The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-04-12 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, April 12, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics PROCLAMATIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Owyhee High School Boys Basketball State Champions Day 2. Month of the Military Child DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\] 3. Meridian Fire Department: Swearing in of New Division Chief of Training – Jordan Reese ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Eagle Crossing (H-2021-0104) by Wadsworth Development Group, With the Project Location Encompassing the Five Existing Lots Located at the Southwest Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. Denied A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019- 121599) for the purpose of updating the existing concept plan. Motion to deny made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Nay: Councilwoman Perreault 5. Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Apex West Subdivision (H- 2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. Approved A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Abstaining: Councilman Bernt 6. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Abstaining: Councilman Bernt 7. Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Copper Canary (H-2022- 0009) by ALC Architecture, Located at 2590 N. Eagle Rd. Approved A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #104129529) to remove the subject property from the agreement and prepare a new development agreement with an updated conceptual development plan, removal of the requirement for conditional use approval of any future uses on the site, and requirement for access to be taken from the north via the future backage road with emergency only access from the south. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Perreault Tiebreaker: Mayor Simison Votes Yea FUTURE MEETING TOPICS EXECUTIVE SESSION Vacated ADJOURNMENT 8:40 pm Item#3. Meridian City Council April 12, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:04 p.m., Tuesday, April 12, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Berle Stokes, Kris Blume, and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, call the meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, April 12th, 2022, at 6:04 p.m. We will begin this evening'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: It looks like we did not have anyone signed up under the community invocation. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: So, with that we will move to the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move adoption of the agenda as published. Borton: Second. Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 2- 50 Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under the public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. PROCLAMATIONS [Action Item] 1. Owyhee High School Boys Basketball State Champions Day Simison: Okay. Well, if I could ask the Owyhee High School boys basketball team to join me at the podium, if they can hear me out there in the -- I'm the short one here. There we go. Yeah. I -- I had the pleasure of the wrestling team from another school recently and -- and they were much more my height, so -- but it's great to see you all here this evening. And, Council, I think we are excited to have our first state championship team from Owyhee High School. So, first, congratulations to you all. We -- we really like to honor our -- those high schools in Meridian. I know all of you may not live in Meridian, because of Owyhee does serve a larger area than just Meridian, but we -- we wanted to say thank you and congratulations on your success on the court, but we know it goes a lot further than that through the hard work of your coach and the administration, the teachers, and all the people that came out and watched the games. I had the pleasure of coming to one of the games. I was quite impressed and so I do expect it's not going to be the last time I see you back here in the coming years. So, what we are going to do is we will just read a little proclamation, then, if you don't mind coming up and saying your name, year, and position, so we have that on the record. There will also be another proclamation that we will put in there with this information. But appreciate you being here. So, whereas being an Owyhee High School boys basketball player is more than scoring points, making assists, grabbing rebounds, throwing the ball and achieving state titles, it is training to build leadership, character, confidence, teamwork and resilience, all traits needed to succeed on the court, in the classroom, and in the real world and whereas the brand new West Ada school sports program did what no 5-A basketball team had done since 1995 and won a state title in its first season and whereas Owyhee finished the year on a 20 game winning streak and often embraced the role of underdog and whereas the Owyhee Storm basketball team concluded an historic first season with the 50-43 win over Centennial in the 5-A state championship, bringing the first state title banner back to the brand new high school and whereas the leadership, training, and discipline of their coaches helped all team members to focus their talents, passion, and determination to become a winning team, with each player making valuable contributions to their victory. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim April 12th, 2022, as Owyhee High School Boys Basketball State Champions Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 3- 50 community to join me in congratulating the Owyhee High School Storm on their remarkable athletic achievement and representing Meridian so proudly in the state tournament. Congratulations. So, Jack, if you wouldn't mind going forward -- I mean first and, then, we will have a City of Meridian pin for you. Payne: I'm Jack Payne. I'm a senior and I played point guard this year. Sherburne: I'm Preston Sherburne. I'm a guard and I'm class of 2023. Rogers: My name is Jackson Rogers. I'm a freshman and I'm a shooting guard. Campbell: My name is Liam Campbell. I'm a sophomore and I play shooting guard. Sasser-Gunson: My name is Reece Sasser-Gunson. I am a junior and I am a forward. Hamilton: I'm Carson Hamilton. I'm a junior and I'm also a guard. Savedra: I'm Machaon Savedra, class of 2025, and I'm a point guard. Downie: I'm Cameron Downie. I'm a freshman and I'm a guard. Hansen: I'm Brayden Hansen. I'm a senior and I play guard. Fernandez: Barrett Fernandez. I'm a junior. I'm a shooting guard. Bailey: I'm Titus Bailey. I'm a junior and I'm a guard. Rasmussen: I'm Jackson Rasmussen. I'm a freshman. I play shooting guard. Rogers: My name is Caden Rogers and I am a student assistant coach. Simison: And, coach, would you like to come up and say some words on the team. Oh, he's not -- okay. Oh. Coach, if you would like to come and just say a few words about the team and how proud of them you are. Harrington: Sorry for being late. Go 28 in a 25 1 guess. Thanks for doing this. These guys worked super hard all -- from the summer through all -- throughout the year. I mean when I first met most of these guys -- some of these guys we didn't meet until late June. We were practicing at the park over at Heroes Park or at Star Middle School with like three or four basketballs and we still didn't know each other very well, but these guys worked super hard throughout the year. They work on their craft all the time. They are good -- they are good kids. They do well in the classroom. Most of our guys have above a 3.5 GPA. So, off the court they are phenomenal. Anything in terms of volunteer stuff they are -- they are always there, even though, you know, they don't have to be. So, it's just a -- it's just a fun group of guys that came together and in a short amount of time and I know a lot of teams that we played this year had a ton of experience, but -- I probably Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 4- 50 don't even need this. Got you. But these guys just -- they kept coming every day. You know, a lot of people I think were circling our game as a big time challenge and we just worked super hard and stayed the course and we had great leadership from both Jack and Brayden Hansen, our two seniors. So, no, we really appreciate all the support we had all season. The City of Meridian and the city of Star were phenomenal. So, yeah, thank you. Thank you so much. Baumann: Matthew Baumann, assistant coach. Cilek: Robb Cilek, assistant coach. 2. Month of the Military Child Simison: Yes. Is Allison here? Do you want to come up and join me, Allison? Do you have anyone else? Okay. A few more up here. Awesome. Appreciate it. So, we are also going to be doing the -- the Month of the Military Child this evening with a proclamation. So, I will go ahead and read the proclamation, invite you forward to say any words you had -- have related to this -- this issue that we are here supporting and celebrating this evening. Whereas April is the Month of the Military Child and is an opportunity to recognize military children for their courage, personal sacrifices and resilient spirit and whereas the strength of our Armed Forces comes not just from those who wear the uniform, but from their families who also serve on behalf of our country and whereas military children continue to make significant contributions to family and community as they endure prolonged and repeated absences of one or both parents and whereas these children and youth are a source of pride and honor to us all, it is only fitting that we take time to recognize their contributions and celebrate their spirit and whereas the Month of the Military Child will recognize that military children serve, too, and citizens of Meridian will be afforded the opportunity to don the color purple every Friday in April in support of these children. Therefore, I'm, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim April 2022 as the Month of the Military Child in the City of Meridian and encourage the residents of our community and communities across the country to observe the month with appropriate ceremonies to honor, support, and thank military children. So, congratulations. If you would like to come forward and make any comments. Allison: So, as our lovely Mayor said, April is the Month of the Military Child and here we have the wonderful youth. So, we work out on Gowan Field and we supply events and this is our team panel. So, really this month is for them. They really support the family and as we all know children are the future and so we are here to celebrate them. We want to thank the City of Meridian and the City Council for celebrating with us. Thank you. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 3. Meridian Fire Department: Swearing in of New Division Chief of Training — Jordan Reese Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 5— 50 Simison: So, we have one more thing this evening. Chief, do you want to come forward? Blume: All right. Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council, it's -- and the family -- the Meridian Fire family and as well as Jordan Reese's family. Welcome this evening. It's my privilege to welcome our new division chief of training Jordan Reese to the Meridian Fire family. Jordan is a native of Idaho. He and his family have moved back to Idaho from spending the past 13 years in Gig Harbor where he served with the North Mason Regional Fire Authority. He was also -- prior to that he was a United States Marine and he was an officer of Marines. He served two combat tours in Iraq. He also has a master's degree from the University of Washington and he's completed his executive fire officer credential from the National Fire Academy and I really like bringing that piece up, because in the state of Idaho there are only nine executive fire officer graduates and now the City of Meridian has three. Just a little insight on this training division position. There was over 30 applicants from across the country and it was a pretty intensive process. I'm sure Jordan can attest to that. We had regional support in the panel and the selection process from our neighbors from across the Treasure Valley. We also had members of the executive leadership team, including Councilman Borton. We also had Laurelei McVey, Public Works -- Public Works director, as well as Police Chief Tracy Basterrechea that participated in the process. So, as Chief Reese assumes his new assignment I know he is eager to serve the work and -- and one of the interesting things about Chief Reese was that -- it's very difficult to articulate, but it's very easy to see what good leadership and leadership potential looks like and I can tell you with his passion for the profession, the humility that he brings to the position, he is going to be profoundly successful as the new division chief of training and so with that, Mr. Mayor, I would like to call Jordan Reese up here to have you swear him in and, then, afterwards I would like to have his wife Melissa, his daughters Savannah, Amelia and Nevaeh, come up and present him his badge. Simison: Jordan, if you would like to raise your right hand and repeat after me. Jordan: I, Jordan Reese, do hereby declare that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the state of Idaho and I will faithfully discharge my duties as division chief of training to the Meridian Fire Department and to the citizens of Meridian, to the best of my ability. I promise to protect and enhance our community through professionalism and compassion in accordance with the Meridian Fire Department's guiding principles and policies. Simison: Congratulations. Hoaglun: Hey, guys, you don't have to run off. We have got an exciting meeting coming. I mean -- you are welcome to stay. ACTION ITEMS 4. Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Eagle Crossing (H- 2021-0104) by Wadsworth Development Group, With the Project Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 6 of 50 Location Encompassing the Five Existing Lots Located at the Southwest Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-121599)for the purpose of updating the existing concept plan. Simison: That's a great way to start off a Council meeting. So, with that we will move on to our -- the rest of our agenda for this evening. First up under Action Items is Item No. 4, public hearing continued for March 22nd, 2022, for Eagle Crossing, H-2021-0104. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Pleasure to be here with you tonight. Have a few team members that weren't up to speed today -- or up to par to be here and to present to you tonight, so I have gone ahead and asked the coach to put me in and come off the bench and provide you some riveting conversations this evening. Hopefully it will be expeditious and we will get out of here in time before the sun goes down. So, first item on your agenda this evening is the Eagle Crossing MDA. This is a development agreement modification. This property was before you in 2005 and was annexed in as part of the Sadie Creek Development. Since that time this three acre piece has been broken off from the additional acreage that was approved with the Villa Sport Development and so at the time that this split off and -- and received new ownership, it did have a new concept plan that was required as part of that development and here you can see the graphic. There is, essentially, four pad sites -- four buildings proposed to be on this site. I know recently we were in front of you on a previous application for this building in the southwest corner of the site. That has been resolved and, then, the Urgent Care is currently constructed, along with all the parking and landscaping along the street frontages. So, this property is zoned C-G and it's currently mixed use regional on your future land use map. So, the applicant-- and so since the time that this DA--this concept plan was tied to a DA, now we have new ownership of the property and so now they have a different vision than what this previous concept plan is and so on this particular graphic here the applicant, as I mentioned to you -- here is the revised concept plan. There is two buildings that are currently -- one is open and operating with an Urgent Care. The other one is a multi-tenant building with a restaurant -- well, actually two restaurants and a drive-through and so the applicant's, essentially, reducing the amount of commercial square footage on the site in order to provide two smaller footprints on the northern half of the site and include additional -- two additional drive-throughs on the property. I would mention to you since there is already one additional drive-through on this property, the other two will require conditional use permit in front of Planning and Zoning. So, really, the first step for tonight is to get your blessing on the MDA if you like the revised concept plan and changes more of a multi-tenant type commercial development to more --we call it vehicular dominated development, because you will have additional trips coming into -- to and through this site and having more potential congestion on the site because of the number of drive-throughs on it. I would also mention to you that I had a conversation with the applicant this afternoon. They -- prior to them submitting their -- at least went in discussions with staff they went ahead and did a traffic study and analyzed this concept plan against the previous concept plan and they have some information they want to Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page , of 50 share with you as how much trip generations would be increased or decreased based on the changes that you see here this evening. So, I won't steal the applicant's thunder this evening, I will go ahead and let them present that to you in their presentation to you this evening. So, in essence, staff is recommending approval of this modification. We -- we do have the recommended DA provisions in front of you here this evening. I looked at the public testimony--or the public record this afternoon, did not see there was any public testimony in the record, so with that I will go ahead and stand for any questions, conclude my presentation and open to any -- again any discussions on these DA provisions. Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here to come forward? Are they online? Parsons: I believe they are online. Johnson: I believe I have the applicant coming in as a panelist now. Now I do. Simison: Have another hand raised? Johnson: I don't know who the applicant is, Mr. Mayor. I have got multiple -- it is Taylor. Okay. Now you are coming in as a panelist. Simison: Taylor, if you can unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for 15 minutes. Lindsley: Are you guys able to hear me? I'm sorry. Simison: Yes, we can hear you now. Lindsley: I hadn't unmute. Did you hear any of that? Simison: No, we did not. Lindsley: Okay. Good evening, everyone. My name is Taylor Lindsley. I'm representing Wadsworth Development Group. I'm a project manager with them and I am joined by Robert Booth, he is our VP of development and, then, Sonia Daleiden, who we approached for the traffic study, has joined us as well. I know originally the --the concept plan that we anticipate to change and -- well, our goal to modify the existing development agreement to include a revised concept plan is in response to what the market will bear. The mass influx and growth of Meridian directly correlates to increased costs on all forms of development, including the land bases, resulting in very few users that can provide the highest and best use of this -- this lot and we want it to still be economically feasible to provide the services in the surrounding community and doing so through this process we have -- process we have consolidated two of the three front lots for two reasons. One is to maintain consistency with the original development agreement and the second is to maintain proper drive-through stacking for the tenant on the hard corner, which will -- will allow proper queuing to -- to stay within their lot and avoid any congestion within the site. Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 8 of 50 We received unanimous support during the neighborhood meeting and was concerned about ingressing and ingress -- ingress and egress. We have approached Kittelson & Associates to conduct that traffic study, which concluded a trip generation for the proposed uses that will result in a maximum of 2.6 increase to trip generation during weekday a.m. peak hours. Ultimately this results in a very little impact on the operations of the surrounding area and with access being a -- a point that was brought up, I would also like to note that access to development is proposed on the shared driveway from East Ustick Road on the west side of our site and this will continue south to the roundabout, ultimately allowing a second ingress and egress point further south in the development on Eagle Road. We are basically here to prelude the specific site concept plan for each drive-through and with this DA amendment we want to allow -- and with this DA amendment approval it's -- we are hopeful that it will allow a more thorough examination once we come in with the -- the CUP applications, which we will be more than happy to facilitate at the -- at the later date with our tenants. That's pretty much all I have got. Anything with the traffic studies I would like to defer to Sonia, but as far as on the site layout and the building sizes, we have increased that drive-through on the hard corner, as you can see, to allow proper circulation and we don't believe that we will have any safety issues or any kind of congestion for -- for parking in or any circulation on the site. That's kind of where I'm at right now, unless anyone has any questions feel free. Simison: All right. Taylor, just -- can you give us your address for the record? Lindsley: The address of this site is 3185 East Ustick Road. Simison: For your business address. Lindsley: Business address is 6991 East Camelback Road, Suite D300, Scottsdale, Arizona. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Taylor, is there going to be there -- there will be a right-in, right-out on Eagle Road. Is it the same on Ustick? I think that's protect -- a protected lane there, so is -- is that how that would work and anybody that wants to make a left-in is going to have to go down to the light on Centrepoint? Lindsley: Yes, it will be. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 9- 50 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just briefly, Taylor, does -- does this increase the parking -- number of parking spaces available than under--from what the existing plan was? Just--just curious about that. Lindsley: This actually reduces the required parking and we have more than excess enough -- an adequate amount of parking to support this. Booth: And this -- this is Robert Booth. I'm the VP here. I'm just sitting back. I could just comment to that one comment. We -- by reducing the number -- the size of the building we are actually -- you know, the required parking amount is reduced. So, we will have now excess parking from what would be required. So, we will have more parking available because of the reduction in the size of the buildings. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Follow up on that. Yeah. That -- I understand the concept for that and it looks like with these drive-throughs you are -- you are -- people are not coming to stay, it's -- it's more pushing people through and -- and coming in and going out, pretty -- pretty quickly. But when you use the number, you know, a 2.6 increase in what -- trip generation peak a.m. I think it was, okay, that's 2.6 percent of -- of what? What is -- what's the peak a.m. traffic like? Do we have a traffic count for that? Booth: Yeah. We -- Sonia, would you step in here? Daleiden: Yeah. I would be happy to, Mayor Simison, City Council Members. This is Sonia Daleiden with Kittelson & Associates. Address here is 101 South Capitol Boulevard, Suite 600, in Boise. We are a transportation engineering and planning firm and Wadsworth Development Group reached out to us to evaluate the traffic impacts of this proposed DA modification. I will clarify a few things that have been said. So, what we did was compare the overall trip generation of the site plan you see here and the proposed concept plan to that is currently approved and what we found with that is this concept plan will generate slightly more a.m. peak hour trips, largely due to the coffee shop use, but, then, actually also in contrast to that generate significantly fewer p.m. peak hour trips. So, what we found is that the current plan generates 47 -- sorry. The current plan is estimated to generate 23 weekday a.m. peak hour trips and this plan will generate 47. So, a difference of about 24 trips. That's 24 trips, but because these trips go in and out it's actually only 12 additional vehicles, but, then, in the p.m. peak hour this new plan is estimated to generate 26 weekday p.m. peak hour trips, compared to 62 in the existing plan. So, that's approximately a third -- two-thirds fewer trips than is currently proposed. The percentages that were quoted, those are actually percentages of the existing traffic Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 10 of 50 volumes along both Ustick Road and Eagle Road today. So, this plan -- and this is total trips, not just the net increase in trips, but the total traffic generated by this development is only 2.6 percent of the weekday a.m. traffic volumes on Ustick Road and, then, it's less in the p.m. and, then, significantly less percentage of the volumes on Eagle Road and just for context of that, the Ada County Highway District, their threshold for a traffic impact study is typically triggered when a development generates ten percent or more of the volumes on the surrounding roadway system. So, you can see the impact of the trips from this development is relatively minor and would not trigger additional study from the Ada County Highway District. Hopefully that helps to clarify your question, Council Member Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Sonia -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes, it does. Thank you for that information. That was very helpful. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't know who on your team would like to respond to this, but just going back to the flow of traffic, given that there is going to be three drive-throughs in close proximity, I assume that most of the traffic is going to come from Eagle Road and that means that they are going to take that left turn at Centrepoint. How is that going to flow from the Centrepoint entrance over to this project site? Lindsley: Well, there is going to be a shared access point to the west of our -- of our site, which is Cajun Lane. That -- that Centrepoint Lane is -- is too far to the west. So, they will be accessing the site with Cajun Lane. As you can see on the concept plan to the west there that runs down the spine of the site, that middle row of parking spaces. Yeah. Right there. Right to the left of our site. Yeah. So, our site is surrounded in the red square. There is Cajun Lane, which is a shared access drive between us and the future developer of the project to the west of us. That runs completely south to that roundabout and, then, back out onto Eagle Drive -- Road. So, the access point is the Cajun Lane, not Centrepoint. Parsons: Mr. Mayor, Council, if I can just expand on that a little bit. So, that's the ultimate build out to happen. Right now this is the first site to develop. So, currently all they are going to have is a right-in, right-out to Ustick for some time until either Villa Sport develops or they work with that developer to build something on their property. Right now they just have the right to have this shared access here, but nothing going across to the west to tie into that light. So, that may have to funnel through that residential subdivision to the south or when Villa Sport comes in, hopefully, both of them will work together on cross- access between them. I can let you know that that property has since sold. So, Villa Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 11 of— Sport may not be happening on that site. So, there may be a future development application in front of you to talk about a redesign for that particular 11 acres. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: And I'm -- I guess I'm looking on Google Maps, because I thought -- my assumption was isn't Cajun Lane a private drive? Parsons: Yes. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman, it is and if you recall when we did the project Bienville Square Subdivision we -- we verified that that cross-access was grounded for them to use that. So, we have all the access points in place to make it happen, it's just when it gets built and who does it and if there is agreements outside of our purview to make that happen. Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Taylor, did you say that -- that northeast corner -- is that a coffee shop? Is that under contract for a coffee shop? Is that what I heard? Booth: Yes, we have -- I can answer that question. We have two contracts for both of these lots. Just a little bit of background. We purchased this property from someone who had gone in and done this development agreement. Our understanding through -- through dealing with staff initially was that we would be able to move forward kind of with the concepts -- as a, quote-unquote, concept plan and, then, come in with the site-specific application. We have these two users who are under contract signed, fully executed and they -- they cannot come in with their site plan applications, because, you know, the concept plan didn't match up exactly. So, the purpose here is really -- the hope is to get our concept plan approved, at which at a later date -- you know, shortly after these applicants will come in for their site specific site plan applications where there can be a further refinement and/or, you know, discussion on -- on the site specific nature of their buildings and flow. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. A second question. Is there any -- so, if we approve this with the recommended provisions -- I think one thing I would be concerned about -- I understand the rationale here. We have a coffee shop that's morning traffic and we have, you know, maybe a restaurant or something it looks like. I see one listed, at least, in this concept Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 12 of— plan, so that it feels like complimentary uses, because one is more in the morning and one is more during the day and at night, but we don't have any guarantee that that's the type of tenant that's going to be here; right? So, I guess I would be curious if planning staff recommends any type of DA provision or just if we could finalize something closer to when they actually signed the leases or what -- Booth: The leases are executed. They are fully executed leases in place and these -- they -- in fact, our tenants are threatening action against us, because we don't have this done, so they are waiting and on the heels to come into Planning Commission to get -- so, these are -- these are done deals, we just need the -- the concept plan to reflect what they will submit. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Mr. Mayor, quick a follow-up. So, do you mind telling us like what -- what term leases are there? Are they five year leases? One year lease? Booth: Yeah. They are long term. I think we are -- or 20 and 15 years respectively. Strader: So, you have 20 -- sorry. If you don't mind, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just so I understand, you have 20 and 15 year leases with -- I'm assuming large credit tenants? Are they large franchises? Like just give me a feel for if they are going to be around. Booth: Yeah. They are -- they are credit tenants. Been around. Names that you would certainly know and long-term leases. Strader: Thanks for answering that. Booth: Sure. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Mayor. I -- is there -- thank you -- thank you for the presentation. Project looks okay. I -- I would like to know like the traffic flow in this parking lot. My only concern is that the flow and where traffic is going to go with three different drive-throughs it's concerning, so I -- is there a way you can help me navigate where the -- where the traffic will be entering in these drive-throughs and what will be exiting and what the traffic flow would be like? Booth: I -- I would tell you that -- I mean you can see from the site plan on the screen entrances and exits of those -- Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page —of— Bernt: Drive-throughs. I get that. Booth: -- proposed drive-throughs, but as it relates to specific traffic counts and flows, would defer you to our next applications where we could have specific studies done. The tenants would be bringing in those applications. Bernt: No. No. No. No. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I'm not interested in knowing what the traffic count is. I think we have already heard that. I want to know what the flow looks like in that parking lot. I want to know where traffic is going to be navigating through the parking lot. That's what I want to know. It wouldn't be such a big deal, but you have three drive-throughs in there. That's a big deal. That's just -- I just want to know what it looks like. I don't want it to be -- and, you know, Dutch Bros, local coffee shop, if you see a Dutch Bros -- I mean their lines are pretty long. They are a pretty popular coffee shop people frequent quite a bit, so -- Booth: Yeah. That's a -- that's a fair point, Councilman. We -- we actually originally, to kind of combat that, we had three -- had a plat approved at one point for three buildings up along the frontage and we actually got rid of one completely and the -- the coffee user taking up both of those lots for that specific, so they can have substantial stacking to counteract that point and, then, the flow -- you know, the entrance for the coffee user, don't -- I can't control the screen, but it's at the center of the screen moving eastward exiting on the right-hand side and, then, exit at -- towards the center. There is one --there is one point of entrance, egress and ingress into our development and so that's how they would enter and exit. But they would flow kind of in a clockwise manner on the -- on the coffee user and they would flow on the -- on the larger multi-tenant building to the south they would flow and come in and immediately turn right and, then, would stack around the building and, then, would, again, exit in the same manner, so -- so clockwise there as well. I guess that -- excuse me. That's counterclockwise. Is that -- am I getting at what you are asking for, Councilman? Bernt: No. But that -- I mean I -- I just -- I just want to know what it flows like when the cars are in the parking lot, where they are -- you know, what -- what -- what's their pathway? Where is the natural pathway of where they will be going, where the -- where they will be entering, where they are going to be leaving, that's what -- that's what I would like to know. But I mean -- I guess I can guess, but I -- I don't know. Booth: Yeah. And we would -- we would certainly have that information for you when we come in for the site specific site plan to approve. Our -- our thought was this was a -- you know, concept plan that, then, could be further approved and we would have that information at the next step was our thought. But I'm happy to provide you some follow- up information if that's something you would like now. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page —of— Simison: Yeah. I will save comment. We will see if there is any further questions from Council or if we want to see if anyone from the public wants to testify. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone from the public who has signed up for testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Is there anybody here in the audience that would like to provide testimony on this item or online would like to provide testimony, you can either use the raise your hand feature or come forward at this time. Okay. Seeing nobody, I guess I will return to any questions or comments from Council before we ask the applicant to wrap up? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: To double check with Bill, so this is a concept plan, you have the DAs that you are proposing to be adopted and, then, when it comes back for the conditional use permit, then, those details will have to be nailed down of traffic flow, how it's going to work, will it work and -- and modifications might have to be made from what they are showing right now for a concept, but right now we are just doing the concept plan with further details to be nailed down later; is that correct? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, that is correct. But that's really the main purpose of why we are here tonight, too, is because, you know, when you have multiple drive-throughs on a property there is -- there is a tendency to have conflicts and we wanted to bring that to your attention, because the original concept plan had one drive- through and when you add three in close proximity to one another, that's when we start having some of those concerns. But you are right, it's part of that CUP process, which goes to Planning and Zoning Commission, that's where they have to provide adequate stacking, make sure there is adequate exit lanes, make sure that they don't block drive aisles, block access to roadways and those are things that they show us and demonstrate as part of their CUP process. But in this particular case, since there is a concept plan, we have to get that modified first, so this is really the first step in the process to get them moving forward to that CUP. We have pre-app'd with both Dutch Brothers and Wienerschnitzel, which are the drive-through tenants that we are aware of going on the site and this is the information we have conveyed to them during their pre-application meetings that we in good faith could not just allow them to go forward with their conditional use permits on their drive-throughs without modifying the DA. We didn't feel that was consistent with the concept plan that we have -- we have in place currently. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Here is the challenge I think that I wrestle with on this one is -- and the applicant, if they would have brought them either together or right after each other, we could at least Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page —of— see the CUP application and see how some of these obvious questions that are being asked here are going to be resolved. I understand one begets the other, but the problem with approving just the DA mod here with this concept plan is it sort of half cooks the CUP in a way that we are not certain is appropriate, so -- and this is a pretty big intersection, pretty important project. The questions about circulation are huge. There could be such problems with circulation that in order to approve a CUP this -- this concept plan we are looking at doesn't apply and they might have to get amended again it could be such a drastic change. So, some of the hesitation is caused by not having those applications either together or closely aligned. That would help us answer questions, so -- so, we say I'm okay with the DA modification. The concept plan makes sense, because I see how the conditions of approval can address our concerns in that CUP application, so -- but we don't have that yet. Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of Council, it's -- it's really a -- it's a code issue, to be honest with you, because as you know the CUPs go to P&Z, the DA's come to you, so we try not to bundle those, because we don't want the applicants to waste 13, 14 hundred dollars on a CU if -- if you guys don't approve of the concept plan. So, we -- where we kind of see a conflict on -- with a -- I shouldn't say a conflict. When we see that we have concerns with a concept plan that's different than in the DA, we would rather get -- have the applicant pay 500 dollars, get in front of you and see whether or not you would support it, rather than having staff process additional applications and -- and fees and send them down that road and, then, have to refund that, because you guys didn't support the DA mod. But they certainly could have done that and co-mingled them together and done them concurrently and brought those CUPs up to you. But, again, at this particular one we are with you. We -- we met with them. We -- when you are looking at a commercial piece of property and you look at this site plan, there is a lot of blacktop on here and not a lot of building footprint, so to speak, and that's where -- those are some of the conversations that we had with them moving forward. It's like why can't you do a multi- tenant building with drive-through? Can you add more building square footage on this and give that ability to do that, rather than having it all look like stacking lanes on a site and that's -- that's the challenge that we are -- we are faced with this evening. It's a concept plan. We realize they have to go through a CUP, but even just to accommodate the stacking for the coffee shop you are -- you are wasting a commercial lot. I mean that -- that was the conversation we were having with the applicant, making sure that this site was developed correctly, so that it did fit in with the character and the surrounding area as well. So, that -- I think all of these things that you bring up are things that we have discussed at the pre-application meeting with the applicant as well. It is a tough site and given the fact that you only have a right-in, right-out until other property is developed, it even kind of -- it even makes it more difficult when you are -- you are -- that's why we brought that issue to you, that it's -- it's more vehicle-oriented now, because you are -- more people will stay in their cars, so you are going to have more traffic going in and out of this and no way to disperse traffic until you have additional properties developed and that interconnectivity. Simison: And, you know, guys, I understand where -- chicken-egg, but I think the important part is, you know, three turning movements to get into a stacking lane, you Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 16 of 50 know, coming back to where Councilman Bernt was, that doesn't seem appropriate. So, you would like to have a better idea and, you know, we have all seen Dutch Bros, there is no parking that's nearby a Dutch Brothers and so they have the -- the way the asphalt is set up around here, well, who are those parking spaces by Dutch Brothers really serving in this case? I mean -- so, I know that all can happen in a different manner, but it doesn't seem to make sense with what you are showing to ask Council to make a decision. That's my two cents, but -- we are in the public testimony. If you would like to come forward make any comments. Just wait until you get up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for three minutes for any questions or comments. Lasher: Richard Lasher. 2326 East Garber in Meridian. The building on the -- Simison: Stay up on the microphone, please, so that -- Johnson: It should be on your screen right there. Lasher: The building on the southeast corner, is that -- is that the Urgent Care? The other building to the left of it, the larger building is what? Is -- is that the Royal Dalton -- okay. And that's -- that's been approved and -- Simison: Mr. Parsons? Parsons: Yes, sir. That -- we have approved their restaurant use in that building. Lasher: Okay. We have had some issues with -- with the owner before and I guess he changed enough of the -- his plan to make it amenable to the Council. Simison: It didn't have to come -- again, it's a restaurant, which is different -- that's just through the Planning Department. That's not a Council level decision, since it met all the existing requirements for any restaurant. Lasher: Okay. And do we have -- do we have a time frame of when they start to build? Booth: I can answer that. We are under construction now. We have broken ground. So, that -- that is under underway. Lasher: Okay. Thank you. That's it. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 17 of— Hoaglun: Question for the applicant. There is -- one of the problems is that third drive- through, that -- that is connected to that multi-tenant building. Not knowing what that's going to be, I mean one -- one thing that helps is knowing what's going to be in that northeast corner, what's going to be in the northwest corner and -- and seeing that their use is -- the timing of that's going to be different. Not many people are going for hot dogs at 8:00 a.m. in the morning. So, that -- that does help. But that third -- and the multi- tenant building for that drive-through, that's kind of the wild card that, you know, can really impact traffic flow. Is -- you know, if it's a -- if it's a sandwich shop or something like that -- any insight you can give us on that one? Booth: Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. Those are signed leases. So, the -- the Dalton Royal is the -- the user on the west end, the restaurant, and, then, there were a smaller 1,400 square foot Jamba Juice that is the drive-thru user for that -- that pad and that -- and that drive-through, I believe, is already approved and underway and it's under construction. So, the other two that we are talking about are the ones that would come in later for the CUP on the -- on the north side. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Talking out loud, so -- and I guess maybe a question for the applicant -- not a really question, just a comment, so -- I knew it was a multi-tenant building, but I didn't appreciate the Jamba Juice aspect. So, in fact, you have four different restaurant or food type uses on the site, three of which are drive-throughs, and, then, I'm assuming that the restaurant will not use the -- the Royal -- whatever the name of it is now -- will not use the drive-through; is that right? Booth: That's correct. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. It's a -- it is a lot of drive-throughs to put in this one site. I'm kind of with Councilman Bernt in the sense that, you know, I would -- I would love to see -- I guess a more detailed analysis of the traffic flows and kind of how -- and the problem with this one, once this thing goes down the road -- I mean you --we can't remove it and so if there is a huge traffic nightmare here on this site from any one of these uses stacking up, it's just going to be -- it's going to be a real problem. We can't undo it. You know, I -- I wish you -- I -- I would probably be okay with two of them, but I'm -- I'm not loving three and I feel bad for you, because I know you have got signed leases that you are in a really tough spot, but I just want to give you that feedback right now. Booth: No. It's -- it's a fair point. We -- I mean, you know, we have gone down -- and maybe gave you some -- a little bit of just background into what -- and you are probably Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 18 of— familiar, so forgive me if I'm -- I'm, you know, telling you things you already know, but, you know, COVID changed things a little bit. Drive-throughs are becoming more popular, not less, and -- and so what -- what we are finding -- and this is -- this is -- you know, we -- we develop in about 11 western states, so it's not-- it's not specific to Idaho or--or Arizona or Utah, but the -- the -- with existing construction costs and where they are going, which are astronomical, we have seen a 30 percent increase in the last four months. That's -- that's not annualized. That's a four month increase in costs and we have been trying to find ways to do development -- what ends up happening is the -- the people who can afford really to pay the freight on -- on, you know, construction tend to be higher, you know, users, such as the coffee users and the reasons that we have shifted away -- because we have owned this site for multiple years -- trying to do multi-tenant retail and it doesn't pencil. We can't -- so, it will -- it will continue to sit. So, this was our solution in terms of how we can do -- provide a benefit to the community, which I think it is. The reason that, you know, these -- these users are -- are what they are is because people enjoy the service; right? Which -- so, I think the community would -- would enjoy the service if we can get by, you know, your -- your concerns as it relates to, you know, flow of traffic within the site. But it-- it really has come down to the shift away from the existing concept plan that we bought into to -- to these -- these users that we are showing, because they are the ones who can -- who can afford to pay the rent that it costs based on current construction costs and that's -- that's kind of a dilemma that we -- that we face as a developer and that, so that's kind of how we have come up with this plan and feel that it's -- it's workable and I -- I apologize, maybe we had misunderstood, or we would have come I think a little bit better prepared in terms of flow. We maybe misunderstood or had just -- you know, some -- in our discussions with staff we thought that that level of analysis would come at the next application and so, you know, I apologize for not having that here. We thought that would come next and this was just more concept and then -- so, yeah, I apologize. Simison: I don't think there is an apology. That -- that would be the normal process, but, unfortunately, this site is just -- has more questions because of this change and desire. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Question for Bill. Procedurally could the questions that aren't answered today, if they are answered as part of a CUP application, if that were the case, acting on this doesn't necessarily accelerate the tenant ultimately utilizing the properties. If the CUP is applied for, wouldn't that answer these questions on circulation and avoid the problem of an approval today of this concept plan and, then, the CUPs get denied? For example, let's say there is some unresolved issue with circulation, now we have got a concept plan that they can't utilize and you are going to be modifying the DA again. So, not trying to waste the applicant's time, but would we -- is there any harm to tabling this, encouraging the CUP, and trying to get answers to the unanswered questions on how this thing is going to actually circulate? Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 19 of— Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilman Borton, and it -- yeah, it's back to the Mayor's comments, chicken before the egg. Borton: Right. Parsons: But certainly in instances where a DA mod was being sought outside of the CUP process or if it was out of sequence, we have conditioned the CUP that they get a DA mod approved or something to that effect -- I mean, obviously, we know this one's in process now, you are looking at it, so certainly you can continue it out, wait and see what this -- the Planning and Zoning does and, then, come back and do that, but ultimately -- again this is a DA mod, it's at your discretion, if you don't like this previous plan better than the previous plan you have the ultimate authority to say that -- that that's something you don't like. Now, what I can tell you is from what I see here, I -- again, I can see how the traffic is going to funnel through here. I -- I don't know -- I'm not a traffic engineer, but I'm -- I do drive the community and I have been to Dutch Brothers and I can tell you they get -- they are busy throughout the day. It's not -- it's not a.m. peak hours, they are busy through, the -- through afternoons. I see cars stacked there all the time and -- I hope so. I'm glad they are doing a gangbuster business out there. But to me, just with my planner hat on it's tough for me to see this much asphalt on a site when you can have so much more and, again, I'm not a developer, I don't pretend to know all the financials that go into it, but that's really where we had a lot of the concern is that, you know, we want a well integrated, well-designed thoughtful layout and when I -- when we look at sites like this and we have conversations with applicants that's where we struggle, because the code may allow you to do something -- it doesn't mean it looks attractive or doesn't mean it's right for a particular property and that's -- in my mind if I'm looking at this and certainly I know we are not into the weeds in all those details, but I'm hoping the applicant would want to do something to mitigate the view of those drive-throughs. How do you soften that asphalt, how do you enhance the landscaping or berm it or do something just to make it look more attractive than -- rather than seeing a bunch of cars stacked up in a drive- through lane. So, again, those are a lot of things we get into with CUPs. We talk about that at pre-apps as well, because we don't want the drive-through to be the dominant focal point and to me when you look at this site plan I see nothing but drive-throughs here and that -- that's really more of a planning issue than more of a design issue. Again I think lunch hours and evenings you are probably going to have more people at the restaurant, but, again, Dutch Bros in this particular case is not that close to schools and where the other ones are a little bit closer to high schools and everything, so they do tend to get more traffic. But, again, I'm with you, I -- I -- there is only one way in and out of this at this time and that's -- that's why we bring that to your attention, too. That's -- that's really the concern. If -- if we had all the pieces together and can see how it all funneled traffic out we are probably having a different conversation, but for now if the applicant moves forward with their conditional use permit and they are successful to get both of those approved and get the DA mod approved, then, I can't tell you when the other property around is going to develop. I don't have the timing on that. Booth: Just to comment on that, can -- I mean how can we -- should -- should we be required to wait for the other properties to develop? Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 20—— Simison: Is that a question -- Booth: I mean it's a hard thing from a -- from a -- from an ownership standpoint on your piece of property, right, that -- we are trying to do as best as we can and, you know, there are -- there are certainly planning constraints and traffic constraints and, then, there are market constraints also and -- and our -- our objective is to try and kind of weigh all of those, which we have done for the last three years trying to make this happen and so I appreciate very much the discussion and -- but we have -- yeah, we have done our level best for sure to work with staff, to work with the community, to work with the brokers, to work with everybody to make something that would work. We have had meetings ad nauseum with the last owner, who didn't end up developing, trying to, you know, be a good neighbor, we are talking cross-access, we have tried for access for the south, like -- we have done everything we can in terms of moving this thing forward and this is at this point the plan that we think kind of checks most of the boxes that -- that will work in a market which are -- which is very -- a very hard market to develop in presently and we have -- anyway, so just a few thoughts there. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I agree with --with everything that's been said by my fellow Council Members, but continuing the line of thinking with Councilman Borton, not only, you know, do we have a -- an issue I believe with kind of how we are going to hear these, but if -- if one CUP is approved before the other, if they are not heard in the same meeting with Planning and Zoning, then, we have created an additional problem, which is, you know, maybe -- maybe what we see on the concept plan -- general concept plan and, then, the specifics are all flushed out with Dutch Brothers and now somehow that interferes with how the traffic's going to flow with Wienerschnitzel, it's -- it -- this just -- the problem is going to compound and, you know, on -- so, I -- if it's possible I would be in favor of -- of wanting to hear the -- the DA modification and the CUPs all together at the same time. This -- this needs to be looked at as a whole. I don't know if it's possible for us to do that or not, but I -- I mean I -- I think that you could approve one CUP and unless you are hearing it at a similar time, you could cause challenges for the next one. I don't know. Maybe I'm not understanding that correctly. Simison: Yeah. We still haven't heard from the applicant. If you want to get to close the public hearing -- Booth: I'm sorry, was that a question to the applicant? Simison: No. I think we are trying to figure out if we want to go to final comments from the applicant yet or if Council wants to consider asking for a modified potential CUP revision site plan before they would want to consider this action and, you know, again, I understand this is going to go through a process, but we are basically creating a -- a drive- through lot that has all the drive aisles -- all the car slots backing into the drive aisles for Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 21 of— three different drive-throughs in this concept. I mean, you know, even from that very basic principle everything in the middle should be turned a different direction, so that you are not backing into where your likely drive directions are to get people around the parking lot. So, I think that there is a lot of questions about this --what the CUP will -- could bring. I think there is solutions, though. I honestly do. I mean -- I mean I prefer direction from staff on can -- you think working with the applicant to come up with a -- again, it doesn't have to be their actual CUP plan, but maybe something more along the lines of the CUP. It sounds like they might have been thinking they could do that. Parsons: Sure. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think that would be great. It sounds like continuation, maybe work with the applicant, come back with site circulation plan, maybe a slight redesign to see -- so you can minimize some of those conflicts and -- and work with the applicant and see if you can get a comfort level with additional drive- throughs on the site, rather than wait. I don't think Councilman Borton was asking to move this -- catch this up to a CUP. I think his intention was postpone this -- action on this and allow them to submit CUP with a condition that Planning and Zoning looks at it and, then, bring those back to this body at a date and talk about the DA mod then. If I misunderstood that, Councilman Borton, let me know, but I don't think that was your intention to remand this or have this go with CUPs for the Planning and Zoning Commission as a package. Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Not necessarily. I mean -- but the idea being -- and you commented, we have done it before, is, for example, if this got denied today the applicant tomorrow could apply for CUPs and one of the conditions be modify the DA and the concept plan. So, technically, we are not stopping anything if we chose to deny it based on what's today. I mean we are being painfully cautious with this corner and this property. This really is a big change and it's a big permanent change. So, I think our concerns are all well-founded. So, continuance doesn't necessarily help if it's deny it as presented and -- Parsons: Let it come together -- Borton: -- and we have articulated the reasons and I think it's circulation and you brought up screening and -- and -- and additional condition elements that you would rightfully bring up to an applicant in a CUP discussion. The CUP we would never see. We wouldn't get a chance to talk about it, but we can express some of our interests now to help the applicant. But as presented I'm not ready for it. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, and, Bill, I'm going to kind of lean on you a little bit, too. So, this is a development agreement modification; right? So, cannot the development agreement condition that the -- because here is the risk for what you are Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 22 of— talking about at the moment. This is in abeyance. The CUP comes -- say they all get approved and you come -- and, technically, it's not going to come here, but it comes back to you and the Council doesn't like the fact that both were approved and so they deny the DA modification, so now they have wasted all of the time and effort on both of those things. But Bill and I can't -- I have been trying to find it in the code real quickly and I can't, but I don't know why we cannot make a condition of the development agreement that CU's -- additional -- other than the existing -- approved drive-through all other drive-throughs have to get approved by the Council and that for -- then that makes, then, P&Z merely a recommending body to you on whether to approve a drive-through and they could do the vetting and they could do the -- the thought process and get the public input and get the -- all that stuff, but, ultimately, it still has to come back to you, so you are going to have to approve it and that's a condition of the modification and, therefore, they haven't-- because right now -- and we have had this discussion on a couple of other ones of these in the last year or so and it is the way our code's built. I mean CU's don't come to you as a general rule, but they sometimes do and so I -- I'm not certainly sure -- again, unless the code is absolutely prohibitive of that, I don't know why we cannot simply craft the DA modification to require the drive-throughs ultimately be approved by the Council and, then, for future conversations, as built in the code, if we have identified ones like this that seem to be a recurring issue of CU's and concerns about those processes being split, I'm not -- I wouldn't recommend the Council hear every conditional use application. There may be some you would identify and say all of this type of conditional use has to come to Council. Not every single thing. Because some of them are pretty routine. But that may be a future conversation. But I don't-- like I said, without looking at the code that tells me I can't do that, I don't know why we can't do that. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: It's getting really complicated and I -- I'm sorry, I just want to cut through it a little bit. I have thought about it, I like the idea of a coffee shop and a complimentary use, but you have got that Jamba Juice, I'm just not buying it. You have one entrance and exit and three drive-throughs. I think three drive-throughs is too many on this one. I don't think I can get there on any more than two. Bernt: Amen. Strader: I just want to say it that way. I just -- I'm really -- and I'm sorry that you have signed leases and I -- I understand the building costs are going up and as an equity owner and a business owner you are in a very tough environment, so my heart goes out to you, but I just don't think it's in the best interest of the city to have three drive-throughs on one small property like this with one entrance and exit, I just don't think it works. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 23 of— Cavener: I agree. I -- I was going to wait until comments, but I just -- I look at the corner of Franklin and Linder, I think it's Hark's Corner, you have got a Dutch Brothers, a donut shop with a drive-through and an Arctic Circle and as somebody who every Friday takes a six-year-old for donuts and encounter the challenges in that parking lot, I wouldn't wish that on -- on anyone in our community. I don't think it makes sense and that's with I think four or five unique accesses into that area where this is going to have one with part of it coming through a private drive. I just don't think it's going to work. Simison: The public hearing is still open. We have not heard from the applicant for any final comments. I can't tell who is -- one of the applicant's representatives is wishing to speak. Would the applicant like to make final comments and bring in your additional person at this time? What's your pleasure? Lindsley: Yeah. I can -- I can just speak. You know, I appreciate Council's discussion and points of concern. You know, I -- look, it's -- this is the process. I can't say it's not frustrating from our -- from our perspective of trying to push things through. We had worked with staff. We had tried different months to bring in a CUP and go the other route and, then, we were told we had to go this route and so we -- you know, we could have brought these in one at a time. We would work to, you know, do it the way that we were told we had to do it, so -- I mean it is what it is, but we -- we -- we -- you know, we can certainly bring in one of these. We can bring in -- because that's how it would happen, one at a time; right? Each one would have to have specific CZC application, so -- but it is what it is. I get that you have concerns and -- and we could have been more prepared, maybe, with -- with some analysis of traffic flow with the three. I would -- I would lobby to say, well, let's hold off on making decisions. We are basing -- my sense is we are basing decision off hypothetical -- you know, with -- with good reason of other locations, but -- but allow us to provide some traffic flow analysis and show how it would -- how it would work on site and we can do that. If you would like us to go with the tenants and go hand- in-hand and come in one at a time in the CUP and, then, make this a -- a conditioned approval based on the CUP or, you know, however you wanted to do it, but we -- we still feel that this is the -- the correct plan, but understand the concerns and we would love to have the chance to work through those concerns with you. Simison: Council, any questions, comments for the applicant? Motions? Direction? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Add one more comment before you folks decide which direction you want to go. To be fair to the applicant, there really is no evidence in the -- in the record on this application on what the traffic will be. It's a -- it's merely a concept request to put these types of facilities on there. So, it's a little concerning to me to make a decision on that when you really don't have anything before you on how these function, how they work. So, again, if the CUP process is made to vet that out and you can still do that and still deny them if you think it won't work, but I do understand what the applicant's saying, he Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— hasn't really presented that to you, he's only presented you an idea of what's going to go there and not how it's going to go there or how it's going to flow or how it's going to work, because that's not what we are. That's not what our process called for. So, we don't really have evidence at the moment to base the belief that we cannot make this function. Simison: Just says -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: -- you are also saying it's just an idea, so, then, do you even have to have evidence of just an idea? What if they said we want to build a skyscraper there as an idea. Nary: I -- I would agree with you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, but we have narrowed the path to the specific idea based on a specific set of circumstances that isn't before you. You are right, it's a concept, you don't have to like the concept and that's okay. Then we need to -- then that's the framing that it needs to be. The concept of that doesn't fit versus the drive-throughs won't work. Simison: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. Yeah. I -- I don't disagree what's being said tonight by my fellow Council Members about, you know, three drive-throughs, one -- one entrance, one exit. That -- that is difficult, but I -- I do think to be fair in our process of a concept plan that would typically go to -- into a CUP where the details are out, is to give the applicant an opportunity to come back with the concept plan that they want to present, along with some details that allows us to yea or nay it based on the details that they provide. It might be we find ourselves still in the same place. But to me that's a process that I think is more fair. We are making some assumptions, although, you know, one exit is one exit and entrance, but I -- I think that -- that process would be something that allows them to make their case in -- in a more prepared fashion and -- and follow -- follow our process a little bit closer, because we do have a bifurcated process. Concept plan. CUP. And those are the rules we have set out and we are -- we are kind of changing them and our legal counsel has suggested some things that we might do in the future for certain types of CUPs, but we are not there yet. So, I -- I would propose if -- if the votes would be there, I don't know, Mr. Clerk, what we have available -- when the next time would be available for a motion to -- to continue. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I would defer to Planning, but looking at your schedule May 10th would be the earliest available and I'm not sure if that's enough time for staff to get things together. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page—of— Hoaglun: Mr. Parsons, May 10th or additional -- is that too soon? I know you guys have a lot on your plate, so I don't want to -- Parsons: Mayor, Members of Council, again, if you give us clear direction what you want to see we can try to make that happen. If -- you know, anytime you are changing site plans you want to see that detailing for how you are going to screen the drive-through and all of that, I would certainly recommend at least a month and give the applicant time, because it's not only city staff looking at multiple projects, but it's also consultants that can't always react so quickly either. So, where ever we can try to get it right and allow more time it's always appreciated I think for both sides. Lindsley: Yeah. That would be appreciated on our side as well. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I agree with Councilman Hoaglun and I'm not opposed to considering the -- the idea of three drive-throughs, but all of these companies have -- no doubt have data on -- on how many vehicles move through their restaurants at any given time of day and -- especially Dutch Brothers. So, I don't -- if they already have leases signed I don't understand why the applicant can't go back to these companies and ask for information about what they think their traffic flow through is going to be on their -- I would imagine those conversations have had to have been had and if they haven't why are we talking about this, frankly. So, if-- if staff wants direction on what it is we are looking for, I would hope this applicant would go back to his lessees and get some information about how many vehicles are going to flow through, how many cars generally park on their site and modify the site plan with -- with that data. I agree with -- with the Mayor that I don't see the need for having multiple parking spaces in front of a Dutch Brothers. I have lived next to the intersection that Luke just mentioned at Franklin and Linder. Nobody ever parked at the Dutch Brothers, other than the staff, so I -- I understand the applicant's position that they weren't aware -- didn't get the impression they needed to come forward with that -- with that detail of information, but I don't feel like I can make a decision on this until we have it in whatever order we need to hear it -- hear that information. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I'm a no on a continuance. I think it's -- I would like to just keep it very simple. Do I approve changing the concept on the site? I do not. I -- I don't think a concept makes sense that has three drive-throughs on a small site like this with one entrance and one exit. So, I'm just going to be a no on that. Simison: Well, I'm not -- I'm going to go to Mr. Nary's words. I'm not opposed to the concept of three drive-throughs, but I'm opposed to this concept that I'm seeing in front Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 26 of 50 of me as far as layout, design, flow, function, personality, everything else. So, if the applicant wants to provide a different concept plan to -- I'm not opposed to three drive- throughs personally, but to me it, then, becomes a drive-through site not a parking lot site. Having lane drive aisles compared to drive aisles for parking that you drive through to get to places. That's my two cents on that, so I -- I would be supportive of -- let them see if there is something more they can do. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I will just give this attempt and we can discuss it, but I would move that we continue the public hearing for H-2021-0104 to May 10th and that the applicant return with a concept plan of their choosing. That also includes a traffic circulation, landscape overview, and integration with possible future development. Perreault: Sorry. Can you repeat the motion? Hoaglun: Repeat the motion. It was to move the -- this project to May 10th and that we would have the applicant provide a concept plan of their choosing, but also to show traffic circulation for the site, the landscaping overview, and also integration -- how they would integrate the traffic patterns with future -- any future development that they are aware of. Perreault: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, nay; Cavener, nay; Bernt, nay; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, nay. Simison: Two ayes. Four nays. Motion dies. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. FOUR NAYS. Simison: So, the hearing is still open, so if you would like to take action on the item we will need to close the public hearing. The applicant was recognized for final comments, unless you would like to ask them to recognize for final comments again. Lindsley: I just didn't -- I didn't quite understand what happened, so -- so, the motion to extend -- that was denied. Simison: Correct. Lindsley: And then -- so, I guess I'm wondering what -- trying to understand what next steps are. Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 27—— Simison: Next steps would be if they decide to close the public hearing and take an action on the item before them or not. Lindsley: Okay. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we close the public hearing. Strader: Second. Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed nay? The ayes have it. The public hearing is closed. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we deny Item H-2021-0104 on the basis that this concept plan is just not meeting what expectations are on this corner currently. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? If not, clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, nay; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: Five ayes. One no. And the motion passes and the item is denied. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, can I get clarification on the no vote? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Johnson: Thank you. 5. Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 28 of 50 A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single- family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Simison: Okay. With that we will move on to Item 5 before us. Public hearing continued for March 22nd, 2022, for Apex West Subdivision, H-2021-0087. Open this public hearing with staff comments. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Before we continue, I will be recusing myself from Item 5 and for Item 6. Simison: Thank you. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on your agenda is the Apex West preliminary plat. I won't go into a lot of the details. I think you recall this item was back in front of you in March. Legal department brought to your notice -- to your attention that the -- the boundary of the plat expanded based on the action that you took at that hearing. The applicant needed to include additional land area in order to make sure that the record was clear as to what you guys were acting on and approving as part of the preliminary plat. So, essentially, the applicant's done that. Staff's revised the findings template to reflect the correct acreage. Notification went out to the property owners within the 500 foot radius per code, including the additional land area. So, right now for tonight this is just a formality. The applicant's in agreement with the revised conditions of approval and the findings. We even had an updated ACHD staff report included and attached to the record as well. So, this one should be straightforward for you tonight and the findings are the next item on the agenda for you this evening. With that I would stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 2929 West Navigator, Suite 400 in Meridian. As Bill noted when we were here on the 8th of March there were no issues conditions -- no condition issues. Excuse me. The only item that the Council really had to deal with was the question of maintaining the Watkins Drain as an open facility through a waiver and the Council seemed amenable to that concept. So, the only change that has occurred was the addition of that whole 40 acre piece that we had just taken a small corner out of it. Lot numbers don't change. Nothing has -- has changed at all since that discussion. So, we simply ask that you continue down the path that you appeared to be that evening subject to clarifying what needed to happen with that 40 acre parcel, which has now been included as a future R-8 building parcel has to come back as a preliminary plat at sometime in the future. So, unless you have further questions I would just let you take your action. Thank you. Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. Wardle: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we had people sign in, but no one marked they wanted to testify. Simison: Is there anybody here that would like to provide testimony on the item at this time? Or online if you would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand feature. We do you have someone who would like to provide testimony. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that is J. Edwards and they are unmuted. Simison: If you can state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Edwards: My name is Julie Edwards and I live at 1310 East Mary Lane and I just had a question about this. I couldn't see on the -- the information that was provided along with the agenda and everything -- was Lot 2, Block 5 -- is that the location of where the potential future school was going to be or is that further to the east? And -- and if that is, in fact, where the school was going to go, what's changed since then? That's all. Simison: Okay. Thank you. The applicant has indicated at least that is a future school site, but last time didn't make any comments formal to that in their closing time. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Then would the applicant like to come forward? Wardle: Again, Mr. Mayor, Council Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. In the information presented at the March 8th hearing that was noted in the site plan. There is a potential future elementary site that has been essentially reserved for consideration by the school district when they are ready to move. So, the rest of that whole 40 acres will be in a preliminary plat that would include a school site potentially for some future action by both Planning Commission and Council. Simison: Thank you, Mike. Council, any additional questions or comments? If not, do I have any motions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2021-0087. Strader: Second. Page 78 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— Simison: I have a motion and second to close the public cream for H-2021-0087. 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 ABSTAIN. 6. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Apex West Subdivision (H- 2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for Mr. Nary. Can we act with one motion on both the preliminary plat and findings of fact? Nary: Yes. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would move that we -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve H-2021-0087, preliminary plat and Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Apex West Subdivision as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 12th, 2022, and that it includes the waiver of tiling Watkins Drain. Strader: 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, yea; Bernt, abstain; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the items are agreed to. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. 7. Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Copper Canary (H- 2022-0009) by ALC Architecture, Located at 2590 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. Page 79 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 31 of 50 #104129529) to remove the subject property from the agreement and prepare a new development agreement with an updated conceptual development plan, removal of the requirement for conditional use approval of any future uses on the site, and requirement for access to be taken from the north via the future backage road with emergency only access from the south. Simison: Next item on the agenda is Item 7, a public hearing continued from March 22nd, 2022, for Copper Canary, H-2022-0009. We will open this public hearing -- or continue this public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. The last item I'm presenting to you this evening is the -- the Copper Canary MDA, Development Agreement Modification, best known as the Great Wall back in 2008. But wanted to let you know this property is approximately 1.38 acres of land currently zoned C-G and it was actually annexed in 2003 as part of the Red Feather development, which included approximately 114 acres. So, this is one of those cases where you are kind of getting granular into the previous -- from a larger approval and, then, getting down to the nitty gritty with -- with a one acre parcel site. As part of the original DA in 2003 this site -- currently it requires conditional use permit for any use on it to -- to develop on this. So, this particular applicant this evening is wanting to convert the restaurant use to a retail use and so rather than going through that conditional use process they wanted to modify the DA when it was cheaper, but it was about the same time frame. One public hearing -- either -- it's either hear a public hearing before Planning and Zoning or a public hearing before you. So, they chose to take this path. The other part of that development agreement is that the applicant was required to do a backage road and as you know that -- that can be subjective these days as how -- what that was meant back in 2003 to what we are currently doing today and what's happened is we have development around this site and we have conditions of approval in place that require cross-access with this piece. So, if you recall in 2008 the City Council did approve a variance for this particular property to allow them to have an access to Eagle Road and that was an interim measure until such time as we could get cross-access either from the north or the south or both and so that --that time has arrived. We have -- we have somebody here -- we have an approved conditional use permit to the south for a storage facility. I looked at that approval from 2019. That site was required to reciprocate cross-access to this piece. You can see here that the applicant also wants to talk about a revised concept plan with you this evening. You will note the black highlighted area on the graphic to the left -- or on the right, excuse me, does show a future access with the property to the north. I would mention to you at least in discussions with Sonya that that has not been approved by ITD yet. So, typically, the way the code reads, whenever an applicant wants to request access to a state highway you need a determination from ITD. That particular request will probably come to you with a future development application. Particularly with the applicant to the north is working with ITD in obtaining a permit to make that happen. The access would go across this particular property in this general location here. So, it is going to take the effort of both of these property owners to work together to allow the access to occur. I think this Council is also aware that we try to minimize access points to Eagle Road and that's why we have that Page 80 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— requirement for the backage road and so what we really want to see is continuous connectivity all the way through the commercial developments creating that road and that connectivity. You can see here the concept plan does take into account some site modifications to account for that connectivity, however, the applicant is requesting in this concept plan that the southern access will be emergency only. I would also mention to you that our Fire Department does not support the emergency access. They want it to be a to and through access through this development for public safety. So, the applicant has provided a con -- or some revised DA provisions for your recommendation and staff has also made changes, so the bigger -- the bigger change in our mind is really -- we want to see the full access happen on the south boundary and the applicant would prefer that it remain emergency -- or propose it as emergency access. With that staff is supportive of the DA mod before you this evening and with that I would happy to stand for any questions you may have. Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Bill, if the property to the north does get approved, does it connect to the commercial center? Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, it would. Correct. They have an approved concept plan on their particular property and it would tie into that Norco site -- we call it the Norco site to the north. But it does tie into that drive lane. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, even if they were not to get the ITD access -- or the access to Highway 55, would they still be permitted -- could we still approve them based on their access to the property to the north or would they need the two accesses? Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, in that particular case whatever goes first would reciprocate the access. Since we have it from the south, it just makes good planning to have it from both ends, to be honest with you. So, yes, we would still require -- as part of this DA mod we would still want them to reciprocate cross-access to this owner and vice- versa. So, they wouldn't have to get a reciprocal cross-access, all they would have to do is grant the property owner to the north access and, then, when they develop the property to the north they would reciprocate and they would have a shared access at that boundary. The same thing with the property to the south. So, again, our recommendation is that it continue and we don't have another access point approved to Eagle Road at this point. Simison: Council, additional questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Page 81 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— Butler: Looking forward to it. Joann Butler. 967 East Parkcenter Boulevard, representing the property owner of what was the Great Wall Restaurant and now would be the Copper Canary, which is a fine jewelry store. Before my time gets away from me, I -- if we could stop the clock just briefly. This afternoon -- late in the afternoon Sonya Allen received a letter of support from the property owner to the north and explained a little bit about their process with ITD. Since Bill didn't mention that I did make copies of that -- that e-mail. He probably doesn't know it came in. So, I would like to just -- I have got several copies and if the Clerk would tell Bill that that's -- that that came in, too. Before I get started, too, this particular -- this particular screen is not showing the slides and I will wait until either Bill or the Clerk has those. Johnson: So, you have a presentation that you have given Bill? Butler: Yeah. Johnson: Okay. My apologies. I'm trying to find that. Find out where he put it. Butler: Again, Joann Butler. 967 East Parkcenter Boulevard representing the property owner of the Copper Canary -- the proposed Copper Canary. Mr. Coles' architect-- Perry Coles, is the owner. Mr. Coles' architect Jeff Likes is probably with us via Zoom to answer questions the Council has. I'm also speaking on behalf of the owner to the south, Bach Homes. Brian Carlisle is here with me tonight and can answer questions about the Bach Homes property. Also the property owner to the north, GFI Meridian Investments, they are the ones in support of the request and -- and that's the e-mail that I just provided you from them. I'm going to very briefly review 20 years of history, because the annexations and developments in this area, which is right at the edge of Boise, between Cloverdale and Eagle, Ustick and what is now East River Valley Street, has been a bit convoluted. This particular map shows a 2003-2004 annexation. It was a 2003 application. Approximately 114 acres was annexed. R-4 was a zone for about 90 of those acres. That's the area that's got the hatching going from left to right. About 24 acres was zoned C-G and that's the hatching on the other side of what is today Records Avenue. We would like you to understand with the history of this development why we are asking for a DA modification that allows the Copper Canary to take access going north, because that north access does maybe get us out to Eagle immediately north of our property with our -- our working with ITD and our property owner to the north or as the Council Woman has said, we would go all the way north otherwise and we are also asking for the -- at that point the temporary access would be closed and we are also asking for emergency access at our common boundary with Bach Homes and I hope I explain -- I was at the Bach Homes hearing. I hope that we are finally in the mix and I think that what we offer in this mix between Bach Homes, this property, and GFI to the north, is some solutions for this area. The original development agreement had a great deal of information about the residential zoning. They did include a preliminary plat and that all developed according to that preliminary plat. On the other hand, the C-G zoning didn't have -- produce uses proposed and so what the Council did at that time --they asked them to come back with a conditional use, even if the use was an automatically allowed by right use within the C-G area. I don't know if that was the Council at that time's attempt to want to take another look or there is Page 82 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— a section in your code that was 11-7-2-K that has since been removed and that seemed to require anything in the C-G to get a conditional use. In any event, with our asking for a DA modification, one of the things that we are asking is we are not subject to that old DA. So, if our use is automatically allowed by right, we wouldn't go through the conditional use process, because you have already said the use is allowed by right in the C-G zone. Also in the original 2003-2004 development agreement you required a backage road roughly parallel to Eagle Road serving these 24 acres of C-G property. My belief from the research that I have done is that what was understood in 2004 to be the backage road for these 24 acres of C-G is what today is known as Records Avenue. We will come back and discuss the drive aisle that is on the east side of the small little over one acre parcel that is the Great Wall Restaurant or now Copper Canary. If I can get down to the next -- this slide basically shows what is there today. The Gateway Marketplace to the north. GFI Meridian's property, which was part of the 24 acres that was zoned C-G, the Copper Canary property. Bach Homes south of the slough was not part of that 24 acres. Bach Homes came in and got rezoning at an R-40 and they also developed the first two phases of the Regency at River Valley there. After that they also attempted to market the -- and we will talk about this a little bit later, too. They -- they have attempted to market the acreage just below the Copper Canary for commercial. They have had no success at all either developing it or selling it, in part because of what I will term the funky access to East River Valley as we get to the south. But in -- let's back up and keep with the history. In 2008, four years after annexation, the Great Wall that would -- that had this separate C-G zoned acre, requested a conditional use for the restaurant and the city allowed development of that acreage -- of that landlocked Great Wall property with temporary access to Eagle Road until the Great Wall could obtain access, either north or south, at which time the temporary access would be closed on Eagle Road. Later that same year the developer of the Great Wall Restaurant came back to the city and asked you to modify the condition to require that access be only going to the south, because at that time there was no indication that the person to -- the property owner to the north was going to be developing anytime soon. East River Valley was starting to develop and it looked like access was going to continue to the south. Staff at the time was not really happy with that and they said in their -- in the testimony that they would have preferred the access to go north, because that was what they were planning for, but they understood that that might be a little bit down the road. So, the condition of approval that was adopted for the Great Wall Restaurant was that-- and I'm quoting from Condition of Approval 1.6 -- access to Eagle Road is approved temporarily until such time as the properties to the south develop and a common drive isle -- a common drive aisle is constructed from the subject property to the future extension of East River Valley. Again, the -- at that time the drive aisle to the south appeared to be reasonable, because, again, Bach Homes was marketing to make their property right there on Eagle Road commercial. They would continue that drive aisle going south to the mattress store and eventually out to East River -- East River Valley. Again, that -- that has not happened. Mr. Carlisle can tell you more about that. And it has -- and -- but it is -- that access has been the death nail for commercial development of that property. In the meantime -- and I will scroll down to the next property. In -- oops. In the meantime, GFI Meridian, the property owner to the north, was approved in 2019 and has -- this is the -- the schematic of the roads that they will be putting through their retail and restaurant development immediately north of the Copper Page 83 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— Canary property. The city required them to put a culvert across the South Slough leading to the Copper Canary property and they will be developing a road down to our property and as you can see they have also -- are showing an access going over to Eagle Road. They have been working with ITD. My understanding is from talking with them and -- and they -- they gave us the information from their engineer KM Engineering, ITD likes this access, because between East River Valley and Ustick it is -- you have got the Gateway Marketplace, you have got this, you wind up with about a thousand feet between each access. So, they are liking the separation. It avoids utilities. It avoids poles. So, that location is what ITD is leaning towards. They have not finished their review. The next slide is a slide that Bill has showed, which is our concept plan and that shows a little bit more definitively the access leading to our property and it shows the access that GFI Meridian is developing. This past year -- I referred to the Bach Homes hearing, which was just a few months ago. Despite this past year Bach Homes provided an application to the Council trying to do what it does best, rather than bang its head against the wall trying to develop that property immediately south of the Copper Canary as commercial, they developed a third phase of the Regency at River Valley. That was heard by the Council. You denied it. You sent them back to the drawing board to better incorporate the circulation between phase three along Eagle Road and the rest of the property. You did talk about the fact that you appreciated the residential. You like the design. It is in compliance with your Comprehensive Plan. We certainly support that residential use, but we did come to your hearing and we did -- we were opposed to the residential development, unless our properties were separated by an emergency access connection. We did not want 300 apartments to treat our clients parking lot like a public road to go north to Eagle Road and, Councilman Hoaglun, you might remember that you remarked during the hearing that turning our clients' property into a road from the apartments would be the death nail for our business and we wholeheartedly agree. It would not have been safe, it would not have been fair, and it would have caused a great loss of our parking spaces. Bach Homes also appreciated designing the third phase with an emergency only access at the common property boundary. That would assist them to create a better residential project. They wouldn't lose as many parking spaces as a -- sending that drive aisle straight through. It would cause a -- a disconnect between their phases and they want to design -- I'm putting my foot in his mouth -- but Brian will tell it to -- I think tell you that they would prefer to design with an emergency access, which opens them up to send their traffic east to the true backage road, Records, and south to East River Valley. At the -- the Fire Department at that Bach Homes hearing -- the fire chief did say that the emergency access at this common boundary was workable. Since then we haven't had conversations, but our -- we have -- we have a fire consultant -- a former state fire marshal, who believes that emergency access at this location would certainly be reasonable. We understand we need to work with the Fire Department to design an emergency access that ensures the safety of our property, ensures the safety of Bach Homes, but also ensures that both Bach Homes and our client can develop their properties to be a success. So, on this slide what I'm trying to point out -- these are the conditions that are presently contained in the staff report and with this slide we are asking the Council to reverse the changes that staff has here. So, reinsert the stricken language so it's clear that the Copper Canary access will eventually go north to the temp -- and -- and so that the temporary access can be closed and that the drive aisle on the east side Page 84 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 36 of 50 of Copper Canary will terminate with an emergency access at the southern boundary and, again, we are happy to work with our fire consultant and the department to attempt to make that happen. So, finally, in conclusion, we realize that the staff and -- and, quite frankly, your staff has been wonderful to say to us -- Sonya. Please pass us along. She has been very clear with us to say the original development agreement said you needed -- and your predecessor asked the Council to go south. So, I can -- I have to repeat what the -- what the development agreement said and what your predecessor said and we appreciate that, but times and the development in this area has changed. That's why we are proposing the development agreement modification. Staff is not in favor, according to their staff report, of removal of a backage road going north and south through our clients' property, because it says it wants to insure -- and I'm quoting from the staff report. It wants to ensure through unrestricted public access north and south. We don't believe that our clients' property should be used by the public in this fashion when we can accomplish connectivity to the existing public roads and when we can accomplish fire safety without taking a great swath out of the Copper Canary property and running traffic from other developments through the Copper Canary property. So, we are very happy to provide the public with an emergency access through the property and we believe with the redesign of phase three of Bach Homes, taking the traffic west and south, we can accomplish what the city desires and needs. So, I think I heard the bell, so I know that I'm done now, but I will be happy to answer any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I just want to make sure I heard you correctly. Our -- the comments we received from our Fire Department and our staff report say that our Fire Department doesn't support the emergency access only. So, help me reconcile that with what you just stated in your testimony. Butler: I would -- I can tell you that at your hearing the -- the -- the fire chief did indicate that it was workable. We haven't had the opportunity to sit down with the fire chief and go over this again. I -- I think that we would like the opportunity--and perhaps a condition of approval can be provided in the development agreement to require us to work with the Fire Department to determine whether or not we can make that emergency access a possibility, because, as I said, the fire chief did think it was possible and I don't know -- it -- you know, other than the fact that I think that staff has wanted to see a north-south connection and -- which an emergency access wouldn't do and -- and -- and so I -- but -- so, I think that that may be driving the decision of the one staff member from the Fire Department to support the planning staff member on that north-south, which I appreciate, but I think that we need to try to help all these property owners work together to develop access that makes sense. We do not want to do anything that would be publicly unsafe, but I don't think -- and our fire consultant has also said that given Eagle Road -- given the operations that would take place in and around this site, if there were a fire or an Page 85 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 0, of— emergency situation on Eagle Road, that having the emergency access -- you still have public access going through this site, it's just not free-flowing and that was our concern, because it would send 300 -- possibly the cars from 300 apartments going north on our -- on our-- through our property. So, I guess what I'm asking for is the ability to work with staff-- the Fire and Planning staff. If you see the value in what we are asking for to try to work together with all of these property owners to make sure there is public access for emergency services, but not cutting our -- turning our property into a public road for the apartments and also cutting Mr. Carlisle's property up, so that makes it more difficult for him to coordinate phase three with phases one and two, then, we are asking for the opportunity to work with the fire chief on this to make sure that -- am I answering your question? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Yes and no. I -- I'm trying to understand -- one of the main elements of your new proposed concept plan is this emergency access, yet the details of how that's all going to work out -- so, you would want us to approve this based on the fact that you may or may not come to an agreement with our Fire Department on the emergency access. Butler: Just with the condition of approval. Just like, you know, the other conditions of approval. Perreault: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Joann, a quick question. And I -- I'm assuming Brian is going to be talking -- coming up and speaking about property to the -- to the south. So, I will have some questions along the same vein to him, but if that property to the south were to be more commercial retail -- not residential, but -- but that sort of thing, wouldn't it make sense to -- would you be in favor of having that to be open? Butler: If -- if that property -- that was the goal, you know, that that would be -- so, that you really would have a drive aisle going to the south and so having that open I -- I think that makes sense. But that has not been -- and I think it's been ten years that -- so, it hasn't proven to be the case. So -- so, I think that's why and -- and, you know, our goal is to work with our neighbor to the north to help them provide a bit of our property to make that access to Eagle Road. Simison: So, maybe if -- I don't know if it's a question, a comment, or more -- we can hear from someone from Bach Homes, but if the assumption is always that the property to the south is only going north, my question is why? Page 86 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 38 of— Butler: I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor, could you repeat that? Simison: If the assumption that whatever develops on the property to the south is only going to go north through this parcel, my question is why? Safety? What --what is going to be the driver that everyone's got to go north and if we want to stop that why are we making that proposal, just -- you know, we all can see the problems with access -- can't even turn left into this property coming off of River Valley, which is going to create access issues we all -- I don't want to relive that last application, but, again, I'm just trying to get to the -- you know, you are, basically, forcing this property to do something and the question becomes why and -- besides the impact to this property. Butler: Right. Simison: Yeah. I mean that's for whoever wants to or not want to answer that question. Butler: I will let Mr. Carlisle talk about that from his perspective. The common assumption and -- by folks that were dealing with traffic was that the quickest route would -- would -- would -- you know, people would take the quickest route to get out to Eagle Road, instead of winding their way down to East River Valley or over to Records. So, that was part of the issue. Simison: Under the old -- under -- under -- yeah. Butler: And also that the -- the issue for -- if that was to be left open we have been -- it indicates that an entire row of parking would be lost, because we would have to take out that parking to allow the traffic to go -- go north. There couldn't be cars that would back out into that area, so we would lose all of that parking as well. Simison: Council? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Mr. Mayor, just a comment. I appreciate you coming here sharing this information. I -- I'm not very sympathetic in the sense that I feel that connectivity is important and this challenge is true for every single property owner that we asked to give cross-access to. The City of Meridian -- we have requested this backage road. I believe it is a healthier area to have all this connection. The Fire Department I would love to hear from. I had to step out for one second, but if we haven't heard from them I would love to hear from them, but there is a safety concern, there is an access concern, and I think the more connections people have to get in and out, the more it alleviates the problem. We start giving exceptions to people to protect the property value of their property and the use of their property, setting up all these emergency access onlys, it just compounds the problem of getting around. So, I just wanted to be open about that. It's a philosophical Page 87 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— thing. I very rarely feel inclined to give these emergency access only requests. So, I just wanted to share that. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Not a question, but I believe I read -- I don't know if it was in the applicant testimony -- or the applicant narrative that Council's desire with the property to the south of you is that all the traffic would move to the south and the east. I don't recall that that was ever actually stated that way. I think that that was just what would have had to have happened if-- because there wasn't connection to the north yet when we heard that. So, I just wanted to clarify that that wasn't something the Council said we want to see traffic move that direction, it was that's the only option right now and so I kind of wanted to make sure that that was -- was a clear part of this conversation, because I don't know that the -- that the desire has ever changed to keep the connectivity, it's just that when that application came in part of the reason it was denied was because, again, it didn't have a -- there wasn't a well thought out flow of traffic. Butler: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone sign up to provide testimony of this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, the only person to sign up was Jeff Likes. He is online. Mr. Likes, if you can state your name and address for the record. Likes: I can. It's Jeff Likes. ALC Architecture, 1119 East State Street, Eagle, Idaho. We are actually the applicant. Our counsel was the one presenting. So, we are just here in case there is any questions on anything about this new redesigned site, what we were thinking. I do have a request for this. If -- if the Council decides that we need to provide access, both north and south -- the term road has been thrown out there -- you know, it's been put out there this needs to be a road. Well, with a road, as Joann stated, we lose all of the hatched parking that you see there. It ends up being about ten spots of our parking that we lose, because we can't -- quote we can't back out into a road. So, if this was deemed a drive aisle we could keep our parking and it's going to act as a drive aisle -- as if you go up to the Norco center just as well; right? There is drive isles there and all that area there. So, if you guys, you know, are going to say we need the access both north and south, we just request that this be made a drive aisle and not a road and so if you have any questions I can answer anything. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Page 88 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I assume -- and I would like your thoughts on this -- that the use -- the future use of this is not going to be as -- it's not going to require as many parking spaces as the restaurant would, so have you done an analysis on whether losing those spots would actually be harmful to the business? Likes: Yeah. Mayor, Council Woman, we have looked at it. Obviously, I think the -- the owner here is thinking long term; right? I mean he's -- yes, he wants to be here, but they do -- they hold events at this -- it's a high-end jewelry store and so they do hold events that require parking. I don't think we have seen a jewelry store like this in town. They are coming from out of state, opening up their store here, moving their whole family here to do it and so that's -- that's the reason why we would like to keep it. Just looking ahead -- you know, losing -- losing ten, 11 spots is quite a few spots in -- just in your -- just all together on your site. Simison: Any further questions? Parsons: Mayor, if I -- if I may address that comment from the applicant. I think -- the intent here is that it would be a commercial drive aisle, not a road, so I just want to be clear on the record. It's like any other parking lot out there, you -- you have property lines that go in a commercial development and property lines cross and parking across each other. So, technically, no, the code would not require them to lose those parking stalls if they were to reciprocate cross-access. I think probably what may have happened or where a misunderstanding may have occurred is for safety purposes if you want to funnel traffic there it's not always the most ideal to have backup parking onto a drive aisle that provides cross-access. So, in those cases we try to mitigate that and -- and so I think maybe in discussions with staff we may have said that would be a preference of ours if you are going to make that a -- more of a commercial drive aisle to lose some of that and put a buffer there and soften that and minimize vehicular conflicts backing out into the drive aisle. But, certainly, I think we can work with the applicant on that if they want to keep their parking. Simison: Yeah. Or maybe parallel parking. Parsons: Correct. There is ways to design it. Absolutely. They could leave a seven foot buffer there and put nine by twenty three foot parallel stalls. Simison: Or even angled parking, so you back out into your -- what you can see, not the other direction. Parsons: Yeah. There is -- there is many ways to do it and redesign it and still maintain what they need. It would just have to come back through a certificate of zoning compliance process, site plan review, make sure the access is getting closed off if and when they connect to somebody else and they show us the site improvements and we can evaluate it then. Page 89 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 41 of— Simison: Mr. Chief, there was a request to hear from the Fire Department. I know you are not the -- probably the one that's been actively engaged on this, but, hopefully, you are prepared. Blume: Yes. Certainly, sir. I appreciate the question, Mr. Mayor and Council. So, yeah -- and with the Council, not the applicant, referring to the fire chief, it was not me. I am the Fire Chief Chris Blume. I believe you were talking about probably the fire marshal, but that's okay, just for clarification sake. From the Fire Department's perspective, as long as an emergency access is preserved and not blocked that's all we care about. Certainly the applicant's concern about protecting the community, as well as the people in that traffic the area, we agree with that. We just want to make sure that the Fire Department has adequate access and a code compliant emergency access only would meet the needs of the Fire Department without any blockages, so -- Simison: Council, any questions for the chief? Okay. Do we want to see if there is anybody else who -- we are taking -- actively taking testimony right now. Likes: I would. This is -- this is Jeff again. Simison: Mr. Likes, sorry, we have other people in the room we are taking testimony from. If there is any further requests we will -- we will allow you to speak with the applicant during their closing comments. If you would like to come up. Likes: All right. Thanks. Simison: Can you state your name and address for the record, please. Carlisle: I'm Brian Carlisle. I'm with Bach Homes. 11650 South State Street, Draper, Utah. Sorry. So, we -- we own the three parcels south of the -- of the property and we are in agreeance with the -- with -- with Joann to have emergency access only on this parcel. We -- we have owned this -- this parcel for ten plus years, marketed it to sell as commercial and we couldn't get anybody to buy it -- barely even for free. Nobody would put commercial on it due to the terrible access off of River Valley Road and -- and so about three years ago, you know, the parcels to the south also became available and we --we thought, oh, maybe we can do storage units on it and we got pretty far in that process and, then, with construction costs coming in, realized that that wasn't going to make us any money at all and so we kind of backed out of that and just kind of with the nature of -- of the economy right now apartments are in such high demand and our current phase is doing remarkable, it's a hundred occupied, people are begging to move in, we realized we -- we need to add an additional phase there as it is approved as a conditional use in the -- in the zone and so started that process. Were denied due to some of these access issues, essentially, staff -- or Council said come back when you have spoken with the neighbors to the north and tried to work things out and so we -- we don't -- viewing this as developed as apartments we don't really see any benefit in having a connection there. You know, it's just connecting down to River Valley Road, which is a -- really a terrible exit. It's right next to the intersection. River Valley is not wide enough to do a proper u- Page 90 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page—of— turn, so we actually find cars u-turning inside of our apartment project to get over to that access point and so we -- we kind of consider those three parcels best used as an extension of our current apartment project and -- and having the -- the residents just go straight through the -- you can't see it here, but that -- that roundabout at the entrance and kind of avoid that backage road altogether. So, we don't -- we don't feel like there is any need for a connection, other than for Fire Department access there and, you know, we kind of also foresee that connection, if it were to be there, our residents would potentially, you know, from the other two phases, flow north to go north there, not that it's hard to go north there, just because it's a slightly shorter route, so -- at any rate, so -- if you have any questions. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I have got a couple. Thanks, Brian. Really appreciate you being here, even though it's not your application it's really helpful to have everybody in the same room. You know, I remember in that application one of the biggest issues was the traffic, the flow, how people get around and really it's in the best interest of people in future apartments, for you I would think, to be able to get out of those apartments and access different places easily. I guess a question for you -- how wide is that road that you guys own in that Bach Homes property next door and did you consider, you know, just perhaps bulldozing whatever -- I think those are carports. Did you consider going through there and making a western connection, you know, to preserve this emergency access, but, then, actually give your apartment residents an outlet onto Eagle Road? Carlisle: We -- we would love to make as many connections as needed -- two, three, whatever to our current phase, but what we don't want to see is commercial traffic filtering through our site. We have got kids in there as well. And so that's why closing that off would be beneficial for us. We--we don't--we don't need our residents to have a quicker access to Eagle Road. They can get there fairly easily through the south end of our property in right turn or left turn there. What we don't want to see is cars coming from the commercial portions to the north trying to get through --you know, Eagle Road right there is backed up all the time and we don't want to see non-residents going through our property. That's kind of a safety hazard for us, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I mean -- and that -- see that's -- that's the thing is -- the problem is if everybody says I don't want traffic coming through my property pretty soon we have a city that doesn't have interconnections and it's not a healthy city and so I guess what I was bringing -- trying to brainstorm with you was if you guys either thought of extending this Page 91 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 40 of— road that I can see on the far right-hand side -- I don't know how wide it is, maybe it's just a really small, you know, kind of similar to a drive aisle. Did you consider working with that property owner to the north to extend that somehow to Eagle Road or did you guys consider an alternative -- working out some kind of an alternative? Because from where I'm sitting I feel like this connection is necessary, but -- yeah. I was wondering if you brainstormed through some alternatives. Carlisle: You are talking with the GFI parcel to the north? Strader: Yeah. Carlisle: So, I believe they are planning a separate apartment community there directly north of our parcel and, no, we -- we -- we don't have any intention at this point of connecting those two. I mean I don't -- I don't know -- typically you wouldn't connect to apartment properties just -- it's easier to be a good neighbor when you don't have your residents spilling over into other people's parking lots. Strader: Okay. Thanks for the feedback. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Brian, if -- I know you have been trying to market and do some other things with that property. If it were commercial, the -- the possibility of commercial, I -- I would think you would see a value of that being --that drive aisle available, open to access to the north to allow that flow that's through and -- and to me when you have commercial, commercial, commercial, there is a viability there, there is certain things. I -- I wasn't a fan of opening that up when it was residential to commercial, because I see conflict there both ways and it's just more of an impact on -- on the business than I would the -- the residential. But to your point, yes, it would also impact residential if they are coming that way, because they wanted to get out to Eagle Road that way, but with this opening I don't think it would be quite as bad, but if it was commercial you have a possibility of commercial, would you want that to be open to allow that cross-access? Carlisle: Well, I -- I understand what you are saying. If it's -- if this is a commercial strip of land, then, it benefits everybody to have access to that northern portion, but we -- we have, really, at this point no intention of doing that, just mostly because we haven't been able to do it for the past ten plus years. We -- there is no data to say that we can do that and we -- we really would like to add apartments to that -- that other phase. I understand there is a bit of a housing issue and we -- we can provide another hundred or so units and we think they would fill up instantly. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 92 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page—of— Perreault: A question and a comment. First question -- was the feedback that you received from the -- the many marketing efforts that there was not good access from Eagle Road or if the -- if that -- I think what Councilman Hoaglun is asking is if that connectivity existed would you have had a better response from your commercial marketing. Carlisle: The connectivity was there with the Great Wall. So, you know, the exact comments I -- I can't say, because it was, you know, roughly ten years ago. We have been -- we have been -- had in our contract for a while, but it really did come down to -- it's just not a great piece of ground for connection. Now, we have had some interest in storage units. I have -- public storage was thinking of possibly doing maybe one story out there, but they weren't willing to pay much for that dirt, so that's about all that I saw as a viable -- I'm not saying it can't be done, but that was just kind of our experience, so -- I -- we -- we know it can be done residential. We know it will flourish, it will be great, and that's what we would like to do. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: So, I just -- I don't know if I heard it correct, but I know it's not this application, but if -- if the emergency access is the only utilization of this drive aisle and, then, you are going to try and do residential on your property, is your intention that the only way you would access that property would be removing some of the carports directly east and connecting directly into your existing phase one and two? Carlisle: Yeah. We would provide at least two access points and, you know, there is still that access off of River Valley Road, but it's -- it's not great. If you can't left turn into it for where most people are coming from and we -- we would just assume it weren't there, but it is, and we would keep it open, obviously. Mattress Firm is there, so -- Borton- Sure. But -- Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Is that a yes? That -- Carlisle: Yes, we would connect in to the east. Yeah. Borton: Okay. Carlisle: Our current plan is two -- two locations, north and south. All we have is parking over there, so -- we would like as much connection as possible, because we want to be a part of that project. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Page 93 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page—of— Carlisle: Pedestrian as well. Borton: Okay. Simison: Council, any additional questions for -- all right. Thank you. Carlisle: Thank you. Simison: So, seeing no one else to testify, unless Ralph is going to raise his hand, would the applicant like to come forward for any final comments? Butler: Thank you, Council. Joann Butler. No further comments for me. I think that Jeff Likes wanted to add some further comments, so I will let him do that. I appreciate you -- I appreciate all the comments and the -- the -- the philosophy and I think this is just -- has been a very unusual site. I think if you provide a positive look at this I think it will help not only our site, but the people to the south and so, again, we hope you can do that and I will turn it over to Jeff, because I'm sure he can answer some more questions for you. Likes: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Councilman. Thanks, Joann. I just got a couple -- and I understand what Bill said last time about that being we could still park -- park off of that backage road. We appreciate that. I would like a little clarification, probably, for our client as well, is maybe just some clarification on your guys' decision is this -- us closing off our Eagle Road access and providing -- whether it's cross-access north or south and these new landscape requirements we are having here, all that will be done at a later date when the north parcel becomes -- starts to develop. I just want some clarification on that. That we are not -- we are not losing our access now or required to do any of our parking requirements until that time. Simison: Okay. Parsons: Mayor, Council, I believe that's the way the DA provision is structured currently before you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Is the applicant done with their final comments? Just want to -- Likes: Mr. Mayor, Council, I am -- I am done, yes. So, I will stand for any questions if you have any questions, but I think Joann and the -- and Bach Homes has put it well. Butler: No. Joann Butler again. The only final comment is a thank you to the fire depart -- fire chief, because I think I heard -- he said -- he was saying that a well-designed emergency access would work and would -- would support public safety and so I hope that the Council would keep that in mind, too. Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Page 94 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——50 Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I'm glad you came up. I had a question that I will pose to you. So, toggling with what could happen to the south -- we think we know what might happen, but you never know. What if -- what if the condition said that -- that that drive aisle to the south is an emergency access, but if the property to the south develops as commercial it has to open? Butler: You know, I can't -- I -- my client won't like that I'm saying this, I suppose, but don't suppose that that is -- that's not the -- that would work. I mean the issue for them was the number of apartments going -- you know, resident -- residential traffic and we were trying to look for a natural cut off where commercial went north, residential went south and to the east. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think that's just trying to create a solution. We might be 90 percent certain what's going to happen, but -- Butler: Right. Borton: -- we know this area. Butler: Makes sense. Borton: So -- but thanks. Butler: Yeah. Simison: And from a practical standpoint I don't think we want all residential going south. East or west maybe makes more sense than everything going south, so -- but that's not before us. Borton: It's not going west. Simison: Correct. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Just thinking about this entire area, I -- you know, we talk a lot about trying to create neighborhood uses and where the residents are going to do their business and I think when you -- I'm -- I'm not -- I will just put it out there. I'm not in favor of approving this emergency access concept. I want to leave it open as a drive aisle, because the Page 95 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page— —— whole idea of adding these neighborhood uses to the north and all along Records Way is that folks don't go out on the highway. That's the whole reason why we designed things the way we designed them is to keep them off of the arterials if possible and stay within their neighborhood and use those services. So, I -- I guess just--that's my understanding of what one of our priorities are as a city, so that -- that -- you know, I -- I have concerns about it for a variety of reasons, but that's -- that's the big one is that I want these residences to be able to head north into the Gateway Marketplace and, you know, shop at Rosauers -- or not Rosauers, it's not there anymore. Trader Joe's, you know, and go and not have to go all the way back down River Valley, all the way up to Eagle Road, all the way back in off Ustick or go all the way around Records, which is getting really busy, too, so -- Simison: And if you go in off of Records and into that place you are driving through another residential subdivision to get back in. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we close the public hearing. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I will take a crack at it. I would like to go ahead and move forward with approving this development agreement modification, so -- with the stipulation -- and I will get into it in a second. So, I move that we approve File No. H-2022-0009 per the DA provisions recommended in the staff report, so, therefore, including vehicular access to the south and all of the different stipulations that Bill had presented and, furthermore, just being specific that we are requiring that access to the south to be a drive aisle and -- and not a road. Simison: Is there a second? Motion dies for lack of a second. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Page 96 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page 4V of— Borton: I will make a motion to approve as well, H-2022-0009, and -- so, that removes the requirement of the CUP or development of the future uses on the site and that it modifies the drive aisle such that it's emergency access only to the south, unless the property to the south develops with a commercial use, at which time the emergency only access shall be removed and it shall be a complete cross-access between the properties. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: To that motion I look to Legal to be able to -- perhaps not now on the record, but craft the -- the DA language that would allow that mechanism to occur at that future date. I mean that -- that's critical that we are able to do it if and when the time arises. Nary: Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Borton, I -- I don't see a problem with that. I mean, basically, you are using a similar language to what exists today for the -- the restaurant of saying the access can remain in this form until something changes. That change is commercial. I want it to be clear, when you say commercial you do not mean multi-family, you mean other commercial uses other than multi-family? Borton: Right. Nary: Okay. Yeah, we can do that. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I don't necessarily disagree with -- with fellow Council Members comments about connectivity at all. I think if we see this going residential and if we are going to have a couple of eastern accesses into phase one and phase two, I really believe you are going to have residents go that direction -- not entirely, but at least that mitigates that concern, coupled with fire's comments with regards to emergency only access to the south still satisfies the public safety needs. That combination makes me feel comfortable with making the motion as we have? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I'm comfortable as well. To me the impact of a residential unit multi- family to a drive aisle on private property is -- is something I -- I just-- I just don't think will Page 97 Meridian City Council Item#3. April 12,2022 Page——— work and I think it's -- it's not the right way to do it. If it were -- we are going to have multi- family to the north and that it was a street, it's designed that way, that -- that works out fine. But in this case where you are having a drive aisle that is too great of an impact and -- and it's just going to be a mess. We have seen too many situations when you combine residential and commercial without separation of an actual street, but just using their property it -- it really becomes a burden I think on this case for the -- the business owner. So, that's -- that's why I support this option, because it does allow that commercial, if -- if Bach Homes finds a seller and it turns commercial we will open that up, because it will benefit. It's a win-win for everybody to have access and have access to customers. In this case they are not customers, they are just users of a property and it will be used and to the detriment I think of the business owners. So, that's -- that's why I support this -- this approach. Simison: Any further discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, nay; Perreault, nay; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, nay. Simison: Aye. Motion carried four to three. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. THREE NAYS. MAYOR AYE. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Anything under future meeting topics? EXECUTIVE SESSION Simison: Number 8? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I don't -- I think we finished up our Executive Session. Simison: We did. Hoaglun: All in agreement that we did finish? Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, I -- I -- we do not need the Executive Session at this time. Simison: Then do I have a motion to adjourn? Hoaglun: I'm thinking about it. Yes. Mr. Mayor, I move adjourn. Simison: I have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Page 98 Meridian City Council April 12,2022 Page 50 of 50 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:40 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 4-26-2022 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 4-26-2022 Page 99 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 r PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: April 12, 2022 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 LL is deemed inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Owyhee High School Boys Basketball State Champions Day Page 3 Item#1. E IDIAN ILHO The office of the .Mayor PROCLA . AT*'ION Whereas, being an Owyhee High School Boys Basketball player is more than scoring points, making assists, grabbing rebounds, stealing the ball and achieving state titles. It is training to build leadership, character, confidence, teamwork and resilience—all traits needed to succeed on the court, in the classroom and in the real world; and, Whereas, this brand-new West Ada school sports program did what no 5A basketball team had done since 1995 and won a state title in its first season; and, Whereas, Owyhee finished the year on a 20-game winning streak and often embraced the roll of underdog; and, Whereas, the Owyhee Storm Basketball team concluded a historic first season with a 50-43 win over Centennial in the 5A state championship bringing the first state title banner back to the brand- new high school; and, Whereas, the leadership, training and discipline of coaches Andy Harrington, Marcus Graham, Andy Harrington III, Nicholas Warnecke, RC Nugent, Steele Hadlock, Caden Stevenson, Matthew Baumann and Robb Cilek helped team members Jack Payne, Brayden Hansen, Preston Sherburne, Titus Bailey, Barrett Fernandez, Carson Hamilton, Reece Sasser-Gunson, Liam Campbell, Jackson Rasmussen, Cameron Downie, Jackson Rogers, and Machaon Savedra to focus their talents,passion, and determination to become a winning team, with each player making valuable contributions to their victory. Therefore, I Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim April 5`h, 2022 as Owyhee 34igh SchooCBoys Basketbaff State Champions Day in the City of Meridian and call upon the community to join me in congratulating the Owyhee High Storm on their remarkable athletic achievement and fo resentin Meridian so proudly in the state tournament. Dated this 5th day of April, 2022 � Robert . Si on, Mayor '4 I; Brad Hoaglun, City Council President Joe Borton, City Council Vice-President Treg Bernt, City Council Luke Cavener, City Council Jessica Perrault, City Council Liz Strader, City Council Page 4 y k Ali S• � v y r. A Ao a. .., Aft �-�, .��......�.. " .,��,�,,�,�„�, C/lili I�III III�Jib►f 11� .�.�:_ _ . � Y °F t f 1 � IRA Je MIT ..� i ��^ ��`tea.' � t.� f� �+►r A Y r / / I I IIIiIiIIII-Fit lii—li -. 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Month of the Military Child Page 5 Item#2. (:�V- ER,IDIANII'_ The office of the .Mayor PR0C .LAJW A T"I0x WHEREAS, April is the month of the Military Child and is an opportunity to recognize military children for their courage, personal sacrifices and resilient spirit; and, WHEREAS, the strength of our Armed Forces comes not just from those who wear the uniform, but from their families, who also serve on behalf of our country; and, WHEREAS, military children continue to make significant contributions to family and community as they endure prolonged and repeated absences of one or both parents; and, WHEREAS, these children and youth are a source of pride and honor to us all and it is only fitting that we take time to recognize their contributions and celebrate their spirit; and WHEREAS, the Month of the Military Child will recognize that military children serve too and citizens of Meridian will be afforded the opportunity to don the color purple every Friday in April in support of these children. THEREFORE, Y, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim April 2022 as Month of the MiCttary ChiCd in the City of Meridian and encourage the residents of our community, and communities across the country, to observe the month with appropriate ceremonies that honor, support and thank military children. 1 Dated this 12" day of April, 2022 Motlert E Simis n, Mayor Brad Hoaglun, City Council President Joe Borton, City Council Vice-President Treg Bernt, City Council Luke Cavener, City Council Jessica Perrault, City Council l Liz Strader, City Council Page 6 } Y 4. ! w ` ` � I _ !/b�iilGY,vii .w r r �u 7 1 J . 1d rho national 9 rd P O J O O J A [ 0 70 °r , O4 • L° o wJ e o P �Jo o 0016 o00 110 ..) �1 !r 0n° C °<' p o^ 0) v O r c Jo APO + ° C 0 �•� Ol. 00nO >�^ r o0 COVJ ° ° o0 Uo C° �0 1 co 0 c`JJC ° o n 10 OOt- OO 1 i 040 n 0 a O� l t en r p.j 02 _ � s c f f j 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Meridian Fire Department: Swearing in of New Division Chief of Training— Jordan Reese Page 7 Item#3. C� fIEN , IN4, IDAHG-. MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Fire Department Meeting Date: April 12, 2022 Presenter: Kris Blume Estimated Time: 10 minutes Topic: Swearing in of new Division Chief of Training-Jordan Reese Recommended Council Action: No action required by Council. Would like Mayor Simison to read the oath, and family will pin Jordan. Chief Blume to speak briefly. Background: [Provide context and reasoning for the recommendation] Page 8 E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 Changes to Agenda: \[if applicable\] Item #4: Eagle Crossing MDA (H-2021-0104) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.29 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at the SWC of Ustick and Eagle. History: Sadie Creek Commons, AZ-05-052; H-2019-0082, DA Inst. #2019-121599 (DA Mod); H-2020-0104 (Pre-plat); and other administrative approvals. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Regional Summary of Request: Modification to the existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-121599) for the purpose of updating the existing concept plan. The existing concept plan within the approved Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. #2019-121599) depicts four buildings on the subject site (Exhibit VI.A below) with the two closest to the north boundary and Ustick Road being multi-tenant buildings or similarly sized commercial buildings. Since this concept plan was approved the property has changed ownership and according to the new owners, the existing concept plan is not best suited for site development. Therefore, the Applicant is requesting to modify the existing DA for the purpose of updating the concept plan to show two drive-through uses along the north boundary instead of two larger commercial buildings. The proposed concept plan shows a reduction in commercial square footage because the drive- through restaurants are smaller than the currently shown multi-tenant buildings and propose a more car dominant development than currently shown on the concept plan. None of the existing provisions contained within the recorded DA preclude additional drive-through uses from occurring on the property—the approved multi-tenant building in the southwest corner of the site is approved with a drive-through. Because of this existing drive-through approval, the request would conceptually allow three (3) drive-throughs within this project. The two (2) new drive- throughs shown on the updated conceptual development plan will need to obtain Conditional use Permit (CUP) approval prior to submitting for building permits. Written Testimony: None. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0104, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 12, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0104, as presented during the hearing on April 12, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0104 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7: Copper Canary (H-2022-0009) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.38 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 2590 N. Eagle Rd. History: The existing DA approved in 2003 for Redfeather Estates originally encompassed a larger 114.52-acre area that includes Redfeather Estates, a residential development to the east and adjacent commercial properties. The DA requires any future uses of the property to only be approved through the CUP process and requires either a public or private backage street generally parallel with Eagle Rd./SH-55 to be incorporated into the design of future site plans. A conceptual master plan demonstrating interconnectivity, transitional uses, access points and other key land planning issues is required prior to any detailed CUP applications being submitted. A variance was approved in 2008 for a temporary access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 until such time as access can be provided to the site from either the south via a frontage road from the extension of E. River Valley St. or from the north across the South Slough. At such time, the temporary access to Eagle Rd. is required to be removed and the street buffer landscaping adjacent to Eagle Road is required to be completed. Currently, there is no access to the subject property from either the north or the south. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R (Mixed Use – Regional) Summary of Request: The Applicant requests a modification to the existing DA to remove the subject property from the agreement and prepare a new DA with an updated conceptual development plan; removal of the requirement for conditional use approval of any future uses on the site; and requirement for access to be taken from the north via the future backage road with emergency only access from the south. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that depicts a reconfigured parking area, extension of the street buffer and pedestrian pathway across the existing driveway from N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a drive aisle along the east boundary of the site connecting to the north for future access via Eagle Rd./SH-55 and to the south for emergency access only. Note: A driveway from Eagle Rd./SH- 55 is depicted on the concept plan partially on this site and partially on the property to the north that has not been approved; an approved access via Eagle/SH-55 exists approximately 500’ to the north of the subject property. The UDC (11-3H-4B.2) does not allow new approaches directly accessing a state highway. The City Council may consider and approve a modification to this standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Department per UDC 11-3H-3. Staff anticipates a request for this access will be part of a future development application on the adjacent property to the north. The Applicant proposes new DA provisions as shown. Staff is amenable to the request to remove the requirement for a conceptual master plan to be submitted for the overall area as much of this area has already been developed and/or has entitlements. Staff is also supportive of the removal of the requirement for any future uses to be approved through the CUP process as the UDC (Table 11-2B-2) governs the allowed uses in the C-G zoning district and a CUP is not required for all uses. Staff is not in favor of removal of the requirement for a public or private backage street generally parallel with Eagle Rd./SH-55 to be provided as UDC 11-3H-4B.3 requires such to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the Applicant’s property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road. Although a drive aisle/backage road is depicted on the conceptual site plan, it’s proposed to dead-end at the southern boundary with an emergency only access to the south. Because access is limited in this area, Staff believes it’s important for this backage road to provide through unrestricted public access to the north and the south. The Fire Dept. does not support the backage road being blocked for emergency access only and states the road needs to run through unobstructed for fast access to businesses in this area. Staff’s recommended changes to the DA provisions are noted in strike- out/underline format. Based on the aforementioned recommendation, Staff recommends the conceptual site plan is revised to depict a backage road along the east boundary of the site with unrestricted access to the south. DA provision #5.1d should be revised to include vehicular access to the south. DA provision #5.1e should be replaced with a requirement for cross-access easements to be granted to the properties to the south and to the north; a recorded copy of the easements should be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Staff Recommendation: Approval per the amended recommended DA provisions in the staff report Written Testimony: None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0009, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 12, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0009, as presented during the hearing on April 12, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0009 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) City Council Meeting April 12, 2022 Item #4: Eagle Crossing MDA ZONING MAP Existing DA Concept Plan Proposed DA Concept Plan Proposed Provisionsthe DA Revisions to Item #7: Copper Canary Proposed FormatOut/Underline -StrikeChanges are Shown in Staff’s Recommended Modifications to DA: 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Eagle Crossing (H-2021- 0104) by Wadsworth Development Group, With the Project Location Encompassing the Five Existing Lots Located at the Southwest Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-121599) for the purpose of updating the existing concept plan. Page 9 Item#4. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 12, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Eagle Crossing (H-2021-0104) by Wadsworth Development Group,With the Project Location Encompassing the Five Existing Lots Located at the Southwest Corner of S. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019- 121599) for the purpose of updating the existing concept plan. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 10 Item#4. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 4/12/2022 Legend DATE: Project Location A-1 TO: Mayor&City Council C_1 FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ® C'-fV r SUBJECT: H-2021-0104 R-1 C Eagle Crossing MDA R g R-13 R1 C gyg R1 RU R- LOCATION: 3117 E. Ustick Rd. R-15 R-2 R-g R- RU T 2 15 The project encompasses 4 existing lots R_2 located at the southwest corner of S. ® Rd Rl J 1 Eagle Road and E.Ustick Road, in the �RTF�4 R1 R-4 L-O �R 8 R R-40 R-B: NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5, ❑ - R1 RUT Township 3N.,Range I I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-121599) for the purpose of updating the existing concept plan. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Taylor Lindsley,Wadsworth Development Group— 166 E. 14000 S., Suite 210,Draper,UT 84020 B. Owner: Wadsworth Meridian,LLC— 166 E. 14000 S., Suite 210,Draper,UT 84020 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 3/6/2022 Radius notice mailed to properties within 500 feet 3/7/2022 Page l Page 11 Item#4. Public hearing notice sign posted 3/31/2022 NextDoor Posting 3/08/2022 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS Property History— Property was annexed and zoned in 2005 (Sadie Creek Commons,AZ-05-052). In 2019, a DA Modification was approved to remove the subject site from the original DA to enter into a new one specific to this site(H-2019-0082,DA Inst. #2019-121599). Pre-plat approval was granted in 2021 to subdivide property into 5 lots (H-2020-0104). Other administrative approvals have been granted on the subject site: A-2019-0376&A-2021-0010(CZC for parking lot, landscaping, and other relevant site improvements);A-2021-0012(CZC and Design Review approval of the southwest multi-tenant building); PBA-2021-0020 (boundary adjustment to remove a lot along the north boundary creating 4 buildable lots instead of 5). Development Agreement Modification— The existing concept plan within the approved Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2019-121599) depicts four buildings on the subject site(Exhibit VI.A below)with the two closest to the north boundary and Ustick Road being multi-tenant buildings or similarly sized commercial buildings. Since this concept plan was approved the property has changed ownership and according to the new owners,the existing concept plan is not best suited for site development. Therefore,the Applicant is requesting to modify the existing DA for the purpose of updating the concept plan to show two drive- through uses along the north boundary instead of two larger commercial buildings. None of the existing provisions contained within the recorded DA preclude additional drive-through uses from occurring on the property—the approved multi-tenant building in the southwest corner of the site is approved with a drive-through. Because of this existing drive-through approval,the request would conceptually allow three(3)drive-throughs within this project. The two(2)new drive- throughs shown on the updated conceptual development plan will need to obtain Conditional use Permit(CUP)approval prior to submitting for building permits because of the existing drive-through noted. Staff does not have specific comments on the site plans of each drive-through but notes that revisions to their individual circulation patterns may occur with the future CUP applications. In addition,the proposed concept plan shows a reduction in commercial square footage because the drive-through restaurants are smaller than the currently shown multi-tenant buildings and propose a more car dominant development than currently shown on the concept plan. Access to the development is existing via a drive aisle connection to a shared driveway from E. Ustick Rd. approved with the Villasport project(H-2018-0121)along the west boundary of the site and a recorded cross-access easement via N. Centrepoint Way,N. Cajun Ln. and E. Seville Ln. The Applicant is not proposing any revisions to the ingress/egress for the overall site but access to Centrepoint Way to the west is indirect until such time the property to the west develops. Within the site,preliminary analysis shows that there should be ample parking for the four(4)proposed buildings and their uses(four restaurants and one urgent care/clinic) and internal circulation shown on the concept plan should meet all requirements of the UDC. Should Council determine additional drive-through uses on the subject site are warranted,the subject DA Modification should be approved. Page 2 Page 12 Item#4. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA per the provisions in Section VI. Page 3 Page 13 Item#4. VI. EXHIBITS A. Existing Conceptual Development Plan WYK rmiL - - w 1 � M1 hlZ �w 1 _ SRcp +r - - - - ----------- - CA - y lilt Page 4 Page 14 Item#4. B. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan— >i II I I � _ � 1 �' •� �s ..._-.-�- N 5 .___�--.-.-�.._.-.-.-.tom-•_--'f �� I I I 9 I B1 LOi1 I + ' B1 LOTS go t Jd f rr W I �I. j f... I o- Qui LU ... _. a - 61 LOTS - - BV I j I III � I - OVERALL SITE PLAN NOft N S1 SIZE PLAN Pagc 5 Page 15 Item#4. C. Proposed Revisions to the existing Development Agreement Provisions— 1. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the updated conceptual development plan and provisions contained herein. 2. Owner/Developer shall adhere to all previous conditions of approval associated with this site including but not limited to: H-2020-0104; A-2019-0376;A-2021-0010;A-2021-0012; PBA- 2021-0020. 3. Any future drive-through establishment use shall obtain Conditional Use Permit(CUP) gpproval prior to submittal for any other applications with the City,per UDC 11-4-3-11. 4. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension and hook-up to City services. 5. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from their domestic service,per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517;wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 6. Ft4we development of this site shall s4sta*tially eemply with the conceptual development 7. The Developer shall r-eeer-maintain the recorded cross-access/ingress-egress easement to the adjacent propertyies to the west (Parcel#51105110111, Inst. #106169335 91105110110 Q. S 1105110120). n e ,of the eee-aoa easement(s) sha l be s4mit4e to the Plapmiag Division with the first development applieation for-the s 8. Future development shall comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 9. A 10 feet wide multi use pathway with a publie use easement and pedestrian ligh4ing and 4G.3. Page 6 Page 16 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Page 17 Item#5. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 12, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Apex West Subdivision (H- 2021-0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd.,Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 208 building lots (207 single-family and 1 multi-family) and 34 common lots on 96.08 acres in the R-2, R-8 and R- 15 zoning districts. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 18 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 12, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5 PROJECT NAME: Apex West Subdivision (H-2021-0087) i Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 r 3rh - , - � r - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#5. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING April 12,2022 Legend DATE: Continued from:March 8 and 22, 2022 - t Luca-Ron TO: Mayor&City Council ti FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0087 O _ Apex West—PP(aka Pinnacle) ` LOCATION: North side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., ---- t - approximately 1/4 mile west of S.Locust Grove Rd., in the south 1/2 of Section 31, - T.3N.,R.IE. a I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat consisting of 2-"209 building lots(247 205 single-family residential lots 3 residential lots for future re-subdivision for single-family homes and 1 lot for future development of townhomes or multi-family apartments) and-4 37 common lots on 96.09 133.07 acres in the R-2,R- 8 and R-15 zoning districts for Apex West Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 96.08 133.07 acres Existing/Proposed Zoning R-2,R-8 and R-15 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR),Medium Density Residential(MDR)and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR)detached dwellings Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 2-"209 building lots/34 37 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 4 phases Number of Residential Units(type 2-0-7 205 (SFR detached dwellings) of units) Density(gross&net) 3.17 units/acre(gross); 5.29 units/acre(net)—overall(not including future units in R-8 and R-15 zoned lots) Open Space(acres,total 16.17 acres(or 16.61%)common open space [%]/buffer/qualified) Page 1 Page 19 Item#5. Description Details Page Amenities Swimming pool,two(2)segments of the City's multi-use pathway system,and an additional 5%open space above the minimum required. Physical Features(waterways, The McBirney Lateral and another un-named waterway hazards,flood plain,hillside) cross this site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/19/21 attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2020-0066;Development Agreement Inst.#2020- 178120(Apex);H-2020-0117;Development Agreement Inst.#2021-102396(Shafer View Terrace) B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Two(2)accesses are proposed via E.Lake Hazel Rd.,an arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street;and one(1)access is proposed via E.Quartz Creek St.,a Hwy/Local)(Existing and collector street. Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Lake Hazel Road 1,321-feet Principal Arterial 351 Better than'E" Locust Grove Road 1,350-feet Minor Arterial 181 Better than"E" Acceptable level of service for a two-lane principal arterial is'E"(690 VPH). 'Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is"E"(575 VPH). Stub E. Quartz Creek St.is proposed to be extended through this site; Street/Interconnectivity/Gros stub streets are proposed to be extended from Apex Northwest#1 s Access and#2;stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties. Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Buffers Page 2 Page 20 Item#5. Description Details P Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan[CIPY Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWPI: • Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Improvements Amity Road between 2036 and 2040 • Lake Hazel Road Is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road between 2036 and 2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian Road to Locust Grove Road between 2036 and 2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. Apex Subdivision entered into a Cooperative Development Agreement with ACHD in May 2021 to widen the segment of Lake Hazel Road to 5-lanes to the east of this site.These construction plans are currently under review. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-11 on the north leg,2-lanes on the south, 4-lanes east,and 4-lanes on the west leg between 2036 and 2040.Apex Subdivision entered into a Cooperative Development Agreement with ACHD in May 2021 to fully improve this intersection consistent with the 2020 CIP.Construction plans are currently under review with ACHD. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south leg,3-lanes on the west leg and 4- lanes on the east leg and signalized in 2023, • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road is listed in the CIP to he 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 2036 and 2040. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg,2-lanes on the south,4-lanes east, and 4-lanes on the west leg between 2031 and 2035. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.6 miles • Fire Response Time Falls outside the 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—cannot meet response time goals. When Fire Station#7 is constructed in late summer of 2023, it will be within the S:00 minute response time area. • Resource Reliability 85%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. ALL residences having two frontages(the street&an alleyway behind it)shall have address numbers on the front of the building and on the back side facing the alley. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service No comments received • Distance from police station • Police Response Time Approved MF Pro West Ada School District eeted Approved lots per units per Students from • Distance(elem,mS,hS) Enrollment Ca ac attendance area attendance area Approved Dew. • Capacity Of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary 449 675 2677 26 591 Victory Middle School 984 1000 3739 502 501 • #Of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2368 2175 2701 0 432 Schaal of Choice Options Christine Donnell School-Arts 489 Soo Ill N/A Spalding Elementary-STEM 656 750 N/A N/A • #of Students Predicted from this development 132 school aged children predicted from this development by WASD(154 for future townhomes) School lm act Table Page 3 Page 21 Item#5. Wastewater • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • All sewer manholes must have a 14-foot-wide access road per the City Design Standards. • Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches • No permanent structures may be within City utility easements including but not limited to trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash enclosures, fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc. • Do not run sewer main in common driveways,services should be run within the common driveway. • Sewer main should be run from the northern portion of the site down South Sublimity Way from the existing sewer main.Main should be kept within the Right of Way whenever possible. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • 12 inch water main will need to be constructed at the Northwest corner to make the second connection at East Quartz Creek Street. • There is a piece of water main missing at the corner of East Prickle Drive and East Pinpoint Way,this must be included to complete the water loop. • The water main in East Prime Drive needs to be upsized to 12 inch from South Sublimity Way to East Prickle Drive. • The water main in East Prickle Drive needs to be upsized to 12 inch from East Prime Drive to East Heyday Drive. • The water stub in East Heyday Drive to the property line needs to be upsized to 12 inch. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend ® � Legend 0ProjectLaca K ( m I ,ec+. Loa u-cr Od a� w nsih = '' Re�si�ler tt'i 'tea i�•� .. -..,� y dium Den .� ., 77 f � I ; IY. i Page 4 Page 22 Item#5. Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend IlT 0 Legend 0 Pro" t LuccifKm Pro" t Luca TKm R1 I R ® +_; C&f Lin-at I-L RUT — P1annL-d Pares R-4 R T R.8 R- R= R-8 R- T Rl R-4 R_4 - e �R-16 R ---- R-4 - , 1 r , RUT R-4 RUT R-4 , -RR R- A. Applicant: Josh Beach,Brighton Development,Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Brighton Development, Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 12/21/2021 2/20/2022 &3/27/2022 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 12/15/2021 2/17/2022 &3/23/2022 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 12/22/2021 2/24/2022 &3/25/2022 Nextdoor posting 12/16/2021 2/18/2022 &3/23/2022 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates approximately I I acres of the site as Low Density Residential(LDR), 65 acres as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and 20 acres as Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources, Page 5 Page 23 Item#5. recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The proposed development consists of a total of 24P 209 single-family detached dwellings. The plat includes two(2)R-8 zoned lots in the MDR designated area for future residential development; and one(1)R-15 zoned lot in the MHDR designated area for future development of townhomes or multi- family apartments. The proposed development in the MDR designated area has an overall gross density of 3.17 units/acre with a net density of 5.29 units per acre, excluding the future development areas. The R-2 portion has a gross density of 0.70 units/acre with a net density of 1.18 units/acre and the R-8 portion has a gross density of 3.70 units/acre with a net density of 6.16 units/acre, consistent with the densities desired in the associated LDR and MDR designations. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one housing type, single-family detached, is proposed in this development at this time; some units will be accessed via internal local and collector streets with front/side entry garages while others will have rear access via alleys.Another housing type, either townhomes or multi- family apartments, is planned to develop on the R-15 zoned future development area (i.e. Lot 1, Block 1). If townhomes are proposed, the lot will need to be re-subdivided to accommodate the townhome units; if apartments are proposed, a conditional use permit will be needed for approval of a multi family development. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to service this development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response time for the Fire Dept.falls outside of the 5-minute response time area; once Fire Station No. 7 is constructed in the late summer of 2023, it will meet the response time goal. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) Staff believes the proposed use and site design are compatible with existing and future uses, which should minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." Page 6 Page 24 Item#5. (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) Two (2)segments of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed within this site consistent with the Pathways Master Plan, which will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the internal common area with a swimming pool and school site to the southeast in Apex Southeast. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions (e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.O1A) A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was required by ACHD for this development and was taken into consideration in ACHD's report. See comments from WASD and Community Development in Section VIII for school enrollment calculations in regard to the number of school-aged children estimated to be generated from this development and associated school capacity. The closest City Park to this site is Discovery Park, a regional park consisting of 77-acres of land, to the southeast of the S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. intersection bordering Apex Southeast. • "Require all development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed site design should be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are proposed as required with this development. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 2-"209 building lots(247 205 single-family lots;three (3)residential building lots for future re-subdivision; and 1 lot for future development of townhomes or multi-family apartments)and-34 37 common lots on 96.08 133.07 acres in the R- 2,R-8 and R-15 zoning districts for Apex West Subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to develop in€ear five(4 5)phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.A. The proposed plat ineludes a portion of Par-eel#S1131417220 depieted on the plat as Lot-I-, -Bloek 5 and the surrounding area outside of Par-eel#S1131417210.As diseussed at the pFe- applieation meeting,the entire par-eel must be ineluded in the proposed plat oF a pr-oper-ty boundary adjustment applieation must be approved to ereate a separate deVelopal I Page 7 Page 25 Item#5. fOF that aFea a POF60H of the lot eannot be ineluded as it would Mate aH illegal Split.Un4ff this eoneeFn is Fesolved,the City Council has inadeguate iHf0Ffffflti0H to make a final deeision coneeFfling this-applieatio-. Thffefffe, Staff recommends that prior to City ffopeFty boundaFy adjustment shall be >whieh ineffpoFates hot 1, the SUFFOunding aFea into Par-eel#S1131417210 or creates a separate developable paree that area.A revised plan was submitted that includes the entire parcel. Three Four future development areas are depicted on the plat,Lots 32 and 43,Block 6; Lot 2, Block 5; and Lot 1,Block 1. The R-8 zoned lots(i.e. Lots 32 and 43, Block 6; and Lot 2,Block 5) are planned to be re-subdivided in the future through new preliminary plat applications. The R-15 zoned lot(i.e. Lot 1,Block 1)may be re-subdivided in the future through a new preliminary plat application for the development of 240 townhomes; or, a multi-family development may develop on the site,which will require approval of a conditional use permit. If single-family homes or townhomes are developed on these lots,they shall be re-subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements on this property; it's currently agricultural land. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets and block face. The proposed plat complies with these standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed at the northwest corner of the development from E. Quartz Creek St., a collector street, from S. Meridian Rd. and from S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Ave.,both collector streets,via E. Lake Hazel Rd. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and interconnectivity. A note should be included on the final plat prohibiting direct lot access to the collector and arterial streets,except for Lots 4-11,Block 10 which are allowed direct access via S. Sublimity Way—homes on these lots should have side entry garages with a turnaround area so that vehicles aren't backing out onto the collector street in an effort to preserve public safety. Street setbacks for residential units abutting collector streets shall be as approved with ZOA-2021-0003. Public alleys are proposed for internal access to some of the lots in Phase 1; alleys are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. Three(3) common driveway lots are also proposed and are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D; an exhibit for such is included in Section VII.B. Parking(UDC 11-3 : Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Garages and parking pads in driveways are proposed to satisfy this requirement. The proposed local street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot; the r-esidepAial area along with another-28 spaees as depieted on the par-king pla-a in Seetion Staff is of the opinion suffieien4 paT-king ean be provided for-this developffiefit.. Off-street parking is also required for the building/changing rooms at the community swimming pool. A minimum of(1) space is required per every 500 square feet of gross floor area; 12 spaces are proposed which exceeds the minimum standards. A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking Page 8 Page 26 Item#5. space is also required to be provided per UDC 11-3C-6G and should be designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the west and northeast boundaries of the site. Pathways are proposed as shown on the landscape plan. The Park's Dept. is requiring a 10-foot wide detached pathway along the west side of S. Sublimity Ave. which will connect to the pathway proposed in the common area along the back side of lots in Block 10. The gravel pathway proposed through Blocks 5,6,7,9 and 10 is required to be improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.3.Landscape strips are required along both sides of all pathways,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-12C,which include a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover, including those in Blocks 6, 7, 9 and 10—if within an easement, additional area shall be provided outside of the easement to accommodate landscaping. See comments from Park's Dept. in Section VIII.J. A minimum 5-foot wide pathway should be included in Lot 36,Block 6. All multi-use pathways not located within the right-of-way are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public use easement,which shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s) for the phase in which they are located. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along all streets where detached sidewalks are proposed. All parkways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street; and 20-foot wide street buffers are required along E. Quartz Creek St./S. Sublimity Ave., S. Apex Way and E. Crescendo St., collector streets. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffers per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require a variety of trees and shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative groundcover—shrubs are required to be included in the buffer in accord with this standard; lawn shall comprise no more than 65% of the vegetated coverage of a landscape buffer(see UDC 11-3B-7C.3 for more information). Landscaping is required adjacent to all pathways per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C as noted above under Pathways. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B-7C as proposed. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: Based on the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3,the R-2 zoned area requires a minimum of 8%(or 0.80-acre) open space based on 9.94 acres of land; and the R-8 zoned area requires a minimum of 15%(or 6.01-acres)open space based on 40.09 acres of land for a total of 6.81 acres of common open space.Although the future residential R-8 and R-15 zoned areas (i.e.Lots 32 and 43, Block 6 and Lot 1, Block 1)are included in the boundary of the proposed plat, Staff did not include these areas in the required open space calculations as they are proposed to be re-subdivided and/or included in a conditional use permit in the future prior to development. At such time they will be required to comply with the open space standards on a stand-alone basis. Page 9 Page 27 Item#5. The proposed open space consists of linear open space, open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet in area, 8-foot parkways and street buffers along collector and arterial streets as shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII.D. A total of 16.17 acres of qualified open space is proposed, which exceeds UDC standards. The proposed open space areas have direct pedestrian access,high visibility, comply with the CPTED standards and support a range of leisure and play activities and uses,while promoting the health and well-being of its residents as required in UDC 11-3G-3A.2. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 Based on the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-4,the 50.03-acre development area requires multiple amenities to be provided totaling a minimum of 10 points from the separate categories listed in UDC Table 11-3G-4.Note:As noted above under the Qualified Open Space analysis, Staff did not include the two (2)R-8 zoned lots (Lots 32 and 43,Block 6) and the R-15 zoned lot(Lot 1, Block 1) in the calculations. A swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms (6 points); two(2)segments of multi- use pathways totaling approximately'/2 mile(totaling 4 points); and a playground(3 points) are proposed totaling 13 points,which exceeds the minimum standards. A detail of the playground equipment should be submitted with the final plat application for the phase in which it is located. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subdivision. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The McBirney Lateral crosses this site within a 40 to 41-foot wide easement;the Farr Lateral crosses the northeast corner of this site within a 55-foot wide easement; and the Watkins Drain runs along the west side of this site within a 38-foot wide easement, as depicted on the plat. These waterways are proposed to be piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B to allow the Watkins drain to remain open as an amenity feature; a cross-section of the amenity corridor is included in Section VII.C. In order for Council to waive the requirement for covering the drain, it has to find that the public purpose requiring such will not be served&public safety can be preserved per UDC 11-3A- 6B.3a.No fencing is proposed to prevent access to the drain and the Applicant is not proposing to improve the drain per the water amenity standards in the UDC,which require construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho to be submitted to both the Director&the authorized representative of the water facili , for approval. If the waterway/drain is improved as part of the development as a water amenity, its banks in all places adjacent to and located on said development should be no steeper than one (1)foot vertical per every four(4)feet horizontally and have a depth and velocity in all places adjacent to and located on said development such that the product of the maximum depth (feet)multiplied by the peak velocity(feet per second)does not exceed four(4). Page 10 Page 28 Item#5. Williams Pipeline: The Williams Pipeline runs across Lot 2,Block 5 and Lot 32,Block 6 within a 75-foot wide easement. All development within the pipeline easement should comply with the Williams Pipeline Developers Handbook. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Five-foot tall open vision metal fencing is proposed adjacent to all internal common open space areas to distinguish common from private areas; and 6-foot tall solid wood fencing is proposed in other areas as depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.0 in accord with UDC standards. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations in a variety of materials and colors were submitted for future single-family detached homes in this development as shown in Section VII.E.Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved for the changing rooms and swimming pool on Lot 1,Block 5 prior to submittal of applications for building permits. All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because homes on lots that abut collector streets(i.e.E. Quartz Creek St. and S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Way south of E. Crescendo St.) .) and arterial streets [i.e. S.Locust Grove Rd. and E.Lake Hazel Rd. (if applicable)l will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single- story structures are exempt from this requirement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on January 6 and Februa 33, 2022.At the public hearing on February 3',the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject PP request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Mike Wardle and Jon Wardle,Brighton Corporation b. In opposition:None c. Commenting None d. Written testimony: Julie Edwards; Josh Beach,Brighton Corp. e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Concern with the provision of(3)common driveways within the development& associated traffic congestion as discussed at the Commission hearingfor East; concern pertaining to parking in relation to the alley-accessed units&the adequacy of such for guests on the adjacent public streets, especially with the common driveways proposed and parking issues associated with those. Suggests some of the building lots be eliminated in favor of provision of a guest parking lot in addition to the on-street Page 11 Page 29 Item#5. parking&elimination of the common driveways in favor of larger lots in those areas. School capacity concerns from the proposed development and others in the area. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Inquiry if S. Sublimity Ave. could be built with the first phase as a final build instead of a temporary fire access; b. Inquiry if Apex East and Apex West will be considered one development for common use of common areas and amenities; c. The provision of common driveways within the development and associated congestion —not in favor of common driveways although they're allowed b, code, d. In favor of the Applicant's request to leave the Watkins Drain open and not pipe it. 4. Commission change, (s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B which requires all waterways on the site to be piped in accord with UDC standards,to allow the Watkins drain to remain open as an amenity feature(condition#7 needs to be modified if Council approves the waiver). b. Prior to City Council approval of the subject preliminM plat application, a property boundar adjustment is required to be approved,which incorporates Lot 1,Block 5 and the surrounding area into Parcel#S 1131417210 or creates a separate developable parcel for that area. Council can act on this application but the Findings can't be approved until this has been done. c. Staff requests Council include a modification to condition#2b in Section VIII.A to also include Lots 4-11,Block 10 in the requirement for an easement for a 20' wide street buffer to be provided on the lots along E. Quartz Creek St./S. Sublimity Ave. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on March 8.2022.At the public hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject PP request. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Mike Wardle&Jon Wardle,Brighton Corn. b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Julie Edwards d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Question as to whether or not any water studies have been done—concern pertainingto impact on the aquifer and wells in the area from the proposed development; concern pertaining to impact of the proposed development on area school enrollment: timetable for phase 3 construction; and desire for drought tolerant landscaping to be installed. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. The Ap_plicant's reauest to leave the Watkins drain open and not pipe it; b. Concern pertaining to impact on area school enrollment from students generated from this development; 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. Council approved the Applicant's request to leave the Watkins drain open and not pipe it. Page 12 Page 30 Item#5. VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 4"�z 3/16/2022)—REVISED iNDExov DRawiNcs APEX WEST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT "DNITYMA I A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST * 1/4,AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE I EAST, I BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO. ; I ..3.0 .—x°xx. .L \� PRELIMINARY P- I m ° i V u a LEGEND APEX WEST SUBDIVISION -mE� �„ vvEpq MERIDIAN,IDAHO 004ER SHEFT Im 51, 00 xmapan 9�u --- m xPP1.0 Page 13 Page 31 Item#5. a' APEXWEST U DIVISION MERIDIAENIDIRN.IDAHO ��' �S(�l. �N •e_ o -- 1 �a ti "w T6 C7 o H to APEX WEST SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN,IDAHO PP1.1 Page 14 Page 32 Item#5. s® �• �� I: B» MATCH LINE,-S E SHEET PP2.3 APEX WESTSUBOMSION MENIOIAN11OA—HO a.nd%rin_ ��PP2.2 � i .ate... .. .. ......... MATCHLINE-SEESHEET PP2.2 -0 90 to to to to to to l® !®l I e lm e ® €f'9 to Io l0 30 j!o So 30 leiaf�u n�glo to!o to olo to o S®a�� l 9—® ! ile me le 10 le Lit 0»9 Ili APE%WESTSUBONIBION j MEPIINA14,11M 0 « -----rd_--'---„m --------------�@�----- ----------� F " PP2.3 Page 15 Page 33 Item#5. \ ! I .� f. APE%WEST SVool S"N -- MERIDIAN,IDAHO .o.r PP2.4 Page 16 Page 34 Item#5. o , 4 APEX WEST PHASING PHASE 1 75 PHASE 2 71 m ��PHASE3 61 - - o —=-- _ ------ TOTAL 207 -- - - i PHASE 4 R-15 Future - PHASE 5 Future Pre-Plat L L ZLJL— ' I Page 17 Page 35 Item#5. B. Common Driveway Exhibits N—N i s1u F — =REAR IIo I BLOp(4 F�'E D Q 12'� SIDE LOT 14 IS A NON-BIIILOAgLE W —S� z 4 w Q COMMON LOT WITH A BIAWET S O iii n m INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT IN O I,r 3 O ¢ N >m FAVOR OF LOTS 13.74.15 Z m10• 12' AND 15,BLOCK 4 <3• h Q C]y DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 23 rn= SIOE� J Z S BLOCK 4 TO BE LOCATED ON ? d 22Y tl THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE Y SHARED COMMON ORIYE C.4R.� y- O r SIDE — 2 F. ITT PRDPFFTY LINE � n O �'�NIJ m IO O 12� 20' SIDE T - E.HIM H POINT ST.� ,yif r O 12'¢ LOT 14 OWNER 15 RESPGN5IDLE SIDE J FOR INSTALLING MAINTAINING v; TMEOSGAARIAND IRRIGATION IN \ ± j SIpET km 1P O 11p 20' `.rc .m ' FF EX 2.0 BE LOCA FOR LOT 1]BLOCK 4 ID BUILOI E. BE IAUTEO RED THE ON DRIV SIDE EN IC— OF THE SHARFD COMMON DRIVE TYPICAL PROPERTY LINE �PgEDF]pgy 0 LOTS 13-17 AND 24-25,BLOCK 4 1'=30'WHEN PRINTED AT 11"K17' S = 16 ] Fo Brzsra e�r'�` MIM DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 27 LOT 23 M A NON-BUILDABLE BUILDING - BLOCK E TO BE LOCATED COMMON LOT WITH 7�5 PE. N-Pi ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE INGRESS/EGRESS EOFTHE SHMEO COMMON FAvOB DF LOB 24 SO O DRIVE PRDPERIY LINE BLOCK 8LLOT 25 OWNER G W W - m u REAfl� RESPONSIBLE FOR 2U• v SiDET 5� I INSTALLING AND TT _ 12' O gLOCKq LAIJDSWAIWAINING CAP114G AND 1O• N I c R GARAGE I o KI �. IRR XT SE ION IN THE DRIVEWAY FOR LOT $ O SIDE � f S S+ Q m Y ,4 22 BLOCK 6 TO 1 yy i BE LOCATED ON 1m Q w JP THE OPPOSITE + J� R SIDE OF THE L L —. SIDE L J SIDET �• O, r O 7 O Y SHMED COMMON 3p T 10• 7�, y I Z Z S ORIEL PRORERtt Ia T. SIDT 12' OI sIQuO I �2 Z'D E.SNAG S/T. r L s1pE� J Z 5 f v o I—" 12 SIOET 20— l:l 4 V g SIDE SU �y e "r- —SOFT — L——— smE—L — J E.HIGH POINT ST & DRI—FOR HOT 41 S W m Q,- I O _ '^ / TO BE LOCATEC W p 2 O 44 CWC57E SI E ¢12' ]D OF THE SHARED sIDEI PCRDPpF]COMMON URN HNE km .11 51DEE J 1' W W ¢ p44 OWNER E N G I H E E E 1 N G IS ESPDNSIBLE SIpET i O FOR I"I'TN NG LOT 4]IS A NDN-BUILDABLE WILDING I]RI'/EWAY FqN ANp MNNTNNING �XO� v rONT COMMON LOT WITH A ENVELOPE LOT 48 DLOCK 4 •^ LANIYSCAPING ICL r, 61ANNEI INGRESS/EGRESS TYPICAL. TO OE LOCATED AND IRRIGATION �} EMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS OPPOSITE S1DE IN THESE MEAS E0.5 ON THE 43,4a ANO 4s.BLOCK 4 EX 3.D a� BLDCK6 n O OF THE SHAVED 12 I uEu LOTS 4146 BLOCK 4 COMMON DUN - , II PROPERTY LINE L — REM 1'=30'WHEN PRINTED AT 117X17' TF.oFf r'�A �'h ASSAY a* LOTS 22-27,BLOCK 6 ef1 6 s I'=3G'WHEN PRINTED AT 11";f1]' -9y h?1$CA�A "n4 Page 18 Page 36 Item#5. C. Landscape Plan&Fencing Plan(date: 8�o%021 3/15/2022)-REVISED OPENSPACE TREE CALCIJLATIONB{L SE) � n ��H �� -- ��-,� ®� + � --- -- -- �• � •� nor. �� Tw o a�aQ9 m, �~ "'� " TOTAL OPEx SPACE TREES SNtEET TREE CALCLlAT1ON5{1TAEE/3 JF I �vb --� -� - --- -- -- _ APEX WEST SUBDIVISION TOTALSIPEFTTREES MERIpAN,IDAFIO 6 MICRO PATHWAY CA"LATIOxS[I TREE11M UFj�• ...a,..nw # woia z wsr■Y.■ PRELIMINARYPLAT LANDSCAPE COVER a� TOTAL PATHWAY TREES MMGATIGN REQUIREMENTS LOIlTACTINPoRMATIpI TNTRL TIIEES RFAUIREO�PROVDFD '+ry.w �F®� Page 19 Page 37 Item#5. g y © a a — j jjj I --------------- PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN �u.W� -. APIX WEST SubgVlSlon ,,� MERIgPN,IPPHO Y WbRGI nvuau -wn.c G,yp�w 1km mPM 0 7, N 0 MEW lA o n ® R Q Ili @ Q @ - 1 _ g .,,ti i "kl 1� APIX WEST SIIngVISI MI ON PRELINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIMAN,I MUST ra� �bwn km PPL3 D,m Page 20 Page 38 Item#5. Yi h ____ - - _-- T APB WEST SOBgVI510N PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDICAPE PLAN MERIgAN,IgV10 •�u W mPPL4.0 n ® N � m 0 _ o a © o - ___ _ o n•��ee�.�¢�4J_C�CI•� �_��®G)�O O• @0I9i6}9H9Effi19Ei@0I9i ---__ _- I n.�a�,sa M.c� I,I:��L•;a®©o � � xxasm ��m.�— ,. sxnaalle - --- _ Y g .ramu dw, tL' �i"' lYasae e c,Pa xa APBMn SOBpYI510N MERIgPN,IgN1O ^d �1PRELI MINA-PLAT FENCE EXHiBiT i e�Wit« MMM— �PPL5.0 Page 21 Page 39 Item#5. m x 381' W WIDTH VARIES THROUGHOUT SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN o a 38' 25' WATKINS DRAIN CITYSEWER Es o S EASEMENT EASEMENT �— z a D a W a rc oZ aZ I I 14' o a z I I g+ a SHAPER VIEW DUAL I PURPOSE APEX WEST z ESTATES i "° i PATHWAY a' SUBDIVISION I I ti PEDESTRIAN AND F LL 3�'_^ I t SEWER nLL I p¢5xUQ5; > ACCESS � u wzN a:i 05: 2730 =2730 lam 2728— _ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ _— _ —_ _ —_ —_ _ _— —_ — _ —2728 ENGINEER I N G 2726— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2726 NATIVE MANICURED i:oers�s.cils c LANDSCAPE I LANDSCAPE I RnuRR WATKINS DRAIN SECTION NTS 1 OF 1 •`gEaFlD� vssnve o•. Page 22 Page 40 Item#5. D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: $ 1 3/15/22) -REVISED R-2C MMO MT ARM R4[ MMON LOTARM C O LID P ®®B®®9®®®®® U0 GG�G.0 611 TM� R-LscOMMON LOT NiEAS I — wo�a,.K..esyrm a.�,o..,a,. ,-Mi i� Co .�._.. ..� ...w. „e„� APEX WEST SUBUMSIDN. MERIDIAN,IUAHD AP-I%ESTSUBDRISION OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT �� ,«� oafs wxE uw�arr SEX 1.0 Page 23 Page 41 E. Conceptual Building Elevations ��■ - ApexNW ReudendalAlky _ Y I 1IL Eff Apex SE Ae�lden[ial-[anvenrbnol �� T Apes Sf Fesb'entbl-[pnveaRnnel - F - AFea'SE ResdendW-Com:entiarwl __ �_ �I y 7 — Apex sr rsesiaennor [onve no r Apa=Sf R¢ud¢nMp1-[anuenrbnal �Y ' P e g' 24 Item#5. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Prior to City Couneil efAer-ine its Findings ef Fag Genelt*siefis of Law,Final Peeision, and Or-der-, approval of the subject preliminary plat applieation,a pfepeAy boundary adjustment shall be ereates a separate develepable par-eel for-that area.- A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Future development shall comply with the provisions of the existing Development Agreements(i.e. Shafer View Estates—Inst. #2021-102396 and Apex—Inst. #2020-178120), and the preliminary plat,phasing plan, common driveway exhibits, landscape plan and conceptual elevations in Section VII and the conditions of approval listed below. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access to the collector and arterial streets, except for Lots 4-11,Block 10. b. Depict an easement for the 20-foot wide street buffer on the west side of S. Apex Ave. south of E. Crescendo St.; for the 25-foot wide street buffers on the west side of S. Locust Grove Rd. on Lot 2,Block 5 and on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd. on Lot 1,Block 1. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict additional landscaping within street buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.Note: These standards were recently revised. b. Depict a 20-foot wide street buffer on the west side of S. Apex Ave. south of E. Crescendo St. with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Note: These standards were recently revised. c. All pathways shall be improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.3 and have landscape strips along each side of the pathways and be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C,which requires a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. Pathways are not allowed to have a gravel surface. Landscape strips are required along all pathways, including those in Blocks 6, 7, 9 and 10—if within an easement that prohibits trees, additional area shall be provided outside of the easement to accommodate the required landscaping. d. Include calculations in the Project Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with the standards for pathway(11-3B-12C)landscaping; include required vs.provided number of trees. Landscaping is required along all pathways. e. A minimum 5-foot wide pathway shall be included in Lot 36,Block 6. f. Depict a 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway along the west side of S. Sublimity Ave. as required by the Park's Dept. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. g. The fencing on the northeast side of Lot 34,Block 6 shall be revised to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b. 4. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathways within the site that are not within the public right-of-way prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature in the phase in which they are located. Page 25 Page 43 Item#5. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district, 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district and 11- 2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from City Council to leave the Watkins drain open—Council approved this request. 8. Homes on Lots 4-11,Block 10 shall have side entry garages with a turnaround area so that vehicles aren't backing out onto the collector street in an effort to preserve public safety. 9. If a multi-family development is proposed on Lot 1,Block 1, a conditional use permit application shall be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for that lot. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided in accord with UDC standards for such. 10. If single-family homes or townhomes are developed on Lot 2,Block 5; Lots 32 and 43,Block 6 and/or on Lot 1, Block 1,these lots shall be re-subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided in accord with UDC standards for such. 11. Homes on lots that abut collector streets(i.e. E. Quartz Creek St. and S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Way south of E. Crescendo St.)and arterial streets [i.e. S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. (if applicable)] will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches, balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 12. Submit a detail of the proposed playground equipment with the final plat application. 13. All development within the Williams pipeline easement shall comply with the Williams Pipeline Developers Handbook. 14. Street setbacks for residential units abutting collector streets shall be as approved with ZOA- 2021-0003. 15. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall be submitted for the non-residential portions of the development(i.e. changing rooms associated with the swimming pool) and approved prior to submittal of applications for building permits.All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 16. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 All sewer manholes must have a 14-foot-wide access road per the City Design Standards. 1.2 Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches. Page 26 Page 44 Item#5. 1.3 No permanent structures may be within City utility easements including but not limited to trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash enclosures, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc. 1.4 Do not run sewer main in common driveways, services should be run within the common driveway. 1.5 Sewer main should be run from the northern portion of the site down South Sublimity Way from the existing sewer main. Main should be kept within the Right of Way whenever possible. 1.6 12-inch water main will need to be constructed at the Northwest corner to make the second connection at East Quartz Creek Street. 1.7 There is a piece of water main missing at the corner of East Prickle Drive and East Pinpoint Way,this must be included to complete the water loop. 1.8 The water main in East Prime Drive needs to be upsized to 12-inch from South Subilimity Way to East Prickle Drive. 1.9 The water main in East Prickle Drive needs to be upsized to 12-inch from East Prime Drive to East Heyday Drive. 1.10 The water stub in East Heyday Drive to the property line needs to be upsized to 12-inch 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 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 Page 27 Page 45 Item#5. assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a 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 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. 2.17 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. 2.18 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 Page 28 Page 46 Item#5. 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. 2.19 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. 2.20 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. 2.21 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. 2.22 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.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243074&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Phasing Map: https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243072&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=244321&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=248416&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n C ity F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridianci ty.org/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=248658&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n C ity Page 29 Page 47 Item#5. G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=242586&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=256785&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243205&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=243211&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. PARK'S DEPARTMENT hgps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251528&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is generally consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and collector street layout. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) Page 30 Page 48 Item#5. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 31 Page 49 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll A LPIEIE WEST PRELIMINARY PLAT Meridian City Council Kfinre- h 0 IWI %X41 %ONE April 12 , 2022 up -dates TERRIER _ � I ---- CA; I, S N 5 F�. E AMITY FAD L------------- , Ii I I NO Ox CAS�'LECRE --- — -i h- -,r-----, HI�d ■ ■ r IV'A�RICI� 1 j L 02 1 F_- q 1YORDEN i'WARRTCK`. I -- NO01 - , i B i_r , i HILL L -� FA WldTEB --,�Y_4ARICK �0Q3 i R-� N 0 SOUTHERN R,4 ii�—r--------- � I� --- -� HIGHL NDS i---- �SOUTHERN SKY MESA PREVAIL NO 02 __-, NO 0 0 ---- ,.-i 1 tIIGHLA\DS ---------�- i- J^, 10 03 i NO 02 i SOUTHERN r L'PPI�.Na L �` HIGHVANDSS YAZ�SA SKY `� �RILZPH Q PRE�_AIL\D 01 R�4 ]!�--03 D�Ti,. MESA ---- __.i S01VTBERN y L - I L - � � � i i I � SKY i I HI AN"Ds '----- MESA NO 02 l 7SANOU4J ; SKYME-R W SHAFERVIESS CO'�ThIONS Q�( BL�,CKRDCK }� ' / ILLS C ESTATES` lA p @X ND D 1 M-4 SKY AIE9'3q SKY M= � R- COMI4YONS comm S �A West NO 03 ND O1 v' Wei s� ` ----i - HILL _ FA1-1 R ' TMPRESSI EAS SK'L' H --I j jiRI�GE NG� I - HIGHLAkNb NO 41 CE1 LAVENDER DIAMOND L-- -Y-L-- -- --' L 'IE'ARhiP -G R-75 - --� ' i `-'HEIGHT R-�S_- i I'� RIDGE -_ I 'f ; NO Oli ----Il-T-jRESSIF'E_ -ESTATESA-N� AT RIDG i AaR Dhl7 --- E LAKE AZEL D 02 � L 1� r RAAP �1RANCH LZ ---J q ESTA S - ST CKER R� Discovery S Park A-E r , TA p j R-R i DERRY II i i RESCUE NCH 20 ■ WATKINS DRAIN '1 y ••` (open section) M • IFJW0e1 ow RNF NI Y4q r' 31 b ` 4 1 EXISTING CITY SEWER � � " --- - - - ' 4j*o ACCESS; FUTURE •, , , MULTI-USE PATHWAY Ar WATKINS DRAIN - �} Ij i (piped section) — — n AP . W r - ; Lak azel ' r - _ nalogies ► 133.07-acre Pre-Plat - --- - - - -- - FUTURE FUTURE R-8 ► 205 R-2/R-8 building lots '�.! R-8 �- ► 1 future R-15 parcel ► 3 future R-8 parcels p i � r ► 20.3% Qualified Open W FUTURE Space (15.14 ac. less "future") DEVELOPMENT ► 46 alley/rear-loaded lots Q �_ ► 3 common drives (9 lots) FUTURE ELEM �$ SCHOOL SITE nT1 9 J . R-15 fop" ♦' - ---- -------i ♦ ♦♦ FL1IUHE H 15 1NNACI F BKIGHTON E. LAKE HA � 4 F--E.—QU-MZ cum FUTURE NES DENTL"L R 9 F I JHL DUMT A RFS' P-8 LOT 2 BLOCK 5 RMICIENTIAL R-L FUTURE RESIDENTIAL tt (subject to pre-plat approval) SHAPER VEW ESTATES SURD Qm X!::RESIDENTIAL ID I'MEME�6� E WW1115 j ....... ....... IL -- ----- ----------- :BLOCK: .... fD Q 0 4? 0 Q, ID 0 WHrrF FAMILY LIWI11 .1 C IWNACK Si. AMNOWTHWEST ———————————E.I,--'L 41-7 117, LA%Ez LLC FAREAPEX WEST MU,.—Ift F115 73 -T N0.1� '-PRELIMINARY PLAT� r- - ' REVISED MARCH 16, 2022 Tgui L134 W _�Z(4.12.22 Staff Report, pg. 13) ?FS11:4NTwlRe '\ •.t A IAFHIMEUIMAMS AIGM45M Y• �' IX APES{ WEST PHASING ��' � � '� � '`k PHASE 1 75 , PHASE 2 71 PHASE 3 59 - �a- _ _ ------- 4 R TOTAL 205Mo a ; ,M[,L FAMLI�M18,A46T PHASE 4 R-15 Future 9 � 'E.wlGf FC.i.�i-' 9 Z YE><I11[IRMNaT PHASE 5 Future Pre-Plat E APEX WEST 513L3V1C90 n:'.,q? PHASING PLAN - �r�,�ami+xer � � I � � �� i � �� s.s�r��saR�rrt V I�'vf UEYEIOrER/cvWIYER REVISED MARCH 16, 2022 4"�:„�r ;z-_xK 13;p6LE7.ll.0 � I 9NL inadwuJ•m1m+4rai. (4.12.22 Staff Report, pg. 17) ERM]iliEEl!(Sk1R1'EYOR 7d1 Ad:lFAdvC Sn�woinx ow�,.txr.,r ;2 G .�-w•+ems=•-'-•q-=-�-,_—'�^`_�--,�� - - � _�_. ..- --- -- _r n U"Iwu'rr-uu'E IIF•rNNOlmx94 ro' PLAW SCHEDULE ' � ; • � w�lkwr iw i'idcwraGT'M i rx Nk N'od� aazi i.0 ti*� JJ l�dx:udf rxnl lulwW n]RsllY � I �_ � �`RwuFL.enmT IMLna' i VLele .uv] aAsi 1.1 ��CC�ss✓�� e.ex•.n o-r.uv�a i 1 I t+'] vuua vnrnawr i rx e.e ism a.ml a 1 I '.C.?' v..nsxvroerwe { n 1 r.l.a cwewn.trmsne� t ni eu .ovs a.mi se I I vt�oo� m .ew :a I 1 rt!!mlmlrrin eorr.rx+ln..rw x..c � wvuenxr � 2rr ' I•'• �. nc.tix�mtix.�' ex ele ss�,as nalerm is �uas liu!sw.n 'I 7 MnlWaV.wEdxdlslnY.C' ax ua ssa.s wadeei a h I em}ra nnnlM.x ewt..� .wc a !$lno l!!!a loTPr.rxll�xnW. sY! iulu!!mw la.aa vM1 t LOT 2 BLOCK 5 �' I nanv.�m�'ov�i dwd ,n xe�re a. 1 I r olewomvr� la�nrxim.wcw x..c an Y.�..,vn Tua PbL.1 rM,vPba,uivewllee'hul eeT ,� !b I\ I I/Vw1nlloNW61ul W' 1,... 1Y' IV4tia iaLV.PIlM YUR MIVY e'i CM i1YY chulw�'vw�wkwl!'1-.. 54S' ~\ I fpLtit,l'nxlnPllM • �\ \\ I I nwcm.♦..r l.str• scram rn ` nuv...lxoa wren.w..m over .� skr \ \ ou..rm.xye..emluae. .� rn � a •S;t,y,.• ... e\ �� ti\ w.a cwtous sarewtlnauueue•i e.� ra 1 \ \ Mfrrv.MafnG�WbaouaR' 1,... ]Y' e, vnmme}e�arre-a� .s•� ra' �. --- . APEX WEST ............ c� :�::.: � ------- --- �-- --- LANDSCAPE PLAN : ... _ REVISED MARCH 15, 2022 PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN (4.12.22 Staff Report, pg. 21) Plf�50�1'=8P e FlEoX xE p.R¢ t �si�awnaL asnn 2�' s"�iw:E ev o p' ARE ©® [gyp •� o LOT 2 BLOCK 5 a° �Q� FUTURE RESIDENTIAL it f__ o� •a p " (subject to pre-plat approval) I I JQo ap �� Cep p p �� o ` d l C. r ® ``"� pp n III I vp © COC7 n DOOM I Opp a®®pp*®®C�O �C7�g000�O000ppv — — fE APEX WEST I OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT ® REVISED MARCH 15 ® ac�n •a�� >2pv�, ,¢o , 2022 --- -=-1------��'. - --L J (4.12.22 Staff Report, pg. 23) PRELIMINARY PLAT CIA- LEGENR � ^�'�� OVEFALL SfI"E DATA rwa�we'.Iaawnm cm.arocq a FMM TdfSi11E axEw x�un[s -�ERLL I yy ` y Q y R [ETll1L rfdp .cuEs I ..1.LOT(0•LFl-1. 5i'.cE) ��Mu Krl R �bd S1.M wxEs d 0 # ih15 an naa cw�s«Ep1 Pb*a..�Tm ovr.sR.cq vuwmtg��al '•.�� L'�'�'� _ �4u�wmorexma�larus ais� ..asuvmnsly�r[e-xor n.�u_cmi � J.r� GVGuulgiel succ-¢wE n¢Ewm i iatii� in.b w APEX WEST SUBDIVISION APEX WEST SUBDIVISION OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT Qe9 MERIDIAN,IX]AHO OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT kin 134uwra®nRetm�Tarus *,buF�aq� Rims�i-uv � PO�ro£x E • y5�r t c CONTACT INFORMATION TowL ¢ tact R. E x c t H e E e t w OkVE1CPERfOWHER LAN�:GPE CaHAILTAHL 9PA(E 1yU K.. p11�,p4p AWE.wrt.x �n^.R�'m E1lYL�[nmaaNaYLRg tt g wrcoiRmn i[us10 rt1 e .nett: 8 uE FfNR Rw1L ¢nmme�gY-erylpw• Ex 1.0 APEX WEST END OF UP-DATES April 12. 2022 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Apex West Subdivision (H-2021- 0087) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the North Side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., Approximately 1/4 Mile West of S. Locust Grove Rd. Page 66 Item#6. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI DIAN AND DECISION& ORDER A In the Matter of the Request for Preliminary Plat Consisting of 209 Building lots(205 Single- Family Residential Building Lots; Three(3)Residential Building Lots for Future Re-Subdivision; and One(1)Residential Lot for Future Re-Subdivision for Townhomes or Development of Multi- Family Apartments) and 37 Common Lots on 133.07 Acres in the R-2,R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts for Apex West Subdivision,by Brighton Development,Inc. Case No(s).H-2021-0087 For the City Council Hearing Date of: March 8 and 22, and April 12,2022 (Findings on April 12, 2022) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 12,2022, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 12,2022,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 12,2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 12,2022,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR APEX WEST PP H-2021-0087 - I - Page 67 Item#6. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 22,2022, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted,it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for preliminary plat is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of April 12, 2022, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-613-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-613-713). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A,the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 11- 6B-7C). E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of April 12, 2022 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR APEX WEST PP H-2021-0087 -2- Page 68 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 12th day of April 2022. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED AYE COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED AYE COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED AYE COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED AYE COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED AYE COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED AYE MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E. Simison 4-12-2022 Attest: Chris Johnson 4-12-2022 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant,Community Development Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 4-12-2022 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR APEX WEST PP H-2021-0087 -3- Item#6. EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING April 12,2022 Legend DATE: Continued from:March 8 and 22, 2022 Pr, - t Luca-Ron TO: Mayor&City Council ti FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0087 � _ Apex West—PP(aka Pinnacle) ` LOCATION: North side of E. Lake Hazel Rd., ---- t - approximately 1/4 mile west of S.Locust Grove Rd., in the south 1/2 of Section 31, - T.3N.,R.IE. a I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary plat consisting of 2-"209 building lots(247 205 single-family residential lots 3 residential lots for future re-subdivision for single-family homes and 1 lot for future development of townhomes or multi-family apartments) and-4 37 common lots on 96.09 133.07 acres in the R-2,R- 8 and R-15 zoning districts for Apex West Subdivision. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 96.08 133.07 acres Existing/Proposed Zoning R-2,R-8 and R-15 Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR),Medium Density Residential(MDR)and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural land Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR)detached dwellings Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 2-"209 building lots/34 37 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 4 phases Number of Residential Units(type 2-0-7 205 (SFR detached dwellings) of units) Density(gross&net) 3.17 units/acre(gross); 5.29 units/acre(net)—overall(not including future units in R-8 and R-15 zoned lots) Open Space(acres,total 16.17 acres(or 16.61%)common open space [%]/buffer/qualified) Page 1 Page 70 Item#6. Description Details Page Amenities Swimming pool,two(2)segments of the City's multi-use pathway system,and an additional 5%open space above the minimum required. Physical Features(waterways, The McBirney Lateral and another un-named waterway hazards,flood plain,hillside) cross this site. Neighborhood meeting date;#of 10/19/21 attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2020-0066;Development Agreement Inst.#2020- 178120(Apex);H-2020-0117;Development Agreement Inst.#2021-102396(Shafer View Terrace) B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Two(2)accesses are proposed via E.Lake Hazel Rd.,an arterial (Arterial/Collectors/State street;and one(1)access is proposed via E.Quartz Creek St.,a Hwy/Local)(Existing and collector street. Proposed) Traffic Level of Service Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service Lake Hazel Road 1,321-feet Principal Arterial 351 Better than'E" Locust Grove Road 1,350-feet Minor Arterial 181 Better than"E" Acceptable level of service for a two-lane principal arterial is'E"(690 VPH). 'Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is"E"(575 VPH). Stub E. Quartz Creek St.is proposed to be extended through this site; Street/Interconnectivity/Gros stub streets are proposed to be extended from Apex Northwest#1 s Access and#2;stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties. Existing Road Network Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Buffers Page 2 Page 71 Item#6. Description Details P Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan[CIPY Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWPI: • Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Improvements Amity Road between 2036 and 2040 • Lake Hazel Road Is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road between 2036 and 2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Meridian Road to Locust Grove Road between 2036 and 2040. • Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. Apex Subdivision entered into a Cooperative Development Agreement with ACHD in May 2021 to widen the segment of Lake Hazel Road to 5-lanes to the east of this site.These construction plans are currently under review. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-11 on the north leg,2-lanes on the south, 4-lanes east,and 4-lanes on the west leg between 2036 and 2040.Apex Subdivision entered into a Cooperative Development Agreement with ACHD in May 2021 to fully improve this intersection consistent with the 2020 CIP.Construction plans are currently under review with ACHD. • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south leg,3-lanes on the west leg and 4- lanes on the east leg and signalized in 2023, • The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Meridian Road is listed in the CIP to he 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 2036 and 2040. • The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 2-lanes on the north leg,2-lanes on the south,4-lanes east, and 4-lanes on the west leg between 2031 and 2035. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.6 miles • Fire Response Time Falls outside the 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station is Fire Station#6—cannot meet response time goals. When Fire Station#7 is constructed in late summer of 2023, it will be within the S:00 minute response time area. • Resource Reliability 85%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater • Risk Identification 2—current resources would be adequate to supply service • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround. ALL residences having two frontages(the street&an alleyway behind it)shall have address numbers on the front of the building and on the back side facing the alley. • Special/resource needs Project will require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required timeframe if a truck company is required. • Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully sprinklered. • Other Resources Police Service No comments received • Distance from police station • Police Response Time Approved MF Pro West Ada School District eeted Approved lots per units per Students from • Distance(elem,mS,hS) Enrollment Ca ac attendance area attendance area Approved Dew. • Capacity Of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary 449 675 2677 26 591 Victory Middle School 984 1000 3739 502 501 • #Of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2368 2175 2701 0 432 Schaal of Choice Options Christine Donnell School-Arts 489 Soo Ill N/A Spalding Elementary-STEM 656 750 N/A N/A • #of Students Predicted from this development 132 school aged children predicted from this development by WASD(154 for future townhomes) School lm act Table Page 3 Page 72 Item#6. Wastewater • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • All sewer manholes must have a 14-foot-wide access road per the City Design Standards. • Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches • No permanent structures may be within City utility easements including but not limited to trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash enclosures, fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc. • Do not run sewer main in common driveways,services should be run within the common driveway. • Sewer main should be run from the northern portion of the site down South Sublimity Way from the existing sewer main.Main should be kept within the Right of Way whenever possible. Water • Distance to Water Directly adjacent Services • Pressure Zone 5 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • 12 inch water main will need to be constructed at the Northwest corner to make the second connection at East Quartz Creek Street. • There is a piece of water main missing at the corner of East Prickle Drive and East Pinpoint Way,this must be included to complete the water loop. • The water main in East Prime Drive needs to be upsized to 12 inch from South Sublimity Way to East Prickle Drive. • The water main in East Prickle Drive needs to be upsized to 12 inch from East Prime Drive to East Heyday Drive. • The water stub in East Heyday Drive to the property line needs to be upsized to 12 inch. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend ® � Legend 0ProjectLaca K ( m I ,e- Loa u-cr Od a� w nsih = '' Re�si�ler tt'i 'tea i�•� .. -..,� y dium Den .� � I ; IY. i Page 4 Page 73 Item#6. Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend IlT 0 Legend 0 Pro" t LuccifKm Pro" t Luca TKm R1 I R ® +_; C&f Lin-at I-L RUT — P1annL-d Pares R-4 R T R.8 R- R= R-8 R- T Rl R-4 R_4 - e �R-16 R ---- R-4 - , 1 r , RUT R-4 RUT R-4 , -RR R- A. Applicant: Josh Beach,Brighton Development,Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400, Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Brighton Development, Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Dr., Ste. 400,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 12/21/2021 2/20/2022 &3/27/2022 Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 12/15/2021 2/17/2022 &3/23/2022 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 12/22/2021 2/24/2022 &3/25/2022 Nextdoor posting 12/16/2021 2/18/2022 &3/23/2022 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates approximately I I acres of the site as Low Density Residential(LDR), 65 acres as Medium Density Residential (MDR) and 20 acres as Medium High-Density Residential(MHDR). The LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources, Page 5 Page 74 Item#6. recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high-quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. The proposed development consists of a total of 24P 209 single-family detached dwellings. The plat includes two(2)R-8 zoned lots in the MDR designated area for future residential development; and one(1)R-15 zoned lot in the MHDR designated area for future development of townhomes or multi- family apartments. The proposed development in the MDR designated area has an overall gross density of 3.17 units/acre with a net density of 5.29 units per acre, excluding the future development areas. The R-2 portion has a gross density of 0.70 units/acre with a net density of 1.18 units/acre and the R-8 portion has a gross density of 3.70 units/acre with a net density of 6.16 units/acre, consistent with the densities desired in the associated LDR and MDR designations. The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development: • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) Only one housing type, single-family detached, is proposed in this development at this time; some units will be accessed via internal local and collector streets with front/side entry garages while others will have rear access via alleys.Another housing type, either townhomes or multi- family apartments, is planned to develop on the R-15 zoned future development area (i.e. Lot 1, Block 1). If townhomes are proposed, the lot will need to be re-subdivided to accommodate the townhome units; if apartments are proposed, a conditional use permit will be needed for approval of a multi family development. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer services are available to service this development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The emergency response time for the Fire Dept.falls outside of the 5-minute response time area; once Fire Station No. 7 is constructed in the late summer of 2023, it will meet the response time goal. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) Staff believes the proposed use and site design are compatible with existing and future uses, which should minimize conflicts and maximize use of land. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." Page 6 Page 75 Item#6. (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) Two (2)segments of the City's multi-use pathway system is proposed within this site consistent with the Pathways Master Plan, which will provide safe pedestrian and bicycle access to the internal common area with a swimming pool and school site to the southeast in Apex Southeast. • "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions (e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.O1A) A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was required by ACHD for this development and was taken into consideration in ACHD's report. See comments from WASD and Community Development in Section VIII for school enrollment calculations in regard to the number of school-aged children estimated to be generated from this development and associated school capacity. The closest City Park to this site is Discovery Park, a regional park consisting of 77-acres of land, to the southeast of the S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. intersection bordering Apex Southeast. • "Require all development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A) The proposed site design should be compatible with existing and future surrounding uses. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are proposed as required with this development. In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis above. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 2-"209 building lots(247 205 single-family lots;three (3)residential building lots for future re-subdivision; and 1 lot for future development of townhomes or multi-family apartments)and-34 37 common lots on 96.08 133.07 acres in the R- 2,R-8 and R-15 zoning districts for Apex West Subdivision. The subdivision is proposed to develop in€ear five(4 5)phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section VII.A. The proposed plat ineludes a portion of Par-eel#S1131417220 depieted on the plat as Lot-I-, -Bloek 5 and the surrounding area outside of Par-eel#S1131417210.As diseussed at the pFe- applieation meeting,the entire par-eel must be ineluded in the proposed plat oF a pr-oper-ty boundary adjustment applieation must be approved to ereate a separate deVelopal I Page 7 Page 76 Item#6. fOF that aFea a POF60H of the lot eannot be ineluded as it would Mate aH illegal Split.Un4ff this eoneeFn is Fesolved,the City Council has inadeguate iHf0Ffffflti0H to make a final deeision coneeFfling this-applieatio-. Thffefffe, Staff recommends that prior to City ffopeFty boundaFy adjustment shall be >whieh ineffpoFates hot 1, the SUFFOunding aFea into Par-eel#S1131417210 or creates a separate developable paree that area.A revised plan was submitted that includes the entire parcel. Three Four future development areas are depicted on the plat,Lots 32 and 43,Block 6; Lot 2, Block 5; and Lot 1,Block 1. The R-8 zoned lots(i.e. Lots 32 and 43, Block 6; and Lot 2,Block 5) are planned to be re-subdivided in the future through new preliminary plat applications. The R-15 zoned lot(i.e. Lot 1,Block 1)may be re-subdivided in the future through a new preliminary plat application for the development of 240 townhomes; or, a multi-family development may develop on the site,which will require approval of a conditional use permit. If single-family homes or townhomes are developed on these lots,they shall be re-subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures or site improvements on this property; it's currently agricultural land. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets and block face. The proposed plat complies with these standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access is proposed at the northwest corner of the development from E. Quartz Creek St., a collector street, from S. Meridian Rd. and from S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Ave.,both collector streets,via E. Lake Hazel Rd. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and interconnectivity. A note should be included on the final plat prohibiting direct lot access to the collector and arterial streets,except for Lots 4-11,Block 10 which are allowed direct access via S. Sublimity Way—homes on these lots should have side entry garages with a turnaround area so that vehicles aren't backing out onto the collector street in an effort to preserve public safety. Street setbacks for residential units abutting collector streets shall be as approved with ZOA-2021-0003. Public alleys are proposed for internal access to some of the lots in Phase 1; alleys are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3B.5. Three(3) common driveway lots are also proposed and are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D; an exhibit for such is included in Section VII.B. Parking(UDC 11-3 : Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Garages and parking pads in driveways are proposed to satisfy this requirement. The proposed local street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot; the r-esidepAial area along with another-28 spaees as depieted on the par-king pla-a in Seetion Staff is of the opinion suffieien4 paT-king ean be provided for-this developffiefit.. Off-street parking is also required for the building/changing rooms at the community swimming pool. A minimum of(1) space is required per every 500 square feet of gross floor area; 12 spaces are proposed which exceeds the minimum standards. A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking Page 8 Page 77 Item#6. space is also required to be provided per UDC 11-3C-6G and should be designed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the west and northeast boundaries of the site. Pathways are proposed as shown on the landscape plan. The Park's Dept. is requiring a 10-foot wide detached pathway along the west side of S. Sublimity Ave. which will connect to the pathway proposed in the common area along the back side of lots in Block 10. The gravel pathway proposed through Blocks 5,6,7,9 and 10 is required to be improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.3.Landscape strips are required along both sides of all pathways,landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11- 3B-12C,which include a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover, including those in Blocks 6, 7, 9 and 10—if within an easement, additional area shall be provided outside of the easement to accommodate landscaping. See comments from Park's Dept. in Section VIII.J. A minimum 5-foot wide pathway should be included in Lot 36,Block 6. All multi-use pathways not located within the right-of-way are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public use easement,which shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature on the final plat(s) for the phase in which they are located. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-1 Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-1 : Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along all streets where detached sidewalks are proposed. All parkways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E. Lake Hazel Rd., an arterial street; and 20-foot wide street buffers are required along E. Quartz Creek St./S. Sublimity Ave., S. Apex Way and E. Crescendo St., collector streets. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffers per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require a variety of trees and shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative groundcover—shrubs are required to be included in the buffer in accord with this standard; lawn shall comprise no more than 65% of the vegetated coverage of a landscape buffer(see UDC 11-3B-7C.3 for more information). Landscaping is required adjacent to all pathways per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C as noted above under Pathways. Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B-7C as proposed. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G1: Based on the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3,the R-2 zoned area requires a minimum of 8%(or 0.80-acre) open space based on 9.94 acres of land; and the R-8 zoned area requires a minimum of 15%(or 6.01-acres)open space based on 40.09 acres of land for a total of 6.81 acres of common open space.Although the future residential R-8 and R-15 zoned areas (i.e.Lots 32 and 43, Block 6 and Lot 1, Block 1)are included in the boundary of the proposed plat, Staff did not include these areas in the required open space calculations as they are proposed to be re-subdivided and/or included in a conditional use permit in the future prior to development. At such time they will be required to comply with the open space standards on a stand-alone basis. Page 9 Page 78 Item#6. The proposed open space consists of linear open space, open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet in area, 8-foot parkways and street buffers along collector and arterial streets as shown on the open space exhibit in Section VII.D. A total of 16.17 acres of qualified open space is proposed, which exceeds UDC standards. The proposed open space areas have direct pedestrian access,high visibility, comply with the CPTED standards and support a range of leisure and play activities and uses,while promoting the health and well-being of its residents as required in UDC 11-3G-3A.2. Qualified Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G1 Based on the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-4,the 50.03-acre development area requires multiple amenities to be provided totaling a minimum of 10 points from the separate categories listed in UDC Table 11-3G-4.Note:As noted above under the Qualified Open Space analysis, Staff did not include the two (2)R-8 zoned lots (Lots 32 and 43,Block 6) and the R-15 zoned lot(Lot 1, Block 1) in the calculations. A swimming pool with changing facilities and restrooms (6 points); two(2)segments of multi- use pathways totaling approximately'/2 mile(totaling 4 points); and a playground(3 points) are proposed totaling 13 points,which exceeds the minimum standards. A detail of the playground equipment should be submitted with the final plat application for the phase in which it is located. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Limited Geotechnical Engineering Report for the subdivision. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The McBirney Lateral crosses this site within a 40 to 41-foot wide easement;the Farr Lateral crosses the northeast corner of this site within a 55-foot wide easement; and the Watkins Drain runs along the west side of this site within a 38-foot wide easement, as depicted on the plat. These waterways are proposed to be piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B to allow the Watkins drain to remain open as an amenity feature; a cross-section of the amenity corridor is included in Section VII.C. In order for Council to waive the requirement for covering the drain, it has to find that the public purpose requiring such will not be served&public safety can be preserved per UDC 11-3A- 6B.3a.No fencing is proposed to prevent access to the drain and the Applicant is not proposing to improve the drain per the water amenity standards in the UDC,which require construction drawings and relevant calculations prepared by a qualified licensed professional registered in the State of Idaho to be submitted to both the Director&the authorized representative of the water facili , for approval. If the waterway/drain is improved as part of the development as a water amenity, its banks in all places adjacent to and located on said development should be no steeper than one (1)foot vertical per every four(4)feet horizontally and have a depth and velocity in all places adjacent to and located on said development such that the product of the maximum depth (feet)multiplied by the peak velocity(feet per second)does not exceed four(4). Page 10 Page 79 Item#6. Williams Pipeline: The Williams Pipeline runs across Lot 2,Block 5 and Lot 32,Block 6 within a 75-foot wide easement. All development within the pipeline easement should comply with the Williams Pipeline Developers Handbook. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Five-foot tall open vision metal fencing is proposed adjacent to all internal common open space areas to distinguish common from private areas; and 6-foot tall solid wood fencing is proposed in other areas as depicted on the landscape plan in Section VII.0 in accord with UDC standards. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations in a variety of materials and colors were submitted for future single-family detached homes in this development as shown in Section VII.E.Single-family detached dwellings are exempt from the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved for the changing rooms and swimming pool on Lot 1,Block 5 prior to submittal of applications for building permits. All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Because homes on lots that abut collector streets(i.e.E. Quartz Creek St. and S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Way south of E. Crescendo St.) .) and arterial streets [i.e. S.Locust Grove Rd. and E.Lake Hazel Rd. (if applicable)l will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single- story structures are exempt from this requirement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on January 6 and Februa 33, 2022.At the public hearing on February 3',the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject PP request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Mike Wardle and Jon Wardle,Brighton Corporation b. In opposition:None c. Commenting None d. Written testimony: Julie Edwards; Josh Beach,Brighton Corp. e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Concern with the provision of(3)common driveways within the development& associated traffic congestion as discussed at the Commission hearingfor East; concern pertaining to parking in relation to the alley-accessed units&the adequacy of such for guests on the adjacent public streets, especially with the common driveways proposed and parking issues associated with those. Suggests some of the building lots be eliminated in favor of provision of a guest parking lot in addition to the on-street Page 11 Page 80 Item#6. parking&elimination of the common driveways in favor of larger lots in those areas. School capacity concerns from the proposed development and others in the area. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Inquiry if S. Sublimity Ave. could be built with the first phase as a final build instead of a temporary fire access; b. Inquiry if Apex East and Apex West will be considered one development for common use of common areas and amenities; c. The provision of common driveways within the development and associated congestion —not in favor of common driveways although they're allowed b, code, d. In favor of the Applicant's request to leave the Watkins Drain open and not pipe it. 4. Commission change, (s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B which requires all waterways on the site to be piped in accord with UDC standards,to allow the Watkins drain to remain open as an amenity feature(condition#7 needs to be modified if Council approves the waiver). b. Prior to City Council approval of the subject preliminM plat application, a property boundar adjustment is required to be approved,which incorporates Lot 1,Block 5 and the surrounding area into Parcel#S 1131417210 or creates a separate developable parcel for that area. Council can act on this application but the Findings can't be approved until this has been done. c. Staff requests Council include a modification to condition#2b in Section VIII.A to also include Lots 4-11,Block 10 in the requirement for an easement for a 20' wide street buffer to be provided on the lots along E. Quartz Creek St./S. Sublimity Ave. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on March 8.2022.At the public hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject PP request. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Mike Wardle&Jon Wardle,Brighton Corn. b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Julie Edwards d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Question as to whether or not any water studies have been done—concern pertainingto impact on the aquifer and wells in the area from the proposed development; concern pertaining to impact of the proposed development on area school enrollment: timetable for phase 3 construction; and desire for drought tolerant landscaping to be installed. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. The Ap_plicant's reauest to leave the Watkins drain open and not pipe it; b. Concern pertaining to impact on area school enrollment from students generated from this development; 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. Council approved the Applicant's request to leave the Watkins drain open and not pipe it. Page 12 Page 81 Item#6. VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: 4"�z 3/16/2022)—REVISED iNDExov DRawiNcs APEX WEST SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT "DNITYMA I A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4,THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST * 1/4,AND THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 31,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE I EAST, I BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO. ; I ..3.0 .—x°xx. .L \� PRELIMINARY P- I m ° i V u a LEGEND APEX WEST SUBDIVISION -mE� �„ vvEpq MERIDIAN,IDAHO 004ER SHEFT Im 51, 00 xmapan 9�u --- m xPP1.0 Page 13 Page 82 Item#6. a' APEXWEST U DIVISION MERIDIAENIDIRN.IDAHO ��' �S(�l. �N •e_ o -- 1 �a ti "w T6 C7 o H to APEX WEST SUBDIVISION MERIDIAN,IDAHO PP1.1 Page 14 Page 83 Item#6. s® �• �� I: B» MATCH LINE,-S E SHEET PP2.3 APEX WESTSUBOMSION MENIOIAN11OA—HO a.nd%rin_ ��PP2.2 � i .ate... .. .. ......... MATCHLINE-SEESHEET PP2.2 -0 90 to to to to to to l® !®l I e lm e ® €f'9 to Io l0 30 j!o So 30 leiaf�u n�glo to!o to olo to o S®a�� l 9—® ! ile me le 10 le Lit 0»9 Ili APE%WESTSUBONIBION j MEPIINA14,11M 0 « -----rd_--'---„m --------------�@�----- ----------� F " PP2.3 Page 15 Page 84 Item#6. \ ! I .� f. APE%WEST SVool S"N -- MERIDIAN,IDAHO .o.r PP2.4 Page 16 Page 85 Item#6. o , 4 APEX WEST PHASING PHASE 1 75 PHASE 2 71 m ��PHASE3 61 - - o —=-- _ ------ TOTAL 207 -- - - i PHASE 4 R-15 Future - PHASE 5 Future Pre-Plat L L ZLJL— ' I Page 17 Page 86 Item#6. B. Common Driveway Exhibits N—N i s1u F — =REAR IIo I BLOp(4 F�'E D Q 12'� SIDE LOT 14 IS A NON-BIIILOAgLE W —S� z 4 w Q COMMON LOT WITH A BIAWET S O iii n m INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT IN O I,r 3 O ¢ N >m FAVOR OF LOTS 13.74.15 Z m10• 12' AND 15,BLOCK 4 <3• h Q C]y DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 23 rn= SIOE� J Z S BLOCK 4 TO BE LOCATED ON ? d 22Y tl THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE Y SHARED COMMON ORIYE C.4R.� y- O r SIDE — 2 F. ITT PRDPFFTY LINE � n O �'�NIJ m IO O 12� 20' SIDE T - E.HIM H POINT ST.� ,yif r O 12'¢ LOT 14 OWNER 15 RESPGN5IDLE SIDE J FOR INSTALLING MAINTAINING v; TMEOSGAARIAND IRRIGATION IN \ ± j SIpET km 1P O 11p 20' `.rc .m ' FF EX 2.0 BE LOCA FOR LOT 1]BLOCK 4 ID BUILOI E. BE IAUTEO RED THE ON DRIV SIDE EN IC— OF THE SHARFD COMMON DRIVE TYPICAL PROPERTY LINE �PgEDF]pgy 0 LOTS 13-17 AND 24-25,BLOCK 4 1'=30'WHEN PRINTED AT 11"K17' S = 16 ] Fo Brzsra e�r'�` MIM DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 27 LOT 23 M A NON-BUILDABLE BUILDING - BLOCK E TO BE LOCATED COMMON LOT WITH 7�5 PE. N-Pi ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE INGRESS/EGRESS EOFTHE SHMEO COMMON FAvOB DF LOB 24 SO O DRIVE PRDPERIY LINE BLOCK 8LLOT 25 OWNER G W W - m u REAfl� RESPONSIBLE FOR 2U• v SiDET 5� I INSTALLING AND TT _ 12' O gLOCKq LAIJDSWAIWAINING CAP114G AND 1O• N I c R GARAGE I o KI �. IRR XT SE ION IN THE DRIVEWAY FOR LOT $ O SIDE � f S S+ Q m Y ,4 22 BLOCK 6 TO 1 yy i BE LOCATED ON 1m Q w JP THE OPPOSITE + J� R SIDE OF THE L L —. SIDE L J SIDET �• O, r O 7 O Y SHMED COMMON 3p T 10• 7�, y I Z Z S ORIEL PRORERtt Ia T. SIDT 12' OI sIQuO I �2 Z'D E.SNAG S/T. r L s1pE� J Z 5 f v o I—" 12 SIOET 20— l:l 4 V g SIDE SU �y e "r- —SOFT — L——— smE—L — J E.HIGH POINT ST & DRI—FOR HOT 41 S W m Q,- I O _ '^ / TO BE LOCATEC W p 2 O 44 CWC57E SI E ¢12' ]D OF THE SHARED sIDEI PCRDPpF]COMMON URN HNE km .11 51DEE J 1' W W ¢ p44 OWNER E N G I H E E E 1 N G IS ESPDNSIBLE SIpET i O FOR I"I'TN NG LOT 4]IS A NDN-BUILDABLE WILDING I]RI'/EWAY FqN ANp MNNTNNING �XO� v rONT COMMON LOT WITH A ENVELOPE LOT 48 DLOCK 4 •^ LANIYSCAPING ICL r, 61ANNEI INGRESS/EGRESS TYPICAL. TO OE LOCATED AND IRRIGATION �} EMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS OPPOSITE S1DE IN THESE MEAS E0.5 ON THE 43,4a ANO 4s.BLOCK 4 EX 3.D a� BLDCK6 n O OF THE SHAVED 12 I uEu LOTS 4146 BLOCK 4 COMMON DUN - , II PROPERTY LINE L — REM 1'=30'WHEN PRINTED AT 117X17' TF.oFf r'�A �'h ASSAY a* LOTS 22-27,BLOCK 6 ef1 6 s I'=3G'WHEN PRINTED AT 11";f1]' -9y h?1$CA�A "n4 Page 18 Page 87 Item#6. C. Landscape Plan&Fencing Plan(date: 8�o%021 3/15/2022)-REVISED OPENSPACE TREE CALCIJLATIONB{L SE) � n ��H �� -- ��-,� ®� + � --- -- -- �• � •� nor. �� Tw o a�aQ9 m, �~ "'� " TOTAL OPEx SPACE TREES SNtEET TREE CALCLlAT1ON5{1TAEE/3 JF I �vb --� -� - --- -- -- _ APEX WEST SUBDIVISION TOTALSIPEFTTREES MERIpAN,IDAFIO 6 MICRO PATHWAY CA"LATIOxS[I TREE11M UFj�• ...a,..nw # woia z wsr■Y.■ PRELIMINARYPLAT LANDSCAPE COVER a� TOTAL PATHWAY TREES MMGATIGN REQUIREMENTS LOIlTACTINPoRMATIpI TNTRL TIIEES RFAUIREO�PROVDFD '+ry.w �F®� Page 19 Page 88 Item#6. g y © a a — j jjj I --------------- PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN �u.W� -. APIX WEST SubgVlSlon ,,� MERIgPN,IPPHO Y WbRGI nvuau -wn.c G,yp�w 1km mPM 0 7, N 0 MEW lA o n ® R Q Ili @ Q @ - 1 _ g .,,ti i "kl 1� APIX WEST SIIngVISI MI ON PRELINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN MERIMAN,I MUST ra� �bwn km PPL3 D,m Page 20 Page 89 Item#6. Yi h ____ - - _-- T APB WEST SOBgVI510N PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDICAPE PLAN MERIgAN,IgV10 •�u W mPPL4.0 n ® N � m 0 _ o a © o - ___ _ o n•��ee�.�¢�4J_C�CI•� �_��®G)�O O• @0I9i6}9H9Effi19Ei@0I9i ---__ _- I n.�a�,sa M.c� I,I:��L•;a®©o � � xxasm ��m.�— ,. sxnaalle - --- _ Y g .ramu dw, tL' �i"' lYasae e c,Pa xa APBMn SOBpYI510N MERIgPN,IgN1O ^d �1PRELI MINA-PLAT FENCE EXHiBiT i e�Wit« MMM— �PPL5.0 Page 21 Page 90 Item#6. m x 381' W WIDTH VARIES THROUGHOUT SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN o a 38' 25' WATKINS DRAIN CITYSEWER Es o S EASEMENT EASEMENT �— z a D a W a rc oZ aZ I I 14' o a z I I g+ a SHAPER VIEW DUAL I PURPOSE APEX WEST z ESTATES i "° i PATHWAY a' SUBDIVISION I I ti PEDESTRIAN AND F LL 3�'_^ I t SEWER nLL I p¢5xUQ5; > ACCESS � u wzN a:i 05: 2730 =2730 lam 2728— _ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ —_ _— _ —_ _ —_ —_ _ _— —_ — _ —2728 ENGINEER I N G 2726— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —2726 NATIVE MANICURED i:oers�s.cils c LANDSCAPE I LANDSCAPE I RnuRR WATKINS DRAIN SECTION NTS 1 OF 1 •`gEaFlD� vssnve o•. Page 22 Page 91 Item#6. D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: $ 1 3/15/22) -REVISED R-2C MMO MT ARM R4[ MMON LOTARM C O LID P ®®B®®9®®®®® U0 GG�G.0 611 TM� R-LscOMMON LOT NiEAS I — wo�a,.K..esyrm a.�,o..,a,. ,-Mi i� Co .�._.. ..� ...w. „e„� APEX WEST SUBUMSIDN. MERIDIAN,IUAHD AP-I%ESTSUBDRISION OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT �� ,«� oafs wxE uw�arr SEX 1.0 Page 23 Page 92 E. Conceptual Building Elevations - i i `I � Y��AIM �• ss�_ ' - ApexNW ReudendalAlky _ Y I 1LI�7f! Apex SE Ae�lden[ial-[anvenrbnol 741.1 Apes Sf Fesb'entbl-[pnveaRnnel - F - AFea'SE ResdendW-Com:entiarwl __ �_ �I y Apes sr rsesiaennor [onve no r Apa=Sf ResidertrMl-[anuenrbnal Page 24 Item#6. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS Prior to City Couneil efAer-ine its Findings ef Fag Genelt*siefis of Law,Final Peeision, and Or-der-, approval of the subject preliminary plat applieation,a pfepeAy boundary adjustment shall be ereates a separate develepable par-eel for-that area.- A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Future development shall comply with the provisions of the existing Development Agreements(i.e. Shafer View Estates—Inst. #2021-102396 and Apex—Inst. #2020-178120), and the preliminary plat,phasing plan, common driveway exhibits, landscape plan and conceptual elevations in Section VII and the conditions of approval listed below. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access to the collector and arterial streets, except for Lots 4-11,Block 10. b. Depict an easement for the 20-foot wide street buffer on the west side of S. Apex Ave. south of E. Crescendo St.; for the 25-foot wide street buffers on the west side of S. Locust Grove Rd. on Lot 2,Block 5 and on the north side of E. Lake Hazel Rd. on Lot 1,Block 1. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows: a. Depict additional landscaping within street buffers as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.Note: These standards were recently revised. b. Depict a 20-foot wide street buffer on the west side of S. Apex Ave. south of E. Crescendo St. with landscaping in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Note: These standards were recently revised. c. All pathways shall be improved per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.3 and have landscape strips along each side of the pathways and be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C,which requires a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn, and/or other vegetative ground cover. Pathways are not allowed to have a gravel surface. Landscape strips are required along all pathways, including those in Blocks 6, 7, 9 and 10—if within an easement that prohibits trees, additional area shall be provided outside of the easement to accommodate the required landscaping. d. Include calculations in the Project Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with the standards for pathway(11-3B-12C)landscaping; include required vs.provided number of trees. Landscaping is required along all pathways. e. A minimum 5-foot wide pathway shall be included in Lot 36,Block 6. f. Depict a 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway along the west side of S. Sublimity Ave. as required by the Park's Dept. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. g. The fencing on the northeast side of Lot 34,Block 6 shall be revised to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7A.7b. 4. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi- use pathways within the site that are not within the public right-of-way prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature in the phase in which they are located. Page 25 Page 94 Item#6. 5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-4 for the R-2 zoning district, 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district and 11- 2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district. 6. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 7. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. The Applicant requests approval of a waiver from City Council to leave the Watkins drain open—Council approved this request. 8. Homes on Lots 4-11,Block 10 shall have side entry garages with a turnaround area so that vehicles aren't backing out onto the collector street in an effort to preserve public safety. 9. If a multi-family development is proposed on Lot 1,Block 1, a conditional use permit application shall be submitted and approved prior to submittal of any building permit applications for that lot. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided in accord with UDC standards for such. 10. If single-family homes or townhomes are developed on Lot 2,Block 5; Lots 32 and 43,Block 6 and/or on Lot 1, Block 1,these lots shall be re-subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided in accord with UDC standards for such. 11. Homes on lots that abut collector streets(i.e. E. Quartz Creek St. and S. Sublimity Ave. and S.Apex Way south of E. Crescendo St.)and arterial streets [i.e. S. Locust Grove Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. (if applicable)] will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches, balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 12. Submit a detail of the proposed playground equipment with the final plat application. 13. All development within the Williams pipeline easement shall comply with the Williams Pipeline Developers Handbook. 14. Street setbacks for residential units abutting collector streets shall be as approved with ZOA- 2021-0003. 15. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall be submitted for the non-residential portions of the development(i.e. changing rooms associated with the swimming pool) and approved prior to submittal of applications for building permits.All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. 16. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 All sewer manholes must have a 14-foot-wide access road per the City Design Standards. 1.2 Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches. Page 26 Page 95 Item#6. 1.3 No permanent structures may be within City utility easements including but not limited to trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash enclosures, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc. 1.4 Do not run sewer main in common driveways, services should be run within the common driveway. 1.5 Sewer main should be run from the northern portion of the site down South Sublimity Way from the existing sewer main. Main should be kept within the Right of Way whenever possible. 1.6 12-inch water main will need to be constructed at the Northwest corner to make the second connection at East Quartz Creek Street. 1.7 There is a piece of water main missing at the corner of East Prickle Drive and East Pinpoint Way,this must be included to complete the water loop. 1.8 The water main in East Prime Drive needs to be upsized to 12-inch from South Subilimity Way to East Prickle Drive. 1.9 The water main in East Prickle Drive needs to be upsized to 12-inch from East Prime Drive to East Heyday Drive. 1.10 The water stub in East Heyday Drive to the property line needs to be upsized to 12-inch 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 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 Page 27 Page 96 Item#6. assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a 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 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. 2.17 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. 2.18 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 Page 28 Page 97 Item#6. 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. 2.19 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. 2.20 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. 2.21 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. 2.22 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.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243074&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Phasing Map: https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243072&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=244321&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=248416&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n C ity F. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS https://weblink.meridianci ty.org/WeUink/Doc View.aspx?id=248658&dbid=0&rep o=Meridia n C ity Page 29 Page 98 Item#6. G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=242586&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=256785&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243205&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=243211&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty J. PARK'S DEPARTMENT hgps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251528&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The City Council finds that the proposed plat is generally consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density and collector street layout. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The City Council finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) Page 30 Page 99 Item#6. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The City Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 31 Page 100 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Copper Canary (H-2022- 0009) by ALC Architecture, Located at 2590 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #104129529) to remove the subject property from the agreement and prepare a new development agreement with an updated conceptual development plan, removal of the requirement for conditional use approval of any future uses on the site, and requirement for access to be taken from the north via the future backage road with emergency only access from the south. Page 101 Item#7. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 12, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 22, 2022 for Copper Canary (H-2022-0009) by ALC Architecture, Located at 2590 N. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #104129529) to remove the subject property from the agreement and prepare a new development agreement with an updated conceptual development plan, removal of the requirement for conditional use approval of any future uses on the site, and requirement for access to be taken from the north via the future backage road with emergency only access from the south. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 102 i PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: April 12, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 7 PROJECT NAME: Copper Canary (H-2022-0009) 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 i I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#7. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING April 12,2022 Legend DATE: Continued from:March 22, 2022 Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council R-8 E - C_G MODEL FROAM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner LN 208-884-5533 R_2 R-i5 LU RUT R-2 t7 SUBJECT: H-2022-0009 _ Q Copper Canary PP RL2 R1 a LOCATION: 2590 N. Eagle Rd.,in the NW 1/4 of R1 C-C , Section 4,T.3N.,R.IE. R_2 R-4 -� R-40 o R-4 W -RUT RUT I E RIVER VALLEY ST z N =R-4 C-G 0 a W3 z I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing development agreement(Inst. #104129529)to remove the subject property from the agreement and prepare a new development agreement with an updated conceptual development plan;removal of the requirement for conditional use approval of any future uses on the site;requirement for access to be taken from the north via the future backage road with emergency only access from the south. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Applicant: Jeff Likes,ALC Architecture— 1119 E. State St., Ste. 120,Eagle, ID 83616 B. Owner: East River Valley Street, LLC—2832 State St., Carlsbad, CA 92008 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Notification published in newspaper 3/6/2022 Page 1 Page 103 Item#7. Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 3/7/2022 Applicant posted public hearing notice on site 3/30/2022 Nextdoor posting 3/8/2022 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS The existing Development Agreement(DA))(Inst. #104129529—Red Feather AZ-03-021) originally encompassed a larger 114.52-acre area that includes Redfeather Estates,a residential development to the east and adjacent commercial properties. The DA requires any future uses of the property to only be approved through the Conditional Use Permit(CUP)process and requires either a public or private backage street generally parallel with Eagle Rd./SH-55 to be incorporated into the design of future site plans.A conceptual master plan demonstrating interconnectivity,transitional uses, access points and other key land planning issues is required prior to any detailed CUP applications being submitted. See Section VIA for more information. A variance(VAR-08-004)was approved in 2008 for a temporary access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 until such time as access can be provided to the site from either the south via a frontage road from the extension of E. River Valley St. or from the north across the South Slough. At such time,the temporary access to Eagle Rd. is required to be removed and the street buffer landscaping adjacent to Eagle Road is required to be completed. Currently, there is no access to the site from either the north or the south. The Applicant requests a modification to the existing DA to remove the subject property from the agreement and prepare a new DA with an updated conceptual development plan; removal of the requirement for conditional use approval of any future uses on the site; and requirement for access to be taken from the north via the future backage road with emergency only access from the south. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown in Section VI.0 that depicts a reconfigured parking area, extension of the street buffer and pedestrian pathway across the existing driveway from N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a drive aisle along the east boundary of the site connecting to the north for future access via Eagle Rd./SH-55 and to the south for emergency access only.Note:A driveway from Eagle Rd.ISH--55 is depicted on the concept plan partially on this site and partially on the property to the north that has not been approved; an approved access via Eagle/SH-55 exists approximately 500'to the north of the subject property. The UDC(11-3H-4B.2)does not allow new approaches directly accessing a state highway. The City Council may consider and approve a modification to this standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Department per UDC 11-3H-3. Staff anticipates a request for this access will be part of a future development application on the adjacent property to the north. The Applicant proposes new DA provisions,which are included in Section VI.D below. Staff is amenable to the request to remove the requirement for a conceptual master plan to be submitted for the overall area as much of this area has already been developed and/or has entitlements. Staff is also supportive of the removal of the requirement for any future uses to be approved through the CUP process as the UDC (Table 11-2B-2)governs the allowed uses in the C-G zoning district and a CUP is not required for all uses. Staff is not in favor of removal of the requirement for a public or private backage street generally parallel with Eagle Rd./SH-55 to be provided as UDC 11-3H- 4B.3 requires such to provide future connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the Applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road.Although a drive aisle/backage road is depicted on the conceptual site plan, Page 2 Page 104 Item#7. it's proposed to dead-end at the southern boundary with an emergency only access to the south. Because access is limited in this area, Staff believes it's important for this backage road to provide through unrestricted public access to the north and the south. The Fire Dept. does not support the backage road being blocked for emergency access only and states the road needs to run through unobstructed for fast access to businesses in this area. Based on the aforementioned recommendation, Staff recommends the conceptual site plan is revised to depict a backage road along the east boundary of the site with unrestricted access to the south. DA provision#5.1d should be revised to include vehicular access to the south. DA provision#5.1e should be replaced with a requirement for cross-access easements to be granted to the properties to the south and to the north; a recorded copy of the easements should be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the modification to the DA with the changes noted in Section V.D as discussed above in Section IV. VI. EXHIBITS A. Existing Development Agreement Provisions (Inst. #104129529) 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT; 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under"City's"Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Section 11-7-2(Kl which arc hmin specified as follows: Any future rises of the property shall be approved only through the conditional use permit process, Addidonally, either a public or private backage street generally parallel with Eagle RoadISH SS shall be incorporated into the design of the future site plans. A conceptual master plat demonsitwiag interconnectivity, transid09al rises, access points and other key land planning issues is required prior to any detailed CUP applications being submitted on either the Bryson or Schrammeck properties for the C-G Zone. Page 3 Page 105 Item#7. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without Mo( ification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPER'l'Y: 5.A "Owner shall develop the"Property:'in accordance with the following special conditims: 1. R.emaral of any cxi5fing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project from their domestic service must be accomplished at such time as the'SDwacrs"change the current use of"Propeny"or otherwise develop the"Property"in accordance with the terms hereof 2. Any future uses of the property shall be approved only through the conditional use permit process.In addition,there is a requirement that either a public or private backage stMet generally parallel with Eagle RoadlSH 55 shall be incorporated into the design of future site plans, A conceptual master plan demonstrating interconncctivity,transitional uses,access points and other key land planning issues is required prior to any detailed CUP applications being submitted on either the Bryson or Schram meck properties, The following Comprehensive Plan policies (from C'hWer VI and VII) shall be applicable to these properties: Tr�ongfi2n'Policies Applicable to the B-)-'sMlSchrammcek Annexation: * "Large development pmposals that are likely to generate significant traffic should be assessed for their irnpact on the transportation system and surrounding land uses. They should be examined for ways to encoursge all forms of transportation such as transit,walking,and cycling. * New development should not rely on cut-da-sacs since they provide poor fire access,walkability,and neighborhood social life, New development and streets should be designed to encourage walking and bicycling. In addition to providing for enhanced automobile traffic,Meridian should seek ways to encourage alternative modes of transport. Improvement in and encouraged use of public transit systems is an important first step, Public transit includes bus systems and ridesharing. By fostering such means of high vehicle occupamcies,congestion on roadways can be decreased. Page 4 Page 106 Item#7. * Pathwa}s that encourage use by bicyclists and pedestrians can decrease road congestion and add to the corrimunily's quality of Life. The proposed off-street and multiple-use pathway systems are depicted in Figures V1-3 and V14. New and existing developments should ensure that the guidelines laid out in this plan are adopted. * Eagle Road is the major north-south arterial in Ada County. The capacity of this artena.l should be protected by minimizing the number and Iocation of private driveway ac;czss connections to this important roadway. The City should recognize,adopt,and help implement the Eagle Roars Access Control Study, prepared by ACHD in 1997." Medix se Dcvclopment Policies Arrntieable to the-Brysvn/Schrammeck Annexatign --- — — * "Where feasiblo,multi-family residential uses will be encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as emplvymcnt destination centers and when the project is adjacent to State Highways 20-26,55 or 69, * In devclopments where multiple cornincreial andlor office buildings are proposed (not residential),the buildings should be arranged to create some form of cornrnon,usable area, such as a plaza or green space; * Where the project is developed adjacent to low or medium density residential uses, a transitional use is encouraged.,, 3. All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 124- 13.Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district.or lateral users association,with wrin=confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. ment. Page 5 Page 107 Item#7. B. Legal Description&Exhibit Map for Property Subject to New Development Agreement Leval Dewriptiorl of The l'rolxerty A portion 011ie Southwest quadef of the Northwest quart-oral Se-ctiDn 4.Ymmship3 kMh, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian.more particularly described as loNows: Commai,cing at the Norlhwesl corner at the SmAhweat gwrter of the f+JcuMwesi quarter of Section 4, Township 3 Wrth. Range t East, Boise Meridian.Ada Coonty.Idaho,Owce Smth along the Weg lido of said Section 4, a distance of 433,62 " to the Real Point al Beginning:thence Sou Oh SY4W fast 231X feel to a paint, thence Wh 83050'East 114.57 feet to a point:thence Sou th 213.05 f eel to a poi nt; thence Wesl 300,00 feet to a point an the West line of said See tion 4 thence North 342.64 tee[1a the Point al Beginning. Excepting a 25 toot strip on the West side far high wziy right-af-way- Also Exceptkng a parcel al land being ors Me Easterly+side of the centerline of Stale Highway No. 55(Eagle Road) Project No. NH-F-3271(037)Highway Survey, ae. shown on the plans thereof now art file in Iheoflice of the Idaho Transportation Ceparlment, and bang a p&lion of the Southwest quarter of [Fie North*esI quarter of See Iion 4.Township 3 Nwh. Range 1 East. Boise Mefrtian. de sorted 861pllvws to-wit: Commencing at the Northwest corder of the Sou thwest quarter of the Northwesl quarler of Section 4, Toms ship3 North, RarW t East. Boise Mendian that boars North 89:23'4r Wes 10.34 fen#from Station ISSM.73of Said SlateN ghwrallyNo. 55(Eagle Road). Project NH-F-3271(07)HighwaySuvey; the nee South Q*3613' West(shown d record to be South)aIaN the Wes line d said Southwest quader of the NorthwW quarter a disianre of 76S.43 feet Is how n o1 record to be 776-26 "Q b the Southwest corner of the tract al land as described in that certain Wmranty peed dated Janumyr 24,197&rKorded January 24, 1975.as Instrument No- 9129%records of Ada Coonty. Idaho. said corner being a point in the centerline of said Slate Highway No. 55,1hat is coincident with Station 147466.37 of said Highway Surreyand being the Reef Plsceof Beginring; Ihence South 89-23'47' East(shown of retard I be E.asI)along the South line of said tract of Band 70.0 feet to a paint in a We parallel with and 70.0 feet Easterly frofn the rerrlerine and tears South 89-23'47' Ent Imm Station 147+66 31 of said Highway Survey: thence North 0 36'13- East along sand paralel line a distonc3e of 29 1.0 5 lee110 a point in the Northerly line of said tract of land and being q*mitE Station 154+5?.35 of said Highweay+3lrwey; thence North 53'0347' West lshown of recordlo be North 53 40'West)along sand Nod herlyfine 9620 feel to the l,t*M"m$t corner col said ir4cI of land,said oumer bung a poini i n the West fine of said South*vsI quarter of the Northwest quarter,said litres[firte tieing coimidenl with the cenieriine of said State Highwalr No- 55, and said point be coincidenr wrllh Stal$w 151+09.84 of said High way S urvey, thence South,0 3613' Vilest along said Nest line being coincid t*l th said centerine342,53"to the Real Place of Beginning. 1XI1111I]C F"UiE I I* i Page 6 Page 108 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll JoAnn Butler From: Jeffrey W. Bower <jeffbower@givenspursley.com> Sent: Tuesday,April 12, 2022 4:24 PM To: sallen@meridiancity.org Cc: JoAnn Butler Subject: H-2022-0009 [IWOV-GPDMS.FID843535] Hi Sonya: Givens Pursley represents GFI—Meridian investments LLC,the owner of Ada County Tax Parcel S1104233650. GFI's property is just north of the property that is the subject of H-2022-0009. My client is generally supportive the development agreement modifications requested by the applicant in H-2022-0009 and GFI does not object to the emergency access requested by the applicant to the south. We have been working with the applicant's counsel for several months to ensure applicant's property will have connectivity to the north. During this irrigation off-season (2021-2022), GFI completed work to pipe the Finch Lateral pursuant to a license agreement with NMID.This will allow north/south connectivity between the properties. We will continue to work with the applicant to provide access through the GFI property and out to SH55. As you know, GFI—Meridian investments will be submitting applications with the City to develop its property in the very near future.These applications will include a RIRO access as shown on the graphic below(Site Access A). At this time, based on the information we have, ITD is supportive of this design, however, ITD is still reviewing the full project TIS. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you, Jeff i — —� E M ft —'—w— 1—v cm -al 15-1 4. �'1 11 A, RE" 01 1- ,ws V"W t . Nar�.t Y i r � Right might-�uE ti Ac�e- t . ., F o j )i jF J G a � Fr ss .51 � a . ram ,-:- a ♦ ii f r � r a e y u pru ` jF r. f5i 7` u Praposetl dull I { y »; Al Slta�AmaF. ss AN go ' tsk om., `` ,- � '- M CAST PJVMR VALLEY STMETLa Milo I Jeff Bower GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 2 Item#7. I COPPER CANARY Y LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT a1ow r.m PORTION OF THE SW 1A OF THE hW 14 OF SECn4N AV fir 4,T.W.R1 E„MiSE MERMAN.CRY OF MERC VA ADAGOLKrVJBNMO. SEARMCS mO CAEUh f3 war v ar FREw AREWDuE PLATS WE TO OFFENENr wETFW OF W-�SuRE4ENM FEBRl,1,aRY= $GALE!i'■V SHEP7 1 OF i �v J I I.N. -165M ID L LAI 18350 L AFCEF2APl ESTVOLD TMIWofft(IIYHrWflOrlm,Ste.102 GarnenClq,1083714 208.063.64M- wwwackermen-HHlvoldam Wiml.ac ; FSi4[ KE. VAlkun.40 1 Huse lE Page 7 Page 109 Item#7. C. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan T A# � sp 1. fdt 1 ter' R�L�CATE❑ TRASH EMERGENCY ENCLOSURE EGRESS ONLY CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN COPPER CANARY SITE WORK L Page 8 Page 110 Item#7. D. Proposed Development Agreement Provisions Staffs recommended changes to the proposed provisions are shown in strike-out/underline format. 1. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed as permitted, conditional and/or accessory uses under the UDC. 1.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 2. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Development of the Property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the Development Agreement recorded as Instrument No. 104129529. b. Development of the Property shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan depicted on Exhibit"C",attached hereto, and the provisions contained herein_ C. Owner/Developer shall make application for administrative Design Review. Future development shall comply with the structure and site design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual. Strict design review of all four sides of the remodeled existing building is required. d. The existing direct access to the Property via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 shall continue until vehicular access to the north across the South Slough and to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55 or to the south to E. River Vallgy St. is provided. At such time,the temporary access to Eagle Rd./SH-55 shall be removed and the street buffer landscaping adjacent to Eagle Road shall be completed consistent with the UDC standards.Note: The access via N. Eagle Rd./SH--55 depicted on the conceptual development plan along the northern boundary of this site is not approved with this application. e. The drive aisle oft the east side of the Pr-epefty shall tefminate a4 the sotAh boundafy o Teri is FiFe r.o...,..t. ent Cross-access easements shall be,granted to the properties to the north and to the south and recorded copies of the easements shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. f. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative Design Review applications shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division prior to submittal of a building permit application(s). Page 9 Page 111