Loading...
2021-08-10 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Liz Strader PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Victory Commons Easement Vacation (H-2021-0045) by Horrocks Engineers, Inc., Located at 130 E. Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd. Approved A. Request: Easement Vacation for a public utility, drainage, and irrigation easement initially established with the Mussel Corner Subdivision (recently replatted as the Victory Commons Subdivision No 1). Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 2. Public Hearing for TM Creek Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021-0035) by Brighton Corporation, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and East of S. Ten Mile Rd. Approved A. Request: Rezone of 5.58 acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 238 apartment units (including 2 live/work units) on 7.83 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0015) by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way Continued to September 7, 2021 A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 2+/- acres of land from the Commercial to the Medium High-Density Residential designation. B. Request: Rezone of 2.10 acres of land from the L-O (Limited Office) to the R- 15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district. Motion to continue to September 7, 2021 made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 4. Ordinance No. 21-1939: An Ordinance (H-2020-0127 – Skybreak Subdivision) For Annexation Of A Parcel Of Land Located In The S ½ Of The NW ¼ Of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, As Described In Attachment “A” And Annexing Certain Lands And Territory, Situated In Ada County, Idaho, And Adjacent And Contiguous To The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Meridian As Requested By The City Of Meridian; Establish­ing And Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of 80.461 Acres (More Or Less) Of Land From RUT To R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(43.858 Acres) And R-15 (Medium High Density Residential)(36.604 Acres) Zoning Districts In The Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies Of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed With The Ada County Assessor, The Ada County Recorder, And The Idaho State Tax Commission, As Required By Law; And Providing For A Summary Of The Ordinance; And Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 7:54 pm Meridian City Council August 10, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday, August 10, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault and Brad Hoaglun. Members Absent: Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Tracy Basterrechea, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: All right. Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is August 10th --August 10th, 2021, at 6:01 p.m. We will begin this evening's meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Next item on the agenda is our community invocation, which will be delivered this evening by Priest Rick Capezza of the Church of the Holy Trinity. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Capezza: Let us pray. God of justice and mercy, thank you for this gift of life and the opportunity to serve the people of our city. Help us to act with character and conviction. Help us to listen with understanding and goodwill. Help us to speak with charity and restraint. Give us a spirit of service. Remind us that we are stewards of your authority. Give us to be the leaders your people need and help us to see humanity and dignity in those who disagree with us and to treat all persons, no matter how weak or poor, with the reverence your creation deserves and, finally, Most Gracious God, renew us with the strength of your presence and the joy of helping to build a community worthy of human Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 2- — persons, a community that puts the needs of our lowliest members over our own desires and comforts. Afflict us when we are comfortable and comfort us when we are afflicted. We ask this as your sons and daughters, confident in your goodness in love, amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next up is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: There are no changes to the agenda this evening, so I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I 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 carries and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Next item up is the Public Forum. Mr. Clerk, do we have people signed up under the Public Forum this evening? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. We had six sign-ups before 6:00 p.m. Our first, if she is present, is Nancy Allen. Simison: If you would come forward and you will be recognized for three minutes. State your name and address and, then, typically there is no discussion after the Public Forum after your presentation. It's just information for Council to consider at a later time. Allen: Can you repeat that again? I'm sorry. Simison: After you speak I will just say thank you for the information. There will -- there is generally no discussion from Council after the Public Forum. Allen: Okay. Simison: If it's something that needs to be noticed for a future date, then, that's when we would have a future discussion. Allen: Do I need to speak -- can you hear me? Page 26 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 3- — Bernt: Perfect. Allen: My name is Nancy Allen -- and my address? Simison: Yes. Allen: 4043 North Zion Parkway in Meridian. Good evening, Mayor Simison, Council men and women. Thank you for allowing me to -- an opportunity to speak to you. My name is Nancy Allen. I'm a resident of Meridian. I have lived here with my husband and four children since 2003. Meridian has been a haven of good for me and my family. Good neighbors. Good schools. Good leaders. And I'm proud to call Meridian my home. This past year, however, has not been so good. Not for many people, to say the least. I'm a registered nurse of 22 years. I currently work at St. Luke's Medical Center. The last 18 months I have worked and sacrificed many hours for hospital -- hospitalized patients in the Treasure Valley. I continue to work during uncertain and scary times, putting myself and my family at risk each time I arrived at my shift. I worked when there was limited PPE and was made to reuse my N95 over and over for weeks at a time, hanging it in a brown paper sack taped to my locker, only to be saved for the next day. I worked as a nurse leader through daily and sometimes hourly protocol changes that were stressful to patients, their families, and my staff. Not that I ever asked for it, but I was praised and considered essential and valued for just doing the job I love to do. Fast forward to mid July. I was informed by my employer via e-mail that I'm no longer essential or valued. I have been mandated to accept the COVID-19 vaccine by September 1st or I will be terminated from my lifelong career. My reason for choosing not to receive the vaccine is personal and I do not wish to disclose it at this time. However, that is not the only reason I am speaking out. I am choosing to speak out today because of the unfair forceful and coercive tactics that my employer is using. It is appalling. The Constitution safeguards a person's bodily autonomy and right to choose whether to accept or decline medical interventions, yet employers who are mandating vaccines are blatantly disregarding this individual right. I want you to know that no matter how careful I tried to be at work I ended up contracting COVID. My whole family contracted it as well and, thankfully, we made it all through without severe side effects. But I now carry antibodies that studies are showing to have -- may have made me more robust and longer lasting effects against further COVID illnesses, including variance. Studies are showing that many persons who have had the vaccine -- breakthrough cases are having more severe symptoms than unvaccinated people who contract COVID. Just a side note, I know at least three staff members I work personally with who have had terrible breakthrough illnesses with COVID after being vaccinated. My employer is not acknowledging the studies of antibodies to show exemptions for -- by working. We are neither being afforded the opportunity to continue to wear masks in the workplace as an alternative, even though that was perfectly acceptable during the pandemic and with those who refused flu vaccines in the past. We are not being allowed any alternatives or exemptions, except rare religious and medical exemptions, which only includes anaphylaxis. So, why am I sharing with this -- this with you? I am concerned for myself, my family, my community. I have a medical condition that requires expensive daily life saving medications in order to survive. When I am terminated from my job I will lose my benefits. Medical -- is that for me to stop? Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 4- — Simison: It is. If you can wrap up. Allen: Okay. Simison: Any final -- any final comments you would like to make? Allen: I would just like to -- since I did -- ran out of time, I would like to forward this to e- mail, if that is okay, too -- Simison: If you want give it to the Clerk he will make sure we all get copies of it. Allen: Okay. Thank you so much. Bernt: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Jen Graves. Bernt: Hey, Nancy, I moved here in 2003 as well. Graves: I don't -- I don't think I will be able to finish mine in three minutes. So, my name is Jen Graves. Also attended the University of Oregon. So, my address is 421 South Locust Street in Nampa, Idaho, and so Mr. Mayor and City Councilors, the recent pandemic has impacted healthcare in unprecedented ways. It has stretched our abilities as a nation and local communities in ways we did not anticipate. It changed the way patients were treated and their care was managed and it has affected our day to day life. I was employed by a large healthcare system in the Treasure Valley during the pandemic. I am also a student in the healthcare -- in health science and the nursing field. I believe some of my personal experience also pertains directly to the City Council, because my employment was at a family medicine clinic here in Meridian. My fear is that our healthcare system is falling apart and the only victims will be citizens of this community. On July 8th, due to low statewide vaccine compliance and buy in, three large healthcare organizations announced to their employees and the public, employees would be mandated to be fully vaccinated against COVID with one of three vaccinations by receiving a shot -- by receiving a shot currently made available in the U.S. under emergency use authorization. Employees, public, the media and our elected representatives have been told that staffers with documented medical and religious exemptions will not be required to get the shot. What is not being provided is clear criteria for receiving or granting medical and religious exemption by these organizations, only leading the public and employees to believe that the decisions are arbitrary and discriminate based on religion and documented medical conditions and disability. This is problematic. I want to touch on a couple things. Pre-pandemic healthcare workers were needed in the state of Idaho, especially in rural communities. By imposing this mandate on employees who are also citizens in Idaho needing to make personal healthcare decisions for their bodies, executives in the industry fanned the flame of the healthcare crisis. I'm not sure that these organizations realize that both vaccinated and unvaccinated plan on leaving their organizations because of this mandate. I have heard from many in Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 5 of 39 this valley who work in nursing, patient access, as lab techs, phlebotomists, clinical and nonclinical, vaccinated and nonvaccinated, that they plan to end their employment with these organizations if they plan to continue these unethical mandates forcing their will on another individual, which is not informed consent. Two. Many of us who are being educated in Idaho and health science -- Simison: If you could -- if you could wrap up. Graves: Okay. So, we are in a healthcare crisis. We -- have an educate -- an aging population of providers and those of us who are being educated are forced to reconsider whether we want to continue our education and provide our skills to the people of Idaho and this mandate is going to further that crisis. I can also provide my comments in the link I have to submit to you guys and just the last point is that these are not private businesses. They get millions of dollars in public funding. They get kickbacks and they get -- so -- so, the argument that these businesses -- Simison: Thank you. Graves: Yeah. So, I will provide that and I would like a formal meeting with you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. Call my office and they will be happy to set that up. Graves: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Christine Bailey. Bailey: Is it this one or this one? Simison: The one right in front of you. Bernt: Don't use that one. That one is functioning. That's right. Bailey: I'm just-- I don't like public speaking, even though I'm a nurse and nurse educator in the area, so -- so, my name is Kristine Bailey. My address is 7682 East Drouillard Street in Nampa, Idaho. I recently came back here to Idaho after having been gone for about 15 years or so we knew where to seek refuge, so -- I want to start off by saying I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm here tonight to represent a voice, the voices of nurses who want autonomy. Autonomy goes hand in hand with the informed consent. Informed consent, as you -- as you know is permission granted and a knowledge of the possible consequences with full knowledge of possible risks and benefits. Informed consent is a process of communication between you and your healthcare provider that often leads to agreement or permission for care. Informed consent helps you avoid misunderstandings or confusion about what to expect when undergoing a medical treatment. Consent is not to be forced or coerced. The AAPS just released their statement on July 27th, 2021, declaring all human beings have the right to liberty, which they do not forfeit when they Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 6- — serve the sick or disabled. The ethical commitment to protect others does not require workers to surrender their bodily integrity and self determination and accept the intervention dictated by a governmental or quasi-governmental authority. Those of us who have not yet granted permission may still get the vaccine once we feel all our questions are answered. We feel this vaccine mandate is coercion without our expressed consent. Offering ways out, including religion and medical waivers, but what if we just do not want the vaccine? In the words of the Nuremberg Code that we are all looking up lately, the voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. You do not at this time have my consent and if a patient said that to me I would say can you tell me what concerns you or, okay, I will let your provider know. I have recovered from COVID just recently this June. I probably have more antibodies to the virus than those who obtain the vaccine, but I don't know, because this type of science is not widely being studied. Personally there is not enough research for me yet. I'm demonized for trying to research for myself to make my own decision. It does not mean I will never consent. Let us choose our time and our terms. I just have a few questions before I ever get it. So, we use titers to prove that we have had viruses, like varicella and the measles, so why not this one? And can you, please, present to me the risk of fatality should I receive the vaccine after being fully recovered from COVID-19? Can you explain to me why there isn't antibody testing prior to the vaccine? Can you explain as to why there is not a possibility of a COVID passport? The final questions I leave you with are what is -- what is the outcome that you are going to see once it is going to be forced on us? What would it lead to if the number of nurses refusing treatment are terminated? How will you help us. And thank you for your time. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Robin Raptosh. Raptosh: I'm looking at short. Let's see. My name is Robin Raptosh and I reside at 7756 Highway 45 in Nampa. As a masters prepared nurse I have come here today to discuss public health concerns and access to information. I have formulated my inquiry and my statement around questions and I'm going to present these questions to you. I hope that you will make some of these questions your own. The reason I hope that you make some of these questions your own is because they can guide your own research. They will guide the way you take care of yourself, the way you take care of your family, and the suggestions that you have for the physicians that may take care of you and the policymakers that might guide the way your children are cared for in their learning environments and the way businesses are managed in the public domain. Bear with me. What is the vector? What size is this pathogen? How does the infection present? What is known about the daily course of this infection? How does it behave on days one, five and days eight through ten? Why do people present to emergency rooms on days eight through ten most frequently? What is a pulse oximeter? Where can you find one? How should you use it? And why should every home have one? What is VAERS? What are its strengths and weaknesses? How are healthcare providers directed to use it? Who monitors it? How is SARs reporting used to direct improvement in public health outcomes? What is V safe and how is it used? Who's monitoring it? And is it linked to Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page , of 39 VARs. An Israeli study identified a clotting disorder associated with MRA vaccinations. This is similar to the clotting disorder that has been documented in COVID -- COVID illness. What other studies present the same findings? What is the credibility of the scientist who reported these findings? How are physicians being taught to recognize adverse reactions? Is there a gap in the information that physicians get? Which reactions are immediate? Which might be delayed by weeks or months? How does that affect reporting? What is Guillain-Barre? How does it present? Should patients be given -- should patients being given the MRNA vaccine, be educated about the presentation of Guillain-Barre? Why did the FDA recently issue a warning for increased incidences of Guillain-Barre from Pfizer vaccines? What vaccines are being offered to patients in the hospitals in this state? What is the default vaccine being given to patients who don't specify which ones they want in the hospitals in this valley? What are the protocols that govern the administration of COVID vaccine? Why is it possible for a nurse to give any patient in the hospital a shingles vaccine or a pneumonia vaccine at any time during their stay, but COVID vaccines are given three to five hours before discharge. Simison: If you could wrap up, please. Raptosh: Pardon? Simison: If you could wrap up. The timer went off. Raptosh: I want to make sure you get these resources. I want you all to resource Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough. Their credentials are well regarded and well respected and they are still on the internet. You can find information that will guide you in answering these questions and you need them to keep your family safe. You will not find me on the internet, because as of this morning Facebook has taken me down for publishing videos of Dr. McCullough and Dr. Malone, which they have on their websites. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Robin, would you mind giving a copy of your comments to our clerk. Raptosh: What I -- what I really would like to provide is I would like to provide this in writing, along with my resources and links, so you don't have to do the research, so you can find them readily, and I would like for them to be published so that people can, too, because I want to add one more thing. Please allow me one more thing. Do you understand what an ambulatory -- ambulate -- ambulatory care treatment of COVID is? You should know, because in the United States physicians are prescribing it. Where are they prescribing it here? Where else are people being told to go home and wait with a Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 8- — heart attack to see what happens? It's immoral. But there are tools. So, I will provide you with that information and the tools. I hope it -- I hope it's helpful. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Buddy Allen. B.AIIen: Good evening. My name is Buddy Allen. My address is 4043 North Zion Parkway. I have been a local resident and a chiropractor here in Meridian for the past 18 years. Bernt: What city do you live in? B.AIIen: Oh. Meridian. Sorry. I apologize. In her 2009 article Drug Companies and Doctors, a Story of Corruption, Dr. Marcia Engel wrote: It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. This is a bold and sobering statement from an editor of one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. But the truth is medicine has completely lost the trust of tens of millions of people across the country and never has this been more evident as in this past year and a half with the management and treatment of COVID-19. Americans have been marketed to, bribed, pressured, bullied, shamed and now threatened to take the vaccine and still nearly 50 percent of the country is not willing to be vaccinated with a non-FDA approved drug. This is -- this is not happening with -- out of ignorance, but, rather, a complete lack of honest medical and in some cases governmental transparency and leadership. Recently the three largest healthcare providers in our community announced mandatory vaccinations for all employees. Take the jab or lose yourjob. This mandate reeks of coercion and medical tyranny as -- and is yet another reason not to -- or for people not to trust in medicine. The nurses and healthcare workers that one year ago were hailed as frontline heroes, now on social media and mainstream media are being ridiculed as disposable anti-vaxxer trash. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are not ignorant hillbillies that know nothing about health and human anatomy, but, rather, highly educated individuals on the subject. Our local hospitals had the opportunity to lead their organizations and our community with compassion, poise and optimism this past 18 months and offer hope to those who are sick, scared, and suffering, but chose, instead, to create and capitalize on uncertainty and fear. Thousands have already reached out to our state representatives to reconvene and discuss the issue at hand. Many of our representatives are willing, while others resist or fall silent. Today I ask you, our local elected city representatives, to raise your voices, use your influence and urge our state representatives to go to work and have an open, honest debate as to how to best represent the freedoms of the citizens of your community. As I asked you -- as -- sorry. I ask you to -- I'm almost done. Just wrap up. Okay? I ask you to protect the rights of Meridian residents by supporting freedom of bodily autonomy. You can do this by making a formal statement, as did Nampa, that you will not mandate city employees to be vaccinated. Whether you agree or disagree with the COVID vaccine Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 9- — is not the debate at hand. It is freedom versus force. I ask you to uphold freedom and lead us with compassion, optimism, hope and not through fear, force, or hopelessness. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, finally is Kelly Graff. Graff: Good evening. My name is Kelly Graff. I don't reside in Meridian any longer. reside at 1689 East 4000 North in Buhl. I actually grew up in Meridian and attended Meridian High, so I have some deep roots in this valley, but more than that I have been a nurse for 20 years. I'm a masters prepared nurse. I specialize in pediatric care and I have worked for one of our health systems since I was in high school, quite honestly. So, this -- this is a heartfelt and a true testimony of how I feel. I am here to speak on behalf of a local organization called Take A Stand Now that has been founded out of the desire to not have mandated vaccines. I'm going to do what nurses do and we are going to just break this down into our major concerns here, so you are going to get four things from me. So, first, we are going to have the situation. So, my situation for you guys is that there is a potential for critical shortage of healthcare workers that will affect Meridian -- Meridian citizens. The background, what's causing this is that at the time of this statement we have had 205,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 in the state. Ada county has had 57,000 of those. We have lost two -- over 2,000 Idahoans to COVID and we have lost 496 of those here in Ada county. The recent COVID pandemic has impacted healthcare in unprecedented ways and it has stretched our abilities as a nation and a local community in ways that we were previously not seen or prepared for. It's affected our ability to treat and manage patients to even clean their rooms, answer their call lights, allow visitors to be with them and even give us supplies to care for them appropriately. The recent COVID vaccine mandate that was put forth by St. AI's, St. Luke's, and primary health is going to further impact this. We have all been given our dates of termination of September 1 st, followed by September 9th, and, then, September 18th. Unfortunately, what that shows for you guys is that locally our media has begun quoting our leaders in these organizations and a quote from Dr. Souza, our St. Luke's chief physician executive, just over a week ago, quote, said that is the straw that is straining the back of our capacity. The problem with the straw, if you will, is that the potential to become an entire bale of hay over just a few weeks and that would become a major problem and quote. He goes on to express that limited healthcare capacity would not only affect COVID patients, but those who are seeking care for other serious ailments, such as stroke, heart attack, trauma or those simply celebrating the gift of life in welcoming their newborn child. On July 28th, just 20 days after the mandate the St. -- St. Luke's announced that they would be pausing labor and delivery services, as well as surgical service -- surgical cases due to staffing shortages at their Jerome hospital. Recently a similar announcement was made for Magic Valley. They are pausing all elective surgeries in the Twin Falls area as of next week. That same -- I will wrap it up. That same precedent of pausing elective surgeries is going to happen here in the Treasure Valley next week. As of the statement there are over 2,000 healthcare positions posted between St. AI's, St. Luke's, and Primary Health here in the Treasure Valley and they represent the way that your community seeks Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 10—— healthcare and that is where they will be seeking healthcare. So, I just urge you guys to consider that and perhaps put a resolution above that restricts mandates on healthcare workers at this time. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Appreciate it. That ends our public forum portion for this evening. If anyone didn't get an opportunity, if you would like to sign up next week you are more than welcome to come back at that point in time from that standpoint. So, thank you. Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I know of no questions, but maybe just a quick comment if I may. Just -- I want to say thanks to the nurses that are in the room and the other healthcare professionals. I know there was a comment made that you feel like that you were demonized and this space is not for demonization. I think you have got a body that comes here with an open mind and we appreciate you sharing your information and perspective with us and we appreciate -- especially know for some of you it was a little challenging and we appreciate you taking your time to join us tonight. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Victory Commons Easement Vacation (H-2021- 0045) by Horrocks Engineers, Inc., Located at 130 E. Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Easement Vacation for a public utility, drainage, and irrigation easement initially established with the Mussel Corner Subdivision (recently replatted as the Victory Commons Subdivision No 1). Simison: Thank you. With that we will move on to Item 1 for the evening, a public hearing for Victory Commons easement vacation, H-2021-0045. We will open this public hearing with staff comments and I will turn this over to Sonya. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The first item before you tonight is a request for a vacation of a public utility and drainage and irrigation easement. This site is 16.7 acres. It's currently zoned C-G and is located at the northeast corner of South Meridian Road and East Victory Road. Last year City Council approved the final plat for Victory Commons Subdivision. Following Council's approval and after further research, the applicant discovered that there was a public utility drainage and irrigation easement that had been recorded with the previous Mussel Corner Subdivision plat. This easement had historically been used by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, but drainage improvements made this easement no longer necessary. The applicant has submitted letters from all potential easement holders consenting to vacation of this easement. Staff is recommending approval. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Is the applicant in the room or online this evening? Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 11 —— Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Ryan Cutler is online if he wishes to say anything. Simison: Okay. Would the applicant like to make any comments? Cutler: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Women and Men. Ryan Cutler. Horrocks Engineering. 2775 West Navigator Drive in Meridian, Idaho. 83642. We appreciate your time tonight. We don't want to take very much of it. Thankful for staff and their presentation and for their recommendation of approval, which we agree with and we also, as mentioned, have all the letters and documentation from the utility companies that are part of this easement that are in favor of this being vacated and we agree with that as well and we will stand for any questions at this point. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody that signed up to testify on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Well, if there is anybody in the room that would like to come forward and provide testimony on this item, please, do so at this time or if you are online and you would like to provide testimony, please, use your raise your hand feature and I don't think any of the four participants would want to provide testimony as their staff orACHD or the applicant. So, seeing no one wishing to come forward, would the applicant like to make any final comments? Cutler: We are good at this time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Okay. Then with that Council do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2021-0045. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 12—— Bernt: I move that we approve Item No. H-2021-0045. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the item. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 2. Public Hearing for TM Creek Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021-0035) by Brighton Corporation, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 5.58 acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 238 apartment units (including 2 live/work units) on 7.83 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for TM Creek Apartments Phase 3, H-2021- 0035. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for a rezone and a conditional use permit. This site is currently zoned TN-C and C-G and is located south of West Franklin Road and east of South Ten Mile Road. A little history on this property. It was -- development of this property is governed by the TM Crossing development agreement and the design guidelines for TM Crossing. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use commercial and high density residential. The applicant has applied for a rezone of 5.5 acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district. Most of the area proposed to be rezoned is designated mixed use commercial within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, with a narrow sliver along the east boundary designated as high density residential. The proposed C- G zoning and multi-family residential and live-work vertically integrated uses are consistent with the future land use map designations for this property. Because the area proposed to be rezoned is governed by the TM Creek Crossing development agreement, a new development agreement or amendment to the existing agreement is not recommended by staff. A conditional use permit is requested for a multi-family residential development consisting of 238 apartment units on 7.83 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. A variety of studio, one bedroom, two bedroom and live-work units are proposed at a gross density of 30.4 units per acre. A total of 1 ,815 square feet of nonresidential Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 13—— uses are proposed in the vertically integrated residential structure, which is a principally permitted use in the C-G district, and will allow a variety of commercial uses. The vertically integrated residential use is proposed at the corner where the private street intersects Wayfinder. Two live-work units are proposed. The remainder of the building to the south is proposed to be entirely multi-family residential. The applicant has requested alternative compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27133 to provide a lesser amount of private open space for each unit as noted in the staff report and to UDC Table 11-3C-6, which does not include a requirement for parking for studio units to allow the vertically integrated standard to apply. The director has approved these requests with a condition of approval requiring the pathway along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the creek to be widened from eight feet to ten feet. That is condition 4-H. The applicant has requested this condition be removed due to existing topography along the creek. Because this pathway is not designated as a multi-use pathway, staff is amenable to this request if Council deems appropriate. This is something that should be included in your motion tonight, please. Access is proposed via a private street from Wayfinder Avenue, a collector street, along the west boundary of the site. With approval of alternative compliance a minimum of 372 parking spaces are required. A total of 379 spaces are proposed. Based on the size of the living area in the proposed units, all between 500 and 1,200 square feet, a minimum of 1.37 acres of common open space is required to be provided within the development. A total of 2.51 acres is proposed as shown. Though some of this area does not qualify as private -- some of it is private open space and is not really usable, for example, the parking lot planters, the internal common open space, an area along the Ten Mile Creek is 2.2 acres, which exceeds UDC standards. Based on 238 units a minimum of five amenities are required, but the decision making body is authorized to consider additional amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development. The applicant is proposing a clubhouse with a fitness center, bike repair room and pet grooming station, swimming pool, open grassy areas of at least 50 feet by 100 feet in size, fireside seating, grilling area, and sports courts, consisting of snook ball and ping pong. The Ten Mile Creek multi-use pathway also lies adjacent to the site on the south side of the creek for residents to use. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed four story structures as shown. Building materials consist of stucco and bricks in neutral colors. Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing design guidelines. The Commission did recommend approval of these applications. Josh Beach and Jon Wardle, Brighton Corporation, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition or commented. Written testimony was received from Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. Key issues. The applicant requested changes to the following conditions. Number 4-H, to change the width of the pathway from ten feet to eight feet as proposed. To number -- condition number eight. Delete the requirement for a public-pedestrian easement and condition number nine, to remove the language pertaining to compliance with the design guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the standards in the architectural standards manual to instead require compliance with the Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines as required by the development agreement. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the adequacy of parking proposed for the development. The applicant's request for a reduction in the width of the pathway from ten feet to eight feet along the southern boundary of the site due to the topography near the creek, if fencing should be provided along the creek for public safety Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page —of 39 and desire for more than two vertically integrated residential structures to be provided along Wayfinder Avenue. The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. They deleted condition number eight, which required a public- pedestrian easement and modified condition number nine as requested by the applicant. The Commission supported staff's recommendation for the provision of a ten foot instead of an eight foot wide pathway along the southern boundary of the site. Outstanding issue for Council tonight. As I previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting condition 4-H is deleted that requires the eight foot wide pedestrian pathway on the north side of the creek to be widened to ten feet due to the significant grade change from the site to the irrigation district's maintenance road along the creek. Written testimony that's been submitted since the Commission hearing was from Mike Wardle, Brighton -- Brighton Corporation and that was containing the previously mentioned request for the change to the staff condition. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here tonight to testify. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions? Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I do have a question. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: What is snook ball? Simison: You may have to wait for that answer. Bernt: Can't wait for it, Jon. Simison: A question for the -- I don't know, Sonya, if this is for you are not on the pathway question. So, the topography is -- is the issue the location of it? Because it's ten feet versus eight feet -- it sounds like topography is the issue. So, is it more that you wanted -- they want it ten feet or more that it could be eight feet, just put it further to the left and don't put it as far to the right, because the topography? Allen: I -- Mr. Mayor, Council, I believe the applicant is planning to cover that in their presentation. Simison: Okay. 1, too, jumped ahead -- Allen: Thank you. Simison: -- along with Councilman Bernt, so with that -- if there is no further questions for staff, I will ask the applicant to come forward, be recognized for 15 minutes to answer those pressing questions. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, good evening. For the record my name is Jon Wardle. My work address is 2929 West Navigator, Suite 400, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Appreciate the Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page ——39 opportunity to speak. I do not intend to take 15 minutes, although I am happy to answer the question about what snook ball is. It is billiards with your feet. So, consider it like a soccer ball size -- if you have seen it, they do that with golf as well. It's just a small court where you can play pool with your feet. So, that's snook ball. We invite you to come over and try it out. It might be a new -- a new activity besides curling, so -- Bernt: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Wardle: Do I have control of this over here, Sonya? Johnson: Mr. Mayor. The mouse is very -- yeah. The mouse is not working really well. Wardle: Oh. Maybe -- sorry about that. Mr. Mayor, Council, again, thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight. This first exhibit is just showing the continuation of residential opportunities at Ten Mile Crossing. We have already developed phase one and phase two and have since built out the regional pathway system on the south side of Ten Mile Creek. It now extends from Franklin Road about 900 feet to the east of Wayfinder and Wayfinder is the north-south road in the middle of your screen here. Wayfinder was designed to be kind of a -- a main street where we -- we have done some modifications to that street. We have parallel parking. We have expanded sidewalks there as well and our phase three project, which is before you tonight, we have brought the buildings up to Wayfinder. Let's see if I can scroll this down. Sonya, maybe you could help me out. Just roll that down to the next -- great. Thank you. As I said, we are bringing the buildings to Wayfinder. So, there is a -- a relationship with that street. We have also included or added two live-work units. Right here on the corner in the northwest corner of that first building. All these building -- all of these units will actually front out on Wayfinder. They will have a front door. There will be an opportunity for -- if somebody is coming to service or come for business in one of those live-work units to park in front and so it's really designed to start to bring that living experience forward towards Wayfinder. The one issue we have that we are asking for is really a question regarding the sidewalk. It's been mentioned that it's a pathway and the slight difference here is -- or the nuance here is the pathways are typically public facilities. What we are asking for here is a -- the sidewalk on the south end of the buildings, which is highlighted here in -- in blue, that we already proposed it to be an eight foot sidewalk. We -- we see the importance of having that connection east to west, but below -- at a significant grade below is also a gravel access road the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District controls and that is the side of the Ten Mile Creek that they use to maintain it. We are going to be putting a sidewalk up above that at some distance -- just see if I can move this down to the next screen here. One more. Thanks. Allen: Is this the one you want, Jon, or the next -- Wardle: I want to go to the next one. Right there. This shows you the difference in height between what's happening with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation elevation and where -- where we are up above. With a single building these pads are large pads and they are all at the same elevation. So, even though it's sloping down, that pad is going to be sitting Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page ——— up fairly high. We believe we still have -- we do have room to get an eight foot sidewalk in there and you may not feel like two additional feet is that big of a deal, but it means that we are extending a retaining wall even up higher. We are filling in behind that and we are going to be having probably the need to have some sort of fence on top of that retaining wall, which is in the property. Again, we are fully on board of doing a sidewalk. We are just asking that we minimize it or reduce it to eight feet, instead of a ten foot sidewalk on the south side of the building. As I mentioned, the regional pathway system is being built on the south side of Ten Mile Creek just across, which is ten feet as well and that connects east to west and connects to Franklin and we have had a great experience working with the Parks Department to make sure that connectivity happens and eventually -- we are not going to be too far away, but, eventually, that will connect from Linder Road all the way to Franklin in one spot, with just minimal accesses or crossings. So, we are asking for your approval tonight and removal of the requirement for ten feet on the sidewalk and just let it be eight feet as we have designed it and I stand for any questions you might have. Simison: Thank you, Jon. What is the sidewalk connecting to the east in theory? A ten foot pathway or an eight foot sidewalk or do we know yet? Wardle: If I can just go back up right to there. Our intent on the north side of this -- of the Ten Mile Creek is that we will extend or continue that eight foot sidewalk east to west and so even though it's not the regional pathway system, we will be connecting it. It doesn't exist currently. It will connect on either -- it will connect on the east end eventually to a five foot sidewalk, which will be a road called Benchmark and right now at Wayfinder at that location it's connecting as well with an eight to 12 foot sidewalk system, which is Wayfinder. And I say eight to 12 feet is -- the difference is we -- we have planter boxes there as well and it necks down as it comes to the crossing -- the bridge crossing. So, it may be as wide as 12, but it may be eight feet right there. Simison: But it's not connecting to a regional pathway type network that's already existing on one end or the other? It's just a sidewalk -- basic sidewalk -- Wardle: Mr. Mayor, you are correct. It is not connecting to a regional pathway on either end. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Jon, condition number nine states that you want us to remove the language pertaining to compliance with the design guidelines in the Ten Mile Interchange Site Area Plan and the standards in the ACM to require compliance with Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines as required by the DA. Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 11 of o9 Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bernt, the original language in -- or the condition that was here carried over previously to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and its guidelines. Council recently acted and adopted guidelines specific to Ten Mile Crossing. We are just asking that our guideline -- or our approval be consistent with the new set of design guidelines you just previously adopted. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: One curious question on the condition eight, the public easement versus eliminating that requirement. What --what's the practical consequences of removing that condition? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, the practical consequences -- the city doesn't intend to have a regional pathway system on the north side of the creek. That regional pathway system is on the south side of the creek and we have that easement in place for that. So, the reason that we are asking that it not be there is it just doesn't connect to anything the city would deem to be part of their -- their system. That's on the south side. So, that's the reason we asked for that one to be stricken as well. Borton: It doesn't -- it didn't change the impact or access, quite frankly. People would if they are going to walk on it they might just walk on it, whether they live there or not. Wardle; That is correct. Yes. Borton: Okay. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Can you share with us -- because I anticipate seeing this more and more the desire to have the smaller private -- private open space for each unit. Is this a design feature? Is this -- help -- help me understand what the downside would be to meeting that standard, in addition to having the public open space? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, it's a great question. This is a request we made with our other two phases as well, so it's a -- it's consistent. Where it really comes into play is on the studios. Some of these studios -- the space that they would have is, quote, private. It is really minimized. It's -- a studio is really nothing more than there is a small kitchen area and a bedroom integrated. We have offset that -- even though we are asking for less -- maybe perhaps private space for them, the amenity package for the overall project is such that we have a lot of open space in the community. You know, all Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page ——— of these units for the most part are opening up to the creek and so we have just asked for that to be -- the trade off they are asking for less private space is more inclusive in the entire project-- included in the entire project I should say. So, is it a trend we are seeing? It definitely is. But where we are trying to use that are on the smaller units where we are really talking about probably one resident, maybe one and a half residents, and I say one and a half is that, you know, we have individuals that are only living here part time and may not be here full time and so these smaller units don't necessarily need that open space requirement. It is -- that is a standard that -- the requirement is -- has been part of the city's UDC for some time and I do see that, you know, there will be a request for this. But I think we need to be able to show that we are offsetting that with other amenities and I think the amenities that are included here and Ten Mile Creek Apartments phase three are fairly substantial. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Is the intention to encourage a resident to use the public open space or is it actually a challenge in designing -- designing balconies that because of how the -- the actual structure is designed that would accommodate the -- the code requirement? Do you understand what I'm asking? Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, we have --we have --we have researched this a lot. We have done a lot of projects. We -- our team is very well versed on -- on the dynamics of -- of the space that's needed. We didn't go into this saying, well, how can we maximize all the space, yet minimize the open space for each unit. What we -- what we did look at, however, is the type of lifestyle and the type of demographic of individuals, you know, moving into these studios and one bedroom units and perhaps that open space that would be required by UDC maybe more than really what is needed. You know, we see this with -- with parking as well. Three bedroom units. They need a lot of parking, because they do generate a lot of cars, given the nature of those. But the smaller units, the loading on those for parking is much less. It's very similar with the open space requirement--the private open space. So, the trade off for us was the private open space may not be as critical for them, but they do need to have places to go and that is encompassed in the overall amenity package. Simison: Thank you. Council, any further questions? All right. Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Simison: This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the room that would like to come forward and provide testimony on this item, please, do so now or if you are online and would like to Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page ——— testify, please, use the raise your hand function at the bottom of Zoom and we will bring you in. Seeing no one online or in the room that would like to provide testimony, would the applicant like to make any final comments? Okay. The applicant is suggesting they would not like to make any final comments. So, Council, what's your pleasure? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I'm going to asked the applicant a question anyway. So, Mr. Mayor, I think it's a great looking project and -- and the explanation for the -- the changes in the requested conditions made sense. It's sound reasoning to make those changes. One of the questions, while I -- while I had you is among the features in this is that live-work component. I know it's a small piece, but it's a really cool piece, and because you develop these type of projects, do you have a sense of why we don't see more of that type of development? Is it really hard to find a user that wants that? It's pretty rare that we see it and it's such a cool element. Just thought I would pick your brain real quick and -- Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, thank you for the question. Honestly, it's something we have researched a lot and we have even looked here in -- in the City of Meridian at -- at other examples where they have come on board. They -- they are difficult. They are definitely difficult to get that right mix of a user who is running their own business and willing to live upstairs as well. We think there is a market for it. We don't know that there is a very deep market for it. There -- there is an example right now over by Dick's and Kohl's and they have some of those retail spaces down below. They are not true live-work units, but they are -- they do have that component and they are sitting vacant right now. I think it will mature. I think there will be opportunities for us to see more of that. But our team actually has experience in the heart of Los Angeles with live- work units that sat vacant for years and so that's not so much of -- I think it just -- it's -- it's hard to find the right users to make that work. We didn't want just to throw it away and lose the opportunity. That's why we are putting out that opportunity to do a couple of them. Some may say we should do more, but there is a risk -- there is a risk that they -- they may not be used for that and we will be sitting on some spaces there that -- that just can't -- can't be rented for the live -- or the work part of that, so -- we would like to see it work. My -- we are excited to see downtown here where you have a concentration of -- of a lot of people who are here from a daytime operation. I think over time we will have more of that at Ten Mile as well, but we just don't -- we are just not there yet. Borton: I appreciate that. What I hear you saying -- and I appreciate this as well as it's a long game -- kind of playing the long game and -- and you think it might be challenging in the short term. You think it's a long term successful piece of the puzzle for this and I -- just appreciate that perspective. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, we hope so. We hope that there -- it can prove to be successful here. We just haven't seen it play out yet. Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 20—— Borton: Right. Wardle: It might change. The living part of this won't have any -- any challenges. We were just seeing that there -- there is a need desperately for rentals. They offer people short and long term. The work piece of it is just a little bit different on just having enough space that the right person who can have their business there and live there as well. Borton: All right. Thank you. Wardle: Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will kickoff some -- a motion and some discussion on this one. We will see how this moves along. I will start by moving to close the public hearing on H-2021-0035. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any -- any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Kind of a precursor to a motion I thought -- and I hinted at it, that the applicant made a good reasoned explanation for the amendments to the pathway width from --from ten to eight feet. That made sense in light of the topography that's presented, in light of the fact that it's private, not public, and the ten foot public pathways on the south side available for public use to go to eight feet seemed to be warranted and also eliminating condition eight, which speaks to the -- the removal of the public easement made sense. The final one is -- is condition number nine to ensure that the design guidelines are those within the Ten Mile Crossing design and the DA provision, which we had approved before the applicant commented on it, just seems to be best suited to be consistent with that. So, all in all I'm supportive of the application as presented, as well as for the changes in those three conditions of approval. There hasn't been public comment of concern. This is where this type of density is anticipated to grow and I appreciate the applicant's desire to try and give a live-work option and, hopefully, that takes off at some point. So, those are my thoughts on it and I'm definitely supportive of this application. Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 21 —— Simison: Anyone in opposition to what Mr. Borton described that would like to engage on that topic? Any of those? That will help you make a motion. Councilman Borton. Borton: I move that we approve item H-2021-0035, as presented in the staff report of August 10th, 2021, for the rezone and the CUP, with changes to conditions of approval 4- H that would allow the pathway along the southern portion of the project to be eight feet versus ten feet. The removal of condition eight that would have that same pathway be private. There is not a public easement required for it and either the removal or edit to condition number nine to ensure that this application is developed consistent with the Ten Mile Crossing design guidelines set forth in the DA, as opposed to the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan design guidelines. I think I covered it. Cavener: Second. Maybe a quick question. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Councilman Borton, I want to make sure I heard you right. I think on number eight did you say north and, then, south? Did you say south and, then, north? I don't know if staff caught that. Maybe I misheard you. Borton: Mr. Mayor, south of the project. North of the -- of the creek. But it's on the south -- south of the project. Cavener: Thanks. Appreciate that. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? If not Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Have a good evening. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0015) by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 2+/- acres of land from the Commercial to the Medium High-Density Residential designation. B. Request: Rezone of 2.10 acres of land from the L-O (Limited Office) to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district. Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 22—— Simison: Next item on the agenda is Item 3, which is a public hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes, H-2021-0015. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next applications before you are a request for a Comprehensive Plan future land use map amendment and a rezone. This site consists of 1.97 acres of land. It's zoned L-O, limited office, and located at 1789 North Hickory Way, north of East Fairview Avenue on the southwest side of Hickory Way. This property was annexed with L-O zoning in 1992 and later resubdivided as a lot in Mellane Commercial Complex in 2001. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is commercial. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map to change the land use designation on 2.1 acres of land from commercial to medium high density residential as shown on the left and a rezone of 2.1 acres of land from the L-O, limited office, to the R-15, medium high density residential zoning district. Approval of the map amendment will allow the applicant to develop 19 single family residential attached and detached -- excuse me -- attached and townhome dwellings. I got a little sidetracked here. It looks like this is an old version of my presentation. So, ignore the exhibit there on the left. The right one is the current one. The gross density is proposed as 10.8 units per acre on this in-fill property, which will contribute to the range of residential land use designations and diversity in housing types and densities in this area and provide a transition in land uses from medium density residential to commercial and office uses. A revised concept plan, as I mentioned shown on the right, and building elevations were submitted showing how the property is planned to develop with 19 single family attached and townhouse dwellings consisting of one single family attached structure, three three unit townhouses and two four unit townhouses and a common area with a pathway and gazebo amenities. Because the site is below five acres in size, minimum qualified open space and site amenities are not required. This property is planned to be subdivided through a future application. Access to the site is proposed via a cross-access easement from an existing driveway from North Hickory Way, a collector street. No stub streets exist to this property. A private street is planned to provide access to the proposed development and for addressing purposes. An attached sidewalk is proposed along one side of the private street for pedestrian access. Off-street parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Four extra spaces are proposed for guest parking in the common area near the entry and five spaces are proposed in the common area at the southeast corner of the site. On-street parking is not allowed due to the width of the private street. Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown for the proposed residential structures with a mix of materials consisting of horizontal wood siding, vertical board and batten siding, wood shake siding and cement plaster with stone veneer accents and architectural asphalt roofing. Commission did recommend approval of these applications. Blaine Womer, the applicant's representative, testified in favor, along with Louie Mellane. No one testified in opposition. There were a few folks that commented as follows. Dave McDonald, Shirley Moon, Randy Nelson and Ann Attarian. No written testimony was submitted. Key issues of discussion were as follows: Traffic and safety concerns on Hickory Way. Lack of visibility of cars pulling out onto Hickory Way from the site due to the curve of the road. Maintenance of the existing masonry wall and landscape strip along the north boundary of the site and inadequacy of parking in this area. Louie's restaurant and the bank patrons Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— currently parked on this property. Key issues a discussion by the Commission. They were in favor of the proposed development plan over previous plans for this site. They did have some concerns pertaining to safety of access onto Hickory Way and preference for the four unit townhome proposed along the north boundary to be reduced to a two or three unit townhouse for better transition to the existing homes to the north. The Commission did not make any changes to the staff recommendation and there are no outstanding issues for Council tonight. There has been no written testimony submitted since the Commission hearing. Staff will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here this evening? If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Womer: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Blaine Womer, Womer Engineering. We are located at 4355 West Emerald in Boise. We are representing the applicant on this project this evening and we are glad to be before you for this consideration. We have reviewed the staff report and the conditions of approval with our client and we concur with both. There is one little housekeeping item that Sonya has probably already picked up on, but on page 19, number one, the development agreement refers to an annexation -- before the annexation is final that the development agreement should be in place and I believe that probably needs to be the zoning ordinance before the zoning ordinance is in place. Other than that this evening we are just here to answer any questions that the Council may have, as well as the public. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Womer,just wanted to follow up. As I read through the Planning and Zoning minutes there was concern expressed about traffic safety and pulling out and it sounded like there was action going to be taken by this development to make that -- there was a berm or some other things that were in play. Womer: There -- there is an existing berm there and there is quite a few trees that are planted along that berm. We have done quite a bit of field reconnaissance out there trying to figure out what we have in the way of sight distance, if there is any issues. Visually we don't see any right now, but we -- when we do the preliminary plat we will be happy to provide a sight distance exhibit that shows that we can meet the ACHD standards. Hoaglun: Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 24 of o9 Bernt: Thank you for being here tonight, Mr. Womer. Sell me on the idea of-- of changing the zoning in this area to accommodate what you are proposing. And the reason I ask that question is as a Council and especially myself, I -- we always -- at least I always -- I should speak for myself only. I apologize. What I always -- what I struggle with is -- is taking a commercial type zoning and making it residential, knowing what's going on in our market and -- and, you know, the balance between commercial versus residential. So, you need to sell me on why I need to do that. Womer: Mr. Councilman, the -- most city councils are loathe to do such a thing. I get it. I do get it. The property has been in its current state, with a general -- with a commercial comp plan designation and a light office zoning for 26 years. It's been marketed for 26 years. It's location behind Louie's that doesn't have any frontage on to Fairview and it -- it just doesn't have the commercial appeal of -- for that type of use and, basically, what we are finding is that it -- it's a better -- it's better situated for a transitional use from the commercial along Fairview into the single family residential that's north of Hickory and northwest of the property itself. So, I think probably the best case we can make is it's been on the market for 26 years and there is no commercial viability for this property. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, what about like something, you know, light office, like a dentist's office or some type of medical use or something in that regard that doesn't really require -- it's more of a destination location, as opposed to something retail or restaurant oriented? Womer: Councilman Bernt, that's -- that's also been on the table as far as its use, because that's its zone is light office -- Bernt: Yeah. Womer: -- and the -- the owner of the property, who owns Louie's restaurant, has put great effort into trying to get this property sold. He would definitely -- at his advancing age he would like to be beyond this property and he's tried and he just doesn't find any interest in light office, any interest in commercial and, again, I think it has everything to do with its proximity and its lack of frontage on -- on Fairview. So, what we tried to do is create a balance, again, a transition of a townhome density. It's a 10.8 dwelling units to the acre density from the commercial uses to a single family residential to the north and northwest. Bernt: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page—of 39 Cavener: Along those lines maybe talk Council through why the choice to go for a medium high zoning, as opposed to like a mixed use neighborhood. It looks like a mixed use neighborhood might kind of blend what they would have been envisioned by Council, but also give you some more flexibility to do some -- some residential. So, talk us through why -- why you are seeking this particular designation. Womer: Well, I believe my client just saw it as an opportunity for -- for townhomes. This is -- they have built these before. They saw it as a nice opportunity as far as its location and, again, it being a transitional zone between the two uses. They didn't really give mixed use much thought. They, basically, had the townhome project adjacent to the commercial. It's not that far from The Village. There is -- there is certainly -- it's certainly walkable. So, the residential seems to be -- that density residential seemed to be the best use for the property. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Blaine, my assumption is is should you be granted this rezone that you guys would move really aggressively, then, and getting your plan in and having development commence or is it get the zoning and, then, wait to see what the market dictates in terms of building it out? Womer: No. That's -- that's another reason that townhomes are being proposed. The market is here now for that and my client's direction to us is should we be fortunate enough to get approval tonight to move quickly forward with the preliminary plat, possibly starting final engineering as well. Cavener: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Womer: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we had three people sign in, only one marked they want to testify. Others might, but it's Dave McDonald. Simison: And if there is anybody online that would like to provide testimony on this item, please, use your raise your hand function, so that we can make sure and bring you in. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. McDonald: Yes. Dave McDonald. 2579 East Grapewood. I appreciate your time and I also recognize a few of you from the previous thing where we had a melee going on Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— almost until midnight. Appreciate your thoughtful comments here and now and just like Councilman Bernt said, you know, obviously, the preference would have been, you know, dental offices, you know, single level adjacent to my home. I share -- I don't know why this microphone seems dead, but I share 120 feet of the 257 feet shared border to this property. So, it literally is in my backyard. The biggest questions -- and some of you remember comments. The density was an issue last time. Some of the same issues still exist here. I mean I know parking and traffic was a looming concept. I believe the staff does have a -- I guess a vicinity plan on page two. It shows a little bit more of the -- the street design. The concept plan is great. There is a lot of positive things. But there still are some of the same issues. How big, how close, and when -- one issue I went out to investigate myself over the weekend was with regards to the four unit townhome that's right in the middle adjacent to our property and there was comment in the P&Z about could that be broken up. I want to add an additional one. Could it be moved to the southern most lots away from our property line, because it -- I did go look at townhomes with a very similar look and it does loom large over your back fence. I believe Blaine Womer has been very adept at solving some of the challenges and problems with this site and there are many positive things. I think there are still some pending issues. One of the things that stood out to me when I looked at a similar townhome with four units like this and three units and two units, et cetera, was no parking on the private drive, so it spilled over, and because of the -- the traffic and, you know, I looked at the traffic counts. We tend to loom right around 4,000, just barely above the minimum thresholds for a collector, and one of the comments that was made by -- by the previous discussion on this property a few years ago -- and some of you may remember that was -- no parking on that collector. That was the one thing that really stood out to me. There is estimated to be approximately 15 school aged kids. On my way here I had to come out and around a -- some sort of construction truck with a trailer on there that was parked there and you wouldn't want kids zooming out on Hickory with the speeds there. So, you know, I do appreciate your thoughtful comments and would like to see if you and/or Mr. Womer have some solutions to the parking. You know, there are some additional concerns, but parking is one and also the setbacks and the utility easements. A lot of us rely on high speed internet for working from home and I understand there is some possible modifications to that. In a general sense I am supportive of this plan, even though it shares some of the same issues at a lower density as a previous project, just because it has been sitting empty for so long. Simison: Council, any questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: One question for you while you are looking on the map on the screen there. The P&Z was referencing a request -- or their -- their hope that the northern unit would be two or three instead of four. Well, there is also -- the first two units are, you know, fairly large. I mean the three unit one is on the side of my property. The four unit one would be the one most visible from my backyard and -- Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page— of 39 Borton: Okay. McDonald: -- you know, there was some questions, you know, can we shift like the two unit model up. I don't think anybody asked about can we just take that four unit one and slam it all the way to the four southern most lots. Borton: Okay. McDonald: So, it's -- that -- that might be one thing. But I have been impressed with Mr. Womer and his ability to solve some of the challenges we have here. But traffic parking cross-access might be solved by some of the recent developments from ACHD about traffic exiting out of Louie's out onto Fairview, instead of using the light, but, you know, that's not going to be a solution for a few years. Borton: Okay. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Cavener: Thanks for being here. Appreciate it. Simison: Okay. Mr. Clerk, anybody else? Johnson: That was all that indicated they wished to testify. Simison: If there is anybody in the audience that would like to provide testimony, if you would like to come forward and make comments at this time. State your name and address for the record, please. Abbott: I'm Brian Abbott and my address is 1855 East Chimere Drive in Meridian, Idaho. 83646. My concern, Mr. Mayor, is -- if I recall that land it seems like it's being subdivided a little bit, like they are parceling out. This land tends to go in an odd shape around the back of Louie's and that would entrap that section of land to have to come out onto Fairview. Is that correct or -- is it the whole section that goes all -- is it the whole L- shaped? Simison: We will let -- we will let staff answer that or they can come up with their time. Abbott: And, then, on the egress to Hickory there is another subdivision to the north, Solerra or Solterra, I believe, and I'm not sure the proximity of the two egresses there. Because it's because of that -- Solterra is on the curve to the north, it's not a real good sight-- line of sight turning left onto Hickory from Solterra, if that's the name of that street, so it would be -- I would be curious to know the juxtaposition of the two drives and I'm -- yeah. I might have a follow up. Thank you. Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— Simison: Council, any questions? You are good. Thank you. Was there anybody else that would like to provide testimony at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward for any final comments? Womer: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, again, for the record, Blaine Womer, Womer Engineering. In response to Mr. McDonald -- a couple of his questions. He initially asked what the separation from the property line -- the existing block wall -- his rear property line from the back of our proposed units. It's approximately 30 feet is what we have shown right now. There was discussion of traffic. In fact, at our neighborhood meeting that that came up. The one thing we wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission -- Planning and Zoning Commission knew, as well as the Council here, is we did look into that with a traffic engineering consulting firm that we deal with all the time and ask them to make a quick comparison for us based on the number of units we were proposing and what light office might have provided and we found out that the traffic counts are about 65 percent of what light office would have been. So, this is actually a -- from a traffic impact standpoint it's a better way to go. Parking was brought up. These units, as it states in the -- in the staff report are all self parking. They have garages and they also have parking in front of the garages, as well as the additional site parking that we have provided in the landscape area and the common area as well. With respect to Mr.Abbott's comments, the property does not wrap around Louie's. The property is directly behind Louie's. It consists of 2.1 acres gross. So, there is -- this property has no frontage on -- on Fairview whatsoever. And the Solterra -- I'm sorry, I'm not -- Solterra -- Solterra -- probably still not saying it right, but that -- those two drive -- their driveway to their development and our proposed drive -- well, our existing driveway that we will be utilizing line up, so there is -- there is no conflicting traffic movements there. So, I hope I have addressed their concerns adequately and, again, happy to answer any questions the Council may have. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Two additional questions. So, if I'm seeing this right, then, if this is developed the owners of these particular units will, essentially, be exiting onto Hickory or going kind of around the strip mall to get onto Fairview, utilizing the current Louie's parking lot? Is that accurate or is there its own access? Womer: Well, unless I'm not understanding your question, the -- the main access to the project would be the Hickory driveway that is existing. Cavener: Where you enter into Louie's. Womer: If you are entering into Louie's from the back. This is off of Hickory; right? Cavener: Doesn't Hickory connect to Fairview? Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— Womer: Yes. Cavener: Okay. Womer: Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I may not have missed -- I may not have understood. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, one follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Particular to -- I think Mr. McDonald inquired about the size of the units that are going to face his backyard. I'm -- I'm certainly sympathetic to what the property owner is trying to achieve. Likewise, I'm also sympathetic to the resident that has there that has had an expectation about what was going to be developed. I know that we don't have a plat before us, but help me understand a little bit of the flavor for what the height of what you plan to build those units that are adjacent to his backyard and kind of what the development plan is. Womer: Mr. McDonald expressed that concern as well at the Planning and Zoning Meeting and, you are correct, we don't have a site plan, nor a preliminary plat in front of you tonight. But we can certainly look at that, take his concern into account as we lay this out and if we can accommodate with -- with doing something else there. Height wise these are maximum two story units 30 feet away. We believe that the impact would be fairly minor, but we can certainly take a look at coming up with maybe a different configuration. The private street and the lots will be the same layout, but maybe we can put a three unit townhome there possibly. We will take a look at it, though, as we go through the process. Cavener: Okay. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, did you have a question? Simison: The parking. And I'm just -- I'm concerned that we are going to get a call from the restaurant owner in a few years about residents parking in their parking lot on the evenings on a Friday and Saturday night when the residents may be most likely to have people visiting taking up parking. Again, you invite people over for Christmas morning and you are one place and you don't have enough parking potentially for the families in those nine additional spots. Womer: Well, the restaurant owner, Louie, was supposed to be here tonight. He was unable to make it, but he is a very strong project proponent. Simison: I know he is. Very -- very familiar with that. That's why -- I know I will get an earful just for making these comments. But it -- but it doesn't go without -- I mean if we Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 30 of o9 don't want people to park on Hickory and we don't want people to park in the adjacent restaurant parking lot during, you know, the important business hours, what's the solution for this area when nine is not enough and there will be times where nine we know is not enough. That's -- I'm not going to say it's all the time. Maybe seven days a week -- or seven days a year. I don't know. But that's really the question is what is the --what is the parking solution for when there is not enough parking that's going to be good for the neighborhood, good for the streets, and good for the neighboring business. Womer: We are certainly willing to take another look at that when we prepare the preliminary plat. We have got some room down there on the south to add some parking. Simison: That's what I was wondering if -- to that exact point. Womer: We are certainly willing to do that. Simison: I understand townhomes are difficult. That's actually why private streets make a little bit more sense, but it also limits no parking typically in front in a meaningful way. And I mean street parking -- Womer: Right. Simison: -- from that standpoint, so -- Womer: Right side is -- aesthetically speaking it's a better look, but I certainly understand your concern and we will take that into account when we -- Simison: I just want to make sure we have happy restaurant owners and happy neighbors and happy residents, whatever that works out to be. Womer: I understand the balance. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, what's your pleasure? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question maybe for Mr. Nary. Bill, so just got an annexation -- or, excuse me, a rezone request before us. Appreciate what the applicant has said in terms of wanting to put something together, hopefully, that addresses some of the neighbors' needs. A plat comes before us and those elevations don't match that, how much teeth does the Council have in terms of denying, remanding -- I -- I'm worried that, you know, grant a rezone and Blaine's doing a great job, but, then, wins the Powerball and leaves and somebody else comes in and maybe -- maybe we don't get what we had intended here tonight. Just what -- what strength the Council has to be sympathetic to the neighbors. Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 31 of o9 Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Cavener, the -- definitely much more limited. Again, the comp plan amendment is one piece of the teeth that you have to not do this. Secondarily, the rezone is, obviously, next. Last is just the plat. So, a plat is just the division of land. So, that doesn't really have the same strength. I mean you can put some conditions, but there is no development agreement here I don't believe that we are talking about, so there is not a condition to amend or other opportunity for the Council to review. So, fairly limited at that point on the plat. Simison: Would you like the -- the applicant to respond to that? Cavener: He seems -- he seems enthusiastic to bring forth some information, so, yes. Womer: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Blaine Womer. Yes. And that -- that is actually Item D in our development agreement requirement. There is a development agreement required that needs to be done, completed prior to adoption of the new zoning ordinance should you approve tonight. So, we will be putting that into the development agreement, which my understanding will, indeed, have the teeth I think that you are looking for. Cavener: Great. Thank you. Womer: Thank you. Nary: Yes. Apologize. So, he's correct. So, that -- those conditions can be in the DA modification -- or the DA conditions for the approval of the rezone, so -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for Sonya. I wanted to follow up on that, because when he mentioned up here the first time about the DA refers to the annexation, but it should be changed, is that -- can you help me to understand that. It should be to the rezone? Allen: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, it was just a typo in the staff report. I have corrected it. Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Follow up on Councilman Cavener's question. Usually the DA provisions require the plat to be consistent with the concept plan, but if there is going to be changes to this concept plan to accommodate the parking solution that we don't yet have, kind of a chicken or the egg. So, I'm not sure how we would craft that provision of the DA without seeing what the solution would be. Unless I'm missing something. The plat application Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— would look like what's on the screen, which doesn't afford any parking solution that we are all discussing. So, I think we need to put some specifics to that, so it can become a DA provision, so, then, the plat can be consistent with that, just so eyes are wide open on what the solution is going to be. I don't know what it would be or how you do that right now, but now would be the time we would have to articulate it. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Is that worded substantially consistent? That to me is a lawyer word. You know, what -- what does substantially mean and we could spend hours on that one. Because if the road is not changing, if by chance the three townhomes on this side swapped with four on the other side and some additional parking was added, to me that would meet the substantial requirement, but that's just my interpretation of it. I mean how much change can be done before it's -- it's not similar to what we saw tonight. I don't know if you can help, Sonya, or Bill, on -- on that type of question. Or Councilman Borton. Borton: Mr. Mayor, I will answer -- at least the reason my concern came up is it could be substantially consistent with what's on the screen right now, which doesn't provide that solution, and so the fear isn't that there would be a big change, the fear would be that there is little or no change, which now allows the plat to get approved, because you can't deny it, because it's consistent with what's in front of us. So, we can figure it out. We can fix it somehow. I don't know what those terms would be. Simison: Maybe one suggestion would be putting in a minimum number of other parking that you would be comfortable with. I don't know if it's a number. I don't know if it's location. You know, I have been mentally struggling with 19 units, 19 off site or two-thirds of that number. There is currently nine. You know, that's a number. I just don't know what really is a good standard when you don't have other things that's relative. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: It's a challenge. I think we are -- we are cautiously quiet. We are not sure how to do it up here on the Dais, nor should we. I think you might be able to artic -- yeah. Go ahead. Womer: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Blaine Womer. We were just discussing the -- because the numbers are kind of floating and what -- you get --the Council is struggling with what is the right number to make everything work. I think probably what could be written into the development agreement is an analysis by a licensed traffic engineer to do a parking analysis. That way they would be able to know, because Louie's is existing, they know how many tables are there, there is models for how a restaurant gets used and our project is parked hundred percent between garages and the driveways themselves, Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 33 of o9 plus the additional parking we are offering. I think if -- the Council may have -- may feel a little better with having it professionally analyzed as a part of the requirement for the development agreement, which we would be willing to have you write in. I just don't know any other way to do it without having someone that -- that is actually licensed and practices those types of analysis. So, that going forward we have got the right number of parking, because at the same time it's a waste to overpark it. Simison: Well -- and I think this kind of is part of that conversation that we even have with other applications recently is restaurants are really busy during certain times and how does that work. I mean a cross-parking agreement to allow people to park in those areas would probably solve that, but that may not make the current or future restaurant owner happy to have residents parking there. That's what I want to protect the area from is -- at least from my perspective -- the nonvoting person's perspective, who actually really likes the project and thinks this makes a lot of sense, but trying to find that. Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I think it's -- it's one step further. It's not so much about -- I think the Mayor is concerned about, you know, neighbors parking in Louie's restaurant. My concern is the inverse, is, you know, Louie's patrons parking in front of your future resident's driveway and preserving their access. I think those are the calls the Mayor's office is going to get as on a -- on an Easter Sunday or on a Wednesday when the Kiwanis and the U of I Alumni Association meets and the parking lot is already packed, they are going to -- they are going to bleed into your neighborhood and that's not good for your residents either. So, that -- I share those -- Simison: Do you need to disclose something that you are there every Wednesday? Cavener: You wouldn't know it from looking at me, but I go to Louie's every Wednesday. Yes. Yes. Womer: Well, we have checked and Louie's currently is parked definitely within the code. Simison: Recognize that. I think it's how do we keep people off a Hickory, if that's a concern. Where are they naturally going to push if Hickory is not the option, when you exceed the parking here, which there will be times when that occurs. Womer: Understood. Simison: So, Council, I throw it back to you on conversation, next steps appropriateness. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I do appreciate the applicant's suggestion of at least having a professional provide you some data or some information Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 04 of o9 that's a little bit more objective, so that way we don't have a concern about it being arbitrary. I would suggest that we do that, though, that they make no less than what they have already presented. So, if you were to get a traffic engineer that comes back and says we really only need six extra parking spaces, you can take three of them away, we don't really want that. So, you could have at least a minimum of what they have shown and -- but they would need to comply with whatever is proposed by a traffic engineer. I think that helps. I think there is cross-parking already on these sites. So, I think it is something that they are all going to have to deal with that. I think the bigger concern we have heard tonight, though, so I don't want to make it part of the record necessarily, but I think what Councilman Cavener has raised is what we have heard before is other patrons, staff, those types of parking conflicts that you get. But, again, I think if you have cross- parking and they have at least an engineer telling you how much is appropriate, I think that's the best from the city's perspective we could do. Simison: So, Mr. Nary, you believe this entire area is a cross-parked development? Nary: Mr. Mayor, I would have to go verify that. I believe the portion that came in with Louie's is. I don't know if that includes the bank on the east side of the -- of the drive aisles or the retail commercial that's on -- to the west of them, but I thought these two pieces had a cross-parking between them, so -- Simison: Okay. Nary: Because it was anticipated that they were going to be offices of some sort in the past. And if you would like we can certainly try to verify that before -- have another conversation. It's up to you. I don't have the DA in front of me. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I -- I'm certainly not against, you know, having a professional look at our concerns and providing data that's objective. I don't have a concern with that. But just being fully transparent, just for -- you know, just to be fair to the applicant in my opinion and it's -- I always take these rezones lightly, for obvious reasons, and -- because of the concerns that my fellow Council Members have discussed, whether it's parking, whether it's neighbors and having sympathy for neighbors that have lived there for a while expecting a certain development to occur and having that change is certainly something that we take into consideration. In my opinion right now I feel that this doesn't quite meet the benchmark for me to change the zoning. I'm open to the data and seeing what that looks like. That's where -- that's where I'm leaning in right now and these decisions are tough, because of the neighboring businesses that are long standing. Louie's--you know, Louie's has been there for a long time and it's a great restaurant and they have been a great Meridian business for a long long time. So, got to sort of take that aspect out of the decision and -- and with that said I -- right now I'm a little -- a little hesitant just for transparency. Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I will just throw my comment in there. You know, it's kind of nice to have an in- fill development that's brought to us and you don't have all the neighborhood adamantly opposed to in-fill development and comments that, you know, there are things they would like to see tweaked, but certainly aren't unhappy about and it's the best they have seen. You know, that -- that will certainly help. So, I don't want to, you know, throw the baby out with the bathwater on -- on something like this. There are some issues that we have to work. This is a rezone. I appreciate Council Member Cavener's comments about, you know, asking Council what--what tools do we have to make sure things can move forward in a transparent way for what we are looking at and how it comes forth and I think we might have a few tools at our disposal to make that happen if we were to approve this, but-- and, hopefully, when the final plat comes forward --the preliminary plat, those things are there and we can see what -- what it could be and attempt to resolve all those problems, because I -- I think if we just not do this it's -- which we certainly can, we can leave it as is, it's just going to continue to sit for quite a few more years and -- but, you know, it's certainly something worth wrestling with and trying to figure out what -- what the best path forward is. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I think the Planning and Zoning Commission called it the second best proposal that they could get and I tend to agree with that. I think like Council Member Bernt, I struggle with the rezone. We are losing a lot of commercial land. That sat for 20 years. They tried really hard to make it a go with commercial and if it just doesn't fit I hate to be so beholden to that that we don't -- we don't open our ayes to another option. So, I think I'm supportive of a rezone with the traffic or a parking study to be a condition. Potentially conditioning some height of those buildings that -- that face Mr. McDonald. I think that we could -- we could get there if we want to. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: I do think it's almost ready. It really is. I'm more inclined -- it's not ready today. couldn't approve it today. But I think the problems with parking that the Mayor's brought up, you are spot on, we know what's going to happen here. Some engineering data might help. But intuitively we have seen this challenge where even a code compliant project creates problems, because -- it just does. And your example of what you described, Kiwanis Wednesday, I just -- you know, they -- Louie's parks on this dirt lot now. They are popular. So, there is challenges there. I'm not comfortable yet that we have the solution. I don't know how to draft the language to ensure the right number of parking spaces are Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— there. I think the applicant in a week or two might be able to come up with language that gets you there. Maybe. I would certainly want to know that there is a cross-parking agreement reported against both properties that would allow these residents to be able to use the Louie's lot, so we can have time to verify that. So, I'm not ready to move forward. I like it. I think it is kind of the next best thing, but it's not quite ready yet in my ayes. Simison: Council Woman Perreault, anything to add? Perreault: No. I don't have anything additional to add. I agree with Councilman Cavener. I think that we can get there and I -- I understand the applicant's struggle with bringing in a use, how it's currently dedicated in the -- in the Comprehensive Plan. So, I -- I like the concept. I would like to see if they could make something work. But I do think we need more data on the parking. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Blaine, are you open for another question? I think the public hearing is still open. Simison: Yeah. Public hearing is still open. Cavener: Blaine, you have heard I think some good conversation from the Council. I think I tend to agree, if we could get a parking study done first, I think that would maybe address some of the concerns of Council. Is that something you guys are -- are willing to do on the front end, as opposed to the back end, and we could continue it out for a few weeks and you could bring us back those results. Also give us some time to further explore the cross-agreements for parking and make sure that we are all speaking the same language? Womer: Well, Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, obviously, our preference tonight would be to get approval and come back to you with a preliminary plat with that supportive study, which I think could still work, because from what I'm hearing it seems like this generally is the -- is the right way to go. However, if at the same time we would take a continuance over denial. So, I guess that's probably the best way I can answer that question. Simison: Well, maybe even this -- I mean even per the feedback, redoing some of the design and seeing where you could put in more parking, without doing the study may also meet the needs and desires without doing a formal study. Again, I don't know from the feedback you heard if you have even thought about what type of changes you could look at that would make sense in the short term in the next couple weeks. Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page 0, of 39 Womer: Mr. Mayor, my concern with that is that we might come back and find this body still has the same concern. I think if -- if we are going to be continued, we would want to do that analysis. We would want to come back to you with tight numbers and some numbers we can certainly stand behind and support. So, I think that's probably the -- the way we would handle that would be to do the study now. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Blaine, how quickly -- how much time do you think you would need? Two weeks? Three weeks? Four weeks? Womer: Well, I'm sure we could get it done in a couple of weeks and be ready to be back to you, if that -- if that works with Council and your agenda. Cavener: Okay. Great. Thanks, Blaine. Appreciate it. Simison: Sir, technically, the applicant has the last word, so we got to not take -- there will probably be another opportunity at the next meeting would be my guess, if we go that direction. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: So, we want to keep the public hearing open then? So, Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue Item No. 3, public hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes, H-20210015, to September 21 st or August 21? Real quick, Sonya, is that going to give you guys enough time I feel like you might need? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman, for a parking analysis from the applicant? I believe they said a couple of weeks. It depends on if you need that the week before the Council meeting on the Tuesday before. So, that would really only give them a week. So, keep that in mind if you would like it ahead of time. Cavener: Looking for a nod from the applicant if that's going to be enough time. I worry that it's not. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to revise my motion that we continue the public hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes, H-2021-0015, to September 7th. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the item is continued. Thank you. Look forward to seeing you back in September. Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 4. Ordinance No. 21-1939: An Ordinance (H-2020-0127 — Skybreak Subdivision) For Annexation Of A Parcel Of Land Located In The S '/2 Of The NW '/4 Of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, As Described In Attachment "A" And Annexing Certain Lands And Territory, Situated In Ada County, Idaho, And Adjacent And Contiguous To The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Meridian As Requested By The City Of Meridian; Establishing And Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of 80.461 Acres (More Or Less) Of Land From RUT To R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(43.858 Acres) And R-15 (Medium High Density Residential)(36.604 Acres) Zoning Districts In The Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies Of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed With The Ada County Assessor, The Ada County Recorder, And The Idaho State Tax Commission, As Required By Law; And Providing For A Summary Of The Ordinance; And Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. Simison: Council, next item up is Ordinance No. 21-1939. 1 will ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is an ordinance related to H-2020-0127 Skybreak Subdivision, for annexation of a parcel of land located in the S '/2 of the NW 1/4 of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, as described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 80.461 acres (more or less) of land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(43.858 acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential)(36.604 acres) zoning districts in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Was there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 21-1939 with the suspension of rules. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. August 10,2021 Page——— Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, I will ask the Clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under Future Meeting Topics? Or do I have a motion to adjourn? Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn the meeting. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:54 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 8 / 25 / 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 63 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. t 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-UP SHEET { Date: �, a Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum: • DO NOT: o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 i Changes to Agenda: None i Item#1:Victory Commons Easement Vacation (H-2021.0045) Application(s): ➢ Vacation of PUDI Easement I Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site is 16,7 acres,currently zoned C-G and is located at the NEC of S. Meridian Rd. &E.Victory Rd. Summary of Request: Last year City Council approved the final plat for Victory Commons subdivision. Following Council's approval and after during further research,the applicant discovered there was a public utility,drainage and irrigation easement(PUDI)that had been recorded with the previous Mussell Corner Subdivision plat. This easement had historically been used by NMID but drainage improvements made this easement no longer necessary. The applicant has submitted letters from all potential easement holders(i.e, Cable One/Sparklight, Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas, Century Link, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District)consenting to vacation of the easement. i Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0045, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 10, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0045,as presented during the hearing on August 10, 2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0045 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance.) Item#2:TM Creek Apartments Phase 3(H-2021-0035) Application(s): Rezone&Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning,and location: This site is currently zoned TN-C&C-G and is located south of W. Franklin Rd. & east of S.Ten Mile Rd. History: Development of this property is governed by the TM Crossing DA&Design Guidelines. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use—Commercial&HDR Summary of Request: The Applicant has applied for a rezone of 5.58-acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district. Most of the area proposed to be rezoned is designated MU-COM with a narrow sliver along the east boundary designated as HDR. The proposed C-G zoning &MFR residential and live/work(i.e.vertically integrated) uses are consistent with the FLUM designations for this property. Because the area proposed to be rezoned is governed by the TM Crossing DA, a new DA or amendment to the existing DA isn't recommended. A CUP is requested for a MFR development consisting of 238 apartment units on 7.83-acres of land in the C-G zoning district.A variety of studio(42), 1-bedroom(120), 2-bedroom(74)and live/work(2) units are proposed at a gross density of 30.4 units/acre.A total of 1,815 s.f.of non-residential uses are proposed in the vertically integrated residential structure which is a principally permitted use in the C-G district and will allow a variety of commercial uses,The vertically integrated residential use is proposed at the corner where the private street intersects Wayfinder—2 live/work units are proposed—the remainder of the building to the south is proposed to be entirely MFR. The Applicant has requested alternative compliance to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 to provide a lesser amount of private open space for each unit as noted in the staff report; and to UDC Table 11-3C-6,which doesn't include a requirement for parking for studio units,to allow the vertically integrated standard to apply.The Director has approved these requests with a condition of approval requiring the pathway along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the creek to be widened from 8'to 10'(#4h);the Applicant has requested this condition be removed due to the existing topography along the creek—because this pathway isn't a designated multi-use pathway, Staff is amenable to this request if Council deems appropriate. Access is proposed via a private street from Wayfinder Ave.,a collector street,along the west boundary of the site.With approval of ALT, a minimum of 372 parking spaces are required; a total of 379 spaces are proposed. Based on the size of the living area in the proposed units(all between 500& 1,200 s.f.),a minimum of 1.37-acres of common open space is required to be provided within the development; a total of 2.51-acres is proposed.Although some of this area doesn't qualify (i.e, private open space) &is not really usable(i.e. parking lot planters),the internal common open space&area along the Ten Mile Creek is 2.2-acres which exceeds UDC standards. Based on 238 units, a minimum of 5 amenities are required but the decision-making body is authorized to consider additional amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development.The applicant proposes a clubhouse with a fitness center, bike repair room and pet grooming station; swimming pool; open grassy areas at least 50'x 100' in size;fireside seating; grilling area; and sports courts(snookball&ping pong).The Ten Mile Creek multi-use pathway also lies adjacent to the site on the south side of the creek for residents to use. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 4-story structures as shown. Building materials consist of stucco& bricks in neutral colors. Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing Design Guidelines. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Josh Beach&Jon Wardle, Brighton Corporation ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation v. Key Issue(s): Applicant requested changes to the following conditions:#4h to change the width of the pathway from 10-feet to 8-feet as proposed;#8 delete requirement for a public pedestrian easement; and#9 remove language pertaining to compliance with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the standards in the ASM to require compliance with the Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines as required by the DA. Key Issue(s)of Discussion by Commission: i. Adequacy of parking proposed for the development; ii. The Applicant's request for a reduction in the width of the pathway from 10-feet to 8-feet along the southern boundary of the site due to topography near the creek; iii. If fencing should be provided along the creek for public safety; and iv. Desire for more than(2)vertically integrated residential structures to be provided along Wayfinder Ave. Commission Change(s)to Staff Recommendation: i. Delete condition#8 requiring a public pedestrian easement and modify condition#9 as requested by the Applicant.The Commission supported Staffs recommendation for the provision of a 10-foot(instead of 8-foot)wide pathway along the southern boundary of the site. Outstanding Issue(s)for City Council: The Applicant requests condition#4h is deleted that requires the 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway on the north side of the creek to be widened to 10-feet due to the significant grade change from the site to the Irrigation District's maintenance road along the creek. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corp. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0035, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 10, 2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0035, as presented during the hearing on August 10,2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0035 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item#3:Woodcrest Townhomes (H•2021.0015) Application(s): ➢ Comprehensive Plan FLUM Amendment ➢ Rezone Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.97-acres of land,zoned L-0, located at 1789 N. Hickory Way, north of E. Fairview Ave. on the southwest side of Hickory Way. History: This property was annexed with L-0 zoning in 1992 &later re-subdivided as a lot in Mallane Commercial Complex in 2001. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial Summary of Request:Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM to change the land use designation on 2.10-acres of land from Commercial to MHDR; and Rezone of 2.10-acres of land from the L-0(Limited Office)to the R-15(Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district. Approval of the map amendment will allow the Applicant to develop(19) SFR attached &townhome dwellings at a gross density of 10.8 units/acre on this infill property,which will contribute to the range of residential land use designations&diversity in housing types& densities in this area&provide a transition in land uses from MDR to commercial/office uses. A revised conceptual site plan&building elevations were submitted showing how the property is planned to develop with(19)single- family attached &townhouse dwelling units consisting of(1)single-family attached structure, (3)3-unit townhouses, (2)4-unit townhouses and a common area with pathway&gazebo amenities. Because the site is below 5-acres in size, minimum qualified open space&site amenities are not required. The property is planned to be subdivided through a future application. Access to the site is proposed via a cross-access easement from an existing driveway from N. Hickory Way, a collector street; no stub streets exist to this property.A private street is planned to provide access to the proposed development and for addressing purposes. An attached sidewalk is proposed along one side of the private street for pedestrian access. Off-street parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards; (4)extra spaces are proposed for guest parking in the common area near the entry&(5)spaces are proposed in the common area at the SEC of the site. On-street parking is not allowed due to the width of the private street. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed residential structures as shown with a mix of materials consisting horizontal wood siding,vertical board and batten siding,wood shake siding and cement plaster with stone veneer accents and architectural asphalt roofing. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Blaine Womer,Applicant's Representative; Louie Mallane ii. In opposition: None iii.Commenting: Dave McDonald; Shirley Moon; Randy Nelson;Ann Atarian iv. Written testimony: None v.Key Issue(s): a. Traffic&safety concerns on Hickory Way-lack of visibility of cars pulling out onto Hickory Way from the site due to the curve of the road.; maintenance of the existing masonry wall and landscape strip along north boundary of site; b. Inadequacy of parking in this area(Louie's restaurant/bank patrons park on this property); Key Issue(s)of Discussion by Commission: i. In favor of the proposed development plan over previous plans for this site; ii. Concern pertaining to safety of access onto Hickory Way; iii. Preference for the 4-unit townhome proposed along the north boundary to be reduced to a 2-or 3-unit townhouses for better transition to the existing homes to the north. Commission Change(s)to Staff Recommendation: None Outstanding Issue(s)for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0015, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of August 10,2021: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0015, as presented during the hearing on August 10,2021,for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0015 to the hearing date of for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s)for continuance.) City Council Meeting August 10, 2021 MussellRecently Approved Victory Commons No 1Corner Subdivision with Easements ZONINGAERIALFLUM Site/Landscape Plan R15- 77 C� E IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Victory Commons Easement Vacation (H-2021-0045) by Horrocks Engineers, Inc., Located at 130 E. Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Easement Vacation for a public utility, drainage, and irrigation easement initially established with the Mussel Corner Subdivision (recently replatted as the Victory Commons Subdivision No 1). Item#1. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: August 10, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Victory Commons Easement Vacation (H-2021-0045) by Horrocks Engineers, Inc., Located at 130 E.Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Easement Vacation for a public utility, drainage, and irrigation easement initially established with the Mussel Corner Subdivision (recently replatted as the Victory Commons Subdivision No 1). Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing STAFF REPORT C:�*%- W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 8/10/2021 Legend - DATE: lei Project Lflca iar TO: Mayor&City Council � FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner I 208-489-0573 SUBJECT: H-2021-0045 FEEEBM ..i3 Victory Commons Easement Vacation _ LOCATION: 130 E.Victory Rd. and 3030 S. Meridian Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to vacate public utility, drainage, and irrigation easement that was initially established with the Mussel Corner Subdivision(recently replatted as the Victory Commons Subdivision No 1). II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Kindi Moosman,Horrocks Engineers,Inc 2775 W.Navigator Dr, Suite 210,Meridian ID 83642 B. Owner: Kuna Victory LLC —Box 51298,Idaho Falls,ID 83405 III. STAFF ANALYSIS In September of 2020,the City Council approved the Victory Commons Final Plat Filing One (H- 2020-0086),which allowed 4 commercial lots on 16.74 acres in the C-G zoning district. Following City Council approval and during further research,the applicant discovered there was a public utility, drainage and irrigation easement(PUDI)that had been recorded with the previous Mussell Corner Subdivision. This easement had historically been used by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District but drainage improvements made this easement no longer necessary. The applicant has submitted letters from all potential easement holders(i.e. Cable One/Sparklight, Idaho Power,Intermountain Gas, Century Link,Nampa Meridian Irrigation District)who have all submitted written consent agreeing to vacate the easements. Page 1 IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the vacation of easement request as proposed by the Applicant. Page 2 V. EXHIBITS A. Recorded Mussell Corner Plat(date: April 2006) Sa'52'4 N69*55'S2E RIGHT OF WAY 76A}I' 1 S _C)d' L.S. W 2 CANAL CENTER LINE h7' 1 4 — EASEMENT UNE RICRT OF WAY E+ISEWENT, CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT LINE tJMffS SEE WRNDEFIHED RRANrf dEE6 ' P.0.1L POIN'r OF GEGINNING INSTRUMENT NO. 8515425 BRASS CAP l4 ALUMINUM GAR a FOUND 5/8" REBAR AS N07 D ' �+'� NBRTFTERLr Tr1P or BLWK OF CALCt11ATED PONT rr ' THE KENNEDY LATERAL ra� � SET 5!8" k J{} REBAR 0 w/CAP MARKED KNS 11120 �x]i rt CENTERLINE OF THE SLT 1f2• k 24' REBAR KENNEDY {ATERAL • yT}Opp WAKED KNS I1120 os \ nq IDANO TRA.NSRORTAT13F1 L1EPNiT}Jbli NICS.ftil PUBLIC LiTIUMES• DRA1RWA, AND kRWIATION (w3r5B'45E) RECORD DATAUNIPLATTEO$Lf7L76<1PROPOSED EASEMENT00 VACATION \ `+P ,. �. 01 � W I o 5'P.LLD.I per n0lBd 'n + A, 'j Jr in z 1 P.U-D.I.Per note d t J. L5. 5082 .SDB2 z fi W dsSd�d SEE NOTE 7 fl $ 1 -0p1 Nl759'31�E Y"+O-Pf' 15.32' DOOM I _ 8 Awer f SEE NOTE 7-� 1•=20' �� NI SEE NOTE 7 z+� .7 �. E Lra _ NlPJDI ' I OBSERVATION POINT ;I 9I TURAL PONE I l ILK} BOOK kli$PAGES192Te-47T@ OO 9�MEHOi SEA10.on'�00. PARCELBRECORD OF SURVEY No.8899' S!R Dotaa •C• See pekoli "D" iI 1 S89'59'31"W 1048.17, RCHD kT,,MW r Dam Nar�6'25'E 19 E. VICTORY ROAD INST. NIO- IC0001399 .e,00 � sa ------� -�----- 589'S4'Sy"w 113�,31-------------- -� OPhF NO- quou9 SE CORM17 OF rmrr �rtt ■ Page 3 B. Approved Victory Commons Subdivision No 1 (date: 4/1/2021) Nf TORY COMMONS SUBDMSION CVO .1 'm FGUNMEWC;.s'h`'.P,9 € A RE-SUBDIVISION OF FORPON,S OF LOTS T, 2, ANO 4, SLOCK f, Z♦ S79 4P �'�l�f'h7A7AM OF MUSSEL CQRIVE,4 5U6DIVTSIRIY, riL3'0 BEING A POf,'TfOIV `fig PARCEL "A' OF RECORD OF SURVEY NO. 122dZ LOCATED IN A l PORTION OF CO VERNMEN F LOT 4. SEC 17ON 19, TO NNSHIP 3 w !NORTH RAND I EAST OF TFfE RASE MERIDIAN, CITY OF GOlri LOT 3 1 WRIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO -2D21- I I ! I�L8Ai6G m Y d C ° MONUMENTCERTIFICATION I �V 9� (M8Y R9Y�9874PRT1 -��T+' r*tr„ THLti LST4{MkjIRN THATTMPLAT I8 REW3Ple C UEDL'NUERTIEEPROVISFDNS'OP 60W MV41'44T 102 6T PL6 Sp _ �� mATH14l1nP 10.7311 TIIP.OU 9 s6.L311 YKE MONUMENTS DEFINING TWE ESCfERM 8 i1 i� D { T BOUNDARY HAVE RUIN FOVNI).ESTAELf9HEIS,AN11lU3LRE4ABRTTATED UPON THE 441 I RHLY> R12R{OF INSON MIL PLhBE ESTHATT}{g LCINT2i OROTANL}EA IN90a'CX7TL7iFRS AB ; ��' S R}BCIVI}!Hf?RBON AIIP r6HE�7A9L1SH96 ON THE GR{?UNLI 91FTTIIN 90 DAYB H6l'ONO 7T3E i k I SITE aYNTrRUUFKV4 00RI -P"ON D1LTFOF APRFI-OF M221C1HL7WN(HI!SURETY ON + L KLE WrM TAP ADA O0I3NTYSURVEYOIL I - I l 14 P O 79 , 1 _,n �Ir- , • � 1 it Li TW NWWIWON a&SLEA-c-T TC h L '� W`yypp I �icwrcani {2] ._7 PL9 Tg1R' 1S SWMEN AND A IWLF 05 IV}`OD]T Li n ;'1 Ili i {� t3, ♦* a KEramEDV LATERAL PER MUSSEL $HALL OE MAJH7AIN@ BY KLINA% O I� c yT. �L `�( � ti CORNER SUBDIVISION] ll ti ti 14 FIVEWO"tLANIMCAKISUFFE 113 I�l i 6 lJ ASAK NS I fL 76' Jli i ya 14 ♦ � J 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PEDESTRIAN F 1 ~ ly Y ♦1 T� �l SB RIG r•OFWAY EASEMENT PERK - e FORTHHN RIC+HT-0E-wAr£aSEkll I ♦L 'P / SP£GIT7r, YAS A GRAVEL PIT M I171 FOOT KOILIC OTILrry.IF � I, i a � �♦ti k� � �. I� 1 THIRTY Xj FOOT KENNBEDY LAn LU L + 17 i 1 g a ~♦ '€,q,♦ OISYRIOY FOR INOREBSrEGRESS. PL9 I4iA0 I =_—_---��--- — �j ](♦ 1B EXISTING SIM7EEN{1§•IFOOT I'L1 / 1M'31'23 W 212 21' I PL9 BPFB �y f rd PLO 9M r5r�InAHOPDVIER EASEMENT PER ih J! 7111 1 ti V V 70 W raw I L L3 Y � � • ,� �� �CITY OF MERIDAN WATER E13EF % � _ —— —` ¢' Line Table �CM OF MFAHNAN WATER EASEh _�—7 Lnb/ LBI�h EST�c� a 0 ♦ ! CITY OF 1,IEp1pµH WATER FJL..EI 96f r2VE ILLV CITY W MERIDM WATER EANN �}W 4pY` i�8 ti r•L� _gr„q" LQ BOOS See'4.4'xE .,c TEN{i uoo YIK]E PEnwi4eN LL"a' ' f Q L9 7u 46 'lbB`18'10'fY V SUBG1YI51dN [NARA7'7'EP L4 314Y OF o NBB`43'# PSI'.7a LA irix N71B'?x011W qN�� GOVi LOT 4 LE ss sa Page 4 C. Easement Vacation Exhibit aoa t 1 c-+ V_ llkUuv1V1Jlviv 70.00'1/ \ J N00'fl°38'36"E � 5. N89°42'22"E S50°46'03"E x 781.49' 7.78' N, -J--- --- -- --- - - --� ———— ——— —— — —— —— — —— —— — NW38'36"E tp.I a.B. 5.00' S$9°42'22"W J S89°42'22"W S50°46'03"E 265.14' J 523.00' 17.36' I � LOT 2 BLOCK 1 w N0°38'28"E MUSSELL CORNER SUBDIVISION 145.02' LOT BLOCK 1 co 1,2N J MUSSELL CORNER o —— ——— —— — —— — SUBDIVISION z S89°42'22"W 5.00' S0°38'28"W LOTS BLOCK 1 308.71' 1 u MUSSELL CORNER 4 J SUBDIVISION 1 N0*38'28"E-/ 169.52' PARCEL B ROS 4 8669 �� m m i �'J N89°04'23"W_,_�I r N 1; %9° 8_fl0' 0 50' 100' 24 t 9 SCALE:1"=100' 25 30 E VICTORY RD Page 5 D. Easement Vacation Legal Description 274 W.NPwic abr D9VP. SO,-21� KIP-,&ww.,ar, cks. 93912 AR 11'4Y45',,Of'CCkS.Cd^1 H E N G 1 N >E.: E R S r -00 Date; April 09,2020 Proj cct: I D-]402-1 K 10 �7r or Page: ] of 2 �+ N PUBLIC UTILITY DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION ION EA, EMENT TO BE VACATED MUSYSBL+L C"OR N h R.SL'BDI PT SIOiN' This easement is aituated in Government Lot 4 ofSe,[-,tion 19,Township 3 north,Rangc I Hast,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho,b€-ing locatui in Lots 1,2 and Lot 4.Block 1 of Mussel] Corner Subdivision,an file in Book 95 of Plats in pages 1 1 624-1 1626, i1i the C}ifice of the Recorder,Ada County,more particularly described as iolloWs: COMML N C=ING at the Southwest corder of said Guvernmunl Lot 4, thence along the west houndary of said Gavemment Lot 4, 1) N.00038'36"E.,641,26 feet;thence leaving said}vest boundary-, 2) S.89°21'24"E.,, 70.00 feet to the southwest corner of said Lot 1 and the PO IN T OF BE GINNING thence along the west boundary of said Lot 1, 3) N.00-38'36"h.,5_00 feet;thence parallel with the south boundary of sari Lot 1, 4) N.89"42'22"Lr,781 A9 feet to a paint on the earl boundary of said Lot I;thence along said east houndary, 5) S.50'46'03"E.,, 7.79 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 4; thence along the east hnundaTy of mid I.cxt 4, 6) S.50'4G'03"E., IT36 feet,thence parallel with and 11.00 feet sotth of the north boundary of said Lot 4, 7) S.89'42'22"W., 52100 feet to a point which lies 11.00 feet south of and S.00 feel eLLwt oI the narlhwest corner of said Lot 4,thencc parallel with the vest boundary of said Lot 44, 8) S.00,'38'28"W.; 308.71 feet to a point on the north boundary of 11arcel B per Record of Survey No_ 8669,can file in the Office of the Kccurder, Ada C,ounty, thence a]ong the north boundary of said Parcel B, Page 6 Date. April (fit), 2020 P roj e et: I D-1402,-1810 Page, 2 of 2 9) N89'''{]4'23"W., 8.00 fcct to a point can the west boundary of said Lot 4; th cc along said }vest boundary, 10)1r.0V38' 8"E.1 169.5 2 fee( to the southeast cornor of said Lot 2.; than c along the south boundary of said Lot 2. 11)S.89"4 ' ?"W., 5.00 feet; thencc parallel with the east boundary of said Lot 2, 12)N.00°38'2.8"E., 145.02 fcct to n point which lies 5.00 feet west of and 5.0-0 f t south of the northeast corner of said Lat ; thence parallp.1 with the north boundary of said I.ot 2, 13)S.89°4 '22"W,, 265.140 feet to a point on tht west boundary cf'said Lot 2, thtnee along said wes[ boundary, 14)N-00"381611 ' , 5.00 feet to the POINT OF BE GIN1 EN G, S 0 , . . r Page 7 Item#1. E. Relinquishment Letters LOCI I L U I YL-1111% Kindi Moosman 2775 W Navigator Dr., Suite 210 Meridian, ID 83642 435-669-4579 kind i.moosmanghorrocks.corn No ResenrationslNo Objections SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO PROCEED Project Name: PUID Easement Vacation - Mussell Corner Subdivision To Whom It May Concern: Qwest Corporation, dlbla CenturyLink QC ("CenturyLink") has reviewed the request for the subject matter and has determined that it has no objections with respect to the release of the area as shown and/or described for the property on Exhibit °A°, said Exhibit °A° attached hereto and incorporated by this reference_ It is the intent and understanding of CenturyLink that this shall not reduce our rights to any other existing easement or rights we have on this site or in the area_ This response is submitted WITH THE STIPULATION that if CenturyLink facilities are found and/or damaged within the area as described, the Applicant will bear the cost of relocation and repair of said facilities_ Contact TJ Eich (Tamara_Eich@,centurylink.com) with any questions. Sincerely, Mary Hutton Network Infrastructure Services CenturyLink P834116 Page 8 Page 12 Item#1. Kindi Moosman From: Greg Curtis agcurtis@nmid_org> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2021 1-49 PM To: Kindi Moosman CC- Rob Sunderlage Subject: RE- PUID Easement Vacation Kindi, NMI a has no comment regarding the vacation of easement as depicted in the attached survey except for the portion which lies withi n the Kennedy Lateral easement area.The easement for the Kennedy Latera I must be protected.This email shall serve as NMID's official response. Thanks, Greg Greg G Curtis Water Superintendent Nampa& Meridian Irrigation District Shop 5525 E. Greenhurst Rd_ Nampa Idaho 83666 Phone:208-466-0663 Fax:208-463-0183 Webs Ile:www.nm id.org Page 9 Page 13 Item#1. September 11. 2020 Seat via email to Uidi.nloosinliniir..horrocks.com Horrocks Enzineers Kindi Moosran 2775 W. Navigator Dr., Suite 210 Meridian. ID 83642 Re: Relilnquishnient of a portion of Public Utility Easement (PUE) located in Lot 1. 2. 3. & 4, Block 1, Mussell Corner Subdivision in Ada County. Idaho. Bear Kindi: This is in response to the reliiqulshinent application received by Idalic Power Company on August 21. 2020. regarding the passible partial relinquishment of the above noted PUE. The attached,naps you provided illore specifically identify the "easement area". Idaho Power's review of the relinquishment application indicated that there are no facilities withnl the above noted easement area. As such. Idaho Power agrees to relinquish the public utility easement within the area described in the attached documents. Thank you once again for providing Udis Power Company the oppoitmity to review and continent upon the subject petition for retiuquishrnent. S Licere ty. ;�X' ( �4'qS�'3 alj�c� Krista Englund Assoc. Real Estate Specialist Land Management and Permitting Department Corporate Real Estate Idaho Power Company Page 10 Page 14 Item#1. OSINTERMOUNTAIN* GAS COMPANY A&tmmFnrrarhMRmu m&atn kw. April 29,2020 To whom it may concern; Intermountain Gas Company has no objection to the vacation of the utility easements in the Mussell Corner Subdivision. The east-west lot line beriveen lot 1 and lots 2 and 4 block 1.And the North-South lot lure behveen lots 2 and 3 and lot 4 block 1. If there is any question you can contact me at 208-377-6812 or email bryce.ostlerl intgas.com ll J<L-O-Ew Bryce Ostler GIS Field Tech. /Sparklight' Re: Vacation of Easements—Mussell Corner Subdivision—Meridian, ID Dear Dean Waite: Cable One Inc dba Sparklight has reviewed the proposed utility easement vacation for Mussell Corner Subdivision. Based on this review we have no objections to the proposed vacation of public utility easements in lots 1,2,and 4 Block 1 of Mussell Corner Subdivision. Sincerely, . c � 02! iD12021 Page 11 Page 15 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for TM Creek Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021-0035) by Brighton Corporation, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and East of S. Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 5.58 acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 238 apartment units (including 2 live/work units) on 7.83 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Page 30 Item#2. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: August 10, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for TM Creek Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021-0035) by Brighton Corporation, Generally Located South of W. Franklin Rd. and East of S.Ten Mile Rd. A. Request: Rezone of 5.58 acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district. B. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 238 apartment units (including 2 live/work units) on 7.83 acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 31 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: August 10, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 i PROJECT NAME: TM Creek Apartments Phase 3 (H-2021-0035) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING August 10,2021 Legend DATE: IffProject Lacflion TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 - SUBJECT: H-2021-0035—TM Creek Apartments ' Phase 3 LOCATION: South of W. Franklin Rd. and east of S. - - - -- Ten Mile Rd., in the NW 1/4 of Section 14, Township 3N.,Range 1 W. (Parcel #R8483040240) -- 100 I-T�r-r I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has applied for a Rezone(RZ) of 5.58-acres of land from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district; and Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 238 apartment units, including 2 live/work units,on 7.83-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. Alternative Compliance(ALT)is requested to the following UDC standards: • UDC 11-3A-1913.3,which requires no more than 50%of the total off-street parking area for the site to be located between building facades and abutting streets; (Note: Staff determined this request is not necessary—see analysis in Section VI.) • UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,which requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private usable open space to be provided for each dwelling unit; and, • UDC Table 11-3C-6,which doesn't include a requirement for parking for studio units,to allow the vertically integrated standard to apply. Page 1 Page 32 Item#2. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 5.58-acres(RZ area);7.83-acres(CUP area) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Commercial(MU-COM)&High Density Residential(HDR) Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Future commercial(west of Wayfinder);multi-family development(east of Wayfinder) Current Zoning General Retail&Service Commercial(C-G)and Traditional Neighborhood Center(TN-C) Proposed Zoning General Retail&Service Commercial(C-G) Number of Residential Units(type 238-apartment units(studio, 1-bedroom,2-bedroom and of units) live/work) Density(gross&net 30.4 units/acre oss /30.8 units/acre net Open Space(acres,total[%]/ 2.51-acres(32.1%) buffer/qualified) Amenities Clubhouse with fitness facilities,a bike repair room,pet grooming station and work rooms;outdoor swimming pool, grilling area,sports court(snookball)&ping pong and fireside seating. Physical Features(waterways, The Ten Mile Creek runs off-site along the southern boundary hazards,flood plain,hillside) of the site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of April 12,2021;no attendees other than Applicant attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ-13-015/PP-13-030/H-2015-0018/H-2016-0067/H-2020- 0074(DA Inst.#2021-089157) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Traffic Impact Study No es/no Access One(1)private street access is proposed via Wayfinder,a collector street,along the (Arterial/Collectors/State west boundary of the site. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Pro osed Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2.3 miles from Station#1 Station • Fire Response Time Within 5-minute response time area goal Page 2 — Page 33 Item#2. Description Details Page • Resource Reliability 70%—does not meet targeted goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 4—current resources would not be adequate to supply service to this project. • Accessibility Meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds once secondary access is completed. • Special/resource Will require an aerial device—can meet this need in the required time frame if a needs truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 2,500 gallons per minute for 2 hours. • Other See specific comments in Section IX.C. Police Service No comments were submitted. West Ada School District • Distance(elem,ms,hs) Approved prelim Approved MF Enrolled for plat parcels per units per Miles 2121=22 ca aci attendance area attendance area °e `°kh°°. • Capacity of Schools peregrine Elementary 466 650 58 235 1.9 Meridian Middle School 1071 1000 797 1795 2.8 • #of Students Enrolled Meridian High School 1940 2075 3507 2419 1.7 School of Choice Options Chief Joseph Elementary(Arts) 536 700 N/A N/A 5.2 Barbara Morgan Elementary(Stem) 434 Soo N/A N/A 3.3 • Predicted#of students 24 generated from proposed development Wastewater Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent _ Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's _ WRRF Declining Balance 14.15 _ Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan _ Impacts/Concerns • Sewer easements must be provided and be free of encroachments. • A sewer stub is required to the northern parcel S1214212580 Water Distance to Water Services Directly adjacent Pressure Zone 2 _ Estimated Project Water See Application ERU's Water Quality None _ Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan Impacts/Concerns • Water easements must be provided and be free of encroachements. • Water must be extended to the east property line. • An easement must be provided to the southeast portion of the site for future water connection to the east. • The 6"water main on the east side of the property must be increased to 8" i e to meet fire flow. Page 3 Page 34 Item#2. C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map (fLegend - 0 (fLegend Project Lacaicm I Project Luca fkm 'xed to e't High- -ensify Res�idential diurn D nsify _ r , _ 1111- Residential ti► - - - - �I F111 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend '1-C R� Legend Project Lacafian � Praject Lflcafian - +- oafy Lin-ak R-1 -N I-L — Planned Parcels I UT ---1 E RUT TN- C. C-G R- -8 U --- o 1 I-T�r—r I-T�r—r III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kameron Nauahi,Brighton Corporation- 12601 W. Explorer,Boise,ID 83713 B. Owner: Brighton Development-2929 W.Navigator Dr.,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Mike Wardle,Brighton Corporation-2929 W. Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian,ID 83642 Page 4 Page 35 Item#2. IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/11/2021 7/23/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 6/8/2021 7/21/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 6/17/2021 7/30/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 6/8/2021 7/20/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(Comprehensive Plan and TMISAP) Land Use: The subject property is designated Mixed Use—Commercial(MUC-COM) and High Density Residential(HDR) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan. Development of the property is governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP). The purpose of the MU-COM designation is to encourage the development of a mixture of office,retail, recreational,employment, and other miscellaneous uses,with supporting multi-family or single-family attached residential uses.While the focus of these areas is on commercial and employment uses,the horizontal and vertical integration of residential uses is essential to securing entitlements.As with all mixed-use areas,this designation requires developments to integrate the three major use categories— residential, commercial and employment. In MU-COM areas,three or more significant uses also tend to be larger scale projects. This designation is intended to provide flexibility and encourage developers to build innovative projects. HDR designated areas are multiple-family housing areas where relatively larger and taller apartment buildings are the recommended building type. HDR should include a mix of housing types that achieve an overall average density target of at least 16-25 dwelling units per gross acre. Most developments in this area should fall within or below this range, although smaller areas or higher or lower density may be included. Residential densities can be concentrated in multi-story projects with up to 50 dwelling units per acre allowed. Design: Traditional neighborhood design concepts with a strong pedestrian-oriented focus are essential in the MU-COM designation. The goal in these areas is to achieve a FAR of 1.00-1.25 or more. Development within these areas exhibit quality building and site design and an attractive pedestrian environment with a strong street character. The mix of residential uses may be achieved vertically within buildings;however, some horizontal mixes may be allowed. This land use designation calls for an overall target density of 8-12 dwelling units per acre,with higher densities allowed on individual projects.No more than 30%of the ground level development within the MU-COM designation should be used for residences. See the Application of the Design Elements matrix on pg. 3-49 of the TMISAP for design elements applicable to the proposed development. HDR designated areas are typically relatively compact located adjacent to or very close to larger MU- COM and Employment areas, and other intensively developed lands. The design and orientation of new HDR buildings should be pedestrian-oriented and special streetscape improvements should be considered to create rich and enjoyable public spaces.A strong physical relationship between the commercial and residential components to adjacent employment or transit centers is critical. Housing types desired in HDR areas are apartment buildings,townhouses or row houses, and live-work units; however,the expectation is that most buildings will be relatively dense multi-family types. Page 5 Page 36 Item#2. Transportation:The Transportation System Map (TSM)in the TMISAP does not depict any local, collector or arterial streets across this site other than the existing S. Wayfinder Ave., a collector street, which lies along the west boundary of the proposed residential area. A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was not required because this area was studied and included in the TMISAP. The streets in this vicinity(i.e.W. Franklin Rd., S. Ten Mile Rd. and S. Wayfinder Ave.) are fully built- out. Proposed Use: A multi-family development containing 238 dwelling units consisting of apartments and live/work units is proposed to develop on the site. The proposed development lies within two different FLUM designations—MU-COM&HDR. Multi-family apartments and live/work units are desired uses in both designations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES: Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed multi family apartments will contribute to the variety of housing types and financial capabilities for such in the City as desired. • "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. • "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in proximity to employment centers." (2.01.01H) The proposed multi family development is located in close proximity to S. Ten Mile Rd., a mobility arterial,providing access to 1-84 and is within an employment center area. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City." (2.01.01G) The proposed multi family apartments will contribute to the mix of housing types available in the City. There is currently a mix of housing types within a mile of this site consisting of single family, townhomes and multi family apartments. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed multi family apartments should be compatible with existing multi family residential uses to the south and southwest and future commercial/retail uses in this area. • "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 Page 6 Page 37 Item#2. provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop,dine, play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The proposed residential uses will allow folks to live in close proximity to employment, retail and restaurant uses which will reduce vehicle trips and enhance livability. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. REZONE(RZ): A RZ of 5.58-acres of land is proposed from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district.As discussed above, the associated FLUM designation for the area proposed to be rezoned is mostly MU-COM with a narrow sliver along the eastern boundary designated as HDR. The proposed C-G zoning and multi-family residential and live/work(i.e.vertically integrated)uses are consistent with the FLUM designations for this property. A site plan and building elevations were submitted as shown in Sections VIII.B and D that show how the property is proposed to develop with multi-family residential and vertically integrated uses consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the TMISAP. The proposed density at 30.4 units per acre is also consistent with the density desired for this area,which is mostly designated HDR. A legal description and exhibit map for the area proposed to be rezoned is included in Section VIII.A. Because the subject property is already included within the area governed by a Development Agreement (DA) (Ten Mile Crossing H-2020-0074,Inst. #2021-089157)and the proposed development is consistent with the provisions in the agreement, Staff does not recommend a new DA or an amendment to the existing DA as a provision of the rezone. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP) A CUP is proposed for a multi-family development containing(3)4-story structures with 238 apartment units consisting of(42) studio, (120) 1-bedroom, (74)2-bedroom and(2) live/work(i.e.vertically integrated)units on 7.83-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. The size of each of the unit types proposed is as follows: 516 square feet(s.f.) for studio units; 685 s.f. for 1-bedroom units; 1,036 s.f. for 2-bedroom units; 733 s.f. for small live/work unit; and 1,082 for large live/work unit. The gross density of the development is 30.4 units per acre. A total of 1,815 square feet of non-residential uses are proposed in the vertically integrated residential structure,which is a principal permitted use in the C-G zoning district and will allow a variety of commercial uses. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text) 11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT: Site Design: 1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback often feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent properties. The proposed site plan complies with this standard. Page 7 Page 38 Item#2. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities,and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened trash enclosures; all proposed transformer/utility vaults and other service areas shall comply with this requirement. 3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet(s.f.) of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title. Alternative Compliance is requested to provide zero or a lesser amount ofprivate open space than required, as follows: 0 for studio units; 79.58 sf.for 1-bedroom units; 66.84 sf.for 2- bedroom units; 75.91 sf.for 1-bedroom vertically integrated unit; and 67.8 sf.for 2-bedroom vertically integrated unit. As an alternative, the Applicant proposes common open space and site amenities above the minimum requirements coupled with innovative new urban design with an emphasis on integrated internal open space,facilities and access to the Ten Mile Creek regional pathway system. Because the proposed design includes design features consistent with "new urbanism" and promotes walkable and mixed-use neighborhoods with access to the adjacent regional pathway along the Ten Mile creek and a vast amount of open space, the Director finds the Applicant's proposal to be sufficient and approves the Alternative Compliance request as proposed with the condition the 7-foot wide pathway along the southern boundary of the site is widened to 10 feet. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space.Private usable open space areas for the units fronting on Wayfinder were included in the common open space calculations, which don't qualify. However, the internal common open space at 2.2-acres complies with the minimum standard; other areas as shown on the plan that are a minimum of 400 square feet in area and have a minimum length and width dimension of 20'also qualify and exceed UDC standards. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. The Applicant requests alternative compliance to the parking standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6, which doesn't include a requirementfor parkingfor studio units, to allow the vertically integrated standard to apply. One (1)space is required for a 1-bedroom unit in vertically integrated residential as opposed to a 1-bedroom apartment unit, which requires 1.5 spaces with at least one of the spaces being in a covered carport or garage. With approval of alternative compliance, a minimum of 372 parking spaces are required with 194 of those in a covered carport or garage,for(42)studio, (120) 1-bedroom, (74) 2-bedroom and(2) vertically integrated residential units.A total of 379 spaces are proposed with 231 of those being covered(201 in a covered carport and 30 garage spaces). Because the proposed design includes innovative design features based on "new urbanism, "and promotes walkable mixed-use neighborhoods, the Director supports the requested alternative compliance. Page 8 Page 39 Item#2. Bicycle parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G and should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. One bicycle parking space is required for every 25 proposed vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof. Based on 379 spaces, a minimum of 15 spaces are required; a total of 16 spaces are proposed in excess of UDC standards. 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018) The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the location of these items in accord with this standard. C. Common Open Space Design Requirements: 1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square feet of living area. There are no units containing 500 s.f or less of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.All 238 of the units fall within this square footage range; therefore, a minimum of 59,500 square feet or 1.37-acres of common open space is required. A total of 2.51-acres (or 32.1%) is proposed in accord with this standard. Although some of this area does not qualify(i.e. private open space)and is not really usable(i.e.parking lot planters), the internal common open space and area along the Ten Mile creek is 2.2-acres, which exceeds UDC standards. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. There are no units proposed that contain more than 1,200 square feet of living area. 2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20'). The common open space areas depicted on the open space exhibit in Section VIII.D meet this requirement. 3. In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. This project is proposed to develop in one phase. 4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4') in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, ef£retroactive to 2-4-2009) The Applicant requests the street buffer along Wayfinder Ave., a collector street, is allowed to count toward the common open space for the development although it is not separated from the street by a berm or barrier. Without this area, the internal common open space along the creek corridor still meets and exceeds the minimum standards. D. Site Development Amenities: Page 9 Page 40 Item#2. 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life: (1) Clubhouse. (2) Fitness facilities. (3) Enclosed bike storage. (4) Public art such as a statue. b. Open space: (1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100)in size. (2) Community garden. (3) Ponds or water features. (4) Plaza. c. Recreation: (1) Pool. (2) Walking trails. (3) Children's play structures. (4) Sports courts. 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two(2)amenities shall be provided from two (2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five (75)units,three(3) amenities shall be provided,with one from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4)amenities shall be provided,with at least one from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision- making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Based on 238 proposed units, a minimum of 5 amenities are required but the decision-making body is authorized to consider additional similar amenities if they believe the proposed amenities aren't adequate for the size of the development. The following amenities are proposed from each category: a clubhouse with a fitness center, bike repair room and pet grooming station;swimming pool; open grassy areas at least 50'x 100'in size;fireside seating;grilling area; and sports courts (snookball&ping pong). The Ten Mile Creek multi-use pathway also lies adjacent to the site for residents to use. E. Landscaping Requirements: Page 10 Page 41 Item#2. 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches (24") shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict landscaping along the street facing elevations adjacent to S. Wayfinder Ave. in accord with these standards. F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking,common areas,and other development features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement. Access: One(1)east/west private street access is proposed via S.Wayfinder Ave. for the development with three (3)accesses off the private street. An application for approval of the private street is required to be submitted that demonstrates compliance with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. A cross-access easement is required to be granted between all non-residential lots in the subdivision per requirement of the preliminary plat in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 20-foot wide street buffer exists along S. Wayfinder Ave., a collector street,with on-street parking, benches,planters and tree grates in accord with UDC Table 11-2B-3, 11-313-7C and the TMISAP. Landscaping is required within parking lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The "diamond"planter islands proposed along the eastern boundary of the site comply with the established design standards for TM Crossing. Landscaping is required to be provided along the pathway adjacent to the southern boundary of the site per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C,which require a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. Landscaping should be added to the landscape plan in accord with this standard; calculations demonstrating compliance with this standard should also be included in the calculations table. Landscaping is required within common open space areas per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. Calculations should be included in the calculations table demonstrating compliance with this standard. Parking: Off-street vehicle parking is required for the proposed multi-family dwellings and vertically integrated residential as set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-6 as discussed above. Alternative Compliance(ALT)is requested to UDC 11-3A-19B.3,which requires no more than 50%of the total off-street parking area for the site to be located between building facades and abutting streets. No parking is proposed between the building and Wayfinder Ave. Garages are proposed adjacent to the Page 11 Page 42 Item#2. private street,which screen the parking between the street and the multi-family structures negating the need for ALT. Pathways: A 7-foot wide pathway is proposed along the southern boundary of the site adjacent to the Ten Mile Creek. Staff recommends as a condition of approval of the Applicant's request for Alternative Compliance to the private open space standards in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,the pathway is widened to 10-feet and a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is dedicated for the pathway as recommended by the Park's Dept. Internal pedestrian walkways are required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. Fencing:No fencing is depicted on the landscape plan for this development. Any fencing constructed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 4-story structures as shown in Section VIII.E. Building materials consist of stucco and bricks in neutral colors. Final design is required to comply with the adopted TM Crossing Design Guidelines. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall be submitted and compliance with the TM Crossing design guidelines is required as set forth in the DA prior to submittal of building permit applications. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed RZ and CUP and the Director has approved the requests for ALT per the provisions included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on July 1, 2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject RZ and CUP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Josh Beach&Jon Wardle,Brighton Corporation b. In opposition:None C. Commenting. None d. Written testimony: Mike Wardle,Brighton Corporation e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Ke. ids)of public testimony_ a. Applicant requested changes to the following conditions: #4h to change the width of the pathway from 10-feet to 8-feet; #8 delete condition requiring public pedestrian easement; and#9 remove language age pertainingto o compliance with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the standards in the ASM to require compliance with the Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines as required by the DA. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Adequacy of parking proposed for the development; b. The Applicant's request for a reduction in the width of the pathway from 10-feet to 8- feet along the southern boundary of the site due to topography near the creek; C. If fencing should be provided along the creek for public safety= d. Desire for more than(2)vertically integrated residential structures to be provided along Wayfinder Ave. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: Page 12 Page 43 Item#2. a. Delete condition#8 requiring a public pedestrian easement and modify condition#9 as requested b, t�pplicant. The Commission supported Sta-f's recommendation for the provision of a 10-foot(instead of 8-foot wide pathway along the southern boundary of the site. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: L. The Applicant requests condition#4h is deleted that requires the 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway on the north side of the creek to be widened to 10-feet. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description&Exhibit Map for Proposed Rezone LW AL DESCRIPTION I'M C Nvk T.NA' !true Binindary Panof the NV4°l14 o1'S"titan l4 T'ok4,nshi0 3 North. Ranp ! west. note klcridian_ Ada{bunt}. Tduhn dcscribcd ai�: 13eginping at point being SR9°t}4'i{r"1; 1577.94 1eut alnn� the Sectbon Uric and S00034'40"W 294.20 teet from the northwest comer of said Section 14_ Running thcricc N89"25':0"W 29C-60 furl: then a NV �6'49"W 287.44 feet; thence SOW33'I I"W 186.45 Fect; thencx SOCrOV00"W 243.8 f r t to a paint ofa non-tanwrtl curuv-; thence along said curve to the left 7.90 li:ct(Curve Data.- Radius=270.00 fix.i, Dellta=1140'33-',cliord b=.% 589"03'34"F 7_90 Feet); Ihcncc SHV52'5 r"F 176.26 feet; thence N87°54'01"E 101A3 feet; thence N89042'1WE41_44fee1 t0 rhecast IineoI-the NW[14NW114ofsaid8eclion 14; thence along said east line N(Xr34'40"I: 10.00 tp the nort#i line of Ten Milc Siub Dram, thence along said north lira N,39¢51'06"1:249.02 feet; there. NDO"34ATE 410.51 feet the 1'uint of Bcginning. Pamel Contaiw 5.58 Acres morc or less. f 2sk of Res ring North kvLiLin line ofthc N W1.14 of Section 14 Commencing at die Northwest comer of SmIicrn 14; thenu S89'W'50"F,a distawe of2057.99 1'crt to the N I14 or.Section 14 o 12224 OF 1 Page 13 Page 44 Item#2. LOCATED IN NW 1J4 OP SECTION 14, T3N., R.-VV BW- ADA COUNTY. IDAHO 1 CNRA T,19LE CU#1ulx --SWlN RACiux I*11A TWIENT CHM5 Lr AIFJG _ G1 �d7 ".09 5611 via•—"371y MR 479'28�f'v1 Ca %770 TWW W51'16- 5a.19 I'm-W $rr 041fw C] W.42 194w 2EW47 47LS 5W W67W CS �,�1} I 3TaCU 7'4tr97 T #4R 7911 ECAE pcfl FRANKLIN ROAD In 1F r SS4'24'7P'E 79ad#- - -- k S S NC'34'4VE 29.2v < �r f c ZONE TN- - N@'a0'96E 21U@L' � Nlc9l7-asW ol-A ir 4R%9o'9Hti9'f Y5' UJ ZONE CG 51i'1f{'Abgi6Vr'w+ 72+199@D7Z-G6 a# M � GSFa+-E ineae 5"51'4m 9101' ' � 111 @1.3V '. -NBi'?O s4w 47 TJ ZON kb9'2&t+"N aC Oe r nuw �7 �{l� I 'Mre So 21w 10:4 R�-FL1 G N71'71'qQ'H n 977$v' 141# �- �` I ie[ii roia'41T 1 YYf idhA'.'� � 13-W 1795' Sa9'li'a�'E 7 G� ma-lea" '2rp"q Sd@'iP4%, 9174r- I xu o �I Y 1: w BRIGHTON CORPORATION KILLER #i*04�d�ii� rdr.,Id ZONING BOUNDARYit 4 Y•Y �I+M�7R LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAP FOR TM CREEK Page 14 Page 45 Item#2. B. Site Plan(date: 4/30/2021) o � B I FFTFM 4 HE T :FL" is o rn SITE LAYOUT ��.-.. ,momr - 0F3 Page 15 Page 46 Item#2. C. Landscape Plan(dated: 5/3/21) I� x PRIVATE TRUE Ile Z yE I 1 J. TEN MILE CREEK BRIGHTON CONCEPTUAL 5UBJECTTO CHANGE 7 Q ,... rye a Y �I F �4 ,9 � I � merc®u.rxuxurmu.wx m�o " , d .. . CONUILIONAL USE PERMIT LANUSCAPEWE PLAN &,FFER­GiRFETTRFECPICUTATQ%(1TFRJ051F) PARKNG ISIANPIRFESx .,{p����"� . vm iREEGf£NES MIX ® -• .•}1 ��� � e MRIGPTON PEQVIRFMFIf15 ® �.-.. ".'® _ Page 16 Page 47 Item#2. D. Qualified Open Space (dated: 5/3/21) I UIIIII F_TA�I— Dri b d I I ffI �V i X ��X ¢ I e w I I ss rmr,r a I I _ eum � 2 O A/ 1I y� x G � W¢ ~ b S. it r C I p V CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT ��•�_� PREUMINAN TE UW NS �a anm _wwnm imm El Page 17 Page 48 �Mom IN iii I i" ----' ■■ i■ ■■ ■■�� ■■■■■n■■■ �■■■■ ■ E■u ■■� ■n ■mow ■■ n ■■ �E it u !i ■■� ■ ■ won spolffamENRON in Bit.. No 112111- 11 in -- ■ ■■ ■ 1■■ ■ ■■1f 11E `■■ ■ I1�'-' ■� ■ ■■■ Y IN r ■■■� ■11 ■■ - -- II m ffiffAaw 111 ii I!1 iii 111 !t■] a �11 11� 1!� �11 11� J11 iii WIN Ir1 I ■ ■■ �: 11� ■� e1 111 �1 T • . �,. oil, �r $ti all �ii ar; � c. ! � r ov" r _ N 6 f ,a Item#2. WAYFINDER AVE. - STREET FRONTAGE _Lwwww_ ❑o INTERIOR HALLWAY UNIT ENTRANCE LARGE- 1,082 SF "WORK"—LOWER LEVEL SMALL-733 SF ❑ 76G! Ll erxe I L�LI ; LARGE-1,a82 SF "LIVE"— UPPER LEVEL SMALL-733 SF Page 20 Page 51 Item#2. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Conditional Use Permit: I. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement(Inst. 2021- 089157) and all other previous conditions of approval. 2. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27. 3. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. 4. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised as follows: a. Depict the locations of the property management office,maintenance storage area, central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access),and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development in accord with UDC It-4-3-27B.7. b. All transformer and utility vaults and other service areas shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.2. c. Depict landscaping along the foundations of all street facing elevations adjacent to S. Wayfinder Ave. as set forth in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2. d. Include a detail of the proposed site amenities. e. Depict a gate across the emergency access driveway from W. Franklin Rd. as required by the Fire Dept. f. Depict landscaping along the pathway adjacent to the southern boundary of the site per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C,which require a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. g. Calculations should be included in the calculations table demonstrating compliance with the required landscaping in common open space areas per UDC 11-3G-3E. h. Widen the pathway along the southern boundary of the site to 10-feet. i. Internal pedestrian walkways are required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks per UDC I I-3A- 19B.4b. 5. Submit an application for the proposed private street that demonstrates compliance with the design and construction standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4. 6. The Director approved the Applicant's request for Alternative Compliance to the off-street parking standards for multi-family dwellings listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6, as follows: a total of 379 spaces shall be provided with 231 of those being covered(201 in a covered carport and 30 garage spaces). 7. The Director approved the Applicant's request for Alternative Compliance to the private usable open space standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 for each dwelling unit as follows: 79.58 square feet Page 21 Page 52 Item#2. (s.f.) for 1-bedroom units; 66.84 s.f. for 2-bedroom units; 75.91 s.f. for the 1-bedroom vertically integrated unit; and 67.8 s.f. for the 2-bedroom vertically integrated unit. Floor plans with square footages noted for patios and balconies shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with the alternative compliance approval. 8. Submit a 14 feet wide publie pedestr4an easement for-the pa4hway along the seu4hem boundafy e the site along the noAh side of the Ten Mile Creek in aeeer-d with Park's Depaftment requirements. 9. An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted for the proposed project and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. Compliance with the Ten Mile Crossing Design Guidelines design guidelines i the Ten ratio T terei..nge Spee fi Area Plan and the deli., st.,,,,aafds listed i the Arehiteetwal Standards Manual a applicable is required. See A Apphcation B. PUBLIC WORKS No comments at this time. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=230631&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments were submitted. E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLinklDocView.aspx?id=231480&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQU F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) No comments were submitted. G. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE hggs:ilweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.asp x?id=231292&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit y H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=231215&dbid=0&repo=MeridianQty I. PARK'S DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancitE.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=230766&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.or_lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=231070&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=229086&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX Page 22 Page 53 Item#2. X. FINDINGS A. Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: l. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the rezone of the subject site from the TN-C to the C-G zoning district is consistent with the associated MU-COM and HDR FL UM designations in the Comprehensive Plan for the subject property proposed to be rezoned. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to C-G will assist in providing for the retail and service needs of the community consistent with the purpose statements for the district while allowing multi family residential uses as desired in the HDR FL UM designation. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds that the proposed rezone should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds that the proposed rezone will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because this application is for a rezone and not an annexation, this finding is not applicable. B. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-513-6E) The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-G district(see Analysis, Section V for more information). 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. The Commission finds that the proposed use is consistent with the future land use map designations ofMU-C and HDR and the multi family residential use is allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the C-G zoning district. 3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Page 23 Page 54 Item#2. The Commission finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should be compatible with the mix of other uses planned for this area and with the intended character of the area and that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area. 4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Council should weigh any public testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water, and sewer. The Commission finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be adequately served by these facilities. C. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-513-5): In order to grant approval of an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR The Director finds strict adherence to the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 is feasible. Pertaining to the request for Alternative Compliance to UDC Table 11-3C-6, there are no parking standards for studio units. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and The Director finds the proposed alternative compliance of providing integrated internal open space, a pathway creek amenity and site amenities and common open space in exess of UDC standards coupled with innovative, new-urban design provides a superior means for meeting the requirements in UDC 11-4-3-2 7B.3. The Director finds the proposed alternative for parking for studio units provides an equal means for meeting the requirements in UDC Table 11-3C-6. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of the surrounding properties. The Director finds that the proposed alternative means of compliance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended use%haracter of the surrounding properties. Page 24 Page 55 E IDIAN.;--- Applicant's Presentation Page 4 - - 61 - '.• T -- ! IL ' PHASE 3 PHASE i PHASE 2 ■ Google 4Eart TM R K APARTM NTS i, i 17� , Al- � �, 1 �• � i 1 1 -, �, 1 = 1 EFA ����'� 1 �� ��7• .��-�"" -- .ice �y � nc TEN MILE 0EEK :- !�I CONCEPTUAL,SUBJECTTO CHANGE 1 1 • • TM CREEK APTS - PHASE 3 SITE EAST OF WAYFINDER 'T ,4W a • E 1 � _ — _ V NMID GRAVEL 1 �1f ACCESS ROAD TM CREEK APTS - PHASE I WEST OF WAYFINDER Oak � .TY �y `y-1 - ___ ,r i '�i• > ifs -... Y� ,•ems k � �' � � �fr• .X ,i ��,. e�/ �- ��e lllr. ffkl r i r a, '.<�:�, � ,.r ..� x••c try � �-;�', ry'�t�; � '� � \ \ , i � 4 dif n f 1 i •�l 5� -L aT�' _ 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0015) by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 2+/- acres of land from the Commercial to the Medium High-Density Residential designation. B. Request: Rezone of 2.10 acres of land from the L-0 (Limited Office) to the R-15 (Medium High- Density Residential) zoning district. Page 56 Item#3. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: August 10, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0015) by Blaine A. Womer Civil Engineering, Located at 1789 N. Hickory Way A. Request: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to change the future land use designation on 2+/- acres of land from the Commercial to the Medium High-Density Residential designation. B. Request: Rezone of 2.10 acres of land from the L-0 (Limited Office) to the R- 15 (Medium High-Density Residential) zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 57 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: August 10, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Woodcrest Townhomes (H-2021-0015) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name go 6 ve mkc;6/-0' jkj,e/-'j cl; c1l), -7 D �9(eO 2 -bA -4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#3. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING August 10,2021 Legend ---- DATE: ® - Project Lacfl�iar - TO: Planning&Zoning Commission 00 FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0015 00 Woodcrest Townhomes—CPAM,RZ LOCATION: 1789 N. Hickory Way, in the SE '/4 of Section 5,Township 3N.,Range 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map(CPAM)to change the future land use designation on 2.10-acres of land from Commercial to Medium High-Density Residential; and Rezone(RZ) of 2.10-acres of land from the L-O(Limited Office)to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.97-acres Future Land Use Designation Commercial Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Residential and office Current Zoning Limited Office(L-O) Proposed Zoning R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) Lots(#and type;bldg/common) NA(property is not proposed to be subdivided at this time) Phasing plan(#of phases) NA Number of Residential Units(type 19 units(single-family attached&townhouse dwellings) of units) Density(gross&net) 10.8 units/acre(gross)/13.5 units/acre net Open Space(acres,total[%]/ NA I buffer/qualified) Page 1 Page 58 Item#3. Amenities 10' wide multi-use pathway along Meridian Rd./SH-69 Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 1/28/21; 10 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) Annexed&subdivided in 1992 as Angel Park Sub. (Lot 1, Block 1)with L-O zoning;re-subdivided in 2001 (Mallane Commercial Complex PP-00-021);FP-03-001 (Lot 4,Block 1);H-2017-0165 (RZ&CUP—denied) B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Existing Conditions Hickory Way is improved with 2-travel lanes,curb,gutter& 5' attached sidewalk.No additional improvements or right-of- way dedication is required with this application. • CIP/IFYWP NA Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via the existing driveway via Hickory H /Local)(Existin and Proposed) Way. Proposed Road Improvements None Fire Service See Section IX.C Police Service No comment. West Ada School District Distance(elem,ms,hs) Approved prelim Approved MF Enrolled plat parcels per units per Miles Capacity of Schools for 21-22 Ca aci attendance area attendance area #of Students Enrolled River Valley Elementary 445 700 571 764 1.6 Lewis&Clark Middle School 866 1000 978 1319 2.4 Centennial High School 1981 1900 549 1234 4.8 School of Choice Options Pioneer Elementary(Arts) 713 775 N/A N/A 4.4 Spalding Elementary(Stem) 697 750 N/A N/A 4.1 Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly Adjacent • Sewer Shed _ 'Go Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.14 • Project Consistent with WW Yes Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Do not have services crossing private lots •Flow is committed. Page 2 Page 59 Item#3. •Existing sewer not shown correctly.Missing existing manhole and shown as extends further into the property then existing sewer actually goes. •There is an existing 8" stub from existing manhole that looks like it will not be used.If this is the case the existing stub must be abandoned at the manhole per City Requirements. •Ensure that infiltration trenches are located so that sewer services do no pass through them. Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Do not have services crossing private lots Page 3 Page 60 Item#3. C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map ' Legend Legend 1!!1r1!� NIN Pra}eci Lacafar '1diu L�..+ P,V_v- La-_ _ J MU-RG r—Resldr�tlal utL - rc io 4J 1 4 Zoning Map Planned Development Map ®h1JT R: {�Rj Legend LH L Legend � R1 Pro"ec- Laca=or ® - �1 R-4 ��Pfaject Lacafar g R- RU +_i city Limik m[]d Planned Pnme s L R-4 a;-L! L- - RU L-0 ` t R1 � o 0 $o r R-40 1 4 �i RU rH T III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Andrew Newell,Blaine A.Womer Civil Engineering—4355 W. Emerald St., Ste. 145,Boise, ID 83706 B. Owner: Don Newell,Landmark Pacific Development, LLC—PO Box 1939,Eagle, ID 83616 Page 4 Page 61 Item#3. C. Representative: Same as Applicant IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published in newspaper 5/14/2021 7/23/2021 Radius notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 5/12/2021 7/20/2021 Public hearing notice sign posted 6/10/2021 7/15/2021 on site Nextdoor posting 5/11/2021 7/20/2021 V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS LAND USE: This property is designated as Commercial on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation provides for a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and visitors. Desired uses may include retail,restaurants,personal and professional services,and office uses, as well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. The Applicant proposes an amendment to the FLUM to change the existing Commercial designation to Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR). The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with a total of 19 single-family attached and townhome dwellings at a gross density of 10.8 units per acre consistent with the land uses and density desired in MHDR designated areas; and an office building. This site abuts a larger residential neighborhood to the north and is located in close proximity to mixed use designated land and employment uses to the east and southeast, including vacant land yet to be developed, The Village at Meridian, Scentsy and other uses along the Eagle Road corridor,which will provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. The development should incorporate high quality architectural and site design to ensure quality of place and incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and pathways and include attractive landscaping and a project identity as desired in MHDR designated areas. Transportation: The Master Street Map(MSM) does not depict any collector streets across this property. Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Page 5 Page 62 Item#3. The proposed single-family attached dwellings and 3- and 4-unit townhomes will contribute to the variety of residential housing types in this area and within the City as desired. Single-family detached and attached homes exist to the north and northeast in Dove Meadows subdivision, zoned R-8. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01 G) The proposed single-family attached and townhouse dwellings will contribute to the diversity in housing types in this area, which currently consist ofsingle family attached and detached homes. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed residential uses will provide a transition in uses between existing single-family homes to the north and commercial/office uses to the south. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed residential development and site design should be compatible with existing abutting single-family residential homes to the north. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities, irrespective of existing development." (2.02.02C) The proposed residential infill development shouldn't negatively impact abutting development as existing uses are also residential in nature and the medium high-density residential uses will assist in providing a transition to the commercial/office uses to the south. • "Maintain a range of residential land use designations that allow diverse lot sizes,housing types, and densities."(2.01.01C) The proposed MHDR FL UM designation for this property will contribute to the range of residential land use designations in this area of the City which mainly consists of medium density residential (MDR). • "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 with development of the subdivision;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers, and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01C) A street buffer already exists along N. Hickory Way, a collector street, along the northern boundary of the site. Page 6 Page 63 Item#3. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with development of the future subdivision. • "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT(CPAM) As discussed above,the Applicant requests an amendment to the FLUM to change the future land use designation on 2.10-acres of land from Commercial to MHDR for the development of 19 single-family attached and townhome dwellings at a gross density of 10.8 units per acre. An exhibit map showing the existing and proposed FLUM designations is included in Section VIII.A. Approval of the proposed amendment to MHDR will contribute to the range of residential land use designations and diversity in housing types and densities in this area as desired. Additionally, it will provide for a transition in land uses between existing medium density residential uses to the north and commercial/office uses to the south and east. The change to a residential designation and subsequent proposed development will provide for fewer vehicle trips per day than would result from commercial development. For these reasons, Staff is in support of the request for a map amendment to MHDR. B. REZONE(RZ) The Applicant proposes to rezone 2.10-acre of land from the L-O(Limited Office)to the R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)zoning district consistent with the proposed FLUM designation of MHDR. A legal description and exhibit map for the rezone area is included in Section VIII.B. This vacant/undeveloped property is an enclave surrounded by property developed with single-family residential uses to the north and commercial/office uses to the south and east; only the property to the west is yet to develop. Developent of the subject property will provide more efficient provision of City services. A conceptual site plan and building elevations were submitted showing how the property is planned to develop with(19) single-family attached and townhouse dwelling units consisting of(1) single-family attached structure,(3)3-unit townhouses, (2)4-unit townhouses and a 2,500 square foot office building. The property is planned to be subdivided through a future application. The existing subdivision plat(i.e. Mallane Subdivision)requires all lots in the subdivision to obtain conditional use permit approval prior to construction commencing on the lots; this requirement will be removed with re-subdivision of the property. The existing plat also depicts a 10' PUDI easement and 25' wide landscape easement along the west and north boundaries and a sanitary sewer,water main and public utilities easement along the east boundary of the site. The landscape buffer easement will be removed since a landscape buffer isn't required between residential uses and the PUDI easements will be replaced with new easements with the future plat. Single-family attached and townhouse dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. The conceptual development plan depicts access to the site via a cross-access easement from an existing driveway from N. Hickory Way, a collector street; no stub streets exist to this property. Direct access via Page 7 Page 64 Item#3. N. Hickory Way is prohibited. A private street is planned to provide access to the proposed development and for addressing purposes; an application for such should be submitted with the preliminary plat application and compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4 is required. Staff recommends the Applicant work with the property owner to the east to extend the private street to Hickory Way in order to better facilitate emergency access to the site for wayfinding purposes. An attached sidewalk is proposed along one side of the private street for pedestrian access. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6. A minimum of 2 spaces are required per dwelling unit for 1-and 2-bedroom units,with at least one of those in an enclosed garage,the other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad. For 3-and 4-bedroom units, a minimum of 4 spaces are required per dwelling unit with at least 2 in an enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad. Garages are proposed for each unit with parking pads in front of the garages. Four extra spaces for guests are proposed in the common area near the entry. On-street parking is not allowed due to the width of the private street. A minimum of one(1) off-street parking space is required for ever 500 square feet(s.f.) of gross floor area for non-residential uses(i.e. the office). Based on 2,500 s.f. for the office, a minimum of(5) spaces are required. A total of(9)spaces are proposed, exceeding the minimum standards. Most of the parking spaces for the office encroach within the required 20-foot wide buffer to residential uses,which is not allowed. Because the site is below 5-acres in size, qualified open space and site amenities are not required by the UDC per UDC 11-3G-2.A total of 0.29-acre of open space is proposed as shown on the concept plan. A 20-foot wide landscaped street buffer and attached sidewalk exists on this site along N. Hickory Way that was installed with the subdivision improvements that is proposed(and required)to remain. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the single-family attached and 3-unit and 4-unit townhouse structures as shown in Section VIII.D. Building elevations consist of a mix of materials including horizontal wood siding,vertical board and batten siding,wood shake siding and cement plaster with stone veneer accents and architectural asphalt roofing. Conceptual building elevations were also submitted for the office with building materials consisting of cement plaster with stone veneer and decorative wood timber accents and architectural asphalt roofing consistent with the residential structures. Final design of all structures is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. Detailed review of the elevations for compliance with these standards will take place with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application prior to application for building permits. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with a rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed above and included in Section IX.A. Staff Recommendation: Because this is an infill property and has an irregular configuration, development of this site is difficult. The proposed concept plan with an office at the southeast corner with parking that encroaches within the required land use buffer does not comply with UDC standards as noted above and is constricted.The Comprehensive Plan states development in MHDR designated areas should incorporate high quality architectural and site design to ensure quality of place and incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and pathways and include attractive landscaping and a project identity.To achieve this goal and alleviate some of the spacial constrictions on the site,Staff recommends as a provision of the rezone that the office building is removed from the plan and open space with quality landscaping and some parking is provided instead with pathways along the south and east sides of the development and a gazebo with a Page 8 Page 65 Item#3. seating area as an amenity which can be shared between the residential and commercial development.Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant should revise the concept plan accordingly. VII. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Rezone with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on June 3, and July 1,2021.At the public hearingon n July lst,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject CPAM and RZ requests to the City Council. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Blaine Womer,Applicant's Representative;Louie Mallane b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Dave McDonald; Shirley Moon; Randy Nelson; Ann Atarian d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Desire for a time limit to be put on the residential FLUM designation/R-15 zoning(if development doesn't occur within a certain timeline,the land use and zoning would revert to Commercial/L-O zoning)* traffic&safety concerns on Hickory Way- maintenance of the existing masonry wall and landscape strip along north boundary of sib IL. Inadequacy of parking in this area(Louie's restaurant/bank patrons park on this propertyh C. Unsafe driving conditions due to lack of visibility of cars pulling out onto Hickory Way from the site due to the curve of the road. 3. Ke. ids)of discussion by Commission: a. In favor of the proposed development plan over previous plans for this site; b. Concern pertaining to safety of access onto Hickory Wad c. Preference for the 4-unit townhome proposed along the north boundary to be reduced to a 2-or 3-unit townhouses for better transition to the exsiting homes to the north. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 9 Page 66 Item#3. VIII. EXHIBITS A. Future Land Use Map—Adopted&Proposed Land Uses Date-6/28/2021 Adopted Land Uses 500 1,000 s Feet Medium.Density 'Residenfial MU-RG ewood Legend `TMISAP Boundary Commercial Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Med-High Density Residential - High Density Residential -Commercial I-C Office General Industrial j - Industrial � civic Proposed Land Uses Old Town Mixed Use Neighborhood Mixed Use Community Mixed Use Regional _ -_ - Mixed Use Non-Residential 0 MixedUse-Interchange edium-Density 'Residential Low Density Employment -_ I U - High Density Employment Mixed Employment MU-RG —J MU-Res �— Med-High L— MU-Cam Density ® Lifestyle Center Residential c mmercial 1 � MU C Generallndustrial Page 10 Page 67 Item#3. B. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map WOODCRESI'TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION EXHIBIT'A' LEGAL.DESCRIPTION A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE SOUTIWEST 1/4 OF TIM SOUTHEAST 114 OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF LOT 4,BLOCK 1 OF MALLANE SUBDIVISION,AS SHOWN IN BOOK 87 OF PLAI'S ON PAGES 9881 THROUGH 9883,RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER.OF SAID SECTION 5 AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT; THENCE NORTH 001128'03"EAST A DISTANCE OF 67,14 FEUTTO A V8 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1 OF SAID MALLANE SUBDIVISION; THENCE CONS TINUING NORTH 001128'43"EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3,A DISTANCE OF 252.95 FEET TO A 112 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4 AND THE TRY;E P0114 I'OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00028'03"EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4,A DISTANCE OF 129.73 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH DIAMF,TF,R IRON PIN; THENCE NORTH 430 19'32"EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4,A DISTANCE OF 257.72 FEET TO 518 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN; I HLNCE CONTINUING NORTH 4301932"EAST ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF SAID NOTIIWESTERLY BOUNDARY, A DISTANCE OF 34.49 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE❑F NORTH HICKORY WAY, THENCE SOUTH 76012'56"EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE,A DISTANCE OF 90.01 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE,CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY,HAVING A RADIUS OF 400.00 FEET, THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINEAND SAID TANGENT CURVE,93.24 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL.ANGLE OF 13021'21"TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4; Page 11 Page 68 Item#3. PAGE 1 OF 2 THENCE SOUTH 00°2644"WEST ALONG SAID PROLONGATION,A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET TO A 1/2 INCH DIAMETER lkoN PIN MARKING THE MORTHFAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE SOUTH W0°26144"WESTALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY,A DISTANCE OF 210.08 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY DOUNDARy NORTR 89*3420"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 244.56 FEET TOA5/8 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN; THENCE SOUTH 00028'04"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 4 7.00 FEET TO A 5f8 INCH DIA.MEfER IRON PIN ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTH 8"722"WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY,A DISTANCE OF 129.20 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 2.10 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT`B'ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. i L @l � f 7732 q A. ' Page 12 Page 69 Item#3. m A- "a 0 71 a rn rn o rae 6 . . . . ... . . . . . . . .... . . . ... ... ..... .. ... . . . . .. . . 4 .. .... ..... .......•............... ............... ....... :. :.:.<....!. . _ w lLA . . ti 773 '�] A• JN14120 Annexation description 4/21/2021 Scale: 1 inch= 50 feet File: Tract 1:2-1063 Acres(91752 Sq.5eet),Closure:00.0000e UO ft.(11281991).Perimeter=12761t. 01 n002803e 129.73 08 n89-3420w 244.66 02 n43.1932e 257.72 09 s00.2804w 47 03 n43-1932e 34. B 10 o89.3722w 129.2 04 s76.1256e 90.01 05 Rt,r=400.00,delta=013.2121,arc--93.24 06 s00.2644w 33.93 07 s00.2644w 210.08 Page 13 Page 70 Item#3. C. Conceptual Development Plan-REVISED `• f 1 f� i f• •r It � It i � i• I • f i; � IL[` f I 1 n • � � _ f1 is -------------- I I 1 r IC----1 ---------------------- - r R F E I F I ��I. ICI'[}F�+�55--y�y' III IF �e eo4 1'�19UiE hHC1YAEii E T T H E CA ['S'l fl a.�oum�w r E T L Page 14 Page 71 Item#3. BUILDABLE LOTS:19 CCMMONy J: EIIY OF MERIUWN,17 -cE �- COM10EPT PLAN TOONHONES Su67M51U1e V— �¢i n E SLAIN evcN� cR •L72fe� Callnrrv"Pouniy `a%"cnwi¢'i b' "5P Page 15 Page 72 Item#3. D. Conceptual Building Elevations z--�m ------------ --- 6 6 WOODCREST TOWNHOMES(2 UNIT) ARCHITECTURE Page 16 Page 73 Item#3. �■ - 0 - U F7171 `e WOODCREST TOWN HOMES(3-UNIT) ARCHITECTURE OWp- WOOUCREST TOWNHOMES(3-UNIT) akr�rrFci.. Page 17 Page 74 Item#3. LLjLlv - -—- ice_ Liz m W- I ❑ ❑ ❑ . .,..... __ -�-_- - - - - II I WOODCREST TOWNHOMES(4-UNIT) ARCHITECTURE -_ _ __ .g... u�:.:. -------------- i m A A -1 ri Vm- B o WOODCRESTTOWNHOMES(4-UNIT) ARCHIIECNftE �, Page 18 Page 75 Item#3. IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION P40F tO the City Couneil hearing, Staff recommends the conceptual development plan is revised to Femove the offlee building and Feplaee it with eommon open spaee with quality landseaping that iHeffpffates the following! paFlEiRg,pedestFiall pathways along the south and east sides of the development,and a gazebo with a seating fiFen whieh ean be shared betWeell the residential and eommeFeial development; 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan and building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.An application for Design Review shall be submitted and approved for the single- family attached and townhouse structures prior to submittal of building permit applications. c. Direct access via Hickory Way is prohibited. d. The proposed development shall incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity consistent with the Medium High-Density Residential Future Land Use Map designation in the Comprehensive Plan. e. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to submittal of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application(s) for the site. f. The Applicant shall work with the property owner to the east to extend the private street to Hickory Way if possible in order to better facilitate emergency access to the site for wayfinding purposes. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 No Permanent structures (buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences, infiltration trenches, lightpoles, etc.)can be built within the utility easement. 1.2 Do not have water and/or sewer services crossing private lots. 1.3 The existing sewer is not shown correctly. Missing existing manhole and shown as extending further into the property then existing sewer actually goes. 1.4 There is an existing 8" sewer stub from existing manhole that looks like it will not be used. If this is the case the existing stub must be abandoned at the manhole per City Requirements. 1.5 Ensure that infiltration trenches are located so that sewer services do no pass through them. Page 19 Page 76 Item#3. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190. 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. Page 20 Page 77 Item#3. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 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 887-221 L. Page 21 Page 78 Item#3. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Roadways: When required by the Fire Marshall, "No Parking Fire Lane"signs shall be used per appendix D of the 2018 IFC.No other signs shall be approved: Roadways: All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles,and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside,per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4. Roadways: All common driveways and alleys shall be maintained at all times for access by fire, police and EMS at all times of the year. D. POLICE DEPARTMENT No comments at this time. E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=228988&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 F. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDHD) https:llweblink.meridianciN.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=228242&dbid=0&repo=MeridiancioX G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=229685&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=228193&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City X. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan,the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed amendment to MHDR is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed infill development will provide a transiton in uses from single-family residential to commercial uses to the south and contribute to the diversity in housing types in this area as desired. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. The Commission finds that the proposal to change the FLUM designation from Commercial to MHDR will allow a transition in uses between existing medium density residential homes and commercial uses and will provide an improved guide to future growth and development of the City. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals,Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V. Page 22 Page 79 Item#3. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. The Commission finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with abutting existing residential uses and existing commercial land uses in the near vicinity. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. The Commission finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. The Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, the Commission finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. B. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Commission finds the Applicant's request to rezone the subject property with R-15 zoning and develop single-family attached and townhouse dwellings on the site at a gross density of 9.64 units per acre is consistent with the proposed MHDR FL UM designation for this property. (See section V above for more information) 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to R-15 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. Page 23 Page 80 Item#3. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. This findings is not applicable as a rezone, not an annexation, is proposed. Page 24 Page 81 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21-1939: An Ordinance (H-2020-0127—Skybreak Subdivision) For Annexation Of A Parcel Of Land Located In The S % Of The NW % Of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, As Described In Attachment "A" And Annexing Certain Lands And Territory, Situated In Ada County, Idaho, And Adjacent And Contiguous To The Corporate Limits Of The City Of Meridian As Requested By The City Of Meridian; Establish-ing And Determining The Land Use Zoning Classification Of 80.461 Acres (More Or Less) Of Land From RUT To R-8 (Medium Density Residential)(43.858 Acres) And R-15 (Medium High Density Residential)(36.604 Acres) Zoning Districts In The Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies Of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed With The Ada County Assessor, The Ada County Recorder, And The Idaho State Tax Commission, As Required By Law; And Providing For A Summary Of The Ordinance; And Providing For A Waiver Of The Reading Rules; And Providing An Effective Date. Page 97 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-119171 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=8 CHE FOWLER 08/11/2021 10:29 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1939 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2020-0127 — SKYBREAK SUBDIVISION) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE S '/Z OF THE NW '/4 OF SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT"A"AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 80.461 ACRES (MORE OR LESS) OF LAND FROM RUT TO R-8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)(43.858 ACRES) AND R-15 (MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)(36.604 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal. Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: C4 Land LLC SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (43.585 Acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (36.604 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. Page 1 of 3 SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two(2)separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this loth day of August,2021. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this loth day of August,2021. ATTEST: MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this IOth day of August,2021,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian,Idaho MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2022 Page 2 of 3 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L.M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M.Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1939 An Ordinance (H-2020-0127—Slcybreak Subdivision)for annexation of a parcel of land located in the S %z of the NW'/a of Section 4, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 80.461 acres of land from RUT to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) (43.585 Acres) and R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) (36.604 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor,the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Slcybreak Subdivision(H 2O20-0127) Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT B Rumar arammw R a, EA=MW 9 a -O-A,W Am—Rp .. in G w � I I I II 7 m 09"J25:'uv I � I , F t I s � �z � L'RPCJ TTiU �k Skybreak Subdivision H-2020-0127 EXHIBIT E _or_ — — — — — — / _' PR PiL %4 © rh f I ] § I. g I■ to $ I I \ kB � 2 � m § � � 2 « k) --•��f�� . � � � f . § 2§ ]7 § | , ■; .2 \ �u2 $ ILI d � __ EXHIBIT A A. Annexation Legal Description & Exhibit Map (date 1/20/21) ;awtooth Ladd Surveying, LL F, {208) 398-4-'1 04 F: (2(38) 398-$.05 2030 S. W&5hirijtom Ave., Emmett. ID 83G r 7 kybreak Annexation Legal Description BASIS OF SEAFUNGS is S. 0"12'52"W. between a found aluminum cap marking the W1/4 corner and a found alsxninurn cap marking the NW Corner of 5eOon 4,T. 2 N., R. 1 E,, B.M., Ada County, Idaho. A parcel of land located In the 5112 of the NVVI/4 of Section 4 Township 2 Northr Range 1 East Noise Wrldlan, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at an alaminurn cap marking the NW comer of said Section 4; Thence S. 0°12152'W., coincident with the west line of said NMl1/4 and the centerline of S. Eagle Road, 1352.07 feet to an aluminum cap PL5 13550, marking the N1/16 corner of said Section 4 arxl the POINT Or BEGINNING; Thence S. 8995222"E.,coincident with the north line of said 5112 of the NW114r a distance of 132L03 Feet to a S/B"rebar{cap PLS 645, marking the h WIJ16 darner of said Sedlon 4; Thence N. 890S6 41"E.,coincident with said north liner 1321,10 feet to a 5/8'rebaryca p PLS 4347, marking the CN i f L6 corner of said Sedlion 4; Thence S. 073TOTr W_, coincldent with the east line of said NW1]4, a distance of 1333.72 feet to a 314' rebar{cap P+LS 645, marking the C114 Corner of said seCWn 4; Thence N. 89048'12"W.,coincident with the south line of said Section 4,a distance of 2632.71 feet to an illegible aluminum capr marking the W114 of said Section 4; T#henoe N. 00'12'52"E., coincident with said west liner 1326.27 feet to the POINT OF REGINIXING_ The above described parcel contains 80.461 acres more ar less. L o- 11574 L 1�� 4/14 - OFl� BE Pagel e,mms or BE4RMS f+ i l i3zar �,sss ar � k 1 1 m IIr I I ' Im �1 n 4 I k k 5Q�- ?Ol'w ;:,L e333we �1 Page 2 Skybreak Subdivision H-2020-0127 A. Rezoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map (date: 1/20/21) awt:ooth laid 5urvey,TiL3, LLC Sx r? 2030 S. Washington Ave_ Emrnel:E, 10 83917 I/ kybreak R-8 Zoning Description 8E� BASIS OF BEARINGS Is S. b'L2`ra2"W. between a found aluminum cap marling the W1/4 corner and a found aluminum cap marking the NW corner of Section 4,T. 2 N., R. 1 E., 8.M.,Ada County,Idaho. A parcel at land located In the 51/2 of the NWI/4 of Section 4 Township 2 North, Range 1 Eastr Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: 01316IMENEING at an al urn in urn cap marking the NW comer of said Section 4; Thence S. 0412'53"W,,coincideot with the west line of said NWI/4r a distance of 1352.07 feet to an aluminium cap PLLS 13550r marking the N1116 corner of said Section 4 and the P01NT OF BEGINNING; Thence S_ 89457'27'T E_,coinddlent wlth the north line of said 5112 of the NWIf4, a distance of 1321.03 feet to a 5/8"reber/Gap PLS 645, marking the NWI/16 corner of said Section 4; Thence N_89°56'41"E., coincident with said north line, 261.79 feet; Thence S.00,112152"W, parallel with Bald west line, 137.56 feet; Thence N.89147'013"VV., 5,43 feet; Thence S. 001112152"W-, parallel with said west Ilne, 454.70 feel;; Theme N. 891141'23"W_r 73.73 feet; Thence N. 71055' 9"W-,35.46 feet; Thence N. 8904425"W_, L57.79 feet; Thence S, 002,12'S2"VV., parallel with said west line, 146.02 feet; Thence S. 89047'OB"E., 22.31 feet; Thence S. 00012'52"'YV., parallel with said west line, 601.95 feet to the south line of said NW1r4; Thence N.89448'12"W.,co%iriddent with said south llne, 1334.42 feet tic an illegible aluminum cap, marking the W1/4 of said Section 4; Thence N.401,12'52" E., coincident with said west line, 1326.27 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Theabove described parcel contains 43.658 acres more or less. Page 3 Skybreak Subdivision H-2020-0127 AA , 5awtoh Lind 5urveyin�, LILC P: W8) 388-41 104 F: (200) 396.5105 dL 57 01 2030 8. Wathkngton Ave., tmmett. I 63G 17 Skybreak R-15 Toning Description B1#5ISOF BEARINGS is 5. 0012'52-W. bffhveen a found alwninurn cap marking the W114 comer and a found aluminum cap marking t'he NW corner of Section 4,T. 2 N., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County,Idaho. A parcel of land located in the SV2 of the NW114 or Section 4 T4wn5hrp 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada fiounty, Ida hu, more particularly described as rollaws. COMMENCING at an aluminumn cap marking the NON earner-of said 5edWn 4� Thence S. 01,12'52"W., ovincident with the west 11ne of said NW114, a distance of 1352.07 feet to an aluminum tap PLS 13550, marking the NV16 oorner of said Section 4; Thence S. 69v52r22"E., coincident with the north Ilne of said S1{2 i>f the NYV114,a distance of 1321.03 feet to a SIB" rebarfcap PLS 645, marking the NW1116 comer of said Sedron 4; Theme N. 89115641"E., coincident with said north line, 261.75 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing N. B9056141"E.,coincident w th said north line, 1059.31 feet tic a 513"rebaf{cap PLS 1347, marking the CN1/16 garner of said Section 4; Thence S. 001117'07"W.,coincident with the east line of said Section 4,a drstance of 1333.72 feet to a 3/4" rebarloap PLS 645r marking the C114 wrmrof said Section 4; Thence N. 894812"W., raincidentwikh the south Irne of said NW114, a distance of 1289_29 fret; Thence N. D01112'52"E., parallel with said west line. 601.95 feet; Thence N. 89°47W"W., 22.31 feet; Thence N. 001112-52"E., parallel with said west liner 146,02 feet; Thence S. 89"44'25" E., 157.7�feet; Thence S. 71"'5529" E., 35.46 feet; Thence S. 09114123' E., 73.73 feet; Thence N. 40"12'52"E., parallel with said west line, 454.70 feet; Thence S. 89114T08" E., 5.43 feet; Thence N. 001112'52"E., parallel with said west line, 137.S6 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcei contains 36.604 acres more or less, Page 4 Skybreak Subdivision H-2020-0127