Development Code(UDC) and overhaul the landscape and common open space and site amenities standards for residential and multi- family developments. Many of the changes coincide with the policies and feedback received during the update and adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. Last minute changes where added at the request of Code Enforcement to assist in their effort to enforce the code. The proposed text amendment includes a broad range of changes to the sections as follows: 1. UDC 11-313—Landscape Requirements 2.UDC 11-3G—Common Open Space and Site Amenity Standards 3. UDC 11-4-3-27—Multi-family Development: Updating the common open space standards to align with some of the changes being proposed with the Common Open Space and Site Amenities 4. Miscellaneous changes to code sections in Chapters 1-5 and Chapter 7. All the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are included as part of the public record. Staff has purposely not attached all of the changes to the document to minimize the size of the staff report. Further, staff anticipates further refinement to these documents as the project traverses through the hearing process. Except for the Code Enforcement changes, all of the proposed changes went through an extensive and collaborative review process over several months between City staff,the UDC Page 2 Page 387 Item#15. Focus Group and the Open Space Committee.An informative meeting with the BCA was held on April 13th In summary, City Staff believes the proposed changes will make the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable. VI. DECISION A. Staff. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment to the UDC based on the analysis provided in Section IV and V,modifications presented in Exhibits 1-5 and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Section VII. B. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on May 6, 2021.At the public hearing,the Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject ZOA request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Planning Division b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Kent Brown d. Written testimony: BCA e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons and Lacy Ooi f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. None 3. Key issues)of discussion by Commission. a. Proposed changes to the RV parking standards. b. City assumingthe hponsibili , for public hearing postings. c. New parking standards for multi-family developments. d. Flex space standards as they pertain to the placement of the roll-up doors adjacent to e. public streets. f. Tree mitigation fee and whether or not this is the appropriate mechanism to allow trees to planted off-site to mitigate the loss. g_ Proposed changes to the open space and amenity standards. h. Adding more amenity options to the multi-family standards. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Added the City Arborist preferred tree species list to Exhibit 3. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 3 Page 388 Item#15. D. FINDINGS 1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS: (UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment to the Unified Development Code,the Council shall make the following findings: A.The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section IV, of the Staff Report for more information. B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; and The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare if the changes to the text of the UDC are approved as submitted. It is the intent of the text amendment to further the health, safety and welfare of the public. C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to,school districts. The Commission finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City departments,public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service provider(s)when making this finding. Page 4 Page 389 iDAND O Q _ V v MMIO L } O .�v. u Ln O O NOON v MIS 0 � CO U lB N r-1 CO � I msommommC O u rrmiH N M O +Mo a1 c v I Q u a)One N U N of L N O � f6 ( � c > m �./ / .+' +J a Q) N c j Q O E u a1 d0 L N aJ Q a O Q a) (U a) O O �Ln v aJ QJ amommom > N L : O 4 , O aJ � p • L �V- U O L Loom � aU CS a� O SommomN aJ � -� � L aJ O -o c bA +� inbn GOOMMEM Co W_ � Q u � ON v n , cLa d N o vl ul o + + W U • � co QJ Z u Q O U ' � O� C 0 W cB v� +, Q cn Q ° o v a ate, o u .a; -� �' O � aA oQ O L UCZ) m0 O o a) L N 07 -O Q Z; O EQ MOM > O \ L1 QJ c�O 01 O O 3 = O � L L Q) E O } m �+ OMENOMONEE Q 0 0 v fB fB U co co cm l N -I d- Ln lD co co m Q m m m m m m m O m ` I m �7 l7 L7 m m I m m rn TIMA � � � � r"i r""i r"i TOMMEM! 4�J o ), ' G1 + m w V) � u L '' of m O. E N 3 H a O � O m O c > °1 m , m MINIMMINDw C. 1 DC Lim c O +' c 7 , a' C- N C m G E c a a O O O �, to L O a0, tv c Ln Q O Y LAm nroo C. �n a 0