Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2021-09-14 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, September 14, 2021 at 6:00 6:06 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener (left at 7:49 pm) Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Brad Hoaglun PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2021 for Adoption of Proposed Republic Services Solid Waste Fees A. Request: Approval of Resolution No. 21-2286: A Resolution Adopting the Fiscal Year 2022 Rate Schedule of Solid Waste Collection Services; Authorizing Finance Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date B. Request: Approval of Market Labor Fee Contract Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022 Between the City of Meridian and Republic Services C. Request: Approval of Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022 Between the City of Meridian and Republic Services Motion to bring forward resolution made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 2. Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2021 for Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Denied A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. Motion to deny made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader 3. Public Hearing for Bright Star Care Meridian (H-2021-0052) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. Approved A. Request: Modification to the existing Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement and Addendum (Instrument #’s 102056126 and 106133465) to remove the subject property (Parcel A & B, ROS 8756 which is a portion of Lot 46 & all of Lot 47 of Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 5) for the purpose of entering a new agreement to allow a reduction to the existing 20-foot residential landscape buffer to construct 5,800 sq. ft. nursing and residential care facility consistent with the approved conditional use permit (H-2021- 0040). Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt Abstaining: Councilwoman Perreault 4. Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) by Gem State Planning, Located on the West Side of Meridian Road Between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, Directly South of the Mid-Mile Point Approved A. Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan and to redevelop the subject property to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 9:30 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council September 14, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:06 p.m., Tuesday, September 14, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Brad Hoaglun. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Joe Dodson, Alan Tiefenbach, Shawn Harper, Pam Orr and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is September 14th, 2021. It is 6:06 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item will be the community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by Cindy Reese of the Meridian East Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. For those of us here if you would, please, join us in the community invocation or take this a moment of silence and reflection. Reese: Our Heavenly Father, we are grateful for the opportunity we have to gather in this country to have the minds of the people heard and to have representatives who carry out the will of the people. We ask a special blessing at this time upon our country as we struggle with the pandemic and other forces and we ask you, please, to continue to watch over and bless those who watch after -- after our Constitution. Help the people on the Council to have discerning minds and listening hearts and a heart to continue in their service to their community and these things we say in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 2- — ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Next up is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Can you -- can you guys hear me? Simison: It's really -- Bernt: I'm struggling with this -- this Zooming tonight for me has been somewhat challenging. So, with that said, Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt the agenda as published. Cavener: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, did we have anybody signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up today. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2021 for Adoption of Proposed Republic Services Solid Waste Fees A. Request:Approval of Resolution No. 21-2286:A Resolution Adopting the Fiscal Year 2022 Rate Schedule of Solid Waste Collection Services;Authorizing Finance Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date B. Request: Approval of Market Labor Fee Contract Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022 Between the City of Meridian and Republic Services C. Request: Approval of Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022 Between the City of Meridian and Republic Services Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 3 of 09 Simison: Okay. Then we will move into Action Items. First item up is a public hearing continued from September 7th, 2021, for adoption of proposed Republic Services solid waste fees. I don't know if we need to hear from the applicant. Would you like to hear again from the applicant, Council? Okay. Yeah. We continued this primarily to give Council Woman Strader an opportunity to join us as the representative some SWAC. I guess I will start with Council Woman Strader, see if she has any comments that she would like to make. Strader: Mr. Mayor, sure. Thanks so much for including me. That was really thoughtful. I, yeah, reviewed the meeting from last week, so I have gotten up to speed on it and I certainly was part of the discussions at the Solid Waste Advisory Committee. So, you know, look, I think -- certainly what Republic is experiencing is not unusual in the context of what a lot of businesses are experiencing right now with a lot of pressure in the labor market and, you know, one discussion on the SWAC, just to be transparent, was whether this made sense as an adjustment going forward, forever added to the base, or whether it made sense as a one time adjustment with the option to continue it in the base and I think what SWAC, you know, ultimately got on board with was recommending the adjustment. I will say -- you know, I chatted with Rachele and -- and they certainly are splitting their increase in their labor costs, but this is outside of the contract that we have; right? So, they have been a great partner. They provide a lot of services to the city that are also outside of the contract and there are a lot of considerations. I'm okay with more discussion, but for me personally what I think makes the most sense is to approve this as a one time labor market adjustment, not adding it to the base going forward, but giving the city the option to include it in the base a year from now, so we can see what's going on in the labor market, take a look at our contract and if it's adequate -- I'm going to assume that it is, but -- and for -- you know, for Republic to advise us on what they are seeing and if this is a permanent change that's needed and just give us some time to process that. So, that -- that's my feedback. Simison: Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing that we did leave open. I will just see if there is anybody from the public that would like to provide testimony on the item at this time. If so I would ask you to come forward to the podium or if there is going to be anybody online that would like to weigh in you can use the raise your hand function on Zoom and we can bring you in for any comments. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, so you are aware I cannot see if someone raises their hand, so I might have to rely on Council to tell me. Simison: Okay. I can do that. Seeing no one raising their hand or coming forward, ask the applicant from Republic Services if they would like to come forward for any final comments or not. Okay. The applicant does not wish to come forward. So, with that be happy to take a motion from Council to close the public hearing. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing. Bernt: Second. Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 4- — Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Bill Nary. Simison: Yes, Council Woman Strader. Strader: Okay. So, Bill, if -- if I were to make a motion along the lines of what I just proposed, would we need to actually amend, then, the resolution and -- and come back or how would we handle that? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, yeah, we would have to amend the -- the MOU that was prepared, as well as a resolution, but we would have time to do that, so that's certainly -- whatever the Council's pleasure. Strader: So, Mr. Nary, do you require -- do you require action tonight then or do you want to just hear from Council if they are in agreement on proceeding on it being a one time labor market adjustment for this year, with the option to continue a year from now? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Strader, so, yeah, if the direction is to move forward with what's on the agenda, which has already been provided, you can certainly do that tonight and, then, we will get the process of getting the billing adjusted and changed for the coming fiscal year. If the desire is to change that, then, we will need to go back and redo the MOU and redo the resolution, so we would have to bring it back probably not next week, because that's already expired, but probably the week after. Strader: Oh, gosh, and, then, would we need to open the public hearing again? Nary: Not necessarily, because if you just make a motion with direction, we just carry forward the direction. Strader: Okay. Well, I think I made a motion. I hope it was adequate. Simison: I don't think we had a motion and I don't think we had a second. Strader: All right. Mr. Mayor, I will give it a try. So, I would move that we revise the Resolution No. 21-2286 and the labor market -- the contract amendment and when -- I don't think we will need to change the recycling processing fee contract, but just any changes needed in those first two documents A and B to reflect that this is a one time adjustment for the labor market increase and that the city has the option to approve it a year from now added to the base or not. Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 5— — Simison: Do I have a second? Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I really appreciate kind of the innovative step that Council Member Strader is kind of proposing. The part that I'm struggling with is that I -- I can't envision a scenario a year from now where Republic says we are going to pay our employees less and so while I think it's great that we are going to have a conversation about this a year from now, I'm -- I'm hesitant to tie the conversation around a labor adjustment on an annual basis. I appreciate what you are trying to do. I just don't think that it's something I can wrap my head around at this particular time. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I think from my perspective it's unlikely that --that Republic would --would not want it added to the baseline forward, but it doesn't obligate the city yet to add it to the base going forward and that's kind of what I am -- what I -- what I care more about at this stage is being able to get a little bit of breathing room and take a look at what happens in the next year and be able to make that decision at that time. I just don't like us reacting to changes in the labor market that feel like they are coming really quickly at us without a chance to really digest it and look at it for a year. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Question for Council Woman Strader. Do you -- are you hoping for an analysis from Republic Services a year from now that -- that shows whether or not it had the effect that they were intending or is it more concerns -- more of a concern of the financial amount that it adds to our -- the base of our budget? Strader: Thank you, Council Woman Perreault. Mr. Mayor, if I may. Yes, I think -- I think what we could see from Republic is they had to increase their wages. Is that a permanent change that they have had to sustain? You know, there is turnover certainly in their business and we might just see what happens; right? So -- I don't know. That's my -- my bias is to obligate the city less and take a look before we agree to make that a permanent change to the base. Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 6- — Simison: Is there further discussion on the motion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just a quick comment. I'm supportive of it. I get the premise that Council Woman Strader is trying to do. Be a good steward. It very well might not change in subsequent years, but -- but Republic Service has been a longtime good partner with the city, so I'm sure they -- they vet and view costs that they are dealing with just like we will. So, I get what you are trying to do. So, it makes good sense. Eyes wide open. Trying to be prudent. So, supportive of the change right now. Simison: Any additional -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I was not the motion maker, but does it need to be clarified that we are not having a public hearing two weeks from now when the resolution is back on the agenda? Simison: No. I don't think we need any future public hearings on anything. We are in motions on these items. Perreault: So that doesn't need to be part of the motion? Simison: To do a public hearing -- Perreault: To not have one. Simison: No. Is there further questions or comments? All right. Ask the Clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, absent; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: So, Mr. Nary, you will make those updates and bring them back? Nary: Yes, sir. 2. Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2021 for Wells Street Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 7 of 59 Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing continued from August 17, 2021, for Wells Street Assisted Living Indoor Subdivision, H-2021-0024. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. This is Alan Tiefenbach. Planner. Can you hear me? Simison: Yep. We can. Tiefenbach: So, this is an annexation and zoning to TN-R, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit. The site consists of about 17 and a half acres of land. It's zoned RUT and it's located at the southwest corner of East Magic View Drive and South Wells. If you recall at your August 17th meeting the Council continued this case to September 14th for the applicant to consider feedback from the Council. Here was the general feedback. Committing to 55 and over age restricted community. It was a few different suggestions. Reducing the footprint of the homes, deed restricting the homes, or limiting the houses to one story. Another suggestion was providing larger rear setbacks to the existing properties. There was a suggestion about removing the access from East Magic View Drive by -- where -- by providing another access to South Wells Street and the last one was whether or not they could move the pool to a location further away from the houses. What I have on this graphic here is showing what you saw at the previous hearing on the left. I'm keeping the southern side out, because this -- all the discussion for the most part was about this northern part. On the -- on the left is what you saw at the last hearing. On the right is what is being presented now. So, the applicant has provided these plans. The first thing is that they have increased the site -- or sorry. Increased the rear setback of all of these houses here to be a rear setback of at least 17 feet. What you saw here for the original access off of East Magic View Drive is now gone. That access has been moved over to here. What was a house here has now been moved up to here. They also have -- per their recommendation about the pool, they have moved the pool further away from the houses. The other thing is that if you remember with the original proposal some of the garages and/or some of the driveways -- not all of the houses accommodated four parking spaces that would be required. The applicant has made all of the lots longer, so that every house in this subdivision does provide the four parking spaces. In addition, what you see in the -- in the bulb outs is additional guest parking, Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 8 of 09 which is approximately 21 additional guest parking spaces and nine parking spaces which were provided for the clubhouse which you see here. This has resulted in open space reduction slightly of about 21 and a half percent to about 20.5 percent. Just for your reference, I'm -- I'm -- on this particular slide I'm showing you the whole thing. Unfortunately, it's so long it's not really -- it's not very helpful to try to put the whole thing in one piece, which is why I cut this apart. Staff received five additional citizen letters since the last hearing. The concerns expressed included eliminating windows on the west side of the houses, so not having any windows at all to provide privacy. There was some request to reduce the houses again to one story. At this point that -- that has not happened. There is also some comments about the un --the unknown nature of the office building. That was this building here at this point. This would only be allowing a commercial building, but they would have to most likely go through a conditional use in order to do anything with that building and, then, there was also some comments about what kind of quality of fencing would be along the western perimeter here. I think there are some concerns about the typical vinyl fencing. With -- with that I will entertain any comments or questions from the Council. Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you. Will the applicant like to come back forward and be recognized for comments. Koenig: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Jamie Koenig, an architect with Babcock Design in Boise. Alan's memo, basically, summarized your feedback into four categories that I would like to kind of restate and expand upon a little bit and I have some items I would like to -- so, first of all -- sorry. I had this issue last time, too. Council feedback item number one, committing to the 55 age group community by reducing the footprint of the homes, deed restricting the homes, and/or limiting the houses to one story. This is really a matter, from our point of view, of attracting an older population of homeowners and I feel like the following list is a good effort toward that goal. Our small lot size and limited backyard area would be unattractive to younger families with children, trampolines, and swings, et cetera. We are providing quality of homes that have elevated design in a price range of 550,000 to 650,000, which would be financially unfeasible for most young families, thereby attracting an older, more established population. This is well above the recently announced 530,500 dollar mark of the Meridian -- median home prices in Ada county. Most homes will have master bedrooms on the main level, with additional bedrooms upstairs, which could be used as a den, home office, craft room and for visiting children and grandchildren. Lawn landscaping will be maintained for homeowners, making this an attractive community for an older population. Gated communities are attractive to senior citizens as they seek security and peace. The average home size in the concept plan is 2003 feet. This is a bit larger than Brighton Homes that are 55 plus also and yet smaller than some of the Ashbrooke and Englefield Green products, some of which have large upper level bonus rooms. If the homes were designed to be too small, they would be more affordable to a broader age group, particularly first time homebuyers and small families. Smaller homes with lower price points would also impact adjacent home values. The price range of our product is above the median home prices in Ada county. We are limiting the homes along the west property line to a single story. We are limiting the home's along the west property and reducing Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 9- — the size of the footprints shown is unrealistic and would have substantial negative impact from a real estate perspective. Given our desire to have a product that is attractive to an older market, those limitations would work contrary to our goals. Requiring smaller footprints may encourage some 55 plus buyers, but our proposed square footage is well within the standard rage of many 55 plus communities across the valley. Being 55 should not be assumed to be a physical constraint. Most are very ambulatory and simply prefer that most used areas be located on the main floor. The second floor is a great option for home offices, second offices, and privacy for guests. The homes are not laid out to accommodate -- the homes are not laid out to accommodate the traditional activity or storage needs of a noisy and busy family. Given the willingness and effort to provide revisions and concessions throughout the process, we feel that deed restrictions on the property are unnecessary. City Council feedback item number two was providing larger rear yard setbacks to the existing properties on the Snorting Bull Subdivision. Proximity to and interface with Woodbridge neighborhood. We agree to a stipulation in the development agreement stating that we are providing 17 foot rear yard setbacks along the west property line, which is an increase beyond -- beyond the required 12 foot for TN- R zoning. The distances from the property fence to the rear of the homes will now randomly modulate between 17 and 27 feet from the rear property line. This is an additional five foot greater than the previous version. We also agreed to the stipulation in the development agreement stating that the second story portion of the homes along the west property line shall be no closer than 27 feet from the rear property line. We are providing five yard -- side yard -- five foot side yard setbacks long the west property line, which is an increase beyond the required three foot for TN-R zoning. Roof height at the peak of the single story portions is estimated at 16 and a half feet. Roof height at the peak of the two story portions is estimated at 25.5. Both of which are less than the 50 foot peak allowed per TN-R zoning. We agreed to the stipulation in the development agreement stating that we require general contractor to provide class two trees selected from a tree list at the rear yards of the homes along the west property line. These will be larger attractive trees that will limit the view from the property -- property as shown in the landscape package. City Council feedback item number three. Removing the access from East Magic View Drive. We have done that. This is addressing traffic and parking concerns along Magic View. We are removing the north gated entry from Magic View and relocating it over to Wells. This will eliminate traffic from crossover on the way into the project and lessen the temptation to turn left upon exiting the project. Exiting onto Wells will increase the likelihood of traffic continuing to the north and the east. We are willing to pay ACHD to install no parking signs on our side of Magic and Wells Street along the property frontage, which we believe could potentially help eliminate parking issues along both Magic and Wells Street. However, recently ACHD indicated they are not supportive of that option. We are providing all homes with two stall garages and two stall driveways, which eliminate any visitors from parking along Magic View and Wells. We have increased the total parking stalls at the north properties from 263 to 274, which is greater than the required 253. This will aid in preventing vehicles from parking along Magic and Wells. We agreed to the stipulation in the development agreement that -- to provide signs at bulb out visitor stalls, restricting time allowed to park in those stalls by removing the possibility of having extra cars parked at those locations long term. The following comparison is of our proposed development on the north residential portions with a Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 10—— commercial healthcare type development and the associated required parking. Current single family homes are a grand total of 122,200 square feet of building, 61 units, and 253 stalls. If we were to do healthcare of the same size, same footprint square footage -- although Meridian allows one stall per 500 of square feet of building, we typically see one stall for 250 or 200 of building. One stall per 250 would turn out to be 489 stalls, resulting in a 193 percent increase in required parking. One stall per 200 would result in a required parking stall count of 611. Six hundred and 11 resulting in 242 increase -- 242 percent increase in required parking. Commercial parking will almost certainly require higher average trips per day. Commercial development would likely find access on Magic View to be essential. A commercial use structure would seem taller, larger, more massive and have many more second story windows. Since privacy is a concern, this could have a significant impact on Woodbridge neighbors. The required parking lot lighting would have a significant impact on the view from Woodbridge -- Woodbridge of the surrounding sky. Council feedback item number four was moving the pool to a location further away from homes. We have done that, as Alan showed us in the site plan. We are providing a lot of trees and landscaping between the pool and those homes to the south and, again, the revisions that we have made brought the open space down from 21 and a half to 20.6, which is still more than twice the required ten percent. I know Andy Palmer is also available if anyone has any questions regarding the assisted living and memory care and its operations and with that I stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Where do I start? So, in general, I -- I don't love deed restricting property, because I think it affects real estate values. I understand Councilman Bernt's continued encouragement of that and I think it finally clicked for me and I'm not saying that I am promoting it at this time, but I think what it finally clicked for me is I have looked at this -- kind of tried to take a bigger picture view of it as I was reviewing it again for this hearing and it just feels so in congruent to have this assisted living and memory care facility next to -- it -- it almost feels like there is a housing facility that -- or I mean a housing neighborhood that was an afterthought to this office and -- and assisted living facility and I think that's where this -- I keep feeling like that -- and I realize it's an odd -- it's an odd property, it's odd shaped, it's hard to make that work, but the whole -- the whole development seems inconvenient and not just -- not just the -- the assisted living versus, you know, residential homes being next to one another, we see a variety of other places in the area where that's true. The things that seem in congruent to me -- and maybe they are just sticking out to me, because I have the years of real estate background, but when you -- when you have a bunch of two story homes -- so, let's take the west side, for example. If I remember correctly from the last hearing, about half of those would be single level and about half would be two story. I assume you might have to make -- make some additional homes two story along that west side, because now you have added another five feet of setback, so you lose that perimeter floor space in the homes and now you are Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 11 of 59 building up. I hope that's not the case. But whatever the case, it's -- they are just -- the incongruency to me -- and in general Council doesn't try to get as specific as to say to the applicant this is the kind of consumer that you should market to. We -- in general we don't try to do that, unless that becomes a part of the conversation through -- through other elements of the development and -- but in this situation I don't think that the product that you are anticipating is going to meet the need for the individuals that you are marketing to and the reason is is because I have sold real estate to seniors for more than a decade and I know exactly what they look for and I know exactly what young families are looking for and they are looking for the same thing, which is smaller homes, single level, with minimum maintenance and so I -- I don't agree that you are not going to get young families coming in here. The average price is in the five hundreds now and if they can get a 2,000 square foot home, instead of a 1,500 square foot home, for 550,000 dollars, that's what they are going to do, so -- but that is not our role. Our role -- our role is not to determine whether you -- whether you can get the -- the consumer that you are hoping for, but you have -- not you, but the -- your application has brought that conversation into play for us as Council and so, therefore, I'm making a statement about it and that is that if -- if you are wanting Council -- or maybe I should just speak for myself. If you are wanting us to make consideration of this application based on your verbal commitment to market to a particular age group, I don't think it's going to play out that way. I just have to be really candid. Now, I think there is a lot of things about the -- a lot of changes that you made to the application that are really good and that I appreciate. So, I probably should have started with the positive, instead of the negative, but-- but, you know, adding that entrance on the west side is -- or east side, excuse me, is huge. I think that's going to be really critical and really important. So, I think there is a lot of-- this is a better -- and, hopefully, that -- that you all feel this way as well. I think this, in general, is better on the residential piece than what we saw last time. So, I appreciate very much the presentation that you gave in terms of trying to address everything that Council had requested in the last meeting. We always appreciate it when applicants come forward and take what we say seriously and -- and really try to work on it. But if you -- if you want us to take that -- that age marketed -- if that's your selling point, I should say, to us, I have concerns about that. So, if there are any changes to the number of two story units I would like to know that and just -- you know, I guess I'm just trying to understand why we are having a conversation about the -- the age of the -- of the -- of the purchaser if that's not a critical element to your application. I realize that Council have brought it up as a suggestion, but is that something that is critical to this getting approved? Koenig: I think to clarify it, the properties on the west actually grew five foot in depth and so we won't be missing anything from our setback area for the buildings and I think from the very beginning we were -- all along we were trying to target to 55 plus and not really willing to do a deed restriction and I guess from our point of view the things that we have done -- along the way a lot of the changes have been really -- really good I think for the project and I think that it would actually attract an older population, I believe, so -- Simison: Council, additional questions to the applicant? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up? Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 12—— Johnson: Mr. Mayor, just one. Mr. John Overton. Simison: If there is anybody else that would like to sign up, either online or otherwise, please, use the raise your hand function at the bottom of Zoom. State you name and address for the record. Overton: Good evening, Madam Mayor -- or Mr. Mayor. Well, that's an old habit. Apologize. Members of Council, both here and joining us through Zoom. And city staff. My name is John Overton. 1922 East Bowstring in Meridian in Woodbridge Subdivision speaking for the HOA and thank you. Since we started this process -- and I'm going to try to keep this as dialed into tonight's information as I can without rehashing everything. But we made a point of wanting it to be locked into 55 for a reason. Council Member, you brought up in the last hearing four weeks ago how this was different than the previous development and just for the record we are very involved -- Woodbridge gets involved. We fill this room. But we are not anti-development. We approved the last two. We didn't say no. We approved them. We approved the one on these -- two of the same lots. But when we approved that one, if you remember back, the adult -- the senior living aspect. In the multi-function building, independent assisted living, was tied together with the housing. It was bridged. It had shared functions. It had pathways. It was -- it was built and designed as almost one scale project. This, we said from the beginning, didn't have that feel, because now what we have done is we have separated the housing unit from this memory care assisted living unit and we put a blank warehouse spot there. They are separated. There is no tie in. So, we have a real hard time believing that this is going to be this same feel as it was the first time. I want to tell you right now all the changes that they made -- they look positive. The biggest one that we were here kind of cheering on was the one I was hoping that ACHD would be right behind me to say, yes, we are all for the no parking on Magic View and Wells and we will support that. That's very discouraging that they are not willing to support that, considering not only do we have Woodbridge going west through -- or the traffic going west through our subdivision, but we also have probably the worst designed three way stop in the city on the other side. So, we are just adding to this traffic confusion and you don't have to go too far out of this room to find people who have had to deal with several accidents at that three way intersection, especially in the wintertime, and now we are going to have parking on both sides on Wells as this develops if we don't get some help or something doesn't go different. We have struggled as an HOA and as homeowners with some people wondering whether -- was this the best we are going to get. Serious concern. And we said this still isn't what we think is the best fit for this area. We don't think having a housing area separate like this is the best. When it was tied into the senior in the previous we were all in. We met with that developer. We met with those engineers. It was a very well done, very cohesive design. You could see by looking at it how everything worked together. This doesn't work together. They are separate entities and we still believe without those deed restrictions, without something that guarantees that this is going to be 55 and over, I think -- I'm kind of preaching to the choir here, I don't think that's going to happen. I think we are going to end up with all courses of people moving in and I have argued with traffic engineers for years who brought me statistics about, well, you know, the housing is going to cause less traffic than those businesses. That doesn't -- that's not reality. That's not reality where Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 13 of 59 we are at. We have one way out to the west. No way out to the north or south. Think about this for just a second as we are talking about just traffic. People going to a business -- many people use this wonderful thing in their car -- they got these navigation systems. Almost every navigation system will not tell you how to get somewhere through a residential neighborhood. It will wander you all the way around and it will take you through and get you there. And that's five days a week, 8:00 to 5:00 generally. Now, we are talking residential. We are talking 61, 62 homes. Sixty-one. We are talking 24/7 they are all going to figure out that they can cut through our subdivision. The ones that go to the races, the WinCo, the Home Depot, the dog park, everything to that west side they are coming through our subdivision. So, none of this really addresses our traffic concerns. It helps. Bringing them onto Wells will help. If we didn't have access onto Magic View that would help a lot, but that's not a possibility and we know that. Which is why the HOA -- and I'm telling you right now there is -- there is not a vote of approval. We are still against this. We still vote against this. It's the wrong fit. They are just -- we know the right fit is out there. We think we had it before. But we think this is still the wrong fit for the subdivision. It's the wrong fit for safety for our--from our littlest kids to our seniors. When we talk about traffic and coming through that subdivision -- and you are talking especially about housing traffic coming after 5:00 o'clock and driving through the weekends, that's when we have the heaviest amount of kids on our streets. When the businesses are open and the cars are cutting through, even those that figure it out -- during the school year our kids are in school. We have the least amount of conflict. But when it's housing we have the most amount, because it's happening all the time. So, with that said we don't support this project. We do want to give the developer credit that these changes are positive, but it does not change our vote. We still believe that there is significant changes that would have to be made. With that I would stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe I lost him. Simison: If you ask the question he will come back. Strader: All right. That works for me. Yeah. I was just curious. I mean in terms of support from the HOA, if this is a commercial development would that -- would that be a -- more favorable with the HOA or is the HOA's position that the last one you saw was so great that you really want to see more of that? Because that's kind of a tall order; right? I think we are all kind of-- that's the problem I think this applicant is facing is we all saw a really great plan and, unfortunately, that's where the Overton window got moved, but if you were looking at a commercial development, like a huge medical office building, would that be preferable to the residents of your subdivision? Simison: Mr. Overton. Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 14—— Overton: Thank you. That -- we have seen probably ten to 15 medical offices open up in that area east of us since all this development started. It is not giving us the amount of traffic through that we believe a residential development will, because a lot of those folks -- even some I have talked to that go get their eye appointments from the same eye doctor for the last 15 years -- don't know they can cut through Woodbridge and I'm not going to tell them. There is hotels back there, which also in one way do kind of support the hospitals, as well as other events in the city. They are very quiet. They work very well. The residential issue is not. It's -- it's -- I truly believe everything I have ever known from what I did in my previous career is going to cause us a lot more traffic, a lot more people, and it's going to do it seven days a week. Did I answer that? Strader: Mr. Mayor. I believe you did. I guess I would just ask -- it -- do you feel that this is unanimously opposed or do you feel like there are some people that feel like this is better than -- is that correct? Everyone's against it? They would rather have a medical office building or would you characterize it that maybe some of these changes got some more people on board and it's a little bit more of a mixed view at this stage? Overton: Council Member, let's see if this helps. When this was first presented and we went to Planning and Zoning, it was presented that this was the same thing as what we looked at before and those of us that had really looked at the plan realized it was not. It was a total different animal. There were parts of it that were the same, there were parts of it that were different. We did have quite a few members of our development that said, hey, this -- you said yes last time, let's do it. This is it. The other part we have got -- because it's not unanimous against it -- is we have got people that are just flat tired of doing this -- of having to stand up and having to protest and say, you know, how many times are we going to have to fight this and how many times are we going to have to stand up and -- and come to City Council and say no on another development and what's -- what's going to come next and I don't blame them. There is -- we are seeing burnout with our own development on people wanting to stand up and say no and they are just getting tired of coming. There is fewer people every single meeting. I know we have a few on Zoom tonight, but we don't have 150 that we have had before. They are just tired and we don't have unanimous on --we certainly don't have unanimous support, but we don't have unanimous -- overwhelming 80, 90 percent saying don't build this. Strader: Thanks for that context. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, did we have anybody else sign up? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there were no other sign-ups. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the room that would like to come forward and provide testimony, please, do so. Or if you are online use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one, would the applicant like to come up? Oh. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page —of— Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Sorry. Mr. Mayor. Just real quick. Alan, I should have asked you this at the start. On page 19 and 20 of the staff report -- are you able to pull that up on the screen? Tiefenbach: I can try, but it might not be quick. What -- which page, sir? Borton: I think it's 19 and 20 of the 35 page -- Tiefenbach: If you would like to give me a minute I can get that while you talk to the applicant. I won't have it instantaneously. Just give me a few minutes to get back. Johnson: Mr. Mayor. Alan, I can bring that up right now if you want. Tiefenbach: Oh. Thank you, Chris. It's a little harder for me to -- sorry. Borton: It will just help clarify a little confusion perhaps. Multitasking. Tiefenbach: Are we good, Chris? Okay. I can navigate over and get it, but it will take me a minute -- Johnson: Alan, I just had to change computers. Tiefenbach: That's exactly what I would have to do. Borton: So, page 19 and 20. It's the next page, I think. I meant to ask you this before. There you go. It's the plat dated next month and if you scroll down this page and the next page it shows a different layout for the roads and the pool and -- Tiefenbach: Wrong date on that, but, no, that's not the most updated plat. All I have received since the -- whatever -- since the recent was the color -- the color concept. Borton: Like if you look at this picture on the screen, this has caused some confusion that the applicant can probably address, but it shows a different layout of the pool. It shows it's bisect -- or surrounded by roads on all four sides and I don't know -- there you go. Look at that. Is this what's presented today? Because that's different than what we saw at the start. That was my confusion. Tiefenbach: Did you want me to answer that or do you want that to go to the applicant? Borton: Oh, if you -- Mr. Mayor. If you -- Tiefenbach: I received a landscape plan yesterday. This here is one from many versions ago. I have probably received ten different versions of this. Borton: Okay. Well, I will ask the applicant that as well. Thanks, Alan. This is what it -- Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 16 of 59 it says October 22nd up top. Tiefenbach: That was my mistake. I'm sorry, sir. Borton: Okay. No worries. I just want to make sure I understand what the -- Tiefenbach: Well, the most recent versions are the color concept plans that you -- that are the color concept plans that you have seen and an open space plan. Those are the -- the newest -- most newest revised plans I have got. Like I say, I received a landscape plan yesterday that I'm sure the applicant can bring up or I can bring it up. Borton: Mr. Mayor, last question. Can we pull up -- Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: -- have that yesterday's -- whatever was presented on the screen when the applicant -- Tiefenbach: Are you able to get to the laser -- Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I'm getting that -- Tiefenbach: Can anybody get to the Iaserfiche and get that up? Johnson: Bringing it up now. Tiefenbach: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Borton, do you have anymore questions? If the applicant wants to come forward and be -- I say would say pull this up for your final comments. Koenig: Thank you, Mayor, Council Members, for letting us come back. The latest landscape plan is the correct plan. We did get information over, but it was not apparently in time to get all the documents updated, so I apologize. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: You said the latest plan is the correct one. I don't know -- still don't know what that means. Like I literally would love to see it like on the screen as we are talking, so we all reference the same thing. We just have things a little sideways. Winger: Yes. Sorry. T.J. Winger with Babcock Design. 800 Main, Boise, Idaho. If you could go back to the original plan that Alan started with that would be wonderful. Thank you. I understand your confusion. Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page " —— Johnson: This is what I was showing before you came up. Winger: I -- the -- the plan that Alan had up initially when he had one on the left and one on the right. Simison: His presentation. Johnson: Alan, you will pull that up? Winger: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, just making sure Alan heard. Can you bring up your presentation, Alan? Tiefenbach: My apologies. I thought it was up already. Let me try it again. Winger: There we go. Thank you, Alan. Appreciate that. Tiefenbach: Sorry about the pause. I thought you were already looking at it. Winger: No. You are fine. Thank you. So, Councilman Borton, yes, to answer your question, the image on the left was the original design presented last meeting. The image on the right is the latest current image and I was thinking that we had the plat updated and submitted. I'm seeing, yes, a shake back there. But apparently that was maybe not incorporated into the packet. So, the plat would reflect the image on the right. Borton: Okay. Very helpful. Thank you. Winger; Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to respond to a couple of comments made by the HOA and a few things that are out of our control. The property owner on the previous -- from the previous applicant -- we were his planning architect as well and the dynamics were different, because we had owned -- or he had all the parcels and so the connectivity was able to be different. For example, the road at the bottom of the screen that you see, Shadowbrook Lane right there, was going to be abandoned and so -- or vacated, because he owned all of the pieces or had them tied up, so we had an application to vacate that road, so that all the properties were connected contiguously and that made the site plan very different -- the feel very different, because we didn't have that divided circle there and all that property was connected in a continuous manner. When the new landowner picked up the property he wasn't able to pick up all of the parcels. The roadway is not able to be vacated and so it becomes a very kind of divisive element as you do your planning. Unfortunately, that's -- that's a real thing and it breaks up that continuity. To -- to just share a little bit of -- on your comments about the -- the pieces in play there, when we were planning the -- the parcels and the property we felt -- we did do some layouts moving the assisted living memory care up north on the property and felt it a big commercial building up north at the main entrance into Woodbridge was not an appropriate solution, so we felt that the scale of the building was better down on the south Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page ——— end closer to the other commercial and residential -- not residential -- the other commercial and professional office spaces and, then, transition to smaller, less dense single family homes as you get closer to the entrance into Woodbridge, just kind of scale planning from commercial back to residential. That was our thinking behind that as that transitioned back building wise. The comment about the parking counts and the preference for a medical office building I think might be a matter of opinion. We met with the Woodbridge quite a bit and there is quite a strong opinion about the height of houses along the west property line and with the 50 foot allowable in the TN-R we would probably have a four story medical office building on that lot, which would have a lot of windows and a lot of proximity and a lot of presence on those adjacent homes. We, in our office, did a lot of layouts looking at office buildings there, looking at medical office buildings and looking at how that could play and we felt that that would actually be a very inappropriate response to the adjacent neighborhood, providing a four story building in that proximity to Woodbridge. The main concern seems to be what's on the other side of my fence. We feel it's a very responsible solution to have smaller scale homes with lower roofs on the other side of the fence, so -- and parking and traffic counts -- an opinion is one thing, but code is another and when we do a medical office building and we have to provide four or five hundred stalls compared to 200 stalls, an opinion is one thing, stall counts are another thing. I would probably argue that you are going to have more traffic with a medical project there than you would a residential project, just because of the parking stall counts required. That's just -- I speak parking numbers and counts and so that to me seems like -- I have a pile of cars -- that's 500 and a pile of cars, that's 250 -- they are different size piles. Those are some of the comments that I wanted to share as part of my feedback. Simison: Thank you. Council, I'm going to start off with a very unfair question. Winger: Yes. Simison: Why -- based upon your comments of working on this project and the previous project, why is it in the city's best interest to annex this parcel in this fashion at this time compared to when a better project could bring it all at the same time to create the things that this one is lacking? Winger: Very good question. Yeah. Just to answer that a little bit, designing the previous project was very interesting. The densities on the housing side were actually more dense, even though it seemed less dense. They were attached product, which I think is, all in all, a lower quality product. If I'm going to own a property and have a comparable when you have a duplex type product versus a single family product, I would say that's a little bit lesser of a caliber product. The previous -- I'm kind of answering by my -- kind of not, so I'm getting there. Simison: Yeah. Winger: The previous project -- I really liked it, too. I thought it was fantastic. I loved the continuity of it. I loved that we had all of the parcels and we were able to make that continuity. Where we find ourselves today it -- I'm not sure how the current owner could Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 19 of 59 get all of the parcels. I know he has really tried. I have been privy to a lot of the conversations and if that were possible I believe our applicant would -- would love to do that. I do feel like this is a very high quality project for the city. I think the caliber of homes that are coming in are not your everyday developer level. I won't throw out names, but I think this is a high tier development. So, as far as the city stands when I look at the quality of the building -- we design multiple assisted living, memory care buildings. The budget that he has set aside for this one is about one and a half times our typical developer grade assisted living memory care project. It's a -- it's a nice building. It's really nice. The -- the housing product that he is wanting to put on the project site is a high caliber housing project. So, honestly, if I lived in Meridian and I was able to pick a project, I would go what's going to be low density in my backyard. Single family is the lowest density. Who is going to put in a nice project that's an elevated finish. I would want that. I love the fact that it's assisted living memory care. I think that's low traffic count. A skilled nursing facility, for example, that's kind of comparable, but not, is more transient in nature. It's medical. It's -- people tend to stay for two or three weeks, four weeks, as they are recovering from hip surgery or a fall or whatever. They tend to have more visitors in a two or three week window. Assisted living memory care have visitors and, sadly, visitors and frequency of visitors fall with the longer the duration. Tend to get visits once a week, every other week. So, it's actually lower traffic count if you were to compare a skilled nursing facility to assisted living memory care. So, as -- if I were to live in Woodbridge I would love a nice quality project with something that's as low traffic count as I can get. As I look at it, these are two pretty low density traffic count projects. Does that answer -- Simison: 'ish. Yeah. It's basically comparing quality at the last one versus this one in your eyes, that this one will be a higher quality as compared to the integration and the flow and the vacation elements that existed with the last property. I mean that's -- that's kind of where I was going, more as like, you know, from a practical standpoint where the other property, you know, had the vacation that created -- was more seamless. Winger: Uh-huh. It was more seamless. Simison: And I think quality is subjective. There is nothing that says this developer is going to have a higher quality than the previous one. That you hope, but -- so -- Winger: We have to do a lot of preliminary designs to get to this point and so as I look at his preliminary elevations and floor plans and materials discussed, it might be subjective, but they are different. When you are talking EIFS and cheap materials and you are talking nicer design and elements -- Simison: We can always hope. Winger: We can hope. Yeah. Well, the drawings -- the drawings that we have done on the previous application and this application to this point -- different design criteria. Different design level subjectively from an architect design. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 20—— Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Question about the increase in parking spaces. Are those mostly from the additional -- the driveway spaces that were added that weren't there previously with the alley loads? Those aren't additional guest spaces, those are -- those are spaces that were added from extending the driveways? Winger: Yeah. We deepened the drives, so that all houses could have a driveway. Perreault: Okay. Winger: Yes. Perreault: Thank you. Thompson: Thank you, TJ. Brent Thompson. St. George, Utah. And the owner of the property. Appreciate your -- again hearing our application. I just wanted to echo what TJ said of the quality of the development. I understand, Mr. Mayor, your concerns regards the previous one. The previous one, as I stated before, had a one car garage product as attached product and was about a thousand square foot size home. So, a much lower priced unit for a for sale fee simple product than -- than what we are presenting here. But I just wanted to at least express two things. Number one, I appreciate Mr. Overton and his explanation for the HOA, but there are, as he mentioned, many people that were in support of our project. We had probably 40 people I would imagine -- I'm sure we have got a roll of how many people were at our neighborhood meeting back in March next to the Holiday Inn -- the Holiday Inn conference room and I spoke with several couples that were actually highly in favor of our project, simply because it had a high quality appeal to it and they appealed to the -- the higher price points that we would be selling at and, unfortunately, as you know, the people that don't come are the ones that usually support the project and when we have had the experience of having a full staff report that was fully supportive of our application, as well as going to the Planning and Zoning Commission and having the full support by the Planning Commission, not one of these negative elements really came up and so it kind of took us by surprise last -- last Council meeting when it was brought up immediately about it being 55 and older. Just for the record, the -- and this can be reviewed. There is some misunderstanding. The previous application was not required to be 55 and older that was approved last May -- I think it was May 19th of 2020. And, unfortunately, I can't really pull that up at the moment, but was a participant online and I recall the discussion being that we could not limit it to 55 and older and it was not required to be 55 and older. I also believe I have a copy of the development agreement, which was prepared and sent to me, which I did not sign out of integrity, because we didn't include the other property and I told Alan or one of the planners that, that we were going to hold to see if we could work things out and get the other property. But one thing I wanted to read is just something that came to us just to kind of give me a little bit of support here. At our neighborhood meeting just two days Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 21 —— later a person had e-mailed TJ and Jamie and it said: Hello to you both. We wanted to reach out and thank you for hosting the meeting Tuesday evening at the Holiday Inn Express regarding the Wells Avenue project. If you would be so kind to share this e-mail with the developer from Iterra Homes we would appreciate that as well. Who is myself. As was evident there were very -- very concerned property -- property owners, not only in Woodbridge Subdivision, but Locust View Heights that want to ensure the right type of development goes in this area, which we certainly have heard. While traffic was a prominent topic that evening, we are aware that the developer cannot do anything to mitigate that problem, which has been in place since the beginning. We agree that Iterra would be a good partner to develop that land. The big piece, the single family homes and a gated community with all the amenities, works and we do believe the 55 target would be the targeted demographic and would attract much higher end buyers similar to what was proposed. After listening to your presentation and reviewing your design, we have come to the conclusion that this is a quality project that would fit well next to Woodbridge. Our biggest concern is having the wall of two story houses as has been discussed. We hope there can be a design change to address this concern. Which we have done. We have increased the side setbacks from three feet to five feet. We have now increased the setbacks much further than the city standard in a standard 8,000 square foot lot, which is typically I believe 25 feet minimum and most of these are even going down to 15 feet. We are now limiting ourselves to 27 feet and that's something we are imposing on ourselves. So, I just want to show you that we are listening to the neighbors and we are trying to make those adjustments. If you would be able to share with the board your design changes prior to our first time going to City Council, which we did, it would allow us to share with the Woodbridge residents to increase support when your application is submitted. Again, thank you for your time on Tuesday, the Woodbridge homeowners board. And so as a developer it's very difficult when we go through the process. We have had the neighborhood feedback. We have tried to mitigate any concerns that they have. We have gone through the planning staff, they give us a full approval or support of our project and we go through Planning and Zoning Commission, they give us a full staff for the project and, I will be honest last -- last month I felt attacked. It was very much in a situation where we are -- we are imposed this 55 and older -- that we had to impose it upon ourselves and financially we just cannot do that and, to be honest, it's frustrating to hear the challenges that are out there of this kind of anti-family. You know, what happens if a family moves in? Heaven forbid. And I guarantee you that if the city -- the citizens of Meridian were aware that all this is going on -- we are trying to limit having families, heaven forbid, that's not what we are targeting, but who cares if a family moves in? Who cares if they are able to move in? I agree the traffic problems are challenging all throughout the city, not just the Woodbridge community. It seems like that seems to be the focus every time is this discussion with Woodbridge and the traffic issue. We cannot fix that. It's something that exists. But I just want to make those statements and I also want to just be clear that we are developing a very high quality project. It would be a shame for the city to lose such an asset as what we are proposing on this three story building. It costs 20 million dollars to build. That's our cost and we have had bids up as high as 26. So, if you don't think that we are here and we are not in it trying to create a quality development, Mr. Mayor and Council Members, you are mistaken. We have put our money where our mouth is. We have purchased the property. We don't have it tied Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 22—— up. We have made every -- every effort to make this a success. We have listened to the -- to the residents of Woodbridge. Poor Jamie, I guarantee you, could supply over 200 e- mails that he's answered and tried to listen to the residents of Woodbridge, which has never been said or spoken of or appreciated and I have let Jamie interact with residents and try to make the best concessions that we can and that's a fact. Despite what -- what may have been said or what may have been felt. We hope that you vote yes in approval of this project and I'm here if you have any other further questions. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Brent, thanks for coming up. I think you touched on it. A month ago the conversation got a little spicy towards the end and -- Thompson: Icy. Cavener: -- I wanted to apologize for my role in that and I was going to do it before a vote, but since you came up I wanted to let you know I appreciate you being here and, frankly, I appreciate a lot of the responses to the -- the neighborhood feedback that you got. You didn't have to, but you I think made what you felt was your best effort to try and address some of that and I want you to know that that doesn't go unnoticed by the Council. Thompson: I appreciate that. And I just wanted to also -- if I have a moment to just clarify. When I mentioned we cannot have ex-parte communication, that was not accusing any Council Member of having ex-parte communication, it's the frustration that I have as a developer that we can have the neighborhood meeting, get positive feedback. We can talk to staff, have positive feedback. We can get through Planning and Zoning Commission, have positive feedback. But we do not have an opportunity -- we do not have an opportunity to meet with Council or the Mayor necessarily to discuss our project and we felt, as I mentioned before, a little blindsided based on the city's feedback from staff, Planning and Zoning, that all of a sudden our project is terrible, it's not going to work. That's our market risk. If these don't sell that's on me. But, anyway, I just wanted to clarify that that was not an accusation, that was simply stating we -- and that's on the record if anybody wants to go back and look at it. We cannot have ex-parte. That's what I said. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I would like to clarify this conversation regarding the deed restricted 55 plus community. I think that what -- I want to clarify -- I can't clarify for Councilman Bernt who -- who had asked about this at the last meeting, but for myself I want to be really clear, because I -- what you just repeated back to me is not what I know I had communicated. So, I want to be really clear. I am not a proposal of deed restricted property. I didn't ask about the 55 plus, because that's what I am proposing to have happen. I don't like deed Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— restricted properties in general. What I want is the public to know what it is that you intend on building and what you intend on doing, because we frequently hear from the public this is what I thought was going to happen and it didn't happen. So, I want to clarify that this isn't about requiring the 55 --for myself. I can't speak for my fellow Council Members. This isn't about requiring a 55 plus. I would guess that that was brought forward as a suggestion, because it would make sense given the other uses of the property, maybe some concurrency to it. Personally I think from a real estate standpoint it's not wise. However, if you say that you are going to market to a certain age group and -- and -- and a different age group comes in, I have absolutely no problem with that. None whatsoever. But what we don't want is people to come back and say I thought this was going to happen, but this is what would -- what happened, because that's where we, then, get that feedback that you don't and so as -- as individuals making decisions that have a broader scope for the city, we have to take those kinds of things into account and all of us have had years of feedback from our residents and the reason we ask the questions that we ask and we bring the things that we bring up is because that's what we are doing week on week off that we are hearing from our own residents and so much of the questions that you are getting are because of the background that we have in these conversations on a regular basis. So, yes, you didn't get to speak to us directly, but all of us have -- have frequently answered the same questions -- or asked the same questions of developers that we are asking you. We ask those questions to -- to every applicant that comes through and -- because of the feedback that we hear. Whether it's feedback specific to your application or it's feedback specific to other -- other applications or it has to do with our Comprehensive Plan, which we just finished. We had a year and a half or more of feedback from our residents in our Comprehensive Plan about parking and streets and all of those. So, those are all things that come into play that may not be specific to your application, but we feel a duty to ask those questions to get them answered. Thompson: I appreciate that and if I just may respond briefly to that. I agree. Deed restrictions are very difficult and difficult to enforce and it's a whole different animal that -- that I'm not familiar with and it's just not our focus. We have never suggested that it's a 55 and older community. We do believe that there are going to be a lot of 55 and older buyers into that community. I come from a little bit different background and maybe where there is some confusion is where Boise is such a -- a spec home community where builders build spec and they build what they want to build and, then, the buyer comes and they buy it. We are visualizing this more as we meet with the buyers, we have plans available that they may select, and that's why we want to have the ability to have a two story product. They may all very well be single family, but it's going to be more customer driven and we are not going to go build 60, 61 spec homes, if that makes sense. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Thompson: If I can make just one more statement, Mayor -- Mr. Mayor. Excuse me. Which just in regards to the quality and Councilman Perreault was asking about how can we guarantee. We have gone to the extra great lengths -- in fact, Councilman Borton was a victim of that. We had been looking at the landscape plan, that was actually our landscape plan from a group that -- out in Portland, very high end landscape planner. Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 24—— Unfortunately, that's the one that correlated to the existing original plan. I have one that was sent to me yesterday -- or this morning that's up to date. We have gone through with all the expenses. We have this redesigned in CAD, which we had to send to the landscape architect, but if you look in detail into our-- our level of quality of-- of this entire project as far as its presented, we have spent countless dollars and time trying to make it right and trying to have the -- the examples of the homes that are going to be built and certainly the assisted living building, which, quite frankly, has been completely overlooked of the quality of -- of that asset to this community and what that would mean as well, but we hope that what we have done and what we have prepared -- and, unfortunately, Alan's received lots of copies from Jamie, it's just because Jamie wants to make sure he has the most up to date and I can see how that can be confusing, but we are not switching things. Jamie's just very detail oriented. If he changed a little bulb out and deleted two parking spaces, he wants to send it to Alan and make sure he has the one that has the two spaces left. Does that makes sense? Okay. Sorry. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Just kind of meatier topics, we kind of-- sometimes we leave the public hearing open, so I will just -- I will start, because I think the cat has got kind of all our tongues. think a lot of thought behind this. I touched on some of my comments with the applicant. Appreciate them responding to some of the feedback from the neighbors. I have kind of looked at this as kind of three parts. Assisted living, memory care piece, which I really like. I think we need more of that. Some of you know my wife works for the Alzheimer's Association and -- and so I hear almost every day about the importance of facilities like this in our communities. I have struggled a little bit with the -- kind of the -- the two story commercial element, what it will, what it won't, what it could be. I think I could get over that hurdle. The piece that I'm -- I'm struggling with is the piece that I think Council Woman Perreault did a very excellent and articulate job of kind of summarizing is that it feels to me incompatible with kind of the existing uses and the continuity piece I recognize is out of the applicant's hands, but compatibility is and I have struggled with what this potentially could be. Mr. Mayor, I think you did a -- I think a really good job of asking a very challenging question. I appreciate TJ responding about it. Is this the highest and best use and is this the right fit at the right time and I -- as much as I would like to wrap my head around the yes on that, I can't, and I have tried really really hard to not compare it against what we have last seen, because if we are going to compare it against what we have last seen, we should also compare it against the nine or ten other applications that we have seen and this one's vastly superior to some of the other ones that we have seen. So, I have tried to really take it on its own merit and there is about a third of it that I really like, a third that I'm neutral, and a third that I just don't think is the right fit. So, it's a struggle for me to be supportive of this application as presented. I'm open to the conversation, but that residential piece is a very very big hurdle for me. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 25—— Perreault: Question for Councilman Cavener. So, in the last hearing we gave the applicant really specific feedback on what didn't quite make sense to us. Do you have something specific this time that you have in mind? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Council Member Perreault, appreciate the question. Thank you. I mean the -- the easy answer is -- is the hard answer; right? They could say we are going to deed restrict this. They were very clear they don't feel that that's something they want to get behind or that they can't. What I didn't hear was any type of a structure -- structurized, if that's a word, plan to market and sell this as a 55 and up community. You hit the nail on the head. We hear all the time about the -- the seller or the applicant or the builder said it was going to be X and, then, it was going to be Y and -- and, frankly, I think it's good for your future residents that you give them some assurance, because if one day I want to be 55 and older and if -- if I live in a community that's market as a 55 and older and there is certain things that I want, it's a little more quieter, a little more peaceful, if young families show up, well, that's counter to what I chose to invest my money in. So, with -- without a plan from them it's -- saying here at a City Council meeting on a Tuesday night this is going to be marketed as a 55 and up community and, then, what they actually do to achieve that are two separate things and I think they had an opportunity to bring what that plan would be and they didn't present it. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: As I mentioned earlier, it's not always a topic of conversation, the specifics of the sizes of the residences and to occupy those residences. However, the more developed Meridian becomes, the more projects that we approve, more often we hear from the public about wanting us to get specific about what we are approving and how the planning process works and that the public knows what's going to happen. I'm hearing that more and more and so while the -- the element of whether you do a 1 ,500 square foot home or a 2,000 square foot home isn't technically part of the application that we are considering, we are doing what we feel is our due diligence to understand the entire concept in response to the feedback that we receive. So, I wanted to just share that. I have -- again, I'm here on the ground selling homes to seniors and have been doing it for years. This is not the product that they are buying in our area. So, I -- I am not -- I am not saying that to --frankly, in my -- in my opinion that's not an element of the decision for me. If young families buy these homes I'm okay with that. I don't have an issue with that. I have an issue with whether or not that is going to be a part of the communication to the public, as Councilman Cavener explained. I think once you get a home that's two stories, above 1,800 square feet, you are going to have young families all day long. It doesn't matter how big the backyard is, because it's getting harder and harder to find homes that are above -- above about 15, 16 hundred square feet in general, that are even in the Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 26 of 59 range that is being suggested. But, all in all, big picture out of the weeds, I don't -- this location for a higher quality subdivision doesn't make sense to me at all. It's -- this area is -- has such a variety of different types of properties and I wouldn't come in and say, yeah, that's definitely where we want to put a high quality, higher end residential subdivision. The oddness of the roads, the hotels nearby, you have got businesses right close up, you have got medical offices, you have got interesting traffic patterns -- I don't see this as being a location where I would like to see a high end neighborhood. That being said, I don't see that there are any technicalities that the applicant has not addressed that have been -- that are in the staff report. I mean the applicant has essentially agreed to nearly everything that we have asked and it's my understanding they have agreed to all of the requirements of the staff report. So, I don't see anything in particular that I don't think the applicant has addressed or attempted to address that would go against what planning staff has recommended. So, that didn't share my exact opinion, because I can see both sides. This is the struggle. This is why we have been back here three times. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think -- I don't know if this helps or hurts, but I think it needs to be part of the conversation. This is -- this is an annexation and the Mayor asked the absolute correct question on that and that really is your decision point. I think Council Member Cavener is spot on to say, again, if that's not their plan to do that that way, then, that's not their plan. So, that's your decision point. I'm a little concerned -- and I don't -- I don't see the Council going there or I would have brought this up sooner, but on mandating that -- a property owner can mandate that restriction and that's allowed and if the Council's preference is this is the kind of community that makes sense to us in this location, that's fine, too. But it is difficult for us to require it, but we certainly don't have to annex it if it doesn't fit, as Council Member Perreault just stated, it doesn't fit the area, the feel, the right -- the right type of development in that location. So I just wanted to make sure we didn't digress, because Planning has pushed my buzzer a couple times to say make sure we don't mandate that and I don't see us going there, that wasn't the intent that I ever thought was the Council's direction, but I did want to bring up that -- I mean, really, if it isn't -- Touchmark is a great example. Touchmark does not have a restriction from the city to be a 55 and older community. That's their business. So, that's why they built it that way and that's what they market it for and if you are 25 years old with three kids and you want to buy a house there, they may not sell it to you and they don't have to. So, I mean that really is--the plan you have in front of you is where your decision has to lie. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I -- I have never been a fan of the deed restriction. I think that goes a lot Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page— —— further than we have ever gone as a Council and I don't think it works in our best interest either to ask somebody to do that; right? In 30 or 40 years maybe 55 and up is not an appropriate use of this piece of land; right? So, I -- I'm not -- I'm not a fan of that. I think they vocalized a business plan that hopefully addresses a concern about traffic. I don't -- I think what we are suffering from is we are comparing it to the last application. I don't think that's entirely fair. I think to everybody's point it's like -- it's not just a comparison to the last application, it's a comparison to any potential use and I --this is, to me, a lot better than other uses that could be right next to a residential neighborhood with a big medical office building or, frankly, denser housing. I mean this to me -- some of the -- I think real points of concern I think have been mitigated by changes that the applicant made. I appreciate that. I agree it's not their responsibility to solve the traffic issue and, you know, I think what they are asking for is optionality for their two stories as they are marketing. But that the setbacks go a long way to address that concern and I -- you know, I hear comments like we can't have windows on the west side. That's an unreasonable request; right? Like we need to strike the right balance between the property owner that owns this land and the potential uses of it and the neighbors and people deserve to live in this new neighborhood, if it gets built, deserve to have light and air and all the things that come with windows and -- you know. So, we have got to strike that balance and we need housing and I -- personally I think that there is a lot to like about this application with the changes that have been made. Yeah. I'm leaning towards supporting it at this point. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I appreciate the dialogue this evening with my fellow Council Members. Appreciate the dialogue and the presentation as well. At the end of the day I don't feel that this -- this application fits the highest and best use for this -- for this section of our community. So, I -- and, honestly, my thoughts haven't changed since -- since last -- since the last City Council meeting when we heard the original presentation. I won't be in favor of this application or annexing this property into the city at the current time. Simison: Anybody else like to make some comments on the application at this time? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Sure. Just summary comments. I -- I think that the -- the overall balance of considerations that -- in particular the changes that were addressed from the Council comments, they do hit the mark. I think anything on this location, no matter what it is, causes traffic, it causes challenges and increases use and -- and that is a difficult scenario to remedy absent keeping it vacant forever. The renderings are attractive. I think it's -- it's a less intense use than what other -- otherwise might be there. It appears to be laid out in a way that can integrate adjacent parcels successfully, both to the east and the west. It's a difficult parcel. It really is. I think getting rid of access on Magic View is a Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— really big improvement to the inherent challenge that this parcel will have forever, just because any use is going to create traffic and this area is just -- has that challenge it has to deal with. So, I'm supportive of it as changed and in the comments that the applicant provided that would all be incorporated into the DA. It's not a deed restricting issue, but the comments in the packet. Or I think the applicant read them, but they are literally dated today. Walking through the four feedback topics and how they intended to address some or all of them. Council Woman Strader's comments with regards to rear yard setbacks and the windows I think is spot on as well. It's that balancing of consideration. We take in remarks from adjacent properties as part of our consideration. Whether adjacent property support or reject doesn't dictate or drive the decision, but it certainly is a valuable piece of input that we consider. But I guess all of that combined together makes me supportive of this application as it's been amended. Simison: Well, we have an odd number this evening, I would say -- I asked the question earlier that was to me the big question and at the end of the day when -- what we use to evaluate this is like top half is residential, which abuts residential. The bottom half is commercial, which abuts commercial. The adjacent parcel is actually adjacent to county land. So, it's really -- it's thought out -- while I would prefer to see everything come in at once, I think it would have -- you know, maybe you could address a few things. I can't, in my own opinion, hold this person responsible when the next property over from this one is a county subdivision, there is county property as well, and I would like to know how that's going to develop. I would like to know how all of this is going to redevelop long term, because that's what we spent doing our Comprehensive Plan on. You know, we really tried to stay focused on this area to try to have a better understanding about the -- what the long term look and feel of this area was going to be and, you know, it's not going to happen until I think some of us -- our tenure is up here, but at the end of the day, if you separate out the north and the south from two parcels, the integration with the adjacent land uses seems to be pretty spot on accurate as far as what is concerned from the number of houses that are adjacent to other houses in Woodbridge, it's not completely out of proportion from my standpoint. So, while my question earlier was maybe a question I think it was important, is now the right time, because we don't have the entire picture, I don't think you need the entire picture for this piece, because you are continuing the orderly development west into the county parcel over time. So, for those as you consider what your position is on this, take that food for thought for this closing the public hearing and making a motion. Oh. And maybe just one other -- you know, the 55 year old or -- at least personally -- again, I think at the end of the day it's the developer risk-reward, what you build, where you -- you know, how nice you build, how small, how big, who you sell to, who you market to -- you know, I -- I don't have a viewpoint that it needs to be a certain demographic. I do think that that's market driven concerns, as compared to expectations of marketing from my standpoint, because you got a road --you have a road, you have a business, you have a drain and, then, you have a medical -- you know, it's not integrated the same way the last one was. You know, they are different. So, thank you for allowing me to comment. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Move we close the public hearing on item H-2021-0024. Strader: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I don't know if there is additional discussion that needs to be had, but I will make a motion and we can discuss it. If it gets a second. I move that we approve H-2021-0024 and to incorporate into the approval and the DA all of the adjustments and remarks presented in the plat of September 14th, as well as I think the staff-- or the applicant's e- mail of September 14th that identifies certain adjustments that will be made and incorporated into the DA. Hopefully that's specific enough for Legal to incorporate into the findings that will come back before us, so I won't have to list them here. Strader: I would second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Okay. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, nay; Bernt, nay; Perreault, nay; Hoaglun, absent; Strader, yea. Simison: Motion fails two to three. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. THREE NAYS. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I will make a motion to maybe get a conversation started. I move that we deny Item 2, application H-2021-0024. Perreault: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second and would like more information -- I believe Mr. Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 30 of 59 Nary is requesting. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: On the basis that it's not an appropriate fit at the appropriate time for this piece of land in Meridian. Incompatible. Simison: Does the second agree? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Question for Councilman Cavener if I may. Does Council want to consider giving the applicant another opportunity and continue this? And the only reason I ask that -- I -- we haven't given any specific direction, so that doesn't help the applicant. However, as we know when we deny an application it's a year before the applicant can apply again and I don't want to limit the applicant in this way. So, that's why I take these denials so incredibly seriously and so curious the first thought on that. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: That's a great question tonight. I think all of us take denial seriously. It's one of the reasons why I paused before I -- I made my -- my motion is that I think -- this is just my perspective -- that Council gave some pretty clear direction about what we were looking to see. Quite frankly, Council Member Perreault, I think you and I gave some really good suggestions on action that the applicant could have proposed this evening. They chose not to. And I haven't heard any request from them for any type of continuance. So, it seemed that we are -- we are at an impasse on this, unfortunately. As much as I -- I'm a firm believer of giving lots of bites at the apple, but I just think that we are at a point where I think what makes sense for this particular piece of dirt isn't what the applicant is able to do and so, therefore, that's why I'm recommending denial. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Councilman Cavener. The second agrees. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Motion and a second with the agreement. Council -- Mr. Nary. Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 31 of 59 Nary: Yeah. I just wanted to add that that's just that the applicant would not be allowed to submit substantially the same application. So, a different application certainly could be. Even this application changed to some degree could be. That would be up to the planning director to determine that. But that -- there is -- so, the year prohibition isn't for any application, it's just the same one. Simison: Is there further discussion on the motion? Okay. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, absent; Strader, nay. Simison: Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Borton. Borton: Just --just for what it's worth, I supported the motion. I understand the will of the majority of the Council and -- and that decision has been made, so I -- it was a good discussion, but understand the motion passing. That's why I supported it. Simison: Motion passed. The item is agreed to and the item is denied. Council, we are going to take a five minute break to reset for our last two items. (Recess: 7:49 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.) 3. Public Hearing for Bright Star Care Meridian (H-2021-0052) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Modification to the existing Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement and Addendum (Instrument#'s 102056126 and 106133465) to remove the subject property (Parcel A& B, ROS 8756 which is a portion of Lot 46 & all of Lot 47 of Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 5) for the purpose of entering a new agreement to allow a reduction to the existing 20-foot residential landscape buffer to construct 5,800 sq. ft. nursing and residential care facility consistent with the approved conditional use permit (H-2021-0040). Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and come back from recess. Next item up is Item 3, a public hearing for Bright Star Care Meridian, H-2021-0052. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Tiefenbach: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. This is a modification to the existing Sundance Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 32 of 59 Subdivision development agreement for the purpose of entering into a new agreement to allow a reduction to the required 20 foot residential landscape buffer. This is to allow an approximately 5,800 square foot nursing and residential care facility consistent with a conditional use. I will come back to that in a minute. Here just to -- to familiarize you where the property is. North Meridian. Settlers Park is just right across the street on the west. This is an existing office complex. The subject property is presently two vacant lots -- Simison: Alan, we can't see -- Tiefenbach: Yes, sir. Simison: -- we can't see the presentation. Tiefenbach: Okay. Hold on. Let's see. Simison: There you go. Got it. Tiefenbach: Got it? Simison: Yep. Tiefenbach: So, again, just to familiarize yourself, this is the -- you all know where Settler's Business Park is. This would be on the west side of North Meridian. What you see highlighted there in blue is basically two of the leftover building pads that have not been built yet in this office complex. The subject property is presently two lots, about a -- just a little less than a half an acre. Like I said, it's in the Settlers Business Park and it's within the Sundance Subdivision development agreement. In July of this year the Planning Commission approved a conditional use on this property to allow a 5,800 square foot nursing and residential care facility. The landscape plan of this facility reflected a ten foot wide buffer adjacent to the residential property to the north and I will show you that in a minute. However, a requirement of the Sundance Subdivision is that due to the single family uses on the boundary of the north there, a minimum of a 20 foot planting strip was required along that property line. Because this was a requirement of the DA it can only be reduced through the action of the Council. Consequently, the Planning Commission approved the conditional use with -- with a condition that the applicant meets the 20 foot residential landscape buffer requirement or request a development agreement, which is what's happening this evening. The applicant states that the Settlers Business Park Properties Association that they said that the original intent of this buffer was it was a requirement to mitigate the impact of any commercial properties on the adjacent residential, but since this is such a residential use the applicant contends that this was not meant to apply to this situation. The applicant also added that there is fencing between the subject property and the properties to the north and the tree buffer that's there is roughly not quite three times the density that would be required. The applicant submitted a letter of no objection from the Settlers Business Park property owners and we have not received any negative comments from the adjacent neighbors. Because Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— there are no objections, the applicant is providing fencing -- nearly three times as much fencing, like I said, so staff does not object to this. Staff has reviewed the requirements of the original DA and the DA addendum and the subject property is located internally within the Settlers Business Park and all the parking infrastructure and public improvements are already there. The only pertinent requirements to the existing DA would be to allow the reduction in the landscape buffer. This is a copy of the landscape plan that was approved by the Planning Commission. The landscape buffer that's being discussed is what you see here. That there is the ten foot buffer. Meridian Road is over here to the west. There is an existing office building here. Existing office building here. They are all sharing parking and just for your information, this is elevations of the existing building. And with that I will stand for any questions or comments, Council. Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? State your name and address for the record, please. Hatch: Good evening. Jeff Hatch with Hatch Design Architecture. Our address is 200 West 36th Street in Boise, Idaho. 83714. Good evening, Mayor Simison and Council Members. Thank you for your consideration of our development agreement modification this evening. I appreciate Alan sticking in there. I know he's not feeling the best, but thank -- thank you for that wonderful presentation. I think you did a great job kind of recapping our efforts so far. We have done four of these assisted living centers in the valley and typically when we present these in a business park the first thing -- and this kind of happened at P&Z, too. They go why would you want to put in this residential assisted living in a business park. We do this for a number of reasons. Mainly because the residential nature of these really compliment neighborhood development. So, in many cases we tuck these next two residences, but in many cases there just aren't available lots -- or lots the appropriate size for a facility of this size. So, the next best thing would be to be in a commercial park that is adjacent to a neighborhood and so we recently did one adjacent to a gym in a residential neighborhood. We just recently got one approved that's in a business park similar to this tucked up to a neighborhood and those two scenarios are kind of interesting and unique in that you get -- you get the input and -- input and feedback of the direct neighbors affected, which are typically in these cases, especially the commercial lots, tend to be quite a bit more verbal of concerns and considerations. Most of our residents, similar to this, have minimal concerns. When we did our neighborhood meeting the neighbors were very concerned about parking. They were very concerned about frequency of visitations and through our dialogue with them they came to realize that we are proposing a single low density proposed project on two parcels, which could be two independent businesses with independent parking needs separate of that. From the feedback we got from the daycare to the east of us and the attorney to the south of us, you know, our proposed parking counts are two to four capacity most of the time. Be a little bit of excess in the -- in the weekends, but for the most part we came to the conclusion and so did our adjacent neighbors, that this -- for this area, especially having the density and frequency of parking demand on the daycare, is actually a really nice use and the daycare was exceptionally excited, because they had been trucking their kids across the street to another daycare or assisted living center to engage them in caroling and other seasonal activities and so having that adjacency was Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— something that they got excited about. The other consideration that we found positive was that the individuals living in assisted living centers were excited to be next to a daycare, because the lively nature of having children next door actually helps invigorate these individuals. So, with that, you know, we have achieved some concerns that they had in -- in our direct adjacent neighbors with concerns for parking and congestion. Really felt that we complemented the surrounding area. Looking at the proposed development, we did a couple different iterations trying to get the 20 foot landscape buffer to work and, really, based on state regulations, on the size and demand of what the bedrooms actually have to be, became very restrictive to be able to get the quantity of housing -- housing that we are trying to propose on this lot, which is really what we are -- we are wanting to achieve. Really the sweet spot for this type of assisted living center and care is to get to about eight to ten bedrooms and we are proposing ten, but we weren't able to get to even eight if we restrict that ten feet, because a ten foot rule the entire length of--of the property eliminates about five bedrooms from this and -- and makes it fairly difficult to try to fit onto this parcel. As Alan kind of recapped, the nature of this -- this particular development is residential and versus a product that's three story and more commercial in nature, we really have worked with Bright Star Care to make these residential feel and a space that residents that live there feel like they are at a house and we have a rocking chair alley where they can engage and enjoy winter months. We have an outdoor patio and pergola where they can enjoy the outdoors in the summer months and really feel like they are at a house and so with that we have a current photo of one of our recent projects and so versus, you know, a one or two story commercial building, these are very residential, very low profile, with hip roofs and so with that we -- we did follow up with the HOA and -- and requested that they provide us with a finding, because they were kind of-- you know, very much involved in the development agreement and their intent for that and they were able to provide us with a letter that says in their opinion the original intent of the 20 foot landscape buffer within the development agreement was due to the proposed commercial uses, which they found that the residential nature of this proposed project they were in -- in support of that reduction and with that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone signed up to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the room that would like to come forward and provide testimony, please, do so now. If there is anybody online that would like to come forward, please, use the raise your hand function at the bottom of the Zoom. Seeing nothing -- nobody, would the applicant like to make any final questions -- comments? Hatch: I really thank you for your time this evening and I appreciate Alan for finding it very important to make sure that this -- this particular item came in front of Council and had your blessing and your view on it. I feel that we have done a prudent job doing two neighborhood meetings, several public hearings, provided three times the density of the trees, privacy wall, getting that approval from P&Z. But also at P&Z after we presented, you know, the daycare owner actually came up and testified in favor of our project and I Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 35 of 59 -- I feel it's exciting and -- and it's unusual to see a project in an in-fill site where you get everybody around you to say, yeah, this makes perfect sense and it fits well and it helps resolve a lot of the concerns that we had for what might have happened in this location and so we feel that, you know, this really still preserves the intent of that commercial landscape buffer, but also achieves a lot of what, you know, both commercial and residential would like to see in this location. Thank you. Simison: Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I move we close the public hearing on H-2021-0052. Bernt: Second. Simison: Motion and second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay. The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, I wanted to share that I won't be voting on this application this evening. Bright Star Care has been a client of mine for a very long time -- a past client of mine. I'm not currently in -- in a contractual agreement, but because of my knowledge of their -- of their business and have had the pleasure to be involved in many of these properties that have been built, I'm -- I am opting not to vote because of the closeness of my relationship with the owner of Bright Star Care. I did chat with Mr. Nary about legal elements and he has no concern if I were to vote. I just think that -- that it's wise to disclose that, so I will not be voting on this application. Simison: Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will make a motion and see if it follows with some discussion. I appreciate Council Woman Perreault's disclosure and recusal on this one. I also appreciate the applicant's comments. Alan is fantastic. He's a champ. No question about it. Does great work. But in preparation for this hearing it appears as though there was a great work done on both sides. Alan's done a marvelous job, but hats off to the applicant in rounding Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— up support and in articulating a reasonable explanation for the amendment. It does have that residential feel to it. I think the intent of -- of the prior provision contemplated something that might not be so residential in feel and -- and harmonious, so -- and I'm supportive of the request. I'm going to make a motion that we approve H-2021-0052 as presented in the staff report of September 14th, 2021. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any discussion? Okay. If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, abstain; Hoaglun, absent; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. TWO ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) by Gem State Planning, Located on the West Side of Meridian Road Between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, Directly South of the Mid-Mile Point A. Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan and to redevelop the subject property to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat Simison: Next item up is Item No. 4, a public hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision, H-2021- 0036. Open this public hearing with staff comments from Joe. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Thanks, Chris. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen real quick. Before we start I just wanted to let you know I apologize for not being in the -- in the chambers. I'm usually one of the ones trying to hold down the fort for everybody, but I'm not feeling a hundred percent and just not -- not trying to risk anybody or myself trying to be safe for my family. So, I appreciate the opportunity to present remote. And just for the Council Members in the -- in the chambers, when you guys speak it's very difficult to hear you on the electronic side -- on the Zoom Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page" —— side. So, just want to make you aware. Next item as noted is Briar Ridge Subdivision. This site is located just south of the half mile mark between Amity and Lake Hazel on the west side of Meridian Road as you can see. For a little bit of reference about adjacent projects, you can see on the map on the right directly adjacent on the east side of Meridian is Shafer View Estates. North of that is the Prevail Subdivision, which is basically in three phases, Prevail North, that little piece just north that we recently approved. The application before you tonight consists of 40.99 acres of land, currently zoned R-4. It was annexed into this city as part of the South Meridian Annexation in 2015. As we all know it was a much larger annexation. Much of what's in the center map is what was annexed at that time. The future land use designations on the site are both medium density residential, which allows three to eight dwelling units per acre, and medium high density residential, eight to 12 units per acre. The requests before you are for a rezone of the 40.99 acres of land from R-4 to the TN-R zoning district, the traditional neighborhood residential, which we do not get many requests for. A request for a preliminary plat consisting of 227 single family residential building lots, 121 of them which are detached and 106 are townhomes, which are attached products, and, then, with 47 common lots on 38.8 acres. In addition, there is a requirement to do a DA modification and once the site is being developed in the existing DA from 2015 really it's just to update the concept plan and provide the city an opportunity to require any additional provisions within that DA. As noted, the property was annexed in 2015 and the city made commitments to these properties that are, quote, unquote, on the periphery to provide those services. Services are available. They will have to -- if approved they would have to do about 800'ish feet of water line, but sewer is readily available. The project is proposed in three phases. This is the revised phasing plan. The revised phasing plan, the biggest change is just having only one entrance, instead of both entrances on the collector street on the north boundary of West Quartz Creek is proposed in the first phase and they are including and are required to include the secondary access to Meridian Road, which is only in emergency access. Then as you can see it's kind of hard I guess with the pink line. Phase one is kind of the east two-thirds. Phase two would have the larger open space. Some more detached. And, then, phase three finishes it out and moves south. The project area does contain two future land use designations as noted, medium high and medium density residential. Mixed use regional does abut the property to the south. Designations call for a mix of housing types and different densities between the two. However, the designations are not parcel specific, so either designation can be used and the applicant is proposing an overall gross density of 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which falls right in the middle of the medium density designation. Theoretically, the applicant could have proposed a project with twice this density and still been compliant with the comp plan, at least in terms of density. Although the proposed project density is consistent with the medium density residential, the applicant is aware of the existing commercial zoning to the south, which, again, is part of the South Meridian Annexation and is part of the mixed use regional designation. To the south would likely incorporate higher intensity development, both commercial and residential. So, the applicant has proposed a higher density product, which is the attached townhomes, in the southeast quadrant of the site and places the alley load townhomes in this area. Staff does find this project and it's design to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is requesting the TN-R zoning district as noted, which requires six dwelling units per acre of Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— net density and it requires two -- at least two housing types and tree oriented design that is more focused on the pedestrian than the car. Overall site design proposed by the applicant is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use designation and the requested zoning, because they have transitional -- transitional density, multiple housing types, the inclusion of parkways throughout the entire development and the extension of a collector street along the north boundary for future connectivity. The project is proposed with three housing types. Detached single family, which is the majority on the -- in the northwest and the west boundary. They have alley loaded detached single family, which would be these alleys here, as well as these alleys here. And, then, they have -- sorry. Alley loaded townhomes, which are the rest of these in the southeast quadrant as noted. Staff supports the proposed housing types and the overall site design, which includes five foot detached sidewalk and eight foot parkways on every street. The project is proposed with at least four and a half acres of qualifying open space, which is approximately 11.6 percent consisting of the required buffer to Meridian Road, the large centralized open space, MEWs between the townhome units and other small open space areas throughout the site. The proposed parkways also count as qualified open space, but the applicant has not included this area in the calculation, because it is not needed to meet the minimum amount. Staff is not concerned that this has not had any of the calculation, because the requested TN-R zoning district requires parkways. So, the city has multiple avenues of ensuring they are constructed per the submitted plans. So, when I noted that at least four and a half acres of qualified open space is because the parkways are not part of that calculation. The amenities exceed code requirements, which for this plat would be two -- two minimum. A minimum. Sorry. A minimum amount of two amenities, because of the size of the plat. They have proposed a multi-use pathway, children's play structure, picnic shelters, open space in excess of code, which is the large open space lot. The landscaping and fencing meet the code requirements, except for those few areas noted in the staff report, which the applicant has agreed to and understands. The noise abatement, which is required along the buffer to Meridian Road also meets code. With the proposal for multiple blocks of alley loaded homes and 33 foot wide street -- street sections, for those local streets, there is ample on-street parking. The required off-street parking will be maintained for each building lot as well. So, specifically, in the south half of the site where you have these alley loaded, because there is parkways along all of these quadrants, every linear foot can be used for on-street parking, which we do not get a lot of in Meridian. So, that -- the parking should not be of any concern in this project. The access for the site is proposed to be a construction of a new collector street as noted, which is the east-west collector street on the north boundary, West Quartz Creek Street. The secondary emergency access is proposed to Meridian Road at the very southeast corner of the property. Down here. The preliminary plat also shows two stub streets to the west for future connectivity. The West Howlite Street -- you can't really read that, but that's the east-west street along the southern boundary. It also is -- it will be constructed half plus 12 of pavement -- half plus 12 feet of pavement. Sidewalk on the north side. When the property to the south redevelops they will be required to construct their -- their piece of the sidewalk -- or curb, gutter, and sidewalk and that will offer multiple opportunities for connectivity to the south, not just at the -- this corner here. The Meridian Road, State Highway 69, is currently being studied by the Idaho Transportation Department for core improvements from Overland all the way south to Orchard Avenue Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— in Kuna. The mid mile intersection that's directly at the northeast corner of the site -- right here -- is part of that project and is part of the study. It is proposed to be designed with a reduced conflict U-turn intersection, which this is an example of that that ITD provided or is actually in their online project map. It is very different from anything else that we have in the city right now. It does eliminate left turns from this collector street and through traffic-- it eliminates left turns and through traffic from the lower volume road, which would be West Quartz Creek Street. So, in order to go north you would have to turn right, go to the left lanes and do a signalized U-turn to head north and same thing if you were going to go across the street to Prevail or any of that other -- the other side of the collector street. The applicant is required to participate in a cost share agreement for those future improvements of the road and the intersection. This is due to the corridor being part of a future project and the proposed traffic generation not exceeding more than ten percent at any one intersection along the corridor of Meridian Road, which is also why ACHD is not requiring any mitigation methods. In addition, Meridian Road is not in ACHD's jurisdiction, because it is a state highway. ACHD did provide a staff report to the staff after the Commission hearing that agrees with the ITD conditions and required some revisions to the internal street network, just to ensure compliance with street widths. Nothing that changes the plat in any meaningful way. The Commission did recommend approval at the Commission hearing. There is three pieces of written testimony discussing concerns with water usage and increase of traffic when compared to the estate lots to the east on the east side of Meridian Road. There has been no written testimony since the Commission hearing. The key issues of public testimony was just the -- the layout of the road along the southern boundary and if it -- it's -- if its intent was to be fully constructed or only partially, which I noted it is going to be half plus 12. The Commission discussed the McBirney Lateral, which can be noted here. That's going to be piped and, then, put in an easement. The applicant is also proposing to continue a piece of the multi-use pathway in this segment as well, so that way it can have really good connectivity to the central open space a lot. They also discussed anticipated construction around the proposed development in terms of both residential and commercial and if any other portion -- any portion of the project was going to be for rent or if it was all for sale. The applicant noted it will be for sale product and a very specific question came up about the school boundaries, because the high school for this is actually noted to be Meridian High School, which is seven miles away and not Mountain View, which is closer. It is my understanding -- and I -- it was confirmed that that is accurate as of now, but by the time this will -- any of these homes were to come online it is my understanding that those boundaries will be redrawn again and because of Owyhee High School will be online there is high probability that Mountain View would be the appropriate high school forfuture high school students in this area. The Commission did not change any -- any conditions or provisions. The applicant did make some revisions that staff had noted, which this is probably the best way to show you. They moved two lots from the central open space lot to make this more visible and open. They put those two lots over here to match what's on this side. They lost that parking lot. They removed this parking lot to add more open space in the south portion of the site, but are keeping these two extra off-street parking areas. That is my presentation. I will let the applicant talk more -- talk more about the elevations and the proposed -- what those proposed product types will look like. I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 40—— Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Joe, did I correctly understand that the street on the south side is intended to be emergency access only? Dodson: This West Howlite you are talking about? Perreault: Yeah. Dodson: Just this segment here is emergency only access. The rest of it is public road. Perreault: Okay. So, vehicles won't be accessing from the highway onto that for -- for residential purpose? Dodson: No. No, ma'am. Not at this time. They will have to access through West Quartz Creek Street on the north boundary. Perreault: Okay. And question number two. Do you -- did you get any time frame from the state on when that RCUT intersection would be implemented? Dodson: ITD did not include that in their letter or any of those things. The ACHD staff report noted that all of the intersections are slated to be widened probably after 2025 and so my assumption is that the ITD corridor would coincide with that. Again, they -- unfortunately, they did not give us a specific timeline. They are doing a very in-depth study right now. You can -- I put the project map link in my staff report. If you didn't have time to go through that I understand, but it does discuss a lot of the major intersection points along the State Highway 69 corridor through this area of the city. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks. There is a couple -- there are a couple of things in the staff report that I felt like were alluding to something. We weren't really getting very granular about them. On page nine there is a highlighted section about staff having concerns on the timing of the development in relation to nearby developments, but that we have already committed to servicing it and developing it. Can I -- can we just flush that out a little more? What's the concern? If you put that commitment aside -- I don't know what that commitment was exactly. It wasn't a part of my commitment. But put that to the side. What -- what is the concern actually? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. That's a fair question and I apologize to the applicant, because it's Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 41 of 59 probably a little harsher than I intended to be with the first -- my first rendition of the staff report. The concerns are just with that Comprehensive Plan that that's noted is the -- the urban services, you know, grocery stores, gas station, commercial development. Commercial is a fair ways away from this property. I think that will change. Since this has been in the -- in the hearing process I have already gotten multiple calls and a couple meetings about adjacent property. So, I think this area of the city is growing and it's creating a lot of interest. So, I think that the commercial is closer than what I originally anticipated two months ago when I wrote the staff report. That doesn't mean that that's going to change now, though, and that -- that's just where my concern lied is, hey, if they need to go get gas where are they going to go? If they go to the grocery store the closest one is going to be the new Albertsons to the northeast off of Eagle or--yes. Eagle. Right. Or if they go south to Kuna I'm not as familiar with that. I don't know how close anything down there is, but at my--from what I can see on a map it's pretty much the same. Pretty much anything within a mile radius is -- you can't walk anywhere that's for sure. So, that was just more of my concern. The applicant did discuss a little bit more of the timing with the phasing and how that's all going to work at the Commission hearing and it's going to be some years out and that definitely helps quell some of those concerns, because I think more of the commercial around Albertsons, more than commercial in the Hill Century Farm, even that up further north of Meridian Road is going to continue being developed, even to the southeast along Lake Hazel and the Apex Subdivision area, Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, I believe, that should be coming online more as well as more homes get developed over there. So, my concern was more about the urban services, not the infrastructure, that's going to be readily available. It was just those urban services. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Got it. Okay. That makes more sense. So, I'm assuming that all of the actual water and sewer services are like up to this property. It's more of a chicken and egg question, like do you put all the people there and, then, bring the commercial or do you try to build the commercial and, then, bring the people. So, I could see the dilemma there. Just to make sure -- you don't have any concern, though, about we are leapfrogging something in terms of our sewer shed or -- we don't have any issues with actually extending -- I believe our sewer shed is extended already through here. So, this is a priority growth area. There is no services that are missing. Dodson: Council Woman Strader, great points, and you are correct on all that. Yes. The -- the only difference with what you said and the reality is that the water line -- I'm not throwing anybody under the bus, but the water is not coming straight down Meridian, it's actually at this point in West Quartz Creek Street -- or I should say East Quartz Creek Street, so they have to run water down the collector road that Prevail is constructing and go across Meridian and, then, they will have water. Sewer is all the way -- already down here, yes. The water was the only thing and they are well aware of that. Originally they thought they were going to have to pull it from further north, but they are actually going to pull it from the east, which is a little easier. You don't have to disrupt Meridian Road as Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 42 of 59 much. But it is available and Public Works has signed off on it. There is no leapfrogging of any sewer sheds or anything. As we get further to the southwest with any of those properties, that will be more of a concern, but we are not there yet and that's not what's on the docket tonight. I do agree with you, like traditionally you got to have houses first and, then, you get to commercial. Just kind of the way that goes. Nobody's going to put a gas station on this corner, even though it's probably needed, until they know that they are going to get people that are going to be nearby to get the gas and -- Strader: Got it. All right. Thanks a lot. I appreciate that. Dodson: Very well. Strader: Maybe while they are digging up for the waterline they could go ahead and do ITD work for them, too. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. We will have the applicant come forward, please. Suggs: Good evening, Mayor, Council, city staff and guests. I'm Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning, at 9839 Cablecar Street, representing Briar Ridge Subdivision. I think Joe, as usual, did a really good job of kind of talking about Briar Ridge and talked a little bit about some of the things that he had suggested that we made those changes, so that we have what we think is an excellent project. We do appreciate the P&Z Commission recommendation of approval and I just want to start off the presentation tonight with just saying something you always want to hear. We agree with the conditions of approval in the staff report. So, relax for a few minutes. I do want to tell you a little bit about the history and I think this is helpful and many of you know this history very well. In 2015 the City of Meridian worked with dozens of property owners in the south part of town to annex their land into the city and I brought some of those drawings that were shown during that process. This is the annexation. Comprehensive Plan. The B.R. there in the middle is Briar Ridge and so you see all these crosshatched properties were those that were annexed all at one time. So, this was a few years ago. Well, let's see, I think I missed one. There are those properties crosshatched and here is -- okay. Oops. I'm going too fast. I'm getting a little delay here in my tapping. Okay. So, here is the comp plan and you can see in the B.R. there is a kind of an orangey color, that's the medium high density and the yellow is the medium density. Okay. And here is the zoning and this shows the R-4 zoning and most of those properties were zoned with an R-4 designation. You might remember, those of us that worked on this, this was Charlie Wood's property under the name of Rock Contractors, if that rings a bell for you. The development agreement at that time that annexed the property, it-- the development agreement allowed the property to continue to be used that was as it was presently used, even though it was annexed into the city and that included raising livestock, which you don't normally see here in the city, and even -- even the discharge of firearms. I thought that was an interesting thing that they put in the development agreement, that you are annexing and you shouldn't be able to do that, but you can. So, in agreement for -- in exchange for the agreement to annex, the owners and developers would need to develop according to the Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— Comprehensive Plan, of course, and the current city codes and, then, they would also have to amend the development agreement. It turns out that the first DA modification actually is at no cost. So, we haven't had to pay a DA modification fee to do this DA, it was part of that original DA and the first rezone would be at no cost. So, that's kind of an interesting thing. This was just an anticipation that we would be doing exactly what we are doing tonight. Just to address I think one of the questions. The development agreement also had some of the commitments that the city was going to make and that included extending the sewer. So, it has been extended down Meridian Road from the Meridian Heights area and down past Amity Road. There have been some recent developments in the area and you just saw that. The map. Prevail. The Shafer View Terrace over here off to the right and a little south and east is Apex and, then, a piece you don't know about, because it's -- that Lynrock, I'm just going to cut some of that off, but over to the west is a project called Lynrock and that's in Kuna. So, that's a little carve out of Kuna that happened. Let's get to the good stuff. The TN-R zone for Briar Ridge, traditional neighborhood residential, and by code that requires a variety of residential uses and we are providing the attached and detached single family residential and townhomes. The TN-R zone also promotes open space and pedestrian activity with well designed streetscapes. That's right out of your code. We have worked with staff over the course of some time on this, originally thinking we would have a lot of apartments, but we thought that the townhomes were much better and convenient housing type there. Briar Ridge has all of the TN-R features that your code requires. The planting strips along the street. That means we have some tree shaded sidewalks that are throughout the property. We have over 11 percent qualified open space, as Joe described, not including the planting strips. The large park for all the residents. We even have -- and just see if I can make this -- point this out. In these little areas right here -- you see these little marks in these MEWs, these are little shade structures that are in the MEWs. So, kind of little gathering spaces to do that. We think that's just a nice little extra. Plus you will notice that a sidewalk runs all the way through the property, so -- in those townhome areas. We did have a suggestion from the staff, as Joe explained. We had these extra parking spaces that are accessed from the alleyways. So, they are landscaped in front along the street, but if you have friends visiting and you tell them come through my alley and park, we have these extra parking spaces. We did take one of them out at the suggestion of staff. The green space. That's the one -- again, see if I can make this pointer work for me. Move it over there. That one was a parking area and we have decided to make it into another green space, just to have a little climbing boulder there for the kids to play on and it's right across from one of the pergolas. So, it's just kind of another little community gathering spot. Of course we do have the regional pathway all along Meridian Road and you know about highways. We have to put in a wall -- actually, not just a fence but a wall that has the top of the wall ten feet above the centerline of the highway. So, that wall is all on Meridian. We do have a break in the wall and that follows where the McBirney Lateral comes through. We are putting a ten foot pathway all the way to our park through that area, too, and one of the suggestions was that when we cross a street we have the bump out. So, that's one little change we made to our plan since our planning -- the Planning Commission meeting. We have designed the southern street, Howlite, to run along the south boundary. We believe that provides good separation from what could be commercial properties, but also a good connection to that commercial land as well. We Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 44-- will start our phase one in the northeast corner of the property with Quartz Creek, but we also will put that emergency access in. The second phase will be to the west and, then, the third phase will be the southern portion of the site. We have talked to Joe, Fire Marshal Joe, and we know about the fire station going in and he's very convinced -- we are all convinced that we can get our winter work done tonight -- I mean this summer -- sorry -- this winter. If we get approved tonight we can get our winter work done. That's the McBirney while the water is lower out of the McBirney, so we can do that work. We can start on our phase one. We will probably match up having a fire station ready by the time we get to our housing construction. So, we think that that's a great balance. We worked that out with Joe. So, he feels very confident that in about a year, year and a half, you are going to have a fire station operational that will service this area. We still also can be serviced by four, which is up on Overland Road, but we think the Fire Station 7 is going to be the better station to service. We did include some housing types and here are some examples of our front load detached single family homes and some of them are all narrower lots, some of -- you will see -- I have to go back to the plat, but if you look at the plat you will see that in some places we have mixed up some of the size lots. We have some 50 foot wide lots and, then, beside it we have some 60, then, we will go back. So, we have an opportunity to mix up those housing types a little bit, instead of having them all exactly the same and, then, we also have the alley loaded lots, one and two stories. A cute little cottage down there. And also the townhomes, so -- and those are the connected townhomes. You can see this is pretty well planned. Like I said, we have been working on it for a while. We really appreciate the staff suggestions. I think the committee gets together and they help us make some changes, like opening up the west side of that park. So, we were happy to do that. We are excited about this project and we request your approval of our rezone, development agreement modification, and our preliminary plat and I will answer questions if you have them. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Jane, for sitting through our long meeting. You know how we love our open space. Suggs: Yes. Perreault: So, what struck me when I first saw the concept was why not divide some of the open space up into various sections of the development, because this is so dense in some areas. It seems to me like the large park area is -- is where the lot sizes are the largest. So why have the open space there versus in the denser area? And, then, my other question is -- is has the developer considered putting in a dog park, because I would guess that these MEWs in the townhome area could become quasi default dog parks with -- and all that comes with it. So, just curious if-- if there were any other design -- designs that you went through that -- that you decided against those options? Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page"—— Suggs: Well, I will address the open space. We think this centrally located open space is a really good place. Instead of splitting things up we have a nice large open space for people to recreate and it's not that far to walk from those commercial -- I mean those townhomes and we did want to have the density by that commercial. We didn't want to have open space next to the commercial. So, we really like the density there. Again we had gone through some designs with apartments, but we were discouraged by the staff from doing three story apartments in that area. So, we really like the larger open space. It gives an opportunity for some kids to come out and set up and play soccer and stuff like that, instead of breaking it up and we think the MEWs -- as far as dog parks go, I don't have one designed in this area. You are right that I think all of our areas -- because we have the park strips and we have a great walkable community, that you are going to see a lot of people just walking their dogs all over the neighborhood, not just taking them someplace where they will just stand and watch their dogs run around. If the MEWs -- if the homeowners association want to set aside a portion of one of those MEWs to be fenced off for a dog park, we -- I don't think there would be a problem with that. I just don't know that we want to designate a specific area behind someone's home to be that or in front of someone's home, because these MEWs actually have people facing them. So, I believe that we have plenty of open space and that is something that the homeowners may decide to do. Again, I'm -- I'm very partial to having a nice central open space where people can gather and not split the neighborhood up. I think this is going to be a great community. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow-up question. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I was -- I was referring to the -- sort of the cleanliness of dog -- you know, dogs and dog parks and kind of keeping some of that in one particular area. Is there -- would the applicant consider moving that open space, keep -- keeping the similar size, but moving it closer to the more dense housing? Suggs: I appreciate your concern. I believe we have a really great designed property right now and it's --we are very happy and I think the staff is happy and the P&Z was very happy with the project we have. I mean, again, I appreciate there could be lots of different designs on this, but we are very happy with this particular design. Again, wanting to put the density down closer to the commercial and having this nice open space. You will see that the McBirney Lateral -- actually we are utilizing some of that open space. Oh. Sorry. There. The McBirney runs along this pathway. Okay. This is a funky little mouse. Okay. The pathway that you see -- and, then, it runs north along that larger open space and so part of that is getting McBirney Lateral into that open space as well. So, as much as I appreciate that, I really think that we have done a great job of putting our different housing types in locations where they are needed and, again, I think it's a short walk to the open space and we have the more intimate open spaces next to some of the townhomes there. But I would appreciate it if you might consider this as a great design that's been through a lot of-- a lot of review. I think three years ago there was another planner that was hired to do the same project and we had something that was similar, but, again, a little bit -- not Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— quite as attractive with the TN-R zone. So, we were looking at multi-family. We were looking at just big single family of all one size. So, I hope you appreciate the effort that's gone into this. Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks, Jane. I'm super worried about traffic and we have had some projects in the past where we have come across this issue of, you know, reserving and contributing cost share with ITD, but I know you can only control what you can control; right? But there is a challenge there. Maybe it would happen by 2025, but maybe not, and I guess I'm just wondering about traffic mitigation. In the meantime how you think traffic interacts with your phasing plan. Really concerned about mainly those left turns, you know, coming out onto Meridian Road. How do you see that playing out? If you have any creative ideas I'm really open to any creative ideas. I know with the Apex Subdivision -- I think with -- no. I'm sorry. Pinnacle, I believe, with ACHD -- you know, Brighton was doing a lot of road work. Is that something that you have looked at here to help ITD, maybe, in some limited way? Just walk me through the traffic and any thoughts you have. Suggs: Well, my thoughts mostly about traffic is that we are building the only ACHD main road that actually will be used, other than our local roads, and all of our traffic will end up for a while, until the other properties develop, which, actually, I know the developer that I'm working with controls some of these, so we might be seeing some future traffic and other ways of getting through the property. But this is the one that's available now. So, Meridian Road is ITD based and we are participating whenever they ask us to do any kind of improvements on Meridian Road and any of those. I don't have, just like Joe, a time schedule on that. That could be several years out. This property, as we discussed previously, is ready for development. It was planned for it. The city's made an extension of sewer to this area. The time is now to develop this. You have got other properties that are adjacent, just like Prevail, that all their traffic goes out to Meridian Road as well and the Shafer View. Apex is not on a highway. It is located on two ACHD arterials. So, they will be participating with ACHD on their traffic mitigation, according to their staff reports. Our traffic studies -- our traffic study basically says we will participate in all the ITD requirements that they set for us when they do these improvements. I don't know that the developer can do anything with ITD. That -- they are their own entity. They do have ways in which they require us to participate, especially in these types of projects. That's all really I can say. I -- ACHD hasn't asked us to participate in any other streets or intersection improvements that we aren't a participant, but in most cases we will be much less than ten percent of the traffic. So, even if you go down to Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, our amount of traffic would be very small for those ACHD roads. Does that answer your question a little bit? I mean I think what we are doing is we are talking about -- what we are willing to do, which is everything that ITD or ACHD asks us to do, but we don't have -- we leave it to the traffic engineers to come up with the solutions to traffic concerns Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 47—— on both the highways and on ACHD roads. Strader: I know. That is just such a problem. But we are relying on them, too, but it's just taking a long time. Suggs: I will say this. I have been talking to Erika Bowen and, you know, Erika is with ITD and she talked about the money that ITD is going to get, which is over and above what they had been basically planning for. Now, we were talking to her about a project up on Chinden and she thinks that there are some improvements on Chinden that will be done prior-- before we would expect them to be done. Some of the projects that not only in Meridian, but all the way out to Caldwell, because I have been working on projects out there and they think that now that we have some money and the governor's kind of focused on transportation, that we might see some of those schedules improve. But that's from a conversation with Erika about Chinden Boulevard, not necessarily on Highway 69. But I'm just keeping my -- you guys probably know more about those schedules than I do, because you are working with ITD, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I also share Council Woman Strader's concern. We received a letter from a resident in Shafer View that -- that really got me thinking and that is that every time she attempts to turn left when she's headed south she's kind of, you know, running the gauntlet and -- and so I would imagine there are not a lot of individuals coming from the south attempting to turn left into Briar Ridge. Most of the traffic is probably going to come from the north. But even with that, just the size of this development, 227 lots, I do have the same concerns about turning left and there not being any kind of -- you know, could be a long time before that new intersection is done and they may choose to even change the design before then. That -- that design is being used on State Street. I know there has -- there has been a lot of mixed, you know, feedback about that design and so I don't know if they will use it in this location or not, but I just -- do you have any thoughts on safety with, you know, vehicles turning -- I had the same -- very much that same concern. Suggs: I believe I understand and, again, Joe may know a little bit more about this, but I believe that across the street from us they may have eliminated the left turn lane already. There are some recently installed. So, you know, when you are coming out of Prevail, which is exactly across the street, same issue, left turns are the more dangerous turns and that's hence the RCUT, the reduced cross -- tell me what it says, Joe. Where you have to take a right and, then, go right to go left. That's what the RCUT will do and that's what people are already doing in some situations is because if you are coming out of Prevail I don't know that you can make a left turn out and I think that what might happen here is if that becomes an issue, like you say running the gauntlet, it won't be now, but it may be that those left turns may be changed and that's something, of course, ITD does that. We don't say, oh, we want you to do that, that's really something ITD has to do and they do it based on traffic studies and they are a continuing thing. So, I -- I do think that's Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 48 of 59 what an RCUT kind of does, it makes you go right to go left and that can be done without the full on intersection, but it could be done with barriers. So, it does kind of create a little bit of an access issue, but that's the way sometimes those are handled in the meantime. Again, I wish I could say that there was something magic about getting this intersection improved before we build anything, but I don't have that control. I do know that the additional -- that -- that you have approved projects already that access that very intersection and this area is ripe for development as according to the development agreement and the alreadied infrastructure that you have extended to this area for development and, as Joe said, there is already people contacting him about future developments and the fire station will be in place for this, so we are very -- very comfortable with our design and, again, this will be phased over the course of -- I would say probably -- even though it says one, two, three, we have enough units that we are talking about a five year build out. So, it could be five years before we get this many units. They are not going to show up tomorrow. So, I think we have a really nicely designed project with phasing that -- that meets all the requirements of your code and meets your Comprehensive Plan. It's already annexed into the city. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Maybe just -- you are actually underneath what the FLUM would allow in this area. Suggs: Underneath the future land use map -- the densities that are allowed. Yeah, we are at -- Simison: Lower than what could be brought forward. Suggs: Yeah. We did calculate I think our gross densityjust under six and our net density, which is kind of part of the TN-R, has to be at least six. I think our net density is closer to ten or 11, which is good for the -- because of the type of project that we are doing. That's a net density. It takes away all the open space. You will be surprised I'm a 38 acre project, that the buildable area is about half of that, actually. The rest of it is in roads and open spaces. That gets you your net density. Simison: Joe, you were going to say -- Dodson: Yes, sir. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm what Jane said about the intersection. You cannot turn left out of East -- you cannot head south out of East Quartz Creek Street out of -- from the Prevail Subdivision. ITD already has put that in there, so you can't turn left and there is very minimal trips coming out of there already, because they only have a few homes constructed and so my assumption is that they would do the same for Briar Ridge for the west side very soon. As soon as things started coming -- as soon as West Quartz Creek Street got constructed I assume ITD would do the same to help with the safety concerns and, secondly, yeah, like you just said, Mr. Mayor, that the future land use map calls for more density, frankly, than what is here. But staff does appreciate the transitional density and assumes, because of the canal -- I believe that is Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— the -- the Rawson Canal that kind of splits that property to the south that splits the corner off, that area may not go commercial, just because of topography and access issues. So, that may be where some apartments come in or something like that. So, staff does believe that the transitional density is a great fit and, you know, I understand the concerns from Council regarding traffic and I guess being out kind of on the periphery in some regards it -- I hate that there is any negative potential for this project, because site design wise it's one of my favorite projects I have worked on. This is really well designed and I appreciate that very much from the applicant. Having that parkway throughout the entire development and detached sidewalk, it just -- staff cannot speak highly enough of that and what that does for pedestrian safety and overall just livability of the project, so that's all I wanted to say. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: And there was a reference in Deputy Chief Bongiorno's -- his staff report about perhaps there would not be a CO until Station 7 is occupied and operational. Is that a condition that you -- Dodson: That is not a condition, Councilman Borton. Borton: Oh. That is a condition? Suggs: It's not a condition. Dodson: It is not that I saw. No. Suggs: No. He didn't put that condition on the COs. He just let us know that according to the approved schedule at this point that we would have an operational -- about the time that we would have our first houses being built and ready to occupy he would be having the grand opening of Station 7. So, they would fairly coordinate, but we know how projects goes sometimes, just like this could be delayed. Already we are seeing -- I hate to say it, but a little slow down in the housing market. I mean in sales. And, then, I don't know what the schedule -- I know what the schedule is for your fire station, but I know sometimes larger projects can be delayed, so -- Borton- Sure. So, the reason I ask that question is it sounded like -- or at least I read his recommendation to be not that the two would be correlated just happenstance, but, in fact, the operation of Station 7 would be an important part of having this development be successful and, therefore, a condition might be -- might be warranted. Tell me about that. Suggs: I believe we can be serviced with almost -- well, with a few houses, maybe ten to 20 houses we can be -- all the houses can be serviced from Fire Station 4, they are just a little bit over the five minute -- maybe a five and a half minute response. You know, when you draw the map, the map came down and they didn't do analysis, but it's better Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 50 of 59 served by seven. So, I guess I'm just trying to say if you must put a condition on it, we will accept that, but we would hope that we would have something that we could work out with a number of units or something, so that if there was a six month delay in the fire station we wouldn't be sitting there with roads built and sewer ready and no -- no -- well, houses built, but no COs, so -- yeah. So -- Borton: I don't know if I have -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I don't know if I have an answer necessarily, but it's just something I observed in -- in the prep that he had made that -- I read it like a recommendation that there might be some need to have seven operational before some benchmark. It used the CO reference in his letter, so I thought I would see if there was some other reason why that was specifically not a condition in this application. Suggs: I think he just felt like that we -- given our schedule for what we needed to do and what the fire station was -- that we would be building next year sometime and you would be probably first quarter of 2003; is that right? You would have a fire station operational. So, in the first quarter he --we talked about that and when he expected to have that open. So, we felt like, well, we will have our subdivision built next year when we will be building houses, so that would coincide. Simison: July to August of 2023. Suggs: Right. Okay. We were talking March, April of 2023, so -- Simison: Yeah. I think it's probably a little bit later than -- Suggs: Okay. Simison: -- that time frame. Suggs: Yeah. In fact, I think -- Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Suggs: Go ahead. Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. Thank you. Yeah. Council Member Borton, that's a great point and I appreciate you bringing that up. My discussion with Joe do coincide with what you are saying. He did not recommend this was a revision I think because he, frankly, just wasn't aware if he could make that kind of a condition to tie development to construction of an off-site building. I think his preference with response times would be to have seven Page 78 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page— —— constructed, because this does lie just outside of the five minute response. I think it -- think the five minutes is literally like 400 feet north of the northeast corner. So, it is close, but, again, obviously, we want it to be within and Fire Station 7 would provide that. So, think your sentiments are correct, your assumptions based upon what discussions I have had with Chief Bongiorno. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I don't know how that would ever work. I mean COs aren't something we can -- I don't know how we would be able to track that. It would have to be some permit issue, which would be a different animal. That would be something like -- like phase one only -- I'm just spit balling here; right? Suggs: Right. Borton: But phase one only before seven is operation; right? No permits for two and three, but would be a tough one. It might take some time to figure out if that would even be acceptable. We just -- we just really want to make sure, obviously, that the concern that deputy chief has raised is -- is addressed and we don't have this thing fully built unoccupied -- Suggs: How would we write a condition that would be tied to COs, but we could get rid of that if the -- I don't-- yeah. Yeah. It is. And building permitting -- I mean you are talking about another three months to build the house. I mean, then, you are trying to tie it to building permits and you are waiting, you are waiting and, then, it's -- so, maybe -- and, again, Fire Station 4 is very close and with a few houses -- I mean -- well -- and, then, we have got Prevail, which is across the street, that doesn't have any conditions. So, I mean I guess I'm just -- and Shafer View. I mean we haven't gone through that. We could say no more -- only phase one until the fire station is done and that's a limited number of homes and they are mostly the single family. So, we could say that. We could put a condition that phase two and three can't get started until the fire station is operational. But to say no houses --that might be easier, because -- or have a certain limit on -- again, I think there might be at least --well, the first final plat would probably be phase one. First one. And, then, you could say no more final plats approved until after the fire station is operational. Boy, I'm going out on a limb there in case you all don't build a fire station, but I think it's planned and budgeted, which is important. Simison: We hope. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor, that -- the way that both Councilman Borton and Jane have stated regarding the phasing plan, that's fairly easy for myself to track. I don't see a major issue with that. At least tracking it. We do that fairly often that certain things are tied to a certain phase. So, I think that would be doable. There wouldn't be any hiccups on my end. If Council sees that as an appropriate condition. Page 79 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 52 of 59 Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Question on that. Joe, is that a -- is it as Jane described, no permits for phase two and three, for example, in a DA? Is that where it's placed or how do you -- Dodson: Councilman Borton, I would say a provision within the DA, rather than a condition -- because, again, that gives us a little more teeth there and, then, I would say building permits. I wouldn't be opposed to them having permits and some occupation in phase one, but also having the ability to plat phase two to at least get that started. I don't see any issue with that, because planning takes a little bit -- especially right now with the county, they have some major delays on recording plats right now. I have heard like in the realm of four months, so -- after it leaves us. So, it -- it's -- that's going to delay some things as well. But the -- I think the building permit is fine. I think that would work well. That's -- that's a little easier to track for us. Borton: Okay. Thanks, Joe. Dodson: You're welcome. Simison: My -- my guess is the -- the station will be up and operational before any of these receive occupancy. If I was a betting person I would be happy to take that bet. To be honest, from my -- the more difficult part -- and I don't have an issue with the traffic generation. It's more the -- putting the challenges of the right left -- I'm actually more concerned about potential traffic -- traffic accidents doing that U-turn movement, which is further down the road, a little further away for Station 4 to get to. I'm hopeful that won't be the case. I'm just -- you know, we are starting to see a few more of these integrated into the area. You know, Victory and Cole has the same kind of-- you got to go down, do a U-turn and turn around concept, and I -- I just -- you know, Meridian Road, because it's such a high speed, is different to a certain extent, so it will be interesting to see how it impacts, but it is what it is and that's why the traffic engineers are there and there is certain things that are out of our control in those regards. At least they are going to have to hopefully say it works on that road. Dodson: Mr. Mayor, thankfully, the project map does show that the U-turn would be signalized, because, otherwise, that would be a disaster consistently. So, I agree with you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Jane, you had mentioned that the applicant's in agreement with the staff report. In the open space section L, staff had recommended making -- moving some of the lots around, shifting some things around. Is -- is that reflected in the current rendering that Page 80 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 53 of 59 we have here? Suggs: Yes. Yes. The open space on the west were lots -- two lots, two single family lots, and the staff suggested they thought that actually the police would appreciate the fact that they could see across the park and through and so we remove those two, but instead of just losing lots we put two more townhomes down in the townhome area that was originally a parking area and they said with all that parking you don't need the additional parking, you already have two on the south part and, then, one just above it. There is a little alley loaded parking. So, they said you can put those two houses there. So, that was a change we made on the suggestion of the staff. So, we didn't lose lots, but we did open that up quite a bit and we appreciate the staff -- I mean they are really good about looking at some little things like that that can make a big difference opening that park up. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, another question. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I am thinking of them as they come. My apologies. We have had some recent conversations and a question from the public about communities -- denser communities that are going to be all rented, instead of sold, and in general I don't -- I don't know that that's a factor really for us in deciding these, but that is something that the public is wanting us to -- to know. So, would you mind sharing that with us. Suggs: Every one of these lots has been -- is going to be platted for individual sale. So, none of the townhomes -- but you see sometimes they are just built as six units in one building, they look like townhomes, but in this case they are all going to have the firewall between them. They are all going to be individually platted for sale. Now, I have to tell you that doesn't keep you or someone from buying two or four or six of them, but that's how they are -- we like that, because I believe some of these smaller lots and some of the townhomes in my life that's how you build equity and wealth and we are just lucky we have still an opportunity to have this mix in some lay-cations where you are not going to have an 8,000 -- or even a 5,000 square foot lot, you are going to have a smaller lot with little yard, but you can actually maybe get into it and you know as a realtor how hard that is right now. So, no, these will all be platted for sale individually. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Orr: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Pam. Orr: Thanks. To answer Joe's -- Council Member Joe Borton's conversation in regards to what Joe Bongiorno was talking about in his report, his staff report, he did, in fact, make the recommendation that this -- that they do not receive a certificate of occupancy until Station 7 is up and running. He did discuss the amount of response and what the Page 81 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——— response time was for that. So, that was a recommendation that he did make on that and the fire station that's actually closest to that Station Number 6; right? And six is 3.6 miles from the project. But that still is over the five minute response time for that -- for that housing area. Simison: Thanks, Pam. Council, any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the audience that would like to provide testimony at this time, if you would like to come forward. Or -- there is someone coming forward. Or if you are online and you would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand function. State your name and address for the record, please. Percy: I would not like to consider myself wanting to come to testify, but I am going to. have the property that is just adjacent to this parcel. Simison: Can you state your name and address for the record, please? Percy: Sorry. My name is James Percy. 1250 Stegerman Court, Meridian, Idaho. Simison: Thank you. Percy: I apologize, sir. I'm not very handy at this. I'm not very comfortable doing it. But I am in favor of this. I was the prior owner of Prevail Subdivision. I know the difficulties it is to try and get a corridor off of Meridian Road, because it lies on a property line and you have to create a section, so each property owner gives away what it takes to create that collector. It's a very difficult process and these people have gone through a lot. I know we did on Prevail and I just want to congratulate them on what I think is a great layout and all the efforts they have gone through to make this happen. Or hopefully it does happen and I want to show my support or voice my support and I see that it will not create any problem to my farm ground to the north and it's good to see that it's this -- it's part of what the plan was when the major annexation happened going southeast. That was a big project and it was handled really well. Appreciate the City Council and Mayor -- and the previous Mayor and Council for doing that. Simison: It's nice to see you again. Council, any questions? Thank you. Seeing no one else here or online to provide testimony, would the applicant like to make final remarks. Suggs: Thank you, Mayor. Again Jane Suggs representing Briar Ridge. And thank you, Mr. Percy, for coming forward and talking about the work that we have done with all the property owners in that area to make sure that everybody is going to be satisfied. I think at the P&Z a representative of the property to the south was -- spoke, just to introduce himself, and we have since spoken. So, it's good to know that we have support of the people around us. Again just very respectfully request your approval. If we feel like we Page 82 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 05 of 59 need a condition on the fire station I would accept that -- the one we talked about with Mr. -- with Council Member Borton to say maybe phases two and three building permits cannot be issued until the fire station is operational and I think that's a pretty good compromise, especially seeing that there are other projects that haven't been faced with that. It's not one of those same conditions that are like right next -- right across the street. So, I'm just asking for a little understanding there and I really think it's -- again, it's a great project. I appreciate Joe again working with us and the fact that we went through a few iterations of this with the staff, like I said, with the different designs and we think this is one -- the best. So, thank you and I will stand for other questions if you have them. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I know you have heard me say this before. C of O's on residential properties are very challenging for the city to manage. Usually because the person that's asking for the CO is the property owner who is there with a moving truck and so those are very difficult to manage. The building permitting process, like Joe said, is a lot easier, because the city has more control at that point as well and we do track those a lot closer. I mean not that we don't track those for residential, but, again, most of the time it's Friday afternoon at 3:00 o'clock and the guy's there with a moving truck and a family. So, I would prefer if -- if the Council's desire is to do that limitation, to do it on the phasing plan as -- as Jane suggested, just because we will be able to keep track of it better, they will know it right up front, there won't be any issue to cause conflicts with the property owners. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Bernt: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, just to clarify what Bill said, it's easier to track on building permits instead of a CO. Is that -- is that what you are saying, Bill? I think that's what Jessica was talking earlier as well. Is that right; Jessica? Nary: Yes. Simison: Thanks. Council? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Page 83 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 56 of 59 Borton: I will just kick it off here. I -- I won't bury the lead. I'm supportive of the application. I do like the diversity of design -- or the housing options and the design. I think it's a great layout. It is already annexed, so we are just merely rezoning R-4 property that's already within our city. So, I'm supportive of it and I appreciate the applicant's kind of meeting in the middle somewhat to address the concern that our Deputy Chief of Fire raised and I think that would be an appropriate condition in the DA with regards to no permits for phases two and three until seven is operational. To be included with all the other conditions of the staff report. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm kind of in the same boat. I like that condition, because I feel like it will buy us some time. Fire services that we are committed budget wise, I feel good about that, but that will buy us some more time also for ITD to try to get their study complete or get as much of that done as possible. I am worried about the traffic. It's a challenge. We can't control our partners and when they do things, but, you know, I would hope that maybe, you know, staff could communicate with them. If this were approved,just to follow up with an update, like, hey, this was approved, there are a lot of houses and see if that somehow accelerates anything, but I don't -- I could see there being challenges here. I just -- I would hate to punish the applicant for something completely out of their control. It's not like a STARS agreement or something would work here from what I understand. So, I'm supportive of it with that condition about the first phase and, then, the subsequent phases have to have our fire station done. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't know if this question is for staff or for the applicant, but is there going to be a dedicated right turn lane heading south onto the collector? I don't -- it doesn't sound like that was a condition that would be required from the applicant, but I -- there is a neighborhood that's technically in Kuna that's just south of here and -- and I -- I go into that neighborhood regularly and just slowing down to turn right is dangerous, because people are right up behind you going 60 miles an hour and I actually pull into the shoulder for fear of getting hurt turning right, just -- just a little way south of here to go into a residential area, so -- Suggs: So, the -- you are talking about coming from the north heading south, a right turn lane. Actually, what they -- in the right of way of Mr. Percy's property, who is north of us. So, I -- it is my understanding that the improvements to Meridian Road will actually increase the width and have more lanes, so -- eventually. That's not just putting in intersections to the two lanes each way, there is going to be three lanes. We don't control that property, so -- but I can definitely -- well, you have a transportation department -- I mean transportation committee, right, that probably knows a whole lot more about this Page 84 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 57 V,59 than me, but -- but I can get you some information about what their ultimate build out will look like and that will include that RCUT, but it is a much -- like three lanes north and south and, then, the -- like the turn area that are north and south of this intersection, so -- I mean there are additional lanes being planned. I can't build one now, because I don't think there is a right of way out there until those properties develop. I mean that happens sometimes if we had a middle -- like a right -- a street in the middle where they would let us do that and we could turn in and we could dedicate right of way now to get something in. But I don't know that we can do that at this point. But good -- good thinking about that, because I feel the same way sometimes on the highways. Just making the right turns on the light at intersections, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I appreciate that. That's what I anticipated you would say, it was -- about the right of way. It's -- and if I remember correctly from the staff report, the widening to the -- the three lanes on either side is not until the 2030s sometime, so -- okay. Thank you. Simison: Council, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I move we close the public hearing on Item H-2021-0036. Perreault: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: After hearing staff, applicant, and comment from the public, I move that we approve H-2021-0036 for Briar Ridge Subdivision, inclusive of the conditions in the staff report of September 14, 2021, as well as a condition added tonight that was agreed to by the applicant that no building permits will be issued beyond phase one until the Fire Station No. 7 is open and operational and that would be memorialized within the DA. Page 85 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page 58 of 59 Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, absent; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Next item up is future meeting topics. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, suggestion for a future meeting topic. It's been a long time I think since we got -- have received a COVID update from the city in terms of how we are doing, are we seeing any issues and what measures we are taking. Just seems like with the delta variant maybe it's a good time for one of those updates. Simison: Duly noted. Mr. Borton. Borton: Just a comment. So, thank you, folks, for participating -- for attending Art Sip and supporting the arts in Meridian. So, it's not a future meeting topic, but I will hijack that topic just to say thank you for each of you that -- that took the time to show up and support the arts. So much appreciate it. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Yeah. Great night, Mr. Borton. You and your board did a great job. We had a good -- good time as well. So, I just -- just one comment as well. I have been recently hit up by a lot of downtown businesses with regard to parking. It probably would make sense in a future workshop to have a discussion on parking, what that looks like. Clarify some certain things and -- and just put -- and put that on the public record, so folks can follow along and understand what the expectations are and what the plan is. Simison: All right. Duly noted. Anything else? Do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Page 86 Meridian City Council Item#2. September 14,2021 Page——59 Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting. Strader: Second. Perreault: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:30 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) g / 28 2021 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 87 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : September 14, 2021 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 is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic I� E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 Changes to Agenda : None Item #2 : Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision ( H =2021 . 0024) Application (s ) . ➢ Annexation , Zoning to TN - R, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit . Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of 17 . 5 acres of land , zoned RUT , located at the southwest corner of E . Magic View Dr. and S . Wells St Summary of Request : At the August 17 , 2021 City Council Meeting , the Council continued this case to September 14 , 2021 for the applicant to consider feedback from the Council as follows : 1 . Committing to a 55 + age- restricted community by reducing the footprint of the homes , deed restricting the homes , and / or limiting the houses to one story . 2 . Providing larger rear setbacks to the existing properties in the Snorting Bull Subdivision (Woodbridge) to the west. 3 . Removing the access from E . Magic View Dr, by providing another access to S , Wells St. 4 . Moving the pool to a location further away from the homes . The applicant has provided revised plans . The plans increase the setbacks of all homes along the west property line to a minimum setback of 17 ' . The access to E . Magic View Dr, has been removed and retained for pedestrian and emergency access only and another access has been provided to S . Wells St . Lots have been extended in length so that all properties have 2 car garages and 2 car driveways . There are 21 additional guest parking spaces and 9 parking spaces have been provided for the clubhouse . This has resulted in a reduction in qualified open space from 21 . 5 % to 20 . 6 % . Staff has received 5 additional citizen letters since the August 17 , 2021 Council meeting . Concerns expressed include eliminating windows on the west side of the houses abutting Woodbridge , reducing homes to one story, the unknown nature of the office building , and questions about the quality of any new fencing along the west perimeter. Possible Motions : Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H =2021 . 0024, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 14 , 2021 , with the following modifications : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H -2021 . 0024, as presented during the hearing on September 14 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H -2021 .0024 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason (s) : (You should state specific reason (s) for continuance) I Item #31 Bright Star Care Meridian MDA ( H -2021 . 0052 ) Application (s ) : ➢ Modification to the existing Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement for the purpose of entering into a new agreement to allow a reduction to the required 20-foot residential landscape buffer to construct a 5 , 800 sq . ft. nursing and residential care facility consistent with approved conditional use permit . Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of two lots totaling approximately 0 . 43 acres , zoned L-0 , located at 3336 and 3340 N . Meridian Rd , near the northeast corner of N . Meridian Rd . and E . Ustick Rd . Summary of Request : The subject property is presently two vacant lots comprising 0 .43 acres and is within the Settlers Business Park . The subject property is within the Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement, originally recorded in 2002 . • On July 15 , 2021 , the Planning Commission approved a conditional use on the subject property to allow a 5 , 800 sq . ft. nursing and residential care facility . • The landscape plan of this facility reflected a 10 ' wide buffer adjacent to the residential properties to the north . However, a requirement of the Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement is that due to the single family uses abutting the boundary of the subject property, a minimum 20-foot planting strip is required along the northern property line . Because this is a requirement of the DA, it can only be reduced through action of the Council . Consequently, the Planning Commission approved the conditional use with the condition that the applicant either meet the 20 ' residential landscape buffer requirement, or request a development agreement modification through the City Council prior to submitting a certificate of zoning compliance application . • The applicant states that per the Settlers Business Park Property Owners Association , the original intent of this buffer requirement was to mitigate the impact of commercial properties on the adjacent residential . According to the applicant, this development is a residential type use , so the requirement was not meant to apply in this situation . The applicant added that fencing is provided between the subject property and the properties to the north , and trees are provided in the proposed buffer at approximately 12 . 5 ' spacing , which is almost three times the density required . • The applicant submitted a letter of no objection from the Settlers Business Park Property Owners Association and held a neighborhood meeting on August 17 , 2021 of which there were no comments . • Because there are no objections , the applicant is providing fencing and nearly three times as much density in the landscaping , and because of the low impacts to adjacent residential associated with a nursing and residential care facility , staff does not object to the reduction in the buffer width . • Staff has reviewed the requirements of the original DA and the DA addendum . As the subject property is located internally within the Settler' s Business Park and all parking , infrastructure and public improvements for the Sundance Subdivision and Settles' Business Park have already been constructed , the only pertinent requirements of the existing DA are regarding the allowed uses and the landscape buffer. Notes : Possible Motions : Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021 -0052 , as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 14 , 20212 : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H -2021 - 0052 , as presented during the hearing on September 14 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial) I Continuance I move to continue File Number H -2021 -0052 to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason (s) ; (You should state specific reason (s) for continuance.) Item #4 : Briar Ridge Subdivision ( H •2021 .0036 ) Application (s ) : ➢ Rezone , DA Modification , & Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of 40 . 99 acres of land , zoned R-4 , located on the west side of Meridian Road between W . Lake Hazel Road and W . Amity Road , directly south of the mid- mile point. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation : Medium Density Residential ( MDR — 3-8 du/ac) & Medium - High Density Residential ( MHDR — 8- 12 du/ac) Summary of Request : Rezone a total of 40 . 99 acres of land from the R4 zoning district to the TN- R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) ; Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 single-family residential building lots ( 123 detached & 104 townhomes) and 47 common lots on 38 . 86 acres of land ; and Modification to the existing development agreement ( Inst. #2016 -007070) , as required by the existing development agreement provisions , for the purpose of updating the development plan to redevelop the subject property consistent with the proposed preliminary plat , • Property was annexed into the City as part of a larger annexation initiated by the City in 2015 ( H - 2015 -0019) . City made commitments to provide services to and for these parcels on the " periphery . " Proposed with 3 phases (amended following publication of the staff report) — Revised phasing plan shows a majority of the east 1 /3 of the site in phase 1 , a portion of the collector street along north boundary (W . Quartz Creek St. ) , and the emergency access to Meridian Rd . Phase 2 is shown with large central open space , 58 more lots ( mostly detached ) , and the remaining length of the collector street. Phase 3 includes 112 lots , majority of the townhome units and the remaining detached lots . Staff supports revised phasing plan , • Project are contains two future land use designations — MHDR & MDR ( Mixed- Use Regional abuts property to the south) , Designations call for a mix of housing types and different densities between the two . Designations are not parcel specific so either one or both designations can be utilized . • Applicant is proposing an overall gross density of 5 . 84 du/ac which falls within the density range of the MDR designation (3-8 du/ac) . Theoretically , the Applicant could have proposed a project with twice the density and still been compliant with the Comp Plan in terms of density . • Despite proposing a project density consistent with MDR , the Applicant is aware of the existing commercial zoning to the south ( also part of the South Meridian Annexation) and its future land use designation of Mixed - Use Regional which would likely incorporate higher intensity development, both commercial and residential . Thus , the Applicant proposed its higher density product in the southeast quadrant of the site by placing the alley-loaded townhomes in this area . Staff finds proposed project to be consistent with the Comp Plan , • Applicant is requesting the TWR zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) — requires 6 du/ac net, at least two housing types , and street oriented design more focused on the pedestrian than the car. Overall site design proposed by the Applicant is consistent with the comprehensive plan , the future land use designations , and the requested zoning because of the transitional density proposed , the multiple housing types proposed , the inclusion of parkways throughout the entire development, and the extension of a collector street along the north boundary for future connectivity . • Project is proposed with 3 housing types — detached single-family residential , alley- loaded detached single-family , and alley- loaded townhomes . Staff supports the proposed housing types and the overall site design of 5-foot detached sidewalks and 8- foot parkways throughout entire project. • Project is proposed with at least 4 . 52 acres of qualifying open space ( approx . 11 . 6 %) consisting of the required buffer to Meridian Rd/SH 69 , the large centralized open space lot, mews between the townhome units , and other smaller open space areas throughout the . The proposed parkways also count as qualified open space but the Applicant has not included this area in the calculation because it is not needed to meet the minimum amount. Staff is not concerned this is not in the calculation because the requested TN - R zoning requires parkways ; so , the City has multiple avenues of ensuring they are constructed per the submitted plans . • Amenities exceed code requirements (2 req . per plat size) — Multi-use pathway; children ' s play structure ; picnic shelters ; open space in excess of code requirements ( large central open space lot) . • Landscaping and fencing meet code requirements except for those specifically noted in staff report. Applicant has agreed to required modifications . Noise abatement wall along highway meets code . • With proposal for multiple blocks of alley- loaded homes and 33-foot wide local streets , ample on -street parking would be available . Required off-street parking shall be maintained on each building lot . • Access — Proposed via construction of a new collector street (W . Quartz Creek Street) along the entire north property boundary . Secondary emergency access proposed to Meridian RUSH 69 in SEC of property. Preliminary Plat also shows two stubs to the western boundary for future connectivity . • Meridian Road/SH 69 is currently being studied by the Idaho Transportation Department ( ITD) for corridor improvements from Overland Road south to Orchard Avenue in Kuna . The mid -mile intersection at the northeast corner of the subject project is part of this study and is proposed to be designed with a reduced conflict U -turn ( RCUT) intersection that eliminates left turns and thrumtraffic from lower-volume roads . • Applicant is required to participate in a cost share agreement for the future intersection/road improvements to SH 69 in lieu of constructing any improvements at this time . This is due to the corridor being part of a future project and the proposed traffic generation not exceeding more than 10% at any one intersection . • ACHD provided staff report after City staff report publication — agrees with ITD conditions (no jurisdiction of SH 69) ; required some revisions to the street sections to ensure compliance with district policy but will have small effects on plat. Commission Recommendation : Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing : 1 . Summary of Commission public hearing : a . In favor: Jane Suggs , Applicant Representative . b . In opposition : None c . Commenting : Jane Suggs d_. Written testimony : 3 pieces of testimony — discussing concerns with water usage and increase of traffic when compared to estate lots to the east. e . Staff presenting application : Joseph Dodson , Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application : None 2 , Key issue (s) of public testimony : a . Layout of the road alonq the southern boundary and its intent to be fully constructed or only partially — Applicant responded and stated it will offer future connectivity to the commercial zoned property to the south and is proposed as a half- plus-twelve width . 3 , Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission : a . Is McBirney lateral being piped in its entirety on the property , b . What could be anticipated to be constructed around proposed development , in terms of both residential and commercial ; c . Is any portion of the project a for rent product ; d . School boundary for the high school being Meridian High instead of Mountain View — high likelihood boundary will change again by the time these homes were to be occupied . Commission Change(s ) to Staff Recommendation : i . None Outstanding Issue (s ) for City Council : i . 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 m0036 , as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 14 , 2021 : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony , I move to deny File Number H =2021 =0036 , as presented during the hearing on September 14 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H =2021 m0036 to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason (s) : (You should state specific reason (s) for continuance.) City Council Meeting September 14, 2021 Item #14: Department Report: MultiSpace Comparisonfamily Open - Draft Standards< 5 acrespace s% overall open 1018% overall open space > 5 acres Current Standards Less than 5 acres: open space per unitspace per unit5 acres or more:10% open space + open City Council Meeting September 14, 2021 Item #2: Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision PreviousCurrent Item #3: Bright Star Care Meridian MDA (H0052)-2021- Item #3: Bright Star Care Meridian MDA (H buffer width.associated with a nursing and residential care facility, staff does not object to the reduction in the much density in the landscaping, and because of the low impacts to adjacent residential Because there are no objections, the applicant is providing fencing and nearly three times as almost three times the density required. the north, and trees are provided in the proposed buffer at approximately 12.5’ spacing, which is The applicant added that fencing is provided between the subject property and the properties to requirement was not meant to apply in this situation.adjacent residential. According to the applicant, this development is a residential type use, so the intent of this buffer requirement was to mitigate the impact of commercial properties on the The applicant states that per the Settlers Business Park Property Owners Association, the original foot planting strip is required along the northern property line. -that due to the single family uses abutting the boundary of the subject property, a minimum 20to the north. However, a requirement of the Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement is The landscape plan of this facility reflected a 10’ wide buffer adjacent to the residential properties allow a 5,800 sq. ft. nursing and residential care facility.On July 15, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use on the subject property to recorded in 2002. The subject property is within the Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement, originally Business Park. Subject property is presently two vacant lots comprising 0.43 acres and is within the Settlers 0052)-2021- Item #4: Briar Ridge Sub. PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Maps– PreliminaryPlat Proposed parcel40 acre –Subdivision Briar Ridge 77 C� E IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2021 for Adoption of Proposed Republic Services Solid Waste Fees A. Request: Approval of Resolution No. 21-2286: A Resolution Adopting the Fiscal Year 2022 Rate Schedule of Solid Waste Collection Services; Authorizing Finance Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date B. Request: Approval of Market Labor Fee Contract Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022 Between the City of Meridian and Republic Services C. Request: Approval of Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022 Between the City of Meridian and Republic Services Item#1. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sayard Schultz Meeting Date: September 14, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2021 for Adoption of Proposed Republic Services Solid Waste Fees A. Request: Approval of Resolution No. 21-2286: A Resolution Adopting the Fiscal Year 2022 Rate Schedule of Solid Waste Collection Services; Authorizing Finance Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date B. Request: Approval of Market Labor Fee Contract Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022 Between the City of Meridian and Republic Services C. Request: Approval of Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment for Fiscal Year 2022 Between the City of Meridian and Republic Services Request: Review and approval of Resolution 21-2286 and associated Contract Amendments for Fiscal Year 2022 Information Resources: Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 14, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 1 PROJECT NAME : Adoption of Proposed Republic Services Solid Waste Fees 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#1. REPUBLIC 11101 West Executive Drive, Boise ID 83713 SERVICES Office(208)345-1265 MEMORANDUM TO: Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission FROM: Rodney Remling, Finance Manager, Republic Services of Idaho DATE: August 10, 2021 SUBJECT: Annual Rate Adjustment for Solid Waste Collection Services Introduction Annually, solid waste collection rates are adjusted in accordance with Section 21 of our contract with the City of Meridian with an effective date of October 1. CPI Adjustment Methodology Our contract allows non disposal costs be adjusted annually based upon Ninety (90) percent of the net percentage change for May in the Consumer Price Index for Garbage Trash. This year's change in CPI (at 90%) is 3.91%. The CPI adjustment is $0.65 per household per month plus tax. The commercial impact varies and is based on container size and frequency of collection. Household Hazardous Waste Residential 2021 rates include an amount for household hazardous waste (HHW) of$0.18 per household per month. A reconciliation of actual HHW costs and the amount collected from residents was performed. The Life-to-Date net result is an amount due to Republic Services of$7,964 for an increase of 3,137. The amount will remain on account and included in the ongoing reconciliation. Although the current run rate is $0.19 per household per month, we elected to leave the rate at $0.18 for no change to FY2022. Recycling Processing Charge The recycling processing fee increased $12.59 per ton and reflects the labor shortage. Republic Services sustained unreimbursed recycling cost of$131,613 for Meridian City's residential recycling program. Although recycling commodities has shown recent improvement, this is offset with increased processing cost and labor risk. These costs have been reviewed with City Staff. Republic Services therefore requests no change or $0.0 per household per month for residential and $0. per commercial yard. These charges include related Meridian City franchise fees based on the total amount billed to customers. Labor increase The whole county is experiencing unprecedented labor shortages. In Meridian City, shortages are resulting in increases about 12.5 percent or about 8 percent over increases in CPI. Republic Services increased labor$2.00 per hour for starting and existing drivers. Republic Services therefore requests an additional $0.11 per household per month for residential household. Disposal Ada County Landfill changed the disposal rate structure October 1, 2020 to tonnage from a per yard. No changes to disposal rates in the current year. Page 6 Item#1. Volumetric Excise Tax Credit(VETC) on CNG Powered Trucks The Federal Government awarded continued alternative fuel tax credit for compressed natural gas as an alternative fuel source. This tax credit is shared with Meridian City residents as a credit to the monthly rate. The credit for the Meridian contract was $54,427. This amount is reflected in the residential rate sheet as a credit for 95-gallon of $0.11, 65-gallon cart of $0.09 and 35-gallon of $0.07. VETC was extended through December 31, 2021. That amount will be reflected in the 2023 rates plus or minus the true-up for the fiscal year 2022. Residential Impact Per Customer The total proposed increase for residential customers with 95-gallon carts is $0.79: comprised of CPI increase $0.65, HHW unchanged $0.0, uncontrollable recycling commodity unchanged $0.00, uncontrollable disposal change of$0.00, and VETC change from 2021 $0.03, labor $0.11 . Industrial Roll Off Pricing Roll off rates are still being calculated and are not included for review at this time. New Rate No new rates. Residential Rate Residential Price Amount Percentage Contractual CPI Garbage Trash $ 304,233 3.91% Non Contractual Recycling Processing $ - 0% Household Hazardeous Waste (HHW) $ - 0% Alternative Fuel (VETC) $ (54,427) -0.70% Labor Market $ 52,489 0.67% Total Requested Increase $ 302,295 3.88% Resi Labor Market Meridian City Contract $ 134,037 Republic Services Holding $ 81,548 61% Meridian City $ 52,489 39% Page 7 Item#1. Mayor Robert Simison I tNkw�N City Council Members Joe BortonEn Treg Bernt Public Works Brad Hoaglun Luke Cavener Department Jessica Perreault Liz Strader 0000 TO: Mayor Robert Simison Members of the City Council FROM: Sayard Schultz, Solid Waste Coordinator DATE: 09/02/21 SUBJECT: Trash/Recycling Rate Comparison for Cities in Treasure Valley REQUESTED COUNCIL DATE: 09/07/21 I. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Sayard Schultz, Solid Waste Coordinator 208-489-1255 Joanna Hopson, Business Programs Manager 208-489- 0383 H. DESCRIPTION A. Background As per request from City Council, Republic Services has provided the following information enclosed in Table 1 below. This table outlines standard residential rates for the commonly used size (95-gallon)trash and recycling carts for the surrounding municipalities and Ada County. This information is for the year 2021 and is organized by service provider and then listed from lowest to highest price rate. Please note, the City of Meridian's rate reflects the current rate not proposed rate. Additional information is available upon request. Page 8 Page I of'2 Item#1. Table 1 Trash and Recycling Service Rates throughout the Treasure Valley 2021 Municipalities Service Provider 95-gallon Comments Cart Rate Garden City Republic $16.75 Includes recycle Middleton Republic $18.23 Includes recycle Caldwell Republic $19.90 Includes recycle Star Republic $19.93 Includes recycle Nampa Republic $20.40 Includes recycle This includes Recycle and Compost. If you opt out of the Boise(rate since 2018) Republic $20.84 programs,$11.21 is added to your monthly invoice. The city pays for the program if you opt in. Meridian(rate since 2020) Republic $20.87 Includes recycle Eagle Republic $23.63 Includes recycle Ada Co. Hardin $19.57 Includes recycle Kuna AM Sanitation $23.97 Includes recycle Approved for Council Agenda: Date Page 9 Page 2 of 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 21- 2286 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT,BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 RATE SCHEDULE OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES; AUTHORIZING FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,pursuant to Section 21 of the City's solid waste franchise agreement with Republic Services, Inc., providing for annual review of rates and charges for services provided, Republic identified necessary updates to the solid waste collection fee schedule and presented proposed changes to the Solid Waste Advisory Commission and to the Meridian City Council; and WHEREAS,the Solid Waste Advisory Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the FY22 Rate Schedule of Solid Waste Collection Services, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Idaho Code section 63-1311A, following publication of notice and public hearing, the City Council of Meridian did, by formal motion, approve the FY22 Rate Schedule of Solid Waste Collection Services, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY,IDAHO: Section 1. That the FY22 Rate Schedule of Solid Waste Collection Services, as set forth in Exhibit A, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That, as of its effective date, the FY22 Rate Schedule of Solid Waste Collection Services, as set forth in Exhibit A, will supersede all previous solid waste collection fees and fee schedules previously adopted. Section 3. That the Finance Department of the City of Meridian is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of fees as set forth in Exhibit A. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect on October 1, 2021. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 14th day of September, 2021. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 14th day of September, 2021. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FY21 RATE SCHEDULE OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES PAGE 1 EXHIBIT A FY22 RATE SCHEDULE OF SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES RESIDENTIAL TRASH & RECYCLING FEE DESCRIPTION FY21 FEE FY22 FEE Residential 95 gallon service (includes 1 recycling cart) $20.87 $21.66 Residential 65 gallon service (includes 1 recycling cart) $18.63 $19.34 Residential 35 gallon service (includes 1 recycling cart) $16.41 $17.03 Residential Extra Carts (per cart per month) $2.49 $2.58 Residential Cart Pickup/Upsize Exchange fee (per event) $14.80 $15.38 Residential Cart Delivery(free) $0.00 $0.00 Residential Carry Out Service $34.86 $36.22 COMMERCIAL PERMANENT TRASH FEE DESCRIPTION FY21 FEE FY22 FEE Fc-ommercial Carts Delivery Charge $11.12 $11.55 Commercial Carts 1, 95 gallon cart(1 x per week) $32.17 $33.39 Commercial Carts 1, 95 gallon cart(2 x per week) $60.82 $63.12 Commercial Carts 1, 95 gallon cart(3 x per week) $89.45 $92.84 Commercial Carts 2, 95 gallon cart(1 x per week) $64.35 $66.80 Commercial Carts 2, 95 gallon cart(2 x per week) $121.65 $126.27 Commercial Carts 2, 95 gallon cart(3 x per week) $178.88 $185.67 Commercial Carts 3, 95 gallon cart(1 x per week) $96.53 $100.20 Commercial Carts 3, 95 gallon cart(2 x per week) $182.47 $189.39 Commercial Carts 3, 95 gallon cart(3 x per week) $268.32 $278.49 Commercial Container Container Delivery Svc(2,3,6,8 yd options) $25.36 $26.35 Commercial Container Lid Lock Installation (2,3,6,8 yd options) $47.76 $49.63 Commercial Container Monthly Lock Service (2,3,6,8 yd options) $13.77 $14.31 Commercial Container 2 yd (Extra Dump) $26.14 $27.13 Commercial Container 3 yd (Extra Dump) $35.59 $36.93 Commercial Container 6 yd (Extra Dump) $51.75 $53.68 Commercial Container 8 yd (Extra Dump) $66.58 $69.06 Commercial Containers 2 yd (1x per week) $106.78 $110.80 Commercial Containers 2 yd (2x per week) $152.57 $158.23 Commercial Containers 2 yd (3x per week) $197.57 $204.84 Commercial Containers 2 yd (4x per week) $265.04 $274.79 Commercial Containers 2 yd (5 x per week) $332.37 $344.60 Commercial Containers 2 yd (6 x per week) $399.70 $414.46 9/2/2021 page 1 of 6 Commercial Containers 3 yd (1x per week) $111.17 $115.29 Commercial Containers 3 yd (2 x per week) $180.04 $186.64 Commercial Containers 3 yd (3 x per week) $249.03 $258.10 Commercial Containers 3 yd (4 x per week) $328.11 $340.05 Commercial Containers 3 yd (5 x per week) $431.35 $447.11 Commercial Containers 3 yd (6 x per week) $522.54 $541.64 Commercial Containers 6 yd (1 x per week) $173.42 $179.75 Commercial Containers 6 yd (2 x per week) $280.10 $290.16 Commercial Containers 6 yd (3 x per week) $386.67 $400.45 Commercial Containers 6 yd (4 x per week) $515.58 $533.96 Commercial Containers 6 yd (5 x per week) $644.56 $667.54 Commercial Containers 6 yd (6 x per week) $773.46 $801.04 Commercial Containers 8 yd (1 x per week) $205.86 $213.32 Commercial Containers 8 yd (2 x per week) $320.18 $331.53 Commercial Containers 8 yd (3 x per week) $433.25 $448.43 Commercial Containers 8 yd (4 x per week) $560.63 $580.21 Commercial Containers 8 yd (5 x per week) $696.21 $720.50 Commercial Containers 8 yd (6 x per week) $825.84 $854.62 Commercial Containers 8 yd (7 x per week) $1,259.28 $1,304.42 Commercial Compactors 2 yd (base price per pickup per week) $63.27 $65.74 Commercial Compactors 3 yd (base price per pickup per week) $87.59 $91.01 Commercial Compactors 4 yd (base price per pickup per week) $112.36 $116.75 Commercial Compactors 5 yd (base price per pickup per week) $137.16 $142.52 Commercial Compactors 6 yd (base price per pickup per week) $161.31 $167.62 Commercial Compactors 8 yd (base price per pickup per week) $216.59 $225.04 COMMERCIAL TEMPORARY TRASH FEE DESCRIPTION FY21 FEE FY22 FEE Commercial Temporary Service 3 yd Haul Svc(Municipal Solid Waste) $44.60 $46.12 Commercial Temporary Service 3 yd Haul Svc(Construction and Demolition) $119.45 $123.90 Commercial Temporary Service 3 yd (Monthly Rent) $26.67 $27.71 Commercial Temporary Service 3 yd (Daily Rent) $0.88 $0.91 9/2/2021 page 2 of 6 COMMERCIAL PERMANENT RECYCLING FEE DESCRIPTION FY21 FEE FY22 FEE Commercial Commingled Recycle Container Delivery Charge (3,5,6,8 yd options) $25.36 $26.35 Commercial Commingled Recycle 3 yd (Extra Dump) $18.28 $18.94 Commercial Commingled Recycl,3 yd (Every Other Week) $53.62 $55.59 Commercial Commingled Recych 3 yd (1 x week) $67.10 $69.48 Commercial Commingled Recycl,3 yd (2 x week) $118.40 $122.54 Commercial Commingled Recych 3 yd (3 x week) $169.73 $175.63 Commercial Commingled Recycle 3 yd (4 x week) $221.04 $228.70 Commercial Commingled Recycle 3 yd (5 x week) $272.33 $281.76 Commercial Commingled Recycle 5 yd (Extra Dump) $24.88 $25.76 Commercial Commingled Recycl,5 yd (Every Other Week) $73.74 $76.40 Commercial Commingled Recych 5 yd (1 x week) $102.27 $105.83 Commercial Commingled Recycl,5 yd (2 x week) $171.81 $177.65 Commercial Commingled Recych 5 yd (3 x week) $240.87 $248.96 Commercial Commingled Recycle 5 yd (4 x week) $310.16 $320.51 Commercial Commingled Recycle 5 yd (5 x week) $379.44 $392.07 Commercial Commingled Recycle 6 yd (Extra Dump) $30.24 $31.31 Commercial Commingled Recycl,6 yd (Every Other Week) $87.43 $90.59 Commercial Commingled Recych 6 yd (1 x week) $108.63 $112.38 Commercial Commingled Recycl,6 yd (2 x week) $194.17 $200.78 Commercial Commingled Recych 6 yd (3 x week) $279.68 $289.15 Commercial Commingled Recycle 6 yd (4 x week) $365.22 $377.54 Commercial Commingled Recycle 6 yd (5 x week) $450.76 $465.94 Commercial Commingled Recycle 8 yd (Extra Dump) $41.31 $42.79 Commercial Commingled Recycl.8 yd (Every Other Week) $103.76 $107.50 Commercial Commingled Recych 8 yd (1 x week) $129.84 $134.27 Commercial Commingled Recycl,8 yd (2 x week) $236.25 $244.19 Commercial Commingled Recych 8 yd (3 x week) $342.66 $354.11 Commercial Commingled Recycl,8 yd (4 x week) $449.11 $464.08 Commercial Commingled Recycle 8 yd (5 x week) $557.45 $576.01 Commercial Commingled Recycle 95 gallon carts (1 cart/week) $14.05 $14.56 Commercial Commingled Recycl.95 gallon carts (2 cart/week) $22.29 $23.08 Commercial Commingled Recycle 95 gallon carts (3 cart/week) $30.54 $31.61 Commercial Commingled Recycl,95 gallon carts (4 cart/week) $38.80 $40.15 Commercial Commingled Recycl;95 gallon carts (5 cart/week) $47.03 $48.65 9/2/2021 page 3 of 6 INDUSTRIAL TRASH FEE DESCRIPTION FY21 FEE FY22 FEE Industrial Trash Container Delivery Svc 6- 10 yd $25.63 $26.63 Industrial Trash 6- 10 yd containers (Haul Svc) $112.42 $118.87 Industrial Trash 6 yd Disposal Fee (Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 6 yd Disposal Fee (C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 6 yd (Monthly Rent) $56.66 $58.87 Industrial Trash 6 yd (Daily Rent) $1.87 $1.94 Industrial Trash 8 yd Disposal Fee (Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 8 yd Disposal Fee (C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 8 yd (Monthly Rent) $73.44 $76.31 Industrial Trash 8 yd (Daily Rent) $2.42 $2.51 Industrial Trash 10 yd Disposal Fee (Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 10 yd Disposal Fee (C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 10 yd (Monthly Rent) $81.84 $85.04 Industrial Trash 10 yd (Daily Rent) $2.70 $2.80 Industrial Trash Container Delivery Svc 20-40 yd $25.63 $26.63 Industrial Trash/Diversion/Recycling 20-40 yd screen lid $41.20 $42.81 Industrial Trash 20-40 yd containers (Haul Svc) $369.50 $386.00 Industrial Trash 20-40 yd containers (Haul Svc for Asbestos-Ada $320.43 $335.01 Industrial Trash 20-40 yd containers (Certification fee Asbestos-j $23.32 $23.32 Industrial Trash 20-40 yd containers (Haul Svc for Asbestos- Ida[ $320.43 $335.01 Industrial Trash 20 yd Disposal Fee (Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 20 yd Disposal Fee (C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 20 yd Disposal Fee (Asbestos-Ada County Landfi $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 20 yd Disposal Fee (Asbestos- Idaho Waste Syste $800.00 $800.00 Industrial Trash 20 yd (Monthly Rent) $94.10 $97.77 Industrial Trash 20yd (Daily Rent) $3.11 $3.22 Industrial Trash 30 yd Disposal Fee (Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 30 yd Disposal Fee (C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 30 yd Disposal Fee (Asbestos-Ada County Landfi $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 30 yd Disposal Fee (Asbestos- Idaho Waste Syste $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Industrial Trash 30 yd (Monthly Rent) $115.01 $119.50 Industrial Trash 30 yd (Daily Rent) $3.77 $3.92 Industrial Trash 40 yd Disposal Fee (Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 40 yd Disposal Fee (C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 40 yd Disposal Fee (Asbestos-Ada County Landfi $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 40 yd disposal Fee (Asbestos- Idaho Waste Syste $1,600.00 $1,600.00 9/2/2021 page 4 of 6 Industrial Trash 40 yd (Monthly Rent) $131.43 $136.57 Industrial Trash 40 yd (Daily Rent) $4.31 $4.48 Industrial Trash 20yd compactor Disposal Fee $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 25yd compactor Disposal Fee $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 30yd compactor Disposal Fee $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Trash 40yd compactor Disposal Fee $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion FEE DESCRIPTION FY21 FEE FY22 FEE Industrial Diversion Container Delivery Svc 6- 10 yd $25.63 $26.63 Industrial Diversion 6-8 yd containers (Haul Svc) $63.35 $65.83 Industrial Diversion 6 yd Disposal Fee (Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 6 yd Disposal Fee (Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 6 yd Disposal Fee (Clean Rock, Gravel, etc.) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 8 yd Disposal Fee (Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 8 yd Disposal Fee (Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 8 yd Disposal Fee (Clean Rock, Gravel, etc.) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 10 yd Disposal Fee (Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 10 yd Disposal Fee (Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 10 yd Disposal Fee (Clean Rock, Gravel, etc.) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion Container Delivery Svc 20-40 yd $25.63 $26.63 Industrial Diversion 20-40 yd Wood, Sheetrock, Clean Rock $141.39 $148.97 Industrial Diversion 20 yd Disposal Fee (Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 20 yd Disposal Fee (Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 20 yd Disposal Fee (Clean Rock, Gravel, etc.) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 30 yd Disposal Fee (Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 30 yd Disposal Fee (Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 30 yd Disposal Fee (Clean Rock, Gravel, etc.) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 40 yd Disposal Fee (Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 40 yd Disposal Fee (Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 40 yd Disposal Fee (Clean Rock, Gravel, etc.) $30.74 $30.74 INDUSTRIAL RECYCLING FEE DESCRIPTION FY21 FEE FY22 FEE Industrial Recycling Processing per loose yard (as applicable) $1.08 $1.08 Industrial Recycling Processing per compact yard (as applicable) $2.16 $2.16 Industrial Recycling Container Delivery Svc 6- 10 yd $25.63 $26.63 Industrial Recycling 6- 10 yd containers (Haul Svc) $63.35 $65.82 9/2/2021 page 5 of 6 Item#1. Industrial Recycling 6 yd (Monthly Rent) $56.66 $58.87 Industrial Recycling 6 yd (Daily Rent) $1.87 $1.94 Industrial Recycling 8 yd (Monthly Rent) $73.44 $76.31 Industrial Recycling 8yd (Daily Rent) $2.42 $2.51 Industrial Recycling 10 yd (Monthly Rent) $81.84 $85.04 Industrial Recycling 10 yd (Daily Rent) $2.70 $2.81 Industrial Recycling Contain Deliver Svc 20-40 yd $25.63 $26.63 Industrial Recycling 20-40 yd containers (Haul Svc) $141.39 $148.97 Industrial Recycling 20 yd (Monthly Rent) $94.10 $97.77 Industrial Recycling 20 yd (Daily Rent) $3.11 $3.22 Industrial Recycling 30 yd (Monthly Rent) $115.01 $119.50 Industrial Recycling 30 yd (Daily Rent) $3.77 $3.92 Industrial Recycling 40 yd (Monthly Rent) $131.43 $136.57 Industrial Recycling 40 yd (Daily Rent) $4.31 $4.48 Industrial Recycling 15-40 yd Compactors (Haul Svc) $141.39 $148.97 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES FEE DESCRIPTION FY21 FEE FY22 FEE Miscellaneous Collection Tires 9 (ea.) up to 16 inch $6.17 $6.41 Miscellaneous Collection Freon-containing units/appliances $58.76 $61.06 Miscellaneous Collection Non-Freon units/appliances $16.66 $17.31 Miscellaneous Collection Special Collection (for each increment of 10 minut( $23.55 $24.47 Miscellaneous Collection Bulky Item Pickup (per item) $16.66 $17.31 Miscellaneous Collection Extra Pickup/Go Back(per occurrence) $11.88 $12.35 Miscellaneous Collection Relocation (all sizes)- Commercial/Industrial $25.63 $26.63 Industrial Services Turnaround compactor fee-Commercial/Industrial $17.98 $18.68 Miscellaneous Collection Weekend Charge- Industrial $72.77 $75.62 Miscellaneous Collection Pressure Wash- Industrial $214.54 $222.93 Industrial Services Dry Run - Large industrial containers and compact, $109.22 $113.49 Industrial Services Dry Run (6- 10 yd) $63.35 $65.83 Miscellaneous Collection Commercial Combo Lock Replacement $30.57 $31.77 Commercial Container Extra Yard (Overload Each yd) $16.29 $16.93 9/2/2021 page 6 of 6 Page 16 RECYCLING PROCESSING FEE CONTRACT AMENDMENT FY22 THIS Amendment to Paragraph 21 of the Franchise Agreement to Perform Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services ("AMENDMENT"), is made and entered into this 7th day of September, 2021, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called"CITY", and Republic Services of Idaho, an Idaho Corporation, hereinafter called"REPUBLIC SERVICES", whose current address is: 11101 W. Executive Dr. Boise, ID 83713. 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, REPUBLIC SERVICES performs all services pertaining to solid waste collection and disposal of the CITY'S solid waste pursuant to the Franchise Agreement; and 1.2 WHEREAS,REPUBLIC SERVICES is separately contracted to deliver the CITY's collected curbside recyclables to a third-party vendor, Western Recycling; and 1.3 WHEREAS,REPUBLIC SERVICES has heretofore paid for the monthly net cost of recycling processing charges related to Meridian's recycling program pursuant to contractual agreement with both the CITY and with Western Recycling; and 1.4 WHEREAS,the CITY has been advised that as of July 28th 2021, REPUBLIC SERVICES has sustained the net recycling processing cost of-$315,404.70 for the period of July 2020 through June 2021 for Meridian's recycling program; and 1.5 WHEREAS, the parties agree that due to sustained depressed market conditions resulting from China's severe contamination restrictions on recyclables and banned recyclable materials, commodity prices are not predicted to offset rising recycling processing costs for the foreseeable future; and 1.6 WHEREAS, REPUBLIC SERVICES has advised the CITY that effective September 30, 2019 and on-going since that date, it will no longer be economically viable to deliver the City's recyclable materials to the third-party processor, Western Recycling, for purposes of recycling due to the increased monthly net cost of recycling processing charges, which result in a net loss to REPUBLIC SERVICES; and 1.7 WHEREAS, the CITY desires to continue the Meridian Recycling Program because of its beneficial diversion of materials from the landfill; and 1.8 WHEREAS,the CITY does not believe the cost of recycling has reached a prohibitive level where the costs outweigh the benefits, but that it is cognizant that may not always be the case. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment- 2021 1 Item#1. 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: a. Fiscal Year("FY")—This term is defined for purposes of this AMENDMENT as the period beginning October 1, 2021 and ending September 30, 2022. b. Commingled Recyclable Material—This term is defined for purposes of this AMENDMENT to include: tin, aluminum, plastics #1 and#2, newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, and Hefty Energy Bags recoverable materials. c. Net Cost of Recycling Processing Charges- This term is defined for purposes of this AMENDMENT as the third-party vendor charge to process (sort,bale, and ship, sell at market) Meridian's commingled recyclables minus the rebate provided by Western Recycling from its materials commodity sales. 4. AMENDMENT to PARAGRAPH 21 of the FRANCHISE AGREEMENT: 21.5 RECYCLING PROCESSING FEE: Subject to the provisions set forth in Paragraph 6 of this AMENDMENT, for the period beginning October 1, 202land ending September 30, 2022 ("FY22"): 21.5.1 REPUBLIC SERVICES will receive the following: o Residential Accounts: $1.03 per residential household per month o Commercial Accounts: $1.09 per yard 21.5.2 CPI-INDEX - The recycling processing fee is not subject to the annual CPI rate calculation. 21.5.3 FRANCHISE FEE - The City will receive the 6% franchise fee on all commercial and residential rate components, including the recycling processing fee as reflected in Republic Services' 2021- 2022 rate model request. 21.5.4 REPUBLIC SERVICES agrees to pay for the effective period of this AMENDMENT the net cost of recycling processing charges in excess of the amount received as set forth in 21.5.1 above. 21.5.5 REPUBLIC SERVICES agrees to provide the CITY a year end reconciliation report of its third party vendor recycling processing charges, including an audit of the estimated increase for the period October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022. This reconciliation shall be provided to City Council within 120 days of September 30, 2022. Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment- 2021 2 Page 18 Item#1. 21.5.6 REPUBLIC SERVICES will reimburse the CITY of any over charge by Western Recycling for the effective period of this AMENDMENT within 120 days of September 30, 2022. 21.5.7 REPUBLIC SERVICES commits to deliver Meridian's residential and commercial recycling materials to Western Recycling. 21.5.8 REPUBLIC SERVICES shall immediately notify City Council to seek direction if REPUBLIC SERVICES becomes aware that the third party vendor is not processing(sorting, baling, shipping, selling at market) all of the individual materials which comprise Meridian's commingled recyclable material. 5. Nothing contained in this AMENDMENT shall change the agreement between the parties that when there exists recycling net profit that it be split 80/20 with 80%returned to the CITY by REPUBLIC SERVICES for the benefit of the Meridian Community Recycling Fund. 6. PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING PROVISIONS: The parties agree that the recycling processing fee which is the subject of this AMENDMENT is subject to compliance with the notice and hearing provisions of Idaho Code 63-1311A. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for the recycling processing fee is predicated upon Council's approval of the fee following public hearing and execution by the parties of this AMENDMENT with the effective date established by Council to begin October 1, 2021 or as soon thereafter as practicable. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as herein above provided. Dated this day of , 2021. Mayor Robert E. Simison Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment- 2021 3 Page 19 Item#1. ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Dated this day of , 2021. Ryan Lawler REPUBLIC SERVICES, AREA PRESIDENT Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment- 2021 4 Page 20 Item#1. RECYCLING PROCESSING FEE CONTRACT AMENDMENT FY22 THIS Amendment to Paragraph 21 of the Franchise Agreement to Perform Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Services ("AMENDMENT"), is made and entered into this 7th day of September, 2021, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called"CITY", and Republic Services of Idaho, an Idaho Corporation, hereinafter called"REPUBLIC SERVICES", whose current address is: 11101 W. Executive Dr. Boise, ID 83713. 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, REPUBLIC SERVICES performs all services pertaining to solid waste collection and disposal of the CITY'S solid waste pursuant to the Franchise Agreement; and 1.2 WHEREAS,REPUBLIC SERVICES is separately contracted to deliver the CITY's collected curbside recyclables to a third-party vendor, Western Recycling; and 1.3 WHEREAS,REPUBLIC SERVICES has heretofore paid for the monthly net cost of recycling processing charges related to Meridian's recycling program pursuant to contractual agreement with both the CITY and with Western Recycling; and 1.4 WHEREAS,the CITY has been advised that as of July 28th 2021, REPUBLIC SERVICES has sustained the net recycling processing cost of-$315,404.70 for the period of July 2020 through June 2021 for Meridian's recycling program; and 1.5 WHEREAS, the parties agree that due to sustained depressed market conditions resulting from China's severe contamination restrictions on recyclables and banned recyclable materials, commodity prices are not predicted to offset rising recycling processing costs for the foreseeable future; and 1.6 WHEREAS, REPUBLIC SERVICES has advised the CITY that effective September 30, 2019 and on-going since that date, it will no longer be economically viable to deliver the City's recyclable materials to the third-party processor, Western Recycling, for purposes of recycling due to the increased monthly net cost of recycling processing charges, which result in a net loss to REPUBLIC SERVICES; and 1.7 WHEREAS, the CITY desires to continue the Meridian Recycling Program because of its beneficial diversion of materials from the landfill; and 1.8 WHEREAS,the CITY does not believe the cost of recycling has reached a prohibitive level where the costs outweigh the benefits, but that it is cognizant that may not always be the case. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment- 2021 1 Page 21 Item#1. 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: a. Fiscal Year("FY")—This term is defined for purposes of this AMENDMENT as the period beginning October 1, 2021 and ending September 30, 2022. b. Commingled Recyclable Material—This term is defined for purposes of this AMENDMENT to include: tin, aluminum, plastics #1 and#2, newspaper, cardboard, mixed paper, and Hefty Energy Bags recoverable materials. c. Net Cost of Recycling Processing Charges- This term is defined for purposes of this AMENDMENT as the third-party vendor charge to process (sort,bale, and ship, sell at market) Meridian's commingled recyclables minus the rebate provided by Western Recycling from its materials commodity sales. 4. AMENDMENT to PARAGRAPH 21 of the FRANCHISE AGREEMENT: 21.5 RECYCLING PROCESSING FEE: Subject to the provisions set forth in Paragraph 6 of this AMENDMENT, for the period beginning October 1, 202land ending September 30, 2022 ("FY22"): 21.5.1 REPUBLIC SERVICES will receive the following: o Residential Accounts: $1.03 per residential household per month o Commercial Accounts: $1.09 per yard 21.5.2 CPI-INDEX - The recycling processing fee is not subject to the annual CPI rate calculation. 21.5.3 FRANCHISE FEE - The City will receive the 6% franchise fee on all commercial and residential rate components, including the recycling processing fee as reflected in Republic Services' 2021- 2022 rate model request. 21.5.4 REPUBLIC SERVICES agrees to pay for the effective period of this AMENDMENT the net cost of recycling processing charges in excess of the amount received as set forth in 21.5.1 above. 21.5.5 REPUBLIC SERVICES agrees to provide the CITY a year end reconciliation report of its third party vendor recycling processing charges, including an audit of the estimated increase for the period October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022. This reconciliation shall be provided to City Council within 120 days of September 30, 2022. Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment- 2021 2 Page 22 Item#1. 21.5.6 REPUBLIC SERVICES will reimburse the CITY of any over charge by Western Recycling for the effective period of this AMENDMENT within 120 days of September 30, 2022. 21.5.7 REPUBLIC SERVICES commits to deliver Meridian's residential and commercial recycling materials to Western Recycling. 21.5.8 REPUBLIC SERVICES shall immediately notify City Council to seek direction if REPUBLIC SERVICES becomes aware that the third party vendor is not processing(sorting, baling, shipping, selling at market) all of the individual materials which comprise Meridian's commingled recyclable material. 5. Nothing contained in this AMENDMENT shall change the agreement between the parties that when there exists recycling net profit that it be split 80/20 with 80%returned to the CITY by REPUBLIC SERVICES for the benefit of the Meridian Community Recycling Fund. 6. PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING PROVISIONS: The parties agree that the recycling processing fee which is the subject of this AMENDMENT is subject to compliance with the notice and hearing provisions of Idaho Code 63-1311A. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date for the recycling processing fee is predicated upon Council's approval of the fee following public hearing and execution by the parties of this AMENDMENT with the effective date established by Council to begin October 1, 2021 or as soon thereafter as practicable. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as herein above provided. Dated this day of , 2021. Mayor Robert E. Simison Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment- 2021 3 Page 23 Item#1. ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk Dated this day of , 2021. Ryan Lawler REPUBLIC SERVICES, AREA PRESIDENT Recycling Processing Fee Contract Amendment- 2021 4 Page 24 70 # Item#1. LEGAL NOTICE Current Proposed Fee Type Description FY 21 Fee FY21 Fee CITY OF MERIDIAN-NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING COMMERCIAL PERMANENT RECYCLING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Commercial Commingled Idaho,that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at its meeting on Tuesday,Septem- Recyclable Collection 6 yd(4 x week) $365.22 $37754 ber 7th,2021,at 4:30 p.m.,at Meridian City Hall,33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho,regarding adop- Commercial Commingled tion of the proposed solid waste fees,as set forth below.Further information regarding these proposed fees is Recyclable Collection 8 yd(Extra Dump) $41.31 $42.79 available in the Public Works Department at Meridian City Hall,33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho.Any Commercial Commingled and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing,and the public is welcome and invited to submit Recyclable Collection 8 yd(Every Other Week) $103.76 $107.50 written comments and/or provide verbal testimony at the hearing.Verbal testimony may be limited to three(3) Commercial Commingled minutes per person.For auditory,visual,or language accommodations,please contact the City Clerk's Office at Recyclable Collection 8 yd(1 x week) $129.84 $134.27 208-888-4433.For the most up-to-date information regarding public meetings,visit meridiancity.org/meetings or Commercial Commingled call the City Clerk's office at 208-888-4433 prior to visiting City Hall. Recyclable Collection 8 yd(2 x week) $236.25 $244.19 Commercial Commingled DATED this 19th day of August,2021. Recyclable Collection 8 yd(3 x week) $342.66 $354.11 CHRIS JOHNSON,CITY CLERK Commercial Commingled Current Proposed Recyclable Collection 8 yd(4 x week) $449.11 $464.08 Fee Type Description FY 21 Fee FY21 Fee Commercial Commingled Recyclable Collection 95-gallon carts(1 carVweek) $14.05 $14.56 RESIDENTIAL TRASH&RECYCLING Commercial Commingled Residential 95-gallon service(includes 1 recycling cart) $20.87 $21.66 Recyclable Collection 95-gallon carts(2 cartweek) $22.29 $23.08 Residential 65-gallon service(includes 1 recycling cart) $18.63 $19.34 Commercial Commingled Residential 35-gallon service(includes 1 recycling cart) $16.41 $17.03 Recyclable Collection 95-gallon carts(3 carVweek) $30.54 $31.61 Residential Extra Carts(per cart per month) $2.49 $2.58 Commercial Commingled Residential Cart Pickup/Upsize Exchange fee(per event) $14.80 $15.38 Recyclable Collection 95-gallon carts(4 cart/week) $38.80 $40.15 Residential Cart Delivery(free) $0.00 $0.00 Residential Carry Out Service $34.86 $36.22 INDUSTRIALTRASH Industrial Trash Container Delivery Svc 6-10 yd $25.63 $26.63 COMMERCIAL PERMANENTTRASH Industrial Trash 6 yd Disposal Fee(Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Carts 1,95-gallon cart(1 x per week) $32.17 $33.39 Industrial Trash 6 yd Disposal Fee(C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Carts 1,95-gallon cart(2 x per week) $60.82 $63.12 Industrial Trash 6 yd(Monthly Rent) $56.66 $58.87 Commercial Carts 2,95-gallon cart(1 x per week) $64.35 $66.80 Industrial Trash 8 yd Disposal Fee(Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Carts 2,95-gallon cart(2 x per week) $121.65 $126.27 Industrial Trash 8 yd Disposal Fee(C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Carts 3,95-gallon cart(1 x per week) $96.53 $100.20 Industrial Trash 8 yd(Monthly Rent) $73.44 $76.31 Commercial Carts 3,95-gallon cart(2 x per week) $182.47 $189.39 Industrial Trash 10 yd Disposal Fee(Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Container Container Delivery Svc(2,3,6,8 yd options) $25.36 $26.35 Industrial Trash 10 yd Disposal Fee(C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Container Lid Lock Installation(2,3,6,8 yd options) $4776 $49.63 Industrial Trash 10 yd(Monthly Rent) $81.84 $85.04 Commercial Container 2 yd(Extra Dump) $26.14 $2713 Industrial Trash Container Delivery Svc 20-40 yd $25.63 $26.63 Commercial Container 3 yd(Extra Dump) $35.59 $36.93 Industrial Trash 20-40 yd containers(Haul Svc) $369.50 $386.00 Commercial Container 6 yd(Extra Dump) $51.75 $53.68 Industrial Trash 20-40 yd containers(Haul Svc for Asbestos-Ada County) $320.43 $335.01 Commercial Containers 2 yd(1x per week) $106.78 $110.80 Industrial Trash 20-40 yd containers(Certification fee Asbestos-Ada County)$23.32 $23.32 Commercial Containers 2 yd(2x per week) $152.57 $158.23 Industrial Trash 20 yd Disposal Fee(Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 2 yd(3x per week) $197.57 $204.84 Industrial Trash 20 yd Disposal Fee(C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 2 yd(4x per week) $265.04 $274.79 Industrial Trash 20 yd Disposal Fee(Asbestos-Ada County Landfill) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 2 yd(5 x per week) $332.37 $344.60 Industrial Trash 20 yd Disposal Fee(Asbestos-Idaho Waste Systems) $800.00 $800.00 Commercial Containers 3 yd(1x per week) $111.17 $115.29 Industrial Trash 20 yd(Monthly Rent) $94.10 $9777 Commercial Containers 3 yd(2 x per week) $180.04 $186.64 Industrial Trash 30 yd Disposal Fee(Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 3 yd(3 x per week) $249.03 $258.10 Industrial Trash 30 yd Disposal Fee(C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 3 yd(4 x per week) $328.11 $340.05 Industrial Trash 30 yd Disposal Fee(Asbestos-Ada County Landfill) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 3 yd(5 x per week) $431.35 $44711 Industrial Trash 30 yd Disposal Fee(Asbestos-Idaho Waste Systems) $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Commercial Containers 6 yd(1 x per week) $173.42 $179.75 Industrial Trash 30 yd(Monthly Rent) $115.01 $119.50 Commercial Containers 6 yd(2 x per week) $280.10 $290.16 Industrial Trash 40 yd Disposal Fee(Municipal Solid Waste) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 6 yd(3 x per week) $386.67 $400.45 Industrial Trash 40 yd Disposal Fee(C&D/Compacted) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 6 yd(4 x per week) $515.58 $533.96 Industrial Trash 40 yd Disposal Fee(Asbestos-Ada County Landfill) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 6 yd(5 x per week) $644.56 $66754 Industrial Trash 40 yd disposal Fee(Asbestos-Idaho Waste Systems) $1,600.00 $1,600.00 Commercial Containers 8 yd(1 x per week) $205.86 $213.32 Industrial Trash 40 yd(Monthly Rent) $131.43 $136.57 Commercial Containers 8 yd(2 x per week) $320.18 $331.53 Industrial Trash 20 yd compactor Disposal Fee $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 8 yd(3 x per week) $433.25 $448.43 Industrial Trash 25 yd compactor Disposal Fee $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 8 yd(4 x per week) $560.63 $580.21 Industrial Trash 30 yd compactor Disposal Fee $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Containers 8 yd(5 x per week) $696.21 $720.50 Commercial Containers 8 yd(6 x per week) $825.84 $854.62 INDUSTRIAL DIVERSION Commercial Compactors 2 yd(base price per pickup per week) $63.27 $65.74 Industrial Diversion Container Delivery Svc 6-10 yd $25.63 $26.63 Commercial Compactors 3 yd(base price per pickup per week) $8759 $91.01 Industrial Diversion 6 yd Disposal Fee(Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Compactors 4 yd(base price per pickup per week) $112.36 $116.75 Industrial Diversion 6 yd Disposal Fee(Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Compactors 5 yd(base price per pickup per week) $13716 $142.52 Industrial Diversion 8 yd Disposal Fee(Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Compactors 6 yd(base price per pickup per week) $161.31 $167.62 Industrial Diversion 8 yd Disposal Fee(Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 10 yd Disposal Fee(Wood) $30.74 $30.74 COMMERCIAL TEMPORARY TRASH Industrial Diversion 10 yd Disposal Fee(Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Temp Service 3 yd Haul Svc(Municipal Solid Waste) $44.60 $46.12 Industrial Diversion Container Delivery Svc 20-40 yd $25.63 $26.63 Commercial Temp Service 3 yd Haul Svc(Construction and Demolition) $119.45 $123.90 Industrial Diversion 20 yd Disposal Fee(Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Temp Service 3 yd(Monthly Rent) $26.67 $2771 Industrial Diversion 20 yd Disposal Fee(Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Industrial Diversion 30 yd Disposal Fee(Wood) $30.74 $30.74 COMMERCIAL PERMANENT RECYCLING Industrial Diversion 30 yd Disposal Fee(Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Commingled Industrial Diversion 40 yd Disposal Fee(Wood) $30.74 $30.74 Recyclable Collection 3 yd(Extra Dump) $18.28 $18.94 Industrial Diversion 40 yd Disposal Fee(Sheetrock) $30.74 $30.74 Commercial Commingled Recyclable Collection 3 yd(Every Other Week) $53.62 $55.59 INDUSTRIAL RECYCLING Commercial Commingled Industrial Recycling Processing per loose yard(as applicable) $1.08 $1.08 Recyclable Collection 3 yd(1 x week) $67.10 $69.48 Industrial Recycling Processing per compact yard(as applicable) $2.16 $2.16 Commercial Commingled Industrial Recycling Container Delivery Svc 6-10 yd $25.63 $26.63 Recyclable Collection 3 yd(2 x week) $118.40 $122.54 Industrial Recycling 6 yd(Monthly Rent) $56.66 $58.87 Commercial Commingled Industrial Recycling 8 yd(Monthly Rent) $73.44 $76.31 Recyclable Collection 3 yd(3 x week) $169.73 $175.63 Industrial Recycling 10 yd(Monthly Rent) $81.84 $85.04 Commercial Commingled Industrial Recycling Contain Deliver Svc 20-40 yd $25.63 $26.63 Recyclable Collection 3 yd(4 x week) $221.04 $228.70 Industrial Recycling 20 yd(Monthly Rent) $94.10 $9777 Commercial Commingled Industrial Recycling 30 yd(Monthly Rent) $115.01 $119.50 Recyclable Collection 5 yd(Extra Dump) $24.88 $25.76 Industrial Recycling 40 yd(Monthly Rent) $131.43 $136.57 Commercial Commingled Recyclable Collection 5 yd(Every Other Week) $73.74 $76.40 MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES Commercial Commingled Miscellaneous Collection Tires 9(ea.)up to 16 inches $6.17 $6.41 Recyclable Collection 5 yd(1 x week) $102.27 $105.83 Miscellaneous Collection Freon-containing units/appliances $58.76 $61.06 Commercial Commingled Miscellaneous Collection Non-Freon units/appliances $16.66 $1731 Recyclable Collection 5 yd(2 x week) $171.81 $17765 Miscellaneous Collection Special Collection(for each increment of 10 minutes) $23.55 $24.47 Commercial Commingled Miscellaneous Collection Bulky Item Pickup(per item) $16.66 $17.31 Recyclable Collection 5 yd(3 x week) $240.87 $248.96 Miscellaneous Collection Extra Pickup/Go Back(per occurrence) $11.88 $12.35 Commercial Commingled Miscellaneous Collection Relocation(all sizes)-Commercial/Industrial $25.63 $26.63 Recyclable Collection 5 yd(4 x week) $310.16 $320.51 Industrial Services Turnaround compactor fee-Commercial/Industrial $17.98 $18.68 Commercial Commingled Miscellaneous Collection Weekend Charge-Industrial $72.77 $75.62 Recyclable Collection 6 yd(Extra Dump) $30.24 $31.31 Miscellaneous Collection Pressure Wash-Industrial $214.54 $222.93 Commercial Commingled Industrial Services Dry Run-Large industrial containers and compactors$109.22 $113.49 Recyclable Collection 6 yd(Every Other Week) $8743 $90.59 Industrial Services Dry Run(6-10 yd) $63.35 $65.83 Commercial Commingled Miscellaneous Collection Commercial Combo Lock Replacement $30.57 $31.77 Recyclable Collection 6 yd(1 x week) $108.63 $112.38 Commercial Container Extra Yard(Overload Each yd) $16.29 $16.93 Commercial Commingled Recyclable Collection 6 yd(2 x week) $194.17 $200.78 Commercial Commingled August 27,Septmber 3,2021 136970 Recyclable Collection 6 yd(3 x week) $279.68 $289.15 Page 25 77 C� E IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2021 for Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. Item#2. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: September 14, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from August 17, 2021 for Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. A. Request: Annexation of 17.5 acres of land with a TN-R zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 61 building lots and 8 common lots. C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility on the southern portion of the property. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 27 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 14, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 PROJECT NAME : Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision ( W2021 - 0024 ) 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 t`t •=� � fP� � �G�� S6 '7� S X 2 a 3 c� 47 C J , � I 3 77A2 Al � 5 . � vcvdd� 47 W ►v�- � �1 c�`� � X � 145 l � o 5 / ( 3 > So � oo � U 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i 13 14 Item#2. September 7, 2021 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach, Associate City Planner RE: Wells St Assisted Living AZ, PPH-2021-0024 At the August 17, 2021 City Council Meeting, the Council continued this case to September 14, 2021 for the applicant to consider feedback from the Council as follows: 1. Committing to a 55+ age-restricted community by reducing the footprint of the homes, deed restricting the homes, and/or limiting the houses to one story. 2. Providing larger rear setbacks to the existing properties in the Snorting Bull Subdivision(Woodbridge) to the west. 3. Removing the access from E. Magic View Dr. by providing another access to S. Wells St. 4. Moving the pool to a location further away from the homes. The applicant has provided revised plans. The plans increase the setbacks of all homes along the west property line to a minimum setback of 17'. The access to E. Magic View Dr. has been removed and retained for pedestrian and emergency access only and another access has been provided to S. Wells St. Lots have been extended in length so that all properties have 2 car garages and 2 car driveways. There are 21 additional guest parking spaces and 9 parking spaces have been provided for the clubhouse. This has resulted in a reduction in qualified open space from 21.5%to 20.6%. ATTACHMENTS Updated Concept Plan https://weblink.meridianciiy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=236752&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity Updated Open Space Plan https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=236808&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity Page 28 Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org ttem#2. Page 2 Updated Plat https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=237194&dbid=0&repo=Me ridianCity Page 29 Item#2. STAFF REPORT E IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING August 17,2021 Legends DATE: ff I0Projec3 Lacafian TO: Mayor&City Council -- ------ ' i FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner .� 208-884-5533 - ---- SUBJECT: H-2021-0024 Wells Assisted Living and Andorra Subdivision LOCATION: Southwest corner of E. Magic View Dr. and S. Wells St. at 675, 715 & and 955 a S. Wells St. in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3N., Range 1 E. i 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Applicant has submitted the following applications: • Annexation and zoning of 17.50 acres of land with the TN-R zoning district; • Preliminary plat for 61 building lots and 8 common lots(northern half)on 11.79 acres; • Conditional use to allow a 91-unit,three story nursing and residential care building with a footprint of 30,000 sq. ft and an 8,960 sq. foot commercial building with use to be determined at a later date(southern half); • Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 61 residential units with two(2) gates; • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4-4B which limits a gated development to no more than fifty(50)dwelling units,to allow 61 dwelling units. • Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3C-4A,which requires parking spaces for all single-family detached dwellings to be located on the same lot as the use that they are intended to serve,to allow 32 of the required parking spaces to be accommodated within on-street bulb-outs. The Planning Director approves alternative compliance requests. A similar proposal was approved for the subject properties in April of 2020(Andorra Senior Living H-2019-0127). This proposal included 76 single family residences and a 3-story apartment building with 88 dwelling units.Following the Council meeting,the property owners of the parcel to the west(972 E.Wells Cir) decided they were not interested in selling the property to the applicant and the annexation and development agreement was never completed. The present development was redesigned and no longer contains the additional parcel. Page 1 Page 30 Item#2. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 17.50 Future Land Use Desi nation(s) MDR(north)and MU-N(south) Existing Land Use Single-family residential/vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Assisted living/memory care,office and single family residential Current Zoning RUT and RI in Ada County Proposed Zoning TN-R Phasing plan(#of phases) 2 phases. 61 units of residential and nursing and residential care facility will be constructed as two separate projects at the same time,office would be built at a later phase. Number of Residential Units(type 61 single family units and 91 units in 3-story building of units) Density Gross density is 8.7 dwelling units to the acre Open Space(acres,total [%]/ Open space is required for the single-family development per buffer/qualified) the standards in UDC 11-3G.Based on an area of 11.79 acres, 1.2 acres of qualified open space(10%)is required,whereas 2.38 acres(21.5%)is proposed,double the UDC requirements. Amenities Central pathway along Five Mile Creek,green space corridor north-south through the residential development,clubhouse with fitness center and pool,outdoor open spaces with water features,pickle ball,horseshoe pits gazebos and dog park. Physical Features(waterways, Five Mile Creek bisects the property and is contained within a hazards,flood plain,hillside) 100-foot easement Neighborhood meeting date;#of Two neighborhood meetings were held in February and attendees: March of 2021 —(Approximately 45 attendees among the two meetings) History(previous approvals) AZ,PP H-2019-0127(Approved but never completed) Public Testimony As of June 30,2021,two letters have been received. One letter was received from the Woodbridge HOA President (Snorting Bull Subdivision)and Bette Monteith.Issues expressed include,traffic,density,height of houses,and the distance of the proposed homes from the existing homes. Page 2 Page 31 Item#2. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page ACHD • Staff report An updated staff report was completed with this proposal. (yes/no) • Requires ACHD No Commission Action(yes/no) • Improvements Applicant will be required to improve Magic View Drive and Wells St as 36' wide local commercial street.Wells circle is required to be constructed as a 33-foot-wide local street.Applicant will be required to construct Gentry Circle as a 33-foot street section,including cul-de-sac. Fire Service • Distance to Fire This fire station is approximately 1.9 miles from the project.If approved, Station the Fire Department can meet the response time goals. • Fire Response This development falls within the 5-minute response time(under ideal Time conditions) from the nearest fire station—Fire Station 1 and Fire Station 5. • Resource This development is closest to Fire Station#1. Current reliability is 70% Reliability from this station and does not meet the targeted goal of 80%or greater. • Risk This proposed commercial development has a risk factor of 2,in which Identification current resources would be adequate to supply service to this proposed project.Risk factors include firefighting in multi-story buildings and a large gathering of people in a single location. This entails a greater risk for the occupants as well as first responders. • Accessibility The project meets all required access,road widths and turnarounds.All private roadways and the ends of the roadways shall be signed"No parking fire lane." • Special/resource This proposed project will not require an aerial device. The closest truck needs company is 5 minutes travel time(under ideal conditions)to the proposed development,and therefore the Fire Department can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required.This fire station is approximately 1.7 miles from the project. In the event of a hazmat event,there will need to be mutual aid required for the development. In the event of a structure fire an additional truck company will be required.This will require additional time delays as a second truck company is not available in the city. _ • Water Supply Water supply for this proposed development requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour. The commercial area(the office building and the assisted living/memory care)will require 1,500 gallons a minute for 2 hours. (Approximate—see appendix B of the 2015 International Fire Code)The fire flow requirements may be less if the buildings are fully sprinklered. Page 3 Page 32 Item#2. Police Service • No comments Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.11 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with W W Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Pipe going into/out of manhole must have a min angle of 90 degrees. • Ensure that infiltration trenches are located so that sewer services do no pass through them. • Ensure that no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. • Flow is committed Water • Distance to Water 0 feet Services _ • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns The applicant will be required to connect the northwest water main to the existing water stub off of E Magic View Dr Page 4 Page 33 Item#2. C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend sift' Legend Pf�c*ct Lflcafiar 1t141 ��P�jec}Lacaion } ws'�, IU EB Sid dial CO i 1 _ Industrialmu-RG _ iLr is � ___.._ 'F' •R ' Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend L� Legend ® ---,k -- -- F(3-F:ajeot Lc+cairr}n I JI IF cj.,Loam., - — Pafined Pares I Rc -+r -- �IJ7Y � tla R - - V2 C-G Rl I� C-C. L-O � -R-9 R-4 C Page 5 Page 34 Item#2. III.APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Jamie Koenig,Babcock Design—800 W. Main St,Boise,ID, 83702 B. Owner(s): Iterra Homes,LLC—316 E. 1400 St, St. George,UT, 84790 Bambara Opportunity Development—520 E. Taberncle St, St. George,UT, 84770 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 6/25/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties 6/22/2021 within 300 feet Public hearing notice sign posted on site 6/29/2021 Nextdoor posting 6/22/2020 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Annexation&Zoning The Applicant requests annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres of land with TN-R zoning district consistent with the MU-N(Mixed Use—Neighborhood)and MDR(Medium-density Residential) Future Land Use Map(FLUM) designations in the Comprehensive Plan. A conceptual site plan and building elevations were submitted for the development showing how the property is planned to develop, included in Section V. The Applicant proposes to develop the site with 61 single family building lots, a 91-unit,three story assisted living/memory care building with a footprint of 30,000 sq. ft. and possibly a 9,000 sq. ft. office building. Within the nursing and residential care(assisted living/memory care) facility the applicant proposes a restaurant, spa, salon,multipurpose/movie theater, lounge, library, crafts, and other spaces to serve the residences of the facility. There will be studio, one and two- bedroom units. The Allowed Uses table in UDC Table 11-2D-2 for the TN-R zoning district lists single family detached as a principally permitted use,and professional services(office) and a nursing or residential care facility by conditional use, subject to specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3. Compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R district is required, including but not limited to the maximum building height of 40 feet. The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. Page 6 Page 35 Item#2. B. Future Land Use Map Designation The Future Land Use Map designates 13 acres of this property to the north as MDR, and approximately 4.5 acres of this property at the south is designated as MU-N(Mixed Use— Neighborhood). The MDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including single family residential, townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from three to eight dwelling units per acre. With the area proposed for single-family residential area to the north being approximately 13 acres in size, 61 dwelling units amounts to 4.7 du/acre. The portion of the property proposed for detached single family residences is directly adjacent to the established Snorting Bull Subdivision(also called Woodbridge)to the west. This adjacent subdivision is comprised of lots of approximately 5,500—6,500 sq. ft. in area. There are 16 existing houses along the adjacent boundary line of this subdivision and the houses are approximately 42' to 45' in width. The applicant proposes 21 houses of approximately 32' in width and lot sizes of 4,000 sq. ft. along the same abutting property line. At staff s recommendation,the applicant is "staggering"the rear setbacks of these houses from 12' to 27' to reduce a"wall effect"on the adjacent subdivision. The applicant also proposes to vary the height of the larger houses by keeping the western half of the houses adjacent to the existing residences to one story. Although the proposed lot sizes are smaller than what are in the adjacent subdivision and the houses narrower,the density as proposed is on the lower end of what could be allowed by the FLUM and impacts of height have been reduced. As the rows of houses at the east and west perimeters of this development have shallower side setbacks,this has allowed an increase of quality useable open space oriented at the center to 21.3%,whereas 10%is required. Because the portion of the property to the south is designated for MU-N, and there is existing office and commercial properties south of that and adjacent to I-84, a slightly higher transition in density from the neighboring properties is appropriate. The purpose of the MU-N designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential with supporting non-residential services.Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for (approximately one mile)and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. The proposal in this area includes 91 assisted and memory care units with supporting retail,restaurant and entertainment uses in an 30,000 sq. ft. footprint along with a 9,000 sq. ft. office building. The proposed development meets many of the goals of Mixed-use Neighborhood designation. The proposed 9,000 sq. ft. office building located toward the eastern-middle portion of the site (north of Five-Mile Creek)is within an area recommended for MDR,not MU-N. However,the Comprehensive Plan notes that future land use designations are not parcel specific.An adjacent abutting designation,when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application,may be used. It is staffs opinion that this is appropriate as the office development is part of a larger development and is suitably integrated. C. Comprehensive Plan(https:llwww.meridiancity.orklcompplan): 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): Page 7 Page 36 Item#2. 2.01.01M-"Support active-adult or independent senior living development." The proposed development will provide housing options for seniors in close proximity to office, medical and commercial uses developed in the area. 3.02.00—"Maintain, improve, and expand the City's infrastructure to meet existing and growing demands in a timely, orderly, and logical manner." The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to this development. The applicant will be responsible for the extension of the services to serve the proposed development. 6.01.01H-"Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system." Pedestrian internal walkways are proposed throughout the development.A segment of the City's multi-use pathway is also proposed to be extended with the development. 4.05.02C—"Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design." The submitted concept plan incorporates the Five Mile Creek corridor into the design of the project. 2.02.01 —"Plan for safe,attractive and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices." The concept plan and open space exhibit as designed depicts 21.5%common open space. Open space is linked throughout the development with inter-connected walking paths for residents of the community to enjoy. 3.02.01G—"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools, fire and parks." The applicant is proposing to develop the site with single family detached, assisted living and memory care and an office building. Public Works has allocated resources to serve the development. Both Police and Fire have not expressed concerns with the proposed development. With the development of the site, a pathway segment will be extended to enhance the City pathway. Staff finds that the proposed development should have a minimal impact on the current LOS for public facilities. In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-N areas,per the Comprehensive Plan: ➢ "All developments should have a mix land uses." The proposed development contains a mix of uses as required(i.e. assisted living and memory care, single family residential and office). ➢ "Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 40%of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 12 units/acre." This development proposes 91 assisted living and memory care residential units in a three story 30,000 sf ft footprint, 61 single family units, and a 9,000 sq.ft. office building. This is more than 40%of the development being residential, with a gross density of approximately 8.7 du/acre. ➢ "Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings." The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of all buildings. The single-family residences on the northern portion of the site are bungalow and craftsman style homes with pitched roofs, dormers, lap siding and rock to tie into the existing residential to the west. The assisted living and memory care and office building are at the southern portion of the site and will likely be developed as a separate project under a different owner. The architecture Page 8 Page 37 Item#2. proposed for these buildings is much more contemporary—flat-roofed buildings with a combination of panel, stucco, metal, exposed timber frame and overhanging balconies. This is a style that is not characteristic of the residential uses to the north. However, this is a separate project, is separated from the residential component by 5-mile creek, and there is variety of commercial architecture in and around the general vicinity. The architecture of the two proposed commercial buildings is mostly consistent with each other. Although the elevations of the assisted living and memory care building contains numerous architectural features, modulation and variation infield materials and accents, the elevation provided for the office building is simpler and might not comply with the standards of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM). Final design will be determined at the time of CZC and design review. "Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial land uses, a maximum building size should be limited to a 20,000 square-foot building footprint." The largest building proposed on the site is the 3-story assisted living/memory care building which has a building footprint of 30,000 square feet. In addition to 91 residential units, the building is indicated to contain a restaurant, spa, salon, movie theater and lounge, which meets the above recommendation for a mix of uses to allow larger footprints. ➢ "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement." The proposed development has multiple gathering spaces that comply with this requirement. ➢ Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development above the minimum 5%,the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint." The applicant is extending a portion of the pathway through the development for public benefit and providing open space in excess of UDC standards. Therefore, staff supports the increase in the building footprint as proposed by the applicant. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are several existing structures on this site that are required to be removed prior to development of each subsequent phase. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant proposes to rezone to Traditional Neighborhood Residential District(TN-R)to allow single family detached, office and nursing or residential care facility. Single family detached is a principally permitted uses;the office and nursing or residential care requires a conditional use permit,which is discussed below. The end-user of the office building is unknown at this time and will be evaluated when an end-user is identified. Allowed uses are those identified in UDC Table 11-2D-2. Since the initial submittal of the formal application,the applicant has later mentioned they were considering the possibility of multifamily rather than the assisted living/memory care facility. Staff mentioned this was a different use,would require a new application,new public noticing and would likely result in a delayed hearing date. Staff also had concerns with potential traffic impacts, Page 9 Page 38 Item#2. especially for cars that would use E. Magic View Dr as a"cut through"street to the west. The applicant subsequently expressed their desire to retain the present hearing date and to move forward with the application as was initially submitted. It is important to note the traditional neighborhood districts are the only zone districts in which multifamily is allowed by-right without a conditional use permit. Staff recommends a restriction that limits the three-story building at the south to nursing and residential care. E. Specific Use Standards UDC 11-4-3-29 lists the specific use standards for nursing or residential care facilities. Standards include requirements for occupancy, and requirements for fencing of outdoor areas accessible to patients who are memory-compromised. The concept site plan does reflect several outdoor areas associated with the nursing or residential care facility,but no specificity regarding which areas will be accessible for memory care patients. The outdoor areas should be identified and contain proper fencing at time of CZC submittal. F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R district. This includes setbacks continent upon whether the property is street accessed or alley accessed, a maximum building height of 40' (30' to eaves providing roof access), and landscape buffers of 5' along alleys and 8' along local streets. Street layout is primarily to be based on a grid,with block faces limited to no longer than 500' without intersecting street or alley. At least two different housing types are required, such as single-family dwellings with attached garages and alley-loaded single-family dwellings. It is anticipated that c street only access properties at the perimeter of a TN-R development. All dwelling units are required to have a minimum of 2 lights at the front of the unit. It does appear the concept plan as submitted meets most TN-R requirements, including street accessed along the perimeter. Two housing types of street accessed and alley-loaded homes are proposed, as well as assisted living and memory care. The 3-story nursing or residential care facility appears to be within the 40' height limit, although the height is not dimensioned on the conceptual elevations. A lighting plan will be required at time of CZC and design review. The block lengths along S. Shadowbrook Ln(west) and S. Andorra Ln(east)exceed 500'. Staff understands that without a complete redesign it is not feasible to meet the block length requirements at the west due to the existing residences, and putting a mid-block park in this area would probably not be well-received by the neighbors. Staff and the applicant have discussed the block length along S. Andorra Ln(east)and the applicant has agreed to provide a mid-block park and pathway connection from S. Andorra Ln to the S. Wells St pathway. Staff recommends the Council approve a waiver from 11-2D-3-A-C-1 to allow the block length as proposed at the western property boundary(S. Shadowbrook Ln). G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access to this development is proposed from the adjacent local streets(E. Magic View Dr, S.Wells St. and E. Wells Circle)in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. For internal connectivity,the applicant is proposing gated private streets,alleys and drive aisles at the portion of the property desired for single family residential. UDC 11-3F-1 allows the Director to approve private streets when certain findings are satisfied. These are discussed in Section VII. ACHD responded in a staff report dated June 29,2021 that the applicant will be required to improve Magic View Dr and S. Wells St. as 36' wide local commercial streets. There is a bridge Page 10 Page 39 Item#2. scheduled to be constructed across Five Mile Creek in a future integrated five-year work plan project;the applicant will not be required to improve S. Wells St. along this section. There is existing un-named ACHD right-of-way(ROW)created with Instrument#812200 shown as E. Gentry Circle toward the middle of the property, in the location of the office building.ACHD is requiring the applicant to construct this road as well as the cul-de-sac turnaround with a minimum 50-foot radius to include curb,gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk. At present,the concept plan only shows this road being constructed to a western stub at the property line. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE UDC I1-3F-4 (Private Street Requirements) states a gated development shall have no more than 50 dwelling units. 11-3C-4 (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements)requires parking spaces for all single-family detached,townhouse, secondary,and duplex dwellings to be located on the same lot as the use that they are intended to serve. The single family detached portion of this development proposes 61 gated lots served by private streets and alleys. The 61 units are required to provide 244 parking spaces(4 per unit,at least 2 in an enclosed garage for homes with greater than 3 bedrooms). The applicant proposes 32 of these parking spaces to be in"bulb-outs"in 6 locations along the private streets. This is because some of the houses are either lacking in size of garages or the size of driveways,which results in not all homes providing four parking spaces,although all homes provide at least two. I 1-317-4 allows the Director to approve, or recommend approval of alternative design or construction standards when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed overall design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this article and shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. Requests for alternative compliance are allowed only when one(1)or more of the following conditions exist: a. Topography, soil,vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or impractical; b. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot; c. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable; d. Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict with the requirements of this article; e. The proposed design includes innovative design features based on"new urbanism", "neotraditional design",or other architectural and/or site designs that promote walkable and mixed-use neighborhoods; f. Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance. In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall make three findings. These are discussed in Section IX below. G. Parking(UDC 11-3Q: As mentioned in the alternative compliance section above,the single-family residential portion of this development proposes 61 houses with 3 or more bedrooms,requiring at least 244 parking Page 11 Page 40 Item#2. spaces.All of these parking spaces are provided,although 32 of them would be provided in"bulb- outs"along the private streets(as mentioned in the Alternative Compliance section above). The 244 parking spaces do not account for the 4,320 sq. ft. clubhouse. Parking for residential clubhouses is calculated based on nonresidential standards,which is one space for every five hundred square feet of gross floor area. Based on this ratio, 9 additional parking spaces are required,whereas they have not been provided. It does appear there is additional area in and around the bulb-outs near the clubhouse to provide these spaces. Staff is recommending 9 additional spaces as a condition of approval. For a nursing and residential care facility,the parking requirement is 0.5 parking space per bed. The concept site plan indicates 102 beds,which requires 51 parking spaces. 101 parking spaces have been provided. Staff believes there would be some number of staff and an office,which has been unaccounted for. Based on a requirement for office uses(commercial)of 1 parking space per 500 sq. ft.,the additional 51 parking spaces would accommodate 25,500 sq. ft. of office space,nearly an entire floor of the 3-story building. Staff believes adequate parking has been provided for this building,but at the time of certificate of zoning compliance will request an accounting of the number of beds, as well as the square footage of the staff office. The site plan reflects an 8,960 sq. ft.,two story office building. 18 parking spaces would be required and 40 spaces are shown on the conceptual plan. H. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There is an informal 10-foot wide pathway stubbed at the west boundary of the adjacent Snorting Bull Subdivision. The Meridian Pathways Plan shows a future multi-use pathway connecting to this stub. The concept plan as submitted does include a connection to this stub via a direct east—west connection from the existing western pathway stub to the detached sidewalk along S. Wells St. However,there are portions of this pathway shown to narrow to 5' in width. To be consistent with the Pathways Plan, staff recommends the entire length of pathway from the existing western stub at the adjacent subdivision to S. Wells Street be built to a finished template at 10' in width'. With the final plat submittal,the applicant should submit and obtain approval of a pedestrian pathway easement from City Council. Further,the applicant should coordinate with the applicable irrigation district and conform to any requirements of the district. The Meridian Pathways Plan shows the preferred future alignment for the multi-use pathway is along Five-Mile Creek whereas the applicant is providing the connection approximately 200 feet to the north. This is because Five-Mile Creek bisects a property to the west that is neither part of Snorting Bull Subdivision nor the subject property.As the present applicant cannot control if and when this western property develops,the connection 200 feet to the north is the alternate alignment. The applicant is also providing a second pathway connection along Five-Mile Creek(south perimeter of the office parking lot). This connection should be developed to a 10' template to the western property line to facilitate completion of the preferred creekway alignment if the western property annexes and develops. The conceptual development plan shows detached sidewalks and pathways providing designated pedestrian access between all single-family residences,the central amenity,the office building and the assisted living/memory care facility. I. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): The applicant is providing 5' detached sidewalks along all the local roads which border this property(E. Magic View Dr., S. Wells St. and E.Wells Cir) although the TN-R dimensional Page 12 Page 41 Item#2. standards only require 5' wide detached sidewalks along collector roads. 4' wide detached sidewalks are provided along all the internal private roads. J. Parkways(UDC 11-2 11-3A-17): UDC 11-2D-6 requires parkways of a minimum width of 8' and landscaped with Class II trees along all local streets. The conceptual landscape plan does indicate at least 8' of landscaping adjacent to most of the detached sidewalks running along E. Magic View Dr. S.Wells St. and Wells Cir. in most areas.At the time of final plat the landscape plan should indicate all requirements of UDC 11-2D-6 and 11-3A-17 are satisfied. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B and UDC 11-2D-6): Because the site is more than 5 acres in size,the applicant is subject to the landscape requirements. This includes landscape strips and parkways along all local streets(in the TN-R zone district), a minimum of 10%qualified open space and minimum landscape requirements for all common open spaces and pathways. For commercial uses(including the assisted living and memory care),there are requirements for perimeter and internal landscaping within commercial parking lots,parking islands at intervals of no less than 12 parking space intervals, and tree mitigation requirements for qualifying trees. The conceptual landscape plan does indicate landscape requirements are met, although there are a few locations where it appears the minimum 8' wide parkway strip is not met along the local streets.At the time of final plat,the applicant will need to submit a landscape plan with landscape type and quantity indicated that meets the requirements of UDC 11-2D-6 and UDC 11-3B. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G) All residential developments over 5 acres in area are required to provide at least 10%of qualified open space. The applicant has submitted an open space exhibit.Based on an acreage of 11.79 acres, 1.18 acres of open space is required,whereas 21.5%is provided. All qualified open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements and appears to be landscaped as required per UDC 11-3G-3-E. N. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3-C) One amenity is required with this development. The applicant proposes a central open space which includes a 4,320 sq. ft. clubhouse, swimming pool,hot tub,pickleball court,horseshoe pit and dog park. In several other areas of the residential development,there are large open spaces which contain picnic gazebos and an open space corridor with internal pathways running the length of the residential area north to south. Although not required,the nursing/residential care facility includes sizeable open space, an internal courtyard,bocce ball court,picnic gazebo, and community garden. The Five-Mile Creek is being preserved within a 100' wide easement. The development as proposed greatly exceeds the minimum requirements. O. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-69 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and the specific use standards for nursing and residential care per 11-4-3-29. With submittal of the final plat landscape plan and the CZCs for the commercial portions,the applicant should provide details of the fencing proposed for the development to ensure it complies with UDC standards. P. Existing Easements: There are existing 10-foot wide public,utility, drainage and irrigation easements that run along the interior and exterior boundary of the three platted lots created with the Magic View Amended Plat. Prior to the final plat or the issuance of a CZC application,the applicant will be required to vacate the 10-foot wide easements along internal lines and rededicate if necessary. Page 13 Page 42 Item#2. Q. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6): The Five Mile Creek crosses the southwest corner of this site and is proposed to remain open as an amenity for the development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6. R. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VI below for Public Works comments/conditions. S. Pressurized Irrigation System(UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for each lot within the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. T. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. U. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): As mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Section, conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed structures on the site as shown in Section V. Single family residents incorporate residential characteristics consistent with the adjacent residences,and the commercial building have a more contemporary appearance.All structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Submittal and approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications are required prior to submittal of building permit application(s). In order to be respectful to the existing residences and because of the visibility of the project,as a condition of approval staff is recommending the rear or side of structures facing the existing residences at Snorting Bull Subdivision or facing E. Magic View Dr. or S. Wells St shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials,color,modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical)to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines in accord with UDC 11- 3A-19 and the Meridian Design Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation, Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the provisions and comments included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX. The Planning Director has approved alternative compliance in accord with UDC 11-5B-5 to allow 61 gated lots, 32 of the required residential parking spaces to be provided in bulb-outs,and private streets per UDC 11-3F-5. Page 14 Page 43 Item#2. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on July 15,2021. At the public hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use,annexation,rezoning and preliminary plat request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jamie Koenig,Brent Thompson b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Jamie Koenig,Brent Thompson d. Written testimony: Staff has received two letters of testimony from neighbors. e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. John Overton representing the Woodbridge HOA,expressed concerns regarding rding cut- through traffic into the Woodbridge Subdivision,why an updated traffic study was not completed,whether the single-family residences would be age-restricted,parking issues along E. Magic View Dr,height of houses, and clarification on the number of parking spaces in the development.He also discussed how the project had evolved,that it had been difficult keeping up with changing plans, and their disappointment that the previous development never got completed given the community was in favor of it. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Commission discussed phasingoproject,whether the single-family residences would become a rental product concerns about the nursing and residential care facility becoming multifamily, clarification on the number of parking spaces,whether traffic calming could be considered along E. Magic View and the applicant reaching out to the Woodbridge community prior to the Council meeting. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission added a requirement to the development agreement that all the properties along the western perimeter, directly adjacent to the Snorting Bull Subdivision (Woodbridge)maintain side setbacks of at least 5' (minimum 10' spacing between buildings . b. Commission added a note to the development agreement that the amenities shown on the concept plan shall be required with this development including a central open space with at least a 4.320 sq. ft. clubhouse, swimming pool,hot tub,pickleball court. horseshoe pit, dog park,and an open space corridor with internal pathways running the length of the residential area north to south. The nursing/residential care facility will include the open space as shown,an internal courtyard.bocce ball court,picnic gazebo. and community garden. b. Commission clarified that the concept plan they were approving was the one dated July 13,2021 presented to them at the hearing. c. Commission directed the applicant to reach out to the Snorting Bull Subdivision prior to the Council hearing. Page 15 Page 44 Item#2. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map(date: 4/21/2021) WELLS STREET PROPERTY CITY OF MERUNAN ANNEXATION LEGAL DESCR I PT10N Lots 7,21,22 and a portion of Lot 6 of Amended Magic View Subdivision filed in Gaol€52 of Plats at Pages 4445 through 44-46,Ada County Records and tfiat portion of the I ands of Ada County Highway District as described in that Warranty Deed recorded under Instrument No.8235392,Aida County Records,Ior:ated in the East Half of Section 17,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Base Meridian,CO of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,described asfollows: i3fGINNING at the center-quarter Earner of Section 17,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian, from which the north-qu arter corner of said Section 17 bears North 00°23'48" East,2,657.09 feet;Thence North 0D°23'48"East,926.76 feet along the wesi lire of the East Half of said Section 17, Thence S 80°09'03"E,413.1-6 feet to the most northerly angle paint in the north line of said Lot 7; Thence along the northerly line of said Lot 7,S 80°09'03"E, 312.15 feet to the northeast corner thereof; Thence 31C°49'09"W,802.30 feet along the easterly lines of said Lots 7 and 22, Then ce309°36'26" E, 35.49 feet aiong the easterly line of said Lot 22 to the nortbeast corner-of said Lot 21; Then ce309°36'26" E, 789.42 feet along the east line of said Lot 21 to thesouth east corner thereof; Thence N 89°15'33"W,373.45 feet along the south lute of said Lct 21 to the southwest corner thereof; Thence N 00°01'21"W,723.67 feet along the west line of said Lot 21 to the southerly line of said lands of Ada County Highway District; Thence N 00°01'21"W,50.00 f eet to th e north line of said lands of Ada County Highway district; Thence(N 89°57'50"W,252.88 feet along said narth line and the south iifle of said Lot 22 tathe POINT OF BEGI PIN ING,contaittirg 17.50 acres,more or less_ END DESCRIPTION J-U-13 ENGINEERS,Inc. This description was prepared by m e or under my supervision_ If any , portion of this description is modified or removed without the written consent of Robert L Kazarinoff,PLS,ali professional liability associated with this domment is hereby declared null and void_ 4 OF p ` Robert L.Kaaarinoff,PLS 16CA2 z' KA%6 Date 21 ARR 2021 Page 16 Page 45 Gm#2 •mm . J J, �s � OF 47 � \ §� § ¥ � , , _ 1902] Page 17 Pgek Item#2. B. Conceptual Site Plan(date: nti"vv/26,12021 July 13,2021) r� ' .sir F Fi IG D.M.Ni fRIW;p wh F - u Page 18 Page 47 Item#2. C. Preliminary Plat(date: 10/21/2021) � rn,00ac nncaTrd, � r, WIP kL P f Aw— Ar T. +di'FF�• IF 47 ,5'+, � 5 I' I1 RM L.THu sr ' t[ i $ 7 I F jumj SY F .711 q J J iILL' ' f � 8 d ■.h YF - kp Illy r IGh• ry FI + - -lat• -��y= 4'F T T I I 44— -- — -- k •r tee* BI I Yk X` I r - . �p8 Sr• I � I '1r i l.f+ F �* :III I� 7- r ■Yr JJI+ rrr if I _ l@i rtb S• I !i�{k!7 r li. 7F �t199■R RWO LhiE IF rff ..L7 r -r EIx4 FU+ ti'AW IIIE ek44 ..{ F v , . _ W]1! �In n!F WI L T F I 56' C SJ1 OUR r ---�--h57'� a41 h i9•i�6'�----y— r �. +.■ram SE Fr.11-1� 9Ef£Mb 59 Page 19 Page 48 Item#2. D. Proposed Landscape Plan(date: 10/21/2021) SITE AMENITIES 1 CENTRALMEADOW - ---- _ - 2 PRIVACY FENCES 7 WALKING TRAIL PICNIC GAZEBO 5 5 LAWN AREA rvplie� ! 1. N11 .- •. 1. 4 - ! A 4' 1_LEYA mom PLAN ENLARGEMENT o z�s so O Ej T".r _ L_j T w SITEAMENITIES 1 CENTRAL MEADOW ALL ' ,�. 2 PRIVACY FENCES yA WALKING TRAIL ram_ - • a PICNIC GAZEBO h , I 5 OFF-LEASH DOG RUN r i ! 5 PICKLE BALL COURT 7 LAWN GAMES co; g CLUBHOUSE, SWIGPOOL AND HOTTER r ' r LANE(PRlVR EJ I _ .�'Fa ems_. f• /f c,r f] a UPLAND STEPPE +1,.' _- f __ FY • I • PLANTING � f fkj o Y •• 0 - i 4 q �•_ E POOLSIDE LANE(PRIVATE) �? ®- m Page 20 Page 49 F.. .._ y � -�"— PV• � $ 4'r= y , SITEAMENITIES M��� .:� �r �• • E F'OOL51DE LANE(VRIVATE� 1 CENTRAL MEADOW a 2 PRIVACY FENCES 3 WALKING TRAIL I 4 PICNIC GAZEBO AND LAWN AREA 5 VEHICULAR GATE �I E 100 YEAR 2 , ! FLOO©PLAIN AND - - -- ADDITIONAL 10'WIDE • -156E€Y B- - ---•-- � BUFFER I �' NMI I E.GENTRY CIRCLE IjT PLAN ENLARGEMENT o, 25 50' O 1 - w � i'• � 5 - DT r= ,. _ r•a ^ � � K i 9 1 y 1 4 4 PLAN ENLARGEMENT Page 21 Page 50 Item#2. D. Open Space Exhibit(date:3,17A2021 July 13,2021) 77 QM I 1 ' �J f 4 SPACE J ��a a aai 1 tit l�4f! �lR4ri+Y sa �vFL�ii 1 F� Page 22 Page 51 Item#2. E. Bulb Out Exhibit(date: 5/7/2021 3 LWdM 4FMAPQUTPmI3h¢ dp LCChlI#8 OF LHIf14 CEFLU94-f Ii PAH Ii FJQ # # i f � f i I F I% No { I Page 23 Page 52 F. Conceptual Elevations d. 5/7/2021 '�1� � Dili.. -., j� ��■ i WELLS STREET =AGES ELEVAnON01 WELLS STREET COTI]AGES1 1 !1r li a. WELLS STREET FT[AGES ELEVATION 03 WUS STREET C07AGES1 1 ASSISTED UVING MEMOHY CARE IF -------------- ag Item#2. CONCEPT'OFFICE OEST ELEVATION CONCEPT OFFICE SW TK ELEVATION L4•Id 4 GONLEI'I of F ICE EAST ELtvAMN CIXWCEPT OF FICE NORTH ELE VAT ION Page 25 Page 54 Item#2. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,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 preliminary plat, landscape plan, conceptual site plan, and conceptual building elevations in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The three-story building shown at the south portion of the site may only be used for nursing and residential care. c. Any office building may only operate with the uses as specified in Table 11-2D-2. d. Applicant shall construct a segment of the City's 10-foot multi-use pathway through the development as proposed. Prior to signature on a final plat,the applicant shall obtain City Council's approval of a public pedestrian easement and record said document. e. The rear or side of structures facing the existing residences at Snorting Bull Subdivision or facing E. Magic View Dr. or S. Wells St shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials,color,modulation, and architectural elements(horizontal and vertical)to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Meridian Design Manual. L All residences along the western perimeter of the development, adiacent to the existing homes in Snorting Bull Subdivision(Woodbridge) shall maintain minimum side setbacks of at least 5' (a minimum spacing of 10' between buildings). g. The amenities shown on the concept plan shall be required with this development including a central open space with at least a 4,300 sq.ft. clubhouse,swimming pool, hot tub,pickleball court,horseshoe pit,dog park,and an open space corridor with internal pathways running the length of the residential area north to south.The nursing/residential care facility will include the open space as shown, an internal courtyard,bocce ball court,picnic gazebo, and community garden. 2. Prior to the City Council meeting,the applicant shall reach out to the Snorting Bull Subdivision(Woodbridge). 3. The applicant shall provide a mid-block pathway connection from S.Andorra Ln to the S. Wells St pathway which complies with the minimum requirements of UDC 11-3A-8 and 11- 3B-12. 4. Parking for the clubhouse will be provided at one(1) space for every five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor area in accord with 11-3C-6-B. 4. All structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. An application for Design Review Page 26 Page 55 Item#2. shall be submitted concurrently with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications for nursing and residential care facility or the office building. 5. Applicant shall comply with the TN-R dimensional standards set forth in UDC Table 11-2D- 6. 6. Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 7. Applicant shall comply with all specific use standards for a nursing and residential care facility in accord with 11-4-3-29. 8. Comply with all bulk,use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2 District regulations. 9. The applicant shall design and construct the multi-use pathways consistent with the location and specifications set forth in Chapter 3 of the Meridian Pathways Master Plan unless otherwise approved by the Parks Department. 10. Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B- 5I, 11-313-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C. 11 Preserve any existing trees on the subject property that are four-inch caliper or greater; or mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-IOC. 12. Private streets shall be designed and constructed in accord with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3F-4. With the submittal of a final plat application,the applicant or owner shall provide documentation of a binding contract that establishes the party or parties responsible for the repair and maintenance of the private street, including regulations for the funding thereof. 11-3F-3. 13. All common open space and site amenities shall be maintained by an owner's association as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3F1. 14. The Director(at the applicant's request)approved alternative compliance in accord with UDC 11-5B-5 to allow the following: a. 61 gated lots whereas UDC 11-3F-4 limits developments to 50 lots; b. Allow 32 required parking spaces to be provided in bulb-outs whereas UDC 11-3C-4 requires parking spaces for all single-family detached dwellings to be located on the same lot as the use that they are intended to serve. Additional parking is required for the clubhouse. 15. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two(2)years to commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two(2) years of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F. 16. The(preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years [add date]; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-613-7. Page 27 Page 56 Item#2. B. PUBLIC WORKS A. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. A streetlight plan must be included with the final plat application and/or building permit application and must comply with section 6 of the City's Design Standard. 2. A portion of this project lies within the Meridian Floodplain and Floodway Overlay District. Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District a floodplain permit application, including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6. Development in the floodway must meet either no-rise conditions or go through the CLOMR/LOMR process with FEMA to modify the maps. 3. Sewer mains through a manhole must have a minimum angle of 90 degrees. 5. Sewer service lines should not be located through infiltration trenches. 6. All water and sewer mains,water meters,and fire lines to the jurisdictional valve must be placed within public right of way or a City utility easement of 20 foot wide per utility and be free from all encroachments including but not limited to buildings, carports, streetlights, infiltration trenches,trees, fences, etc. 7. The water main in the northwest portion of the development must be connected to the existing water stub off E Magic View Dr. 8. A geotechnical must be included with the final plat application and/or building permit application. B. General Conditions of Approval 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. 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. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this Page 28 Page 57 Item#2. document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). 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. 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. 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. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. 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. Page 29 Page 58 Item#2. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=229654&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=229625&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCiV E. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=229849&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCi4y F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=230177&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity y G. NMID https://weblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=230614&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCio! Page 30 Page 59 Item#2. H. COMPASS https://weblink meridiancioy.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=230801&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX I. WEST ADA COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=232144&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiV IX. FINDINGS I. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds that the Applicant's request to annex and develop the subject 17.5-acre property with TN-R zoning is consistent with the associated MU-N and MDR FL UM designations 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; Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the purpose statements of the traditional neighborhood districts in that it will provide for a range of housing needs for the community consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential and commercial uses should be compatible with adjacent existing and future residential and commercial uses in the area. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 31 Page 60 Item#2. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision- making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and As mentioned in the analysis section above, with the proposed and recommended mitigation measures Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30- 2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. C. Conditional Use Permit(Nursing and Residential Care Facility) The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations of the TN-R district. The concept plan and landscape plan show all parking, setback, and landscaping requirements are met, and additional useable open space and amenities are provided whereas they are not required. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord Page 32 Page 61 Item#2. with the requirements of this title. Commission finds the proposed nursing and residential care facility and potentially the commercial building will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan in that it will provide alternative housing options that are close to existing commercial and retail services for older residents and needed commercial uses in a mixed-use area. 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. Commission finds the design, construction, and operation of the nursing and residential care facility and the office should be compatible with the adjacent and future commercial uses and the future commercial uses nearby and will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. The end-user of the office building is unknown at this time and will be evaluated when an end-user is identified. Allowed uses are those identified in UDC Table 11-2D-2. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. If the proposed project complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII as required, Commission finds the proposed nursing and residential care facility and the potential commercial building should not 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. Police and Fire have responded they can serve the facility and did not express concerns. Public Works has not expressed concerns other than the conditions of approval listed in Section VIII above. The nursing and residential care facility is not intended to generate any demand for school services. The commercial building will be reviewed when an end user is identified. The applicant will be required to comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Commission finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials,equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Although traffic may increase very slightly in this area due to the proposed use, Commission finds the proposed nursing and residential care and potentially an office building should not be detrimental to the general welfare. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) Page 33 Page 62 Item#2. Five-Mile Creek, north of the facility, is intended to be preserved as a natural amenity. Commission is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features in this area. D. Private Streets(UDC 11-3F-5): In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following: A. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; The private streets meet the design requirements of not connecting to an arterial street, allowing sufficient maneuvering for emergency vehicles, and meeting the minimum width of 27 feet. In addition, the design does incorporate central houses oriented on a common mew through the site design as listed in the intent of this section. The proposal exceeds the limitation of no more than 50 units being served by a gated development. The Director has approved Alternative Compliance to allow 61 lots. B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity. The fire district and police have not expressed concerns in regard to the private streets and gated lots. The Director has determined granting approval of the private streets would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity. C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Proposing private streets with an integrated pathway system, clustering of houses around common mews, and a central greenspace corridor complies with Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multi purpose pathways, ensuring safe routes and access, encouraging safe,physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikeable community and providing necessary infrastructure. D. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. The proposed development is a gated development that is centered around common mews. It exceeds the provisions of UDC 11-3F-4.b which limits gated developments to no more than 50 dwelling units, but the Director has approved Alternative Compliance to allow 61 lots due to its clustering, significant open space and amenities, and integrated pathway system. E. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE As required by UDC 11-3F-4,the Planning Director has granted alternative compliance from the private street requirements of UDC 11-3F-4 and parking requirements of 11-3C-4 with the following findings: 1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or Although it is feasible to restrict the number ofgated lots to 50 and provide all required parking for each single-family residence on site, the development is intended to be a walkable neighborhood with homes clustered around an abundance of central open space and amenities. Because the houses are clustered around greenspace and pathway connections (making the project more walkable), staff is supportive of the additional 11 gated lots. Staff also supports the "bulb-out"parking alternative, as requiring longer driveways (or garages) would result in loss of at least some of the central open space or amenities (or a complete re-design). Page 34 Page 63 Item#2. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and In addition to the main central amenity (the clubhouse), the homes in this development are oriented around an approximately 75' wide green space corridor that bisects the property north-south, and a 6'pathway providing pedestrian access from E. Magic View Dr. to the 5 Mile Creekpathway to the south as well as multiple connections to S. Wells St at the east. Per the common open space and site amenity requirements of UDC 11-3G, at 11.79 acres, this development is only required to provide I amenity and 1.18 acres of qualified open space. The open space exhibit provided reflects 21.5% qualified open space (2.4 acres), with amenities including a central open space with a clubhouse, pool,fitness center, pickleball court and picnic structure, and dog park. There are also numerous pathways throughout the development, and at least 3 other 50'x 100'grassy areas (with gazebos). 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. As the fire department and police department have not expressed issues with the number of gated lots, and the required number of parking is provided near the single-family residences in bulb-outs along the private roads, the Director finds this alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Page 35 Page 64 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Bright Star Care Meridian (H-2021-0052) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Modification to the existing Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement and Addendum (Instrument Ws 102056126 and 106133465) to remove the subject property (Parcel A & B, ROS 8756 which is a portion of Lot 46 & all of Lot 47 of Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 5) for the purpose of entering a new agreement to allow a reduction to the existing 20-foot residential landscape buffer to construct 5,800 sq. ft. nursing and residential care facility consistent with the approved conditional use permit (H-2021-0040). Page 129 Item#3. C� fIEN , IN1, IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: September 14, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Bright Star Care Meridian (H-2021-0052) by Hatch Design Architecture, Located at 3336 and 3340 N. Meridian Rd. A. Request: Modification to the existing Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement and Addendum (Instrument Ws 102056126 and 106133465) to remove the subject property (Parcel A& B, ROS 8756 which is a portion of Lot 46 &all of Lot 47 of Block 7, Sundance Subdivision No. 5) for the purpose of entering a new agreement to allow a reduction to the existing 20-foot residential landscape buffer to construct 5,800 sq. ft. nursing and residential care facility consistent with the approved conditional use permit (H-2021- 0040). Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 130 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 14, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Bright Star Care Meridian ( H - 2021 - 0052 ) 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 g 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#3. STAFF REPORT E IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 09/14/2021 Legend DATE: Noev-!oca=on TO: Mayor&City Council a it FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner ,. ku �- 208-489-0573 f SUBJECT: H-2021-0052 Bright Star Care Meridian MDA —Yhf-Umc RQ E_USTI�{'R LOCATION: The site is located at 3336&3340 N. Meridian Rd,in the SW '/a of Section 31, Township 4N,Range IE. . TfT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement and Addendum (Instrument Ws 102056126 and 106133465)to remove the subject property for the purpose of entering into a new agreement to allow a reduction to the required 20-foot residential landscape buffer to construct a 5,800 sq. ft. nursing and residential care facility consistent with approved conditional use permit(H-2021-0040),by Hatch Design Architecture. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Applicant/Representative: Jeff Hatch,Hatch Design Architecture-200 W. 36th St.,Boise, ID, 83714 B. Owner: Settler's Crossing LOC—7761 W. Riverside Dr, Ste 100,Boise, ID, 83714 III. STAFF ANALYSIS The subject property is presently two vacant lots comprising 0.43 acres and is within the Settlers Business Park(Sundance Subdivision No. 5). The subject property is within the Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement, originally recorded in 2002 and modified in 2006. On July 15, 2021,the Planning Commission approved a conditional use on the subject property to allow a 5,800 sq. ft.nursing and residential care facility. The landscape plan of this facility reflected a 10' wide buffer adjacent to the residential properties to the north. However, a requirement of the Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement is that due to the single family uses abutting the boundary of the subject property, a minimum 20-foot planting strip is required along the northern property line. Because this is a requirement of the DA, it can only be reduced through action of the Council. Consequently,the Planning Commission approved the conditional use with the condition Page 1 Page 131 Item#3. that the applicant either meet the 20' residential landscape buffer requirement, or request a development agreement modification through the City Council prior to submitting a certificate of zoning compliance application. As the Sundance Subdivision Development Agreement contains several hundred residential properties as well as all the commercial properties within the Settler's Business Park, staff recommended the applicant remove the subject properties from the existing development agreement and enter into a new development specifically for the subject property. The applicant states that per the Settlers Business Park Property Owners Association,the original intent of this buffer requirement was to mitigate the impact of commercial properties on the adjacent residential.According to the applicant,this development is a residential type use,so the requirement was not meant to apply in this situation. The applicant added that fencing is provided between the subject property and the properties to the north,and trees are provided in the proposed buffer at approximately 12.5' spacing,which is almost three times the density required by 11-313-9 (requiring 35' spacing). The applicant submitted a letter of no objection from the Settlers Business Park Property Owners Association and held a neighborhood meeting on August 17,2021 of which there were no comments. Because there are no objections,the applicant is providing fencing and nearly three times as much density in the landscaping, and because of the low impacts to adjacent residential associated with a nursing and residential care facility, staff does not object to the reduction in the buffer width. Staff has reviewed the requirements of the original DA and the DA addendum. As the subject property is located internally within the Settler's Business Park and all parking,infrastructure and public improvements for the Sundance Subdivision and Settles' Business Park have already been constructed,the only pertinent requirements of the existing DA are regarding the allowed uses and the landscape buffer. IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends the City Council approve removing the subject property from the Sundance Subdivision Agreement and Addendum(Instrument Ws 102056126 and 106133465) and establishing a new development agreement.: 1. The property is approved to develop with a nursing and residential care facility). The applicant shall substantially comply with the site plan,landscape plan and building elevations approved with conditional use permit(H-2021-0040). 2. The applicant shall be allowed to construct a 10-foot wide landscape buffer along the northern boundary of the site as shown in Exhibit B. Page 2 Page 132 Item#3. V. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description EXHIBIT"A" Parcel A—Description A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 47,Block 7 ofSUNDANCE SUB DIVISTON No. 5, filed in Book 98 of Plats at Pages 12523-12526,in the Office of the Ada County Recorder, located in the SW `la of Section 31,Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,City of Mcridian,Ada County,Idaho, and as shown on Record of Survey No, 8756,filed as Instru nent Igo_110034523, heing more particularly described as follows- BEGINNING NING at the northwesterly corner of I.ot 47, Block 7 of said subdivision; thence, along the northerly line of said Lot 47, 1. S.89"0913"E., 101.48 feet; thence,leaving said northerly line, 2. 5.00°51'50"W., 88.09 feet to the southerly line of said 1.ot 47;thence,along said southerly line, 3. M89°08'10"W., 101.48 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 47;thence,along the westerly line of said Lot 47, 4. N.00P51'5D"E.,88.08 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNfNG. CONTAINING: 0.205 Acres,more or less. SUBJECT TO. All Covenants,Rights, Rights-of Way and Easements of Record. rA%S T�✓ 31 Page 3 Page 133 Item#3. EXHIBIT"A" Parcel B—Description A parcel of land being a portion of Trots 46 and 47,Block 7 of SUNDANCE SUBDIVISION No. 5, filed in Book 98 of Plats at Pages 12523-12526, in the Office of the Ada County Recorder,located in the SW '/4 of Section 31,Township 4 North, Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and as shown on Record of Survey No. 8756,filed as Instrument No.110034523,being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the northwesterly corner of Lot 47,Block 7 of said subdivision;thence,along the northerly line of said Lot 47, A) S.89008'33"E., 101.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;thence,continuing along said northerly line, 1. S.89°08'33"E.,60.00 feet;thence, leaving said northerly line, 2. S.00051'50"W., 177.90 feet to the southerly line of said Lot 46;thence,along said southerly line, 3. N.90"00'00"W.,49.44 feet to the southwesterly corner of said Lot 46;thence,along the westerly line of said Lot 46, 4. N.00051'50"E.,90.55 feet to the southeasterly corner of said Lot 47;thence,along the southerly line of said Lot 47, 5. N.89008'10"W., 10.56 feet;thence,the southerly line of said Lot 47, 6. N.00051'50"E.,88.09 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING:0.224 Acres,more or less. SUBJECT TO. All Covenants,Rights,Rights-of Way and Easements of Record. T 7316 H:W5141%WPfiksISURVEYIPBA PARCEL DESCRIPTIONSTARCEL B.doc �/ 4 IsIto � f OF Page 4 Page 134 Item#3. B. Site Plan(approved by Planning Commission on July 15,2021) ! GENERAL NOTES SITE RECAP cl�° e,maircrscr:.uexu■a rt mu.mrsl a[y■Y .�- _ ___�" _ 4rL I ]Ge Ce3 R! A W`�'Jxi I�JF i-L�lI4Y lrf S�■�Ir It p 5' .car ____ '�� -.t_. — exur _ .__._ —___ ■ remo-.un srera na,�ssr..alum :'11961,.; _-- �Y'-Y � �b�� L CPwiYli li.�'8l■i lrGr]e.l _ APPLICANT INFO_ - • I �wTa r�uo-mv.r¢ icenr��nix+ia�"' .�c ecrsca� I srvns I I rx� n�TCF94 1�i; ::d�il�i ' - PRflP4g1} • raw�:w= nao,oc l-0 •.i Ij!1'iE- RES]LfFl17AL �;; ;`•e �I � CeRE fACL1TY � �' u�� ]I'i `•,,,,,7,7�i°'� Ay S.R"?SF } an I•� i[',1:I.• t� 'i wexm., rug»i• � KEYNDiESn,.-r, ewLo�ac E1d$T]NG as:.vxrs rhn�ws Arc.•..00■r`ou` T hRn[MC LOT —T raw c n..�wrcoan uu� Fiti �- err 3r..�.ra Lwrcarm.: W — � Z I .xw•ae�.rw..s a.— -+-'�`, hi wxasm.xmLr:+:u " g� L'yd 7 L4 sx x: fEwsnF,r, pl I ExJSZ1NG � EXISTING �I ! ?ARKIM.`.,LOT j PAWING LOT I [+ i I I A� � � I ;{ 1 Y. AWROWALSAMP L_T _ —_ _— —_ _— __ _—_ wrar ro•w pow_�_— —__ — r .. . _ PARKUJG LOT L �-�• +� N SITE ! x�w■eeu �s ^— P W 4 SITE REFERENCE PLAN ! Page 5 Page 135 Item#3. C. Landscape Plan of approved Brightstar Meridian Conditional Use 3. ALL TREES THAT ARE OAIAOJCfD.DE.SfROY THE MITIGATION STANDARDS PER THE CFF 4. SEE TREE MITIG4TlON NOTES FOR ADDITC Adjacent Single Family BEGIN 6 4)END CB 1 :+R• C6 xoHeH�-R-e - A :� - Area of buffer reduction•_[DEND 5 I JH 777 - CA 4 : - • mv.«..,, " BT EXISTING rJ ., .��."'•` ogtn'�.nFm B BUILDING •.'. ... a �. ^.` SJ EXISTING •'y:� .iM e - _ PARKING LOT 4 CA 5 6 BEGIN vM CA Py "°9"0g'�0'Y+�«•�^ _ 4 BEGIN Lam[ SJ CA 6 END 3 — END 6£AF� BEIG]N IT simmswti�o.s i-�1 � I � I � � I EXCITING I o I I BUILDING ;! EXISTING 8 EDfI57ING PARKING LOT PARKING LOT l— , ' � I I EXISTING R 1 Page 6 Page 136 Item#3. D. Approved Elevations of Brightstar Meridian Facility HATCH DE5ioN ARCHITECTURE 1 Front (west) elevation PPP rt it � 'fi.+-Via.:,': �•.t•�t::.. a•• s NORTH ELEVATION Rear (north) elevation facing residential (fence and landscaping will be in front of this elevation. Page 7 Page 137 Item#3. E. Existing DA language permitted. S. Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accozdar.ce -Witia City Ordinance Section 12-5-2.1 , '9. All construction ,skull conform to &Le rrquicenxent-5 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 10, M--- dian City Ozdina,nce 1 -6 sets forth the requirentenu for Planned Developments. My conditions attached to a Final Development Plan for Played Develapmcnt projects run with the]arid and shall not lapse or be waived as the result of any subsequent change in tenancy or ownership. 11, That any proposed uses other than an office use on Lots 45, 47. 49 and 50, Block 7 shall require a CUP. The office uses are allovied under the Planned Development process and would not require a CUP if constructed in accordance with an approved CUP site plan and Plat. 12. Due to the single-family uses abutting the boundaries of Lots 45. 47 and 49, Block 7 (proposed as future office use), a mznimum 20-foot planting strip, in accozdarice with City Ordinance 12-4- i-A., is required along the property lines of these three lots. 13_ Dedicate 48-Fcct of right-of-way frorrl the c.eflterline of Ustick Road abuttirLg the parcel by means of record-ation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warrarlty d d prior to issuance of a building permit (or other regt:lred permits),whichever occurs first. Dedicate 48-feet of right-of-way From the ce-m-e lirie of Meridian Road abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a waz:anty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits),whichever occurs Firs-[. 15, Construct the main entrance off Ustick Road, located approximately 900-feet east of the west property lime, as propose,d. Construct the main entrance with one inbound DFVELC)PMENT AGENT(AZyO1-412) - 6 rage u Page 138 Development Agreement Hearing Sept. 14, 20210052-2021-HBrightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design Hatch Design 0052-2021-HSept. 14, 2021Ahead Preschool & Childcare)Property to the East (A Step (Veterinary Hospital)Property to the South (Residential)Property to the North(Settlers Park)Property to the WestBrightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.Vicinity Map eArchitectur Site Plan 0052-2021-HBrightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design Sept. 14, 2021 Concept Elevations 0052-2021-HBrightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eHatch Design Sept. 14, 2021 Similar Facility 0052-2021-HBrightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design Sept. 14, 2021 HOA Letter 0052-2021-HBrightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design Sept. 14, 2021 Thank you for your time.0052-2021-H Development Agreement Hearing Brightstar Care3336 & 3340 N. Meridian Rd.eArchitecturHatch Design Sept. 14, 2021 Questions? 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) by Gem State Planning, Located on the West Side of Meridian Road Between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, Directly South of the Mid-Mile Point A. Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan and to redevelop the subject property to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat. Page 139 Item#4. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: September 14, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Briar Ridge Subdivision (H-2021-0036) by Gem State Planning, Located on the West Side of Meridian Road Between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road, Directly South of the Mid-Mile Point A. Request: Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land. C. Request: A Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan and to redevelop the subject property to incorporate the proposed preliminary plat. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 140 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : September 14, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : Briar Ridge Subdivision ( W2021 - 0036 ) 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#4. STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 9/14/2021 Legend DATE: Project Location - . 0 TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner i----- 1 - ----- ---- ht 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0036 - Briar Ridge Subdivision ' LOCATION: The site is located on the west side of Meridian Road between W. Lake Hazel Road and W. Amity Road,directly south of the mid-mile point, in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 36,Township 3N., - ----T Range 1W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION • Rezone a total of 40.99 acres of land from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential); • Preliminary Plat consisting of 227 single-family residential building lots and 47 common lots on 38.86 acres of land; and • Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #2016-007070), as required by the existing development agreement provisions, for the purpose of updating the development plan to redevelop the subject property consistent with the proposed preliminary plat. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage RZ—40.99;Plat—38.86 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(3-8 du/ac)and Medium-High Density Residential 8-12 du/ac Existing Land Uses Vacant land Proposed Land Uses Detached and Attached Single-family Residential Lots #and e;bldg./common) 227 single-family residential building lots;47 common lots Phasing Plan #ofphases) Proposed as three 3phases Number of Residential Units 227 single-family units(123 detached; 104 attached townhomes Density Gross—5.84 du/ac over entire project area. Open Space(acres,total 7.7 acres total;4.52 acres of qualified open space Pagel Page 141 Item#4. Description Details Page /buffer/ ualified (approximately 11.8% per submitted open s ace exhibit. Amenity At least four(4)qualifying site amenities—Children's play structure,picnic shelters throughout,multi-use pathway along Meridian Road(SH 69),and open space in excess of code requirements(large central pocket park). Physical Features(waterways, Mcbirney Lateral crosses the north half of the property. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Applicant is proposing to pipe and reroute this lateral to be included in open space and incorporate a connection to the multi-use pathway along SH 69. Neighborhood meeting date;#of December 8,2020—One(1)attendee;April 21,2021 —No attendees: attendees History(previous approvals) H-2015-0019 South Meridian Annexation B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not a4 this time Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Traffic Impact Study Yes—Both ITD and ACHD have reviewed the TIS. es/no Access Main access to the development is proposed via a new collector street at the (Arterial/Collectors/State mid-mile mark along the north property boundary,per the Master Street Hwy/Local)(Existing and Map.Direct access to lots is via new local streets prosed within the site. Proposed) Stub Applicant is proposing two stub streets to the west and a relatively large Street/Interconnectivity/Cross segment of local street along the south boundary.Adjacent sites are not yet Access developed so future development would connect to these stub streets. Existing Road Network= No Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No—Meridian Road/SH 69 frontage is not yet improved.Applicant is Buffers required to construct and vegetate the required buffer and include a detached, 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the entire frontage;the Applicant has proposed compliance with these items in their development. Future Road Improvements • Amity Road is scheduled in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian Road(SH-69)to (CIP/IFYWP) Locust Grove Road between 2036 and 2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to 5-lanes from Meridian Road(SH-69)to Locust Grove Road between 2036 and 2040. • The intersection of Amity Road and Meridian Road(SH-69)is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 7-lanes on the west leg, and signalized between 2031 and 2035. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road (SH-69)is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,7-lanes on the east,and 7-lanes on the west leg and signalized between 2036 and 2040. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 3.6 miles from Fire Station#6(Approximately 2 miles from proposed fire Station station#7 on Lake Hazel;response time would then fall within the 5- minute response time area. • Fire Response Time Project currently does not reside within the Meridian Fire 5-minute response time goal area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#6 reliability is 87%(above the goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 1—Residential • Accessibility • Proposed project meets all required road widths,and turnaround Page 2 Page 142 Item#4. Description Details Page dimensions. • Submitted phasing plan shall be strictly adhered to with regards to the timing of the secondary access to Meridian Road. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4.5 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 3.5-minute response time to an emergency(Priority 3 call) • Call Data Between 6/1/2019-5/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 188 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 4. See attached documents for details. Between 6/1/2019-5/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 7 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. West Ada School District Estimated Additional School 159 estimated children at full build out(.7 per SF dwelling, .1 per MF Aged Children dwelling) • Distance(elem,ms,hs) 1.6 miles to Mary McPherson Elementary 3.8 miles to Victory Middle School 7.2 miles to Meridian View High School • Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary—675 students Victory Middle School— 1,000 students Meridian High School—2,075 students • #of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary—461 students Victory Middle School—976 students Meridian High School— 1,865 students School of Choice Options Christine Donnell Elementary(Arts)—6.8 miles away(505 enrolled w/capacity of 500) Spalding Elementary(STEM)—8.9 miles away(677 enrolled w/capacity of 750) Wastewater • Distance to Sewer N/A Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project See application Sewer ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.16 Balance • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • In greenfield projects sewer services should not pass through infiltration trenches,as currently designed there are multiple areas where this occurs. • Current plans show 8" sewer line going to-and-through to the west parcel.If to-and-through is desired,then line must be upsized to match Master Plan as this would be the main line feeding the surrounding sewer shed.If sewer does not go to-and-through,then an 8"line is acceptable. Water • Distance to Services 900' Page 3 Page 143 Item#4. Description Details Page • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project See application Water ERU's • Water Quality None Concerns • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Do not install water line down Meridian Rd. from Amity Rd.Instead extend 12"line along E.Quartz Rd from the Prevail Subdivision. • Applicant to donate well lot • A 12"main is required in W Quartz Creek St down to the subdivisions southeast corner;this will require upsizing several sections of main through the subdivision. COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 230 Jobs w/in 1 mile 120 • Ratio 0.5—Indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered a healthy job/housing ratio) Farmland Consumed? Yes(936 acres of farmland w/in 1 mile of project) Nearest Bus Stop 3.3 miles Nearest Public School 1.2 miles Nearest Public Park 1.7 miles Nearest Grocery Store 3.7 miles(an Albertson's grocery store is under construction within 3 miles) Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full document. Distance to nearest City Park 1.7 miles to Discovery Park(76.88 acres in size but only phase 1 is (+size) constructed)to the southeast of the project. Page 4 Page 144 Item#4. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map 1 Legend Legend MU-C � Project Location aProject Location Medium Density - Residential - Med- Iv Den Low ensity Resid Residential 4 MU RG Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend RUT i-L 0 Legend Project Location RUT Project Location t� ' L ' CQ y! City Limits Planned Parcels R-8� R-8 R-4 RUT R-2 RUT RUT R-4 R-8 R-15 C-G RUT R=15 ' R=G '- R-4 ' RUT ' RR iR14- 111. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jane Suggs, Gem State Planning—9840 W. Overland Road, Suite 120,Boise,ID 83709 B. Owner: Endurance Holdings,LLC— 1977 E. Overland Road,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant Page 5 Page 145 Item#4. IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/23/2021 8/27/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 7/20/2021 8/25/2021 Site Posting 7/30/2021 8/31/2021 Nextdoor posting 7/20/2021 8/26/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /e compplan) Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Medium-High Density Residential(MHDR)—This designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from eight to twelve 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 subject site is approximately 40 acres and was annexed into the City in 2015 with many other parcels in this area of the City under the "South Meridian Annexation."It is located on the south side of the mid-mile mark on the west side of Meridian Road between Lake Hazel and Amity Roads; it is directly west of Shafer View Drive and the recently approved Shafer View Terrace annexation and preliminary plat(H-2020-0117) located on the east side of Meridian Road. With two future land use designations bisecting the subject site, the Applicant may choose to use one or both designations. How each designation is utilized is largely up to the Applicant when more than one exists within a project site; this includes the proposed project density. Briar Ridge is proposed with 227 building lots on 38.86 acres at a gross density of 5.84 du/acre which falls in the middle of the allowable density in the MDR designation on the property. However, the requested TN-R zoning district requires a minimum net density of 6 du/acre. Staff has more analysis and recommendations below on this subject. The proposed development meets the required density allowed on the property for the more restrictive designation which shows Staff that the Applicant is not merely trying to develop the highest number of units possible. Theoretically, the Applicant could have proposed a project with twice the density and still been compliant with the allowable density due to the inclusion of the MHDR designation on the site. Despite proposing a project density consistent with MDR, the Applicant is aware of the existing commercial zoning to the south (also part of the South Meridian Annexation) and its future land use designation of Mixed-Use Regional which would likely incorporate higher intensity development, both commercial and residential. Thus, the Applicant proposed its higher density product in the southeast quadrant of the site by placing the alley-loaded townhoues in this area. In addition, to further assist with the future transition to the south and along Meridian Road, the Applicant is proposing a local street directly on the shared Page 6 Page 146 Item#4. property boundary between the alley loaded homes and the existing C-G property—Staff believes this site design offers flexibility and buffering from the proposed residential and future development to the south while transitioning to more traditional detached single-family as the project moves north. Rezone: When the subject property was annexed into the City of Meridian in 2015 it was zoned R-4 to help delineate that this property would be developed as residential. The Development Agreement that was created as part of this original annexation dictated that the City would have services available as soon as possible and the first Rezone application would be free of charge. This stipulation regarding a Rezone application was made because the annexation was City initiated and the property had no concept plan or specific development planned at the time of annexation; the City understood future development may not match the existing zoning and gave future applicants the opportunity to propose a different zoning with a new development plan. The Applicant's request to rezone to the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN--R)zoning district is, in itself, consistent with the future land use designations because it is a residential district. More importantly, the overall site design proposed by the Applicant is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use designations because of the transitional density proposed, the multiple housing types proposed, the inclusion of parkways throughout the entire development, and the extension of a collector street along the north boundary for future connectivity. Staff believes the request for a traditional neighborhood zoning district in this area of the City may lay the groundwork for future development to its south to also include traditional neighborhood design and make future developments more pedestrian focused and walkable. Development Agreement Modification: The same stipulation regarding the Rezone application applies to the first Development Agreement Modification (MDA)for this property. In fact, the existing DA requires that with any future redevelopment an MDA is required to be submitted. Therefore, the Applicant has submitted an MDA to satisfy this requirement and update the development plan, in order to develop the proposed subdivision. The DA will be tied to the submitted preliminary plat and be required to develop the property per the submitted plans and proposed housing types. Staff finds the proposed project and the requested applications to be generally consistent with the future land use designations within this project site. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed in the next section. Page 7 Page 147 Item#4. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing types throughout the City" (2.01.01G). The subject project is proposed with a site design that closely resembles traditional neighborhood design with short block lengths, street trees,pedestrian facilities throughout, and three housing types within this one project. Thus, the Applicant is requesting a rezone from the R-4 district to the TN-R zoning district to have zoning that fits the proposed housing types of detached single-family, alley loaded single-family, and attached single-family townhomes with parkways throughout the project. In addition, the proposed housing types will vary greatly from the Shafer View Estates'larger lots to the east and thus offering more housing diversity in this area of the city. "Preserve,protect, and provide open space for recreation, conservation, and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The Applicant is proposing open space in excess of code requirements with a large open space lot in the north half of the site and two relatively smaller linear open space areas in the south half of the project. In addition, the project is proposed with parkways and street trees throughout the entire site offering more open space that would be used for recreation and aesthetics. Further analysis on the proposed open space is below in Section V.L. "Promote area beautification and community identity through context sensitive building and site design principles, appropriate signage, and attractive landscaping."(5.01.02C). The requested TN-R zoning district requires more than one housing type and streets that include parkways and street trees. With parkways, sidewalks are further removed from the public street making for safer pedestrian facilities and encouraging more pedestrian activity. Because of the desired project aesthetic by the Applicant and the requirements of the traditional neighborhood zoning district the proposed project is creating its own identity through site design and thoughtful landscaping and pedestrian elements. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Proposed project is not directly adjacent to any other development at this time. However, the Applicant is proposing parkways with detached sidewalks throughout the entire site and constructing a multi-use pathway segment along the entire Meridian Road frontage; both of these design elements would offer ample pedestrian connectivity within the site and to future development, specifically to the adjacent property to the south that is designated as Mixed-Use Regional on the future land use map. "Require proposed development within areas further away from urban services,existing utilities or requiring significant City utility upgrades,to demonstrate fiscal benefits, strategic fit with the Comprehensive Plan, contiguity with existing development,and appropriate mitigation for any impacts to existing City service users." (3.03.02F).Because the extension of utility services will be fully financed by the Applicant, the specific concern of the City expending funds for utilities is minimal. However, there is evidence that developing this parcel does not constitute orderly development because of the longer extension of services needed to serve the project. Beyond utilities, urban services also include adjacent transportation facilities, employment opportunities, and commercial services like grocery stores, gas stations, and even general retail, office, and restaurant uses. Staff does not find that the Applicant has fully demonstrated this project has a strategic fit with the Comprehensive Plan. "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).All of the essential urban services are relatively far removed from the project site despite other residential development being approved Page 8 Page 148 Item#4. across Meridian Road to the east. For example, the closest gas station is more than 1.5 miles to the north with the next closest being nearly 3 miles away; the closest grocery store is almost 4 miles away. There is no existing commercial within 1.5 miles of this development which automatically requires that future residents would have to utilize their car to get to essential services.Approximately one mile to the east, at the intersection of Lake Hazel and Locust Grove, commercial zoning is approved but any actual construction timeline is unknown as this area has only been platted and no administrative applications have been submitted. In addition, C-G zoning is existing directly to the south of this project site which does allow for future commercial to nearby these proposed residences. Despite this development meeting a majority of the comprehensive plan policies and being proposed with an insightful and carefully considered site design,Staff does have concern on the timing of development for this project only in relation to nearby property development;as discussed above, the City has made commitments to servicing and developing this site through the original annexation in 2015 so Staff does not find any of these concerns to warrant a recommendation of denial. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed throughout the above sections and comprehensive plan policies. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on site beyond the existing Mcbirney Lateral that traverses the north third of the site. The historical use for the subject site is agricultural in nature. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed uses within this project are all residential—detached single-family residential, alley-loaded detached single-family, and alley-loaded townhomes.All residential uses proposed are permitted uses within the requested TN-R zoning district per UDC Table 11-2D-2. The TN-R zoning district requires a minimum of two (2)housing types—the proposed housing types offer three(3) distinct housing types and complies with this zoning requirement. The project is proposed to be constructed in three(3)phases according to the submitted phasing plan(Section VILE). Phase 1 is shown to include the new collector street along the north boundary that connects to Meridian Road and is the main access to the development;two local streets are proposed from this new collector street into the site. Phase 1 therefore includes development along the north boundary and also along the east boundary adjacent to Meridian Road; it also includes a number of all three proposed residential housing types but only 30 total homes can be constructed prior to a secondary access being constructed. Per the phasing plan reviewed by Meridian Fire,phase 1 also includes a temporary secondary access to Meridian Road that runs along the east boundary and will eventually be a new local street for phase 2 development, the southeast quadrant of the site. Phase 2 shows almost all of the remaining townhomes and the new local street along the south boundary that would act as a buffer to the south property. Phase 3 is shown with the remaining homes(a majority being detached single- family)and the large open space lot in the north half of the site. Staff supports the proposed phasing plan except for the proposal of the large open space lot being constructed with phase 3. Because the property is relatively removed from other development and open space, Staff finds this large open space lot(Lot 1, Block 3 on the submitted plat)should be part ofphase I development when the first 70 homes are proposed to be constructed. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The requested zoning district of TN-R does not have a minimum lot size requirement but does require a minimum net density of six(6)du/acre. The submitted preliminary plat shows a Page 9 Page 149 Item#4. minimum lot size proposed of 2,082 square feet and an overall average lot size of 3,834 square feet. Because home placement on the building lot is not yet known at the time of preliminary plat submittal, setbacks cannot generally be reviewed at this time. However,per the submitted plat, the residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards for the TN-R zoning district; this includes compliance with the net density requirement. The Applicant did not provide a net density on the submitted plat but Staff can deduce that the net density is above 6 du/acre because the gross density is so close to that number. Once open space and right-of-way are removed,the net density will easily exceed the minimum requirement of the TN-R zoning district. The Applicant should include the net density calculation on the plat prior to the City Council meeting to show compliance. In addition,all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans appear to meet all UDC requirements. Note: The alleys shown on the plat for the attached units in the southeast quadrant of the project do not meet ACHD policies for an alley because the units front on green space instead of a public road. Therefore, this alley must instead be constructed as a "minor urban local street"which is a minimum of 24 feet wide with curb and gutter and no parking is allowed on either side. Staff is recommending a condition of approval in line with ACHD's condition to ensure this street segment is revised and has coordinated with ACHD to not require sidewalks on these internal "alleys"because the project is proposed with detached sidewalk and parkways throughout the entire development. The Applicant should revise the width of these roads to meet ACHD policy— this may lead to a reduction in green space between these units. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed residential dwellings. Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval therefore Staff does not review these for compliance with any standards. However,townhomes(an attached housing product)do require administrative design review(DES)approval prior to building permit submittal. With that future application submittal Staff will analyze the elevations for the attached townhomes against the Architectural Standards Manual;the DES application should be submitted with the first final plat application. The submitted elevations depict single and two-story homes with two-car garages and varying home styles. The elevations depict differing field materials and designs utilizing lap siding with stone accents and varying roof profiles offering an overall array of potential homes. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access to Briar Ridge is proposed via construction of a new collector street(W. Quartz Creek Street)along the entire north property boundary that connects from the west boundary of the site to Meridian Road/SH 69 at the mid-mile point consistent with the construction of E. Quartz Creek Street on the east side of Meridian Road. The submitted preliminary plat shows W. Quartz Creek to be constructed with 30 feet of pavement within 55 feet of right-of-way and with 5-foot detached sidewalk along the southern edge for the length of this street segment. The remaining roads proposed within this development are local streets that are at least 33 feet wide with 5-foot detached sidewalk and 8-foot parkways creating a beautiful streetscape and identity for the entire project. The exception to this is S. Celestine Avenue in the southeast quadrant of the site that parallels Meridian Road and is proposed as a 28-foot wide street section because no homes take direct access to it and there are no building lots on its east side at all. Page 10 Page 150 Item#4. The Applicant is proposing to construct a secondary access to Meridian Road at the very southeast corner of the site as an emergency access for the Fire Department and potential future connectivity to Meridian Road should ITD determine that future development will allow a restricted access at this location. This access is part of a proposed local street that runs along approximately 2/3 of the southern boundary to act as both a buffer to future development to the south and a stub street to the southern property. In addition to the stub street along the south boundary,the submitted preliminary plat also shows two stubs to the western boundary for future connectivity. ACHD has approved the proposed stub street locations and road network except for the proposed alleys between the townhome units that run north-south (facing east-west). Because these units front on green space instead of a public street,ACHD policy requires these alleys to be constructed as a"minor urban local street"which is a minimum of 24 feet wide with curb A and gutter and no parking is allowed on either side, as noted above in Section V.G. NOTE: Meridian Road/SH 69 is currently being studied Q by the Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) for corridor improvements from Overland Road south to Orchard Avenue in Kuna under the Idaho 69 Corridor (Story Map—Idaho Highway 69 Corridor Plan). The mid-mile intersection at the northeast corner of the subject project is part of this study and is proposed to be designed with a reduced conflict U-turn (RCUT)intersection that eliminates left turns and thru-traffic from lower-volume roads. See exhibit to the right for an example of what the Quartz LOCAL NUM Creek/SH 69 intersection could look like. Proposed Briar Despite proposing to construct a collector street that Ridge connects to SH 69,ITD does not find this as direct Subdivisio access because no buildable lot is proposed with direct n—40 acre lot access to the state highway. This, coupled with this parcel corridor being part of a future project,requires the Applicant to enter into a cost share agreement for the road and intersection improvements in lieu of C c constructing any road improvements with this , development at this time,per the ITD conditions report # ; and their technical report(Section VIII.K). The subject project is proposed with over 100 units so a Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was required. Due to the ' property requiring access to Meridian Road/SH 69,the ; Applicant was required to submit the TIS to both ACHD and ITD. Staff s summary of this report and analysis is below. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: Reduced Conflict -Turn Crfm.s ng The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and ITD and specific conditions of approval are outlined in their staff reports(see exhibits in Section VIII). Despite Page 11 Page 151 Item#4. ACHD analyzing and discussing the TIS in their own report, Staff finds it necessary to highlight the main points of discussion and road improvement requirements, specifically those related to the main access points for the project. Staff has not weeived theA CMD staff re analjw&into this mpom. Staff is not eoneernedwith the om&sion of this informadon beeaHse According to the submitted TIS, this development is estimated to generate 1,994 vehicle trips per day; 184 trips per hour in the PM peak hour. The TIS analyzed the access point to the development via the new collector street as well as the two closest arterial intersections on Meridian Road,Amity&Meridian Road and Lake Hazel&Meridian Road intersections. The TIS found that each roadway segment in the study meets acceptable levels ofservice during peak hour traffic but notes the Amity&Meridian Road intersection does not.ACHD is not requiring any miti atgione or this project because this intersection is under the jurisdiction ofITD, it is scheduled to be widened between 2031 &2035, and the proposed site taff c would constitute less than 10%of the total traffic(3.8%) at the Amity&Meridian Road intersection. As discussed above,ACHD has minimal iurisdiction on the off-site intersections and the proposed connection point to Meridian Road/SH 69.ACHD notes the Applicant is being recommended to participate in a proportional cost-share agreement for future highway road improvements.ACHD approves of all other accesses and the overall road layout of the development with noted conditions to meet road width policies, none of which chanke the project in any noticeable means. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table H- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. However, all of the local streets are proposed as at least 33-foot wide street sections which accommodates on-street parking where no driveways exist. Furthermore,because of the proposed alley-loaded homes and inclusion of parkways,the entire length of streets adjacent to the alley- loaded products can be utilized for on-street parking. The proposed site design within the traditional neighborhood districts allows for on-street parking in numbers not generally seen in common single-family developments. Staff appreciates this design for the area of the site that has the most density. The townhomes in this project are proposed with two car garages and include the required parking pad. To further help with parking concerns common to single-family development the Applicant has proposed four(4) small parking lots in the center of the townhome products to offer additional off-street parking. However, because of the possibility of ample on-street parking in addition to the required off- street parking, the Applicant is not required to provide these other off-street parking areas. Each parking area is at least 5,100 square feet which could provide for more usable open space and inclusion of an additional child focused amenity in this area of the site. Removing these parking areas would have no effect on the number of required off-street parking spaces which must be constructed on each building lot to satisfy code. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17)&Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and 8-foot parkway are proposed along all internal streets consistent with the requirements for the requested TN-R zoning district. The Applicant is also proposing detached sidewalk on the south side of the new collector street along the north Page 12 Page 152 Item#4. boundary as required by code for sidewalks adjacent to collector streets. The proposed sidewalks and parkways meet UDC 11-3A-17 standards and ACHD standards. In addition to the internal sidewalks,the Applicant is required to construct a segment of 10-foot wide multi-use pathway along the Meridian Road frontage,per the Master Pathways Plan. The Applicant is showing this required pathway segment within a landscaped common lot,per code requirements. The Applicant is also proposing to continue the multi-use pathway into the site over top of the Mcbirney Lateral being piped and rerouted with this development. This extension of the multi-use pathway splits a group of alley-loaded detached homes, crosses two streets, and connects to the large open space lot in the center of the north half of the project. To help with pedestrian safety,the Applicant should provide striping or other traffic calming(i.e. bulb-outs)at the crossing points of this pathway. J. Development Along State Highways(UDC 11-3H): The full east boundary of the proposed project has frontage along Meridian Road/SH 69 which requires noise abatement per UDC 11-3H-4. The Applicant is proposing to construct a 4-foot berm with a 6-foot Rhino Rock wall on top of it to total at least 10 feet above SH 69 centerline height, as required by code. This wall,berm, landscaping, and required multi-use pathway is located within the required 35-foot wide common lot along the entire frontage and outside of the ITD right-of-way. The required wall should modulate along the highway frontage;the submitted landscape plans show compliance with this requirement. UDC 11-3H-4B.3 also requires construction of a"street, generally paralleling the state highway, to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway..."The Applicant has shown compliance with this requirement by proposing to construct a portion of the mid-mile collector along the north boundary, a series of local streets connecting north-south through the site, and proposing to construct a portion of a local street along the southern boundary that acts as future access and a buffer between this project and future development to the south. Other analysis regarding other access standards of this code section are analyzed above in Section F. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The required landscaping regulated by code within the proposed development are the following areas: that area within the proposed parkways(UDC 11-3A-17 and UDC 11-313); the common open space lots, and;the required landscape buffer to Meridian Road. The submitted landscape plans show landscaping in these areas as proposed. 8-foot wide parkways are proposed throughout the site to comply with the zoning requirements of the TN-R zoning district. Parkways are required to be vegetated with an average of 1 tree per every 35 linear feet to be compliant. The submitted landscape plan appears to show compliance with this requirement but the calculations table does not note the linear feet of parkway and the required number of trees; the Applicant should correct this with the Final Plat submittals to ensure compliance with this requirement. In addition, common open space is required to be landscaped with one(1) tree for every 8,000 square feet of open space. The submitted landscape plans show trees and vegetation that vastly exceeds the minimum UDC requirements for these areas. The landscape buffer along Meridian Road is required to be 35'wide and contain the required multi-use pathway within it. The submitted landscape plans show compliance with these UDC requirements for the buffer width, number of trees, tree spacing/grouping, and additional vegetative ground cover; the submitted plat is consistent with the landscape plan and also shows at least a 35 foot wide common lot along Meridian Road. Page 13 Page 153 Item#4. The Applicant is also proposing a number of micro pathways within common area with a majority of them proposed between groups of the attached townhome product in the southeast quadrant of the site. UDC 11-3B-12 requires that trees be placed on both sides of these pathways and the submitted landscape plan shows compliance. L. Qualified Open Space and Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Briar Ridge is proposed with a preliminary plat area of 38.86 acres requiring at least two(2) amenities and a minimum of 10%qualified open space(or 3.89 acres),per UDC 11-3G-3. The Applicant is continuing a segment of multi-use pathway along the Meridian Road frontage which qualifies as a required amenity. In addition to the pathway,the Applicant is proposing multiple shade structures and a playground in the development, exceeding the minimum number of amenities required. With Staff s recommended changes to the parking areas between the townhome units, an additional child focused amenity should be added to one of those areas to create closer access for any children in this part of the development. Staff does not recommend using a playground but instead utilize a different type of child amenity to offer an additional option for the entire development(i.e. climbing boulders or other playground climbing structures). The Applicant's open space exhibit(Section VII.D) shows 7.7 acres of open space with 4.52 acres of qualified open space, exceeding the minimum required amount of 3.89 acres. However, the Applicant's qualified open space calculation does not include any of the parkways within the development which is qualifying open space. The Applicant does not need to use this area as qualified open space to meet the minimum 10%amount and parkways are required as part of the site design for the requested TN-R zoning district. So, Staff is not concerned the open space exhibit does not show this area. Therefore,the actual proposed qualified open space vastly exceeds the minimum amount required by code. Overall, Staff supports the proposed open space but does have recommended revisions for the large open space lot(Lot 1, Block 3) in the north half of the development to make it more open and eliminate potential crime issues. First,Staff recommends shifting the block of homes on the south end of this open space lot(Lots 18-25,Block 3)to the east to have more room on the west end of this block. Secondly,Staff recommends moving at least two lots from the west boundary of this open space lot(Lots 13-17,Block 3)to the south boundary to front on W.Aventurine St. and match the home placement on the north side of this open space lot. This appears to require a loss of three (3) lots based on dimensions but the Applicant may be able to recover the lost lots by incorporating additional townhome units as previously discussed. If the Applicant can make these revisions without losing 3 lots, Staff would also support that as the Applicant is well within the allowable density for this site. This change to the home layout around this open space lot creates a large and linear open space from east to west and more directly connects one of the stub streets on the west boundary to this open space. Which, in turn, has the added benefit of not having future headlights shining directly into the front of homes as would be the case with the current configuration. A Fencing(UDC 11-3A-69 I1-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC standards as proposed except for the 6- foot closed vision fencing proposed adjacent to the large open space lot(Lot 1,Block 3)in the north half of the site and shown on the rear lot line of the homes surrounding this open space lot. Per UDC 11-3A-7A.7b, when an open space lot is greater than 250 feet in length, an open vision or semiprivate fence shall be used. The closed vision fencing shown on the landscape plans does Page 14 Page 154 Item#4. not comply with this code section. The Applicant should revise the landscape plan at the time of the applicable final plat application. Staffs recommendation to make this open space lot more linear in nature does not remove the need for this fencing revision because the lot is deeper than 250 feet. N. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The subject site contains a large section of the Mcbirney Lateral, an irrigation lateral maintained by Boise Project Board of Control(BPBC). The Applicant is proposing to both reroute and pipe this lateral to change the location of its easement and the subsequent encumbrances of said easement. The Applicant has worked with BPBC over the previous 2 years to perform necessary processes prior to submitting to the City of Meridian. Piping this lateral will allow for more consistent and buildable area of the subject site, include additional linear open space for the development, and allow for easier maintenance by BPBC. Staff supports the piping of this irrigation lateral and the proposed plan complies with UDC 11-3A-6. O. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15. Land Development will review pressurized irrigation plans in more detail when specific plans are submitted with future Final Plat applications. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested Rezone,Development Agreement Modification,and approval of the requested Preliminary Plat application per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on August 12,2021. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Rezone, Preliminary Plat, and Development Agreement Modification requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jane Suggs,Applicant Representative. b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Jane Suggs d. Written testimony: 3 pieces of testimony—discussing concerns with water usage and increase of traffic when compared to estate lots to the east. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Layout of the road along the southern boundary and its intent to be fully constructed or only partially—Applicant responded and stated it will offer future connectivity to the commercial zoned property to the south and is proposed as a half-plus-twelve width. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Is McBirney lateral being piped in its entirety on the property b. What could be anticipated to be constructed around proposed development, in terms of both residential and commercial; c. Is any portion of the project a for rent product; d. School boundary for the high school being Meridian High instead of Mountain View— high likelihood boundary will change again by the time these homes were to be Page 15 Page 155 Item#4. occupied. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 16 Page 156 Item#4. VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Map DESCRIPTION FOR TN-R ZONE BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION A parcel of land located in the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36,T.31N., RAW., B.M.,City of Meridian, Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 36 from which the East 1/4 corner of said Section 36 bears North 00°05'08"West,2669.88 feet;thence North 00°05'08"West, 1334.94 feet to the South 1/16 corner of said Section 36 and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 89112'25"West, 1,322.74 feet to the Southeast 1/16 corner of said Section 36; thence North 00°10'51" East, 1,331.37 feet to the Center-East 1/16 corner of Section 36; thence on the West boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36, North 00134'27" East,20.00 feet; thence on a line parallel with and 20.00 feet North from the South boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36,South 89°21'32"East, 1,317.53 feet to the centerline of State Highway No.69,as shown on the right-of-way plans for Federal Aid Project No.STP-3782(101)on file in the office of the Idaho Transportation Department; thence on said centerline the following two(2)courses and distances: 378.93 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 57,295.78 feet,a central angle of 00°22'44"and a long chord which bears South 00'06'14"West,378.93 feet; South 00°05'08" East,976.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 40.992 acres,more or less. End of Description. a Page 17 Page 157 Item#4. N SCALE: 1-=300' C 75 150 3CC 600 { I + N O'34'27"E --20.00' _ S89'21'32"E 1317_53=_ _ 1/4 C-E1/16 - �_- -- ---- ----� S.36 S.31 I I LN 6 I po Lo I I I I r`I m MI O M rl z1 oW Wi TN—R ZONE v Io N nl t40.992 ACRES to o U1 0 o CO O zl I Z Im NCO olco �m rn 0 o1 o o I I - I REAL POINT I I OF BEGINNIN1-�:' S1/16 SE1/16 N 89*12'25"W 1322.74' 1334.94' T.3N31 T.2N6 oNPL LAND 5��\CENS 11779 CURVE TABLE N�`7 ,,�//�zl�O CURVE LENGTH RADIUS I DELTA I CHORD BRG. CHORD DIST. C'p09TF OF \OPO� Cl 1 378.93 57295.78 O'22'44" SO'06'14"W 1 378.93 yM, MAccPN`� o DAHO' e Ci—R Rr�nn Canc nv L/;;-?l 1 I EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR JOB NO, 17-345 SUITE.WATERTOWER ST. TN—R ZONE SURVEY MERIDIAN ICY Il L SHEET NO. MERIDIAN,I0.4H083342 1208J 89G6570 BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION 1 GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 AND THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 DWO,DATE OF SECTION 36,T.3N.,RAW.,B.M.,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2/14/2021 Page 18 Page 158 Item#4. sE2l'32"e 13 7.53 N N �O II II m r o_ o m o� c 0 0 �o 0 w m 1322.74 n89°12 5"w 779 � ieI/Z.zt�. mv 2/14/2021 Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File: TN-R Zone.ndp Tract 1:40.9917 Acres,Closure:s09.3235w 0.04 ft.(11126409),Perimeter=5347 ft. 01 e128.13 n522.92 07 00.0508e 976 02 n89.1225w 1322.74 03 n00.105le 1331.37 04 n00.3427e 20 05 s89.2132e 1317.53 06 Lt r-57295.78 delta=000.2244 chord=s00.0614w 378.89 Page 19 Page 159 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 4/7/20219/3/202 1) PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION Ik ----------------- I& o 91 0 0 IN -X ------- ------------- L 4 0 Z -j W z (L U) 0............ 4 W Page 20 Item#4. i v. s s„ n ' - Q i , i _ q c © js Page 21 Page 161 A - 4 ill EI gill� a. oil @i► �Il�<<g �e�fl�► �+i�■� ,^��„ , ' � ^_. I��, f ill■^ = `flu 1"li ; ' ill+,®�� ■I �: 111�� ��1 I� ■ _aw Illto lum— _. ., �. �i@i� �r .rl� ,. �i:. �■�+� Ii�� iG :,ice.+a+ �� N3 gg "K Lu oft 7, ta LLL UL UL r2 OL (D ..... .... .... CL 71" CL uj Ila, 0 L d" cc. LU Page 23 Item#4. _.I „• _ � -r�- ,.,/' +N- r,. I•,'f-K, � III M .. .... i � C o y Td C; ` 1 MATCHLINE L2 w KEY MAP �x wrnn arm er. PLANT PALETTE El A ._HE. 41 JENSEI.'YaT& c�e a icnoo P-L. —11....E N LIN Page 24 Page 164 Item#4. T r MATCH.NE L�.�,�,,.--� '"`� 1TI 1 tI ��tta £r1�LL L I k 77- j Ili � a3 _ k ,� II 1 I I I I s KEY MAP PLANT Ftl-M-TTE NOTES € 0 r, — J rQ JE-90 To riU F_. µ�..z. -.. !,.0 ce ng,Inc. _ y � pu�Fne�n Pwn CAW Page 25 Page 165 Item#4. D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 4/7/2021) 8. ---- --- ---- -- L° 2 0 0 I 1� --- -_ LOC BLOCK 3 ! ! 1t m m --_ ® LOCK 3 O ® ® ® ® ® ® ® ® O Y O ._.._..____ � � i ® O i I - C 26 O eL c s I 00 40 I©O g O f O„ 00®®0(D OHO -- -' - - O O OBL OO OO ® 5 © 00911 " ��i�aOO®Gd� IOOsOOO 345L6) OD O ® O © O ® aLC X , i r ® TEL Iu �- _ - - '. - -- 0 � © ® sI ® 101 9 1 U47-1 i Page 26 Page 166 Item#4. E. Revised Phasing Plan - ------------ ----------------- ---- —__—W-UARTZ CREEK ST. 1 2 aaN L 9LCI 7 W -Il W JARVIS ST. =� W JARVIS ST. Q BLOCK 3 a 'HASE U 4 m W W HE ST. / ' l A S E 2 LOCX 3 k U O m m v W AVENTURINE ST. o W AVENTURINE ST, all ALLEY LEV A 1 <I }r I - II< W ROCK CRYSTAL 4 -ST, - W m � a W ROCK CRYSTAL ST. > � d - - _ IW 8L 8 _ IF�HIA E A _ 6 Q d W CHRYSOCOLLA ST. T ryZ_ CJ F N 8 CK 5 W.HOWLITE ST` - Page 27 Page 167 Item#4. F. Conceptual Building Elevations L mill OEM MEN own Page 28 Page 168 3 i r x Page V 3 k., a OL ILI At p M Item#4. - l- r , - 1 I I` 4 jGt f Ip i t Page 32 Page 172 Item#4. G. Water Markup—Public Works Pmide MAMHt1NE SEE LOWER LER- WEEi PP-4 �� - water stubs o the—th I,.'PmPa� This east to estwater g I 'I t Y� line needs , obe 12" ae } '� 'r � Water w come down a a © O�' °i, ahonrsoo rmm O O ` J f PrevaJ 5u6dvision ,�--© Q3 Q 12 a w terllne slang _ he eastern _ Q ® 1 6cu tl down to southeast comer of ( N o----------- I © O O Oe s OOD ® 01 Q2 3 (IIC 4O� 9 11 ® \ O --- i 1 2 3� A 5 B -- o f.._x / - o Ili 0 g to yyy — Med oaun O z P 3ilk , w,_Noaus - r 12"Water - - - ,Linebthe -- 12'Water -:'south - tl Page 33 Page 173 Item#4. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Within six(6)months of the City Council granting the subject modification,the owner shall sign and obtain Council approval of the amended development agreement that includes an updated development plan per the submitted preliminary plat,as shown in Section VII.B; the amended DA shall include the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan, open space exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The submitted phasing plan shall be strictly adhered to and include a secondary access to Meridian Road/SH 69 with the first phase of development_aaa shall be revise,a as follows: the lafge open spaee lot(Lot 1,Bloek 3) shall be eenstmeted with phase 1 development. c. The Applicant shall extend the water main from E. Quartz Creek Street on the east side of Meridian Road/SH 69 and not extend water down SH 69 from E.Amity Road. d. W. Quartz Creek Street(the new collector street along the north boundary),the required multi-use pathway, and the required collector and arterial landscape buffers adjacent to W. Quartz Creek and S. Meridian Road/SH 69 shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development, in accord with the revised phasing plan. e. The elevations/facades of 2-story structures that face S. Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, and W. Quartz Creek Street, a collector street, shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated April 7,2021L September 3,2021,shall be revised as follows prior-to the City Couneil hear-inw. is approved as submitted. a. D&yise the plat to building lots (Lots 13 1'71 ti P. '7 >?1oek 3 an reorient 0 a 1 � Lots 18 25 1�leek 3) o the west.,n � „ 1. side of the large „ lot T et 1 � t o eo / , Bleek 3)to apen up this eentFal open spage lot for-visibility and aeeess ffliffer-the !a-yottt on the nei4h side of this lot to only ha-ve lots on the setith side of the open spaee lot fFeiitiag on W. Aveattir-ifie Street,per-the analysis in Seetion V.L. b. Revise the proposed alleys between the tevnhamelets sleek,leek 18 t. ir-tt�a-a laeal streets eonstrdeted at a minimum of 24 feet wide with ew-b an gtitter-,no sidewalks, and no pafking on either-side,per-AC14D requirements. e.Add striping or-other tfaffiEealming meaSur-es (' . b lb outs). here the propose >,ao,.;dia Fire and Arun as neeessafy. a a 1. to stating that dire S. M d n icu tin d W c� iut�ivc�.rcuti�igcxrcrrmrcc �aEEeSfrt6v�.=E?ricrrc'H3 viTm-iiiicr-vr. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated March 10,2021, shall be revised as follows prior to the City Couneil heating Final Plat submittal: Page 34 Page 174 Item#4. a. Revise the landscape plan to match the revised plat,&visiens noted i V111 n 2 .,b&ve b. Show striping or other traffic calming measures(i.e.bulb-outs)where the proposed multi-use pathway crosses local streets within the development; coordinate with Meridian Fire and ACHD as necessary. c. Prior to Final Plat submittal, add two(2)new lines of calculations in the landscape calculations table to show the linear feet of parkways and linear feet of pathways and include the required number of trees and proposed number of trees in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C. d. Any landscaping within the ITD right-of-way shall be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-7C.5. 4. With the Final Plat submittal submit a revised open space exhibit showing the changes to the preliminM plat layout and change in open space area. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2D-3 and UDC 11-2D-6 for the TN-R zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 9. Prior to the first Final Plat submittal,the Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review(DES) approval for the townhomes in this development. 10. Prior to signature on a final plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along Meridian Road to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width (10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 11. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 12. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 A 12" water main is required to be extended from the Northwest corner of the subdivision to the Southeast corner. To do so,the water main in W Quartz Creek,part of S Jasper Ave,part of W Jarvis St, S Blue Quartz Ave, S Celestine Ave, and W Howlite St will need to be increased to 12" pipe. 1.2 A 12" water main extension to the South property line is required near the corner of S Ametrine Way and W Holite St. 1.3 Two water main extensions to the North property line are required,one near the corner of W Quartz Creek St and S Carnelian Way and the other near the corner of S Jasper Ave and W Quartz Creek St. Page 35 Page 175 Item#4. 1.4 A 12" water main extension to Meridian Rd is required near the corner of S Celestine Ave and W Howlite St. 1.5 A well lot is to be donated to the City from this development. 1.6 Do not install sewer services through infiltration trenches. 1.7 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations. Due to the existence of bedrock in the area,the project engineer shall show the bedrock depth and location on all applicable profile views. 1.8 A streetlight plan is required to be submitted with the Final Plat application. 1.9 A future streetlight installation agreement is required for a total of five Type 1 streetlights on Meridian Road. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- Page 36 Page 176 Item#4. 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a 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 Page 37 Page 177 Item#4. copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancioy.oMIpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridianciby.or lWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234616&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https://weblink.meridianciby.or lWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234722&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- E. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https://weblink.meridianci(E.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234547&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridianciU.org_/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=232901&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty G. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=231945&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty H. PARKS DEPARTMENT-PATHWAYS https://weblink.meridianci(E.org_/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=234524&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234296&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty J. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=231836&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Page 38 Page 178 Item#4. ky K. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT(ITD) Technical Report- hgps://weblink.meridianciby.or lWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=233231&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty- Conditions Report- hyps://weblink.meridianciU.or_/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=233230&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty L. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianci(E.or lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=235554&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to Rezone the property from the R-4 zoning district to the TN-R zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested TN-R zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone and traditional neighborhood zoning districts in general. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation (as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Subject site is already annexed so Commission finds this finding nonapplicable. Page 39 Page 179 Item#4. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has offered their support of the proposed development with the proposed road layout in mind. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 40 Page 180 Briar Ridge Subdivision Meridian, ID South MeridianParcelsAnnexation2015 Mass South MeridianComp PlanAnnexation2015 Mass South MeridianZoningAnnexation2015 Mass Vicinity Map withdevelopmentsapproved existing and Briar Ridge Subdivision connects to parkRegional path on Hwy 69, •treesDetached sidewalks & street •/pergolashade structureacre park w/playground & -2.4•Over 11% qualified open space•alley load–106 townhomes •alley loadfront load & –121 detached •227 single family homes•38.86 acres•R zone-TN• Front load detached single family homes Alley load single family detached homes &attached townhomes Briar Ridge SubdivisionMeridian, Idaho Thank you. Preliminary Plat Gazebo/PergolaPlayground