Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-05-03 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, May 03, 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 as Amended (Item 1 Vacated) PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\] 1. Fire Station No. 7 & No. 8 and North Police Precinct Bid & Guaranteed Maximum Price Presentation by Engineered Structures, Inc. Vacated 2. Public Works: Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Amendment in the amount of $304,000.00 for the purchase of a Biosolids Hauling Truck and Trailer Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing Continued from April 19, 2022 for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (CR-2022-0003) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. Denied A. Request: Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision pertaining to the Unified Development Code (Table 11-2B-3) requirement for a 25-foot-wide buffer to be provided in the C-C zoning district along the northern property boundary adjacent to a residential use. Motion to deny made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 4. Public Hearing for Lavender Heights Development Agreement Modification (H- 2022-0017) by Breckon Land Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd., at the Northeast Corner of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S. Bloomerang Ave. Approved A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement of the Lavender Heights Subdivision (Inst. # 2020-106343) for the purpose of updating the phase 4 concept plan and to modify relevant provisions. Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 5. Public Hearing for Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Generally Located Northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way Approved A. Request: Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of recouping five (5) building lots in a future final plat phase of the Oaks North Subdivision. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 6. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400) Remanded to Planning and Zoning Commission A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district. Motion to remand to Planning and Zoning Commission made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 7. Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005) by Summertown, LLC, Located at 3104 N. Venable, at the Southeast Corner of N. Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd. Approved A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9 single- family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 8:18 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council May 3, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:08 p.m., Tuesday, May 3, 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, Joe Dodson, Sonya Allen, Laurelei McVey, Scott Colaianni, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is 6:08 on May 3rd, 2022. 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: Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone come in under the community invocation this evening? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Okay. The next item up is the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I want Council and attendees to know that Item No. 6, the Pinedale Subdivision on Pine Avenue, the applicant is requesting a remand to Planning and Zoning Commission, so that when we get to Item No. 6 we typically honor that type of request. Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 2-" So, if you are here for that, just so you are aware of that taking place. Also Item No. 1 , the Fire Station No. 7 and 8 and north police precinct, was discussed at the work session and we got through that discussion, so we will remove Item No. 1 from our agenda. So, Mr. Mayor, I move adoption of the agenda with the removal of Item No. 1. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted as amended. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 1. Fire Station No. 7 & No. 8 and North Police Precinct Bid & Guaranteed Maximum Price Presentation by Engineered Structures, Inc. Vacated 2. Public Works: Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Amendment in the amount of $304,000.00 for the purchase of a Biosolids Hauling Truck and Trailer Simison: Okay. Then with that we will go on to Item 2 on the published agenda, which is for Public Works Fiscal Year 2022 budget amendment in the amount of 304,000 dollars. Turn this over to Laurelei. McVey: All right. Thank you. So, Mayor, Members of the Council, thanks for a few minutes of your evening. So, we are bringing forward an FY-22 potential budget amendment and I would like to give you a little bit of background on that. So, I know all of you guys know what biosolids is, but for the audience or people at home, biosolids are one of the end products of our wastewater plant and it ends up being a nutrient rich soil- like material that we dispose of at the landfill. So, they use that as ground cover at the landfill. We produce a little over 9,000 wet tons of biosolids per year, which equates to about six to seven halls per week up to the landfill. So, these are currently hauled via our contract with Republic Services and this is a pass through cost. So, there is two costs that are associated with our biosolids haul. The first is the cost to actually take it to the landfill and that 29 dollars a ton is set by the Ada County Landfill. The second is the hauling rate and this previously was 195 dollars a haul and that has increased to 415 dollars a hall. So, that is a -- a significant increase and made us pause and run some additional analysis. We had Republic Services get additional quotes and numbers for us to find out is our current hauler -- is that the most reasonable haul cost and they did find Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 3 of— out that there is not another local option that would come in close to that. Republic Services even looked at could they bring in their own equipment and haul it and they could not do it for haul cheaper than the cost that we are getting through the third-party hauler. So, a couple of things that are driving that cost up is the cost of labor, cost of fuel, but most importantly is the trailer that's being used. So, since this discussion has started that trailer has reached its end of life and is no longer usable. The cost of the new trailer -- since Meridian is the only customer of this hauler using -- that is being used for the biosolids, they aren't able to spread those costs out to other -- other people, so most of that cost goes on to the city. So, we said if we are looking at paying this high of a haul rate does it make sense to look at self hauling. So, a couple of options. We have the self-haul option, which I will talk about. We can enter into a longer term contract with Republic Services and this hauler. The longer that they are able to amortize that truck cost out the lower the haul cost, but it doesn't get it down by a significant amount or we can do nothing and keep the status quo and continue to pay the 415 haul rate without entering into any contractual agreement. So, the risks there, the cost could go up or down in the future. So, the self haul option -- we looked at scoping out a hauling truck and a hauling trailer to do this operation and it's about 304,000 dollars in capital cost. Additionally, there would be some FTE labor. So, with -- we ran an ROI and it includes the labor cost, the capital equipment cost. It includes fuel, repair costs, and also an assumption of an increase in biosolids each year and even with all of those costs it's about a 1.2 million dollar savings over a 15 year period and the truck pays for itself in about three years. So, a couple of logistics. With the current challenge and the market right now we have been quoted a lead time of about nine to ten months for a truck. So, if we were to get your approval today to move forward with this budget amendment we technically won't spend the money until FY-23, but I can't start the order unless we have your guys' approval. So, it would be approval now, but the actual spending would occur in '23. We wouldn't be asking for any labor today either, obviously, because the truck isn't here, but we have an FTE already scheduled in the CFP for FY-23 for your guys' consideration and that's in our collection system group. These guys are already CDL drivers and are accustomed to driving big equipment, so it would make sense for us to bring it into that group. It would take one FTE about 50 percent of their time making these hauls. So, our thought was this employee group could haul the biosolids in the morning and, then, that employee would jump on the hydro cleaner and the TV van and help that group keep up with the goals of that program. So, with that I will stand for any questions and ask for your guys' approval of the FY-22 budget amendment for the truck and trailer. Simison: Thank you, Laurelei. Council, questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Comment. That's exactly how to present a budget amendment. Just saying. Options. Logistics. Recommendation. So, I agree with the recommendation, but I also love the way you present it. Succinct. Clear. The facts we need to make the decision. So thank you. Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page,-- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Borton: I echo Council Member Borton's comments. I like when I have my questions and you kind of check them off as you go. There was one that you didn't touch on it and it just had piqued my curiosity. We are the only city that's hauling biosolids? What are -- what are the other municipalities doing about that? McVey: So, Councilman Cavener, we are the only city that's not self hauling. So, the other cities have already bought their own trucks. Cavener: Thanks. Simison: Just ask the -- do you know what the ROI is if we were to enter into the ten year contract compared to going our own rate -- or own route? Hopson: Still against that rate it would be just under five years. Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve fiscal year 2022 budget amendment in the amount of 304,000 for the purchase of a biosolids hauling truck and trailer for the Public Works Department. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item No. 2 in the amount of 304,000 dollars. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing Continued from April 19, 2022 for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (CR-2022-0003) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 5 of 45 A. Request: Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision pertaining to the Unified Development Code (Table 11-2B- 3) requirement for a 25-foot-wide buffer to be provided in the C-C zoning district along the northern property boundary adjacent to a residential use Simison: So, with that we will move on to Item No. 3, which is a public hearing continued from April 19, 2022, for Eagle Road Daycare Facility, CR-2022-0003, and -- and we will continue the public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Apologies, Mr. Mayor. You guys are speedy tonight. Alrighty. The first application before you is a request for City Council review of the Commission's decision. This site is zoned C-C. It's located at 3060 South Eagle Road on the east side of South Eagle Road just north of East Victory Road. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is mixed use community. On March 17th the Commission approved a conditional use permit for a daycare center providing childcare for up to 216 children on this site as a condition, Condition A-4-F of that approval the applicant is required to provide a 25 foot wide buffer along the northern property line adjacent to the residential property to the north. Because there is an existing 15 foot wide access easement along the northern property line benefiting the property owner to the north, only grass is allowed in the northern 15 feet of the buffer, with trees and shrubs meeting the buffer requirement in the southern ten feet of the buffer. The UDC 11-3B-9C2 requires the width of the buffer to be determined by the district in which the property is located unless such width is otherwise modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks. All structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district, which is 25 feet in this case. The proposed site plan should be revised to reflect compliance with the setback requirement, as the building currently encroaches a few feet within that setback area. The applicant has submitted a request for City Council review of the Commission's decision in this matter. The applicant proposes to install a six foot tall site obscure -- excuse me -- site obscuring privacy fence along the northern property line with no landscaping, other than grass, in the required buffer area. A revised site plan was submitted shown there on the right that depicts a driveway stub to the north that is angled toward the west to accommodate a future development plan on the adjacent property to the north, which has not yet been submitted or approved. This site is required to provide a driveway stub to the north, which was depicted on the site plan approved with the conditional use permit in accord with the development agreement, the alignment of which is not the subject of this application before you tonight. There has been no written testimony submitted on this application. Staff will stand for any questions. The applicant is here tonight to present. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 6 of— Cavener: Sonya, if I remember correctly, the P&Z spent a big chunk of time talking about parking, but it's not necessarily an issue that's before us today. Allen: No. No. It -- just the -- just the buffer width to the north. The -- the Commission already acted on the conditional use permit. The applicant required -- or requested Council review of the buffer width, which is only allowed by the UDC to be changed by the Council. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Sonya, is that access easement being actively used? I looked at an aerial and it looks like it's a dirt road that's being used to access that property. So, I'm trying to understand if -- if what I saw is actually on this property or the property to the north and when I read the staff report I was under the impression that they -- the applicant didn't want to do any landscaping, so I assumed they weren't even interested in grassing the property. Allen: To answer your several questions, the --the easement is definitely on this property. It was associated with the residential property to the north. It was for access -- I believe it was to a well on the eastern end of their property. So, that's why it's there. From what I understand the adjacent property has either been sold or is in the process to a developer for redevelopment, so -- and, then, your -- your -- your last question about the landscaping, the CUP required them to do grass within that area -- within the easement area. Did I answer all your questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I didn't think two was excessive, but maybe -- no. I'm kidding. I do have another question, but I will ask the applicant. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: The question I think for the applicant in -- in five words or less is the condition -- the very, very, very narrow issue that's before us is this singular condition. P&Z said X and you would rather it say Y. Like in a very succinct--that would be super helpful. That's it. Thanks. Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, that's exactly it. That's all that's before you tonight. Thank you. Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page , —" Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Then I will ask the applicant to come forward. If you can state your name and address for the record, please. Kozlowski: Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Samantha Kozlowski. I'm a development manager with 814 Development. We have been working with Sonya on the conditional use permit and tonight we have this issue before you that we would like to present for your approval. Basically what you have here is us looking for a reduction in the required 25 foot landscape buffer. As Sonya stated, we would be able to install the six foot high privacy fence along the northern property line of our parcel here and, then, we would be able to provide full grass within the 15 foot of that landscape buffer. So, as you know, with the existing cross-access easement, we are not able to do full landscaping within that, unless the easement were to be vacated. Just kind of something to add. We have been in communications with the developer to the north. They are in support of this concept plan and, then, what we have in plan for the grass area and the privacy fence. Still kind of some continued talks on the drive aisle that's shown there and whether it will be curbed or not, but, again, we ask for your support in the reduction for the required landscape buffer and let me know what questions you have. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: This is where I got a little -- just a little confused. I know it's super narrow, but the buffer itself is still 25 feet; right? Because the setback is 25 feet. Kozlowski: That's correct. Yeah. Borton: So, that's not changing, but the amount of that 25 feet that is going to be landscaped is that the change that you are asking the landscape -- or green up 15 of the 25 feet? Kozlowski: Exactly. So, as you can see here, the area that is shown in gray, that's a sidewalk that leads out to the side of the daycare facility. So, we do have a sidewalk in that area and, then, everything north of that would be the grass area. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And that 15 foot easement that's on the other property, I'm assuming that's some sort of a lateral or canal or something that -- it's an easement of some sort that they can't put any landscaping on or they might be able to, but that would be up to them if it -- if it's allowed. Kozlowski: Correct. And, yes, it actually is located on our property, but it would need to be up to their discretion if we would be able to provide any landscaping within that area. Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 8 of— So, if they were to submit for a landscape vacation easement or something of that matter, we would be able to work with them on that and they are working with us on a cross- access easement for parking and flow through both sites, so we have been working together and just want to be a good neighbor here and work together to make a good development. Borton: Okay. Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I apologize if I -- if I'm not tracking. So, you are asking for a reduction from 25 feet to 15 feet and the ten foot reduction is because the original concept plan for the building doesn't fit within the site or -- help me understand why you need to reduce this by ten feet. Kozlowski: Absolutely. So, as you can see on the revised concept plan, the one that was shown most recent, you can see that there is a portion of it that is within that 25 foot setback. The sidewalk on the south side of the building will be reduced, so that that building will fall within the 25 foot buffer. So, that won't be an issue at all. The only matter here would be the reduction of the landscape buffer from the 25 foot to the 15 foot, like you stated. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I'm -- I'm not -- still not quite sure why you need the reduction in -- in -- from 25 to 15. Is it you just don't want to do 25? Kozlowski: Sorry. We have -- the sidewalk is in the -- if you can see like the southern portion of the -- the gray area that's shown in the southern portion of the 25 feet, it's about five to six feet. That area we cannot provide the grass, because there is the sidewalk right there. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, essentially, the building is too big and if the building were smaller, then, both of those sidewalks would fit within the -- the -- excuse me -- within the -- the buffer. So, that's really I guess what I'm trying to get at is was there any conversation about shrinking the size of the building to fit within the code? Kozlowski: We did have that conversation, although this is the tenant's prototypical Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 9 of— building, so, unfortunately, there is no wiggle room in their prototype and this is what they would have to provide in order to make the site work and to provide childcare. But with the reduction of the sidewalk on the south, with the reduction of the width of that, we will be able to fit within the 25 foot setback. So, the building would be within the required setback yard there. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: All right. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this item or is there anybody online who will wish to provide testimony and, if so, use the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the Zoom call. No one is coming forward or raising their hand, so would the applicant like to make any final comments? Kozlowski: No. Thank you for taking the time to hear our request this evening. We hope you are in support of the project and, again, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Simison: Thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I'm more confused than I thought I would -- would be on this, quite frankly. Jessica's questions on the building size kind of makes sense. You got a building -- yeah, I just don't get it. I'm not catching why the Council's -- or why the Commission's condition can't be complied with and why the landscaping doesn't go in. So, maybe someone else picked something up that I missed. I don't -- I just don't get it. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I have the same question as -- as Councilman Borton. I -- I -- typically when we see these reductions that has something to do with the geography of the property or there is a limitation, because of a use on a neighboring property, but this is just a request because the building size doesn't fit within what our requirement is and -- and my concern is that if we say yes to this request, that, you know, we are going to have many more of these that are just wanting to reduce the width just because their site plan doesn't work for what they had hoped it would and it isn't necessarily because of an actual limitation created by the property itself. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 10 of— Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Here -- here was my take on it and it could be different and way off, but where -- where staff report says because there is an existing 15 foot wide access easement along the northern property line benefiting the property owner to the north -- okay. So, they are -- they are going to have 25 foot, because, then, there is going to be the ten foot buffer that they want to have in grass, so that's where I was -- my question about that easement was, okay, so something is prohibiting landscaping over there and if that's an easement that's of-- of that 15 foot wide. I don't know what it is and we didn't get to that. So, now you are moving it closer and, then, you have got a sidewalk here within that, they just want to go with grass instead of landscaping is my understanding. So, there is 25 foot total, but it's not --we are not -- they can't comply with the landscaping or don't desire to comply, because they don't have that full width to put -- put landscaping on. So, you could probably do it within the ten foot, but it sounds like there is the sidewalk and it's a daycare and how much landscaping you need -- I'm not -- I'm not sure, Sonya, if you can shed some light on that or not, but that was my take on it. Allen: Mr. Mayor, if you would -- if you would like me to respond. Councilman Hoaglun, Council, yeah, they are -- they are not asking for a reduction in the buffer width and you can't approve a buffer width reduction. Well, I should say you can do that, but that doesn't affect the building setback. So, their issue is -- as you said is their building is too big. If they bring their building back and if they didn't have the sidewalk on the north side of their building they would comply with --they would have adequate room to provide landscaping in that southern ten feet. The condition as is requires them to provide all of the buffer landscaping within the southern ten feet, rather than say in the middle of that buffer area, which is standard. So, they are -- they are asking for -- to be -- not required to do the -- any of the shrubs or trees and, you know, we don't require a sidewalk on the north side of the building, it's something they are proposing and that's the reason they can't provide the landscaping, at least directly adjacent to the building to the north. They could still provide it on the west side of the building -- on the west side of the sidewalk, but -- and would buffer the play area, which --which makes some sense. So, if you were, you know, willing to approve that at a minimum I would suggest that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Sonya, is that a standard three foot sidewalk? Is that a larger sidewalk than -- is it four foot? Do we know? Allen: It's four or five feet. I'm not positive. The applicant could probably answer that for you for sure. It's not dimensioned on the plan. Hoaglun: So that encroaches into the ten foot, into the -- the buffer requirement space, so, you know, to plant a tree in a -- in a five foot area up against the building where there is a sidewalk, you are going to have some issues I think. Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page , , —— Allen: Well, the -- the site may -- Mr. Mayor, excuse me. The -- the building does need to shift down a couple -- two or three feet. It is shown within that buffer area and that is a setback area and I have discussed that with the applicant and they are able to shift that down. As you can see the sidewalk on the south side of the building is a little wider just directly south. So, they have room to shift that and -- and comply with the ordinance that way. And -- and there is a possibility that they will get that easement relinquished along the northern boundary, but it's not something we can act on today, because it's not done and we can't require that adjacent property owner to relinquish that with this application, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sonya, would that requirement to shift the building down be a required condition in a motion tonight or will that just have to happen because it's in the ordinance? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, yeah, that's just an ordinance requirement and that does not need to be part of the motion. They are already conditioned to comply with that section of code. Strader: Got it. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to share some thoughts. I feel like having the addition of sidewalk, as opposed to grass, is fine. I don't -- I don't view that as a hugely material issue. I feel like the buffer overall is the same. I think it meets the spirit of what we are trying to do and definitely childcare is desperately needed in Meridian. I don't want us to like lose sight, you know, forest for the trees. It doesn't feel like a huge exception to me, unless I'm missing something. It just feels like we are exchanging some landscaping and a little bit of grass for sidewalk in light of the small dimensions here next to the fence. It doesn't seem like a huge issue to me overall. Allen: Mr. Mayor, may I clarify? Simison: Yes, you may. Allen: The issue is -- is that the -- the buffers to residential uses are required to be landscaped with a mix of trees and conifers, basically, that are spaced pretty close, so that it allows trees to touch at maturity-- maturity and the --the reason for that is to provide a visual and a sound buffer between adjacent uses. Commercial uses adjacent to residential specifically. So, by just providing grass they aren't -- they aren't getting any of that. They are providing a fence -- a six foot tall fence. Code does speak to that. When they are providing a fence it does speak to reducing the -- the tree requirements in that buffer when a -- when a solid fence is proposed and -- and our typical perimeter Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 12 of 45 landscaping is -- is one tree per 35 linear feet. So, that -- that could be reduced down to that. But either way with what they are proposing with the sidewalk on the north side of the building it -- it doesn't allow adequate room for landscaping within that southern ten feet of the buffer as currently required in the CUP condition. Simison: So, Sonya, to follow up on the comment you made to -- are -- are we trying to create a buffer to the north because there is existing residential compared to what it will become? Allen: It's the existing use, Mr. Mayor, that it goes off of and it -- it is residential. That use has not changed. It may be abandoned, I'm not really sure, but we don't have any permits through the city saying otherwise that it has changed. Simison: So, that RUT area is planned to be residential. Allen: It's designated mixed use. Simison: And the buffers would apply between commercial to mixed use in the future? Allen: It -- it doesn't speak to the future use. It -- it speaks to the existing use. Simison: Because that -- that's -- that would be my -- we -- we -- I mean it's not been a secret to me, I have been told Black Rock is going in right to -- to this area -- to the north is going to be commercial is what the intention is. Now -- so, I guess that that would be part of the item -- it seems odd to require something that's going to be residential if we don't think it's going to develop as residential in the future. Allen: Well, the -- the preliminary plan that is -- that we have actually had at pre- application meeting on for that property is multi-family residential. Simison: Okay. Allen: Or vertically integrated, with mostly residential, so -- either way I think it's -- it's probably going to be residential, yeah. Simison: Okay. Fair enough. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Unless Council has other questions to discuss from staff, I'm going to make a motion that we close the public hearing on CR-2022-0003. Strader: I will second. Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 13 of 45 Simison: Motion and 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: ALL AYES. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Or Councilman Borton. Borton: Thank you for that compliment. Best part of my day. I'm not supportive of the request. Just some brief context. I -- I kind of get it, but I want to support our code and Planning and Zoning. There were some -- some choices made that I don't want to invite requests of -- of sort of self inflicted attempts to modify code. Maybe this one is not the biggest deal, but I think as a matter of principle it makes sense to -- to stay true to our code. It has purpose behind it. Staff described that well tonight. P&Z recognized it. So, for this one I'm not supportive of the request. Cavener: Is that a motion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Excuse me. I will get a motion out and see what happens. I'm going to move that we deny CR-2022-0003 for the reason stated. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. I want to call you Hoaglun, too. I'm sorry. It was -- Cavener- I will take it. That's, again, compliments all the way around. I just want to make sure that we are correct in this, because --the denial is upholding the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision? The recommendation of denial upholds the -- okay. Simison: Is there further discussion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Not discussion, I just -- in thinking that this is something that -- that could have Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 14-- been figured out of -- really early in the process before the -- you know, the lessee was secured and the building -- building size was determined, that code hasn't changed. So, I can -- I think that's kind of for me where --where I'm in agreement with --with Councilman Borton is just I don't -- I don't -- I'm trying to figure out how this could have been -- like this is a situation that could have been just prevented with more due diligence or not and so I think it possibly could have. Simison: Is there further discussion? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm kind of struggling a little bit. I -- I tend to agree with the principle of sticking to our guns on -- on what we require. It's tough, though; right? It's prototype. This is really needed in Meridian. I have to think at the end of the day this is a matter of the -- the prototype could be altered. So, I think I'm in agreement. I -- I would hope that the applicant could make some changes here to come into compliance. Simison: With that ask the Clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is not agreed to. But the motion was agreed to, but the request was denied. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 4. Public Hearing for Lavender Heights Development Agreement Modification (H-2022-0017) by Breckon Land Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd., at the Northeast Corner of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S. Bloomerang Ave. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement of the Lavender Heights Subdivision (Inst. # 2020-106343) for the purpose of updating the phase 4 concept plan and to modify relevant provisions Simison: Next item up is Item 4, public hearing for Lavender Heights Development Agreement Modification, H-2022-0017. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Good evening. First project is for Lavender Heights Development Agreement Modification. That is -- why did I not change the pictures? I apologize. That is not the correct picture at all. The site consists of Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 15 of 45 approximately 3.78 acres of land, currently zoned R-40, located at 2160 East Lake Hazel. It's directly north of Discovery Park. It was annexed and zoned as part of the Lavender Heights Subdivision in 2020 -- early 2020 was my first big project of the city, so bear with me if I made any mistakes back then. The future land use map calls this -- for this area to be medium high density residential, which is eight to 12 units per acre. The request tonight is to amend the existing DA of the Lavender Heights Subdivision for the purpose of updating the concept plan -- updating this concept plan and any relevant provisions associated with the development of phase four of this subdivision. As noted in 2020, the property did receive annexation and subdivision approval to develop the residential subdivision in four phases known as Lavender Heights. First three phases depicted detached single family and the fourth phase depicted a basic concept for the multi-family project. Again, modification is just for phase four. The first three phases have received final plat approval and I believe at least phase one is currently under construction. The new concept plan depicts a townhome development and a private street drive aisle, instead of a traditional garden style apartment complex, which was vaguely shown on the original concept plan. Further, the submitted concept plan contemplates 30 units, instead of the anticipated minimum of 36 units outlined in DA provision 5.1 E. For the overall development a loss of six units does not affect its overall density in any measurable way. This area of the plat was intended to be the densest area of the development as it is along Lake Hazel, which is a mobility corridor, and because it is across from Discovery Park. If the development is a multi-family project or a townhome, meaning platted as townhomes, which are three or more in one building, a future CUP is required within the R-40 zoning district. If the units are to be sold off individually or in groups, they will also require a plat. So, minimally a CUP will be required for what is shown. So, this is not the final approval that the city can or will grant. In summary, staff does support either option. They would contribute to the housing diversity offered within the development and the surrounding area. Based on the process outlined, staff will ensure the future multi-family or townhome development complies with the most current UDC standards in affect at the time. Really, brass tacks, the DA mod before you is do you like the old concept plan and multi-family better than the proposed concept plan of the townhomes and do you want a reduction of six units or not in the overall. That's what we are here for. These are a copy of the -- my proposed DA revisions outlined in my staff report and I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe, for breaking it down pretty quick and easy there at the end. Council, any questions for staff? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Joe,just to be clear, whether it is multi-family or townhomes, they still are going to need to go to Planning and Zoning to get a CUP; is that right? Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, that is correct. Why a townhome project needs a CUP and R-40 -- I don't know, but it does. Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 16 of 4 Perreault: Okay. As we will see in another hearing this evening, if they don't they could possibly affect the amenities that are provided for the overall development, so I just wanted to make sure that that's going to be reviewed by Planning and Zoning. Dodson: It absolutely will be. Yes, ma'am. Perreault: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? All right. Then, will -- is the applicant here to come forward? And if you can state your name and address for the record, be recognized for 15 minutes. Breckon: John Breckon. Breckon Land Design. 6661 Glenwood Street. And I prepared a short presentation. This is --you may remember when Lavender came through a couple years ago -- okay. Thank you. Here is the -- the location just for reference and this is the rendering of the -- of the overall project and you can see the -- the property there that we are referring to tonight is -- is that frontage piece along Lake Hazel. It's across from the park. And here are the two shots of what -- what was agreed and it is currently in the development agreement. On the left with the multi-family concept and the concept that we are proposing tonight for the modification, it shows the -- the 30 units on the right and I would also like to just thank Joe for working with us on this, because we -- we went back and forth quite a bit to come up with this plan. One of the -- one of the items that was of question at one point was whether this would -- these would be rental properties or to be sold and -- and bought and -- and just for clarity I just wanted to reiterate that the intent is that these would be sold and bought. This is a rendering of the -- the front facade and, actually -- and I back up here. One thing that -- the way these are designed is that -- I just want to describe what's -- what -- what we are showing depicting on the plan, but, again, the Farr Lateral here on the -- along the north side of the property with the ten foot wide regional pathway that actually goes through most of the property, but it goes -- it just parallels to the Farr Lateral and the way these are designed is that the front door faces the open space on the Farr Lateral and same with these units on the south and along Bloomerang. So, the front doors are -- are facing the street and as well as on the south units, the front doors face the street and so this is -- it's kind of a modified alley load type of a product with a private street that enters in and, then, the garages would be on this -- on this -- right along the street and so this is a -- this is the -- the front of the homes that would be facing the open space and this is the -- the rear facade with the -- the garages facing the drives. So, one thing, too, I would just like to point out -- and I think Joe spoke to it earlier -- you know, currently, in in the zone -- zoning code, this is a zone to be eight to 12 dwelling units per acre and one of the challenges with this site is that it is a triangle shape. Trying to get things to fit in here. But if you do the math on this, if-- it -- it actually calculates out to eight units per acre and that's if you include the Farr Lateral, which is part of the property, and if you calculate it without the -- the ditch incumbrance, then, we are at 12 units per acre, just for reference. And I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant? Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page " —— Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: First let me say thank you for considering putting townhomes in this area. We have a lot of need for townhomes in Meridian overall and I also appreciate the green space as well. A couple of questions for you. First is what is the width of the private lane and what is the -- what are the size of the driveways? So, it looks to me like maybe the driveways are only five or six feet deep and we have seen in these developments before when we have a narrow private lane and very small driveways that we have issues with people backing out, car movement, trash cans being out in the road, et cetera. And just to give you a heads up, our Planning and Zoning Commission loves to talk about parking, so I thank you for the extra guest parking that you have put in here. Breckon: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, yes, this -- that was -- that's actually one of the -- the items that we worked with Joe on quite a bit. Very extensively, actually, to try to fit all this in here and meet parking requirements and so forth. We feel that it's been very well thought out and while it is extremely efficient in its design, that it will meet all the requirements and allow for adequate circulation and parking needs. Yeah. We even talked to Mr. Bongiorno for fire access, make sure we were in compliance there. Additionally, one of our work sessions we made some modifications and shifted the units around to allow for alignment of the sewer main that comes -- let's see if I can point it out on the plan here. So, this -- this pathway connection is actually wide enough to allow for -- where did it go? Right there where the pathway connects through, that's wide enough to allow for the required easement and necessary vehicle access to service and maintain the sewer main, which connects and -- and services all these units and, then, as -- or from there it distributes down the private lane and -- anyway. So, then, to -- to address your question regarding access, yes, there the -- as -- as far as the lot layout goes, there is not a traditional driveway in front of each of the units. There is five feet -- be a five foot apron. There is the drive aisle, if you will, which is 24 feet wide. We do have the necessary 30 foot utility easement and so door to door there we are at -- we are at 30 feet. The -- the parking -- each of these units has -- has two stall -- or dual garage -- two car garage and, then, we will also have parking. We have a guest parking that's adjacent -- that's that parking that's shown on the south side there. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just want to make sure I understood that. So, there is a five foot width from the front -- front of their garage that's part of their property on each side and, then, the -- the drive aisle itself is 24 feet? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 18 of 45 Dodson: If I could answer those. Yeah, that-- the setback for alley load is five feet, which is why they have the five foot driveway apron thing, and, then, you got the minimum width of the private street is 24 feet. So, 24 plus ten is 34 feet from garage door to garage door. Hoaglun: Thank you, Joe. Dodson: At least on the main drive aisle. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. Breckon: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up for this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, two people signed up, neither of them marked they wanted to testify. Simison: Okay. You want to read off their names and we will see if they want to come up. Johnson: Todd McDermott and Mindy McDermott. Simison: Would you like come on forward to the microphone and state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes? If there is anybody online that would like to reprovided, please, use the raise your hand feature, so we know to bring you in. McDermott: Todd McDermott. 1421 West Whitehall Drive, Meridian. I'm not sure the official way to address everyone, but -- Simison: Don't worry about it. McDermott: Thank you. We just support the change. We are buying behind this development-- directly behind. So, you look out our backyard we will see their front doors if -- if it's built the way it was described. What was shown tonight seems to fit into the area aesthetically I think a little bit more. Maybe that's self serving, but I think it does fit into it. It does sound like there is a loss of six units. But, anyway, we wanted to put our support behind the change that was proposed tonight. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just a comment. And, Mr. McDermott, don't worry about your testimony. It Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 19 of" would not be the first time a neighbor would be talking about something -- a development coming in and being self serving about it. So, we are very used to that. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Would the applicant like to make any final comments? Okay. They have waived. So, Council, for your deliberation -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: -- or a motion. Bernt: I move we close the public hearing. Yearsley: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we approve Item No. 4, which is H-2022-0017. Strader: Second. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve H-2022-0017. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carried and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 5. Public Hearing for Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Generally Located Northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way A. Request: Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of recouping five (5) building lots in a Page 51 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 20 of 45 future final plat phase of the Oaks North Subdivision. Simison: Next item on the agenda is Item 5, public hearing Oaks North Rezone, H-2022- 0010. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The maps are right on this one. So, we are good. The site consists of 37.5 acres of land, zoned R-4 and R-8, generally located northwest of 5151 Rustic Oak Way, which will be their main open space lot, the closest main address I could find. It is shown as medium density residential on the future land use map. The area outlined here does not match the area being rezoned. This is just the existing property, because this final plat has not been recorded, so it has not been subdivided enough for the GIS to catch up. So, I just wanted to make that clear, because the request for the rezone tonight is only for just over 12 acres of land. It's a request to go from R-4 to the R-8 for the purpose of including five additional building lots that were lost over the course of the previous 11 final plat phases. Staff has confirmed the addition of five lots in this phase will keep the project consistent with the approved plat from 2014. Again, just for five lots within 12 acres. There was some public testimony, as well as written testimony regarding that at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing that seemed to insinuate that the whole project was being rezoned from R-4 to R-8 and that is -- I just want to make that very clear that is not what is before us tonight. Because of the request there is no need for a new preliminary plat to be submitted. City code allows for later phases of a project to include lots lost within previous phases, so long as the total number of lots throughout the whole plat is not increased. However, adding these additional lots within the existing R-4 is not possible to meet the minimum dimensional standards for the R-4 lots. Therefore, the applicant has requested the rezone to the R-8 zoning district. The applicant is not proposing to change any of the previously approved road networks or connections. The proposed local streets and stub streets along the northbound are shown in the same locations as before and do align with Prescott Ridge to the north. The applicant is proposing to increase the open space in this phase of the development, compared to the existing approvals within the R-4 zoning district to meet the latest open space requirements for the R-8 zoning district of a minimum of 15 percent qualified open space. According to the revised concept plan narrative, the applicant is showing approximately 180,000 square feet of qualified common open space for what would be Phase 12, which is the total colored area, by the way. Not just the 12 acres, which is approximately 15 percent. It complies with the minimum open space now. To be clear, the applicant did not have to do that technically to meet current code, because they are just doing the rezone here. There has been no public testimony -- or no written testimony submitted since the Commission hearing, but prior to that there were four pieces of testimony submitted. Again, there was some discussion about the rezone area. There is a lot of-- a lot of discussion regarding the overall amenities, which as I discussed at P&Z not part of this application, it's not something that we have purview to require with a rezone, unless there was a DA mod attached, which we did not require, because they are going to just comply with the existing DA to recoup five lots. There were also questions and concerns regarding the HOA, which the city just doesn't have any purview over altogether. Those were the discussion points in the Commission hearing as well and so I will stand for any questions. Page 52 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page— —— Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm kind of curious if -- if it is allowable to add these additional units, if that is consistent with our practice and is -- and when that comes into conflict with the zoning is there any legal issue with just saying, no, we want to stick with the zoning that's here? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it is a discretion on the Council's part on a rezone, so you do have the ability to deny a request to rezone it. That isn't a legal issue to me. I -- I missed the first part of your question though. I apologize. Strader: Mr. Mayor. No, that was perfect. Nary: Oh. Strader: I was just trying to understand -- like, for example, annexations, we understand we have a lot of discretion. I just want to understand legally if we had a lot of discretion here to just stick with the zoning, especially if there is a past practice of allowing these additional units between different phases of a project. Nary: Yes. So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Strader, I mean certainly if there is reasons beyond not in our best interest, I think we do need to make sure the applicant understands why they can, but it is still within your discretion to deny it, but we do have to at least make clear what the reasons are. Strader: All right. Thanks. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Along those same lines, since the entire project is approved for 653 lots, if they don't meet that number, then, what does that mean for the project as a whole? I mean it -- is there any issue with that? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, if they didn't meet that, if they just submitted it with R-4, and they are minus five lots once it's recorded it just is those -- they lose the five lots. Perreault: Okay. Page 53 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 22—45 Dodson: Everything is done. Simison: And I -- I would turn maybe to Councilman Borton or -- I don't recall this issue coming up traditionally. I'm not familiar over the years -- know of adding lots back in at a later point in a plat. I would turn to those that have been up here in other ways for an extended period time. I'm not familiar with this as a general ask. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Back to Council Woman Strader's question a little bit. Yes, Joe. Dodson: It happens all the time on our end with final plats, but final plats don't really come before you, so it is a normal practice. The difference is that adding those five lots they won't meet their required street frontage requirements for the R-4, which is not necessarily the lot size, because they are not maxing out the lot sizes or anything, it's just really the street frontage dimensional standard that they won't be able to meet with R-4 versus R- 8. That -- that's what it comes down to. Simison: Thanks, Joe. Dodson: Yep. Simison: Okay. Is the applicant here? Like to -- I knew they were, but I didn't know which one, so -- state your name and address for the record and be recognized for 15 minutes. Bower: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Jeff Bower. 601 West Bannock in Boise. Here tonight on behalf of the applicant Toll Brothers. With me from Toll Brothers Ryan Hammons. He is our senior VP of Planning. And Adam Capell, vice-president of land development. Both are available to answer any questions the Council might have about ongoing development at Oaks North. So, Toll Brothers is the owner and developer of the Oaks North project. Toll Brothers, as you are well aware, a Fortune 500 development company with their Idaho headquarters here in Meridian. They employ 180 Idahoans in the City of Meridian and they have been developing homes in Meridian since 2016. We are here tonight on a single application. It's to rezone approximately 12 acres from R-4 to R-8 and -- and before I give my spiel, I will say we agree with planning staff analysis on the rezone, as well as all of the conditions of approval that have been proposed in their recommendation of approval. So, the property at issue here is in the northwest corner of the project near McDermott and as summarized, the request tonight for this rezone is to get to the number of lots originally approved in 2014, 653, and to increase open space in our final phase and to provide better transition to the recently approved projects to our north. And I will go through each of those in detail. Before -- I -- I think background in context is important here. This is a project that was improved almost a decade ago. There have been I think 24 phases between Oaks North and Oaks South. We are here talking about Oaks North today, so I just want to run through a little bit of history. On the screen is the approved preliminary plat, 653 single family units approved, three large lots. Here is my cursor. Multi-family lot here and two multi-family lots up here. So, conceptually Page 54 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 23—" approved for 266 multi-family units in addition to the 653 single family units. Over time this concept plan for the multi-family has -- has been redesignated to single family. I was here I think in Christmas for Oakmore, which is the area up here in the northeast. So, we converted that 60 units of multi-family to 18 single family units with a rezone and, then, in 2019 my colleague Becky McKay was here for Oak Winds and that took the conceptually planned multi-family out of this area and -- and put in 198 units of -- of single family residential, 94 townhomes, 92 single family homes. So, all that's to say that over the course of this project by and large the -- the single family residential that as approved has developed generally in accordance with what you see here, meeting all the requirements to be final platted and the multi-family areas have been reduced in density to add single family homes. Okay. Since -- since 2013 on the single family front, which we are here talking about, 11 final plats have been approved, totaling 570 lots. We are here for the final phase, Phase 12. It's highlighted in red on this map. The small green area is the -- is the only rezone area and as Joe mentioned, we are here specifically to add five lots to this Phase 12 area. This is the concept-- concept plan we have submitted to be approved in conjunction with this rezone. It's 83 lots on 23.5 acres. This gets a little busy, but thought it was important to show the Council. This is an overlay of the preliminary plat with our concept plan. The areas in kind of the blue green color are the underlying preliminary plat and the area -- and the lines and numbers in white are the concept plan and so as -- as -- again, as Joe mentioned, not making any material changes to the block faces or the road layout, really, we are just adding some additional lots through smaller lot sizes. If we were going to stick with the R-4 zoning we would have 78 units, with a density of 3.31 . With the five additional lots we get up to 83, with only a 2/10ths increase in density to 3.54 and, again, no increase in density overall. We are hitting that 653 from 2014 right on the head. So, no increase in density overall. Why the reason? Of course, first and foremost, we want to get our five lots that we have lost and -- and those were lost primarily to create more open space in the earlier phases, as well as to address some -- some peculiar engineering issues, some corners, but with the -- with the smaller lots in the R-8 we are able to add more open space. So, we go from 1 .7 acres shown on the preliminary plat to around 3.2 as proposed in the concept plan. I -- I don't think I need to go over this too much, because the staff report did it so well, but the -- the rezone we are asking for makes sense here. The -- the land is designated appropriately for R-8 at medium density residential. Most of phase -- I shouldn't say most. A portion of Phase 12 is already zoned R-8 to the east out towards McDermott and Prescott Ridge to the north is also zoned -- zoned R-8. So, we have contiguity with other R-8 zones. Again, as Joe mentioned, here is an overall plat showing Prescott Ridge to the north and the area we are platting in green here. The rezone will help us to transition up to Prescott Ridge, which is zoned R-8, with lot sizes very similar to what we are proposing with our concept plan. There -- there has been discussion in the public comments written before the P&Z and at P&Z about site amenities, so we wanted to go over all the amenities that are included in Oaks North, as well as what's still planned to be built out. So, in 2014 when the Oaks project was annexed and zoned, the development agreement required 12 amenities. The development agreement also specifically provided that those main site amenities would be constructed in the first phase. So, with Oaks North Toll Brothers did comply with the development agreement. They constructed this main amenity central park area in phase one. The main amenity includes a 4,900 square foot pool, pool house, Page 55 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page——— picnic shelter, a basketball court, two pickleball courts, a tot lot, a pond with a dock, as well as a pathway with exercise equipment. So, seven amenities in that central park area. Another close up of the pool. This is the Oaks North pool. Again,just under 5,000 square feet. Very large for homeowners association pools in the City of Meridian, towards the top end, if not the largest that we are aware of. Because of the --the time that's transpired and the number of phases, we have prepared this exhibit for the Council. It's sort of a cumulative list of all the amenities to date. We have installed eight, most of those being in the central park area, and we have seven more to go throughout the project for a total of 15 amenities. So, in excess of what was originally required. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jeff, I don't mean to interrupt you. Can you just help me orientate where -- the application that's before us where it sits on this map? Bower: Absolutely. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, can you see my cursor now? You can? Okay. Phase 12 would be this upper corner right here and so it includes this open space area. So, circles numbered 10 and 11 , which are a public picnic table area and what I was -- you are stealing some of my thunder -- a splash pad. So, we -- we did after the P&Z hearing we heard comments from our residents, who, again, we -- we take those very seriously. They mentioned one, the pool area can be overcrowded during some of those, you know, hot summer days and they also mentioned that they prefer active amenities versus passive. So, they didn't necessarily feel just the open grass area was beneficial. So, we have added a site -- an active amenity in Phase 12, something like this, a splash pad. We think it meets kind of the spirit of the comments we heard from -- from the residents that the pool is overcrowded, so here is another hot weather active amenity that folks can use. Appreciated Joe's comments again. So, with Phase 12 we are increasing the open space to meet your current standards to --to the 15 percent that's required based on those recent amendments you guys brought through and with the splash pad and the picnic shelter, Phase 12 actually meets your updated code as to amenities. So, we need five points and we have six points. Splash pad is four. The picnic shelter is two. So, there were a couple questions -- that's the end of my presentation. I will stand for more questions, but I will try to answer Council Member Strader's question. We are here for the -- for the five lots. We do feel like this is a pretty routine request in terms of shuffling lots around a preliminary plat area, but because of the -- the design standards we did need the rezone. I -- I kind of -- to get to brass tacks, as I appreciate Joe does, this is a design amendment versus a density amendment. We are just trying to get those smaller lots in. Simison: Council -- Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sure. Yeah. I mean just to get into a little bit of a debate about that -- and you Page 56 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 25 of 45 are increasing the density, though; right? If you want to go back to that slide it looks like you are increasing it. I guess what I would like you to comment on a little bit is -- slightly. You are increasing it slightly. But I would like you to comment on -- to me I get concerned about rezoning a multi-phase project where I think it's in everyone's best interest to anticipate the zoning and it -- it concerns me about managing people's expectations to make a change. I have not heard of these re-zones being common practice. That's not what I'm hearing. So, if you could reflect on that and, then, if you could also just go back to the comparison -- maybe actually it's here -- of the original concept plan versus the new one and side by side. Bower: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Strader, thank you. To your point in Phase 12, we are increasing the density by 2/10ths, but overall on the project the density for single family remains the same. So, 653 units will be constructed and we have reduced the overall density by taking out the multi-family in the northwest -- the northeast corner and the southwest corner. So, in terms of managing expectations, I believe that this is in -- totally in spirit with what the expectations for the project were. Strader: Could you, please, move to the -- if you just show the original concept plan and, then, the new one one at a time, so we can kind of compare them -- or a slide that has them both. Bower: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, this is the overlay I was showing where the original is in blue green. Is that the one you are looking for? Strader: It's kind of hard for me to see, to be honest. Bower: Okay. Strader: The blue green. Yeah. So, this is the updated one and, then, could you show the original -- Bower: Madam Mayor-- or sorry. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, that's -- I'm sorry. That's the best I can do with the slides I have. This is the original preliminary plat. Strader: Mr. Mayor, maybe -- I believe Joe previously showed a -- the original concept plan. If he has that available still. Simison: While we are pulling that up, Council, any additional questions? Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: So, Jeff, the multi-family, was that R-40 at the time or -- or some sort of -- so, you did have a rezone for those particular parcels; correct? Page 57 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page——— Bower: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, I believe it was R-15 in both areas, but the development agreement at the time specified that the density was between -- be between eight and 15 units per acre. So, we have, obviously, decreased density significantly in that northeast corner, where Oakmore is and, then, modestly for Oak Winds, which is just below eight units per acre. I believe it's like 7.8. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: This looks like what I'm asking for. Joe, is this what I was asking for? Dodson: Council Woman Strader, I believe it is. This is in the applicant's presentation. It wasn't specific to the plat so much as the open space, but it does show the original versus the new. Strader: If you wouldn't mind just letting us linger here for a second, so I could look at it. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Bower, the -- the open space for the proposed numbering, one, two, three and four, is that -- what's contemplated for that? Is it just grassed up space? Bower: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, that -- that's correct. So, what -- what we found -- or what Toll Brothers tells me is that when we start to increase the density and we are getting those longer rows of houses in one block, those -- say lots numbered one and two really help to -- to make the community feel more open, so you don't just have a continuous row of -- of homes. They also help us to meet the city's requirements for drainage as well. Cavener: Okay. Bower: On -- on lots -- on numbers three and four, those are just going to be grassed open space. Again, help with some of our drainage requirements, but also provide a very nice, you know, street improvement and aesthetic as you are coming down that main -- main collector there. Main -- main local road. Cavener: So -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Page 58 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page— —— Cavener: Jeff, I think that oftentimes when our -- at least when our citizens, your residents, think about open space they -- I think they probably view it as usable and not just necessarily drainage. I mean is there any programming that you plan to do there, benches, anything along those lines, so that our-- our citizens can use it or is it just really just grassed up drainage areas? Get muddy. Sorry. We have one in our neighborhood and it drives my wife crazy when my kids go and play in it and, then, drag the mud into the house. Bower: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, all of our areas are -- are -- this is all usable open space. It -- you know, we will have the standard pathways, sidewalks, that we see throughout the community. But, again, in terms of programming, we are exceeding what was originally required. We are meeting the code today for amenities in this phase. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes. I want to ask Joe -- so, this is qualified open space with what they are showing; is that correct? Bower: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, from -- I didn't dive into it too much too much, because that wasn't part of what I'm reviewing, but generally, yes, one and two, three and four will be over 5,000 square feet, which meets our code, especially our current code, and if they are -- if they are going to include storm drainage, then, they are supposed to be subterranean where it's also grass. It's not supposed to be like the -- the banked ones with the rock and all that sand and crap, that's not -- that won't count as qualified open space. My understanding is it will -- it will be grassed and just like all the other areas that they have. So, I don't see any issues with any of that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Jeff, then, area number five or thereabouts in that center part where it's open space and that's where the splash pad was going to be with the picnic feature? Bower: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, that's correct. The open space map, it -- which is what I'm showing in this lower slide here, it was prepared pre-P&Z hearing when we added the splash pad. But, yes, that's where the splash pad will be and -- and just to tag on to Mr. Dodson's comments, again, a condition of approval that he's recommended is that this Phase 12 does meet all of the current open space standards. So, we will have to conform to those standards. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Page 59 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 28 of 4O Dodson: Sorry. I -- I did want to clarify on the -- this is per Mr. Parsons, because he corrected me when I wrote the staff report. My conditions in the rezone staff report are actually just comments. We cannot condition a rezone outside of a DA or some other plat or annexation. So, they are technically not conditions and my understanding is Council can also not add conditions necessarily, unless we say come back with a DA mode or something like that. So, I did want to make that clear. They are comments and my work with the applicant that they have done what they have supposed -- they are supposed to do per the plat requirements. So, I -- I -- I think that they will continue to do that, especially if the concept plan is part of it. And, you know, I will immediately be calling that out once they submit the final plat. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Joe, you had a comment early on and I didn't write it down, but you said the rezone was based because of our requirement for street-- I -- I didn't write it down. Could you kind of repeat that? Dodson: Absolutely. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, it's -- so R-4 has a minimum street frontage requirement -- street frontage is the term -- it's 60 feet wide. So, be minimum of 60 foot wide lots. R-8 is a minimum of 40 feet. So, based on their plat I don't think --they are not -- none of these I don't think are going to be the minimum 40, 1 think they are all closer to 45, 50, but, again, to get those number of lots -- or even more than -- they just aren't going to be able to meet the 60 and also provide everything that they are supposed to. So, it -- it's just a dimensional standard thing. That's why from staff's perspective we are gaining open space overall and they are going to meet their original approvals. So, I don't understand why I -- I couldn't say no, you know, from a staff level perspective. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. When, you know, Council Woman Strader said let's take a moment to look at this and, yeah, it -- there wasn't anything obvious that jumped out, you really had to look closely to figure out, oh, there is one here and, let's see, oh, the -- yeah, just because it's such a small incremental squeeze on things that it does add up to the five, but it's -- there is not a big drastic change to any of this, so makes sense. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? All right. Bower: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, I assume we have some people signed up for this? Page 60 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 29 of 40 Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor, we do. Casey Feasby, if -- Simison: Everyone will get their opportunity to speak. Don't worry. Johnson: Mr. Feasby is the only person that marked they wanted to testify. Simison: Okay. Then the next person come on up and state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes and anybody online that would like to provide testimony on this item, please, use the raise your hand feature so we can prepare you appropriately. And if you can just speak into one of the mics. Lent: Larry Lent. I live at 6054 West Doublerock Lane and my concern was when I got this in the mail it didn't look anything whatsoever what you guys are showing me up here on the screen. So, that was my confusion looking at the map you sent me and looking at the map that was presented here, it looks completely different, and that was a concern a lot of my neighbors had when they got the mail. So, I would hope that next time you send something out to the neighborhood that it represents what's being shown on your screen versus this here. This didn't tell me anything. It just was the area and it didn't explain anything as far as what was going on. I had a neighborhood plot that was sent to me back in January that did a much better job kind of showing what was going on and my concern and my whole neighborhood concern is this lower area where they say is going to be the really high density area with homes and condos. That's going to be the main concern, because none of us were told when we bought homes here that we are going to have this really high density area. So, you are going to have a lot of people coming in here and talking about your high density area I'm going to tell you that right now. So, thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Go ahead and come on forward, sir. Kessler: My name is Ed Kessler. I live at 5298 Mallorca Way. Try to spell that. And I have to apologize, I'm 72, a little hard of hearing, and I had a hard time understanding the dialogue, but I just wanted to ask the question and maybe this is one over, but I -- I couldn't really understand. Are there going to be any condos, townhomes, or apartments built in that area? Simison: Well, Councilman Borton, if you would like to answer. Borton: No. When you say the area, sir -- Kessler: In that -- the area they are going to be building. Borton: So -- just kind of cut to the chase. In the area that's part of the application for tonight's hearing? Kessler: Correct. Page 61 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 30 of 40 Borton: That little phase? No. Kessler: Okay. Because that was a rumor going around the neighborhood and everybody is up in arms and I'm -- I'm surprised this place isn't over -- overwhelmed with -- well, the residents here. But -- okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Simison: Thank you. Anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Then, Mr. Clerk, if we can go to our two people online. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes. First is Mike -- and, Mike, you should be able to unmute yourself. Lewis: I just want to comment about the traffic -- Simison: Mike, if you can state your name and address for the record, please, first. Lewis: I'm sorry. Mike -- yes. Mike Lewis. 5343 West McMurtrey. So, there is a lot of subdivisions coming into the area and there was one in a previous meeting that you guys already amended and I think allowed R-15 on Ustick and Black Cat and so when you look at the Highway 16 expansion, the traffic already going to Owyhee High School, where do you guys think that all this additions and these developers coming back and asking for higher density, where do you think that traffic is going to go down? What -- where are they going to go to? How are they going to get on the freeway? Nothing's being done for the residents on this side that travel Black Cat and Ustick. It's -- it's not built for -- to continually keep letting these developers change to a higher density. That's -- that's all I got for you guys. Just, please, take that into consideration. This side of town is not built for it and the infrastructure is 2026 or later that they are talking about widening these roads. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just a quick response, sir. I -- I share your concern and thought the same thing and -- and for this particular application one of the items that gave me comfort to that concern was on the whole this project has lost five residential units in previous phases and the traffic that those five units would create. This application tonight would return those five units and the traffic they create. So, the net difference on what was originally approved with regards to traffic would remain essentially the same. Even though it's five units, that was one of the principles that -- that seemed to mitigate that concern. I -- I agree with you that it's going to always be on the forefront of what we are looking at, but at least here we are returning lots that were already previously approved, just putting them in a different phase, so --just some context as to how I tried to reconcile your--your concern that I share. Page 62 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 31 of 40 Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Just to follow up, Mike, when -- if-- because this is just a --a rezone application, as Councilman Borton pointed out, the reasons why and the impact it has is -- is -- is net zero, if this was a complete request to come in and meet the Comprehensive Plan and to build units, we do get reports from the school district on impact to school capacity and those types of things and we have Ada County Highway District weigh in on impacts as well. It's just because of the nature of this particular application that you don't see that here. But typically they are when a new development is coming in. So, it's just because of the nature of this one that's why it's different. Lewis: I appreciate you guys' feedback, but you guys just did approve -- I think it's Jamestown or something on Ustick and Black Cat to put in those -- the high density. So, it's not just about The Oaks, they are building a beautiful subdivision, I will give them that. I'm talking in general these developers come back all the time and they ask for a rezone and you guys give it to them and -- and it's not just about these five, I'm talking in general. You guys need to really look at it, because, yes, this one is just five, but what about Jamestown at R-15 now and the rest of the subdivisions coming in? I'm asking you guys to look at the whole picture, not just five units that they are asking for tonight. Look at everything. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Lewis, you can -- you can help. This is how, you know, rumors get started. Jamestown was turned down by the City Council. Lewis: Okay. Maybe that is a different one. The one I watched it was for further discussion and it was going -- but anyway. Hoaglun: Well, thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Simison: And, Council, any additional questions? All right. Thank you, sir. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Karen Klawitter. Karen, you can unmute yourself. Klawitter: You got me. Simison: Karen, if you can state your name and address for the record, please. Klawitter: Karen Klawitter. 6074 West Doublerock Drive, Larry. Anyway, I never received a notification and I found out in a roundabout way late this afternoon about this meeting, as we were on our way out of town. So, I called the city clerk and the city clerk says, oh, Page 63 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 32 of 45 yes, you were sent to a postcard. I said, well, I never received it and I never received the one in January either. So, I started calling around my neighbors and somehow we were under the impression that what was being spoken about tonight was on Trident Way. Do you know where that is? Can somebody hear me? Simison: We -- we -- we can. Klawitter: Do you know where Trident Way is? It goes right into Doublerock. Simison: We -- I can't say that I know where Trident -- Klawitter: Because there is no -- there is no listing on these pictures of street names that we can -- that are legible and that's what you need. You need something that shows that, because if you turn off of McMillan into the tract -- and I think it's on Trident something. Trident something. And, then, you go there and you turn left on Trident Way, if you go all the way to the end that's Doublerock. Well, on the left-hand side of Trident Way there are supposed to be five homes in there being built. We, as well as Ed Kessler, was under the impression that we were talking about those five lots, because everything from McDermott east and McMillan north in that corner, as we understand it, even though we didn't get notification of this, are supposed to be some kind of rental units built in there and I don't even know exactly what, but what I was told today's meeting was about these five lots on Trident Way that Toll Brothers was trying to recoup those back and change them all into all rental units. Can somebody set me straight on there as to what's going in there? Because I had no idea you were going to be talking about this Phase 12. Simison: Thank you. We can either have staff or the applicant try to reply to that during their comments. Joe, do you -- do you want to try to address that? Dodson: Absolutely. Yeah. I believe -- I don't remember what phase, because they are not linear. But nine or ten or something over here does have five lots right here adjacent to the Oak Winds. Her discussion regarding some notice in January was probably about Oak Winds, if not--that might not even have been them actually,just because Oak Winds -- that -- that's not what we are here for tonight, just to let you know, ma'am, and my understanding is it is for rent units, but what happens after Council -- whether they are for sale or for rent, usually not our purview. That's not up to the city to decide that. But the area tonight is only for this area in red shown on the screen. Nothing to do with the five lots adjacent, but in addition of five lots. So, again, I think there was some misinformation or misunderstanding presented through the process. The lot line shown for the area in question did encompass a much larger area, as I noted just, because those areas have not been planted yet, so the GIS system doesn't just get -- I don't get to call out just the 12 acres, unfortunately. But it was in association with an addition of five lots total just for 12 acres of a rezone, though. Simison: Council, any additional questions? All right. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the audience or online? All right. Then would the applicant like to come forward and close. Page 64 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 33—" Bower: Perfect. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, Council, I will be brief. I will answer a couple of questions right out of the gate. The area the last public commenter was describing -- and, I'm sorry, I didn't -- I didn't catch her name -- is these five lots right here. They are approved as a final plat in Phase 10 and, again, no -- no changes are proposed there. The January notice that she referenced I suspect was our notification for our neighborhood meeting that we sent out and the gentleman held it up as well and I'm proud to say he said that one made sense to him, so kudos to us. So, I believe that was what was received in January. Overall didn't hear too many questions from the public, but I -- I did just want to say appreciated Mr. Borton's comment about density. Our -- certainly our position is we are not asking for any additional density here, just to get to what was originally approved, five more lots. This is a great opportunity to add five homes that are needed in the community in an area that already has streets, utilities at a very low cost to the city. We are also going to increase the amenity package tonight with the rezone. So, it's -- I think it's a win-win for the city and our residents and I would stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't have any questions. I just wanted to make a couple of comments before we closed the public hearing. As you know you have seen that we take the public's concerns really seriously and appreciate you making an effort to make some changes to your plans based on Planning and Zoning's feedback. I did go watch their whole meeting and also after reading public comment went back and refreshed myself on what happened with Oak Wind and the -- the one thing that -- that -- well -- well, I'm -- I'm glad that there will be fewer units through the -- the change that was made instead of doing multi-family, doing townhomes and single detached -- is that because you didn't have to go through a CUP process that takes away a step where the public gets a chance to come in and make comments and they didn't get an opportunity to talk about the amenities that are going to be in that area because you didn't do multi-family. I think that's where we are seeing all of this get hung up is that, you know, there wasn't an opportunity for them then at that point because of how it goes through the process to get to, you know, have -- have have some say in the amenities. This is a very large development, even for Meridian you know, there is other -- other developments in -- in our city that are significant in size that do have a greater number of -- of amenities or common areas than this does. So, understand why the public is coming and saying, hey, you know, Tuscany is a mile by a mile and it has four parks or Bridge Tower or-- this is why the public is coming and saying this, because any -- any projects that are this large have a minimum of four pools and clubhouses. So, just to kind of-- I'm sure you already know -- know this, but that -- that's the one --that's just the one piece of feedback I would say as you all are developing these in the future, because you have more to come, that any opportunity for public testimony is really important to us and I think that's why you are seeing this come up now. They just weren't given that opportunity with Oak Wind. So, that's all I had to say about that. As far as our decision this evening, this is a really narrow decision. Our purview -- we can't Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page——— condition this. It's -- it is what it is. But I understand and I do appreciate you making an effort to make some improvements to the amenities. Bower: Thank you. Appreciate that. Perreault: Yeah. Simison: Council, additional questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe a question for you and a question for staff. My question would be are you willing to enter into a DA modification to agree to the new open space requirements and the new amenities and I guess my question for staff is how do we ensure that this happens short of a DA modification? Is there an alternative method of ensuring that contractually it happens? Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Council -- Council Woman Bor -- or sorry. Wow. Council Woman Strader. Mr. Nary can probably comment on the last one more than me. Again, we can't condition the rezone. The only avenue to get them to submit a DA mod would be to deny the rezone and state why and, then, they would -- essentially they could say, okay, no, we are just going to stick with the loss of five lots period or they would come back through with another rezone and DA mod. But we -- we couldn't require them to do that. Bower: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, if I could -- it's unique when being a lawyer actually helps you in this process. I -- I appreciate Mr. Dodson's comments. It's always nice as a developer to hear that you can't be conditioned, but I -- I think I disagree in this case. We are here on a rezone, a discretionary application, under LUPA, Idaho Code 67- 6511(a) is a may. You may enter into a development agreement. I, frankly, don't see any reason why the Council with the applicant's consent cannot agree to a condition of approval here. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean Jeff is correct, I mean you certainly can do that. I think -- my only concern would be is I -- there is not a DA for this piece. So, the DA is for the entire project. So, now you will open up the DA for the whole project, which will, then, probably cause more concerns for folks that it's changing a lot, when you are only changing five lots. And, again, it's not changing the overall density, but certainly, you know, if-- if you want a place a condition I think you can place a condition. You know, if they don't meet that condition, you know, they have got a problem that when they want to get this -- yeah, because this is -- yeah, because it's a future final plat. So, it's going to have to be substantially compliant with what they are asking. So, if that's part of the approval, they will have to do that to make sure it complies or they won't get a final plat done. I think that's a safer route than opening up the DA for the entire project. Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page——— Strader: Thanks. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, additional questions, comments for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Jeff, I think I touched on this. I appreciate you kind of being responsive. I have had mixed feelings about this request. I guess just--just feedback for--for your employer and we are seeing this play out more and more in Meridian and it's enough that I'm -- I'm paying a lot more attention to it. What we are seeing more and more is more tightly dense product is typically the furthest away from open space and those with the larger lots that have big yards are the closest to the open space. I think it's a huge equity issue in our community, one that I'm not expecting you to solve tonight, but I have lots of friends who live in your community -- you guys have built something that's just awesome and there is a lot of demand and which is why I see you are coming to get five more lots. I'm sure they will be sold before they are even available. But I just -- I think that you guys have an obligation as a leader in our community to demonstrate equity to our citizens and not just put open space close to the people that can afford the large house with the large lots. Simison: Seeing no more questions for the applicant-- Councilman Bernt, any questions? You can sit, but don't go far. Bower: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you all. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Just to start some dialogue, this, too, seems to be a very narrow-- narrow request in a big project. I appreciate the applicant's introduction of greater open space in this particular phase. I understand the rezone is necessary for the dimensional standards and that the overall project captures the same net residential units. I think Mr. Nary's comments about the final plat having to be substantially compliant, so long as we catch it. Obviously, planning -- our staff will make sure that it hits what the applicant has proposed and committed to, which I entirely trust that they will do what they said today. So, I'm supportive of the application for those reasons as presented. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, yeah, I'm -- I'm supportive as well. Basically agree with Councilman Borton on -- on the reasons and -- and it's been allowed and it's not something we see very often, just because of that change in the -- the street frontage. Otherwise, it would Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page——— be just through administrative process and it would be done and -- and we wouldn't even be aware of it. But I do appreciate the applicant listening to the -- the homeowners out there and -- and making some changes and -- and the splash pad I think will be a great addition to that and adding the open space and I know staff will make sure that it's compliant with that. I don't have any doubt. So, I -- I appreciate that and as -- as Councilman Borton pointed out, we just have a narrow -- narrow issue here that we are to decide on and -- and there might be other issues that residents might have, but that is nothing we can -- we can deal with tonight. So, appreciate the effort that you did do. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I think I can support that, but I would love for Council to state the two conditions, even if it's not through DA modification, but I would just like us to state that, you know, we expect them to comply with our updated open space requirements and add these new amenities would give me some more comfort that that's part -- if that could be part of a motion. I, too, appreciate the addition of the new amenity. I think that was very strategic on your part. I would just encourage you, outside of this application, that, you know, communication is really important with your neighbors and I feel like where we see the densest phases of a project come in toward the end, there can be a lot of opportunity for like miscommunication to happen with neighbors and I think really just working on that relationship with the neighbors is really really important for you through a really lengthy project like this. Thank you. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I did -- on the condition thing, just to make it very clear, I already have those conditions or comments in my staff report, so if you don't want to make a specific comment you can just say per my report and those become conditions and I think we are good. Strader: Perfect. Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I believe the public hearing is still open; correct? Simison: It is. Perreault: Would -- would it be okay if the applicant came forward one more time? Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 37 of 40 Simison: Yes. Perreault: Thank you. Just a quick question for you. Given -- it's not common for us to have -- to have public -- the public come forward and talk about other areas of a community that have already been approved. It's not a very common thing that happens. Usually it is about the -- the application at hand. So, I'm wondering if you might -- you and Toll Brothers might be willing to just take an extra step to reach out to these folks that have concerns and maybe connect them with your -- your HOA manager at Toll, which I think is Bill Stanton, or anybody on your team that could provide their contact information for these folks to -- to go over with them what happened with Oak Wind, because I think there definitely is a misunderstanding. I did read back through the narrative that was sent to us and it was not identified to the city that it would become an area that was rented out and so the city didn't -- at least I had no knowledge of that and I don't know that Council had knowledge of that when that was -- it doesn't matter in this -- in -- in terms of our actual approval, but I think it is important for the community to know. So, are you willing to -- you or your team willing to at least provide some contact information for somebody to ask -- for the neighbors to ask questions? Bower: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, absolutely. I think based on the comments we have heard and just the experience we have had, when you do get to the final phase of an -- you know, a project with 900 units and, you know, half of them filled up, there are bound to be miscommunications and confusion with neighbors. So, I would say we are in a bit of an unusual situation now and that -- I think that's part of the problem here. But, yes, I think there are avenues we have through this and et cetera to -- to maybe provide some more clarity that you can't get on a postcard notice. So, we -- we can do that. Perreault: Appreciate it. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't have any questions for -- for Mr. Bower, but I know we are kind of deliberating a little bit right now and I -- I want to just thank the Council. I appreciate good dialogue tonight. I came into this not being very supportive of this request and I'm not quite sure if I am there. To me the -- the feedback from -- and I'm just going to call them the Mike Lewises of the world and if you are ever on a busy road one more car feels like a hundred more cars and so I'm certainly sympathetic to the feedback that we heard about the impact of traffic, even if it's one car or five cars or ten cars, it feels real when you are in that area. The part that I'm -- I'm struggling with is the compelling reason to grant the rezone is just to allow the applicant to add five more lots and that's a nexus for me that's just hard to overcome in terms of how our community benefits from that and --and, clearly, the added of an amenity I think meets the -- the residents, but I don't know if I'm just -- I'm quite sold there. So, I'm more just -- it helps me sometimes a little bit to talk out loud, so I appreciate you indulging me a little bit as I kind of wrestle with this particular issue. Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 38 of 40 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: In that regard, Councilman Cavener, I'm -- and I'm not advocating for any particular decision, but overall -- well, we are not -- we are not increasing the amount of lots that they -- than they originally proposed in 2013. But overall they have reduced the number of total living units by quite a bit by taking out all those multi-family projects, so we are really putting fewer cars on the road. So, that's another way to maybe think about that. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Every time I have tried to talk on this issue the last 15 minutes you have called on someone else and -- and each time my fellow Council Member provided information that I was going to say and -- and so I -- I have nothing more to add to this conversation and I appreciate -- I agree with Councilman Cavener when he said that I really appreciate -- when he said he really appreciated the discussion. It's really this discussion that makes me proud to be a part of this body, because I thought -- I thought it was very thoughtful and deliberate and I'm grateful for the presentation. It was very specific and I hope that those who are listening can sort of wrap their arms around what we are -- what -- what was discussed, because at the end of the day I really do believe that there is going to be a net benefit to this community, although the overall density, you know, will be the same from its original proposal. So, thank you. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2022-0010. Hoaglun: 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. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: For all of the reasons discussed in the deliberation amongst Council and inclusive Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page——— of those is some consistent transition that this change still provides to the north, that the open space in this particular area is almost doubling and the inclusion of an active amenity, a summertime amenity, just further bolster the reasons to support it. So, I'm going to make a motion to approve H-2022-0010, the rezone request, and at the request of and consent of the applicant to include all of the comments from the staff report of May 3rd that the applicant has acknowledged and agreed to treat those as kind of de facto conditions that they are willing to comply and will ensure that the final plat matches all of those, with the -- the Phase 12 open space as depicted inclusive of the splash pad as well. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Do I have discussion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: No discussion specifically on the motion, but only attorneys use words like de facto, just for the record. And I have known Councilman Bernt for a long time and if he really wanted to say something he would have said it. The Mayor did call on you, by the way. Cavener: Call for the question. Simison: The question has been called. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Simison: Real quick five, so we can kind of-- okay. We will take a recess for five minutes and we really mean five minutes. (Recess: 8:02 p.m. to 8:06 p.m.) 6. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400) A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 40 of 40 on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district. Simison: We are going to come back from recess. So, the next item on the agenda is a public hearing for Pinedale Subdivision, H-2022-0001. Do we need to open this public hearing, Mr. Nary, in order to consider the applicant's request? Okay. Then, we will open this public hearing with abbreviated staff comments. Dodson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. The applicant just wants to remand back after hearing the Commission's comments. I am already in receipt of a revised plat. They just need to be remanded back to P&Z and, essentially, start the process over again and continue working with P&Z and staff. Simison: Okay. Council, any questions for staff? Is the applicant here this evening? Dodson: He is, but I do not believe he has anything to say. Simison: Would you like to add anything to it? Otherwise, we will stand on Joe's comments. Okay. So, not hearing anyone from the public that would like to provide testimony on the request to remand in the audience or online --seeing nothing -- Mr. Nary, is the -- do we need to close and motion? Nary: Yes, sir. We need to just close this public hearing and then --and motion to remand. Simison: Okay. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2022-0001. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we grant the applicant's request to remand H-2022-0001 back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page— —" Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to remand H-2022-0001 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is remanded. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 7. Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005) by Summertown, LLC, Located at 3104 N. Venable, at the Southeast Corner of N. Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9 single family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). Simison: Next item up is Item 7, public hearing for Summertown Subdivision, H-2022- 0005. Open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, the last application tonight is for Summertown Subdivision. It's a preliminary plat and private street application. Private streets are an administrative approval. The site consists of 13.8 acres, zoned TN-R, traditional neighborhood residential, located at 3104 East Venable, to the southeast corner of Ustick and Venable. All right. It has some history here with the city, which is why you only have a plat before you tonight. It was annexed in 2017 with TN-R. There was subsequent CZC and design review in 2019 and, then, in 2021 to keep it current. It is mixed use community on the future land use map and as discussed with multiple projects in this area, it has a weird little bubble at the mid mile mark. But tonight we are just discussing the plat. The plat before you consist of 23 residential building lots, nine single family along the south boundary, and 14 multi-family lots, with three common lots on the noted 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R district. There is also a request for private streets in the multi-family portion of the project, requiring only administrative approval. The private street request was actually made for addressing purposes and requested by the city, not by the applicant. So, we do appreciate the applicant doing that in order for addressing to be easier for life safety. Minimum lot size overall is -- I'm sorry. Minimum lot size for the single family is 5,100 square feet and the minimum lot size for the multi- family lots is somewhat irrelevant in 18,900'ish square feet. Again, the site was annexed in 2019 with the Summertown annexation, with the TN-R district, which allows multi-family residential as principally permitted uses, which means they only need administrative approvals once they get annexed. That would be the certificate of zoning compliance and design review. The applicant also included a small single family component to the overall Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page 42—" project in order to comply with TN-R zoning district regulations, which require a minimum of two housing types within the project. Because of the inclusion of the single family lots and desire to place each multi-family building on each lot, a preliminary plat was required and, therefore, there is an existing development agreement to subdivide the property prior to release of the first CO. So, to be clear, the applicant is submitting the preliminary plat application to meet the existing conditions of approval and create nine single family lots along the southern boundary, as well as just subdivide the property overall. The development of the site is already underway and has already outlined a condition via the previous approvals with the existing DA. Many of the previous requirements will be checked for compliance at the time of final plat submittal. All of the lots comply with the TN-R standards as noted and the proposed road improvements comply with previous approvals, with the one exception being the street section width of Venable, which was approved differently by ACHD after the original annexation. It's kind of a mess, but in general everything is good. ACHD has already approved Venable. Access to the approved units is via extension of North Venable Lane. A -- it's going to be a collector street just adjacent to the property's west boundary. Access to the multi-family portion of the site is via drive aisle connection to North Venable and align with the existing multi- family drive aisle on the west side of Venable for the Crossfield Apartments, as well as two private street connections to the new local street along the south boundary. The local street is shown as West Wrangler. So, the two access points there are here and here. The access point discussed for the multi-family project is in alignment with that access here. Again, ACHD has already approved all of these things. Western Wrangler Street is the access for the proposed nine single family units as well. It is shown to be constructed with a five foot detached sidewalk and a 33 foot wide street section stubbed to the east property boundary, as well as the south property boundary to connect to an existing street on the south. It complies with city code and ACHD requirements and, again, was approved with previous applications. The proposed master pathways plan shows a pathway along the east side of the required Venable extension. The submitted plat does not depict this pathway, but despite staff presenting the issue during pre-app meetings, but the applicant and I have discussed this, as well as during P&Z that was a major point of discussion as well, that that should be able to be accommodated within the existing buffer, as well as still meeting the TN-R district -- zoning district setbacks. There was no written testimony on this and none since the Commission hearing as well. The Commission did recommend approval, as well as staff. The only changes Commission made were regarding Conditions 8.3 and 11 -- A-11-C, which were surrounding the construction of Venable and the multi-use pathway segment. I will stand for any questions at that point. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, I understand that from the applicant's narrative that there is 14 multi-family buildings intended, but it says there has been 18 multi-family buildings, clubhouse and Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page"—" pool building permits already issued. So, there is -- is there 14 lots in the multi-family area? I just -- I'm -- I'm trying to understand is there going to be one building on the individual lots or do we have some that have no buildings and some that have two buildings? It's hard to tell. Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I agree it is hard to tell sometimes with the lot lines. It is 14 multi-family lots. The number of buildings aren't changing, but I do believe there are a couple lots that have more than one multi-family building. So, that's where that discrepancy comes in. Yes, ma'am. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? All right. I will invite the applicant to come forward. Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood. I was hoping that Councilman Borton was going to be here, so that I could be succinct. We have gone through all of the approvals. We are building all the streets. We are actually in the construction. We have a lot of the buildings that are vertical already, so there was little changes that can be made, but we did all of those approvals through the DA, the zoning certificates and the design review. It was the Council's decision that we get the plat done before the occupancy of the apartments would take place, so that we would make sure that we built the single family and that those -- those components and not just the apartments. So, that's why we are here. Realistically we are talking about the zoning -- or the subdivision ordinance and did I put the line in the right place and do you want me to move a line. We have made the accommodations that we could. Some of the recommendations that initially-- you know, talked about moving buildings. I couldn't move buildings, because they are under construction. But I could make a ten foot sidewalk on Venable and the P&Z has made the recommendations for the things that we would like to see take place and I would stand for your approval of a preliminary plat. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Brown: Thanks. Simison: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Seeing nobody in the room, we do have two people online. If there is anybody that would like to provide testimony on this item, please, use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one raising their hand -- the applicant waived their final comments. Council, turn this over to you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page"—" Strader: Check something with staff real quick. Just want to make sure -- it sounds like the applicant agrees to build the multi-use pathway segment. If we approve as is we should -- that is a condition; right? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Strader: Perfect. With that, Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2022-0005 as presented in the staff report for today's hearing date. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2022-0005. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Or a motion to adjourn. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8.18 P.M. Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#2. May 3,2022 Page—of 40 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED : 5-18-2022 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 77 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : May 3 , 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 is deemed is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Works: Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Amendment in the amount of $304,000.00 for the purchase of a Biosolids Hauling Truck and Trailer Page 4 a n w cr N 12 O' � U ^� F z z m N ) N O O klc l 0 0 ❑� ❑� N N N O $ m v N v N N O a+ o o > > o N N M c u I ❑❑ v r Q CV u h Q m E W ] P Q 'o v °`°'0 °Z' c °� O� m c E to o vi Q. m N rn to m ~ Q v n N G m - W m C U C a 04 Z N w u E E m ai o y } m m r z W , L 7 m O Z Z43 a cc m L Q c L ~ C C D_ N E LL � d d Qj ++ y o c ro U w 0 N N a 00 0 c o " U) E =m E E v I o v O (D C O on u E = Y oc E 3� r _v a >Q v a-� � G O O rn W l7 c Q O V Q U ~ O 0 Q m O 0 0 a=i m v o o I E C 0 -o N F a=i 0 0 o m m o E N cm F f g O N L}L w N c o U a7+ O m M = d Y 0 cc T j O x C dLU O C� s m v �i G w a c a o Yo v 0 >o oaj CL HQFn a � ci 3 E `u O `u u .7 u o_ Li N O U C N ; U�1 -= QJ H 07 O Gl a �n v 0 j C U E. F ` E Yk 72 --ai 0 l m 'c C7 � \lY7jU w D_ O D D- k mm u a� -o •p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'o o o o o o o 0 o o o o o o '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m a a a a n d Ly m 4. d 0 -4NN 0 0 N N \ N cV N m O O O O V V V V V N L. N O h O � u °N° n o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a� Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Q o 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 o y C 1p t0 l0 tD lD ID ID tD �y N w w w w w tD tD to w ID w w w �, v tD ID ID tD tD Cr d tD tD tD N a U W O d O A dcl t, O O o N Aa it N 0000 0 0 0 o tad 0000000000000 0o00000 �3'J o0 0 y O Ln Ln � v~i v~i y v�i v�i v`�i v`�j u`~i u~i u�i trail '�^' t�rl N > O LL m m m m m m m m P. m m m m m m m m m m m m m LL m m m m m m LL m m m O a 0 v r.0 H Item#2. 1:41 PM City of Meridian FY2022 Budget Amendment Form Prior Year(s) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Department Name: Public Works Funding 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Title: Biosolids Truck,Trailer and Equipment Personnel $ - $ - $ - $ _ $ _ instructions for Submitting Budget Amendments: Operating $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - ➢Department will send Amendment with Directors signature to Finance(Budget Analyst)for review Capital $ 304,000 ➢Finance will send Amendment to Council Liaison for signature Total $ - $ 304,000 $ $ $ $ ➢Council Ualson will send signed Amendment to Mayor Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 304,000 ➢Mayor will send signed Amendment to Finance(Budget Analyst) Evaluation Questions ➢ Finance(Budget Analyst)will send approved copy of Amendment to Department Please answer all Evaluation Questions using the financial data referenced above. ➢Department will add copy of Amendment to Council Agenda using Novus Agenda Manager 1. Describe what is being requested? The Public Works Department is requesting a truck,trailer,and equipment to allow them to self-haul the biosolids produced at the WRRF. This self-haul option presents significant long term cost savings to the City. 2. Why was this budget request not submitted during the current fiscal year budget cycle? The Department was not made aware of the contracted service price increase until mid-budget year. 3. What is the explanation for not submitting this budget re guest during the next fiscal Xear budget cle? Because of the signifcant lead time in ordering the truck(8-10 months),a budget amendment is requested to start the ordering process. The necessary FTE will be requested as part of the normal FY23 budget process. If the City does not want to pursue a budget amendment,the ordering process would not be able to be started until FY23,and the City would continue to pay higher contracted hauling costs for a longer period of time. 4.Describe the proposed method of funding? If funding is split between Funds(i.e. General,Enterprise,Grant),please include the percentage split. List the amounts and sources of anticipated additional revenue that will result from approval of this request. Enterprise Fund IIlk 5.Does this request align with the Department/City's strategic plan? If not,please explain how this request was not included in the Department/City strategic plan? Yes 6. Does this request require resources to be provided by other departments? If yes,please describe the necessary resources to be provided by other departments. Yes-Purchasing 7.Does this Amendment include any needed Equipment or Software that will utilize the Cit 's network? Yes or No 8.Is the amendment going to result in the disposal of an asset?(Yes or No) 9.Anv additional comments? Total Amendment Request $ 304,000 Every effort should be made to avoid reopening the budgetfor an amendment. Departments will need to provide backup and appear before the City Council to justify budget amendments. Budget amendments are intended for emergency or mandatory changes to the original balanced budget. Changes to the original balanced budget may cause a funding shortfall. Page 6 City of Meridian FY2022 Bu84&r* Td%IM"\BaaOps\BudgetRates\Budget Prep Rec_10 years\Budget'22\Amendments\Biosolids Truck Trailer and Equipment\FY2022-Budget-Amendment-Form-Biosolids Truck Trailer Equipment Item#2. E IDIAN� DAHO MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Workshop Agenda From: Laurelei McVey, Public Works Meeting Date: Presenter: Laurelei McVey Estimated Time: 20 minutes Topic: Biosolids Self Hauling Analysis and FY22 Budget Amendment for$304,000 for the Purchase of a Hauling Truck and Trailer Recommended Council Action: Move to approve the FY22 Budget Amendment in the amount of$304,000 for the purchase of a Biosolids Hauling Truck and Trailer and authorize the Mayor to sign. Background: The Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) produces biosolids as an end product of the wastewater treatment process. Through third-party services provided by Timbercreek Recycling, under the existing solid waste contract with Republic Services, these biosolids are currently hauled offsite and disposed of at a municipal solid waste landfill (Ada County Landfill at Seamans Gulch). • The WRRF currently produces approximately 9,350 wet tons of biosolids per year which equates to approximately 350 haul trips per year • Between 6-7 haul trips to the landfill are completed each week • Biosolids production generally has a gradual increase in volume each year with additional growth (flow) The hauling of biosolids is covered under the City's solid waste contract with Republic Services in an MOU that memorialized additional services provided when the contract was assumed from SSC. Historically, this MOU never established a contractual price for this service,just that the program would continue. The costs for disposal and hauling of the biosolids are currently passed through to the City from Republic Services. Republic Services has stated that the last several years they have operated this service at a slight overall net loss. Currently, the City of Meridian is the only large city in the Treasure Valley that is not already self- hauling. With substantial increases in hauling rates, the Public Works Department began analyzing the option of self-hauling its biosolids. Each biosolids haul trip has two separate components- a haul fee and a disposal fee. • The disposal fee is dictated by the Ada County Landfill. This rate is currently set at $29/ton. Page 7 Item#2. • The hauling rate is dictated by Republic Services for the cost of trucking (staff, equipment, fuel) the biosolids from the Meridian WRRF to the landfill. Republic Services contracts this service through Timbercreek Recycling at a rate of$195/haul under their last contract. As of March 1, 2022, the price has increased to $415/haul. The change in haul rate was caused by several elements. • The cost of labor (particularly CDL drivers) and fuel have risen dramatically across the board. Republic Services evaluated alternative hauler options, but were unable to find local haulers at a rate that was less than what was proposed by Timbercreek. • Timbercreek Recycling has indicated the trailer they utilize to haul the biosolids is at the end of its life. They either need to purchase a new hauling trailer or conduct significant, ongoing repairs to keep the trailer functional. Today, Timbercreek only utilizes their biosolids trailer for hauling Meridian's biosolids as it must be thoroughly cleaned between each use if they wanted to utilize it for something else. This restricts their ability to spread the cost of the purchase or repairs to other users or projects. In FY21 the City spent—$342,800 on biosolids hauling and disposal (under the old haul rate). It is estimated that the City will spend —$407,000 in FY22 based on the increased hauling rate. We are anticipating budgeting—$423,000 in FY23 for this service. Members of the Public Works Department have recently met several times with Republic Services and Timbercreek to determine alternatives and discuss the City's potential desire to self-haul. Both parties had no concerns with the City pursuing the self-haul options as the services today are generally just pass-through costs. Available Options: • Status Quo - Continue to pay increased haul rate ($415/haul) to Republic Services with no contractual commitment required. The Public Works Department would still recommend memorializing this rate in an MOU. • Enter into a longer-term MOU with Republic Services- The City could agree to enter into a longer term contracted hauling rate with an MOU for a term of 5, 7 or 10 years that would lower the haul cost to $357, $379, or$388 per haul respectively. • Self-Haul Option (discussed in further detail below) Self-Hauling Analysis: The Public Works Department conducted an analysis of self-haul costs and completed an ROI for this proposal. In order to self-haul,the City would need to: • Purchase a hauling truck: o Class 8 Day Cab is required to performed the require weight haul.A new truck is estimated at$180,000. • Purchase a hauling trailer: o Trailer: a conveyor belt trailer is used by the City of Boise and Nampa for their self- haul needs. New units are at the current value of$124,000. • Hire an FTE: o Wages are based on a Level H employee, fully burdened. This employee would need a Class A CDL. Page 8 Item#2. o This employee could be utilized in the Collections crew when not conducting hauling operations (staffing considerations discussed in more detail below). Other assumptions that were included in the ROI include: • Fuel • Repair and maintenance costs on the equipment • A 3% annual growth increase in the biosolids volume. This additional future volume could be handled with the truck making more trips per day to the landfill. The ROI did not include any future increases to 3rd party haul rates,which are likely over time and would further improve the timeframe for break-even on the ROI. Based on the analysis by Public Works, at the new haul rate ($415/haul),the ROI for the City to self-haul is 3.34 years from the delivery time of the equipment. Over a period of 15 years (estimated life of the equipment),this is an estimated savings of$1.17M. Total Staff and Equipment Year Capital Cost Hauls I Fuel R&M Staffing Cost Hauling$415j Savings B/CRatio Payback _..... IYearO $304000.00 I -._ _... ...... .... $304000.00 L ($304000.00) iYear 1 346 $5 513 31 $6 971.37 1 $42114 00 $54 598.68 $143,498 70 $88 900 02 0.401 ($215 099 98)1 i Year 2 353 $5 623 58 $7 008.10 ._$43 377 42 $56 009.10 $146,368 67 $90 359 58 L 66,� ($124 740 40)1 -- 1 Year 3 ___ _ __ 360 1 $5 737 74 $7 046.12 $44 678.74.:_ $57 462.60 $149,339.96 .,_$91,877 36 ._ _ -0.93 .. .__($31341.25)I. Year 4 ._.. H67 1 $5 853 6a $7 084J2 I $46 01910 $58 957.47 $152 356 63 $93 39915 1.11, $62,057.91 iYear 5 _� 374 $5 958 42 $7119.62 1 $47 399.68 $60 477.72 $155,083 81 $94,606 09 1.26; $156 663.99 '....._ _ ... ...... _ ... .._ _. ... iYear 6 I _ I„ 380 $6 062 69 $7,154.36 i. $48 82167 $62,038.72 $157,797 78 i_..._.._$95 759 06 1_38 $252 423.05 Year? I. 387 $6166 97 $7189.09 $50 286 32 $63 642.38 $160,51190 j $96 869 52 -- 1.48 1 $349 2921.57 Year 8 393 $6 27119 $7 223.80 $51794 91 $65 289.90 $163,224 55 I..._. $97 934 64 1.57 $447 227 21 -- - 1 Year 9 1 401 $6 $7 396 62. 265.58 1 $_53 348 76 $67 010.95 $166 489 04 $99 478 09 1.64 $546 705 30 Year 10 409 $6 524 55 $7 308.19 $54 949 22 $68 781.96 $169 818 82 $101036 86 1.70 ,$647 742 16 Year 11 I 417 $6 655 04 $7 351.65 $56 597.69 $70,604.39 $173,215.20 $102 610 81 1.76 $750 352 97 1yearl2 -I 426 $678814 $7395.991. $58,295.63 $72,479.75 $176679.50 ......._._$104,19975 3:801 $85455272 --- -- !Year13 I 434 I $6,923.90 $7441.21 $60044.49 $74,409.61 $180,213.09 $105,80349I 1.84 $960,356.20 iYear 14 _ _ 443 I $7 062 38 $7,487 33 $61845 83 $76 395.54 $183,817 35 $107,42181 188 I $1 067 778 01 Year 15 _ 452 1 $7 203.63 $7,534.38 ...$63 701.20 $78,439.21 $187,493.70 $109,054.49 1.911 $1,176,832.50 15yrsavmgsl- $1175,310 70 1esstruck/tra11erpurchases_.. .... 1 .._ Staffing Considerations: An FTE would be required under the self-haul scenario. Republic Services/Timbercreek currently estimate the average daily haul time for each biosolids trip is approximately 2 hours. We are restricted from bringing more than 2 hauls per day to the landfill (an existing landfill requirement) due to the moisture content of the biosolids. If an FTE hauled 2 loads per day, 3 to 4 days per week,they would still have about 50% of their time available to assist with other wastewater related activities. Currently, our Collections group that completes the sewer cleaning and inspections is understaffed and unable to keep up with the established goals. Two additional FTEs have been planned in the CFP to help address this need (FY23 and FY24). We would propose that the biosolids hauling responsibilities be included in the Collections group in FY23 as they get their new staff member. This group already has to hold CDLs and is familiar with driving large vehicles and equipment. Under this scenario, one FTE could perform the biosolids hauling in the morning and could then assist with Collections system duties for the remaining half of the day. Page 9 Item#2. Timing: Unfortunately,the lead time for the truck and trailer is significant. It is estimated that delivery of this equipment from order would be approximately 8 months. With the City's internal purchase processing time,it is likely to take about 9-10 months to obtain. The City could look at alternatives such as used equipment to shorten this lead time; however,the availability of quality used equipment is unknown at this time. Due to the significant lead time,we are recommending an FY22 budget amendment in the amount of$304,000. Although the actual expenditure of this money would likely not come until FY23 when the equipment is delivered (—Feb/March 2023),this would allow us to begin the purchasing process. An FTE would be requested as part of the normal FY23 budget process. This FTE, as noted above, is already included in the CFP. The planned FTE can be requested through the normal budget process since the equipment will not arrive until 2023. The City will need to continue to pay the $415/haul rate until the equipment can be delivered in 2023. These costs were included in the FY23 sanitary services base budget. Impact of Biosolids Dryer Equipment: With the discussion of the potential installation of a biosolids drying facility, utilizing partial ARPA funding sources, it is important to analyze the impact of this facility on the self-hauling project's ROI. The biosolids drying facility,would take approximately 3 years to design and construct. This facility would likely come online in late 2025 (which is 2 years into the 3.4-year ROI payback). The biosolids drying facility is expected to approximately halve the number of hauls to the landfill, so the ROI would be extended by an additional 2 years making the updated ROI still favorable. Potential Project Disadvantages: The Public Works Department also analyzed the potential disadvantages to self-hauling. The disadvantages include the risk if the truck or trailer break down and repairs are needed. The City has a few options to mitigate this risk including temporary storage of the biosolids at the WRRF. Republic Services,Timbercreek, and a neighboring city that currently self-hauls have all indicated that they could also help us haul in the event of an emergency backup. Additionally,the City would assume the responsibility of the Timbercreek spill prevention plan,which outlines measures to take in the event of a vehicle crash or spill. Today,the City would help Timbercreek in these scenarios as we are still ultimately responsible for the biosolids until they are delivered to the landfill. No special permitting is required to haul the biosolids. Recommendation: It is recommended, based on the positive ROI and the ability to maintain better control over future hauling increases that the City pursue self-hauling of its biosolids. It is recommended that the Council approve an FY22 budget amendment in the amount of $304,000 for the biosolids truck and trailer. This recommendation and analysis is predicated on the Council also approving an FY23 budget staffing resource as planned for in the Collections group and discussed above. Page 10 Item#2. Questions related to this memo and budget amendment should be directed to Laurelei McVey, Public Works, Imcvey@meridiancity.org.org, 208-985-1259. Page 11 Biosolids Self Hauling Analysis Laurelei McVeyMay 3, 2022Public Works FY22 Budget Amendment& Background 7 hauls per week)-350 hauls per year (~6•WRRF produces ~9,350 wet tons of biosolids/year•Hauled to landfill and is mixed/used as cover material•“soil like” material-Generally inert, solid•Biosolids are one of the end products of the wastewater process• Background$423,000FY23 (proposed)$407,000FY22 (forecasted)$342,000FY21 (actual)Annual Biosolids Disposal Costs Aging trailer needing replaced•Fuel•CDL Drivers/Labor•Haul rate is increasing because:•increasing to $415/haulHauling Rate: was $195/haul, •Landfill Disposal Rate: $29/ton•Disposal Rate Includes:•Pass through cost•Hauled via Republic Services in Solid Waste MOU• Options Haul Option-•Term: 10 Years ($357/haul)•Term: 7 Years ($379/haul)•Term: 5 Years ($388/haul)•term MOU with Republic Services-Enter into a longer•Republic Services with no contractual commitment requiredContinue to pay increased haul rate ($415/haul) to -Status Quo• Self Haul Option the 15 year life span of the equipmentover savings of ~$1.2M and a ROI of 3.3 years At $415/haul rate, •½ FTE (~20 hours per week)•$124K-Hauling Trailer•$180K-Hauling Truck• Logistics 50% on biosolids, 50% on sewer cleaning/CCTV•CDL Drivers, comfortable driving large equipment•Collections Section FTE already in FY23 CFP•Funds won’t be spent until FY23 (Feb/March 2023)•FY22 Budget Amendment for $304K•10 months on truck/trailer-Lead time of 9• Questions E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 19, 2022 for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (CR-2022-0003) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision pertaining to the Unified Development Code (Table 11-213-3) requirement for a 25-foot-wide buffer to be provided in the C-C zoning district along the northern property boundary adjacent to a residential use. Page 13 Item#3. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: May 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from April 19, 2022 for Eagle Road Daycare Facility (CR- 2022-0003) by 814 Development, LLC, Located at 3060 S. Eagle Rd. A. Request: Council Review of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision pertaining to the Unified Development Code (Table 11-2B-3) requirement for a 25-foot-wide buffer to be provided in the C-C zoning district along the northern property boundary adjacent to a residential use. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 14 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 3 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Eagle Road Daycare Facility ( CR - 2022 - 0003 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#3. Mayor Robert E. Simison E IDIANCity Council Members: Treg Bernt Brad Hoagiun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault Luke Caverier Liz Strader April 6,2022 (Updated April 14, 2022) MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor&City Council CC: City Clerk, City Attorney FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner RE: Eagle Road Daycare Facility—CR-2022-0003 History: The Planning&Zoning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) (H-2022-0007) for a daycare center providing care for up to 216 children in the C-C zoning district on March 17,2022 as set forth in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision&Order. As a condition(#A.4f)of that approval,the Applicant is required to provide a minimum 25-foot wide buffer along the northern property line adjacent to the residential property to the north as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C- C district. Because there is an existing 15-foot wide access easement along the northern property line benefiting the property owner to the north,only grass is allowed in the northern 15 feet of the buffer,with trees and shrubs meeting the buffer requirement in UDC 11-3B-9C in the southern 10 feet of the buffer. Unified Development Code: Per UDC 11-3B-9C.2,the width of the buffer is determined by the district in which the property is located,unless such width is otherwise modified by City Council at a public hearing with notice to surrounding property owners. A reduction to the buffer width shall not affect building setbacks; all structures shall be set back from the property line a minimum of the buffer width required in the applicable zoning district. Noticing: City Council Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/17/2022 Radius notification mailed to 4/18/2022 properties within 300 feet Site Posting Date 4/5/2022 0om`munity Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642 page 15 / Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org Item#3. Next Door posting 4/18/2022 Notice of this request and public hearing has been provided to adjacent property owners within 500 feet of the site; and proof of posing was submitted as required by UDC 11-5A-6D. Request: The Applicant has submitted a request for City Council review of the Commission's decision in this matter. The Applicant proposes to install a 6-foot tall sight-obscuring privacy fence along the northern property line with no landscaping within the buffer area as shown on the revised site plan below. I •I I EIGHT I -PROPOSED BUILDING i 13,d87 56.FT. IF R - - - BUILDING MERIDIAN(S)10 CHILD CARE CENTER INHiPW1;51 li: I I I I I r I I I,f I I ��} war n � IIEYl6TNG J I � I E SITE PLAM C.OMCE" 7 2 Page 16 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Lavender Heights Development Agreement Modification (H-2022-0017) by Breckon Land Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd., at the Northeast Corner of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S. Bloomerang Ave. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement of the Lavender Heights Subdivision (Inst. # 2020-106343) for the purpose of updating the phase 4 concept plan and to modify relevant provisions. Page 26 Item#4. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Lavender Heights Development Agreement Modification (H- 2022-0017) by Breckon Land Design, Located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel Rd., at the Northeast Corner of E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S. Bloomerang Ave. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement of the Lavender Heights Subdivision (Inst. # 2020-106343) for the purpose of updating the phase 4 concept plan and to modify relevant provisions. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 27 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 3 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : Lavender Heights Development Agreement Modification ( W2022 - 0017 ) 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 1 21 W * Nj �( EWAL i) &A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#4. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 5/3/2022 Legend 0 DATE: Project Location �,�� TO: Mayor&City Council R-21 f'� R-4 FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner R-8 208-884-5533 IuMiEl SUBJECT: H-2022-0017 R-15 Lavender Heights MDA R.-15 C-C R LOCATION: Site is located at 2160 E. Lake Hazel -15 RUT Road,at the northeast corner of E. Lake R4 R=2 Hazel Road and S. Bloomerang Avenue, in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section UT R-4 R-8 R 32,Township 3N,Range 1E. R-8 OWL I RUT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to modify the existing Development Agreement of the Lavender Heights Subdivision(Inst. # 2020-106343) for the purpose of updating the concept plan and relevant provisions associated with the development of phase 4. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Mary Wall,Breckon Land Design—PO Box 44465, Boise, ID 83711 B. Owner: Taylor Merrill, LH Development, LLC—PO Box 344,Meridian,ID 83646 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING City Council Posting Date Legal notice published in newspaper 4/17/2022 Radius notice mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/18/2022 Page 1 Page 28 Item#4. Public hearing notice sign posted 4/13/2022 NextDoor Posting 4/18/2022 IV. STAFF ANALYSIS History In 2020,the property received annexation and subdivision approval to develop a mixed-use residential development in four(4)phases known as Lavender Heights(H-2020-0009). The first three phases of development depicted detached single family and the fourth phase depicted a basic concept for a multi-family project. The subject modification is specific to phase 4 and the multi-family portion of the development located along the E. Lake Hazel Road frontage. Since the approvals in 2020,the project has received final plat approval for the entire development but no conditional use permit has not been proposed for the approved multi-family lot. Development Agreement Modification The approved Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2020-106343) does not include a provision that ties the DA to the submitted multi-family concept plan but does include specific provisions for the subject property(Exhibit VI.A below). The existing multi-family concept plan depicts a drive aisle along the northern property boundary adjacent to the Farr Lateral with multiple apartment buildings along the southern boundary adjacent to Lake Hazel. The Applicant is proposing a new concept plan for the subject R-40 property that does not comport with the proposed multi-family use nor the minimum number of units outlined in the DA. The new concept plan(Exhibit VI.B below) depicts a townhome development and a private street/drive aisle instead of a traditional garden style apartment complex. Further,the submitted concept plan contemplates 30 residential units instead of the anticipated minimum of 36 units outlined in DA provision 5.1 e. For the overall Lavender Heights development, a loss of six(6)units does not affect its overall density in any measurable way but this area of the plat was intended to be the densest area of the development as it is along Lake Hazel and Staff anticipated higher density along this planned mobility corridor and because it is across from Discovery Park. According to the Applicant's narrative,the owner has not yet decided if the property will still be a multi-family project or be subdivided to allow the sale of each unit or groups of units. If the development is a multi-family or townhome project, a future conditional use permit(CUP) is required in the R-40 district. If the units are to be sold off individually or in groups, it also requires the applicant to further subdivide the property. In summary, Staff supports either option as they would contribute to the housing diversity offered within this development and the surrounding area. Based on the process outlined above, Staff will ensure the future multi-family or townhome development complies with the most current UDC standards in effect at the time of application submittal. V. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed MDA per the modified provisions in Section VLC. Page 2 Page 29 Item#4. VI. EXHIBITS A. Existing Conceptual DevelopmentPlan(not specifically tied to the DA) `gn E g q E FEE'�ep� pp_nasj,-,flp Qja', n �i k° S4 13a®k@�R � E9 g•R 9 F�%4�3 ignap gall"'A".4 � � sss £$ p,ppp _ $§ 9° Z I _ , rr"-I I c r " I I rs:, I 1 tf: I 1 1 , I I Ca , TAYLOR MERRILL Y 3— v �Pe LAVENDER HEIGHTS s% ®' �D z 1 ME Page 3 Page 30 Item#4. B. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan— �- ILI— �- w j c f PARK PLACE AT LAVENDER HEIGHTS n Pagc 4 Page 31 Item#4. C. Proposed Revisions to the existing Development Agreement Provisions 1. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan,undated phase 4 concept plan, and conceptual building elevations for- he single fafnily dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. 2. The 10-foot multi-use pathway shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development, except for that area located in the proposed future multi-family or Townhome development along the southern edge of the Farr Lateral, shown as Phase 4. 3. The required secondary access via extension of E. Brace Dr. shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development. 4. Direct lot access to Lake Hazel Road shall be prohibited. 5. No more than 54 and no less than 3-6 30 units shall be allowed on the R-40 zoned property. Detailed Conditional Use Permit approval is required prior to any development on the R-40 zoned area if a multi-family project is proposed consistent with the approved phase 4 concept plan—if a townhome development is proposed in this area,plat approval is required prior to any development in the R-40 area. 6. With the sale of all future homes in the Lavender Heights Subdivision, all sales information shall have language regarding the future multi-family or Townhome project that will be a part of this development. 7. Per City Council waiver,the Farr Lateral waterway shall remain open in accord with the standards in UDC 11-3A-6. 8. The required street frontage improvements (sidewalk and landscaping)along E. Lake Hazel Road shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the development. Page 5 — Page 32 E IDIAN.;--- Applicant's Presentation Page 4 LAVENDER PLACE MERIDIAN, IDAHO •townhomes totaling 30 units.family attached -Proposed Modification: Single•54 and no less than 36 units.family apartment buildings with no more than -Original Development Agreement: Multi •30 total units.•Product made to buy and/or sell.•one unit per lot.–family townhome units -Single •30 total units.•Product made to buy and/or sell.•one unit per lot.–family townhome units -Single •3 bedrooms).-varies per unit (2–Unit bedroom count •Faces pathways and open space.•facing façade.-Front-Attached Townhome •Two car garage parking. Street parking also provided.•Access from private street.•facing façade.-Rear-Attached Townhome FLUM designation:school capacity issues.proposed to help alleviate local Lower density than previously •can be owned.Quality townhome product which •excluding Farr Lateral.(2.43 acres) units per acre 12 including Farr Lateral OR (3.78 acres) 8 units per acre •Proposed:dwelling units per acre.)12 --Medium• 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Generally Located Northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way A. Request: Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of recouping five (5) building lots in a future final plat phase of the Oaks North Subdivision. Page 33 Item#5. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010) by Toll Southwest, LLC, Generally Located Northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way A. Request: Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of recouping five (5) building lots in a future final plat phase of the Oaks North Subdivision. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 34 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 3 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : Oaks North Rezone ( W2022 - 0010 ) 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 5 270 N MR«ostc# wn -/ 2 c, c� L '1 (aer.70 ry F h d re� w 3 L a w r0tv%eo—. 1r.Y. \� d� 0 S 2 w t gn)L 4c, lk 4 �? p IZI © �? C �J 5 �� s S r � =� $ �r , . rT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 i Item#5. STAFF REPORT C�I w IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING 5/3/2022 -- =--- Legend DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council P - i FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0010 ' " Oaks North Rezone LOCATION: The site is generally located northwest of � ® - 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way, in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 28, Township --- 4N.,Range 1W. J .®® I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for a Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of recouping five (5)building lots in a future final plat phase of the Oaks North Subdivision,by Toll Southwest,LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage RZ— 12.02 acres; Current Property Size—37.5 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential Existing Land Uses Vacant Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 83 future residential building lots; unknown number bldg./common)) of common lots Physical Features (waterways, None hazards, flood plain,hillside Neighborhood meeting date;# January 20,2022—number of attendees unknown of attendees: History(previous approvals) RZ-13-008; PP-13-013 (DA Inst. #114030972). Page 1 Page 35 Item#5. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via local streets that are either planned or currently (Arterial/Collectors/State under construction.No changes to the previously approved road layout Hwy/Local) (Existing and are proposed. Proposed) Stub There is no proposal to change the previously approved road layout, Street/Interconnectivity/Cross including stub streets. See attached concept plan in Exhibit VII.B. Access Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Portion of required buffer along McDermott Road to the west(west Buffers boundary of Oaks North No. 10)is already approved—future final plat for this phase will be required to complete this buffer. Proposed Road None required to any adjacent arterial or collector streets because of Improvements previous improvements and road dedications. Fire Service No Comments Police Service • Concerns Area can be serviced per letter from Police Department(Exhibit VIIL!!) Page 2 Page 36 Item#5. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend 0 Legend Project Location MU-C Project Location ; 0 Mixed Use - - E € in r ange Low Density I , r� . Ar. Residential ensity� R ® ® , CIVIC AA Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R1 R13Ll�f� 0 Legend 0 Project Location Project Location � L-OM, y City Limits [ • R-15 RUT Planned Parcels -- € .RUT ; R • R=8 01 R-4 R-4 L R-15 _ - v R 4 R-8 R 1 R 15 + R-8 RUT RUT _ R-4 RUT R=8'- II I R-4 RUT III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Kristen McNeill, Givens Pursley,LLP—601 W. Bannock Street,Boise, ID 83702 B. Owner: Adam Capell, Toll Southwest,LLC—3103 W. Sheryl Drive, Ste. 100,Meridian,ID 83642 C. Representative: Jeff Bowers, Givens Pursley,LLP 601 W. Bannock Street,Boise, ID 83702 Page 3 Page 37 Item#5. IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/22/2022 4/17/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 3/21/2022 4/18/2022 Site Posting 3/28/2022 4/18/2022 Nextdoor posting 3/21/2022 4/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Rezone The subject application is for a Rezone that contemplates approximately 12 acres of land, currently zoned R-4. The Applicant is requesting to rezone this area from the R-4 zoning district to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of including five(5)additional building lots that were lost over the course of the previous 11 final plat phases of the Oaks North Subdivision. Staff has confirmed the addition of five(5)building lots within this phase will keep the project consistent with the approved preliminary plat from 2014. Because of this,there is no need for a new preliminary plat to be submitted—city code allows for later phases of a project to include lots lost with previous phases so long as the total number of lots approved with the preliminary plat is not increased. In short,the future phase 12 final plat is sufficient to memorialize the addition of lots within the Oaks North Subdivision. However, adding these additional lots within the existing R-4 zoning district is not possible as the minimum dimensional standards requirements could not be met. Therefore,the applicant has requested the rezone to the R-8 zoning district. In addition,the applicant has stated within their narrative that the request to rezone 12 acres to the R-8 zoning district along a portion of the Oaks North northern boundary is also in better alignment with the existing R-8 zoning to the north(Prescott Ridge Subdivision)while providing for additional variation of lot sizes within this area of the Oaks North Subdivision. Staff supports the requested rezone for the purposes noted. Outside of the Rezone application and the zoning implications,it is important to analyze other changes that would occur because of the rezone and increase in density of this phase. First,the Applicant is not proposing to change any of the previously approved road network. The proposed local streets and the stub streets along the north boundary are shown in the same locations as before. Secondly,the Applicant is proposing to increase the open space in this phase of the development to meet the latest open space requirements for the R-8 zoning district. According to their revised concept plan and narrative,the Applicant is showing over 180,000 square feet of common open space for phase 12 which accounts for approximately 15%of the gross area. This complies with the minimum open space requirements now required by UDC 11-3G-3. This is helps maintain a livable neighborhood and assists in the project meeting current purpose statements outlined within the new open space regulations. However, some of the open space areas shown on the concept plan may be better suited in larger and condensed areas; Staff will work with the Applicant between the timing of this Rezone application and the future final plat submittal to make any necessary adjustments to the location of the open space as allowed under the subdivision ordinance. In general,the locations shown on the new concept plan do appear to comply with code. Page 4 Page 38 Item#5. B. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. Staff ,finds the proposed Rezone to the R-8 zoning district and anticipation of 83 additional lots is compliant with the future land use designation of MDR. Because the existing preliminary plat and Rezone request comply with the future land use designation, Staff does not have additional comprehensive plan analysis on the future land use of the subject area and this project. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with a rezone application pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.Staff is not recommending a new DA or a modification to the existing DA because the subject property is still subject to the terms of the the existing recorded development agreement(DA Inst. #114030972). C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: Site improvements are currently in progress or planned per the existing final plat approvals and the future phase 12 final plat. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use of detached single-family residential is a principally permitted use within the requested R-8 zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The proposed use is also consistent with the existing preliminary plat(PP-13-013). E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The new concept plan for phase 12 of the Oaks North Subdivision does not show lot sizes. Staff will analyze the future final plat for compliance with the minimum dimensional standards of the requested R-8 zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2A-6. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted conceptual elevations for the future single-family homes. After analysis of these conceptual elevations, Staff finds these elevations to be consistent with the approved conceptual elevations in the DA(DA Inst. #114030972). Due to the number of conceptual elevations submitted,please refer to the public record to view these elevations. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone per the conditions of approval in Section VIII and the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 7,2022. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Rezone request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jeff Bower,Applicant Representative. b. In opposition: Miranda Kennebrew,neighbor;Daniel Kwok,neighbor; Brenden Owens, neighbor; Elaira Jones,neighbor; Sabrina Johnson,neighbor;Jess Dubois,neighbor; C. Commenting: Jeff Bower; Miranda Kennebrew; Daniel Kwok; Joe Bongiorno,neighbor; Brenden Owens; Elaira Jones; Sabrina Johnson; Jess Dubois; Page 5 Page 39 Item#5. d. Written testimony Five(5)pieces of testimony submitted prior to P&Z meeting—all discussed a desire for more open space and an additional pool within the subdivision and did not support the addition of 5 lots in this phase. e. Staff presenting application: f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Concerns over recent HOA meeting and overall amenity packageof Oaks North as it continues to get built out; b. Distaste for proposed rezone and increase of 5 lots; c. Discussion of adjacent Oakwinds project that may share amenities of overall Oaks North project and the fact it is a for-rent community(unrelated to Oaks North Rezone project); 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Will any amenities be added to the enlarged open space area and what are they planned to be; b. Content of written and public testimony iy n regards to overall amenity package within Oaks North Subdivision; c. Purview of City to condition a Rezone—Cannot condition a Rezone without a DA Modification. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 6 Page 40 Item#5. VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map Legal DescrIption Proposed City of Meridian Rezone The Oaks North Subdivision A pared located m the N '/}of the SW%of Section 28. Township 4 North, Range 1 West. Boise Mendlan City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and mode particularly described as follow& Communcrng at a Brass Cap monurnertil mark:ng the southwest comer of said SectI.Dn 28, from which am Aluminum Cap rnolnurneni marking the southeast comer of the SIN Y* (S A Dnrner) of said Section bears S 89'16'69'E a distance of 2635.25 feet' Thence N 1'W'42'1=aloog the west boundary Of the SW ,of Section 28 a distanca of 2630.B5 feel to an AJurninurn Cap monument marking the northwest comer Df the SW% (W Y.comer) of saad Section 28. TtTence along i1 ee north bound ary of said SVV S W21'17"E a distance of 971.05 fleet the POINT Of BEGINNING Thence amlinuing S 99'21'l7' E along said north boundary a distance e. 340 07 feel to the northwest corner of lire NE Y.of the SW YL of said Section 2S; Thence alarag the west boundary of said NE'/L Of the 3VV'/4 S 0'52:12"VV a distance of 16.99 feet ID a paint; Thence Ieawing said boundary S 89'14'34' E a distance of 596.07 feet to a point; Thence S 0'45'26"Vv a distance of fa6 93 Feet to a point of Curvature; Thence a distance of 189.18 feet along the arc of a 600 00 foot radius Curve lek said curve having a oenlral angle of 1S'03'57- and a tong chard bearing 5 8'16'32"E a distance of 188.40 feel to a VoiM on the Centerline of W Bum Sages Drive, Thence along said centerline the following courses and distances Therim S 72*41'29' W a distance of 157.31 feet to paint of curvatute, Therir-e a #istance of 275 35 feet along the dre OF a 1Q00 9G foal radius curve left. said curve having a central angle of 15"4630" and a long chord bearing S 04"48'11- W a distance of 274 49 feel to a point of langency. Thence S 59*54'53`W a distance of 368 06 feet to a point. Thence heaving said centerline N 33*05-07'W a distance of 144.00 feel to an angle point on the nofiherly boundary of the Oaks N01h Subdrvision No.8, as shown in Book 121 of Plals on Pages 18996 through 10999, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence&tang sai�j subdivision boundary the following Courses and distances: The rtee S :56'54'53' W a distance of 00.00 feel to a point, Landsoll.ttJofirs Pr sndR*tfie Tne�kaMwthSibdn**rs Jab Nn.1&35 Pago a of 2 Page 7 Page 41 Item#5. Thence 5 63'40'51'VV a distance of 73.86 feet to a paint_ Thence S 63"WX VV a divWnm of 70-71 feet to the northeasterly comer of said The Oaks North 9ubdrvrs,on No-6_ Thence leaving said boundary N 6'38'19*W a distance of 137.94 feet to a point; Thence N V38'at- E a distance of 135.00 feet to a paint; Thence S B9°2: f 7'E a distance of 46.00 feet to a point: Thence N VW43' E a distance of 425.00 feet to the PMNT OF 8EGtNNINGt This parcel cof-tarnS 12.02 acres m"or less. CtiMon VV. Hansen, Pt o��'i La&o Land Solutions, PC * 5 Tr November 11, 2021 q, OR 4 Page 8 Page 42 Item#5. TIDE OAKS NORTH TH UBDIVISIO 1 PROPOSED CITY OF MERIDIAN REZONE LOCATED IN THE N 112 OF THE SW V4 OF SECTION 23,TAN„ R.W. R-M. ITS'OF MERIDIAN.ADA COUNTY. IDAHO sI+ fz �i'?'E 13�1.1- Cw -!16 _ __ 5�§ �'�7"E _i31 .13' _ _ _ 24r28 971,Q4` .3a0.0�' S899+'34'E '196.pr PQINTQFIUEpHNliJI� � Ik r- - 589'Z1'17E uor 1 Ilk 39 2E of, IAtAium RD _ Y28 as 9ASIS Or KOM. I-LA ANAD� 1{1 7 100' 2w' 4W q f +1 11 x CURVE TABLE ��pt 0f V° CURVE 0 LENGTH RADIUS DELTA SEARING CHC W. �2 M,35 ROD3. W46'36` 564'48'11'W 274.4-V 'Land Surreyft end Comftng 2J+E 711+5' 53 x ha FbDM i6 6Y dp 4721fe-_AWL �2{d1294250u. Page 9 Page 43 Item#5. B. New Concept Plan for applicable area(Illustrative Purposes Only) THE OAKS NORTH PHASE 12-UPDATED LOT LAYOUT Meridian,Idaho 5'pq—be'1.2021 83 TOTAL BUILDING LOTS 0 4 5 6 7 6 4 L 11 R fB N 10 18 , n i E SIAN�[AW�i �. �$2 ` 7 6s ea e7 e6 E=1 %A\ F77- 00MIAON 1 s0 Lj R-4 ZONE + R 8 ZONE COMMON LOT TOTAL COMMON LOT AREA-IKM 8F FEET n ,v ELSE CONSULTAM"Ca GRAPHEC SCALE 1 in 15fl R 'roll Brothers ..�....� AMEI11<�']LVNVIIY HOME EViLCEM Lmw.x-q[M�wo-wner�a cwa Page 10 Page 44 Item#5. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. Comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with the site(RZ-13-008; PP-13- 013 (DA Inst. #114030972). 2. With the final plat application associated with this phase,the Applicant should provide a minimum of 15%qualified common open space as proposed. 3. The final plat must comply with the dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district as outlined in UDC Table 11-2A-6. B. PUBLIC WORKS General Comments 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. Page 11 Page 45 Item#5. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 14. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 15. The 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. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 18. 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.meridianci ty.orglpublic_works.aVx?id=272. 19. 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. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancit .00rglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=256297&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Page 12 Page 46 Item#5. D. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/DocView.gyp x?id=255100&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the property with the R-8 zoning district and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and previous approvals. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the requested development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-8 zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, especially if all conditions of approval are met. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. N/A. Property is already annexed into the City and subject to an existing development agreement. Page 13 Page 47 E IDIAN.;--- Applicant's Presentation Page 4 Oaks North Phase 12 Meridian City Council (May 3, 2022) •Toll Brothers employeesOver 180 •of MeridianCity headquartered in the Division Idaho •Founded in 1967 •500 company Award winning, FORTUNE Oaks North Rezone– Oaks North Project units653TOTALunits8312PhaseFutureunits570PLATTEDTOTALunits3011Phaseunits5410Phaseunits209Phaseunits378Phaseunits727Phaseunits366Phaseunits375Phaseunits354Phaseunits713Phaseunits502 Phaseunits1281PhaseCOUNTLOTNUMBERPHASE Oaks North Phase 12– Phase 12 @ RUnits838-Phase 12 @ R3.31 Units/Acre78 Units4- Oaks North Phase 12 area 3.2 acres open space in : Phase 12 w/ RezonePhase 12 area acres open space in : 1.7 Preliminary Plat Phase – Oaks North Phase 12 Rezone– Oaks North Phase 12 Rezone– Oaks North Amenities Oaks North Amenities Oaks North Amenities Oaks North Phase 12 Amenities 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #51210417400) The Applicant is Requesting a Remand to Planning & Zoning Commission A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district. Page 64 Item#6. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400) A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 65 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 3 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 PROJECT NAME : Pinedale Subdivision ( W2022 - 0001 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes , please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005) by Summertown, LLC, Located at 3104 N. Venable, at the Southeast Corner of N. Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9 single-family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). Page 74 Item#7. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 3, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005) by Summertown, LLC, Located at 3104 N.Venable, at the Southeast Corner of N.Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9 single- family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential). Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 75 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : May 3 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 7 PROJECT NAME : Summertown Subdivision ( W2022 - 0005 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#7. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O HEARING May 3,2022 Legend � Wmm Xv 17440 DATE: LII, (I . Project Location IMM I fflp", TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner ` 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0005 - Summertown Subdivision ® 9F 77 LOCATION: Site is located at 3104 N.Venable, at the �� �® southeast corner ofN.Venable Lane and g W. Ustick Road, In the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 1,Township 3N, -9 � _. Range 1 W. f ME I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots(9 single-family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district(Traditional Neighborhood Residential),by Summertown, LLC. Note: Additional request for Private Streets through the multi-family portion of the project requiring only administrative approval—private street request made for addressing purposes and requested by City departments. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 13.8 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Community(6-15 du/ac) Existing Land Use(s) Multi-family Residential under construction Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family Residential and Detached Single-Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 23 residential building lots(9 detached single-family and 14 multi-family)and 3 common lots Neighborhood meeting date December 16,2021 History(previous approvals) H-2017-0142(AZ,DA Inst.#2019-015427);A-2019-0118 (CZC&DES);A-2021-0025 (CZC&DES renewal). Pagel Page 87 Item#7. B. Community Metrics Description Details Pa e Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No(Previously reviewed under the CZC and Design Review applications from 2019. • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is via extension of N.Venable Lane,a collector Hwy/Local)(Existing and street that connects to W.Ustick Road at the northwest Proposed) corner of the property. Access to the multi-family portion of the project is via a drive aisle connection to N.Venable and two private street connections to a new local street near the south end of the site,shown as W.Wrangler Street. W.Wrangler street is the access for the proposed nine(9) single-family residential lots along the south boundary. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is stubbing N.Ridgebury Avenue to the south Access boundary to connect to the existing Ridgebury Avenue. W.Wrangler Street is proposed to connect to the terminus of N.Venable near the southwest corner of the site. Existing Road Network N.Venable is currently a substandard road section that provides access to homes and apartments to its west and one large county parcel further to the south. N.Ridgebury Avenue is stubbed to the southern property boundary through the Vallin Courts Subdivision. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is required to construct Venable as a complete street section. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Settlers Park(55.44 acres)—adjacent to the northeast size) corner of the site on the north side of Ustick Road. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.7 miles from Station#3 • Fire Response Time Falls within the 5-minute response time goal area • Resource Reliability 80%(at the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths,and turnaround requirements as presented. • Additional Project can be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department Comments/Concerns Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 3.8 miles from Meridian Police Headquarters • Response Time Approximately 3 minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 1/1/2020- 12/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 4,545 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 440. Between 1/l/2020- 12/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 66 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. • Additional Concerns None Page 2 Page 88 1 1 1 N■■1 p:,........ C_1111111■IIIII '�- tell 11 a� _ _ I .-i:iii •� . • 'r•pllllllli _ _ iii-'■ o e i �■■■■■■rrr�/� • 11J•nun■■u � C 11 a �I nnpl nnn �:: ► ounnn ,!�.' 1 � - 1 _ �•� 'lylll+_II-NII.Illtlp ■� ..■:::...�� I ►IIIII-11 @ ^'j'� fI � �111�IIllf . o■. 5 n =_-_ l..a•'�`F- >, IIIIII I: � In ry i t �.� I IFN .• ..— �, r-�1■ = US 1 lr--.—� � - 11. , \v'�- us �z v LU N r=_N -I- ■ :(III-• 1 .«�;I--I iiiii■I ;.....y-ai =: � -..„ - Fes- •• 11 H d._ r, Fy mu■■•❑ nm_ ■iq noon...-. - ■uAl .III115a1� -NIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIA r W r. .1 r•. :.nt � +OIIIIII (IIIIIIIIII '_ ��! ',�� kR^ 1 ■:'.C �_ .(noon mnrnm I��t I,, � -, •—• - • B - IIIIr■Fr �.Iltttttn _ ter. I _ T IIIIII r:: ■■ • - a nv 1 nrnplil -,-■ :� ram^ �O` ,X ,;t �� nnm� ..n■nnl 6.anun ------■1Illunun .ing.:-: ■■■iiii[:rural!! _.1 1�+' 1 F] d '^ I' RIEI > I ■ N�_o-[•� .I 1111111_- �. fhF C"I I rA' n un■b' �Ilrrr.■. uu:.!I.iii h� a m■ -:-�unn_ i=_=not�- .5 n.■ --__=nm'-. -u■1:.:nnnu.' :i :nunl,llll unnr::�:r:nummw • - • '■■�`■■.�■■■■■■.r..■■�IIIIIA'rl.nnnp - • - • ■■■■.F•I■�ilNui'll�aNl..-.�n� '.our:■■no■!'uir•■Ilrr mum ------11.Tr.r■■r■■r��on■.� IN _- _ "'I"•-i:iii N 1111� '�•-i:iii • .r[.'� ■ \I1111111� � r nn o01 nu■r.�. tint ulnl■n.Iotl, ■nn'M�i:: (.III on unn - -IIIIII 911. �.Pnll N11R1111 Illly f _p ' • -• '• - IIN i•�d�-II 11 IAltf I +��i- NI NIII _-131 11 111- � III- f i/ r LIIIIIIIIIIII'___ I� �'■ __•_ �!�� 1 71.111E N num n TTf�I/' L7�1�, tilt ,,-us',-----,. `r ii•. =IINr S� ru !1 == 1,. I VJ '"'= =Itttllllll 1111111111= Y pamn'y Q•y!��¢;� �•��CIO i�'1 mh6. ma �• nnn■.I~pnmy+ i■: =1C .•�.'nun.•_[. r r ■11.[I�I��aI •11::• •■nn�� '!" n:aar �h- •■urlll.■IIIII�raY,��,u ■,.- W .11 111111 0 -■Iu._JI-n...ry�i•= J 1 IIIIII(IIIIIIIIII d= Q i fa IIIII 11111III 9.��.i 11.=1 C✓1111111 IIIIIIIIIILU1 ••1 f.iI._ mnnunuu � �� :i�.[ I.rrY■rlI ru■mmI mass um■�r'I�+�Ann I � ■1■■■■ r_unnr�e J 1�1� /!o;■■.■■. mmm�nl Annul C=�nml w- /•;: n■■•� rnnlurc■nllpnrnnl 1�,':■■■�:: fyq ■. 1 n■nnunv 1 n >.�� •_-Illnnlnnlnu nm n. - r e.■m- ,Illl,lllrn n11r � 1 ■---_ �`h.r■i■In.�_-nl,llll,rn Ilnl. FIIrI In v1`h nnln lnmm 11 6innnn mnulnAlnnnln ■■....... "."nn ■nngF■. M■■■■:uu.l■r■..■.cZ'i"".nn nnnO■11/�po.. O E�a-m-�:nnn N= ® .� • N9=_� IPn'-[:nnn 1!� .� • • . •1 nr+ Inulll l== ::. r � •_[���1.■.�.Nl mnlll=_ �.1•'gNr ♦� la :.� �ouF.=- . ..i� 4 3 ■■ . r ■C our■=_ . r.ii• •4 ■ iiw g4Ar■■1!-An■-■�nor =■rant ygpr■■. An■- ■ uv N I p n o.l.nnl 1 nuq =nnln yo. •.1■o •►nln is nn■. •■111 ■ it � •A[ iii ii••��•:it----• ►• � � it��il�r\1.•■[Riii ii�+ �:it nu �I.nnon r :ii i I i � ' ' • • ' III / 1 / • •� i I ■ I• I � / 1 / i •� Item#7. IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 3/22/2022 4/17/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 3/21/2022 4/18/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 3/23/2022 4/21/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 3/21/2022 4/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The subject 13.7 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2019 with the Summertown annexation (H-2017-0142)with the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R)zoning district which allows multi-family residential projects as a principally permitted use. Therefore,the Applicant was only required to obtain administrative approvals (Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review)to begin construction on the multi-family portion of the project. However,the Applicant also included a small single-family component to the project along the south boundary in order to comply with TN-R requirements of including two different housing types within the project. Because of the inclusion of the single-family lots and a desire to place each multi-family building on its own lot,the Applicant has an existing Development Agreement provision to subdivide the property prior to release of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore,the Applicant is submitting the subject preliminary plat application to meet the existing conditions of approval and create nine(9) single-family lots along the south boundary. The Applicant received Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review (DES) approval in 2019 and subsequently in 2021 to establish the use of the multi-family residential component of the project and be allowed to submit for building permits. With these administrative approvals,the City and ACHD reviewed the required public street network(Venable and Wrangler). Staff cannot locate the final ACHD staff report from May 2019 but has the draft copy which likely did not change. Within this report and consistent with the staff report and approvals at the time of annexation,the Applicant is required to construct Venable as two different street sections. According to the submitted plat,this does not appear to be shown correctly. Further analysis is below in subsequent sections however,all of the requirements for construction of Venable are already required within the DA(Inst.#2019-015427).Furthermore,the expected development of the subject site is already outlined and conditioned via the previous approvals and existing DA; many of the previous requirements will be reiterated in this report and checked for compliance at the time of final plat submittal. The subject site is part of a larger Mixed-Use Community(MU-C) future land use area. As noted above, this project was analyzed against the Comprehensive Plan at the time of annexation in 2019. At that time, Staff concluded the project was compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The submitted preliminary plat is consistent with the MU-C designation and the concept plan included in the recorded Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-015427). B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) The proposed preliminary plat consists of 23 residential building lots(9 single-family lots and 14 multi- family lots)and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district. The Page 4 Page 90 Item#7. minimum lot size proposed is 5,100 square feet for the single-family lots and 18,988 square feet for the multi-family lots. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site but building permits have been issued for construction of the multi-family buildings. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed subdivision and subsequent development are required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-7 for the TN-R zoning district. The TN-R zoning district does not have a minimum lot size nor street frontage requirement. The proposed single-family residential along the south boundary and the bisecting public local street(W. Wrangler)act as a transition and buffer between the existing R-8 single-family residential south of the subject site(Vallin Courts Subdivision). Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with all zoning standards. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access to the project site is via extension of N. Venable Lane,a collector street, from W.Ustick Road to nearly the south boundary. Access to the multi-family portion of the project is via a drive aisle connection to N. Venable in alignment with an existing multi-family drive aisle on the west side of Venable (Crossfield Apartments) and two private street connections to a new local street near the south end of the site, shown as W. Wrangler Street. W.Wrangler street is also the access for the proposed nine (9) single-family residential lots along the south boundary. W. Wrangler is shown to be constructed with 5-foot detached sidewalks and a 33-foot wide street section and stubbed to the east property boundary for future connectivity. This complies with City code and ACHD requirements,as approved with previous applications. Upon analysis of the submitted plat, it appears N. Venable Lane is being shown as a 29 foot collector street section for its entire length,from Ustick south to Wrangler Street connection point at the southwest corner of the project. Previous approvals allow Venable to be constructed with this reduced collector street section for a majority of its length but not in its entirety.According to ACHD, Venable should be constructed as 36 foot wide collector street section from Ustick and 245 feet south to the northern drive aisle connection across from the existing drive aisle connection to Venable for the Crossfield Apartments. It is unclear on the submittedplat if this condition of approval is being shown accurately. The Applicant should revise the plat to meet this condition of approval or provide written documentation that ACHD has approved a reduced street section for this area of the project. In addition to the public streets required with the subject preliminary plat,the Applicant is also requesting private street approval for the internal drive aisles at the request of the Meridian Fire Department and our Addressing Department to allow for more specific addressing within the development. The ability to give buildings addresses from internal streets rather than all buildings having a Venable address makes it easier and safer for emergency services. Private Streets must comply with the applicability and minimum standards in UDC 11-3F-2 and 11-3F-4,respectively. Staff ,finds the previously approved project complies with the private street applicability standards as it is not a single-family development and all of the units front on or access green space rather than the street. Further, the drive aisles (private streets)are shown to be 26 feet wide with sidewalks adjacent to a majority of the parking stalls. UDC 11-3F-4 requires private streets to be a minimum of 24 feet wide and sidewalks are not required. Therefore, the Applicant complies with the minimum dimensional standards outlined in the UDC. In addition, the private street must be within a single platted common lot or constructed on a perpetual ingress/egress easement.According to the submitted plat, the private street is not within a common lot and is noted as being within an easement. However, this easement is not clearly depicted on the plat and a plat note has not been included noting its purpose. These items should be corrected with the final plat submittal. If these conditions of approval are met, Stafffinds the Page 5 Page 91 Item#7. proposed Private Streets comply with the required findings outlined in UDC 11-3F-5, as noted in Section IX of this staff report. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): The Pathways Master Plan shows a pathway along the east side of the required Venable extension. The Parks Department has not submitted comments on this project but Planning has had multiple discussions with the pathways coordinator and the City does wish to comply with the master pathways plan for this segment in order to have a regional pathway connection from Ustick south to pathway along the Creason Lateral approximately a quarter mile south of the Summertown project boundary.According to the submitted plat and landscape plans, a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is shown on the east side of Venable instead of a 10-foot multi-use pathway. In addition to the 5-foot detached sidewalk along Venable, the Applicant is showing 4-foot wide sidewalk on the west side of the internal private street that runs north-south within the multi family portion of the project(shown as N. Ridgebury Lane). Ridgebury Lane is shown with sidewalks on both sides of the private street but is not required by code, as noted in the previous section. In addition, the Applicant has some room within the building lot itself to adjust the property line and building setback to Venable because the TN-R zoning district allows a reduced setback when the units are alley-loaded—these multi- family units take vehicular access via Ridgebury Lane, an alley in its functionality, and main pedestrian access along Venable. During pre-application meetings,Staff presented this issue and recommended the Applicant remove the western sidewalk along Ridgebury Lane and make minor building lot adjustments to construct the required multi-use pathway along the east side of Venable.Per the submitted plat, the Applicant did not make these revisions.In order to comply with the Pathways Master Plan,Staff is including conditions of approval consistent with these recommendations. Furthermore, this multi-use pathway segment is shown to continue south through an adjacent County parcel(S1201214713) in the future. In order to allow for this to occur, a logical termination of the multi-use segment on the east side of Venable should occur so that a safe crossing location is attainable. The logical location for this would be at the northeast corner of Venable and Wrangler Street so it can be constructed at the southwest corner of this intersection should the county parcel redevelop in the future. Staff notes, the existing county residence takes access via Venable and will continue to do so until such time the property redevelops.After reviewing the existing conditions of the county parcel and the existing stub streets to its property, Staff anticipates this existing access being removed and becoming an area of open space and the multi-use pathway segment. Therefore, setting up the correct locations of the multi-use pathway stubs with this project to the county parcel is significantly important. Staff recommends the Applicant construct a segment of the City's multi-use pathway within Lot 1, Block 2. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets (W. Wrangler and the Ridgebury Lane extension)and along N. Venable,the collector street along the west boundary. There is existing 5-foot wide sidewalk along the west side of Venable that was constructed with other projects. According to the submitted plat and landscape plans,the Applicant is proposing a minimum of 8-foot wide sidewalks along all public streets. In addition,the Applicant is showing 4-foot and 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along the private streets within the multi-family area of the project. All proposed sidewalks meet UDC standards. However,the sidewalk along the east side of N. Venable should be constructed as a 10-foot multi-use pathway, as discussed in the section above. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): 8-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along both sides of the proposed local streets(W. Wrangler and N. Ridgebury). All parkways within the site adjacent to detached sidewalks shall be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C.According to the submitted landscape plan, there appears to be the correct number of trees but the table does not accurately describe the parkway along W.Wrangler and instead labels it as perimeter landscaping.With the future final plat application, Page 6 Page 92 Item#7. the Applicant should correct this and list this parkway within the landscape table and show the correct number trees. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The TN-R zoning district requires a landscape buffer to arterial, collector, and local streets. According to UDC Table 11-2D-6 a 25-foot wide arterial buffer is required along W.Ustick Road(measured from back of curb); a 13-foot buffer along Venable(a collector); and a minimum 8-foot wide parkway adjacent to all local streets(W. Wrangler Street and N. Ridgebury Avenue)with all buffers required to be landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. The landscaping has been previously approved through the annexation and administrative approvals, as noted. According to the submitted landscape plans,the required street buffer widths have been met along all public streets adjacent to the site. The purpose of review for this plat is to ensure the landscaping is maintained through appropriate means via the plat. In most cases, the required street buffers for residential developments are contained within common lots but because the project has received previous approvals prior to platting(including building permit approval), the locations of the buildings have already been set and a common lot is not appropriate any longer. Instead, the UDC allows the required street buffers to be placed within landscape easements noted on the preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff is including a condition of approval to depict the required landscape buffer easements on the plat at the time offinal plat submittal. The caveat to this is along W. Wrangler Street and N. Ridgebury Avenue—there is no need to depict a common nor a landscape easement over the 8 foot parkways along these local streets. There is existing landscaping and detached sidewalk along Ustick Road and the Summertown property line does not extend all the way to the back of curb, where the required buffer is to be measured from per the UDC. Thus, the entire 25 foot buffer is not required to be solely on this property but the Applicant should do the following for clarity: 1. Note on the plat that the remaining buffer area is within ACHD right-of-way along Ustick consistent with the UDC, and; 2. Depict and label the full buffer width on the landscape plans. Including these two items will create transparency on both sets of plans moving forward to plat recordation. Further, the Applicant should enter into a license agreement with ACHD to landscape the right-of-way area consistent with City code. All common lot and parking landscaping were reviewed and approved with the CZC and Design Review applications(A-2021-0025). The Applicant is required to comply with all previous approvals so Staff is not including any additional conditions for this matter. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The minimum amount of qualified open space and amenities were analyzed and approved with the previous approvals.According to those approvals,the Applicant is including 3.11 acres of qualified open space(approximately 135,000 square feet)that is to be shared by both the multi-family and single-family residents. This amount of open space exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. Staff notes the existing approvals do not account for the parkways along W. Wrangler and the Ridgebury Avenue stub. So, the amount of qualified open space is in fact higher than previously noted—with the final plat submittal, the applicant should revise the open space calculations and include these parkways. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-2D-6 (TN-R standards).According to the submitted landscape plan, all proposed fencing meets UDC requirements. Staff will further verify code compliance at the time of final plat submittal and inspection. Off-Street Parking (UDC 11-3C-6): The number of off-street parking spaces required for the multi-family portion of the project was analyzed and approved with previous approvals. According to these approvals,the Applicant is proposing 384 parking stalls with 198 of these being covered. The proposed parking meets the minimum required by Page 7 — Page 93 Item#7. code. Single-family residential is required to provide off-street parking based on the number of bedrooms per home; Staff will verify compliance with the UDC at the time of building permit submittal for each lot. Staff notes that the north side of W. Wrangler Street will allow on-street parking along its entire north side with the exception of the two private street connections due to it being constructed as a 33 foot wide local street. This on-street parking will likely be utilized as overflow parking for the multi family residents. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Building elevations were previously approved with the Design Review in 2019 and subsequently in 2021. Staff will include exhibits of the approved elevations during the public hearing but is not including them within this staff report as they can be accessed through multiple avenues. The Applicant has not submitted any conceptual elevations of the single-family homes but Staff notes that single-family residential homes do not require design review approval. However,the future single-family homes should be designed to complement the multi-family units that are part of this development. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat per the provisions included in Section VIII in accord with the Findings in Section IX and has approved the Private Street request per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 7,2022. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Preliminary Plat request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Kent Brown,Applicant Representative; b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Kent Brown; Mike Simunich,neighbor. d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. Confirmation of how access to existingcounty ounty residence on Parcel S 1201244520 shall be implemented and maintained. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Anticipated plan for access to existingcty home south of property that currently the unimproved Venable Road(Parcel S1201244520), b. Discussion on regional pathway location and design required along east side of Venable; c. Design of Venable approved by ACHD versus approved with Annexation; d. Parcel history and existing approvals for the project; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Strike conditions A.3 &modify A.11 C based on discussions surrounding construction of Venable and the multi-use pathway segment. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 8 Page 94 Item#7. VII. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat Legal Description DESCRIPTION FOR SUMMERTOWN SUBDIVISION A parcel of land located In Oo+1@rnment Lot 2 of S@otwon 1, T.3N., R.IW W. 9.M ,A¢e DOuinty, IdihO mine particularly dwicnbed as follows Commer ing at the N114 corner of said Section 1 from which the P4E comer of sa.ic Sacion 1 be2re S"09`4634-8"East 2.W2.21 ftet. thence along Itm Noll bourKWy hne of Said Section f South 89'AZ4V'Eas4. 20-Olt feat. Menem tea+nng said MOM boundary line South 00°19'5(r East,63.94 feet to a point on the South rrghl-of-way 11ne of W L1g#rck Road.sand point also being the REAL P'ID4NT OF BEGINNING. thence along saA South npht-of-way lim for the following Iwo courses and distances Iher"North 64'44'15"East,37.04 feet: thenw South 89'4048'East.W 48 feet thence lewng said South righl-of-way line South 00'23-17"well. 290.03 feet; thence South 89"4646"East. 26.57 feet; thence South Wi!'4T Eeet. 695 07 feet to the NW comer of Lai 21. Black 7 of Valhn Courts Subsdrvislon as filled in Book 93 of Plats.at Pages 11.208 through 11.212, recards of Ada County. Idaho. MentA along the extenor boundary line of sand Vallin C&urts Sub erosion me foliowing 2 Nurses and di5lan es: theruce South 001749"East. 56.60 feat; thence North 89 4W21'West, 640 00 feel*the NW comer of Lot 1_Block 3 of @aid Vailrn Cpurts SubSdiw$ion', thence along I"Ent r6gMl-of-way im of N.1Hnabls to North 00119r50-Wsai. 926 09 feel tree REAL POINT OF BEGINNIM Cordarn4ng 1317 @iris,more or less. 17 , 4M�I�; Page 9 Page 95 Item#7. B. Preliminary Plat(dated: January 2022) SIIr RI1'RTOWN SUBDIVISION w IA z U iJ IJ 'i � YICMIT I4W r f p y y O O c enaa .• � �M.I o�i'W W i0'a�'av y wx I�iR�'!RV.i[``!'K'UK''`IIlve Kry pM. a1u'��RKinr[1,M.wxd ....�uxxM�101•Il�! Mr- j6D - • M 1 1[1E1 ,p c�xewu cannucrarti oevaar.n ( w+eF7! g57 ?Q. ,� Page 10 Page 96 Item#7. 4G X�vaeood3 - ROIe u x p- � 4! Q � � 4 aX>flr .max pao Y msf Mwo - e aspls � BLPPK i I �+ as,lot art e[s I I a _ II 41 PRRI(5TME LN r Ij mei9�o = YRiW� �gr rr 1161py1Peip I'• igpn si A6I H•e111!IE 1:! 1�1p4�e.$Xe I i sem�me w5mpuar I .Xsfnra'i �S I !! � I � asnu art I "�X:t seoex r 4 4 e�iw 9��N MF pomu-n efoe � BWFMeOA .Mix XXE pFRo4 a eXxXe 2-yo In axe v XV4 m p i II w SFANOM sr I ar acx r II --� w WRANGLER LN coo*" wpx saMlo-f m�w nH awc erwti n erer �, — —W WRANGLER ST— eewRcflo ,y 1�1,TI 6lpli o IIII 0 43WWfF L01 InelYSx0fe6 I � e o ® a o 0 0 0 o a mrL n mm BLPCH s y .foa o 00.uc Reoe4.DI . - WFR X. 0E M pp�[.pr.6�w � XwW+w*io irtnowl.o nu ffwftgw I :aa a RUGm1Mx AS wuwMax HNO or ew uc l IEeAw.e 6fpe � `, �j I # 610x5ECW1O[k � Y7 I#p 22SS muml`l �P V 16n1p4 6 B1p16 R I11 P1i061P ��.ryy(Y 1�91►{Cl e9116 or�.n wri Page 11 Page 97 Item#7. C. Landscape Plan(date: 12/27/2021) SUMMERTOWN SUBDIVISION I A PARCEL DF LAND;745 W.VSTICK RD W.USTIICK ROAD LOCATED IN -----uu--uuu--uuu--uu------, SECTION IACOU,R IDYL, M<rRIpIAN,ApACOUNTV IpAHO DECEMBER2017 I I 1 ❑ —�- _- .�-PPME III 1 I r Tp'.v►rlolrEsl Y——� 1 1 1 - I -PHASE I PHASE II t „ I 0 STMY (Srr3LE 9TpRY I UJ - x � APAATwkisl CLUB HOUSE) I g ._ hQ HfE 1 uuLd _ 1 � E CUF IRA; �.J VICINITY MAP Q O. 1 BVI M: 1 Z. I� 1 1 � �U 9114E CORRAL sp4a,a In Iw+nin i++�wrlcr ,wnRravr u�F nllc� 1 M PHASE III 1 1 PHASE I rowrrnrxesl I � - .F ' I pNAR�►+FkrS] CITY REQUIFIEMENTS 1 BIN ppRFAL .cecw•-..eve.w wawa, 1 HIKE . Aima +N.rrrt v.Raa•rt+r•.l.pRc+►w - 1 1r1eE.��.,.a'.Lnw6�eaneo 1 � - -- 1 iF+Festrna�errs I --- lra,�e,..enrr�7r n wn P 0-I" 19r1r,'1M A.a AIR"-I- 1 I- FUTURE .I. _ -�._I 41I.Ipr d hlaM1r.p ryP�xMrK+ PHASE aver+r�rR.F.a•-a�reiR Feenen I �- -- 1 srwn r•sre� SSINGLE FAMILY) C,inrwti* r+p�gr I SJtl'Are P NrrWk NT.yyrR rr�[.l���p. 'wrI M1aP1rP •nYOwi,p�alflGnl'�Rrr v tiler rKro.alC+'�P.wLLr MASTER SITE PLAN r•ereARa r.wrR•it. it lwdid44 ,MG SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES ..-. ... - a..ro�wre rurb•ar.+ae, las..c,ee .R.e.'•.1 .Ala�cw�orq ,�jGAIG1.YYllru orb.�1O� lt1 R •k r,ran�•h�'• -e Mt w-,rWr. IM 1G�■ 9=SHEET Ll.l-L1.2 FOR DETAILED ac�c i %; _:cwneo�w ccw�..� •Rww.w r.lwn n rweisue r..cn..�wna v.s: LANDSCAPE PLAN. SEFs SHEET L2.1 & L2.9 «wars.wa�w+� "�fMF}W/SlS1�1�iKPMHW'1!r► FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE, l•+ak+.eTMr►n'^+nrlK`�aa+'+'�we+"u'I"'w NOTES AND DETAILS. SEE SHEET L2.2 "ru.rr..npa+ou*rar�w .eee� aK ar. rN eln R'7RTral ry��:srw�nr r•r.,Ye+nl lle - FOR SPECIFIC AREA ENLARGEMENT'S. nnwrrwreweae ssrtw •.n,e r'wi see var +y.x*rel. vnr.w.-r.wa+ue .uat Iursr,wlxs �nlac err vn�y sesr Irxrra Page 12 Page 98 Item#7. M.. r'ne�e,vsw�3:w SHEET L2.2 � -�,�• w ,. — r 'Mwai �]l��E�i rRPTT�' • w�J - � }•��r' I -- +� _ _ � LLl'T*� Tart ' L2,2 _ I � tea_-Ts-. 'j -I__ � .r.w.,, ���"��•rm�:� I � �- l w•.r.nerw�'• I. «, r L »� i k¢y .I-' �—.d'e� l ' L-.hi��`•`w♦ �_8�. � �'7h�s 7 c �I�1 7 ��1 /\ LANDSCAPE PLAN y 7 F LEGEND: ...�I. ,Y�' 1 L.MW k�-Pw/�u•i�i�ii M[y� n� PItiIFVf a8 I•ix .�b 0"ALT 4daP W-A SEE SHEET L2.1 FOR PLANT SCHEDULE, ftMMMWr'wrwuo WWI I�e+- r k r^+ NOTES AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS F*+•rnru � — sialxws Page 13 Page 99 Item#7. 3A Iry 4- • lAl I• _ - f, ¢k _ r I � f 1 r L - -- — — L„ �1a. ED •1 L I lh'i Y144�t,iti11,I,'L z LLI f z 8LQC1[7 wow '4 Page 14 Page 100 Item#7. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Preliminary Plat(PP): 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all previous conditions of approval associated with this site: H-2017- 0142 (AZ,DA Inst. #2019-015427); A-2019-0118 (CZC &DES); A-2021-0025 (CZC &DES renewal). 2. The applicant shall comply the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R)zoning district and those listed in the specific use standards for multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 3. The Applieant shall comply with all AC14D eonditions of appr-elval depiet N.Venable Lane as 36 foot wide eolleetor-st-Feet seetion fFom Ustiek and 245 feet south to the noft-hefa drive aisle conneetion or-show proof that AC=14P has appr-oved a r-edueed street seetion for-this area of the p4lie street. 4. Future development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7 and UDC 11-2D-6 for any future fencing constructed within the development. 5. Future development shall comply with the Private Street standards,UDC 11-3F-4. 6. If not already submitted to the Planning Division,the Applicant shall record a maintenance agreement for the multi-family development that states the maintenance and the ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27 and submit said document to the Planning Division prior to the release of the first Certificate of Occupancy. 7. With the final plat submittal,the applicant shall submit a revised open space exhibit that includes the parkways as part of the open space calculations. 8. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-613-7. 9. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 10. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table I I- 3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 11. The submitted preliminary plat, dated January 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to Final Plat submittal: a. Depict the required landscape buffers along Ustick and Venable via a landscape easement— ensure minimum width of 25 feet along Ustick is noted despite not being on property(measured from back of curb). b. Add a plat note referencing the required license agreement with ACHD for the portion of the landscape buffer in the public right-of-way,per UDC 11-3B-7C.5.b. c. Construct a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway on the east side of N. Venable Lane. and within Tot 1,Bleek 2 eeasistepA with the Path-ways Master-Plan. d. Remove the sidewalk on the west side of N. Ridgebury Lane (east side of Lots 8, 9, & 14,Block 1)to move the units east to accommodate the multi-use pathway on the east side of N. Venable. Page 15 Page 101 Item#7. e. Depict the private streets within a singular common lot or clearly depict the private street easement on the plat,in accord with UDC 11-317 4A. f. Add a plat note stating"No direct lot access is permitted to W. Ustick Road or N.Venable Lane." 12. The submitted landscape plan, dated December 27, 2021, shall be revised prior to final plat submittal: a. Revise the landscape plans consistent with the preliminary plat revisions noted above in condition VIII.A.8. b. Add data to the landscape plans showing compliance with UDC 11-313-7C for the proposed parkways. c. Clearly depict the required street buffers along W.Ustick Road and N.Venable Lane. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. A streetlight plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code (MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I F 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. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. Page 16 Page 102 Item#7. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development,and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C- 3B. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.or1ublic_works.aspx?id=272. Page 17 Page 103 Item#7. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https://weblink.meridiancity.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252899&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU D. POLICE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=252855&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255744&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr =1 F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254219&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioX G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) No comments sent for this application—ACHD approved the subject project with previous applications. 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; Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and previous approvals. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Page 18 Page 104 Item#7. Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section V and Hff for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health,safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property.ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the proposed road layout and connections to adjacent parcels. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic, or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. B. Private Street Required Findings In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following: 1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article; Director finds that the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development regulations in the TN-R zoning district in which it resides except for those noted and required to be revised. 2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and Director finds the proposed use of multi family residential, in conjunction with the other residential housing types proposed, is in accord with the comprehensive plan designation of Medium-High Density Residential within the Ten Mile Plan and the requirements of this title. 3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional transportation plan. Director finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area, if all conditions of approval are met. 4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development. Director finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Page 19 Page 105