The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-06-29 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 6:00 PM Minutes VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS To join the meeting online: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87658380816 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 876 5838 0816 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15 minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a Homeowner’s Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented homeowners who have consented to yielding their time. After all public testimony, the applicant is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote. 1. Public Hearing Continued from May 26, 2021 for Skybreak Neighborhood (H- 2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader ADJOURNMENT 8:22 pm Item#1. Meridian City Council Budget Meeting June 29, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 8:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 29, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Liz Strader and Brad Hoaglun. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, June 29th at 8:32 a.m. We will begin this -- today's special meeting and budget workshop with roll call attendance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item is adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Delano Subdivision No. 1 Emergency Access Easement 2. Edington Place Pedestrian Pathway Easement 3. New Commercial Building for Eckhardt Companies, Inc. Water Main Easement No. 1 4. Shelburne East No. 3 Pedestrian Pathway Easement No. 1 Page 4 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 2 of 23 5. Shelburne South No. 1 Pedestrian Pathway Easement No. 1 6. Shelburne South No. 2 Pedestrian Pathway Easement No. 1 7. Final Order for Midgrove Plaza (FP-2021-0033) by Rodney Evans + Partners, PLLC, Located at 1450 E. Franklin Rd. 8. Revised Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Gramercy Commons (H-2021-0022) by Intermountain Pacific, LLC, Located at 1873, 1925, and 2069 S. Wells Ave. 9. City of Meridian Financial Report - May 2021 Simison: First item up is the Consent Agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt 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 adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Simison: There were no items moved to the Consent Agenda -- or from the Consent Agenda. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 10. Fire Department: Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Amendment in the Amount of $10,000.00 for Public Education Simison: So, we will move on to the Department/Commission Reports and the first item is No. 10, which is a Fire Department fiscal year 2021 budget amount -- amendment in the amount of 10,000 dollars for public education and ask Pam to come forward. Orr: Good morning. Thank you for having me this morning. My budget amendment this morning is -- you will see that it's 26,495 dollars. Sixteen thousand four hundred and Page 5 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 3 of 23 ninety-five dollars has already been received from donations that we have received from outside organizations. These are from Light My Fire. It's from our smoke alarm program. When we are doing smoke alarms. It's also for car seats. When we are doing car seats people make donations to that as well. We also received a really generous donation of 2,000 dollars from a resident for -- that wanted it to specifically go towards our CPR program as well. We had assisted her husband and he ended up passing on, unfortunately, and -- but she wanted something for that as well. So, with that 26,495 dollars, ten thousand of that that we are requesting is actually from an MOU back in 2018. We signed an MOU between the City of Meridian and the Light My Fire organization and what that basically stated was was that for 10,000 -- every 10,000 dollars that they gave to us -- up to 10,000 dollars for their donation, that we would match that and so that's what we are requesting for today. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we approve the Fire Department fiscal year 2021 budget amendment in the amount of 10,000 for public education. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the budget amendment in the amount of 10,000 dollars. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. Thank you, Pam. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 11. Police Department: Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Amendment in the Amount of $27,405.00 for Traffic Team Motorcycle Replacement Simison: Next item is Police Department Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Amendment in the amount of 27,405 dollars, Traffic Team motorcycle replacement, and we will hear from Lieutenant Ford. Ford: Good morning. So, this is in reference to -- the Traffic Team has a motorcycle that is up for replacement in FY-2022. That motorcycle has -- well, it needs some significant maintenance to the tune of about 7,000 dollars. So, this request is to amend that and purchase a new motorcycle, that replacement one now, versus in October. What that -- what that will do for us is that will give us -- that bike should be ready in September, so Page 6 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 4 of 23 they can actually get out and use that bike before the weather changes and with that I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move we approve the Police Department fiscal year 2021 budget amendment in the amount of 27,405 dollars for a Traffic Team motorcycle replacement. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 11 in the amount of 27,405 dollars. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 12. Parks and Recreation Department: Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Amendment in the Amount of $13,360.00 for Homecourt Staffing Simison: Next up we have Parks and Recreation Department fiscal year 2021 budget amendment in the amount of 13,360 dollars for HomeCourt staffing. Mr. White. White: Mr. Mayor and Council, thank you for having me this morning. On May 11th -- there we go. Can you hear me now? On May 11 th Council approved the conversion of two part-time positions to one full-time position at HomeCourt. At that time we said we would like to come back and do a second set of the conversion of two part-timers to a full timer. Also during the May 11 th meeting we noted that we had hired in the last four years 17 people in those positions. Between May 11 th and now we actually lost two more part timers to full-time work and now we have two positions that are open and we are asking that that be converted over to a full-time position at this time. So, with that I will stand for questions. Simison: Council, any -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 7 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 5 of 23 Perreault: I move that we approve the Parks and Recreation Department fiscal year 2021 budget amendment the amount of 13,360 dollars for HomeCourt staffing. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. Thanks, Garrett. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 13. Mayor's Office: Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Amendment in the Amount of $7000.00 for the Treasure Valley Youth Safety Summit Simison: Okay. Next item up is Item 13, which is the Mayor's Office fiscal year 2021 budget amendment in the amount of 7,000 dollars for the Treasure Valley Youth Safety Summit. Turn this over to Mr. Miles. Miles: Good morning, Mr. Mayor and Members of Council. You have got the budget amendment request in your packet to approve fiscal year '21 budget amendment in the amount of 7,000 dollars for the Treasure Valley Youth Safety Summit cost. As you know we received donated revenues for youth programs from various sponsors and in 2020 there was COVID, so a lot of events did not happen and this request is to propose to use some of those donated revenues for 2021 events. So, we are asking for your approval for that. Simison: Council, any questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just one. When is it? Remind me when it is. The summit. Miles: When is it? Borton: Yeah. Miles: So, it's currently planned for September. I believe the date is the 15th. It will be at Wahooz. Borton: Okay. Page 8 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 6 of 23 Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we approve fiscal year 2021 budget amendment in the amount of 7,000 dollars for the Treasure Valley Youth Safety Summit. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 14 in the amount of 7,000 dollars. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 14. City of Meridian Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Presentation and Discussion Simison: See how much fun these are when we just pull up these budget stuff and just keep voting on all of them? Let's keep going then. With that let's go onto 14. (Fiscal Year 2021 Budget presentation not transcribed.) ACTION ITEMS 15. AIA B133 Agreement with Rice Fergus Miller, Inc. for the Final Design and Construction Administration for the Northwest Fire Station in the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $405,925.00 16. AIA B133 Agreement with Rice Fergus Miller, Inc. for the Final Design and Construction Administration for the Northwest Police Substation/Precinct in the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $423,975.00 17. AIA B133 Agreement with Rice Fergus Miller for the Final Design and Construction Administration for the South Fire Station in the Not-To- Exceed Amount of $528,971.00 18. AIA B133 Agreement with Rice Fergus Miller, Inc. for the Final Design and Construction Administration for the South Police Substation/Precinct in the Not-To-Exceed Amount of $505,076.00 Simison: So, Council, next item is our Action Items. So, we are to Items 15, 16, 17 and 18. Based upon the conversations we just had I really am interested to see what this Page 9 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 7 of 23 looks like and what it means. So, I have got the chiefs and lieutenants, but maybe -- is Mr. Watts in the room? Before we go into these items perhaps you could give Council an understanding of what does it mean when we approve these from a practical and/or obligatory standpoint -- or before they are considered. I don't want to say before they are approved. Before they are considered. Watts: From a practical standpoint this just takes us through design. That's all this is. It has a provision for services during construction, where the architects and designers also will -- will provide any bidding information or changes to the bid document addendums. So, that's -- that's including that and through any -- any construction related questions that appear during the build. Of course we won't use those -- you know, that -- it's a placeholder, essentially, for any construction service, because we don't know if we are going through construction right now. We are getting through design. So, it's taking us from our -- our concept design through final design and with this -- this is when you will get your hard numbers. They will be able to provide you with a -- a better cost estimate on the four buildings. Right now you have preliminary estimates. Once they get through this thing they will have a much better construction estimate for you to consider when moving forward and from that point, the way the CM process works out -- as you are -- most of you are probably familiar, at that point the CM would go out to bid with those final plans. They get those numbers back and, then, we enter into our GMP with the CM. That's when we know what the buildings truly are going to cost. So, right now you have a -- a preliminary estimate. They will get through final design, they will give you a much more educated estimate at that point. We give them the go at that point, then, they go out and they bid the project. The numbers come in and that's when we bring those final numbers to you and say here is what the construction is actually going to cost us, do you still want to move forward. So, that is the CM process for a 20,000 foot level. Hoaglun: So, Keith, I was going to ask for that -- when -- when would that take place? mean -- Watts: Which -- Hoaglun: We need to --we need to approve the budget. So, once the budget is approved -- so, that decision one or two may move forward. And here is where I'm going with that is take police substations, for example. We may decide that we need to just do one, for example. Someone's trying to call me right now, of course. We want to do one, but is it worthwhile to do design for both? However, if we do one we learn from that and, then, in the future, say a year later, there are going to be some tweaks. It -- do we need to make that decision about one or two before we do an agreement? Watts: We don't have to make a decision either at this point. Right now we are just doing design. So, we are giving them -- there is four contracts for the four buildings to get through design and it makes sense to me -- especially with the substations. They are extremely similar. So, I would -- you know, it makes sense to move forward with design, so you can get better estimates on the construction. You will always have that opportunity to decide whether you want one or two and I'm --from the sounds -- I have been watching Page 10 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 8 of 23 today, it sounds like eventually we are going to do them. So, the design work now is not going to hurt you. If you have to do a tweak or two later on they are -- they are very similar. The only difference really is going to be site work on those buildings, because there is different sites, of course. Simison: And that was going to be one of my questions is what is the -- what is the harm or risk, since we have shared components, if we don't design both at the same time, does that compromise how we look -- or how we would -- how we would do even one site, if we didn't look at the other one, kind of conceptually, even if not the building, but the site. Does that makes sense? Watts: Yeah. I -- you know, I can't speak for the architect themselves, but I would think it's -- it's probably not that drastic of a difference and, like I said, the buildings are very similar. Site work is always going to be different no matter what you choose to do. Every -- every site is naturally going to have a different set of site work and site plan. So, you are going to -- you are going to have to do different site work for that specific site. Perreault: So, this is what we categorized last year 600,000 per-- is this coming in under that or is this just a portion of that process and we have had other agreements that have -- you know, so, for example, number 15 is 405,000, are we coming in under or is this not all inclusive of that design process? That's my first question. Second question is in the design process are we considering doing two designs, one in which the structures are designed together, built at the same time, infrastructure is done at the same time, because that -- there is -- not just construction elements to that, but there is design elements to that as well. Landscape, lighting, all of that -- if it's built at the same time it can be designed for the same time. So, are we actually having them do two designs, one where it's -- they are built separately and one where they are built together? Watts: For the latter question, no, we are only going with two separate buildings. So, there are no plans to move forward with design of a joint facility. Perreault: I don't mean joint facility as in the same structure, I mean designers are going to have to consider if two structures are built at different times a year apart -- years apart. They are going to have to, then, figure out how to integrate the two -- the two together at a later point in time. It's not just a matter of, you know, oh, well, one -- one is built and the other, there is actual integration that has to happen, but -- so if one -- if one fire station gets built are they designing, then, to build the police station next to it -- a year or two later we have to have -- we have to have a plan for how to integrate those two if they are built at different times rather than at the same time? Watts: The plan of designing these right now, yes, they would all go together. I mean the idea is the plans will be designed with the intent that we are going to do both of them. It won't make much difference now or later, but you will save some construction costs as you will be tearing stuff up for some of the underground I think if you do it separately. I don't know -- I don't have a percentage or a -- or a dollar amount to give you, but I would assume there is going to be some underground additional work that you would have to Page 11 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 9 of 23 probably rip up and -- and tie in, because your water, sewer and all that is going to tie in together, yes. Perreault: So, you are saying engineering plans will not change if they are built at the same time or if they are built at separate times, it would be the infrastructure -- Watts: It would probably be at -- that would be some of the tweaking that would have to be done, because right now they are not just -- they are not -- they don't have plans and specs with -- if they get through with this and they do these four buildings for us, they are not going to have plans and specs designed right now to say if you do them at separate times you are going to have to do some tearing up and additional work. That would have to be some additional specs put together. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Watts: Because there is all -- you -- you know, they are not contemplating doing so. They are contemplating doing it all at once. If you do do it twice there is going to be a small percentage of work that would have to be done by the architect. I wouldn't think it would be drastic, but, yeah, there would be some work. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: You know, we are looking at 1.86 million dollars between all of these contracts. I mean that's a significant amount of money. I guess what is the harm in not approving these and waiting until Council has made a final decision about which stations we are moving forward with? What is actually that's negative from your perspective? Watts: The main thing is -- yeah. The main thing -- the longer we do push bids out, of course, we get later in the bid year. Worst case scenario they could -- if this could push out to the next fiscal year, because you went to bid in winter. It's ideal. The later in the year that you bid typically the best contractors are busy, they have got their work schedules built, now we are picking up what contractors are left. In my opinion that's -- in my opinion what we have seen in the past -- and it's also in this market we just -- we just did the PD admin remodel -- it's hard to get bids. You are begging people to bid on your jobs and so Kreizenbeck, our CM, had to really do a lot of work in order to get that done and so it was --that's --that's the difficulty of bidding later in the year. That's -- that's my main concern. Strader: Sixty days --just like two months -- two -- there are two months is going to derail this to the point that it would have to be in a different fiscal year. I have a hard time trying to swallow that, just to push back a little bit. Simison: It may not -- if you are willing to pay more and, then, you could do it this -- that's the point. You are -- you are -- you may not get people to respond to the bid or if they do it could be a higher cost and, then, I think that's their point. Not that we couldn't do it, it is that you may not want to do it. Months may -- may delay you ten months from that Page 12 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 10 of 23 standpoint. I have already been in trouble from these people for -- not until today, so that they can meet -- Watts: That -- that is a real concern, what Robert stated, and we can do this at any time. There is no -- there is no cut-off date says we can't go out to bid this month or any month during the year. We just know the best time to go out for bid and the best time to start construction, when that is. I'm not talking -- even from a financial standpoint, but my concern is also with a quality standpoint, because we want to get the best quality contractor, so we would prefer to do it at the right time during that year. Butterfield: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Simison: Sure. Butterfield: I might share some information. So, with these contracts there was 600,000 dollars per station. We have already gone through the schematics. So, there is three main phases within that money. Schematic design, design development, and, then, construction administration. So, we have already finished the schematic design, which Council approved for that. This is the design development and the construction administration are the amounts that are here. So, that's the phase -- the next phase of getting to design development, gets us in construction documents, gives us that ability to go out to bid and, then, there is some construction administration. One thing about these contracts, though, if -- I think to answer Councilman Hoaglun's question earlier, if at the decision of Council to stop one of the buildings or both or one precinct, we can, then, stop the process at that time. So, they may only be into design development for a month and, then, if Council decides we are not moving forward with the design or the construction of police precinct number two, they will stop all --there will be no construction administration and, then, whatever they haven't done in the design development would end. So, even though you are going to the contract, we can sever that, if I'm correct. If there -- if the Council decision is not to go with all four buildings, we can change that. To the earlier question as it relates to the site, the site has been done. We do have that designed, because that was part of schematic design. So, the parking lots, the landscaping, all of that has been in -- in design. We have had those designs and that was part of -- to the Mayor's point earlier, if we decide to do one station on one property and not both stations on the same property, there would be a little bit of an increased expensive, because we would have to do fire, for example, if they were to just do one station and not the police precinct building, fire would still be on the hook for all of the landscaping and probably all of the parking lot, but right now those budgets are split on those site pieces. So, that's why there would be that little bit of an increase. If fire were just to go to a loan on one site location and not both buildings. So, hopefully, that provides a little more answers to some of those questions. Perreault: So, it is a little easier to track when you have something that you are looking at and you are seeing. I guess I'm still trying to understand if the Council decides to do one at a time, I would assume that these agreements with the nature and purpose of the agreements would have to change, because currently we have asked the -- this vendor Page 13 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 11 of 23 to design as if we are building all four at the same time. So, would we, then, need to go -- for the sake of approving these action items today or not, we would need to go and -- and alter those agreements with them with the intention of -- whether we have all the design done now or not, these agreements specify that we are intending on building and the design is done with the intention of building them all. I understand what you are thinking about the differences in construction and infrastructure. That's not what I'm asking. I'm actually -- I'm assuming that even our schematics and our design will have to be altered if we do them at different times. So, then, how does that affect these agreements that have already been made and would they need to be altered if-- and I -- in my opinion -- my sense is that Council is leaning towards staggering this construction, in which case I don't think we approve these if these agreements specify that -- that -- that -- was it the construction management contract and other elements of it, that -- that the anticipation either in the cost or in the purpose of the contract and agreement is that they are being constructed at the same time. Do you understand what I'm saying? Watts: I think so. So, if we decided -- if we approve all four contracts and you decide to stagger them and do things differently, they would need to alter some -- some of the drawings and everything. So, yes, there would be a change order to the agreement, because they would have to modify the design, because the work still needs to take place, whether or not it's half PD, half fire, now we are going to combine it to whatever is being built on that facility. So, those designs would have to be modified somewhat. Perreault: So, these agreements can be adjusted --for the sake of timing and not holding these agreements up, they can be adjusted individually and, then, that would come before Council again? I assume there would be some dollar figure change, but -- then that -- we would need to pre-approve the agreement -- Watts: So, yeah, any agreement can be modified to be a change order at any time. We can decide what we want to do. At any point you can give us direction and any significant change order would be brought to you or if you just want to see everything for these projects -- typically we don't bring every change order to Council, but if you want to see anything, we are more than happy to do so. Perreault: I guess I'm -- I am concerned about -- when I -- when I hear change order in my industry that means this -- but I am concerned about that and the cost involved, but I'm more concerned about that we -- that we are -- that what we are requesting from the engineering firm that -- up front that our projects that -- you know, that we are clearly identifying what we are doing and that decision, obviously, isn't going to get made yet and so, again, to Council Woman Strader's point, we want to respect the timing, but if we are going to significantly change this, are we not just back in the conversation in August about these agreements? Watts: I don't see a significant change by doing -- by staggering them. There will be some change. I don't see it being significant. I would have to reach out to the architects to get -- get some kind of percentage or an estimate if we did so. I could do that, but don't really see a significant change in the plans. Page 14 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 12 of 23 Simison: And at least from my perspective, the change would be twofold. You may increase one, but you are going to decrease another, because that was an expense that was going to be the other one. So, you know, I don't know that you are talking about changing the plans unless we decided to do one precinct and, then, decide that -- that was horrible, let's go redo and redraw the plans. That would be where you would see significant -- but not in -- in the type of work. Watts: I'm thinking -- my understanding would be that we would combine just some of the underground and the landscape into one bid package. So, instead of having different bid packages they will be bid separately, they will go at the same time, but they will have four different bid schedules. We are going to have to combine some of that into one. Butterfield: If we just go one building, not -- Watts: Correct. Butterfield: Mr. Mayor, also if I might add, the timeline -- we have been told by ESI that if we do -- again going to bid in January, February, we will get much more advantageous bids than if we do push that out two months -- I mean from what I have been told. If we try to go out to bid -- a lot of contracts are made with subcontractors -- they already have work planned for the summer. So, they told me that by waiting a couple of months to put off the bids could, in fact, cost thousands -- tens of thousands of more dollars for the projects and, again, we can always stop these, even though these -- and those conversations have been had with our architect firms. Once they start going down and Council does decide that they don't want any further design on any of these four contracts, they will charge us for the work that they have done up to that date, but we can stop it and, then, all further work and expenditures of money related to the contracts would cease. Strader: I guess just a clarification. I mean are we sure that's how these contracts work? Because I was just looking at one of them, as an example, and there is a section for the architect supporting the bidding and development phase and it's a lump sum. It's not like it's based on hours worked, so -- and I guess my other question would be are they going to immediately be bidding these out or why can't -- I just put it to the architect, like they don't have any wiggle room in their timeline? Like we can't tell them, hey, we think we are moving forward, but it's going to take 60 additional days, we need you to compress your design time frame, so you could bid this out and achieve the same original timeline. Like you don't have any ability to compress their timing? Watts: Yeah. Those lump sums are actually built as they do the service. It's not -- they don't just bill you a lump sum. It's -- it's the -- it's -- we have their hourly rates in those contracts as well. So, they are -- they bill it as they do it. So, that would possibly be an increase in cost. Now, just to be upfront, if we say we are going to do this at different times, well, now, you are going to have possibly four times or two times the construction service and the bidding service. Now, we are not talking huge dollars there, but it would be an increased cost. Just --just wanted to be transparent there. Page 15 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 13 of 23 Perreault: If I'm hearing you correct, we come back and say you don't want to do all four structures built at the same time (inaudible) station in the south and the station in the north, for example. We won't have significant redesign costs by the architects and we won't have significant renegotiation of construction management fees, which is included -- that's what these numbers are for. We won't have significant changes to that. They won't have to do significant redesign. Watts: I would defer to the architect. I could ask that question, but I'm not anticipating that whatsoever and the CMP is totally separate from that, so just to be clear. Butterfield: If I might add. So, right now they are looking at four tracks of four projects. So, if two of those projects cease, then, the money expended for both of those two projects stops right at that point. Watts: Yeah. So, the -- the sooner that decision is made the better, of course, but then -- then at the future date when you decide, okay, well, now we are ready, let's move forward, they will pick those plans up and continue and finish. Perreault: I think I was under the impression as we have talked about the benefit of doing them at the same time from -- from a design -- from a cost standpoint for design for this process, I was under the assumption that -- that everything was more integrated than what you are describing, because if they are just being looked at as four separate projects, where are we -- where do we have any -- do we have any savings, because if they are -- if they are all being designed four of them separately -- Butterfield: The savings are actually within the contracts. So, we did realize -- Perreault: Within the construction contracts, not with the design -- Butterfield: Within the design element. The design of Station 8 was significantly cheaper than the design of Station 7, because they realized that it would be a very similar design. So, within the contracts that we have within Station 8 it's tens of thousands of dollars cheaper than the Station 7, even though it's kind of two projects, one is significantly cheaper in the design, because they knew we would recognize -- Perreault: Then if we stop the design on Station 8, do we -- do we forego our possible savings? Because -- because now we have a contract that is for a limited amount of time. Butterfield: Correct. We would go -- we would forego that savings, because now we wouldn't be doing both of them. Watts: But I do -- I do believe we have saved -- a lot of that savings is through schematic design, is where they have designed these -- they have done schematics with that in mind. That's where we have saved a lot of the -- the savings comes from. The construction drawings are going to have to --they are always separate. But our schematic design and getting us to this point is where we have saved a lot of the funds, I believe, Page 16 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 14 of 23 because we have designed them together. Now, you are going to finish the construction drawings, which has to happen regardless. Now, construction is a whole other ball of wax. I can't -- your -- your -- your guess is as good as mine if we are going to pay more -- I would guess yes. If you do this in a year or two it's going to cost you more money, but I don't have a crystal ball to tell you that. Borton: Mr. Mayor, on this -- to this point, of the four contracts, 17 -- number 17 is the one that I heard consensus to go forward. I'm comfortable approving 17 and I would table the other three and perhaps they come back in a week or two. I think, Liz, your question about -- can the architect compress the schedule in a manner that allows you to hit the bid window? Let's ask that. Butterfield: I -- Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, I have asked that and there is some area --they did --their initial estimates were conservative. I would say in a recent conversation that I had with the architects and with Stacy Redman, they saw that there is potential to compress both the design development and construction document phase by a few weeks, but that was really -- those are two very large phases for these projects. So, really, outside -- and because I know that some of this had already been moved a little bit through a couple of weeks just for this discussion today, but as that compression continues to happen I think two months -- I don't think they have that in their timeline to get through design development and construction documents and the construction documents are what we need to go to bid, I don't think they can compress that all by two months and still meet a January bidding kind of -- Perreault: (Inaudible). Watts: We would have to have specific questions what exactly you want us to go back to the architect with and will you be ready to make that decision in a week? Simison: Yeah. I have been trying to put this off as long as I felt like I could and Dale is over there, you know -- they have been giving me the stink eye for three weeks. Like we can't have this conversation until we have least had the previous conversation, because if we would have just turned in the conversation about these --these items, but, you know, this is a push point of even starting the process on -- on elements that-- I think it's whether you feel like, you know, it's lost dollars if you say no. I don't think it's lost dollars if you say no. I think it's lost dollars if you -- I'm sorry. I think it's lost dollars if you say no. If you say yes I don't think you are losing out, you know, because the work that's going to be done is not going to be work that wouldn't have been done otherwise. There may be a modification that's going to be small, but if you -- if you wait the ramifications could be much larger. That's -- much larger than what that change order may be -- by doing it. At least that's my viewpoint. My conversations with staff of where my understanding of -- of those elements and, then, you get into the -- because what you really get into is, okay, maybe we do one and we put -- the question will be, okay, do we bid one at the right time and, then, let the other ones go. Then we have lost the value of even doing -- considering doing things together at some point in time. That's really -- that will be the challenge. Page 17 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 15 of 23 Perreault: (Inaudible). Watts: This takes us all through construction for the architect services. All the way through construction. Perreault: (Inaudible). Watts: Correct. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. To your point -- I mean this is work that needs to be done and it doesn't -- it doesn't lock us into anything that says we -- oh, now we have to do all four or two fire stations. We still have that option, because this -- this has to be done and, yes, there might be -- if we decide to alter and stagger and do some things, there might be some tweaks down the road, but this work is done, it's designed, we have got bids, then, we can make informed decisions and decide how we want to move forward. So, I -- I don't see why we wouldn't approve all four, move it forward and, then, act accordingly to how our decisions come in the future. It doesn't -- the design is going to be the design. We know that that's what it's going to be and there -- there will be some construction administration that when that moves forward that's going to be part of the -- their work, so we know that's not going to be lost money. I don't see where we are losing any money. Although we may have to spend a few dollars more if we need to alter it by -- by delaying, by staggering, that sort of thing, where I think, Keith, you had mentioned were different things they have to redesign and can make connections and do this and that. So, it starts us down the path that we are going to go. Now, whether that's one year, two year, six months apart, don't know. That doesn't lock us into it. So, I'm good with going forward with all four to start that process and figure out what we want to do for our community at least the timing of it. We know we need to do it. It's just a matter of when. Watts: So, in the simplest terms that I can -- for right now, if you want to have the ability to bid in January you would probably want to approve all four of them as soon as you could, even if you are going to still contemplate whether you are going to go through and build them. If you push this out three or four weeks or two months and you approve one of them and, then, they start down that design and now we are going to do it together that's also possibly a little change if we just -- if we only give them the approval to do one, they are going to -- I would assume they are going to design for one and then if you decide in two months, no, we are going to do them together, then, we would probably modify those plans a little bit at that time, but it would probably be too late to bid in January for what you don't approve, you know, right now for design. If you -- if you want to bid in January I would say you would have to get the design started. Now, I'm not saying, yes, no, you should, you shouldn't, I just want you to know if you wanted to bid in January we need to get the plans to the final design. Borton: Of the labor of -- but you can only bid for what you budget. Watts: Correct. Page 18 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 16 of— Borton: So -- Watts; No. We -- we have often bid -- we have put -- we can put clauses in our bid documents that state that Council is still debating on whether or not we are going to move forward and we have -- and we tell them up front we are budgeted for building one. We are anticipating two and three and four if bids come in good, so -- Borton: So, we can -- we can bid to build a building without having appropriated the money to pay for it? Watts: As long as we notify the bidders up front, because it -- we often -- we will put bid docs together early on before the budget is approved, just to get things moving for something that we want to start October 1 -- Johnson: I can't turn it any lower than that. Watts: We often say it earlier, you know, we will bid -- try to wait until October, end of October when you -- when you have -- Council has finally approved the budget, but if we need to get started on a long-term item or long-term procurement, we will put those --that caveat in our bid documents and state that it's subject to Council's budget approval X date. And so they -- they bid the project knowing that there is a possibility that Council -- and sometimes -- you know, I will be honest, sometimes contractors are a little leery of that, because, you know, they are trying to schedule their jobs out. Borton: In this case you would know. I mean you will know before end of August what's funded and they won't be anywhere close to pulling bids. That's -- that's helpful context. My only hesitancy is I -- this discussion has been extremely open and productive in light of the concerns and some of the hesitancy and the reality is it just sounds like some portion of these aren't going to go forward even to bid. They are not going to be funded in the budget. Some will. So, as long as it's not wasteful, that there might be the start of design on one of these four, when it really appears that one or more might sit on a shelf and that's still okay and it's going forward years later and it's not wasteful. Go ahead. Watts; You are going to make your decisions way before we are ready to (inaudible). Borton: Yeah. Watts: So, we don't -- we don't have any concern in that area. Butterfield; Council Member Borton, I can certainly have the conversation if this is approved by Council with our design team of what the next two months look like and some of the discussion that has occurred here today as they do move forward on working on four projects that maybe they put a greater emphasis on two and maybe they can allocate their time a little more appropriately, so that they are not going full bore on four projects all at once, because they are so similar -- the buildings are so similar, especially for a bidding process, if that makes sense. I can certainly pass that on to the design team. Page 19 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 17 of 23 Perreault: That being said, then, would you, though, have to let them know whether that fire station in the south -- I mean would you not need to justify the location because of the additional defined elements of the parking lot from the infrastructure that are unique to these sites? Butterfield: The buildings themselves are extremely similar. So, the work that they are going to be doing on the buildings -- the two precincts are extremely similar and the two fire stations are extremely similar. So, I think that they can start work on that without -- and there is not a huge disparity, I guess, in the buildings. So, they could start work on one fire station and one precinct -- a load of work without maybe getting too involved in two precincts and two fire stations. A lot of the site work has already been done. That's the schematic design. We have already been through a lot of that. So, there is not a lot -- there is not really anymore work site design wise, it's more the design development phase which would be the next phase they are going into is really building. Perreault: Thank you. Watts: But most of that change that would ever take place if we decided one or two, would be in the actual bid documents combining maybe a little bit more site work into one bid package versus two. Strader: Can we -- is it -- I don't know-- I don't-- I don't want to put people in an awkward position if they are going to vote against something, but, hopefully, it's not wasted work, I guess. The question I would have maybe for Chief Blume -- or just for the group -- if we -- it sounds like there is buy-in on a fire station in the south. I thought -- it sounded like there was openness to a fire -- or police precinct in the northwest. If we try to vote on those two contracts today and try to move that forward and see if there is support of Council. Then, Chief Blume, could you follow up regarding the construction cost, the timeline, that GMP -- all the things that we talked about before our final budget approval in the hopes that we can see if there is consensus or not on the additional fire station and, then, could we, you know, have a similar discussion about the second police precinct -- I guess I'm wondering why do we have to -- maybe there is a way to do this incrementally. If we have buy-in today on one or two of these, we could approve them today and, then, in the subsequent couple weeks could we follow up and have an additional discussion? And maybe this is for the Mayor. Do you want to take that approach or do we want an up or down on these? How do you want to -- Simison: I'm -- you know, honestly, I would ask for an up or down vote, so that we can make a decision and move forward. And I say that, you know, because I heard very different things during the budget process today. I heard the possibility of four buildings being built based upon -- you want to hear from the public and other things. I heard concerns and so it's really kind of a hodgepodge of where everyone is on every single different building, to be honest with you. And I think you heard it. I'm not a rocket science -- scientist. But, you know, for the -- for the clarity, if you -- if there is concern with one of these, you know, don't do a -- I would rather say an up or down and let people move forward on this and that would really take it out of the budget, quite frankly. My -- you Page 20 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 18 of— wouldn't even need to put it in the budget and ask the public at that point in time if it doesn't -- if the contract doesn't get approved I would say a lot of the reasons why we would be doing it for -- doing it together at the same time are really lost at that point and, then, you know, you can consider them as you move forward individually. But I do view this as an administrative effort. Yeah, there is -- there is risk with everything, because even if you put it on the shelf you start for -- we are talking about how much work are we doing a month? Maybe a lot? Maybe a little? But that's what we are talking about. How much -- and we can -- we can go back and say, hey, there is concern and you kind of like maybe not start as quickly and work on these other three first and, then, come back around. We can have those conversations and requests, but I do -- I don't view this as wasted dollars, unless we go and redo and decide we don't want to do the police precincts as even proposed. That to me is the bigger risk in this conversation is do we even have the right size, type, or is Council like, no, that's too big, too expensive, I want to see 50 percent size and, then, it's wasted dollars in my opinion, based on where we are in this process. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Sorry. Just to be clear. So, your -- is your preference to -- for Council to approve all these construction agreements under the principle that this is not wasted money eventually or is your -- is your direction to us -- we would like you to just go ahead and vote how you feel you are falling out on the construction of these four big capital projects at this time? Simison: The first part. I don't think this is wasted dollars to do it. There may need to be modifications, but that's not wasted dollars, because I think the potential cost savings of doing one, two, or three or four at the same -- two, three, or four at the same time outweighs any minor modifications we might have to make in this process, so -- Strader: So, I guess feedback from --just from me personally would be -- because I am supportive of likely three of four, I feel comfortable, but if I was in a different seat and I was against possibly half, if not more of the capital projects, I probably would have a really different view. So, I am supportive of it, because I -- personally with the way that I feel I will vote I don't think the amount of money at risk is significant. But I could see someone else taking a different view and I would respect that. Perreault: So, I'm not quite confident at three yet. Two I am. But I don't -- I'm not lumping the construction piece and the design piece together and -- as I'm thinking through this, so the main thing I think that -- you gentlemen answered my question. The main thing was I want the ability -- I want us to have the ability to bid these in January if we want to. That's critical. So, I see that opportunity cost there in improving these, so long as significant changes that are made -- you know, so long as we have -- in our agreement we have an opportunity to come to the -- to Rice Fergus and say we need you to stop -- I don't want to forego any opportunity that we have created by doing these together, without -- which doesn't sound like -- sound like we will. However, if we choose to pick up that conversation, then, in a year from now I just want to understand that we still have the ability to do that and -- not talking about construction cost, just talking about design cost. I would rather spend funds -- I would rather spend this -- these funds and potentially Page 21 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 19 of— alter our design than get to the point of having full construction bids and, then, decide to change the design. So, I want to -- I think we will get enough information in the next few months to get us to a place where we can pause and -- but if we don't do this right now we won't and -- if I'm understanding correctly. And so I would -- I would rather spend these dollars to do the design, have further conversation about whether we are doing the two -- doing two, three, four -- one, two, three, four, than to possibly risk not moving forward if we could or if we decide to go that route upon the information that we find out in the next month or two. So, that's my thoughts on it. So, I -- I mean now that I have clarity -- greater clarity on this I think I would be in favor of approving these agreements. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I was going to say if you want to -- if Council Woman Perreault wants to hear from other Council Members like that's fine with me. I was going to suggest we could also just make some motions on these and see where everybody falls out -- to see and if it's a tie that's going to be awkward. Perreault: Okay. Go for it Council Woman Strader. Strader: All right. Simison: Not for me today. Strader: Okay. Let's try the first one. On Item 15 1 move that we approve the AIA B133 agreement with Rice Fergus Miller for the final design and construction administration for the northwest fire station in the not to exceed amount of 405,925 dollars. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will be opposing the motion because I would prefer it to be tabled. Cost benefit. I would rather address it as part of the budget discussion, so -- I think tabling it is the reason why I will be opposing it for right now. Simison: Any further discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? Bernt: Nay. Page 22 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 20 of 23 Borton: Nay. Simison: The ayes have it. The item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: On Item 16 1 move that we approve the AIA B133 agreement with Rice Fergus Miller, the final design and construction administration for the northwest police substation precinct in the not to exceed amount of 423,975 dollars. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second on Item 16. Is there any discussion? Borton: Mr. Mayor, is this site specific? Simison: Yes. They are site specific. Borton: It begs the same question. You are now locking yourself into the selection. Perhaps the preliminary work that's done in the first 45 days isn't site specific and can be translated to a different site. If, for example, a precinct in the south is ultimately funded in August and the northwest isn't funded, wouldn't want that work to go to waste. Perhaps that might be -- Butterfield: Council would have a decision at that time to either continue with the design aspect of the northwest precinct or just stop -- stop it at that point that it's not funded. We could certainly contact Rice Fergus that they do no further work on the northwest precinct. We are not -- I mean -- or if this is approved that you go ahead and go all the way through the construction documents and, then, you have a roll of construction documents already purchased, approved, designed and, then, they can bid that maybe some year further down the road that Council decides to fund the project. Watts: Mr. Mayor, I believe -- or Councilman Borton. I believe Councilman Borton's question was 45 days in if they decide we don't want to do that station, we want to do that station, can some of that work being done on those first 45 days translate to the other station. I think that was the question. Borton: Right. Watts: Thank you. Page 23 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 21 of 23 Simison: Any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, this is Chris. Was that all ayes? Simison: Yes. Johnson: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we approve item AIA B133 agreement with Rice Fergus Miller for the final design and construction administration for south fire station in the not to exceed amount of 528,971 dollars. Perreault: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second regarding Item 17. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we approve Item 18, the AIA 13133 agreement with Rice Fergus Miller for the final design and construction administration for the south police substation precinct in the not to exceed amount of 505,076 dollars. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on this item? If not, all favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. Bernt: Nay. Simison: Five ayes. One nay. The item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. Page 24 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 22 of 23 Simison: Thank you. I think if you haven't already -- the architects may not be watching, you see the sensitivity towards that we want -- we want them to meet deadlines, but we also want to be sensitive and do things appropriately and I know that you all communicate that between now and August on this -- on these topics. Okay. Thank you. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 19. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(a) To consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, wherein the respective qualities of individuals are to be evaluated in order to fill a particular vacancy or need. 20. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(b) To consider the evaluation, dismissal or disciplining of, or to hear complaints or charges brought against, a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, or public school student. Simison: With that, Council, we have reached Items 19 and 20. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we go into Executive Session per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(a) and 74- 206(1)(b). Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to go into Executive Session. Any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and we will go into Executive Session. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. EXECUTIVE SESSION: (3:12 p.m. to 5:22 p.m.) Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Do I have a motion? Councilman Brent. Bernt: I move that we come out of Executive Session. Page 25 Meridian City Council Budget Workshop Item#1. June 29,2021 Page 23 of 23 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion. Simison: Motion and second to come out of Executive Session. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:22 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 7 / 13 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 26 E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 June 21, 2021 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach, Associate City Planner RE: Skybreak Subdivision - H-2020-0127 At the May 26, 2021 City Council Special Meeting, the Council directed the applicant to revise the Skybreak Subdivision plans to address three elements: 1. Provide sidewalks on at least one side of all streets; 2. Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the Vantage Pointe Subdivision to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots at the southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Lateral; 3. Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. The applicant has provided revised plans. The plans reflect street sections of the private streets to show a minimum 5’ wide sidewalk on at least one side of the street. The private street and open space oriented east-west at the southern boundary of the property (adjacent to Vantage Pointe) has been replaced with lots meeting a minimum square footage of 20,900 sq. ft. (thereby extending larger lots along the southern boundary). The open space that was originally reflected at the southern boundary has been relocated to the center of the development (shown as 19,925 sq. ft. Lot 170, Block 5). The open space exhibit provided by the applicant reflects a slight reduction in what is being credited as qualifying open space from 14.99 acres to 14.5 acres. The total number of buildable lots has decreased from 329 lots to 316 (including the existing single-family residence). The 112 lots served by private streets has been reduced to 106. As requested by the Council, proposed conditions of approval have also been provided with this memorandum. Staff has prepared draft conditions of approval as directed by City Council. Community Development Department  33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533  Fax 208-888-6854  www.meridiancity.org Page 2 ATTACHMENTS Updated Preliminary Plat and Landscape Plan https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=231293&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity Updated Narrative https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=231357&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity Page 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. P LANNING D IVISION 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. The Skybreak Neighborhood shall follow the approved phasing plan and/or obtain planning and fire department approval for any modifications. b. The applicant shall submit a wildland safety plan for the hillside area to be approved by Meridian Fire Department with the first final plat. c. The existing residence at 3487 E. Adler Hof Ln. (Lot 45, Block 5) will be required to abandon the well and septic system and connect to City water and sewer with development of the property. d. The applicant shall not submit a final plat for Phase 8 and 9 until public street access is provided. e. A 30’ rear yard setback is required on Lots 74-83, Block 5, abutting Vantage Pointe. f. A 15’ (external) side yard setback and an increased rear setback (as shown in applicant’s plans) is required for Lot 74, Block 5, abutting Vantage Pointe. g. The rear and/or sides of any 2-story structures facing S. Eagle Rd (18-21 Block 1, 15-26 and 76-79 Block 9) 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. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. h. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family attached and detached dwellings included in the attachments contained herein. 2. Administrative design review will be required for all new attached residential structures containing two (2) or more dwelling units. Page 4 3. The City Council has approved alternative compliance from UDC 11-3F-4 that limits gated developments to 50 lots, to allow 106 gated lots. 4. The City Council has approved alternative compliance from UDC 11-3F-4 prohibiting common driveways off private streets, to allow 3 common driveways. 5. The City Council has approved a wavier from UDC 11-6C-3 limiting dead- end streets ending in a cul-de-sac to 500 feet to allow the Phase 8 cul-de-sac in the northeast corner to extend to approximately 610’. 6. The City Council has approved a wavier from UDC 11-6C-3 limiting block face to no more than seven hundred fifty (750) feet in length without an intersecting street or alley to allow Block 9, north of the Farr Lateral to be approximately 1,000 feet in length. 7. The City Council has approved a wavier from UDC 11-6C-3 limiting block face to no more than seven hundred fifty (750) feet in length without an intersecting street or alley to allow Block 5, along the southern boundary of the property, to be approximately 1,190 feet in length. 8. The City Council has approved alternative compliance from UDC 11-3B-12 and UDC 11-3G-3 requiring minimum landscaping along pathways and within common open space to allow the pathway area shown in Lot 46 of Block 5 to remain in a natural state. 9. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B, 11-3G and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13. 10. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 11. Except as otherwise listed above, the development shall comply with the private street requirements as set forth in 11-3F, including the applicant or owner providing documentation of a binding contract that establishes the party or parties responsible for the repair and maintenance of the private street, including regulations for the funding thereof. 12. The plat shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. The Farr Lateral is allowed to remain open as waived by City Council. 13. Except as listed above, the applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11- 3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 14. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de- sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. Page 5 15. 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. 16. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years from the date of City Council approval to obtain City Engineer’s signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 17. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 18. Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat and/or development agreement does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. P UBLIC W ORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Preliminary plat conceptual site plans dated 12/11/2020 must be adjusted as follows: 1.1.1 The sewer main stub near intersection of Street C and D needs to end in a manhole. 1.1.2 The sewer main stub at the North end of Street E needs to end in a manhole. 1.1.3 The sewer on the south-eastern boundary (Street J) should not go to the property boundary. 1.1.4 The sewer main should run at 0.60% slope and end in a manhole short of the property boundary. 1.1.5 Water and sewer mains must be covered in a 20-foot-wide easement per utility. 1.1.6 Easements cannot have encroachments of any permanent structures including but not limited to buildings, carports, trash enclosures, fences, trees, deep rooting bushes, etc. 1.1.7 Maintain a minimum 90-degree angle into/out of all manholes. 1.1.8 Slope between manholes shall not exceed 5%. Slopes between SSMH G-3 to SSMH H-1, SSMH G-4 to SSMH J-1, and SSMH G-8 to SSMH K-1 exceeds this. 1.1.9 No public main is allowed in common driveways, sewer line A and F are shown going through private drives. 1.1.9.1 If you have three or less lots on a common drive, services should be stubbed from the roadway. 1.1.9.2 Four or more lots, sewer will be allowed in the common drive. Sewer will be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain. Manholes needed in the common drive shall be marked with “Private” on the lid. 1.1.10 A drainage plan is required to be provided and reviewed prior to plan approval. Page 6 1.1.11 Current design does not meet minimum fire flow. A possible solution is to upsize some 12’’ mains and add two more connections, one at the southwest and one at the northeast corner of the development. These changes must be coordinated with Public Works. 1.1.12 A streetlight plan must be provided with the final plat application. Streetlight plan requirements are listed in Meridian Design Standards. 1.1.13 Phase 8 of the proposal is in Flood Zone A. This area requires extending the existing hydraulic and hydrology study and establishing base flood elevations. Other phases are not impacted by flood zone and will not require floodplain study or permits. Page 7 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 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. Page 8 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 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. Page 9 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. City Council Commission Meeting June 29, 2021 Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. 3.southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Lateral;Pointe Subdivision to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots at the Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the Vantage 2.Provide sidewalks on at least one side of all streets;1.Subdivision plans to address three elements:SkybreakAt the May 26, 2021 City Council Special Meeting, the Council directed the applicant to revise the 1.Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. 3.southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Lateral;Pointe Subdivision to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots at the Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the Vantage 2.Provide sidewalks on at least one side of all streets; 1.Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. 3.Lateral;at the southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Vantage Pointe Subdivision to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the 2.Provide sidewalks on at least one side of all streets; Version 1Version 2 1.Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. 3.southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Lateral;Pointe Subdivision to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots at the Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the Vantage 2.Provide sidewalks on at least one side of all streets; proposed, the Council will be incorporating the following as part of their motion:If the Council is inclined to approve the present version with the conditions as with this memorandum. As requested by the Council, proposed conditions of approval have also been provided 1.allowed;Allowing 3 common driveways off a private street, whereas this is not b.Allowing 106 gated lots whereas only 50 are allowed;a.following Alternative Compliance requests:The City Council is overturning the Planning Director’s denials of the Approving the following waivers:allow the pathway area shown in Lot 46 of Block 5 to remain in a natural state. requires minimum landscaping along pathways and within common open space to 3 which -3G-12 and UDC 11-3B-Approving alternative compliance from UDC 114.hundred fifty (750) feet in length without an intersecting street or alley.3 limits block face to no more than seven -6C-1,190 feet in length whereas UDC 11Allowing Block 5, along the southern boundary of the property, to be approximately 3.in length without an intersecting street or alley;3 limits block face to no more than seven hundred fifty (750) feet -6C-UDC 11wherasAllowing Block 9, north of the Farr Lateral to be approximately 1,000 feet in length 2.sac to 500 feet;-de-end streets ending in a cul-3 limits dead-6C-610’ whereas UDC 11sac in the northeast corner to extend to approximately -de-Allowing the Phase 8 cul1. Extends to req’dlandscaping additional No -1,190 feet long +/allowed)long (750 1,000 feet -+/610 feet AT2 Slide 12 AT2 Alan Tiefenbach, 6/29/2021 Changes to Agenda: None Item #4: Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) Application(s):  Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district;  Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the existing home).  Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two (2) gates; and,  Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.6, which prohibits common driveways off private streets, to allow such in three (3) locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11-3F-4A.b which limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units. Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 80 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 7020 S. Eagle Rd. & 3487 E. Adler Hof Ln. (east of S. Eagle Rd and south of E. Lake Hazel Rd). Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Mostly within unincorporated Ada County, except The Keep is being developed to the west and Pura Vida Subdivision is being developed to the northeast. Boise Ranch Golf Course is to the east. Future Road Improvements Improvements and a signal are planned for the Lake Hazel/Eagle Rd. intersection in 2023. Lake Hazel is planned to be widened to 5- lanes between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads in 2024; and to 5-lanes from Locust Grove to Eagle Roads between 2026 and 2030; no improvements are planned to Eagle Rd. south of Lake Hazel abutting the site. History: The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020. This proposal consisted of 353 building lots, all of it single family detached. This proposal was scheduled for the October 15, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Following staff’s report to the Commission recommending denial, the applicant withdrew the application, and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021. This proposal is virtually the same except for 24 less lots, slightly enlarged open space in several areas, and 30 single family attached units in the northwest corner of the project. Staff has noted on two pre-apps, multiple discussions and two staff reports that staff did not support this project. At the time the staff report had gone out for review, staff had not received updated comments from ACHD or West Ada Schools. Staff relied on the analysis from the previous proposal, which was virtually the same except for 24 more lots and a small part of this project being attached homes. West Ada’s most recent correspondence has given slightly less students that would be generated and a change in schools. In regard to ACHD, some improvements have since occurred along S. Eagle Rd as part of The Keep since ACHD’s October analysis. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: 6 acres +/- are recommended for Low Density Residential at the SW, the remaining 74 acres is recommended as Medium Density Residential. Written Testimony: At the time of the staff report, only one comment had been received, 13 additional letters have been received since this time. – issues expressed are transition in density, R-15 zoning being inappropriate, lack of sidewalks to fit in more houses, inadequate green space, “fringe development”, school capacity, road design, and proposed usage of Vantage Point Rd. Notes:  Zoning and Transition in Lots o The applicant proposes R-8 on the western portion of the site, and R-15 zoning on the eastern portion of the site. o R-8 requires 4,000 sq. ft. lots and a 40’ lot frontage, R-15 allows 2,000 sq. ft. lots and requires no lot frontage. o The applicant has requested R-15 zoning in order to be allowed private streets that would not be allowed by R-8 zoning. o All of the development as proposed would meet the minimum requirements of R-8 zoning. o As proposed, the zoning would zone the denser portions of the site to the less dense zoning, and the lower density portions of the site, to the higher density zoning. o Staff also has concerns with the transition of lots.  To the southwest, the development proposes lot sizes of approximately 6,000 – 6,500 sq. ft. The applicant has noted in a response letter that future development in the unincorporated land directly adjacent would likely develop at a density of 8,000-9,000 SF lots at a density of approximately three units/acre  Staff does not understand this analysis, as the FLUM recommends <3 du/acre in this area (> 14,520 sq. ft. lots).  At the middle south, the development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of between 80 feet and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south in Vantage Point, but still proposes lots of 5,000 – 6,000 sq. ft.  The road and park would help with a buffer, but there would still would be 2-3 houses adjacent to the houses in Vantage Point that are on one acre lots. At the southeast, larger lots are proposed at approximately half acres, but the lots are rotated such that the adjacent properties in Vantage Point would still see 2-3 houses along each of their lot lines (except for the most southeastern lot).  Staff appreciates that applicant proposes to limit houses to one story in this area.  Staff notes the applicant correctly mentioned staff had called this area Phase 9, whereas the southern boundary consists of Phase 9, Phase 4 and Phase 7. o Since the time of the staff report, the applicant has submitted drawings proposing additional screening and buffering in this area. The Council should determine whether the applicant has provided an appropriate transition.  Fire Access o The Fire Department has noted this development can be serviced by the Fire Department, but has noted the following concerns:  A large subdivision with only access out to Eagle Rd.  Fire would prefer a connection to Lake Hazel to the North, but found that the preservation of the Southern Rim makes this access difficult.  The west end does fall within the 5 minute response time, but the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5- minute response area and the nearest station has a low reliability rating. This would improve if and when the new southern station is built in 2021.  Fire has also noted the gated areas will cause delays.  Staff would prefer the applicant work with one of the property owners to the north to achieve access to E. Lake Hazel Rd. o The applicant has noted in their March 17 response letter that Pura Vida, Pinnacle and Lavender Heights Subdivisions are all at the same distance or further and have the same reliability as Skybreak, and they were approved. o However, staff notes, Lavender Heights and Pinnacle (Apex) both have access from multiple streets (not just Eagle Rd), and although Pura Vida only has access from E. Lake Hazel, it has a development agreement that limits the number of lots that can be built out by phase until there is a bridge built to the east. Pura Vida is also less than half the size of this development. o Applicant submitted a fire phasing plan, which includes 59 lots with Phase One. Only Phase 8 takes proposes access from anywhere other than S. Eagle Rd. Phase 9 only has emergency access, the applicant has not demonstrated legal access.  Access, Private Roads and Gates o As already mentioned, all lots except for 15 in Phase 8 utilize E. Eagle Rd as the only point of access. o Phase 8 cannot be built until Pura Vida builds out. o Phase 9 currently has no proven access except emergency access. Staff has suggested a bridge across the Farr Lateral. o The applicant proposes 112 lots to be served by private roads and two gates (there are two additional gates for emergency access). o The private roads proposed are as narrow as 27’ and have no sidewalks or landscaping. o These roads would pass the maintenance costs on to the homeowners in perpetuity, as since they do not meet minimum ACHD templates, ACHD would not accept these roads if there were future financial constraints with the HOA. o Staff does not understand how narrow streets with sidewalks is innovative or preferable to streets with sidewalks. o Staff has asked the applicant to explain why this is preferable other than the ability to increase lots or reduce building costs. The applicant has stated it provides an intimate setting, and there is a demographic that prefers a gated community. o Staff has concerns with supporting this feature without sufficient justification and what precedent it would set for future requests to build inadequate roads. o The applicant requested alternative compliance to allow 112 lots served by 2 gates and 2 emergency gates, and 3 common driveways off a common street. o The director denied the request for Alt Compliance as none of the conditions or finding were met. o Applicant has stated Skybreak’s gated private streets are intentionally designed without sidewalks to prioritize the use of streets for walking, biking and convening with neighbors and that cars are a secondary use. However, given the location out on the periphery of the City, staff believes nearly every resident must drive to get in and out of this subdivision.  Parks and Open Space o Applicant states 14.99 AC. (18.8%) is provided. o Parks and amenities include:  ¾ acre tot lot with play structure, climbing rocks, outdoor seating (shown as A)  1 acre open sports park (shown as E)  Pathways along the Farr Lateral and sloped eastern portion (shown as B)  Golf cart pathway  Dog parks (shown as C)  Entry park (shown as D) o Aside from that, much of what they are crediting as qualified open space is buffers along roads, end caps, open space that could not have been used anyway. o It is important to note that although the applicant has submitted a chart showing which open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the UDC (i.e. (50' x 100') in area) the applicant is requesting the City annex this property, there are no present City entitlements. o Staff thinks a development of this size (80 acres) should have more quality useable open space, and more of it compiled together and oriented in more convenient locations. o Applicant has submitted a pedestrian circulation plan with this proposal. All the private streets without sidewalks are being reflected as pedestrian connections. o The Council should decide if this project provides appropriate open space and amenities. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends DENIAL of this proposal. o Staff does not believe this proposal substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the City.  Only one access road for all but 15 lots, and applicant has not demonstrated legal access for the 23 lots at Phase 9.  Inadequate transition of lots to the south  Higher density zoning for lower density area, lower density zoning for higher density, rezoning to R-15 when R-8 would suffice.  Located on the fringe, only adjacent to City limits in portions, not an infill development.  Narrow private streets with no sidewalks – does not Comprehensive Plan policies for a walkable community.  Although Fire says they can serve, the have expressed concerns.  Some quality open space, but much of the open space being credited not useable even if it meets minimum requirements.  Applicant has noted school capacity will not be an issue because it will be age targeted, but unless deed restricted this is not enforceable. Planning Commission Recommendation  The Meridian. At the public hearing, the Commission unanimously moved to recommend DENIAL on the subject annexation request. o Commissioners reasons for denial were the same issues staff just listed above. o Citizen testimony and letters touched on most of the same items. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to APPROVE File Number H-2020-0127, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 25, 2021, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to DENY File Number H-2020-0127, as presented during the hearing on May 25, 2021 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2020-0127 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from May 26, 2021 for Skybreak Neighborhood (H- 2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Page 2 Item#1. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: June 29, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from May 26, 2021 for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020- 0127) by Laren Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E.Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 3 i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: June 29, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1 PROJECT NAME: Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify YES OR NO L 7 i 3 � 4 1 5 y� /� e- +v- 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Item#1. June 21, 2021 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach, Associate City Planner RE: Skybreak Subdivision-H-2020-0127 At the May 26, 2021 City Council Special Meeting, the Council directed the applicant to revise the Skybreak Subdivision plans to address three elements: 1. Provide sidewalks on at least one side of all streets; 2. Provide a better transition between the southern perimeter of the subdivision and the Vantage Pointe Subdivision to the south. This should be done by extending the larger lots at the southeast corner of Phase 7 to the west across the southern boundary to the Farr Lateral; 3. Relocate some of the open space at the south to a more central location. The applicant has provided revised plans. The plans reflect street sections of the private streets to show a minimum 5' wide sidewalk on at least one side of the street. The private street and open space oriented east-west at the southern boundary of the property (adjacent to Vantage Pointe) has been replaced with lots meeting a minimum square footage of 20,900 sq. ft. (thereby extending larger lots along the southern boundary). The open space that was originally reflected at the southern boundary has been relocated to the center of the development(shown as 19,925 sq. ft. Lot 170, Block 5). The open space exhibit provided by the applicant reflects a slight reduction in what is being credited as qualifying open space from 14.99 acres to 14.5 acres. The total number of buildable lots has decreased from 329 lots to 316 (including the existing single-family residence). The 112 lots served by private streets has been reduced to 106. As requested by the Council, proposed conditions of approval have also been provided with this memorandum. Staff has prepared draft conditions of approval as directed by City Council. Page 4 Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Page 2 ATTACHMENTS Updated Preliminary Plat and Landscape Plan https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=231293&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity Updated Narrative https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2313 57&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity Page 5 Item#1. Page 3 PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. PLANNING DIVISION l. 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. The Skybreak Neighborhood shall follow the approved phasing plan and/or obtain planning and fire department approval for any modifications. b. The applicant shall submit a wildland safety plan for the hillside area to be approved by Meridian Fire Department with the first final plat. c. The existing residence at 3487 E. Adler Hof Ln. (Lot 45, Block 5)will be required to abandon the well and septic system and connect to City water and sewer with development of the property. d. The applicant shall not submit a final plat for Phase 8 and 9 until public street access is provided. e. A 30' rear yard setback is required on Lots 74-83, Block 5, abutting Vantage Pointe. f. A 15' (external) side yard setback and an increased rear setback (as shown in applicant's plans) is required for Lot 74, Block 5, abutting Vantage Pointe. g. The rear and/or sides of any 2-story structures facing S. Eagle Rd(18-21 Block 1, 15-26 and 76-79 Block 9) 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. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Planning approval will be required at time of building permit. h. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family attached and detached dwellings included in the attachments contained herein. 2. Administrative design review will be required for all new attached residential structures containing two (2) or more dwelling units. Page 6 ►tem#�. Page 4 3. The City Council has approved alternative compliance from UDC 11-3F-4 that limits gated developments to 50 lots, to allow 106 gated lots. 4. The City Council has approved alternative compliance from UDC 11-3F-4 prohibiting common driveways off private streets, to allow 3 common driveways. 5. The City Council has approved a wavier from UDC 11-6C-3 limiting dead- end streets ending in a cul-de-sac to 500 feet to allow the Phase 8 cul-de-sac in the northeast corner to extend to approximately 610'. 6. The City Council has approved a wavier from UDC 11-6C-3 limiting block face to no more than seven hundred fifty(750) feet in length without an intersecting street or alley to allow Block 9, north of the Farr Lateral to be approximately 1,000 feet in length. 7. The City Council has approved a wavier from UDC 11-6C-3 limiting block face to no more than seven hundred fifty(750) feet in length without an intersecting street or alley to allow Block 5, along the southern boundary of the property, to be approximately 1,190 feet in length. 8. The City Council has approved alternative compliance from UDC 11-3B-12 and UDC 11-3G-3 requiring minimum landscaping along pathways and within common open space to allow the pathway area shown in Lot 46 of Block 5 to remain in a natural state. 9. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B, 11-3G and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-3B-13. 10. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-7 and 11-3A-6B, as applicable. 11. Except as otherwise listed above, the development shall comply with the private street requirements as set forth in 11-3F, including the applicant or owner providing documentation of a binding contract that establishes the party or parties responsible for the repair and maintenance of the private street, including regulations for the funding thereof. 12. The plat shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6. The Farr Lateral is allowed to remain open as waived by City Council. 13. Except as listed above, the applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11- 3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 14. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de- sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements,blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. Page 7 Page 5 15. 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. 16. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years from the date of City Council approval to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 17. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. 18. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat and/or development agreement does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 Preliminary plat conceptual site plans dated 12/11/2020 must be adjusted as follows: 1.1.1 The sewer main stub near intersection of Street C and D needs to end in a manhole. 1.1.2 The sewer main stub at the North end of Street E needs to end in a manhole. 1.1.3 The sewer on the south-eastern boundary(Street J) should not go to the property boundary. 1.1.4 The sewer main should run at 0.60% slope and end in a manhole short of the property boundary. 1.l.5 Water and sewer mains must be covered in a 20-foot-wide easement per utility. 1.1.6 Easements cannot have encroachments of any permanent structures including but not limited to buildings, carports, trash enclosures, fences, trees, deep rooting bushes, etc. 1.1.7 Maintain a minimum 90-degree angle into/out of all manholes. 1.1.8 Slope between manholes shall not exceed 5%. Slopes between SSMH G-3 to SSMH H-1, SSMH G-4 to SSMH J-1, and SSMH G-8 to SSMH K-1 exceeds this. 1.1.9 No public main is allowed in common driveways, sewer line A and F are shown going through private drives. 1.1.9.1 If you have three or less lots on a common drive, services should be stubbed from the roadway. 1.1.9.2 Four or more lots, sewer will be allowed in the common drive. Sewer will be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain. Manholes needed in the common drive shall be marked with "Private" on the lid. 1.1.10 A drainage plan is required to be provided and reviewed prior to plan approval. Page 8 ►tem#�. Page 6 1.1.11 Current design does not meet minimum fire flow. A possible solution is to upsize some 12" mains and add two more connections, one at the southwest and one at the northeast corner of the development. These changes must be coordinated with Public Works. 1.1.12 A streetlight plan must be provided with the final plat application. Streetlight plan requirements are listed in Meridian Design Standards. 1.1.13 Phase 8 of the proposal is in Flood Zone A. This area requires extending the existing hydraulic and hydrology study and establishing base flood elevations. Other phases are not impacted by flood zone and will not require floodplain study or permits. Page 9 Page 7 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 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. Page 10 ►tem#�. Page 8 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 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- 12-31-1. 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. Page 11 Page 9 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 hqp://www.meridiancily.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 12 Item#1. STAFF REPORT C�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 5/25/2021 Legend DATE: 0 Project Um-of km TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2020-0127 Skybreak Subdivision IJ --a LOCATION: 7020 S. Eagle Rd. &3487 E. Adler Hof Ln., in the south 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 4, T.2N.,R.IE. (Parcels# S1404244250 & S1404233650) s r I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted the following applications: • Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district; • Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots,40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, one(1)private street lot and one(1)lot for the existing home). • Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two(2)gates; and, • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.6,which prohibits common driveways off private streets,to allow such in three(3)locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11-3F-4A.b which limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units. The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020(H-2020-0079). This proposal consisted of 353 building lots, all of it single family detached. This proposal was scheduled for the October 15,2020 Planning Commission meeting. Following staffs report to the Commission recommending denial, the applicant withdrew the application, and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021. This proposal is virtually the same except for 24 less lots, slightly enlarged open space in several areas, and 30 single family attached units in the northwest corner of the project. Page 1 Page 13 Item#1. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 80.46 Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County(existing),R-8 and R-15 proposed Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)&Medium Density Residential(MDR) Existing Land Use(s) Single-family residential/agricultural Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR) Lots(#and type; 328 SFR buildable lots/40 common lots/14 other lots(i.e. 12 common driveway bldg./common) lots, 1 private street lot& 1 lot for the existing home) Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases Number of Residential Units 30 attached SFR homes (type of units) 298 detached SFR homes(one is existing) Density 4.1 units/acre(gross) Open Space(acres,total 14.99 acres(or 18.8%)qualified open space [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities (2)dog parks;3/a acre park with play structure,climbing rocks,a shade structure and benches;entry park, 1-acre sports park,passive open spaces and pathways Physical Features The Farr Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this site;hillside/topography (waterways,hazards,flood within southern rim area. plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date; 5/27/20; 14 attendees,December 16,2020;9 attendees #of attendees: History(previous approvals) Property boundary adjustment(Record of Survey#12358,Eisenman 2020), previous proposal similar to this one was withdrawn just prior to Planning Commission due to staff recommendation of denial. (H-2020-0079) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD I No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study(yes/no) Yes Access One(1)public street access(Street A)is proposed via S.Eagle Rd.,an arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street.Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb,gutter or Hwy/Local)(Existing and sidewalk. Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Eagle Rd.—Better than"E"(acceptable level of service) Stub Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and Street/Interconnectivity/Cross interconnectivity as depicted on the plat. Southern stub streets only have Access emergency access.The area in the NEC of the proposed development(Phase 8) Page 2 Page 14 Item#1. Description Details Page cannot develop until Pura Vida extends a public street;Phase 9 of the development currently does not have the right to access the private lane and cannot develop until a public street is extended to the proposed development Existing Road Network There is an existing private street(E.Adler Hof Ln.)that provides access from S. Eagle Rd.to the existing homes on this site.This roadway should terminate with development of the site as proposed. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None Buffers Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements • Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road in 2024. • Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road in 2023. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 6-lanes on the west leg,and reconstructed/signalized in 2023. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the 2016 C I P to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2026 and 2030. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the 2016 CIP to be widened to 3-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south,2-lanes east,and 3-lanes on the west leg,and signalized between 2026 and 2030, Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.9 miles(Fire Station#4) Fire has expressed concerns with only one point of access from S.Eagle Rd.Fire would prefer a second access to the north to E.Lake Hazel Rd. Fire has also expressed concerns with the private gates causing additional delays. • Fire Response Time Most(3/4+l-)of this development falls outside of the 5 minute response time goal from Fire Station#4. • Resource Reliability Current reliability is 77%from Station#4 does not meet targeted goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service. A wildfire safety plan is required. • 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(fire station is 5.9 miles away). • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other In the event of a hazmat event,there will need to be mutual aid required for the development.In the event of a structure fire,an additional truck company will be required—this will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the City. Police Service • Distance to Police 5.5 miles Station • Police Response Time There is no call data in this area because the proposed development is at the edge of City limits. • Calls for Service 7(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • %of calls for service See Section IX.D split by priority • Accessibility No concerns Page 3 Page 15 Item#1. Description Details Page • Specialty/resource needs None at this time • Crimes 1 (within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Crashes 9(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20) • Other Although located near the edge of City limits,service can be provided if this development is approved. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) Enrollment Ca par Miles Dew.m school • Capacity of Schools **Silver Sage Elementary" 230 425 5.1 miles Lake Hazel Middle School 928 1000 2.4 miles • #of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2302 2175 4.8 miles **Enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped. Students in this development will be attending Silver Sag mmill Elementary until a new school is built to eliminate overcrowding at Hillsdale Elementary. • Predicted#of students 247+/- generated from proposed development Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Sewer will be available with the development of Keep Subdivision on the West side of Services Eagle Road. • 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 Water and sewer mains should not be in common driveways. Concerns have been expressed regarding the width of the private streets and that the required 30' easements may overlap onto private properties,rendering these areas unbuildable. The City is applying the following requirements for Common Driveways. • Three or less lots—services from main in adjacent road • Four or more lots—Sewer in common drive. Sewer will be private and will be the responsibility of the HOA to maintain.Manhole needed in the common drive at the property boundary with"Private"on the lid. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's Page 4 Page 16 Item#1. • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Common drives that have both water and sewer mains will require a 30'easement •As currently designed,most phases do not meet minimum fire flow pressure.There are multiple options to meet fire flow including upsizing some water mains to 12"and a secondary connections. •Coordinate with PW Engineering on main sizes,connection at the SW corner and connection at the NE corner. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend r Legend Prc"pmaci LcoafK>r ® t Locaioi •H! .. ® I r ` - i14 - Y Residential IV iC Medium nW IZ sidential Low Den .ihy Rid�nti�l r Page 5 Page 17 Item#1. Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend Legend r Pro" i Lacai�ar i Location Jea �-$ Prima 11'-11 City urnitr RU R-15 — Planned Parcels 5 i R-4 R-2 �y �y i t i i i t 1 R RR Iwt1 �, r r III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Peter and Dana Eisenman—3487 E.Adler Hof Ln.,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise, ID 83706 IV. NOTICING Planning & Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in 2/26/2021 5/7/2021 newspaper Notification mailed to property 2/23/2021 5/4/2021 owners within 300 feet Applicant posted public hearing 3/5/2021 5/13/2021 notice on site Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 5/3/2021 Page 6 Page 18 Item#1. V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the 6+/-acres at the southwest corner of the site, south of the Farr Lateral, as Low Density Residential(LDR)and the remaining 74+/-acres as Medium Density Residential(MDR).A City Park is designated in the general area at the southwest corner of the site. Per the Comprehensive Plan,the LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of 3 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. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre.Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The Applicant proposes to develop this site with 328 single-family residential homes at an overall gross density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre(An additional lot will contain the existing house).A total of 23 units are proposed within the 6+/- acre LDR designated area for a gross density of 3.8 units per acre in that area,which exceeds the density desired of 3 or fewer units per acre. Smaller lots, instead of the large or estate lots as desired in LDR designated areas, are proposed along with open space areas along the southern boundary and along the northern boundary adjacent to the Farr Lateral. There are several larger one-half acre lots proposed at the southeast directly abutting the adjacent residences in Vantage Point Subdivision. However,the rectangular lots are oriented as such that the abutting lot lines are half or less than the width of the neighboring residential lots, so there are several lots abutting one neighboring lot. The applicant proposes to limit the height of the houses in this area to one story to help protect view sheds. The units proposed in the MDR designated area meet a gross density of 4.1 units per acre in that area,which is consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas of 3 to 8 units per acre.A City park is not proposed,but the Park's Department has determined a City park is not needed in this area. B. Comprehensive Plan Analysis(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) 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 applicant isproposing 328 lots, with 30 of the lots containing single family attached at the northwest portion of the site. The remainder of the 299 lots are intended for single family detached units. The applicant's narrative references housing types such as large rim lot houses, two story golf course houses, large lot homes, 255 single story homes and the attached single-family product. The single family attached product does contribute to the variety of housing types in the overall area.However, the remaining single family detached houses contribute to a diversity of housings les but notparticularly the variety of housing Upes intended by the Comprehensive Plan for all needs,preferences and financial capabilities. Page 7 Page 19 Item#1. • "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 and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Currently, this development can be served by the Fire Department. However, most of the development is outside of response time goals, does not meet resource reliability goals, and has risk factors including a steep hill with a potential for wildfire if the hillside isn't maintained(see the Fire Department's comment in Section VII below). Additionally, with the main access and secondary access both from Eagle Rd., if access is blocked from the north via Eagle Rd. it may delay emergency services by having to travel 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site,potentially creating a life safety issue. If the applicant is able to secure legal secondary access to the north this would alleviate concerns but this would be contingent upon whether those properties develop, and staff might recommend only some number of lots being developed until that occurs. The Southern Meridian Fire Station adjacent to Discovery Park is anticipated for construction in 2023; if this occurs, there will be significantly improved fire service to the subject property. The annexation is currently in process and scheduled for a public hearing. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The subject property abuts Pura Vida Ridge Ranch to the northeast, the Boise Ranch Golf Course to the east, and Vantage Pointe Subdivision to the south. This development proposes R-8 zoning and lot sizes of approximately 5,000 sq.ft. to 6,000 sq.ft. adjacent to Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, whereas Pura Vida Ranch includes lot sizes of comparable sizes and the same R-8 zoning. To the southwest(Phase 9), the development proposes lot sizes of approximately 6,000—6,500 sq.ft. whereas the adjacent Vantage Pointe Subdivision is comprised of lots one-acre in size and greater(although there are four lots proposed with this development directly abutting the south area and are % acre to 3/ acre in size). The development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of between 80 feet and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south in Vantage Point. The development also proposes one story homes in this area. An abutting neighbor has submitted written testimony stating the buffer as proposed and the lot sizes are not appropriate transitions in this area. It is staff's opinion the lots should be at least one-acre in this area and have property line lengths that better orient to adjacent off-site properties. The Planning Commission and City Council should assess whether there is an appropriate transition in this area. "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed single-family attached homes at the northwest are generally compatible as they directly abut S. Eagle Road and there are no adjacent homes directly to the north. The single family detached homes are generally compatible with existing rural residential homes as they are all residential in nature. However, with the exception of the larger lots and open space on the south boundary, the proposed plat depicts smaller lots (i.e. 4,448-4,950 sf.) than those of the lots in the abutting Vantage Pointe Subdivision. The Commission and Council should determine if the applicant has provided an adequate transition. Page 8 Page 20 Item#1. • "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) The Pathways Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the eastern boundary of the site; a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed in accord with the Plan on the northern portion of the development but transitions to a 5-foot wide pathway to the south and does not stub to the south for future extension as shown on the Plan. However, the Park's Dept. has indicated they are supportive of the proposed design. This pathway will eventually provide a connection to Discovery Park to the west and Hillside Elementary and the YMCA to the north. There is also a 10' multi-use pathway proposed adjacent to the Farr Lateral, as is shown on the pathways plan. These pathways will be valuable amenities to the project.A golf cart pathway is shown as Lot 41 on Block 5, which terminates at the Boise Ranch Golf Course. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter,pathways, two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements, which are located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site and are not centrally located.Although much of the open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the UDC(i.e. at least 20'in width and 50'in length with an access on each end) a significant portion of what is proposed as qualified open space consists of street buffers and end caps with parkways.Also, it is important to note that the applicant's narrative contains a pedestrian connectivity exhibit which shows narrow private roads with no sidewalks and common drives as `pedestrian connections"which staff believes is somewhat misleading. However, the private street standards do not require them. Additionally, staff believes the entire development should contain public streets which would require the 5-foot sidewalks per City code. The Commission and Council should determine if the pedestrian circulation plan is adequate for the proposed development with the inclusion of the private system. • "Evaluate open space and amenity requirement and criteria for consistency with community needs and values."(2.02.01B) Because the average lot size proposed in the development is only 6,280 square feet, Staff is of the opinion the end caps could be re-oriented/consolidated with other larger common lots to increase the usable open space within the development. This was discussed during the pre-application meetings with the applicant and they are of the opinion the open space as proposed exceeds UDC standards and is designed to meet the needs of the development. • "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 through with this development. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) The subject property abuts portions of the city limits at the northwest and northeast corner, but the majority of the property perimeter is surrounded by unincorporated Ada County. The proposed project is located near the fringe of the City and does not meet the definition of an infill development. • "Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design."(4.05.02C) The Ten Mile Creek crosses the northeast corner of the site; a common area is proposed for the creek area and a multi-use pathway is proposed along the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Page 9 Page 21 Item#1. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) City sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with the public road portion of this development. The cross sections provided for the private road portion do not depict sidewalks. The applicant contends that the private streets provide an intimate setting for the residents and narrower streets decrease traffic speeds which do not warrant the additional improvements. It is important to note that the director has not approved the private street application, thus the plat should be redesigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development. • "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B) The proposed project is in the City's `fringe"area; therefore, development in this area is not encouraged as are vacant/underutilized parcels currently within City limits. However, the City has recently approved several developments (Pura Vida and Poiema) north of the proposed development making this property more desirable to develop. • "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) Eagle Rd. is currently a 2-lane roadway with no curb, gutter or sidewalks; no improvements are planned in the CIP/IFYWP to the segment of Eagle Rd. abutting this site. The Lake Hazel/Eagle Road intersection north of the site is planned to be reconstructed and signalized in 2023. The ACHD report states that the TIS estimates this development to generate an additional 3,343 trips per day resulting in an acceptable level ofservice (i.e. better than "E'). WASD estimates this development will house approximately 247 school aged children—enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped so students in this development would attend Silver Sage, which is currently under capacity; enrollment at Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High School would be over capacity at build-out of this development according to the Community Development's school impact review included in Section VII. Water and sewer are being extended consistent with the City's master plan as noted above. Discovery Park, a 77+/-acre City Park, is located approximately a mile away from this site to the west on Lake Hazel Rd., which should be adequate to serve this development. • "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) Two types of housing are proposed—single family detached and 30 single family attached units-which will provide diversity in housing, and the density in the MDR designated area falls within the desired range. The density proposed in the LDR designated area at the southwest corner of the site is above the 3 units or fewer per acre desired in that area. However, the Comprehensive Plan states future land use designations are not parcel specific. An adjacent, abutting designation, when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used.A designation may not must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more than 50%of the land being developed. The predominate land use designation is MDR and the applicant has the ability to design the project to meet density perimeters of the MDR designations provided other goals of the Comprehensive Plan are being met. Page 10 Page 22 Item#1. As discussed below, R-15 zoning is proposed at the less dense eastern portion of the site to allow the option ofprivate streets without sidewalks., Staff has concerns with the private streets, specifically the long-term maintenance and interconnectivity with surrounding developments. If these roadways are not constructed to ACHD standards, the likelihood ofACHD accepting these streets in the future is slim. Also, stafffinds that although most of the open space meets the minimum dimensions, not all of it is quality open space(please see the qualified open space section below). The Fire Department has noted concerns with the access and serviceability of this project ahead of the fire station being constructed next to Discovery Park. Finally,public services are proposed to be extended near the fringe of the City rather than to vacant/underdeveloped infill parcels as desired. For these reasons, Staff is of the opinion the proposed annexation may not be the best interest of the City at this time. C. Annexation&Zoning: Portions of the annexation area are contiguous to a portion of the current City limits boundary and within the City's Area of City Impact at the east boundary. Most of the surrounding properties are still within unincorporated Ada County.A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VI.A. The proposed annexation area consists of two(2)tax parcels containing a total of 80.46 acres of land designated as LDR and MDR on the FLUM and contains land to the section line of S. Eagle Rd. The Applicant proposes to annex the two(2)parcels, zone the western 43.85 acres with an R-8 zoning district, and the eastern 36.60-acre portion with a R-15 zoning district. The R-8 zoning district allows lots as small as 4,000 sq. ft. with a minimum street frontage of 40'. The western 43.85 acres of the plat proposed for R-8 zoning reflects lots that meet this minimum lot and frontages requirements. The R-15 zoning district allows lots as small as 2,000 sq. ft. and has no requirement for a minimum street frontage. This zoning is typically reserved for higher densities,including single family attached, townhomes and multifamily.It is important to note that with the previous application,staff informed the applicant that the private streets that are proposed with a significant portion of this development were not allowed under the R-8 zoning that was originally proposed for the entire development. The provisions for private streets apply only to properties that do not have frontage on a public street or where frontage is not required per UDC 11-3F-2.The applicant has subsequently revised their application to propose R-15 zoning merely for the purpose of being eligible for private streets whereas all other dimensional standards would comply with the requirements of the R-8 zone. Staff believes the development should incorporate public streets within the entire development and zone the property in accord with the more appropriate R-8 zone(Please see the access section below for more discussion regarding the private streets).In previous discussions with the applicant, staff has suggested the applicant either rezone to PUD, or initiate a code change in regard to requirements for private streets. The applicant has chosen to move forward with a request to rezone to R-15. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are two (2) existing homes and outbuildings on this site—the 5,892 square foot home constructed in 2002 at the east end of the site is planned to remain on a lot(Lot 64,Block 5)in the proposed subdivision; the home and accessory structures on the west end of the site are planned to be removed with development. These homes are accessed via a private lane(E. Adler Hof Ln.) from S. Eagle Rd. If annexed,the home proposed to remain is required to hook-up to City water and sewer service and change their address. Page 11 Page 23 Item#1. E. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a principal permitted use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The proposed use,with two housing types,is mostly consistent with the purpose statement of the residential district in that a range of housing opportunities and a variety of dwelling types would be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC 11-2A-1 and 11-6A-1. However, proposing to rezone a portion of the property to the R-15 zone when R-8 zone would suffice merely for the reason of being eligible for private streets is not consistent with the purpose statement of UDC 11-3F-1. While this isn't an uncommon practice,this section states that"it is not the intent to approve private streets for single- family,duplex and/or townhouse developments other than those that create a common mew through the site design or that propose a limited gated residential development"as no single family attached are in this area and no common mews are proposed. Further, a limited gated community as specified in the UDC is 50 or fewer homes. As noted below,the applicant is proposing that 112 homes utilize the proposed private street in an area that doesn't have an established street network and limited access. Therefore,the director has denied the private street application(see below for analysis). F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed preliminary plat consists of 328 building lots,40 common lots, and 14 other lots(i.e. common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 80.46 acres of land. Development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Lots in the western portion proposed for R-8 meet the minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. with a 40' lot frontage. Although the lots in the 36.6-acre eastern portion proposed for R-15 meet the dimensional standards of that zone district(minimum lot size of 2,000 sq. ft. and no minimum frontage requirement)as presently proposed,they would also meet the minimum requirements of the R-8 zoning district. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC I1-6C-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. 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 City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length where block design is constrained by certain site conditions as specified in UDC 11-6C-3F.3b. The face of Block 9 on the north side of the Farr Lateral is 1,000'+/-and does not contain a pathway or intersecting street or alley.This is also true of the section of Block 5 that is south of private street A of more than 850 feet. Council approval would be needed, or the plat would need to be revised to comply with the standard. At the northeast corner of the site, a street ending in a cul-de-sac is proposed which will likely exceed the maximum 500' length allowed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 depending on how the property to the north develops. Staff had recommended an internal street access to this portion of the development rather than the sole access being provided via a stub street from the north. The applicant has responded due to the topography in this area,they cannot provide the recommended internal access. However,just to the north of this cul-de-sac,the plat shows a golf cart path in this general area. Twelve(12) common driveways are proposed; such driveways should 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 Page 12 Page 24 Item#1. 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. Where two(2)common driveways are proposed that adjoin,bollards(or other barrier approved by the Fire Dept.) should be placed at the common lot line to prevent a through connection between streets. The applicant has submitted a phasing plan. The phasing plan shows nine phases,with the first phase occurring directly adjacent to S. Eagle Rd at the proposed public street.Number of lots being built out vary between 59 at the first phase,to 23 at the last phase. Phase 8 and Phase 9 are both disconnected from the rest of the subdivision, although staff does believe an access could be constructed across the Farr Lateral between Phase 1 or 2 and Phase 9. UDC 11-3F-4 prohibits common driveways off of private streets whereas this proposal includes three common driveways served by private streets. The applicant has requested alternative compliance from this standard. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Improvements and a signal are planned for the Lake Hazel/Eagle Rd. intersection in 2023. Lake Hazel is planned to be widened to 5-lanes between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads in 2024; and to 5-lanes from Locust Grove to Eagle Roads between 2026 and 2030;no improvements are planned to Eagle Rd. south of Lake Hazel abutting the site. The applicant will be required to construct 5-foot-wide sidewalk on S. Eagle Rd abutting the site. One(1)public street, Street A, is proposed for access via S. Eagle Rd. as a collector street to the intersection of Street C, also a public street. Three(3) stub streets are proposed at the north, and two(2) stub street are proposed at the south boundaries of the site for future extension in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. One of these southern stubs is a secondary emergency access to E. Vantage Pointe Ln. to be constructed with the first phase of development. There is also a cul-de-sac at the extreme northeast serving 15 additional lots,which is intended to connect to a public road through the recently approved Pura Vida Ridge Ranch. This area is shown as Phase 8 and does not connect to the rest of the Skybreak Subdivision, except for the connected pathway system. There are two southern roads shown to connect from the subject property to E.Vantage Pointe Lane to the south. E.Vantage Point Lane is a private road, and the applicant has only demonstrated the legal right to use this road for emergency access(Inst. #2020-063349);public access is not allowed. This is adequate for emergency access to occur from the cul-de-sac shown at the end of the public street shown as Street J. However,this application also shows an additional 23 lots being served from a double cul-de-sac shown as Phase 9. The applicant has not demonstrated they have primary legal access to these lots via E.Vantage Pointe Lane.The applicant has responded that they intend to eventually obtain this access and will build out this later phase when it is obtained,but staff is concerned with an application which proposes annexing and zoning 23 lots into the City without proof of access.The applicant should construct a roadway across the Farr Lateral to provide access to the portion of the development for better integration. The Fire Department has noted in a letter dated February 16,2021 that they are concerned with a large subdivision with only one access out to S.Eagle Rd. Two of the three northern stubs go to properties within unincorporated Ada County which are not proposed for development at this time. The third northern stub only serves Phase 8 which does not connect to the rest of the subdivision.If access from the north via Eagle Rd.is blocked,in the event of an emergency,emergency vehicles would have to travel an additional 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site creating a potential life safety Page 13 Page 25 Item#1. issue due to a delayed response time. Staff has recommended the applicant pursue a northern access to allow access from this subdivision via the public road in the Pura Vida Subdivision and to E.Lake Hazel Rd,but the applicant has responded that due to topography this is not feasible, although the applicant has managed to configure a golf cart path to the golf course at the north.In addition,the Fire Department has mentioned the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5-minute response area, and the nearest station(Station 4)has a low reliability rating.This would improve if and when the southwestern fire station adjacent to Discovery Park is constructed in 2023.The applicant has submitted a phasing plan which shows each phase has at least two accesses for emergency service,but as mentioned,except for Phase 8 at the northeast corner,all the other phases rely on only S.Eagle Rd for access. Staff is aware that access will improve in this area over time however,it is contingent on other properties developing in the area to provide the necessary road network. A combination of public and private streets are proposed for access within the development—public streets are proposed on the west and private streets serving 112 lots are proposed on the east end of the subdivision. Three (3) common driveways are proposed for access off private streets(see analysis below). The applicant has provided sections of the private streets with this plat application(see Section VI). Although the plat does not indicate exactly which private street cross sections are proposed in which area,the street sections show private streets as narrow as 27',none of which include sidewalks. Since the time of the pre-application meetings,staff has responded that staff does not support this many lots being served by private streets. This is because this results in streets that would pass the maintenance costs on to the homeowners through the HOA, as ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial constraints. Staff has requested the developer state the reason for requesting private streets other than the additional costs to build them to the standard template,and the only responses staff has received thus far is that there is a demographic of senior home buyers that prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates and private streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff agrees that there are probably buyers that would prefer gated communities and private streets,but still does not understand why narrow private streets are preferable to streets built to standard templates and containing landscaping and sidewalk.As noted above,staff finds the proposal is not a limited gated community,exceeds more than 50 homes.Therefore,the plat should be resigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development.As noted below the applicant has requested alternative compliance (ALT)to allow 112 homes as proposed. The director has denied the applicant's ALT request. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE The applicant proposes 112 gated lots, and 3 common driveways off a private street.UDC 11-3F-4 states a proposed(gated) development shall have no more than 50 dwelling units, and no common driveways shall be allowed off of a private street. However, 11-3F-4 also allows the director to approve, or recommend approval of alternative design or construction standards when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this article and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Requests for alternative compliance are allowed only when one(1)or more of the following conditions exist: a. Topography, soil,vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical; b. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot; c. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable; d. Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict with the requirements of this article; Page 14 Page 26 Item#1. e. The proposed design includes innovative design features based on "new urbanism", "neotraditional design",or other architectural and/or site designs that promote walkable and mixed use neighborhoods; f. Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance. In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. The applicant's alternative compliance letter mentions there is a demographic ofsenior home buyers that prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates andprivate streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff agrees that there is probably a demographic that would prefer gated communities, but this is not a condition required for alternative compliance. The Director finds the applicant has not demonstrated the need for a private versus public streets as noted above. The plat indicates private street sections with no sidewalks and minimal landscaping, whereas ACHD templates require 5'sidewalks and landscaping. Also, the applicant proposes alternative compliance to allow three common driveways from the private streets, whereas this is not allowed by UDC 11-3F-4-6. Staff does not understand how what is beingproposed is an equal or superior means to meeting requirements. Providing narrow private streets with no sidewalks, minimal landscaping, and common driveways from these private streets is not an innovative design features that promotes walkable neighborhoods. Finally, as was already mentioned, gating the community will also slow response times when there are already fire access concerns, which would be materially detrimental to the public welfare. H. Parking (UDC 11-3C : Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. A parking plan is included in Section VIII.J that depicts a total of 334 on-street parking spaces along public and private streets;parking along private streets must be approved by the Fire Marshall. 1. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts a north/south segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the east side of the subject property and along the south side of the Farr Lateral at the southwest corner of the site. The Applicant has worked with the Park's Dept.pathway coordinator on the design proposed along the east boundary; the pathway along the south side of the Farr Lateral is consistent with the PMP. The pathways are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement or a note should be added to the plat which allows public access in the common lots intended for pathways. Ten-foot(10')wide segments of the City's multi-use pathway are proposed within the street buffer along Eagle Rd., along the south side of the Farr Lateral, along the Ten Mile Creek and the northern portion of the east boundary of the site and a golf cart path. Other pathway connections are also proposed for pedestrian interconnectivity and access to common areas within the development.A pathway connection is proposed between the pathway on the eastern portion of the site to the sidewalks along internal public streets on the west end of the site. A total of 5,167 linear feet of pathways are proposed in this development(see exhibit in Section VI).All pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. Page 15 Page 27 Item#1. Where pathways are proposed in common driveways(i.e. Lot 25,Block 9)they should be located in separate common lots with landscaping on either side in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C. I Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): A 10' pathway is proposed along S. Eagle Rd. with a combination of detached and attached sidewalks along the internal public streets.No sidewalks are required or proposed along private streets except for along private Streets K& S where a detached sidewalk is proposed for a pedestrian connection between the pathway on the east end of the site to the sidewalk along public Street I on the west end of the site. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17 : Eight-foot wide parkways with detached sidewalks are proposed along the entry street(Street A)and in a few other areas; sidewalks are mostly attached with no parkways in this development.All parkways 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. L. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Eagle Rd., an arterial street; a 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Street A where it is designated as a collector street(i.e. from Eagle Rd. to the intersection of Street C), landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 50' foot+/- wide buffer is proposed along Eagle Rd. and a 30-foot wide buffer is proposed along the collector street(Street A)landscaped with grass and deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in excess of the minimum standards. Parkways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is proposed within parkways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Landscaping is proposed along pathways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Landscaping is depicted in common areas in excess of UDC standards except along the Farr Lateral and Lot 46,Block 5 (the ridge lot with the trail). There are existing trees on the site within proposed building lots that are proposed to be removed that may require mitigation. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. M. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G): A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on the area of the proposed plat(80+/- acres), a minimum of 8 acres of qualified open space should be provided. The Applicant landscape plan notes the development provides 14.99 acres (or 18.4%) of qualified open space. This open space consists of parks, street buffers,linear open space,parkways and common areas greater than 50' x 100' in area, including the slope area on the east end of the site (see qualified open space exhibit in Section VI).Although the open space complies with the minimum UDC standards in regard to dimensions, Page 16 Page 28 Item#1. some of the open space area being credited consists of unusable arterial/collector street buffers and end caps with parkways,the easement for the Farr Lateral, and areas that aren't centrally located for easy access. It is staff s opinion that the applicant has the opportunity to reconfigure the plat to consolidate additional open space to make it more accessible and useable. UDC 11-3G-3-E requires that at a minimum, common open space areas shall include one(1)deciduous shade tree per eight thousand(8,000) square feet and lawn, either seed or sod. There are areas being credited on the applicant's open space exhibit as qualified open space, such as land within the Farr Lateral easement, and all the challenging and steeply sloping land in Lot 45,Block 5 at the east that do not meet the minimum landscape requirements. In addition,the pathway shown along Lot 45,Block 5 would need to be landscaped with one tree per 100 linear feet of pathway as required per UDC 11-3B-3-12 in order to be credited for qualified open space. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G Based on the area of the proposed plat(80+/-acres), a minimum of four(4) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter/shade structure, pathways,two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC requirements. Dog owner facilities are required to be improved with a dog washing station with a drain to sanitary sewer system and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal; or fencing to enclose a minimum 0.75 acre of open space for an off-leash dog park and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal per UDC 11-3G-3C.h. Although the proposed amenities meet the minimum standards,they are primarily located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site or in the gated portion of the development and are not centrally located(see details in Section VII.D),which Staff is of the opinion is not ideal. Staff would prefer the open space be reconfigured to allow more useable open space and amenities toward the center of the development. Further,UDC 11-3G-3D.3 requires common open space and site amenities to be located in areas of high visibility to avoid hidden areas and corners, dark areas,unusable space and reduce the opportunity for crime. Staff does believe the sports park,playground and pathways are adequate amenities,but as mentioned above,believes more useable open space and centrally located amenities should be incorporated into this project. O. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City. P. Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15) An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided with development to each lot within the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. Irrigation water is provided from the New York Irrigation District. Q. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Farr Lateral runs across the southwest corner of this site within a common lot(Lot 51,Block 9) and Ten Mile Creek runs along the northeast corner of the site. The Applicant proposes to leave these waterways open and improve them as linear open space with a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway. However, if these waterways are intended to be improved and credited as linear open spaces,they should be accessible and usable, and Page 17 Page 29 Item#1. landscaped in accordance with UDC 11-313-12 and UDC 11-3G-3-E, including one tree per 100 pathway feet and one tree per 8,000 square feet of open area,as well as vegetated with seed or sod. R. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7. Six-foot tall open vision vinyl slat top fencing is proposed along connection pathways and the Farr Lateral,4- foot tall open vision wrought iron fencing is proposed adjacent to the dog parks and 6-foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along street buffers and the perimeter of the subdivision as shown on the landscape plan. UDC 1I- 3A-6C.3 requires open laterals to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6-foot in height and having an 11-gauge,2-inch mesh or other construction equivalent in ability to deter access to the lateral. Staff recommends open fencing is installed between the lateral and the pathway to preserve public safety. S. Building Elevations (UDC I I-3A-19 1 Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this development which are included in Section VI. Homes depicted are predominantly single-story, some with a bonus room,with a few that are 2-stories in height proposed on the east end of the development on or near the rim. All but 44 of the homes are proposed to be restricted to single-story with the option of a bonus room;the larger lots on the east end of the development are not restricted to single-story homes (see exhibit in Section VII.J). Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials(i.e.horizontal and vertical siding and stucco) with stone/brick veneer accents. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested annexation and preliminary plat based on the Findings in section IX. and the Director has denied the private street and alternative compliance based on the Findings in section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on April 1, 202L At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend DENIAL on the subject annexation request. I. Summary of the Commission public hearing a. In favor: Deborah Nelson b. In opposition: Kathy White, Stephen Rankin C. Commenting: Deborah Nelson d. Written testimony: Staff received 13 letters in opposition. Issues expressed include density, lack of transition to Vantage Pointe Subdivision, lack of sidewalks and narrowness of private roads, developer trying to fit in as many lots as possible without providing quality amenities and necessary infrastructure, emergency access,lack of cooperation with the adjacent neighbors, and a large higher density project being located on the fringe of the City. e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Joe Bon ig orno Page 18 Page 30 Item#1. 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Density and lack of sidewalks. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Commissioners expressed issues related to density, lack of transition, lack of sidewalks, amount of private roads, low fire station reliability and whether Station 4 will even be built and staffed,trying to pack in as many houses as possible,not walkable, lack of amenities, emergency access issues,past problems with HOAs taking on costs associated with private streets, and the project not being a"premier"community. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None Page 19 Page 31 Item#1. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map (date 1/20/21) AAk 5; wtvoth Larid 5urvin lriq, PLC �j Z. A46r,,�r 7-, fur. Ealmrr.t ID ��f�i I Skybreak Annexation Legal Description BASIS Old BEAFUNGS 15 S. 01,12'S2"VV. betwRnn a fount#alurn4wirm tap marking the W114 corner and 6 found alurninum cav marking ttM NW comer of 5ect.4n ap,T. 2 J., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, A penal of(land locates In the 51{2 nF Me 144Ij4 0 Section 4 Township 2 North, Range 1 East Boise Meridian, Aaa Coanty, Idaho, more particularly desu!bW as Foll : COMMENCING at an akiminum cap marking the NW coinfir of s.90 Section 4; Thence.S. 0912'52"W., ceindderrt with Lice w2sr line or said NWII 1 and the caravline of S. Eagle Road, 1352.07 feet to an alurnInurp rap PLS 13550, markiW the N 4 16 rqfn r or said Seetkon 4 arsd the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence S. BcrS2'22°f~, to incident with tha mrth Irnr*4F Said 5112 cf ft NYr+114, d dl-qance od 1321.03 feet tD a Sf8"remrlcap PI-5 645. marking the NV4I f t6 comer of wick Sedion 4j, Thence N, 89°56'41"'E.,colnoderit with said narttr kirm, 13Z1.1a feet to a 510"rebar/cap PIS 4347, rnarkir% the CN11tE carnet of said Seclran 4; Thence 5-CG'37'07"W-, co+nudLIA whir t1-re Iasi Brie of s-.fd NVVV4, a&Wrica of 1313.72 k-et to a 3M' mbar/cap Pt;645, rTmarWliq the C1/4 omrrier of Said Sebtion 4; Thence N.89 4d'12"W-Wncldent Apth the south fine of said Se-tron 4.a d1stanrje of 26U2,7t reef tD air kgime aluminum ram, marking the YVIJ4 of said SecLlbn 4; Thenpe N. 00012'52-[,, cvlricldent With said viest Inner 1328.27 Feet to the J#GINTOF RE6Ii'INING. The above described parmJ cofltains 00.4GI -scan More:ok N-m. a 1 ,574 f I'D BEA " Page 20 Page 32 Item#1. R Of ffL R„T_r. h,i77lu x� t rq W Lk I _ � I Y ' I a F I I I I I I I I I I u $ - - - - - --- - ----- x '�I I [.fdfF�177�1 ~ I 1k Page 21 Page 33 Item#1. B. Rezoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map (date: 1/20/21) ti .. awwctt Larld urveyirfe�jT LLC x - �_ - YF1 P (2Liba 59&•b 1 1)4 F: 1.208;1 3 98-81 05 CL Q �] �tuigtop eve F,rl4l�rr Q 856 1 r' 11574 Skybreak R-8 Zoning Descripbon IN GASM OF BEARINGS Is 10912'SZ"W. to meen a found ailumIDum cap trlaeking th-e W1)4 ccwvr and a Nund alurminurn-cap marklog the NAY mmer-of Seabn 4, T. :4 N., R. 1 E,, 1,M„ AOa County, Cdaho. A pam6 of rand iocaLed in the S112 of the NV11�4&Semen I ToWpiship I No the Marge 1 East, 13015e Meridlanr Ada County, Tdahr), snora parULVarfy destri;hed ag Follows: COMM601110MG at nn aluminum cap marking thp-NW corner of said`action 4, Thincv 5. 401V52"W.{cuiMicident Mth the west floe al said NW114. a distance or 1352.07 feet to an alumrnum -�ap PL5 13559, marking the 14111.corner eF mpd Section 4 aM thf! POINT OF BEGINNING.1 Tlw-nw 5. WP52'17" F., cconcidlent with the north Hne 8F-said 5112 of the NWI?4, a dRstanre of 132103 feet tQ a 5}8"rebarftap KS 645, marking the NW1}16 Cartier aF said Sech4sr 4; Thence N. 139P5W41"F., crkc#dent WO Said north Iln-e, 2bl.7$Feet; y`herice 5, 00131252"U, par-511W wrth said west 111ne, 1137;56 Feet; fhe Ce fl_WV'OEI"W-r 5.43 FM; Fhence S. W"12'5Z"W., paralat:t wb sold wit Mine, 454.'M fm ; Therm N.891341'23"W.r 73.73 feet; rtrence N. 711155'29"W.j 35.46 fietat; '174W[� N.9"4250 W., tP.79 Teets fence S. 000121521'W-r paraftel with 5W0 west line, 146.02 ftvt; Thence S. 89047,0$rt E,r ax ret; Thence S. 40111 'S2" W. pamMlei WO safd m5t line, 601 r95 Feet ko the south IFnV-dP-raid 6WIC 4; Thence N. :1390W1 Zn V1,, Winddent with said--youth line, MC42 feet. hn an iftg1 [se aiuminurn cap, narking WI/4 01 said Section 4; TheKe N. 00,112'52" E., cuinddent with salt#wesr line, 1326.27 Feet to the PO T OF$E[;f MING_ The above dmtibed Varcel aontaim 411158 acres more cr less. Page 22 Page 34 Gm q. _ _NZAMW • --—--_-- & -- - ,_ �'Irm- � � - 71 � � p � �■§ � | � | . r . , I{ �§i , §�q 9 � 2� A � i 2 | � � . . . . _ | g�■ �.£ @ m � - - in a � -. � ■� / ` � � � - -- -- �-- � 2 , / j §j I q �§ \ 3t E .�( &&2 %2w2 k� I } �k ,& �w � , §� i kt I � Page 23 Pgea { Item#1. � I. ndlr +1nq; L LC E: r208) 39&-i"' 104 + t b7 3�6 510,5 � � Skybroak -15 Zoning Description BASS OF BEARINGS Ls S. V12'52" W. betw4mn a f(jUad aluminLtro cap marking the W114 torrWr arkd a fOr,nd alLarnirrurn rap marking the hiV4 corner-of SCCt-Dn 4, f. � N,, R. t E,F 13,M., Ada Qounty, Idaho A parcel of JarwJ UwAted in the 5112 of tttie NVY114 of 920jun 4 T-ownsh"rp 2 NDrthr Range 1 EOSL Boise merldon, Ada County, WaW, rmure particularly describiO as rollDws: COMMENCING at are io14mirium cap nmrking the NW carner-Df said Shan 4� Trenoe 5. 0012'52"W, ❑nlnddent with the west Ilrle Of Shld NVV1{4, a dlskuncQ or 1352,07 Teet w are alummL�m Cap Pi_S 13550r marking [he NI11b corw-r of sawj Section 4; irle W S. 69PS222"-E., w1wident with the north Ilrhe 01 said 5112 of the NYV1jj, a distame or 1321,03 Net Lu a 5JH"feharltap PL.S 645, rTwrkir-g the NW1115 comer Df sold Section q I- Tpieoce N. W5641"�-: , a ine+dEnt wltti said -iorth lime, 26.1.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, TherEt tontlnuiny 74, 69155'41" F, coinc]Oent wiNi said north lir», 1,059.11 Feet W a W-5" rabarICaID Pl-5 A34J, rri,rklrtg th N CN3/16 wrher of said Sermon 4; Dwrlce S. O01137'07"W, CnincidenC"kh the east ilre of said Secboh 4, i� distanim Qf 1S33-72 Feet hi 1!4" rebar/cap RS 545r marking thr-C114 curler ot. and Section 4; Thence N, 891148'12" W., roincrOenC with the sotO lhne ior sa-d NW LMP a di5tance et 1 ZP9.29 ieTk; Tr+ae N. 00"12'52" E., parallel with said we5t ihw, 601.95 feetr Therkce N. 991247'08"W.. 2Z,3 J! feet; Theme N. t]D412 "E., parallel with said west flrie, i 46-Q 1. reerr Thwwa 5, 89"44"25" E., !57.79 feet, Tbanum S, 7105529" 1-, 31.,;6 feet; Thence S. S41141 23" E-, 13.11 fear, Th,enm N. OULIn2-E,, parallej with said west Prm, 4,94.70 feel; Ttxnce S. 134047'QS" L, 5.43 fret,; Thence N. 00p12r52"L,r parallel wlth said WPZt IiM, 137.56 fft-L10 Me POINT OF BEGIN WING_ -rl,e above dewibed oarcei cantAjns 36.604 acres MOM or ass. Page 24 Page 36 Item#1. at"UR X*kwlmT apu- 07 h 1l213I' ui�u y I I R _ 4 �uoI I I w I� I� I I � I I � I I w I I m w 4q h ILI PAMLrm i i � I z oa +rr Page 25 Page 37 Item#1. C. Preliminary Plat(date: 12/11/2020) 5M'52'M'E 12919Q' NN-,' E !?'AV . L 3 + • 1 � . i . . o �i u�x p 5i i ,x TP PS i - � � �� • � � {�'� �" 'Y'+ r7 J J ` I 'iP�f' I los i„ y i IMa M- In 1A NalbII } id t x w u b si M �� y fff I f,x I ' N747E'x671'12Y7.76' NBP'�$'18•W 131$.3B' A Landscape Plan (date: 12/11/2020) Page 26 Page 38 Item#1. E. Gated versus Non Gated(date: 2/11/2020) All streets shown in gated portion are private streets rr .1 art 1� . I Traditional ighborholad Gated Community F. Open Space Exhibit(date: 12/30/2020) L------- z --J n ------------ - -- ------------------------- ----- -------'----------- Page 39 Item#1. G. Zoning Exhibit(date: 12/10/2020) - - -- - R-8 Single - . . R-15 two Story, j Attached ` � � I [ 1 Single Family j R-15 Large Rim Lot I I_ 1�_ �•� I��"' CCEG Housing„) • f _- 1 � ' f �� I— r. ��1`�� !W_ �I .I. _� R-15 Gated Single _-- _ Story. Single -� II, - — R-8 Single Story, ] ~�'I _ Family - Single Family _ - - f ! J w "j` -R-15 Gated,—.— -- — — — I Single Family - - f _Custom l H. Phasing Plan (date 2/10/21) „FE nar.E: ;•. — — —--- — — — — — --- li i III, � �' � • ill ` �ryry` i e i Page 40 I. Proposed Private Street Sections L L LL TM li I TE T.- W PRiVATE-YMM7&E,-nC)P+ATC,ATEHIDLU-- 2 AZ I-T T: :'YU ;IP! L L Trf-li PRMVATE MaT SKnCN WTH MEDM MLAND 7-LE ,frT-. .+LE PP3.D L L t4--un o I L IL L Tr V 29 PqIVATESTREMM�+FFfAd ALE Jr Ti, kE �FF ID J. PRIVATE M-ET(STREETS L.J61, N 0. P.a.P) to ....0 -.Tr .{,L FiS.F.- L L M,.LL JL 41f% E? rm 2 7'FR I VATE STUEET Wj 0 ETAC H ED WALK 0 N2:9 DE(9-M EETS K AND S) I {ALE- +r T'T ' LLE F-3T Page 29 Item#1. J. Phasing Description (date: 12/10/21) PROJECTED PROJECT TIMELINE Milestone Date Z021 - ■ City Council Approval est. Aril 2021 ■ Eagle Road-Amiqr to Victor Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2021 2022 - ■ 20 Homes Occupied 151 home available April 2022 Au ust 2022 2023 - ■ Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road Intersection Construction 2023 ■ Eagle Road-Victory to Amity Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2023 ■ Fire Station #8 - Completed and Staffed December 2023 ■ 50 Homes Occupied September 2023 Z024 - ■ Lake Hazel Road - Ea le to Cloverdale Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2024 ■ 100 Homes Occupied June 2024 Z025 - ■ 150 Hoines Occupied June 2025 Z026 - ■ 200 Homes Occupied June 2026 2027 - ■ 250 Homes Occupied June 2027 Z028 - ■ 300 Homes Occupied June 2028 2029 - ■ Com letion December 2029 Page 30 Page 42 Item#1. K. Proposed Amenities (date: 2/10/21 —please refer to Narrative for more details) oo -1 • r-. ram.. _�i. "+- _..._ - � .� I — A. Large 3 f4-Acre,Tot Park(Block 9, Lot 52)—The 35,142 5gft 5kybreak Neighborhood park V"Ill contain the following recreation facilities: • Play Structure • Seating Beaches - • Shade Structure • Climbing Rocks • Large Grass play area • Attractive Landscaping • Playground fencing for safety - B. pathways—The Skyhreak Neighborhood will include the fallowing pedestrian pathways: • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along Eagle Road—1,326 LF • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along the Farr Lateral—1,120 LF • 10'Wide Regional Pathway Along Ten Mile Creek -526 LF • 10'Wide Golf Cart Path - 760 LF • Natural Path—1,4.35 LF Pedestrian pathways within the 5kybreak Neighborhood will total nearly one mile in length. Page 31 Page 43 Item#1. Parks 'Black 2, Lot I and Black 5, Lot 121) - The 5kylareak Neigh barhood pa rk wil I centa i n two 2-} .114 Ac small dog,, dog parks th at wil l in cl ud e ;h e fol lowing: • 0I)e n Vision Fencing _ • Dual Gate System x _ • Seating Areas 1W E ATO • Attractive Landsc'al)ing 1rI ` � L h D. Entry Park(BI-ock 5,lot 114)—The � main Collector Roadway will - terminate in an attractively landscaped open space that will provide for an aesthetically _ r a ppe a I i ng e nt ry statement that ••, _ _-f will convey a sense of arrival, - • Specimen Tree - Plantings • Seating Areas • Attractive Landscaping • Pathway E.Open Sports Park (Blo(k 5, Lot - 97)—This park will include: * Large 1-a cre ope n s ports a rea * Pathway Connection • Seating Areas � - • . - • Attractive Landscaping Page 32 Page 44 Item#1. Il cis capeci Passive Open Space —Located throughorut tyke Eleighborhood: * Attractive Land9caping * Buffering of side yards - Premier 5ignage and Entry Monuments t k H. Pedestrian Connection Exhibit k k -------------- PI jvbnk Pi: _vsrian Coineclion internal Pathway System Rno6r.al Pathway i Pedestr?an+GoN Cart Path Page 33 Page 45 Item#1. L. Parking Plan I L On-Street Parking 334 Spaces Page 34 Page 46 Item#1. M. Common Driveway Exhibits I-- -A—I J 8L[JCIC 4 r I t s I I wAta EAseuEvr I. is 3 I 14 I _ AO.ca'm�wwr � J 12 — I3 � s,do'S1pc sEle•cx arc UN FASI 51°E OF I 30Aii FRONT L�� _ - f � 17 — — n,yl f is r.... f .. .. - To � LD AM, -- 1 5 SI E F LPi, 4N M29M P 4 — I g �fGp'D�rVF a F I � jI �Burro i`FfH•.CFS T4P 3[I,aP' H'ATf T 7 I 15 S�IIEg�4E7.r i¢ ° I ,9 I ` j I y� 9PETfp I ' E'er T-NEWAYIEL(T.h ED EET ON Ehgr SIDE OF LOT. �R rages Page 47 Item#1. F—————-1 BLOCK 5 I Ij h'MEE QN'SIDE w,10655. MNEW LGCAlEP -+-l;ETl)-Cv Tip Gi5 EkTr SILT GF LOT. 34 35 I I 15 3T REYMEM M EMEQQNL+'AMESS MY 33 F- F------ 12.M' RrAN SETW-J� TI& 21 32 LET 2- TAKES DIREL7-rREEF LOT M TAKES URECr STREET ArCESS. INVEWAv LUCAlEt UlftlrEV ON zntr[H 'ADE OF Lgr. ON 50LIRi 3rDE OF LOT. --- - ------- LOT 24 TAXES DRECT-rRErr A= EIRNEftv MUM) GIM5KTH 9ME UF LM RE&W 5iuw-x T" S.a ti -7 26 5.00' 51OF L'T 7 TA KE-9 PREU YREEF i ACCESS.DMVFWI LOCATED 27 ON W-%PC u LJYT. M rages o Item#1. I r UiT Si T4CEs'A=s WET I XlrE55. DRTYErAY LCCATEn On"ORTH SrE OF LOT I' I I ti i Ba Li — T]RIYE 7 12.UD' RErR I PEO PAIPWAY ———— � IwmAnk L6T 77 TES DIRECT 3-MEEr AiYaS. ngIW"'f U3r-AMM '• - f'H EOST ME OF LM 77 I I I3.0, slut SEriIECR � L£IT IRS TFKn 7I4(7 mzEET I _� Imo. smE Y I BLOCK 5 — hMESiS. D P OF hTEo SEMACk nN a I I LAT +6a TAHES DIRECT STPEEf l l l I o+L EAsr OMIVEwFY ..,E Tea I T61 1st 15e ass l I 154 153 'UrM"Eb TO NEW EHV KN-MS ONLY I - sW REM LMYCCK 9 I ! - I 179 L54 f r f f � i w Z 1 N TALES h!Er.T vjao I LOT V5 p KK QIRLO STEO AC1',ESS C dtiEW1yY LCu4TQ1 I ON SDLn 91OF trT CF LOT. —— — I UN-%UTH 5ME OF LOP —— I: 126 gr Page 3 8 Page 50 Item#1. I LO'r 19 TWES UREGT STREET hmESL DRf4EW+4w LDcKrm .4W HOYTH NPE :]F LOT I � I I+.• I I i 17 0.05 MOO" M {{ RUF'F'EH I -- - - - -- - - I ' 13 rrp LM 13 T-WES OIREi:f %MEET I 1'4G ' F1 1r 1 I �. EAKEWAV LDC4TM I SETBMtk ']W WESTI ti41E MW LM. I ,.nm' sraE TRACK T— a Sa r��J 7G Page 39 Page 51 ',fF -, s,%-� I LA, ix eol IS ,JEW . MEN d LW so iii�w I NMEN NE ri �, i•■� . See 0 Twa r k ..r ra■i OF ill tij t m -J�= Fes: °t. 5 ■ x {7{7 i�� I�■ �. 1 ��i- _� � w..,• �� i��, � Iw �r lei �� 1 m l �W I�� r� sl .ti ii �.—. --■ �� i!l.77 . R�i R'�'�i �i� • I■ i�� i R!'Y iLR ris'illl.!isi� ys��n iai�. s�r� ii�'� kl,�i :� I � ��, ��' r � i ;�� I �: i�l{ �+�_��. �.� �i■� '��, Page 42 Item#1. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial. B. PUBLIC WORDS No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=214368&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1 F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciU.ork/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193035&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianciU.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222788&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX L NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridianciU.or zlWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193631&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX K. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.or zlWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=203469&dbid=0&re2o=MeridianCity L. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT REVIEW: https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203 755&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX M. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https.11weblink.meridian city.orQ/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222984&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City Page 43 Page 55 Item#1. N. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aF x?id=222907&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan density recommendations of 3-8 dwelling units per acre for the majority of the site except for the southern portion adjacent to the Vantage Pointe Subdivision where there is an inadequate transition in lot sizes. Staff finds zoning the property to the R-15 district for purpose of allowing private streets is not suitable for providing the necessary infrastructure. As mentioned in Section V above, the 30 attached dwelling units would contribute to more diversity of houses, but the remaining 299 would not. The development does exceed what is required in regard to amenities, however Commission finds some of the open space is not the useable open space as anticipated by the Plan and believes better orientation and consolidation of open space could occur. The property is near the fringe of the City only adjacent to the City limits in a select fewplaces; this development would not be considered infill. The proposed private streets serving a significant portion of the site would not meet the intent of the Plan in regard to requiring urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including sidewalks. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the lack of variety in housing types (i.e. all single-family detached homes except for 30 attached) and lack of diversity in lot sizes is not consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts, which states a range of housing opportunities should be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment could be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The significant portion of the development proposed for private streets may pass the maintenance costs on to homeowners through the HOA, and because private streets are proposed with inadequate templates,ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial constraints. Also, the Fire District has voiced concerns with service to this development until the southern fire station is constructed, has concerns with all but Phase 8 having S. Eagle Rd as the sole point of access, and does not prefer the proposed number of lots being served by gates. 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 Both West Ada County School District and the Community Development School Impact Review indicate this proposal would increase the number of students on schools that are already over capacity. Page 44 Page 56 Item#1. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time as it is located near the fringe of the City and may not maximize existing public services. Further, Commission finds the design of the proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as discussed above in Section V. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-6B-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; Commission finds that the proposed plat is not in substantial conformance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to maximizing public services by prioritizing infill development over parcels on the fringe, provision of a variety of housing types, density in the LDR designated area, transitional densities, adequate provision of services (Fire Dept.), usable open space, and construction of infrastructure without sidewalks, etc. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services are available and can be extended to accommodate the proposed development although services would be maximized by development of infill or underdeveloped parcels already in the City instead of on the fringe as is the subject property (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, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire,ACHD, etc). 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. Public testimony has been submitted from adjacent residents to the south on 1-acre lots stating there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes or zoning to their properties/subdivision. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Page 45 Page 57 Item#1. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Commission finds the proposed developmentpreserves the natural topography/hillside along the eastern boundary of the site. Staff is unaware of any other significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. C. Private Streets(UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The private streets meet the design requirements of not connecting to an arterial street, allowing sufficient maneuvering for emergency vehicles, and meeting the minimum width of 27 feet.However, the proposal exceeds the limitation of no more than 50 units being served by a gated development, and three common driveways are proposed whereas UDE 1103F-4-5 states common driveways cannot be allowed on private streets. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity The Director has safety concerns in regard to whether there could be pedestrian safety issues with residents usingprivate streets with no sidewalks and believes, at the minimum, there should be sidewalks on at least one side, or pathways that connect to all residential lots in the gated area. The Fire Department has commented they do not prefer 112 gated lots. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Proposing private streets with no sidewalks does not Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multi purpose pathways, ensuring safe routes and access, encouraging safe, physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikeable community and providing necessary infrastructure. D. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. The proposed development is a gated development, but exceeds the provisions of UDC 11-3F-4.b which limits gated developments to no more than 50 dwelling units. Page 46 Page 58 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll June 29, 2021 Skybreak Skybreak story home with 15’ setback-Single o Adjust home location for Vantage Pointe drainage o Transition•neighborhood Skybreakneighborhood through Perpetuate historic drainage from Vantage Pointe o Historic Drainage•Presentation Outline 2 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak LateralFarr Historic Drainage 3 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak 1992 Historic Drainage 4 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak 2014 Historic Drainage 5 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak Historic Drainage 6 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak Proposed Skyward Neighborhood Historic Drainage 7 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak Historic Drainage 8 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak 15,500 SFArea = Build 17,000 SFArea = Build Areabuild-Non Transition 9 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak 11,000 SFArea = Build 12,000 SFArea = Build Areabuild-Non Transition 10 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak Transition 11 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Skybreak Transition 12 June 29, 2021Public Hearing Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll Charlene Way From:Annette Alonso <annettejalonso@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 24, 2021 7:23 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Photos for presentation on Skybreak, Devco 6/29 External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Please add these photos for my presentation on Tuesday for City Council. Sorry about the order, I guess we can manage that at the meeting? I am sending a second email of photos of the site. Thank you for all you do! 1 2 3 Sent from my iPhone 4 Charlene Way From:Annette Alonso <annettejalonso@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 24, 2021 7:29 AM To:City Clerk Subject:Skybreak photos 6/29 city council External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments. Here is the other set of photos of the development land. 1 Sent from my iPhone 2 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll Vantage Pointe HOA Skybreak Neighborhood Public HearingJune 29, 2021–City Council Meeting Thank you!Vantage Pointe homesRemoved road and park and replaced with lots adjacent to three  Concessions end street length, and block face lengths-Waivers for deadoff private streetsAlternative Compliance for gated developments and common drives Plan Requires Alternative Compliance and Waivers throughout8 south of Farr Lateral-3 to R-Change from R15 near rim-8 to R-Change from RProposed zoning is significantly increased from comp plan-Only 6% (20) of lots are ½duplexes10% (30) of lots are acre -75% (237) of lots are 1/10Housing types don’t fit area:Tuscany, etc.), DevConearly 3 times the density of East Ridge developed by is SkybreakCentury Farms, Sky Mesa, Century Farms, East Ridge (neighborhoodsProposed density and lack of amenities don’t fit the surrounding SkybreakMade To Proposed from three to twoKageesReduce number of lots adjacent to Pointe prior to beginning phase 1 constructionLimit blowing trash by constructing wood fence along Vantage phaseand topsoil removal to the specific construction/development Limit blowing dust during construction by constraining earthwork story homes adjacent to Vantage Pointe-Construct singleto Ten Mile CreekSkybreakVantage Pointe through Provide drainage path to perpetuate historical drainage from propertiesdoes not flow to Vantage Pointe SkybreakEnsure drainage from above elevation along adjacent south property lineLimit site grading so that floor elevations do not exceed 2 feet ApprovalConditions of Grading and off prior to final plat.-plans to ensure proper runand comment opportunities for drainage and grading moving building envelope on Lot 74. Provide review drainage from Vantage Pointe to Ten Mile Creek by Request: Provide drainage path to perpetuate home. Skybreakwater for Vantage Pointe homes and one resulting in swampy conditions and standing Concern that developer fills in natural valley topography to Ten Mile Creek.Vantage Pointe properties and down natural Issue: Historically, rain and snow run off from four Drainage Drainage and Grading Single story Vantage Pointe propertiesadjacent to two easternmost Request: single story homes Neighborhood and Vantage Pointe.SkybreakIssue: Transition between homes Lot sizes home.Kagee’sNeighborhood homes abutting SkybreakRequest: Larger lot sizes resulting in no more than 2 ½ acre. Results in 3 lots abutting 1 Vantage Pointe home. Neighborhood lots are still less than SkybreakAlthough increased, Pointe. Neighborhood and Vantage SkybreakIssue: Transition between  Lot sizes Phased Construction/construction. to commencement of any phased fence prior along southern boundary prior foot solid wooden -Request: Install a sixblowing dirt. phase of construction to limit/alleviate Request: Remove topsoil only for current 10 years after topsoil is removed.-7Issue: Blowing dirt and trash for a period of Topsoil Removal Thank you.