Loading...
2022-06-07 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 07, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt (6:47pm) Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Joe Borton PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single-family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4 common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener Abstaining: Councilman Bernt 2. Public Hearing for Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels S1226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 Denied A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT to the R- 2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault MOTION FAILED --------------- Motion to deny made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun MOTION PASSED 3. Public Hearing for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 4. Public Hearing for Ferney Subdivision (H-2021-0103) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at Parcel #S1109438871, Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.64 acres with a request for the I-L zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 5. Public Hearing to Consider the Conveyance of approximately 0.73 acres of City- Owned Real Property for a Minimum Price of $335,000.00 to the Meridian Development Corporation for Redevelopment Purposes in Downtown Meridian, located at 201, 223, 231, and 237 East Idaho Ave., Commonly Known as the Meridian Community Center and Centennial Park ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 6. Ordinance No. 22-1980: An Ordinance (Oaks North Rezone - H-2022-0010) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the North ½ of the Southwest ¼ of Section 28, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 12.02 Acres of Land From the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 7. Ordinance No. 22-1981: An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of Approximately 0.73 Acres of City-Owned Real Property to the Meridian Development Corporation, Located at 201, 223, 231, and 237 East Idaho Avenue in the City Of Meridian (Commonly Referred to as “Centennial Park” and the “Meridian Community Center”) and Legally Described in this Ordinance; Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute and Attest on Behalf of the City of Meridian the Sale Agreement, Deed, and Other Documents Necessary to Complete the Transaction; Providing For a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 10:02 p.m. Meridian City Council June 7, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:08 p.m., Tuesday, June 7, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Joe Borton. Also present: Chris Johnson, Ted Baird, Joe Dodson, Tracy Basterrechea, Kris Blume and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader 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 June 7th, 2022, at 6:08 p.m. We will begin this evening's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: We have no one for the community invocation this evening. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: So, the next item up is the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: We don't have any changes to the agenda this evening, so I move adoption of the agenda as published. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 2 of 68 Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did. There is a letter also at your seat -- and I apologize if I mispronounce this -- Laurie Boesch. It looks -- she's not online, so maybe it's just submitted by writing. She did sign in a line and you do have that letter. ACTION ITEMS 1. Public Hearing for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single- family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4 common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. Simison: Okay. All right. Then with that, Council, we will move on to Action Items this evening. First item up is the public hearing for Alamar Subdivision, H-2022-0004. Open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Good evening. It's the Joe Show tonight again, so we will burn through this. First one as noted was Alamar Subdivision. It's for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The site consists of two parcels, totaling 5.63 acres of land that are currently zoned RUT in the county, located at 4380 West Franklin. The future land use designation on this site is medium high density residential and is also within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan or what us planners just called the Ten Mile Plan. The annexation and zoning request before you tonight is for approximately 8.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R, the traditional neighborhood residential zoning district. The discrepancy between -- which is rather large between the plat and the annexation, just because they are annexing the Purdam Drain lot directly to their west as well, in order to ensure there is no county enclave. In addition they are Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 3 of 68 submitting a preliminary plat consisting of 50 building lots on -- six common lots and two other lots on 5.63 acres in the proposed TN-R district. Fifty building lots include 32 single family attached lots and 18 detached single family lots. Designated as medium high density residential in the Ten Mile Plan, this designation allows for a mix of dwelling types, including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Gross density should be in the range of eight to 15 units per acre and is noted with a target density of 12 units per acre within the Ten Mile Plan. The proposed plat consisting of 50 residential units is a mix of attached and detached homes and it constitutes a gross density of 8.9 units per acre, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the development is proposed via a new connection to West Franklin Road at the south boundary, which is the right side of the screen here. Access to Franklin is intended to be temporary until such time that a future connection is made to adjacent properties. Specifically future access should occur to the east via a local street connection in alignment with West Atomic Street and Ascent. So, they have -- this is Zimmerman Lane, which is a little flag lot in a sense -- it's not a little flag lot. It's a 20 acre flag lot over here that has an access all the way down to Franklin currently, fifty feet wide, and, then, you have the Ascent townhome project. The additional future connection should occur at the north boundary for the future extension of West Aviator Street, which is, again, on the adjacent property to the north northeast, which is the 20 acre parcel that has -- currently has Zimmerman Lane as their access. Staff has conditions of approval associated with both of these future road connections. In response to the staff report, the applicant requested a new or modified DA provision regarding the phasing of the project to include the homes of -- the homes fronting on what's Atomic Street should the timing of this connection coincide earlier than what is proposed currently. Commission agreed to this and the modification and it was reflected on the Commission recs to Council. The determination of the proposed north-south local street of the north boundary deserves some flexibility due to ongoing conversations with the adjacent land owner and future developer. Staff has included a DA provision to allow this applicant the flexibility to revise the road alignment and lot layout within the future phase two should they be able to work out a mutually beneficial agreement with the adjacent property owner. This recommended provision does not require that this applicant revise their plat at any point, but it's intent is to provide flexibility to the applicant to make any necessary revisions to the plat without having to go through the hearing process again for subsequent changes that do not increase the number building lots or drastically change the overall design, but it does and could help the overall road network in this area of the city. The proposed plat has a minimum building lot size of -- I will just keep it here --of approximately 2,038 square feet, with an average lot size of 2,700 square feet. It includes detached sidewalks and six foot parkways. As noted, the plat is currently proposed to be developed in two phases due to the available access to the site. The phasing plan depicts construction of 27 building lots in the southern half of the site, with three open space lots, including the largest open space lots in the center with phase one, with the public roads terminating less than 150 feet from the internal intersection. Phase two, then, depicts the remaining building lots to the north and east of the centralized Intersection to be constructed along with some remaining open space and drainage lots along the north boundary. Planning and Fire have given their approval of the proposed phasing plan, including the revisions if the access to Atomic Street is constructed to the east. A minimum of 15 percent qualified open space is required for projects over five Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 4 of 68 acres within the TN-R zoning district per the UDC. Based on the plat area of 5.63 acres, the minimum amount of open space provided should be approximately 36,786 square feet. According to the revised plat and landscape plans, the applicant is proposing approximately 36,800 square feet -- 36,800 square feet of qualified open space, which meets the minimum 15 percent. Specific to the Ten Mile Plan, front loaded dwellings are not preferred and if they are proposed the garages should be set back from the living area fapade to help create a more porch dominated streetscape, rather than garage dominated. According to the submitted elevations and floor plans, the applicant has proposed units with the garages considerably behind the living area facades. This design provides for a more porch dominated street facade, compared to traditional single family residential, which is desired. As noted staff has included a DA provision to ensure this type of design is maintained for the project. Overall staff fully supports the proposed home design and street oriented design submitted by the applicant and, frankly, their floor plans are the most consistent with the Ten Mile Plan I have seen in the Ten Mile area. The only outstanding issue for Council is that the applicant has requested a specific DA provision regarding the garage setback behind the living area facade. I have noted that in my Commission recs. Staff is fine with that. I just have a general design guideline DA provision, but you are more than welcome to add that additional DA provision. After that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Joe. You had mentioned TN-R specific setbacks. Can you remind us of what those are, front, sides and back, please? Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, off the top of my head I don't remember the TN-R setbacks. I apologize. The setbacks I was referring to are from the Ten Mile Plan that talked about having the garages set back approximately 20 feet from the living area facade in order to just have a more pedestrian oriented design through the streetscape. That's not a setback. A building setback with the zoning district. The applicant has taken the Ten Mile Plan, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan and decided to try to adhere to that more than any of the other subdivisions I have worked with in the area and I appreciate that very much. But the TN-R district does allow -- I believe it's eight feet of living area setback, which is closer than most of the other districts as well, as well as it requires parkways, it requires detached sidewalk, and it has -- it can do attached projects. You can do any of the residential projects that you want in detached, attached, townhouse, multi-family by right. So, we worked with the applicant to do TN-R in order to help meet the Ten Mile Plan even more, since he was already going to propose parkways. Perreault: Thank you. Dodson: You are welcome. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 5 of 68 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Joe, there was a comment in the staff report about needing revisions to the drain easement to create like a closed loop. Just wondered if those revisions have happened. How does that stand? Dodson: Council Woman Strader, I was -- in reference to that I believe it was -- if he wanted to count that area as qualified open space there would have to be a -- a loop of pedestrian facilities, that additional landscaping. That is not going to occur, which is why he lost a building lot and increased the open space in other areas in order to comply with the open space standards. Strader: Thank you. So, he's met the standard without doing so? Dodson: Yes, ma'am. Strader: Thanks. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Because it's the Joe Show tonight I have got a couple of -- kind of sideways questions. The --the temporary access coming off of Franklin, my assumption -- and Fire is not here. I assume the -- the thought for the cul-de-sac or kind of the modified cul-de- sac is that would be for a turnaround for a fire truck. Does that access at Franklin -- does that become an emergency access when it's no longer temporary? Does it become walled off? What's -- what's contemplated for it once it shifts from temporary to a more permanent place. Dodson: Right. That's a great question. So, the cul-de-sac at the south boundary is required as -- because that's the termination of the public road once the access to Franklin is closed. So, that's why that cul-de-sac is there. Be for a fire turnaround, yes. Initially we were just going to close it. The applicant and I thought we were just going to close off the access altogether, but ACHD and Fire both said, well, can we do an emergency and so we all agreed yes and so it will just become an emergency access, so we can have additional access points through this area for Fire. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Joe -- and I'm -- I'm -- I guess I'm asking you to look into your crystal ball a little bit. How -- what's the time frame from when this becomes a temporary regular access to Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 6 of 68 a permanent emergency access? Are we talking -- on average is it two years? Four years? I know we have got a lot of interest in development in this part of town. I'm just curious -- what happens is we condition -- people get conditioned to using this and, then, as these residents move in they think it's their access and, then, the city, quote, unquote, comes in and takes it away from them. I'm just trying to get a sense as to what that timeline would look like. Dodson: Sure. I -- obviously, I can't give a direct number, but I -- it's all really going to depend on the access out to the -- what -- yeah -- West Atomic Street and Ascent Townhomes and what the developer and this applicant does for the 20 acre parcel to the northeast, since they control Zimmerman Lane and that's a 50 foot wide area that's a flag lot essentially that's the 50 feet that would be needed in order to access West Atomic. My understanding is that both applicants are working together and -- and that is the intent that both of them want to do, but bigger picture in this whole area, there are some questions still between staff and ACHD that we are having and we are trying to figure that out. So, timing I would say -- you know, phase one I would assume is going to get constructed before that gets figured out, only because I don't know for sure that applicant is proposing to submit in the coming weeks. Hopefully we can meet with ACHD before that and get some of those things buttoned up together. But, if not, they are still going to push forward and we are going to figure it out on the fly like we tend to do sometimes. But it -- I would assume two years'ish. I think the applicant might have a better number for you just based upon their construction timeline. Cavener: Great. Thanks, Joe. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Joe, to that end how many different parcels with different owners does Aviator go through? So, we had a hearing for a property to the northwest of this and its -- its connection was also dependent on the development of the 20 acres and, then, we have got this property, then, we have got the Ascent neighborhood to the east. Are -- are there other parcels that Aviator is going to go through that are also going to be dependent on this collector development to have access? Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, that's a great question. So, there -- really Aviator Street will only go through one more, which is the larger Zimmerman parcel is -- I just -- that's what we call it, because it's Zimmerman Lane. But it's probably going to be Newkirk neighborhood. So, I will just keep going with Zimmerman, because that's what I know. But it should only be going through the Zimmerman parcel and I guess Aviation Subdivision, with a little bit here. For reference overall all three -- this parcel and these two parcels are now under common ownership and they are going to propose one cohesive project. They will access Aviator and one access to Franklin. More than likely ACHD preliminary thinks that that's okay as well. So do we. Probably not a public road connection, but a connection Aviator will come through here. Again with the Ascent Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 7 of 68 townhomes there is questions about whether or not grade will allow this planned connection to occur even, so there could be that lack of a connection there, which, again, with ACHD that might require the temporary access at Ascent to become permanent, which, then, makes the access through Alamar and to West Atomic Street and, then, up to Aviator even more important. So, it's -- it's a lot of different puzzle pieces, but assuming that all of this gets approved, then, the only additional accesses to Franklin should be either the Ascent or Zimmerman Lane, plus one access west of the drain. The access points to Aviator will probably be at least two on its south side, if not three, but at least two. Where those are going to be are going to be dependent upon what -- what the Zimmerman developer ends up wanting to do and how they work with ACHD on the Ascent access on the southeast corner of their site, because there is a one acre parcel here. They have to have access. They are going to have to go to the collector, either through a common drive or something else, or a local street and, then, all of these -- there is three more parcels here that have different ownerships that will have to go east to some type of road here or we assume that this street, which is -- it's really hard to see, but this street here will continue west and, then, head back up and connect to West Atomic Street up here and you could split lots off on both sides through all of the three parcels there. So, there has been some thought to this, which is why the applicant has provided the shape of the cul-de-sac that he has, too, so that we could get a public road connection there, too, and, then, you could have a loop. But without the bigger parcel and, then, ACHD helping guide us onto what they are going to allow or require, it is difficult right now. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record and be recognized for 15 minutes. Wrede: My name is Jeff Wrede. I live at 12805 West Engelmann Drive in Boise. I'm with Noble Rock Development and we are here presenting the annexation, rezoning, and preliminary plat of Alamar Subdivision. Alamar Subdivision will provide a diversity that is key to Meridian's Comprehensive and future use plans, as well as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. These plans stress mixed income, mixed family size and mixed age communities. To balance the surrounding developments in the area, which include three story townhomes and large apartment complexes, the Alamar Subdivision will provide a mix of single family detached and attached duplex homes to provide the diversity of housing types in the overall area to provide for a successful urban environment street oriented design has been incorporated. Alamar Subdivision will consist of porch oriented homes and tree lined streets with detached sidewalks. The front of the homes will be placed close to the sidewalk, while the garages will be set back to the rear of the homes. This will provide a home fronting edge to the public space, which will make the streets more friendly and walkable. This is the vicinity map of the area. We are located on the north side of Franklin Road between Black Cat and Ten Mile Road in the developing area of the Ten Mile interchange specific area. The hatched areas are the developed or developing areas, in addition to which Joseph had just pointed out the two lots to the east southeast are actually -- the one lot is owned by a developer here and he has been talking with the owner of the next lot for purchase to work on developing that Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 8 of 68 property. For a preliminary plat we are rezoning to traditional neighborhood residential, which emphasizes street oriented design and tree lined streets and detached sidewalks. Our density is 8.9 units per acre and -- which consists of 50 building lots. There will be 18 single family detached homes, which will be located in the southern section of the property and, then, there will be 32 single family attached homes as duplexes in the north section. For open space and site amenities we are providing a total of about 22 percent of open space. As far as qualified open space, that consists of a central open grassy area and the northwest open grassy area, the parkway buffers, the landscape buffer along Franklin Road and two shallow storm drain areas. In addition to that, we are providing a linear open space along the Purdam Drain, which runs the entire west property line and that will be basically covered with road base and also like perma bark or chip rock to make a walkable area. The center image shows the essential open grassy area and both of the grassy areas will have a pathway that will be landscaped according to the UDC and what it will do is it will help -- the sidewalk helps connect this walking path and the sidewalks throughout the subdivision in several loops. For site amenities we were only required one and we chose to put a bicycle repair station and it will be located in the central grassy area. Road connections. The Alamar Subdivision will eventually provide key infrastructure connections for the surrounding developments. In the upper right small image there this shows Black Cat to the west and the Aviator Street, which is the collector that's been -- we have been talking about. This goes through to here and, then, it will go through the 20 acre Newkirk parcel and connect down -- I believe it's Saint Marco Way to get back to Franklin. Excuse me. In our subdivision our north-south road will connect to that collector and, then, we also provide an eastward road connection that will connect with Ascent Subdivision. The Franklin access at the south will be temporary and after the connections are made to the other roads that will be closed and, again, it will be used as an emergency access for Fire and Police. We have spoke with the Newkirk developers and their intention so far is to actually probably pass on that fifty foot strip across property to us. That is currently Zimmerman Lane. We are also working with them to possibly get a right of way and a written approval to use that section of the road now and maybe connect that road sooner. We are providing a full 33 foot road section, back of curb to back of curb, and we will have bulb outs at the intersection for a traffic calming. As far as infrastructure we have existing services of eight inch and sewer and water mains are located at Franklin Road entry and we will be stubbing them to the adjacent properties. We have streetlights located every 250 feet as per code. Same with fire hydrants, every 400 feet. For gravity and pressurized irrigation -- pressurized irrigation will be provided by the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District via an existing regional pump station that is at the northwest and the irrigation loops will be designed per UDC and NMID requirements. For gravity irrigation we have a small lateral that is at the north boundary of the property and where we plan to tile the entire section. Along the western boundary of our property where the Purdam Drain runs, we are providing a 17 foot wide access road as mentioned. And all the building pads are located still outside of the hundred foot center lane easement that NMID has. Any fencing that's gets put in there will be removable. These are all items we have discussed with them already. The easement will be, again, covered with road base in chip rock and so it will still be, you know, able to be used for walking and families and pets and things of that sort. Our phasing plan -- as Joseph mentioned, we plan to develop the first southern section of that, which will be 18 single family homes and ten Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 9 of 68 single family attached. The stub streets are less than 130 -- 150 feet. So, we are not required to have fire sprinklers, because there is less than 30 units. Phase two will coincide with completion of the northern collector road and the entry at Franklin will at that point be closed and become a temporary entry. These are some sample elevations per our plans. We have tried to meet the Ten Mile Plan traditional neighborhood residential requirements. We have front porches and homes close to the detached sidewalk. Garages are set back from the front facade and where there is double doors, like in the single family homes, they are actually made with two individual doors. We are using a mixture of materials, color and design elements and including lap siding, stucco, brick and stone accents. The single family detached homes will be three bedrooms with two and a half baths, approximately 1,500 to 1,900 square feet and the attached duplex units will be two bedrooms with two and a half baths, around 1,300 square feet. The lower central image shows how the garage is set back from the front facade as we discussed earlier. These are the floor plans for the two units. One item maybe to note is that on the first floor unit we are incorporating the covered patios -- small covered patios within the building envelope to allow, you know, some patio -- covered patio area and to kind of extend the yard size. That's pretty much for the presentation. That's it. We would like to thank the Planning and Zoning staff for their support and direction during the past year and we concur with all their decisions and Commission recommendations. We would like to, though, address one issue and it's the requirement for the Ten Mile Plan to have 50 percent of the homes have a second story deck included on them. We understand that decks are desired in multi-level apartments and condominium complexes that have limited exterior access, but since Alamar Subdivision will consist of single family homes we are questioning the need for the second story deck in this environment. It's typical that second story decks are rarely used sometimes and they also create a long-term maintenance issue for water infiltration a lot of times and just rotting and things of that sort. We would like to request just to remove the requirement of the Ten Mile Plan, else we would like to request a reduction from the 50 percent requirement to 25 percent of the homes that have street frontage. In exchange we -- you know, we are planning to put porches pretty much on a hundred percent of the units. The requirement is only 30 percent. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Is it Jed? Jed. Wrede: Jeff. Cavener: Jeff. Sorry. Wrede: That's all right. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 10 of 68 Cavener: Appreciate you being here. I appreciate your -- your application and your presentation. I really like the -- the mix of the detached and the -- and -- and the single family home piece element. But I guess my -- my question for you is -- is maybe kind of a direct question is why right now and -- and let me give you a little -- kind of where I'm coming from on this. Is this -- this feels a little bit like an in-fill piece, but it's not and when I see -- we are talking amenities about a -- a bike repair station, I say, okay, that's interesting, but, then, I say where are people going to ride their bikes and I -- and I don't see -- I don't see a lot of connectivity right now, because you are coming in before a lot of other stuff that's happening and so I guess kind of help me understand kind of the timeline and -- and why right now. Wrede: Okay. So, there currently is, you know, sidewalk all the way along Franklin Road there and -- and bike paths there. The only -- the other option in there -- I mean this is, of course, mainly walking right now. You know, in the -- for the pathways. You know, our thought is that this access across Zimmermann to Ascent Subdivision will happen sooner than later, working with the other developer that are submitting their -- their proposals right now. As far as, you know, long-term bike use, of course, the collector road is going to be a big plus for bicyclists in the area. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I guess that's where I come back to, is it -- this feels kind of minimal to me, if I'm -- if I'm being honest about when I look at our neighborhoods and we are a community for families and I -- I don't see a lot for families right now and it's very possible that what develops around me support that, I just -- I'm really struggling with -- that this may very well be a really well thought out addition to our community, but for me, because it's kind of coming in a little more premature, I'm -- I'm not quite sure that now is the right time for it. So, I just -- I want to give you some of that flavor from --from the get go. I would have liked to have seen more from your application. I just want to be direct with you. Wrede: Okay. In any specific areas? Or as far as just connection and being an in-fill with, would -- like I said, we do have the connection to Ascent there, which is currently under construction, and it's somewhat in -- in a similar situation. The lot to the east of that is not developed, but that's been put in and so -- I mean my assumption was I'm actually helping to continue this and by the time -- really for timing wise that was discussed earlier, I don't think Newkirk is too far behind me actually. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, if I may? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't disagree with you. I think that it's -- it's one of those things that if maybe we are seeing this application six months from now and I have got a good sense about how this part of town is developing, I can say, oh, yeah, that makes sense with everything Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 11 of 68 else that's going on. Like I said, this feels like -- like an in-fill that's coming in before everything else. I think you have got some open space that could be used better than -- than what you have proposed I think, again, a -- a bike and repair station as the sole amenity -- I think that our citizens deserve better, if I'm being direct. Wrede: Okay. Would there be a suggestion? Cavener: Sure. Wrede: I mean we have, you know, the four large open grassy areas there. Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Those are easy questions for me. I think it's -- it's -- it's dog parks, it's place structures, it's -- it's gazebos. It's -- there is -- there is lots of options. Again coming back to, you -- you know who you are going to market this to and so if -- if you think that the people that are going to look to buy this house are going to say, oh, wow, we are excited about a bike and repair station, then, I'm wrong. Wrede: I understand. Cavener: And I think that I have got a good sense as to what our citizens want and expect and I think that you could provide more. Wrede: Okay. I think I understand your comment now. I wasn't understanding it completely. We originally in an earlier plat -- this is, basically, I think our third one we have been through. We had a play state -- play structure in the central grassy area and I think I went back to more looking at just the code and because we kind of got hung up in a lot of code issues very specific and in reading the code it only required the one point and so we looked on the list and looked at the options and that's the thing we picked. We have no problem putting a play structure in that park. Like I said originally that's what we had in the central part of the subdivision there. Cavener: Okay. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Well, I -- Wrede- Want to speak on the same -- Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 12 of 68 Kerner: If I could -- Derek Kerner. Rock Solid Civil applicant team. At 270 North 27th Street, Boise. And so applicant's engineer. So, I just -- hearing the testimony I think I could maybe help answer some of these questions. We have been at this for -- for some time. That doesn't mean that it's not -- you know, it doesn't quite answer your question, but we have been doing a lot of planning as far as the years of prep into -- into this, working with staff on -- on helping pave the road or what this all should be and so we helped this applicant over here just in meetings of Aviator Subdivision. So, we have worked with them on how can we connect R-2? You know, it was, then, going to -- the ultimate plan was --jumping ahead was we are going to let the connection happen on this larger 20 acre piece to the north, because there was times where we were talking about can we just connect? We do touch for just a little bit. Is it wide enough to put a road in there? Can we make the whole piece. Our piece at one point in time was going to be the main connection, because you could very easily just turn that road south and go straight down. It was just in a strange spot forACHD. They are like, no, we have already kind of committed to, you know,Aviator connecting further to the east. So, you got Ascent Subdivision coming in and they--they kind of have that temporary--we don't know; right? Joe talked to -- about it. It all depends on what agreements are made to cross Nampa- Meridian Irrigation District's crossing. I think it's -- it can all be resolved and -- and get this thing in here. We are -- we are definitely a -- a player coming in as a -- a piece of the pie and so, you know, waiting until the end -- I don't know if that's -- that's the right move for us anyway and, then, we do have 50 lots here. It does seem, you know, spatially we are skinny and you got a 20 acre piece up here. But, you know, five, six acres -- to us 50 lots is a substantial project, not an in-fill like I'm used to dealing with Boise and like six lots here and there type of thing. So, yeah, just to kind of downplay the -- the term in fill on that one, just because it's -- it's -- it's a sizable project. We also -- when Jeff acquired the first five acres -- it's actually less than five acres. So, we were going to move forward with a subdivision less than five acres not having all these normal requirements. Then the opportunity came up to get that one acre and, of course, we are smart guys, so we said, well, hold on a second here, maybe we should play that as a different project, so that we can -- and -- but we were working together and if we -- if we wanted to go that route is the way we could have gone, but we chose not to do that. We wanted to play by the -- all the rules and -- and -- and comply with all of the requirements. We are right at the threshold for open space, because we are not crediting any of the -- the drain and the drain -- we really are going to put a nice pathway there. It's -- it's -- we have to be courteous of the -- of the irrigation district. They have needs for that, they got to get in there and operate. But, really, it's not going to be fenced off, closed off. People are going to be able to use it. We just can't have credit in the city's eyes that way. We can't be putting nice big trees in the way of the irrigation district, even though there is all kinds of trees there that -- that they are kind of ratty and they want them taken out and we are going to do that for them. But it's a really nice deep drain. There is ducks. There is waterfowl. There is all kinds of birds and wildlife in there. So, we were trying to make an argument of it's going to be enjoyable. The people that live on that row, they are not going to back up to more development at their backyard. That is always going to be this nice, big irrigation drain, you know, fully vegetated with -- with water fowl. So, it's definitely a -- a space, amenity where people aren't going to be crowded in all the time for these -- for these people living here. So, it -- we don't get credit for it in any way that the -- that Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 13 of 68 the city sees, but because of that we get no credit for it we met the minimum elsewise standing on its own. But, you know, if you -- we even talked about like, hey, give us -- give us half. So, suddenly the equations work. You know, half of that -- that drain -- that space, because it is property that he had to buy and, you know, you own it, so -- but it's encumbered by easement. So, working with them. That's all I got. Just those three things just to kind of help -- help add the timing and, then, of course, we could spice up the -- the amenity of the bike -- the bike repair station. But we were going forward just central open space like what Joe wants, instead of putting it just at the end and having a really long block of -- of homes. So, central open space. Wrede: And the -- the layout of this subdivision -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Council Woman Strader. Strader: I apologize for interrupting. I believe Council -- Council Woman Perreault had the floor and I'm just a little concerned that maybe the applicant is -- is using additional time to testify, instead of responding to a specific question. Sorry. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you very much, Council Woman Strader. So, thank you for the additional information. Along -- I have a couple of -- of questions I'm going to ask, but I do want to comment very quickly along the lines of what Councilman Cavener was pointing out. I lived in this area for many years and it is very unique from other areas that we have worked in Meridian and that you have these little parcels and many of them and ACHD has not at this point in time put together a specific plan for the road network in this area. So, this is a unique area that we are very aware of its challenges with development. So, while I'm not as much concerned about the timing of where you are coming in in relationship to the other small parcels, I -- I am concerned that the entire area will develop in a way that each individual subdivision isn't like this little island into itself, not only from a road network standpoint, but just from -- from pathways to, you know, the uses of the -- of open spaces. Now, of course, the intention is never for other subdivisions to come in and utilize your open space, but it's likely that that could happen in this area, because each subdivision is -- is little and folks aren't going to necessarily understand those boundaries. So, the question I have for you is, first, thank you very much for agreeing to consider a different amenity and my recommendation would be a dog park specifically because you have a collector that connects two arterials on either side that has a railroad to the north. So, you are not -- you are not crossing over that railroad with pathways or pedestrian activity and there is no neighborhood park in walking distance of this. So, whatever you choose to do is what you choose to do. A place to exercise animals is great. I don't -- I also agree I don't see bicycles being actively used in this area yet. So, I -- I wanted to say that. So, to that end, with the connectivity, the developer to the north had sent a letter in on your application and said, you know, they would like to see some more investigation research done on how the road network Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 14 of 68 will -- will lay out in this area and to -- to be honest, you know, I sent a message to Joe and I said it seems to me like the highway district is kind of punting this back to the owners of these properties and saying, hey, you guys figure this out and so I just wanted to get your perspective on the letter that was provided by the property owner to the north and how you see your role in the overall development of connectivity in the -- in the area. Wrede: Okay. So, I have seen their -- their preliminary design multiple times and I have had e-mails back and forth. I have actually sent them and proposed possible road connections for them to meet ACHD requirements and this sort. I have actually sent some information to Joseph and to Bill also when they were working through this. Let's see if I can find the right image. Their drawings right now indicate that they want to bring their road down right along the edge of this western property line right here. They cannot do that. The Purdam Drain is right here and to do that and meet any kind of radius that ACHD requires means they have to be on the edge of the ditch and they can't --they can't provide any access for NMID to get to the ditch. Basically, the road is -- is right over here and I know that that fits their layout really nice, because if you go north it fits a lot to the left and a lot to the right of that, but it physically is not capable of being implemented right there and I have suggested this and mentioned this, but I think they are just pushing through. I -- I'm willing to work with them. That's why we spoke about-- our road originally went due north straight up. Planning and Zoning requested us to make it angle to the right to make it more perpendicular, which we did. And we also put in the provision there that if we need to tip it to the left we can tip it to the left. So, we are working with them to try to make this work out. I have other drawings showing how the road connections could be easily done through the entire area. I have actually drawn all of them different -- many different ones. And so that would be -- I haven't seen that letter, but I'm guessing that might be part of -- and, hopefully, that response is targeting that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: It was just a general letter that said we would really like to see more information on how this is all going to connect and we are planning on submitting our application closer to the end of June. So, that got me thinking that, you know, do we --we wait, which is I think some of what Councilman Cavener was trying to get at is do we wait to see that application come in to discuss your application? There is a little bit of a chicken and egg thing going on in this entire area with multiple parcels; right? So, there may not be a super clean way that we -- that we do this, but we want to do it as smart as we can. Wrede: Yes. We are -- we are giving them every option to connect and to allow our road to connect to whatever angle of the collector they want to put through there. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Kerner: Talking from a -- from a -- a layout engineering perspective, if I was going to be laying out this larger 20 acre piece, having other people next to me that have a layout and Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 15 of 68 a road that's that design parameter that really helps, because it's too much of a blank canvas on how you are going to get this road through there. So, when you have those things like we are -- we are saying, hey, this is where we would want it, it's usually just an, okay, thank you, and they make it work. It's not we want it over-- and we are talking like 150 -- 150 feet worth of a -- a shift. That's nothing for them, so -- giving it right where we want it, whether it's straight, curved, whatever, but moving it over to our side there is no reason for them to -- to do that. So, yeah, just working with them on -- on where we want the road to be. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. Two things just wanted staff to confirm. So, if we moved forward on this this evening, I'm assuming our typical requirements are that the property to the north would have to connect; right, Joe? So, if you can just confirm that that's how this would play out. It's really kind of like first one past the post drives the road network is my impression. Dodson: Council Woman Strader, that -- typically yes and that is precisely why I have a specific DA provision that allows flexibility in that and why that is shown in phase two and not phase one, because typically if -- if it's not final platted, then, there is some flexibility. But beyond that understood flexibility I wanted to be even more specific about saying that the city is okay with this alignment on the north boundary changing somewhat to accommodate these conversations and these potential changes. So, we -- we would be in the clear I think to make -- and allow the applicant to work with that applicant to the north. Strader: That makes sense. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a little feedback and, then, I have a question. I agree that the amenities feel a little light, but one thing that did catch my attention is you made a comment that this would be a more affordable development and so I was wondering -- and, obviously, it's preliminary. Do you envision these as rentals? For sale? Do you have any idea of -- of what kind of market -- part of the market you would target with these units? Wrede: Yes. So, the single family and probably half of the duplexes will be for sale. I will probably keep ten of the units -- ten of the duplex units for rental. They will probably be mainly in just the one acre area there off to the side. As far as market, you know, we are looking -- you know, it's changing every day and maybe a month ago it was much different than it's going to be next year. But, basically, we thought we could be in the 400 range -- four and a quarter range. Strader: Well -- Wrede: No? That's a starting point. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 16 of 68 Strader: Yeah. It's just a -- it's really sad kind of state of the market for everybody in Meridian. That is not affordable for people. So, it's really hard. Thanks for that feedback though. Simison: So, I don't know if this is a question for the applicant, Joe, or Chief Blume, but if we are going to have an emergency access off of Franklin Road why do we need a roundabout -- or fire truck turnaround at the end of that road or that same location. Dodson: Mr. Mayor, that's an ACHD requirement. They are going to require that turnaround there. I -- I -- we have asked the same question. Simison: Okay. Dodson: Because it is quite a lot of asphalt. Simison: Unnecessarily. So, why would we leave an emergency access then? Kerner: It's for pedestrian vehicles, because there will be bollards eventually when they close this thing, so only the fire truck will be able to lower those bollards. So, vehicles won't -- won't be able to get out. But they still need to be able to turn around. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Dodson: I promise I understand. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this application or anybody online that would like to provide testimony, you can either come forward or use the raise your hand feature on Zoom and we can bring you in for comments. Seeing nobody wishing to provide testimony, would the applicant like to make any final comments? Wrede: Have no further comments. Thank you. Simison: Okay. Thank you. And I'm sure Council will have additional questions and comments for you, so we will let them drive from here. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 17 of 68 Perreault: I do have a question for staff in regard to the outstanding issues. The -- the 16 feet setback, is that -- that's between the garage and what? Dodson: The living area facade. So, not a building setback to the property line -- Perreault: Okay. Dodson: -- but the setback from the living area and the garage, which he's already showing it behind, but he just wants it to be solid in a DA provision to have that listed as no less than 16 feet, which staff is perfectly fine with. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Did he step out? Hoaglun: Yes. Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Council President, thank you. So, the applicant requested two additional outstanding items and that's in regard to the percentages of street facing homes. Can -- can you share with us your thoughts on that? I didn't -- I didn't see that in the staff report, but I apologize if I missed it. Dodson: Council Woman Perreault -- no, great question. He was only really referencing the design standard, which is one condition, I believe, in my staff report regarding the porches. Ten Mile Plan requires that at least 50 percent of single family homes should have the second story decks. So, I put it in there to help comply with the Ten Mile Plan. So, it's Council's purview on whether they want to reduce that or remove it altogether. With the submitted elevations and, you know, they are not massive buildings, I -- I can understand if Council were to strike that. I'm -- I'm not going to fall on any kind of sword for that. I -- I see both sides of that. So, would some second story decks be nice? Probably. Would it increase maintenance costs for homeowners? Absolutely. I don't want to replace my first story deck, so -- you know. Hoaglun: Other questions? Bernt: Mr. President? Hoaglun: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I apologize I had -- I had to step out earlier and I will be -- I will abstain from this -- you know, the vote on this. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Bernt, and so noted. Mr. Mayor, you are back. I do have a question. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 18 of 68 Hoaglun: And this is more for -- for Council. I heard -- and I agree that for the upgraded amenity for the site, but, then, I heard play structure and dog park. Are we arm wrestling to see which one it is or is that an option that would be considered? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes. So, can we talk about this and not close the public hearing and see if there is some questions that -- that arise. Yeah. It is -- it is a bit of a puzzle in this area due to the different land ownership and how that looks and I like the term puzzle, because they are here, here, here, here and, you know, we have to make sure the last one that comes in is going to fit and not be -- be left out. But I -- I think the applicant did make a good case of how they are structured and I appreciate staff taking a look at -- at that north end and allowing some flexibility to make that move, if necessary, with -- when that other applicant to the north comes in -- into play. It's -- it's always difficult when you are -- whether you are the last one in or the -- one of the early ones in, there is always that that unknown. But I think we have known all along since Hensley Station and the next one and some others, we did have a plan in place of how that road is going to go and where it's going to exit and all these different things and I think there will be some other tweaks that are needed as -- as we go along, but I think we have left a lot of options available for developers to --to work with and -- and not lock ourselves in or lock anybody out, if you will. So, again, I appreciate staff working on that and -- and trying to make that -- make that occur. So, I -- I think with the changes -- changes made and -- and allowing some options, it -- it -- it can work for me and upgrading the amenity would -- would -- would make this work. As far as the second story decks, you know, yeah, I -- I -- I get it. Maybe we -- we look at their compromise that they had with the 30 percent. I don't have that language in front of me, as -- as an option that -- I -- I'm not sure -- it's not a -- not a huge deal for me, but it's something I would -- I would look at if there is interest. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I don't want to unnecessarily delay the process, but I really would like to get a bigger picture under -- understanding of what we should be expecting from ACHD and so I realize that there isn't a formal process to go through, that they don't have a plan in place we can reference. I know our staff has been attempting to communicate with them. I know the applicant's been attempting to communicate with them and I would like to see a joint communication with the applicant to the north with this project and with any other owners in that area that can be brought to the table. Now, if that's already been done I would -- I would like to hear more about it. If it hasn't I would like to see that happen before I'm comfortable making a decision. Again, it's -- it's not something they are going to put a formal plan together on, but to give an indication of -- or have a conversation about any challenges that maybe being faced with a road network and the reason I am saying this is because we have had many different applications in the past where there has been conversations about, well, if the road had only been moved here, if the road Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 19 of 68 was only here, if the road didn't end here and we have -- now have an opportunity to -- to have that conversation at the front end. So, that's my preference and the situation is continue it until we can get some more information. I mean if -- if the applicant to the north really is coming in this month I don't see the downside of us extending it for four to six weeks, but let the applicant comment on that I suppose. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: It sounds like that was maybe a question for the applicant, but I just -- 1, for the most part, am in agreement with Council Member Perreault. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: To Council Woman Perreault's points, some of those conversations have occurred. Not all of the new developers -- just ownerships are changing pretty quickly these days, so -- but minimally between Alamar and myself, obviously, and ACHD and, then, the Newkirk neighborhood and ACHD, we sat down before they even pre-app'd and I'm -- I don't want to -- I don't know where -- how much I can say, but I will just say that the conversations did not go as I had hoped they would and there wasn't as much guidance on where the road should go as I anticipated getting from ACHD and that has subsequently led to some of the questions tonight, as well as even in the -- we have done two pre-apps with the other application now and we are kind of going in a circle, because people are getting different information from different people and it's -- it's not helping. So, I -- I do understand your point. Minimally with the Newkirk neighborhood that will be submitting later, there should -- prior to that there should be some discussion. In regards to the application tonight, I -- I understand where Council's going. I do think in the grand scheme of-- of the overall connectivity this one doesn't have nearly the amount of impact I think that the others are going to have and it is on the west boundary adjacent to a hard drain that's not moving or going anywhere. So, it -- their road layout is not going to change. It -- it is just a timing thing that you guys discussed, so -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Follow up on -- on that, Joe. You know, as -- as the applicant described the situation, is -- is the flexibility that we are allowing in this that staff put in for that northern connection, does that work with what the applicant described that the --the other property had some limitations, too? Does that -- does that work in -- in the possible scenarios that could be out there? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 20 of 68 Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I believe they do. I don't see why -- why they wouldn't. The issue is just going to be that applicant thinking that the road needs to go on one piece of it and, then, this applicant saying no. Part of ACHD standards will help dictate that as well, about the radiuses and where they can connect to a collector, et cetera. You know, you like everything to come at a right angle, but sometimes that doesn't happen, especially when you have the shape of that -- this road is going to be. So, I -- the provision for this application provides ample flexibility, yes. I will be okay with this application. A hundred percent. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Council, is there any reason to hear from Kristy from ACHD? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I understand this isn't necessarily Kristy's specific role at ACHD, but if she has anything to share I would definitely appreciate hearing it. Inselman: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I don't know that I have a lot to add as far as the overall roadway network. I mean we -- we do have our plan --we have our long range plans that we look at for arterial and collector roadways. The entire county has been laid out on locations that we would like to see that network. When it comes to local roadway connections we typically -- it -- it is kind of a puzzle piece. It depends on when applicants come in and how -- we do require through our code that the roadways have to stub to the adjacent properties, but we leave some of those design elements up to the developers as to where they are going to stub those properties that we require them to be stubbed. So, if a property has two adjacent properties to it, if they redevelop, we may require two stub streets to where that road can continue as those properties become redeveloped. We are in a bit of an interesting time right now in that we -- we typically don't see multiple applications in the same area coming in all at the same time and kind of on top of each other. So, I think that has sometimes -- that sometimes creates some issues as far as how is this going to tie in, because you have got designers going at the same time, rather than them coming in after a property is already been final -- at least final platted or designed and they say, oh, I know exactly where I need to tie into this property. So, I think that's part of what's going on with the overall roadway network. But, typically, how we look at it is it's kind of a first come first serve situation. So, if a property comes in and it goes through the process and it gets approved, they dictate where those stub streets are occurring. So, whoever comes in after them has to tie into those existing stub streets. So, we don't dictate where the roadways will tie, unless that's already kind of come in and designated the location. Otherwise, we would be designing the entire county, which makes it difficult. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 21 of 68 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I --just to give some feedback. I -- I --- of course, we -- we -- in a perfect world we wish that you guys could sort of master plan the whole thing for us, but -- Inselman: Right. Strader: I understand, yeah, you may have some constraints around doing that. Yeah, guess just how I'm looking at it -- you know, if we approve this, this will drive the subsequent development connections; right? So -- Inselman: Correct. Strader: This is built around those physical constraints. If we approve this tonight, then, the property to the north has to stub in to where this road ends and the same thing is true for the -- the Alamar -- or the subdivision right to the east as well and all the surrounding properties. So, unless -- I guess I would just ask Kristy, you know, did you guys see anything about that sort of intended roadway -- a picture that was put up there that would give you pause? I mean did that seem like it was just generally aligned with what you guys would like to see? Was there anything problematic about this one in particular that jumped out at you or do you feel like this just happens to be that they are all jumbled through the pipeline at once and that's why we are getting this kind of weird chicken and egg dilemma. But if we approve this tonight, then, you know, you will look at all the subsequent ones and make sure they connect; right? Inselman: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, that's correct. We would -- as the next ones come in we would require them to align with what has previously been approved. I can only -- I can only speak to what's in the staff report and the staff report is recommending approval of the current -- what the applicant is currently showing. Strader: Thanks. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. Just some feedback. I -- you know, I understand the dilemma I think people are grappling with. I -- I personally think, you know, as a -- as a general approach to housing affordability, with a lack of an affordable housing program, part of what we are doing is creating supply; right? This is a -- a project that seems like well suited for the ten Mile Area. It -- I think it was a little under amenitized. Hopefully we took care of that. And, then, I think if we approve this it will drive the further connections. I don't personally see a huge issue with approving it tonight. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 22 of 68 Hoaglun: Just a comment. One of the things I have concerns about delaying is -- is the fact that these -- these investments are -- are our major investments when a developer comes forward and I -- I don't want to give various developers -- not that they play the games, but sometimes, you know what, we will just wait, because we want you guys to do this and all of a sudden you are into this situation where they come in and now all of a sudden they are going to have to change their development, because if they don't they are just going to play the waiting game and that's money that's being burned. You know, that's a -- they come in with a good plan, I think according to staff and I looking at it, it seems like there is a good alternative out there for some movement of -- of the roadway to make things work and that -- that to me -- it is something I think the first ones in here with -- with a good plan and -- and it's going to fit into the area and I think Councilman Strader makes a -- makes a good point. The only -- the only thing I keep going back and forth on is their -- their waiver for -- for -- for the 50 percent of second story decks. So, that one -- do we waive it all or -- you know. Or do we just go with the -- change it to 25 percent of the homes with street frontage and have it -- have their alternative one go. Because, as you know, you do one and, then, everyone else wants that as well. So, it's just that -- those things that you are always trying to balance that act, whether it's -- you -- you have them go in and everybody else follows or are there things that are going to take place that we have no control over? So, that's just kind of my thoughts on that. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I -- you know, just -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm willing to give something a try and, then, we will see -- we will see if it goes or not. Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number H-2022-0004 as presented in the staff report for today's hearing date with the following modifications: I think we could accept the applicant's requested DA provision for the specific garage setback of 16 feet as described earlier. I -- I think we could, in addition to that, specifically require the replacement of the bike repair station amenity with either a dog park or a children's play structure and, then, in addition to that I think we could reduce the second story deck requirement to 25 percent. That --just to comment Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 23 of 68 a little bit on that, that makes sense to me just from a maintenance standpoint and the specific product type, but we could discuss that part. Hoaglun: I would second the -- the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Hoaglun: And a quick question for staff, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And, yes, Joe, the ability to modify the phasing plan, that is already in the DA that is already in the staff recommendation, so we don't need to draw that out, do we? Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, that's correct, because Commission recommended that as well. So, I already modified it. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Further discussion or questions? All right. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, nay; Bernt, abstain; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: Three ayes. One no. The item is agreed to. And one absent for the record. Okay. Thank you very much. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSTAIN. ONE ABSENT. 2. Public Hearing for Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels S1226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single- family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for Burnside Ridge Estates, H-2021-0070. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Sorry, Mr. Mayor. Give me one second to get this fired back up. Okay. Here we go. Okay. This one's definitely not an in-fill, so we will plug through this. As noted, Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 24 of 68 this is Burnside Ridge Estates Subdivision. Applicant will call it Jackson Ridge Estates from my understanding, but it was submitted as Burnside, so that's what staff calls it. The site consists of six county parcels that total approximately 120 acres of land, all zoned RUT in the county right now. They are generally located at the southwest corner of Linder and Victory Road. Theoretically it's around the quadrant at the southwest corner. The Comprehensive Plan designations on the properties are both medium density residential and low density residential. The request for annexation and zoning before you tonight is 121 acres of land from RUT to the R-2 district and the R-4 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 299 total lots. That's 275 single family lots and 24 common lots on the 119 acres. The proposed plat shows compliance with the UCD dimensional standards for the proposed R-2 and R-4 lots, with an average lot size around 10,000 square feet and five foot detached sidewalks and eight foot parkways throughout the entire development. Three new accesses are proposed to the adjacent arterials, Linder and Victory Roads. Two of these are new collector streets per the master street map, which is shown as South Farmyard, which is the north-south collector and East Holstein, which is the east-west along the south boundary. All other accesses are to the -- sorry. All their access to the proposed homes is via new local streets. The applicant's proposing to stub the new collector street, East Holstein, to the west boundary for future connectivity. East Holstein is also proposed along the entire southern boundary for future connectivity to the south for the future developer there. The proposed north-south collector, South Farmer, provides a stub street to the east property line adjacent to 1995 West Victory Road, which is this parcel here. No other stub streets were originally proposed. Staff recommended a new stub street from Pivot Drive to the north property boundary be included, which is this right here and the applicant has revised the plat to show that. In addition, staff recommended that a new cross-street from South Red Angus Way heading northeast to South International Way across the Calkins Lateral, in alignment with East Drawbar Street, to create a compliant block length was also added. So, staff recommended basically 9 and 12 -- Lots 9 and 12 of these blocks to become a new cross-street. The applicant has not changed that and wishes not to do that and instead is seeking a Council waiver for the additional block length over 1,200 linear feet. The project is proposed to be constructed in five phases per the revised phasing plan, which is here. There is at least two fire approved access points within the phase one. So, there is no limit on the number of building lots for access points. Staff has recommended including the clubhouse and pool and it's open space lot within phase one, but after discussion with applicant staff-- applicant and staff, the Commission recommended the lot and amenities would be constructed with phase two instead, which is with approximately 148 building lots in the first two phases. The applicant has submitted a revised phasing plan showing that, which is this lot here that has the open space. So, between the first and second phase pretty much the vast majority of the open space and amenities will be taken care of. The Calkins Lateral currently bisects the south half of the project site, which is this here. And at the original time of staff report writing I thought that the lateral was going to remain open, which is just my mistake. Staff's conditions were, therefore, not entirely accurate and they have since been stricken to reflect that this will be tiled. The applicant and staff are still awaiting confirmation from the irrigation district on the correct easement width with the lateral being piped instead of being left open and this would be only to confirm if there are going to be any building lot encroachments, as well as to manage the Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 25 of 68 required landscaping within the multi-use pathway that's required along the lateral. Again, staff does have conditions regarding this in the staff report already. The application was submitted prior to the latest open space standard revisions last October. Therefore, the project was analyzed against previous code. Based on the proposed plat of 119 acres, a minimum of 11.9 acres of qualified open space should be proposed. According to the applicant's open space exhibit, a total of 12.19 acres of qualified open space, which is approximately 10.2 percent, is proposed meeting the minimum code requirement. However, the open space exhibit does not include any of the parkways throughout the development. Now, should the parkways be vegetated per code because per the landscape plan they are currently not, but if additional trees are added and they, therefore, would qualify, staff anticipates a much larger area of qualified open space would be part of the calculation. A minimum of six qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the old open space standards. One amenity for every 20 acres. According to the submitted plans, the applicant is proposing at least eight qualifying amenities. A clubhouse, swimming pool, children's play structures, pickleball court, multi-use pathway, shaded picnic area, public art and outdoor fitness equipment. The proposed amenities exceed code requirements. Further, the proposed amenities would also exceed the current amenity point requirements in the updated open space code. The subject area contains two future language designations as noted, low density and medium density residential, with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, approximately 80 acres versus 39. The future land use designations are not parcel specific, as I try to explain at every hearing nowadays. An adjacent abutting designation when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application may be used. A designation may not, however, go across planned or existing collector or arterial roadways and then -- and they must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation and they may also not apply to more than 50 percent of the land being developed. Based on this policy the low density residential designation can be floated, quote, unquote, beyond the area depicted on the future land use map up the east side of the north-south collector street proposed, which is the South Farmyard. So, in the future land use map these two forty acre parcels are MDR. This one is LDR. LDR can be floated up to this collector roadway. So, this area can be zero to three units per acre. Everything west should be three to eight units per acre. Additionally, the plan does allow gross densities to be rounded up or down. Therefore, with the three to eight it can be 2.5 or higher and we can round up to three and say that it qualifies. West of South Farmyard is approximately 54 acres and it contains 126 units, which is approximately 2.3 units per acre, which does not meet the -- the minimum density of 2.5. Therefore, the staff recommended the applicant should add at least nine additional building lots to meet the minimum density. However, to increase this number of lots in this area it would require the applicant to amend their plat and propose smaller lot sizes that would likely not meet the R-4 dimensional standards. Definitely not the R-2. Therefore, staff recommended the applicant include an area of R-8 and the -- and the area of the plat for Blocks 2 and 3, which would be these two, these eight rows of houses, would allow for some lot sizes smaller than R-4. Now, granted, not the minimum lot size, but just smaller than the minimum 8,000 for R-4. Commission and the neighbors, as well as the applicant, do not wish to increase the number of lots in the plat. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I have been sick for a few days and my throat is not liking it. Just died a little bit here. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 26 of 68 Simison: All right. Let's go ahead and take a five minute recess. (Recess: 7:25 p.m. to 7:35 p.m.) Simison: All right. Then we will go and come back from recess and let you continue your comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Apologize, everybody. So, I will backtrack just a little bit. Staff did recommend, in order to meet the medium density residential designation to include an additional area of R-8 lots and increase the density west of the north-south Farmyard Avenue collector street, the Commission, the neighbors, and the applicant did not wish to increase the number of lots in the plat. The Commission, therefore, recommended striking that condition. Now, granted -- well, I guess before I say that -- Council should determine if the proposed plat meets the intent of the comp plan and additional density should not be required. Should the Council determine that density should be added, the project should be continued out so the applicant can revise the plat per my condition or some other format or submit a Comprehensive Plan Map amendment to change the future language designation. At the Commission hearing there was one piece of public testimony that I butchered. I thought that they were not in agreement with the staff report-- or sorry. With the subdivision, the project, but they actually--the Stetson Estates to the west are actually in support of the project. Following the Commission hearing there was one additional piece from -- I believe a Meridian resident. It also provided support for the project. It's -- and it's proposed density and it desires to not have the R-8 lots either and keep the density where it is. Now, Commission did recommend approval with some modifications. They recommended that Council strike the condition regarding the density, strike a portion of the condition regarding a micro path connection on the west boundary from South Agrimony, which is this street, to this, which I believe I said should be in this location. They struck that condition. They modified DA provision 8.A1 B to require the pool with phase two, which has been taken care of. Modified 8.A-- 8.A2B consistent with the discussions between staff and the applicant to offer the option of a shared agreement between adjacent land owners and that is for the east-west collector street along the south boundary. Because currently as it's shown typically it's half plus 12 on your side. They are proposing in lieu of that to do an agreement with the property owner to the south to both develop that. I have not seen this agreement. I understand that it is in place and staff -- I have a condition in there that says that they will either do that or amend the plat to show half plus 12, et cetera. So, we have that condition taken care of. Further, the Commission did recommend that the -- recommend to Council that the existing home does not connect to city services, because there is an existing home on some acreage right here. Well, now -- I'm almost done. I promise. The outstanding issues for Council are quite large typically, which is -- which is not typical. There they are seeking a Council waiver to -- for the required -- sorry. They are seeing Council waiver for the existing home to remain and not connect to city services as noted. Again, Council should determine whether or not the increase in density is required. They are also seeking a Council waiver to allow the block length of Red Angus to exceed 1 ,200 linear feet and, therefore, strike condition 8.A2D, which South Angus, again, is this road here and specifically when --our code allows micro paths and pedestrian facilities to break Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 27 of 68 a block length up to a certain point and that is 1 ,200 linear feet. When it exceeds 1 ,200 linear feet it -- it can't. You either need a Council waiver or you need a stub -- another street. So, therefore, staff recommended a cross-street in order to have another pedestrian and vehicle connection across the lateral. Further, Council should determine whether the amount and location of open space within the project is sufficient and Condition 8.A3D should be, then, removed based on the applicant's belief that the proposed lot sizes of R-2 and R-4 offer ample private open space and subsequently less need of common open space dispersed through the site. Council -- well, this is based on staff. Following the Commission hearing I'm recommending that we add a DA provision allowing the existing use of the horse boarding to remain on 3801 South Linder until the property redevelops consistent with the approved phasing plan. Specifically because horse -- agriculture horse boarding cannot occur within city limits. So, that would have to happen with a specific DA provision as time progresses per the phasing plan. In addition, any plat or landscape revisions that are not made part of the Council hearing -- so, like the landscape plan doesn't reflect the plat, I did not receive that in time for the Commission recs to go out, so just some of the clean up things. But I believe the applicant does have the updated -- all the updated plans tonight. And after that I am done and I will not cough anymore. Simison: Council, any questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I have a couple of questions. Thanks, Joe. Could you point out where the connection is for annexation? I think it was noted in their report that Brundage Estates is the only connection. Where is that? Dodson: Council Woman Strader, that's correct, and that is this entire quarter mile block right here, which is R-4 zoning. Strader: Got it. And, then, I don't know if we have this in front of us or we could pull it up, but I was curious if we zoom out and we brought up and dusted off our old priority growth areas map, where would this fit? Dodson: Council Woman Strader, I cannot answer that. I don't think I have ever seen that map. Strader: Oh. Really? Dodson: Yeah. Simison: Council Woman Strader, it does not fit in that general defined area. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 28 of 68 Strader: I didn't think so. What was the -- do you remember what the westernmost border was? Of which road that was that we were kind of -- Simison: Yeah. Generally Meridian Road was -- Strider: Okay. Yeah. That's what I thought. Thank you. I just wanted to orient myself in terms of where we could cut that off. So, that's very helpful. Thanks. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question either for you, Joe, or maybe later for the applicant. First, I missed that in the Planning and Zoning about not having the existing home to connect to city services. I remember a conversation that maybe the homes were going to be torn down. Was that -- is that the reason why? Dodson: Councilman Cavener, so the -- yes. Eventually. They are going to become part of the overall subdivision. So, that's why the applicant doesn't want to extend the water main for the -- really no purpose at -- well, actually, to meet code only to, then, have it be abandoned later on, because it would, then, be within the subdivision. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, one additional real quick. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Joe, you know, the -- I appreciate, you know, staff really encourages open space to be kind of centralized. It's not something that I always get really excited about. So, when I look at this and I see all the open space is centralized, is that for the most part -- is that coming as a recommendation of staff? Is that the desire of the applicant? A combination? Dodson: Councilman Cavener, the open space code really pushes for the centralized open space. Because it is so centralized -- and, again, this is a bigger project, so, you know, you are walking half a mile from north to south through this site. So, my -- that's why I put it in those recommendations to include some smaller, but still sizable -- one lot here is 10,000 square feet of open space and, you know, the south quadrant -- southeast quadrant and the south -- the northwest quadrant, the applicant believes that with those larger lots there won't be as much of a need for that common open space dispersed, because you are going to have a much larger lot. Personally, I guess I can attest to that somewhat. I mean we --we don't have a --we use the school, the middle school, because I don't know have a park close by, you know, for our dog. But our yard is large enough that we can play ball with her in the yard, too. So, I get the idea there. But it is both code, as well as I just think the preference of the applicant to consolidate everything. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 29 of 68 Dodson: Staff did not make that recommendation. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? All right. Then would the applicant like to come forward? Young: Good evening. My name is David Young for Linder Holdings. My address is 849 East State Street, Suite 104, in Eagle, Idaho. 83616. 1 just want to start out with kind of an introduction to -- to who we are. You guys are, I'm sure, very familiar with big developers like -- like Brighton or -- or CBH. You know, that's not us. We are -- we are a homegrown family, you know, family members involved. We all graduated from Meridian High School. We have several assisted living facilities around the valley with four of them located within Meridian city limits. We are also the -- the family behind the -- the Vertical View climbing wall off -- off the freeway. So, the reason -- how we got involved in this is we have been family friends with the Jackson family, which was -- this was the former Jackson family farm, the dairy out on -- on Victory Road. Mr. Jackson has been -- been on that homestead for--for three generations and he knew that development was coming -- is coming his way. He had it under contract to another developer and had decided to move his -- his operations -- switch from dairy to -- to beef cattle and move his operation to central Oregon. Contracts fell through at the last minute, but he was still obligated or under contract for his Oregon property. He made -- his son made a phone call to my brother-in-law. We ended up coming to agreement and -- and got involved in this project and I think that's important to understand, you know, that we have an attachment. My -- my wife spent many summers on this farm with -- with the Jackson family. My brother-in- law did as well. So, we have a real respect for this -- this land and this project here. And with that respect it comes along that we want to -- to preserve a lot of what is -- is on the property. So, the things that we are going to incorporate in the design are -- are the silos, the -- the grain bins, a lot of the -- the equipment around the property to -- to pay homage to Meridian's agricultural heritage. We acquired the property in -- in mid 2019. This has been a -- close to a three year process from --from that date. We have acquired a couple of other parcels. It was originally just 108 acres from Mr. Jackson. We acquired another ten acre parcel and, then, another six acre parcel and, then, a development agreement with the -- to try to encapsulate a full 120 acres and not leave a parcel out. We have had numerous preapplication meetings. You know, COVID was right in the middle of all this. That slowed us down. We -- we also hitched our wagon for a short amount of time to Toll Brothers that tried to bring the Cedarbrook development just to the south of this and -- and, then, just working with ACHD trying to get the roads right, trying to get the -- the collector right. That's taken a lot of time. But here tonight we are glad to be here to show you what we have come up with and -- and hope that's something that you want to see in the City of Meridian. So, before you tonight we --we are asking for annexation and zoning for -- to R-4 and R-2. For preliminary plat approval and also for a development agreement. Just an aerial of where the property lies. In the darker portion in the lower left-hand corner of that red outline, there is a -- somewhat of a valley that goes through the property. So, there is a -- a bit of a drop off down to the lower south -- southeast corner and we do have the Calkins Lateral that bisects most of the project. Our landscape plan. We -- we did want to bring that central -- trying to draw everybody to the center of the --the project. So, we tried to design streets and roads that--that laid with the property Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 30 of 68 and also alongside the canal, but also to draw pedestrian and bicycle traffic through micro paths and -- and sidewalks. We are asking to -- to -- for a plat of a hundred and -- or a preliminary plat that includes 275 single family home lots. Our average size lot is -- is just under a quarter acre. We do have some one acre -- half acre lots, especially along the -- in the R-2 section along the western boundary. Joe mentioned the desire to put in the R-8 zoning. We -- we would rather not do that. If we had to we -- we have brought this slide just as a description -- or a display of where we might be amenable to do that. But we would like to discuss that. And, then, the typical lot sizing for R-2, R-4 and if we had to do an R-8 section. This is showing the -- the connectivity to the -- to the arterials and to our -- to the adjoining parcels to the -- the east and to the north and, then, this is a colored phasing plan that might show it a little bit better the phase one, including all the frontage along Victory Road and phase three including the rest of Linder Road. With that I'm going to turn some time over -- talk about design. Rose: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Chris Rose, landscape architect with Kimley Horn and Associates. Address is 1100 West Idaho Street in Boise. 83702. Just want to take a moment to introduce and highlight some of the design considerations going into the open space and amenities and -- and trying to create the sense of place and community that Dave was talking about that -- that pays homage to the heritage of the site. As Joe mentioned, the current open space meets -- actually exceeds the requirements for qualified open space. We also provided a breakdown on here with the new amenity point system and we are currently providing over 42 points against the 24 required for a project this size and you will see where those points come in and -- and what we are trying to create with those areas. I also want to emphasize the connectivity, like Dave was saying. We are trying to bring pedestrians in, give them access from all different areas of the neighborhood through micro paths, through the regional pathway to the open space areas, primarily the ten foot multi use path that goes along the Calkins Lateral as a regional parkway shown on this map. Even as we get into entry signage and -- and the monumentation at the entry of the site, trying to showcase what -- what should feel like a remnant of -- of the family farm with the planting, as well as a windmill and some of the materials and traditional spacings of agricultural type -- right behind the windmill you see kind of layout of what would look like ornamental trees in an orchard to feel like it was a leftover piece of the farm. As we got into designing the open space and amenity areas we wanted to do more than just large open grass areas or simple sidewalks. We wanted to provide something that's a little bit special, so all of these amenity areas are themed and trying to, again, pay homage to the heritage of the site. So, instead, of calling something, you know, the -- the -- park or the grass or the playground, these are themed as the garden and the field and the meadow and the corral and the barnyard as these open spaces. Kind of the idea that, you know, on an old family farm this is where the kids would run down to the ravine or go out and play in the natural areas. So, like the garden -- this is the open space that comes in from the primary entry off Victory Road. This is included in the phase one area. This is the area that includes the large blue Harvestore silo that's currently on site as a landmark. A heritage community garden seating and a path with plaques that actually tell the story of the Jackson farm, of the Jackson family and -- and how it came to be here. The field and the meadow -- instead of just a park, this is the -- the large open space big enough for playing sports, for Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 31 of 68 families running around, but also we have tucked away picnic areas, a fitness circuit, a graded meadow with art features, incorporating some of the original grain bins and silos used as picnic shelters and wayfinding elements within the open space. In addition, some of the seating along the micro paths is intended to feel like old hay bales left out in the field. The corral is kind of the -- the play area, but instead of a traditional playground structure we wanted the area to focus more on nature play and give children more unstructured play with boulder climbers and logs and ropes and water play, kind of more an experiential play area, instead of a structure. And the barnyard, which is the primary social amenity in the community, includes a clubhouse, pool, lawn game area, a community garden plot, pickleball courts and a lighted fire pit area under a canopy of trees right adjacent to the Calkins Lateral pathway as well. So, all these spaces together, when we talk about central open space, kind of drives home the theme that we -- we want this to feel like a heritage site or pay homage to what this site was and to the Jackson family and kind of create that -- that character -- a really special place in Meridian that feels like Old Meridian as well. And now back to Dave. Young: The clubhouse concepts and we wanted it to feel more like the -- the old barns on the property, so we got -- got a couple examples of that and, then, picnic shelters, again, trying to use some of the old structures that are there on the property, redesign them for -- for use in the park areas. Home designs -- we would like to see -- we are not going to be the home builder on this -- this project. We are going to -- we want to provide space for custom home builders to come in and do nice projects, you know. The home builders -- I'm not having a hard time finding any home builders that -- that want to -- to be a part of this project. It's going to be something -- I -- I feel like it's kind of the answer to -- Meridian's answer to Eagle's fine homes and some place especially on the -- the half and one acre lot some place that some -- some very nice homes can be -- can be built. Lots will be wide enough for three car garages on almost every lot and nice wide laid out homes. Not all farm houses, but modern spin on country farmhouse, craftsman style homes. There are still some outstanding conditions that we can discuss and I'm sure those will come up in questions about the phasing, the -- the -- the finishing of the roads, the -- the existing service to the -- to the home. The cross-street on Red Angus and any additional lot -- open lots that we need to address -- or adding additional lots. We do request a decision on that tonight, the -- if we do need to condition anything, but for -- for annexation of our development agreement and preliminary plat and with that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Young, I -- about your third slide in -- if we could go back to that where you kind of had -- I can't remember -- the satellite view. There was also one with -- it was all yellow with the zoning. I had a question about some property. Go -- keep going. Yeah. It was like way in. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 32 of 68 Young: Okay. Hoaglun: The third slide, I think, of the -- okay. Here we go. That -- that one right there. Young: Okay. Hoaglun: Got, of course, your parcel in red. Young: Uh-huh. Hoaglun: To the south southeast of that is -- is still rural urban RUT. Right directly east of your property we show the connection to the -- to the city. So, that's part of Meridian city limits and you are requesting annexation and that's your contiguous point. That development to the -- to the north, just east of South Linder Road, that kind of is the right triangle type of parcel that's under development, that is not in city limits and -- Young: It is. It is. It is a -- Hoaglun: Okay. Young: -- Cory Barton or CBH home development and -- and it's probably about 80 percent complete. Hoaglun: Okay. So, it is that complete half mile. When --when you talked about the half mile I didn't pick up, I thought it was just the red part that was the connection, but it is from Victory -- West Victory clear to the end of the southern property of your red line; right? Is the -- everything east of South Linder Road is City of Meridian. Young: Yes. Hoaglun: Okay. Just wanted to be sure I got that. Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: This isn't necessarily in relationship to the project specifics or the conditions that we are considering, but the market has softened intentionally with interest rate increases. As you know, there is a development that I think is going to be somewhat similar called The Keep at the corner of Eagle and Lake Hazel. I'm just kind of curious how you see your phasing and timelines potentially changing and if you have been tracking kind of how they are --they are selling and their absorption. If you see this taking longer now that -- that we are seeing the softening and not knowing how long it will last. Young: I appreciate -- I appreciate that question. So, the -- the builders that I have been talking to -- again, they are mostly custom home builders. The backlogs that they have Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 33 of 68 looking for lots -- they have got buyers that have been waiting two years for lots and most of these buyers are not financing buyers, these are cash buyers, and -- and so that's kind of the customer -- the customer base that we are looking for. On some of the smaller lots it will be a very nice upscale home, but it may be people that are downsizing to a little bit smaller piece of ground or a smaller home, but very nice -- custom nice home. So, I think that market is still there. It might -- it may slow down a little bit, but I -- again, I have had no shortage of -- of talking to these custom builders that just have backlogs of 50, 60 customers waiting for lots. Simison: And I can speak -- The Keep has no problem moving properties. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Stats that just came out for last month show there was a 50 percent decrease in purchases from the month prior, so just wanted to see what your thoughts were. Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: If you wouldn't mind advancing your slides where you kind of show the -- the zoning breakdown of your lots. That one right there. That's fine. So, I want to -- your project's very thoughtful and very well laid out and I appreciate -- I think the previous person who was providing testimony talked about a sense of place. That's something that I get really interested in. Where -- how are we creating community, so that people don't pull into their driveways and create community within their four walls, they are creating it in their neighborhoods, and I think that you have done a really great job of achieving that. I am also sensitive -- and I'm not as concerned about it here, but one of the things that I -- we are seeing a lot of is that these larger lots -- the largest lots are the ones that are most closest to the large open space, where the smaller lots at least appear to be more further away and so I'm just curious to kind of get your guys' thought process around that, because I think so much attention has been made on having this laid out. Was there any discussion about creating maybe like a pocket park or a micro amenity near some of the higher density stuff -- and not that you are creating high density, but in some of the smaller lots as compared to some of your larger lots? Young: You know -- sorry. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I -- we -- we discussed, but the -- the lot sizes we really felt like everybody's going to have a big backyard, you know. I could have taken a different approach and made these a lot smaller lots and maximized the -- the lot count here. We -- when we did the initial look before we purchased the property we could have put 525 homes on this -- on this piece of property. We were especially concerned with the neighbors along the western portion. You know, I -- I Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 34 of 68 attended the meetings when the future land use map was -- was being presented in 2019 and this is one of the -- the areas that most of the time was spent on that night and the questions from -- from the residents of why medium density on that side and low density on the Linder side, when they really felt it should be reversed. It's -- it's been a -- it's been a hard project to make everybody happy, but -- but we really think that this -- this is the best design doing those large lots adjacent to five and ten acre parcels where we don't have that on the -- on the eastern boundary. Cavener: I appreciate that context. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Well, since our clerk is not here, I will see is -- did anyone sign up to provide testimony on this item? If you would like to come forward. State your name and address the record and you will be recognized for three minutes. Dille: Mr. Mayor, Darcie Dille. 5205 North Sun Shimmer Way, Meridian, Idaho. Hi, I'm Darcie Dille. I'm a real estate professional with Keller Williams Realty Boise and a current Meridian resident. I was born and raised here in the Treasure Valley and have lived in Idaho for nearly 50 years. I was brought in to be a consultant and representative of the project and I was also asked to meet with the surrounding neighbors of the project. From April to October of 2021 we met with all neighbors that were willing and able to meet with us. We met them in their homes. We sat at their kitchen tables and walked the perimeter of their properties. We talked to them about what was most important to them regarding the development of this property. In meeting with them we met some truly amazing people who love Idaho, love Meridian, love the lives they lead here in this valley and were articulate about how they felt about the project. The residents we spoke to just want their lifestyle to be preserved, protected, and respected. They knew the Jackson property would eventually be developed. It was not a matter of if, but more a matter of when and most importantly to them the who and the how. The -- I feel like Dave and his team have been very purposeful about being mindful of the neighbor's thoughts and feedback and creating a community which takes into account their concerns as much as possible. This has been a truly wonderful process for me personally and I have been honored to be a part of it. Being an Idaho native this is a development in which I feel proud to be a part of and I believe it will be a beautiful addition to the south Meridian housing community. I know there are many who would love nothing more than to see the Treasure Valley remain as it is, but I remember when I was growing up that all you could see were lush green beautiful fields and I know that that's when Idaho was truly at its most glorious. But that was my childhood. Unfortunately, when you have something wonderful it doesn't stay a secret for long and I can't blame others for wanting what we have here. We can't shut the gate. People will still want to bring their families here and experience our amazing valley. If development is in our future, then, let's build lovely, upscale, well thought out communities to enhance the beauty that is Meridian, Idaho, and that will contribute to the community and I believe Dave and his team have met the mark with this proposed development. Thank you. Simison: Council, any questions? Mr. Clerk? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 35 of 68 Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I apologize. I was helping some people trying to find an event for parks. Julie Langlois representing an HOA. Simison: Welcome, Julie. Be recognized for ten minutes. If you can say your name and address for the record. Langlois: Wow, it's been a while. I am happy to be here -- Simison: And if you could choose one or the other of the mics. Langlois: I will choose this one. Yeah. It's just great to be back and see everybody. don't remember the pickleball court in the original plan. I guess I just missed that. Okay. Julie Langlois. 3556 Rustler. As we stated during the comp plan, of course we are disappointed that the city is pushing up to our 20 year old subdivision. During the comp plan revision we lost both on retaining the rural designation and on codifying transitions to larger properties as Meridian developers were adamantly against codifying the transition. So, here we are. The developer and his staff, especially, Darcie, have been excellent to work with. They have been respectful, listened to our concerns and tried their best to address them. However, annexations are important decisions and in our reading of the comp plan we also see a directive to discourage fringe, i.e., outer edge development. If you decide to go ahead and approve Burnside Ridge, we would like to have some input. The transition to our rural properties where we grow crops and raise and process cattle in our fields, while not what we were hoping for, is acceptable. The larger transitional properties were also offered to us early in our discussion with the developer. In addition, it appears that Mr. Young is endeavoring to build a subdivision which creates a neighborhood conducive with a half acre transitional lot. We believe it is unfair to require a change in his carefully planned neighborhood -- neighborhoods, which, by the way, have a long border with Stetson Estates, to meet the city's desired density in the northwest corner of Burnside. Increasing the density of Mr. Young's carefully planned transitional neighborhood will nudge the bar lower for Burnside. As to the micro path from South Agronomy to our eastern border, again, this is a transition issue. We have argued in the past that we grow crops, keep livestock and we shoot, kill, and dress cattle in our pastures. Thus we are asking that no additional pathways leading to our properties be added to the current plan, which was agreed upon by Mr. Young and Stetson Estates. We, as a long established neighborhood, have already had to compromise in terms of size of transitional lots, stub streets and open access to our properties at the Givens easement. Again we understand the city's desire for connectivity, but we are asking for a compromise and that there be no micro pathway from South Agronomy Avenue --Avenue to our pastures. We have a lot of respect for Mr. Young and applaud his efforts to create a development that truly raises the bar for a Meridian annexation. Burnside Ridge seeks to utilize architectural elements that honor and celebrate southwest Meridian's proud rural story and to retain and protect the inherent value of southwest Meridian and its long term sustainability. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 36 of 68 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Julie, you came all the way out here. I can't let you off without a question. So, I appreciate you as a citizen who always comes and provides I think good feedback and thoughts for the Council and your work with the Southern Rim Coalition needs to be commended. I -- I don't -- they didn't -- the Southern Rim did not testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission and I'm just curious if you could maybe provide some insight as to why. This is a type of neighborhood that I feel like the Southern Rim Coalition has been asking for for a long time and I'm just curious why we are not hearing from them about this particular project. Langlois: I don't know why. I stepped away in January. Cavener: Thanks. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Patrick Connor. Simison: State your name and address and be recognized for three minutes. Connor: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Patrick Connor. Address is 701 South Allen Steet, Meridian, Idaho. And I just want to testify in support of this project. We represent -- I represent the owner and developer of the 120 acres south of this project. We have worked with Dave and his team at Kimley Horn over the past eight or nine months as we have designed our application, ensuring that we are coordinating everything from utilities to collector streets to ensuring our boundaries match up. It helps that we also share a like engineer, so it makes that coordination that much better. I just want to give kudos to Dave and his team for designing a project that I think really matches the -- the heritage and the character of this area and I think they have also done an excellent job working with the neighbors, us, and the neighbors in Stetson Estates to field their concerns on this project. That's all I have to say about the project and appreciate the time. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Tina Dean. And, then, we have Paula Connelly. Bernt: I can't wait for the pictures. Do you have pictures for us tonight? Connelly: No. No pictures this time. Sorry. Good Evening, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Paula Connelly. I live at 3878 South Rustler Lane and I wish that every developer in our county and in the Treasure Valley and specifically in Meridian had as much concern for their neighbors and where they were going to build as the developers Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 37 of 68 here tonight. They have a connection to this land and it makes it feel like a community, Instead of just more sprawl. It doesn't look like all other neighborhoods that we hear about. They truly have spent a lot of time speaking to us. They have spent a lot of time -- and although we, as a community, on -- on the west side of them feel like we have had some compromises, those compromises have come because of the -- the comp plan, not because they weren't willing to work with us. I truly believe if they could have put in one acre parcels next to us they would have, but they just physically could not fit that in there and I'm sure they will make money at their development. That's what businesses do and should. But they -- they are concerned with the feel, from using several different builders so that it doesn't look like every fifth house is the same. And this valley does need an area that makes it feel like community, so that you will go out and you will be part of your neighborhood. I only have one concern and that's the east-west lateral. I realize that is ACHD. I'm concerned with how straight it is. I'm hoping that there will be lots of mitigation for traffic not using that as a thoroughfare. So, thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you very much for coming this evening. This area has been one of frequent conversation since before the comp plan was passed and we have had multiple different proposals, some of which almost exactly matched the property lines of Rustler Lane. So, I'm curious considering this is more dense, you know, along the east side than some prior applications, what is it about this specifically, other than working well with the developer, that has -- is appealing to the residents on Rustler Lane? Because we have really struggled with understanding exactly what the concerns were on some of the prior proposals. Connelly: I think some of the biggest things are wanting to use, you know, five or six or seven different custom home builders, so it feels more like estate properties which match the properties in our neighborhood. I feel like they have transitioned well. I also feel like the use of the silos and things like that, the farm equipment, makes it -- it gives it the rural feel that's already out there. Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I just have one question. Sorry. Just one last question. So, I appreciated your comments. I always do. So, my question is I -- I -- it sounds like you are -- you are -- you like the -- the idea of this -- this project, but I -- I can't tell if you are for or against. Connelly: You know what, my stance just -- much like what Darcie said. We live in an area where we know it's going to grow. Okay? Personally I would love to see it stay just Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 38 of 68 like it is. However, growth is going to come, so we feel like we have gotten to have a say in this with them working with us and the feel still feels rural. So, does that answer your question? Yes and no? Anything else? Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Okay. Mr. Mayor, that was everyone. Simison: Is there anybody else present that would like to provide testimony on this? And -- or if you are online use the raise your hand feature, so we can bring you in for testimony as well. McKinney: My name is Wendy McKinney. I live at 6173 Silver Elm Way and I just had to get up. The first time I have been in front of you was Planning and Zoning, February of 2017, for the Linder Village development and I have learned a lot. I appreciate your service. I appreciate all that you have done. But if we could just turn the clock back and have this kind of development there -- it's beautiful. I just really appreciate it. I have a brother who is general contractor in the area. I have a brother who is a doctor in Kuna. I have been visiting Boise since I was a little girl, because my grandparents were here and the last few months I have been mourning the loss of the fields and the silos as I drive out to an appointment and this just brings me joy. Thank you. Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony? And would the applicant like to come forward? Young: I -- I don't know that I have any additional comments, other than -- than, you know, there is a lot of blood, sweat, and tears put into this over the last few years. It's not often that you get to design a neighborhood that you want to live in, you know. It affords an opportunity to come up with something that I think is pretty special. So, I guess with that I will stand for questions. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question, Mr. Young. One of the people that testified talked about the east- west lateral too straight. Are -- are you looking at doing some sort of traffic calming, bulb outs, anything that ACHD approves? I mean you are requesting a waiver for the block length, but what -- what are you doing to kind of not have that be a speedway? Young: We have incorporated chokers all along the project and -- on any of the longer roads and -- and on that collector. Especially because it is -- it is -- it has a curve at the beginning and just a curve at the end, but providing chokers at the -- where the streets meet to slow down traffic. Hoaglun: Okay. Follow up, Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 39 of 68 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And I think the other issue was the micro path not coming -- what -- what -- what does that look like? What was -- what does the end of the path look like? Young: So, I think -- I think that -- sorry, Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun. I think that path that they are referring to was the one on Agronomy going to -- and I believe that that was stricken from -- from the agreement, so -- Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, perhaps this was addressed and I missed it, but there was a slide in here that showed potential R-8 area and is that the area you are proposing if Council decides we -- we have got to ask for that or is that -- have you changed your mind about -- about doing that? I wanted to get clarity, because -- Young: Mr. Mayor, Council -- Council Woman Perreault, yeah, we wanted to come prepared if we were -- I don't want to say forced to do that, but -- but in all reality, if I was able to bisect each one of those half acre lots, you know, and -- and make them smaller lots, we would have met that -- that condition. There was really -- because it is based on where that north-south collector lies -- that north-south collector has changed position three times with ACHD and it started out on the -- the -- the boundary of the property borderline. Well, that didn't -- that's not going to work out with the neighbors there. We had a canal in the way. We have a house that's 24 feet off the property line there. It was supposed to meet -- it's hard to see on that very top portion up here where it says Victory Road meet Francine Lane at one time and that would have made it -- I would have had half acre lots on one side of the road and 4,500 square foot lots on the other side of the road to meet that -- that future land use. So, we are trying to say that we -- we are -- we are meeting the spirit -- the spirit of that there and -- and, again, if it's predicated on because of where that -- that collector lies, I think we have -- I think we are meeting the spirit of the -- of the condition there. Simison: Council, any additional questions? I think you have to -- for a few minutes. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm happy to start the conversation. I appreciate the applicant giving us a little bit of a timeline from when they started to where we got here tonight and it's a good reminder that sometimes to get it right you got to go a little slow and appreciate your patience. I touched on this earlier. I love this project. I would love -- wish we could see more stuff like this in our community and I think it's -- I believe it will be a good addition to south Meridian, something our community can be proud of. I really appreciate the -- the Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 40 of 68 thoughtful approach, the little touches to the open space, to the sense of place to create a community. It shows that even on a big piece of dirt you can do a lot of really cool things to have our neighbors connect with each other and so I'm very much in support of the project. It's also rare that we get public that don't even live near the project to come and testify in favor. I think that's telling that you have created something that resonated with our community. They are going to come down here and tell us they like it. So, appreciate your patience, appreciate your tenacity, and I'm in full support. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just want to give my -- my view. I think my original questions probably were pretty revealing as to where I stand. I want to start by complimenting you. Although, unfortunately, I won't be in support of the project, it's a beautiful project. It's really well thought out. I think it creates a sense of place that reflects the unique character of south Meridian. I love everything that you have done about it. The criticism I have is not something that you can change, it's just a question of timing, and the philosophy that I'm embracing right now and have embraced, even in my campaign, was trying to avoid sprawl and I'm really concerned about this expansion of our city limits. This is not a priority growth area for the city and we need to build housing desperately, but the more housing we build on the edges of our city, the more it exacerbates our existing issues with traffic, people commuting from far away to a new job, lack of services in this area will make it worse and I personally think that we have bit off way more than we can chew in terms of our capacity to educate our kids in south Meridian and I -- just based on the location of the project don't feel that it's ready for annexation at this time. Thanks. Simison: And if I could just piggyback on your comments. While there is five people I won't be voting tonight, unless someone knows how to split a vote, but I -- I echo your viewpoints on this. I think the gentleman that got up to testify that the next property is ready to go after this one goes -- this is really a key decision for -- I think for this Council is if you are ready to see more development in this area, well, this is a great project to start that. If you are not, well, then, unfortunately, you have to make a decision tonight in a lot of ways. I'm not going to say the next one has to be approved, but if it comes in looking just like this one as good, it will be hard to prevent future annexations and growth in this area and I don't think that the issues that we -- were discussed when the previous area was -- previous application in this area was talked about was really the -- the connections up Linder and the -- the -- the fact that those roadways were not planned or scheduled to be widened four years ago. Granted, less traffic, because there is fewer homes and fewer density, but those issues are still, in my opinion, out there for the -- for consideration and conversation. But it is a beautiful project. I mean I would love to think I could buy a house there, but I wouldn't be able to, but I would like to think I could, but can't, so -- but, anyways, I won't be voting anyways. I could have kept my mouth shut, but I felt it was important to say thank you for Councilman Strader. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 41 of 68 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I thought I had noticed on one of the slides -- or Joe's presentation that there is a subdivision already approved just immediately south of this one. Did I see that incorrectly? Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, those are -- it might be leftover preliminary lines from Cedarbrook. They just never got removed. If not, it could be the prelim lines for the application to the south that could come forward, yeah. But there is nothing approved to the south. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: This one truly is -- is a dilemma, you know, what Council Woman Strader talked about and you talked about, you know, we have had a line, you know, trying to keep development at bay and -- and trying to get the in-fill and have it move in an orderly direction and the -- and yet, you know, when I hear from Julie and -- and Paula from previous times I had to look out the window and ask our pigs flying? What's going on out there? I was not expecting that, so -- and the dilemma is this is an outstanding project. The amenities that they are doing, the thoughtfulness they are putting into it, you can tell that there is care going into this project and it sets the bar high if we were to approve this for other developments that follow. That's -- that's what we want to have and -- and remember back when my previous stint on Council when we were just holding listening sessions, I think, in 2012 or 2013 in south Meridian and hearing these things that they talk about, you know, knowing if it -- if it transitions -- and back then we had no idea it would happen as quickly as it has -- of the open space and the development that does come out there it's going to be quality and taking account larger properties and those types of things and -- and I do feel there are times we are just missing out on some of these larger properties that folks can -- can purchase that are coming to our valley. You know, I used to work for one of the regional health systems here in the valley and, you know, when you have doctors come to the area and looking for homes, there is not a lot in Meridian that they can choose from. I mean it's just -- we don't have that -- those types of -- of -- of places and it would be nice to have more of them, because that -- that adds to that overall diversity, if you will, of housing and like the earlier product we approved, very nice on -- on Franklin Road. It's great. It's a certain price point. These are certain price points. So, trying to -- trying to balance that and having areas that -- that Meridian is not going to be like other communities and just completely high end, but we want to have that -- that diversity and -- and to the point for the R-8, I -- I do think, you know, if we do want to make sure schools and roads aren't impacted, you don't have the R-8. You go with R-2, stay with R-4, and -- and make it a -- a top notch, non-dense development. But it is -- it is hard from that standpoint. I think we all agree it's -- it's a quality development, very thoughtful. But do we -- do we want to cross that line and, Mayor, as you point out, then, the next one will come and the next one will come and there are impacts to that and -- but if -- if we go that route this one will set the bar I think and it's a Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 42 of 68 high bar and it's -- it's one I think that people in south Meridian, as we heard, are willing to accept. It is a compromise and -- and I understand that. Being on a rural property at one time and now surrounded by -- by houses, it's -- it's -- it's a tough transition, but one that you have to understand and, hopefully, have some control when working with the developer on what that looks like and in this case to their credit they-- they did have some say into that. So, that I appreciate. So, this -- this one is a dilemma. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I -- I don't think I need to say too much. I echo the thoughts of Council Woman Strader and the Mayor, but I -- I -- I do want to say how grateful I am to the developer, because of the deep thought that went into this -- this project. It's -- it's common, in my opinion, to have cookie cutter development -- happens probably more often than we -- than we would like and it's -- it's -- it's really nice to see someone come in with thought and -- and I -- and I -- and I truly believe that it reflects the -- the region and the area. I appreciate the comments that -- that were made by Julie and the other neighbors that are -- that live in that subdivision west of this project. I -- I take -- we always take neighbor feedback very seriously. So, very thoughtful project. For me it's timing. For me it's the impact of future development that will come in this area if approved. So, those are my thoughts. Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I agree this is a -- this is a tough one. I am in favor also of having some -- some larger lots in the south side. We have been asking for those for a long time. I appreciate the incredible thoughtfulness that -- that's gone into the design and implementing elements of our history as an agricultural community. As I'm -- I'm sitting here thinking about the many conversations we have had about this specific square mile and this -- this lot in particular and multiple proposals that have come and I'm kind of scratching -- scratching my head at the support for this one over some of the others that we have seen, especially as far as how the lots line up on the west side and -- but that's not essentially what we are deciding. It's -- it's whether or not this community is -- the timing is right for -- you know, for what we plan with our Comprehensive Plan and with our priority areas. So, as much as I like all that's been done, I -- I am very concerned that we will invite some additional applications and -- and potentially not be able to provide the services to those properties, because we are intentionally not investing in infrastructure in that southwest area. So, at this point my -- I'm leaning in the direction of Council Woman Strader and the Mayor in -- in this regard. I just-- it's tough. Tough decision. But we really need to move forward with the commitment that we have made to the community as a whole as far as where we are growing and so I think that's the direction that I'm leaning at this time. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 43 of 68 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I say this almost every week. That's what I love about local government. Hearing feedback from my colleagues, wrestling with ideas. It's always why I have been very reluctant about this priority growth area. When you look at this particular project, it's within our fire response times, maybe with the exception of a middle school -- that's debatable -- schools can handle the growth from this. As the one Council Member who lives in south Meridian, I think this is great and this is -- we have heard from so many people in our community about this type of development and Council Member Hoaglun hit the nail on the head. If-- if this generates more growth that's like this in south Meridian, man, let's welcome that. Let's invite that. This is the type of thing that we are hearing from our citizens they want to see more of in Meridian. So, I appreciate the -- the feedback, but I think out of respect for the work that the applicant's done, I'm -- I'm going to make a motion that we approve this application. If you want -- thank you, Council President Hoaglun. I guess first before I would make that motion I would -- I would move that we close the public hearing on Item No. 2, Burnside Ridge Estates, File No. H-2021- 0070. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Cavener: All right. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I will give my fellow Council Members or maybe staff an opportunity to correct me if I bungle this up too much. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2021-0070 as presented in the staff report for the hearing of June 7th, 2022, with the following modifications: That the -- the existing house not have to connect to city services. In agreement with the applicant's request and the Commission's recommendation to strike condition 8.A2A regarding the addition of the R- 8. To provide the Council waiver on the block length requirements. Modifying DA provision No. 8.A1 D to concur with the staff's recommendation. I'm -- I'm in agreement with the -- where the open space is. I would like to see a little bit more. I -- I think the response from the applicant is sufficient. To add the DA provision that would allow the existing use of horse boarding to remain until the property redevelops, which is consistent with the approved phasing plan, and I think that's it. Any other questions from staff? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 44 of 68 Hoaglun: Second the motion for -- Simison: Have a motion and second. For discussion, yes, Joe. Dodson: There were a couple additional from the applicant. One being the phasing plan of the -- what is it? Oh, wait. I made a slide for this. Hold on. I thought ahead. Never mind. Oh, yeah. That does -- no. The additional one would be regarding the phasing in the terms of the frontage improvements. Staff currently has a provision -- a condition requiring that all landscape buffers and/or recon -- sorry -- constructed along the Linder Road and Victory, the applicant is proposing to do that with the caveat of -- they are including Victory, but not Linder, except for basically per the phasing. So, they want to do the frontage per the phasing. So, phase one will include the Victory Road improvements, a portion of Linder, but, then, not in front of the existing home and, then, not until phase -- I believe three or four for the southeast corner. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, just for clarification? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Staff's recommending all of it to occur within phase one? Dodson: Yes. That's typical. That's why we include it. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I'm in agreement with staff's recommendation on that. So, that's why I didn't make that modification in my motion. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Was there anything in the motion that had to do with the condition about Red Angus Way to exceed 1,200 linear feet? Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, I believe that was captured within my motion. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Would you -- would the -- would the motion maker include the applicant's agreement to -- that traffic calming will be conducted on that? It's part of the record, so I don't know if we need to do that, but that would be part of -- part of-- part of it, so -- Cavener: Correct. Simison: Okay. Is there further discussion on the motion? Okay. Clerk will call the roll. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 45 of 68 Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, nay; Perreault, nay; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, nay. Simison: Two ayes. Three no's. Motion fails. MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. THREE NAYS. ONE ABSENT. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I will make a motion. I'm sad to make it. It is a beautiful project, but that being said, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to deny File No. H-2021-0070 as presented in today's hearing date for the following reasons: The first reason is it's not in the city's best interest at this time. The rationale for that, as described previously, is that this is not a logical expansion of city limits at this time. The property that connects through annexation doesn't even have a plat recorded, since it was approved in 2016. At this point it -- it doesn't make sense to extend development here and I could -- I could go on, but I think that's the basic rationale. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I just wanted to say that we have made the same decision on other applications that this isn't particular to -- for me this is not particular to this developer and -- and really has nothing to do with how well it's designed. It's just simply that we have told other applicants as well that this isn't the right time because of the decisions that we have already made as a city that are bigger and above and beyond this application. So, I just wanted to state that, so that it doesn't become a concern that it has something to do with this particular application. Simison: Is there any further comments? Then Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, nay; Cavener, nay; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, nay; Strader, yea. Simison: Three ayes. Two no's. Motion passes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 46 of 68 Simison: Council, do we need to take a break? Okay. Let's go ahead and take a ten minute break before we go into the remaining items for the evening. (Recess: 8:43 p.m. to 8:56 p.m.) 3. Public Hearing for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Simison: Let's go ahead and get going with our next item this evening. So we will come back from recess. Next item up is a public hearing for Grayson Subdivision, H-2022- 0014. Open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you for that time. I was able to scarf down some food. So, I appreciate it. Next two should be simpler I hope and -- yeah. You know. First one is for Grayson Subdivision, request for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat. The site consists of 3.1 acres, currently zoned RUT in the county, located near the northeast corner of Amity and Locust Grove. Future land use designation on the property is medium density residential. The request for annexation and zoning is for 3.39 acres of land to the R-8 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 15 single family building lots and three common lots on 3.1 acres. The proposed plat for the 15 units on three acres constitutes a gross density of 4.8 units per acre, which is consistent with the MDR designation. Minimum building lot size is 5,489 square feet, with an average lot size of approximately 6,200 square feet. It's nearly 1,500 square feet above the minimum lot size for the requested R-8 zoning district. So, I just put that note in there to say he's not proposing the minimum lot sizes. The adjacent Estancia Subdivision is of lower density and has larger building lots than what are proposed with this project. There are no more than two building lots proposed adjacent to any single existing Estancia lot along the north boundary. Furthermore, there are six building lots within Estancia along the north boundary where the applicant has proposed seven building lots and one common lot with this project. Therefore, staff does not find the difference of one building lot along this boundary sufficient -- to be significant enough of a difference to recommend any lot count revision. Consistent with the existing Estancia development, the applicant is proposing to continue the parkways and detach sidewalks into this development, which is -- this is a better image for that. The applicant is also proposing a micro path at the southwest corner of the property to add a pedestrian connection from within this subdivision to the required multi-use pathway along Amity. Per the master pathways plan and the pathways coordinator, at ten foot multi-use pathway is required along East Amity frontage. This required pathway should be located within the required landscape buffer and outside of Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 47 of 68 the ACHD right of way. The applicant is showing this pathway along Amity with their revised plat. So, this one now has the pathway outside of the -- their right of way. The plat complies with the UDC dimensional standards, except for the block length of Grayson. The proposed block length is approximately 550 feet. The UDC allows a maximum dead end street length of 500 feet without a Council waiver. Due to constraints of the existing development, which is an arterial street as a border to the south, no additional stub streets and the project's proximity to the intersection of Amity and Locust Grove. Staff finds that a Council waiver is applicable in this case. Further, the only lot left to the west is -- or the only -- for -- it's been a week. The only lot left is the one directly to the west at the hard corner that could redevelop in the future, but would have minimal lots and only extend their public road, you know, another hundred feet at the most. Access is proposed -- is proposed via extension of the existing stub street East Grayson, which is stubbed to the east property boundary and is proposed to be extended into the site and terminate in a -- was originally proposed to be a hammerhead type turnaround, encumbering one building lot, which is shown here, Lot 7. ACHD did deny that type of temporary turnaround and it was, instead, requiring a temporary cul-de-sac, which is in this one and encumbers Lot 7 and Lot 8. Our staff did anticipate this and already had a condition of approval within the staff report. There was one piece of written testimony, which was from Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez. They voiced their concerns over losing their view. I'm assuming that -- oh, there we go. Right there. Looking south. They also desire for the applicant to replace the existing fence along the north boundary, as they said it's in disrepair, and they wanted to note that there is an existing large Willow tree on the property they would hope to -- is going to be retained. After that I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward. Yeah. Nice to see you. Schultz: Good to see you, Mayor and Council. Matt Schultz. 4914 South Colusa Avenue. It's been a while since I have been here and it's good to be representing -- not a very large project. You -- you -- you need one of these every once in awhile. So, I actually live in the area and I have done a lot of subdivisions in this area of south Meridian and love it. I love the fact that I live right across the street. I love the fact that Albertson's is opening pretty soon right down the road. It's going to be awesome. This is to -- to appease some of the neighbors we just kind of came and said, hey, we will do some single stories on the north side, which is what's already on the north side of us is some single stories. So, if that's a problem we have offered that up as well. It's within our development agreement to do single stories on the north tier of lots. But other than that I think it fits in real well. There is a good product that fits on this and it's just -- it's, obviously, straight--straight forward and --and we do agree with staff's recommendations for approval and I will stand for any questions. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Matt. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 48 of 68 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Matt, are you going to put in a new fence, please? Schultz: Sorry. I forgot about that, Mayor and Council Woman Strader. This is similar to another project where we look at some sections and if there is like a really bad section we would, obviously, go in and repair it and fix it. But I think to replace six people's fence if five of them are still okay, that -- that wouldn't be probably appropriate. If one person is complaining about their fence we would certainly look at their fence. As far as the Willow tree right on the boundary, we will look at that Willow tree. Willows are -- are considered kind of a trash tree and they tend to kind of get old and want to fall down sooner than later, so I -- I can't guarantee that one will stay. But if it looks like it's good it will stay, but we like to save trees if we can. But the fence -- to replace that whole north fence -- I have looked at it. A lot of it is still good and we replace any bad sections. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Regarding the -- the fire truck turnaround, if you have to lose two of those lots are you still good? Schultz: Yeah. Mayor and Council Woman Perreault, we -- it's one of those things where we think the property to the west will probably -- now that we are extending road and sewer services will probably redevelop sooner than later and the roundabout's going in, it's going to be nice with the roundabout going out sooner than later as well. I think they are at 50 percent drawings right now in the roundabout. That sidewalk is going to go all the way around the corner and attach them to ours and we continue this. We think that little piece is going to redevelop, at which time we will be able to pull building permits and take that out. But until that road does redevelop there will be a building permit restriction on two of those lots for that temporary turnaround, which it is what it is. Simison: All right. Thank you very much. Schultz: Thanks. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody present that would like to provide testimony, if you would like to come forward at this time or if there is anybody online that would like to provide testimony you can use the raise your hand feature. Not seeing anybody, would the applicant like to make any final comments? Okay. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 49 of 68 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we close the public hearing on Item No. 3, H-2022-0014. Cavener: Second. 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: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After considering all staff and applicant testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2022-0014 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 7th, 2022, with all of the conditions as noted in the staff report. Perreault: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve this item. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing for Ferney Subdivision (H-2021-0103) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at Parcel #S1109438871, Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.64 acres with a request for the I-L zoning district. Simison: And, Matt, if you can, I know Mary McPherson really would like to get city services, so since you are doing all the work in south Meridian, anything you can do to make that connection down there would be really appreciated. I know. Thanks. Next Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 50 of 68 item up is a public hearing for Ferney Subdivision, H-2021-0103. Open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My last one, then, you guys can get rid of me. We have annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat again. So, it consists of 5.1 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county, located near the half mile mark on the north side of East Franklin between Eagle and Cloverdale. The subject site was denied annexation and zoning approval in 2020, but because -- it was denied because no development plan was accompanied with the annexation request, but the applicant withdrew the application before the findings were approved by City Council. The future land use designation on the site is industrial, as is to the east -- all the way to the east. The annexation and zoning requests is for 5.64 acres of land with the request for the I-L zoning district consistent with the zoning to the west. It includes a preliminary plat consisting of two building lots on 4.93 acres of land in the requested I-L zoning district. In addition, the applicant is seeking a Council waiver to reduce a required landscape use buffer for the specific use standards for the proposed use of a self-service storage facility. That would be just along the east boundary. The applicant is proposing to annex the property into the city with the I-L district and propose two different uses on the property. Self storage on the south end and flex space on the north end. Both of these uses are listed as anticipated uses within the future land use designation of industrial and for the proposal of the I-L zoning district it also complies with the industrial future land use. Both uses proposed are subject to specific use standards. According to the submitted plan, staff finds the proposed self-service storage facility complies with all specific use standards, except for the requirement to screen the property and a minimum 25 foot buffer to any residential use. It is unclear on the submitted plans whether any fencing is proposed, hence, the requirement to screen the property I'm not sure if they are complying with. The applicant should clarify this and provide any exhibit showing the type of fencing or wall proposed to satisfy this requirement. As noted above, the applicant is proposing and requesting a reduced buffer along the east boundary. They were proposing a 15 foot buffer adjacent to the residential use along the east side. Reducing a landscape use buffer requires a City Council waiver and is not eligible for alternative compliance. According to the resident's child to the east, it is not anticipated for their parents to be in this location long term and this property is also shown as industrial on the future land use map. Staff is recommending denser landscaping is proposed along the first 150 feet of this buffer, measured from the back of the required street buffer. So, in total would be 185 feet from the back of sidewalk with denser landscaping. Further, the applicant is required to provide a solid fence or wall to satisfy the specific use standards. With staff's recommendation, the inclusion of the specific use standards and the fact that the property to the east is planned for industrial in the future, staff is supportive of the reduced buffer of ten feet. The proposed building lots meet all UDC dimensional standards. For the requested I-L zoning district for setbacks, building height, and the proposed uses comply with the UDC subdivision standards. Main access to the project is proposed via two driveway connections to the extension of East Lanark, which bisects the property. It is stubbed to the west boundary currently and is required to be extended to and through. Lanark is not able to be extended further than the subject site because of the existing RUT parcel to the east. Therefore, the applicant is required to terminate Lanark in a temporary cul-de-sac near the east Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 51 of 68 boundary according to the ACHD staff report. According to the submitted plat, each property is proposed to have one driveway connection to Lanark in alignment with each other, located approximately 45 feet west of the east property line. No other access is proposed for the flex building on the north property. The south property containing the storage use is proposed to have an emergency only access to Franklin, which is required by code by the specific use standards. The applicant has proposed an alternative temporary turnaround by incorporating the needed space for a hammerhead type turnaround within Lanark right of way. So, if you drew a circle here, the radius of a temporary turnaround will fit within this area, which is why the applicant proposed the driveways in this way. This alternative was proposed after the ACHD staff report was issued, so staff is not aware if ACHD has approved this alternative. The applicant should continue working with ACHD on the type of temporary turnaround allowed. Meridian deputy fire chief have given their approval of the alternative temporary turnaround shown on the plat with the requirement that Lanark be signed no parking on both sides and the applicant has agreed to this. Buffers are required along Franklin and on both sides of the Lanark extension. Plans depict the required landscape buffer widths, but do not show the correct amount of landscaping within the Franklin buffer. Per the UDC no more than 65 percent of the buffer area shall be comprised of grasses. An additional landscape design is required along entryway corridors, which is applicable to this site. Therefore, additional vegetative ground cover beyond that of grasses and additional landscape features are required to meet the UDC. For example, a berm or decorative wall or a dry creek design are specifically noted within code to help meet that additional landscape. Staff has included condition of approval regarding this. There has been no written testimony before the Commission or after. The Commission did recommend approval. The only outstanding issue is that none of the revised plans for the conditional of approval were submitted, but that's because -- my understanding is that the applicant's design team got COVID in between Commission and Council and just wasn't able to get the plans to me. But my understanding is that they are in agreement with the staff report and we will all work together with the next steps. And I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, questions for staff? All right. Then I will turn this over to the applicant. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing the applicant Franklin Storage, LLC. As Joseph indicated, this property is designated industrial on your Comprehensive Plan. To the north is the railroad. To our south boundary is Franklin Road, which is a major arterial, five lanes, curb, gutter, sidewalk. This particular property has to take access off of a commercial local street, which is Lanark Street and initially when the applicant submitted -- and their architect submitted to the City of Meridian for annexation and rezone, they had a single use on the property, which was just mini storage and they did not have a detailed site plan or elevations and the Council indicated that, one, they wanted to see two types of uses within this industrial parcel and, secondly, they wanted to see what the buildings would look like and a detailed site plan. So, they came to me and we did submit a detailed site plan with a mixture of two uses. We have flex space on one lot. We have mini storage on the other. We did submit elevations. There Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 52 of 68 is existing sewer and water in Lanark Street. I did meet with Joe Bongiorno concerning the temporary turnaround. I do have an e-mail from -- from Mr. Bongiorno approving the turnaround that is on the -- proposed on the site plan and, then, I sent that over to Kelly Bruner at Ada County Highway District and she indicated that ACHD will accept an alternative turnaround if first approved by Meridian Fire Department. So, we are good there. We are showing the 35 foot landscape buffer along the entryway corridor of Franklin Road. We will be extending sewer and water through our site. It's right here. I always have -- so, services are right here at Lanark. Public Works has asked us to extend sewer and water to and through the site and out to Franklin Road. We did modify our preliminary plat to reflect the recommendations of the Public Works Department. There are two outstanding issues. We were asked to have our surveyor -- he went to the center line of the railroad tracks and the city asked that we take in the full right of way width for the railroad tracks. However, there is kind of a jog there and there is a school on the other side, so they are going to have to go out there and actually physically get permission from West Ada and, then, survey that in and the whole survey team got COVID, so I did forward the e-mail from the survey team to our staff planner. The landscape architect was confused on what changes they needed to make. I tried to walk them through it, so I did ask Joseph if we could add a condition that we will submit a revised legal description incorporating all of the railroad right of way in our annexation and a revised landscape plan prior to the development agreement being submitted to the City Council. So, that has to go to -- to Joseph and -- and be approved. There is one parcel to the east of us. There is a cow pasture and a house. There is an elderly couple that lives there. My client did contact them. He met with their son, talked to them about purchasing the property, talked to them about building a standard turnaround on their parcel. They indicated -- the son indicated that his parents are elderly, that they would like the cattle and at this juncture they don't have any intentions on developing. However, once his elderly parents have to leave the property they will be selling it for industrial purposes and, then, on the east side of their property is the Ada County Highway District traffic operations site. I got that approved through the city of Boise. It's annexed, zoned in the city of Boise. You guys released a portion of it that was within the Meridian area of city impact. So, ACHD is going to build a roadway north from Franklin that will link into Lanark. So, the only thing we will have to bridge is that five acre parcel that is on our eastern boundary. So, it is a temporary situation and the temporary turnaround that we are proposing is better than the one that the Adler site has right now and they are building flex space and so it's a logical transition as far as the development moving eastward. I asked that the Council support this. It's a good use, a good redevelopment, and all these pieces and parts are fitting together and we are second to the last of these old Ada county long five acre parcels to develop. Do you have any questions? Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Seeing no questions. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Greg Ferney signed in. I don't know if you wanted to speak. Simison: Okay. No-- no reason to speak. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item at this time? Seeing no one online that I know is for this item or Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 53 of 68 otherwise, would the applicant like to make any final comments? Okay. Council, turn this over to you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we close the public hearing. Strader: Second. 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: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: After considering all staff, applicant, public testimony and move to approve File No. H-2021-0103 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of today, without any modifications. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve this -- Item 4. Is there any discussion? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Part of the motion needs to specifically include the Council waiver for the reduced buffer, because I can't make that as a condition. Bernt: Duly noted. Simison: Motion make -- and second both agree to that item. Any further discussion or comments? Then Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 54 of 68 MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing to Consider the Conveyance of approximately 0.73 acres of City-Owned Real Property for a Minimum Price of$335,000.00 to the Meridian Development Corporation for Redevelopment Purposes in Downtown Meridian, located at 201, 223, 231, and 237 East Idaho Ave., Commonly Known as the Meridian Community Center and Centennial Park Simison: So, the last -- not the last item, but Item 5 on the agenda is public hearing to consider conveyance of approximately .73 acres of city owned real property for minimum price of 335,000 to the Meridian Development Corporation for redevelopment purposes in downtown Meridian, located at 201, 223, 231 , and 237 East Idaho Avenue, commonly known as the Meridian Community Center and Centennial Park. Mr. Baird. Baird: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. As you are aware, Idaho State law requires a public hearing whenever you propose to dispose of a city owned real property. In this particular instance we have a purchase and sale agreement that is in your packet as part of the -- the hearing and it's also attached to a separate ordinance that you may want to consider later after the end of the hearing. Proposed site -- you should be familiar with it. It's -- MDC intends to sell it to a private developer. River Caddis, also known as Meridian Caddis, for development purposes. So there will be a separate purchase agreement between MDC and River Caddis to ultimately put it in the hands of the private developer. Public notice for this hearing has been published in the Idaho Press pursuant to statute and we are supposed to declare the minimum price and that was -- has been set at 335,000 based on an appraisal. The hearing is for the purpose of giving the public the opportunity to give testimony regarding the proposed sale of the property and at the close of the hearing if you need anymore information you could continue the hearing to a specific date and request what additional information might be required. If you have all the information you need tonight you can close the hearing and, then, subsequently consider the ordinance that's the last item on the agenda. So, those are my preliminary remarks. Does anybody have any questions at this point? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Ted. And I just want to say I really appreciate your focus at this point. You have served us so nicely over the years and the fact that you are just like finishing out strong. So, I have a concern and -- and my concern is there is a little bit of -- it's a little clunky, the mechanics of how this will work. So, I have kind of an issue with conveying this property to MDC, but we haven't actually seen the OPA or the purchase agreement and what that agreement involves between MDC and the developer and so I personally think continuing makes sense, because I have a couple of concerns and I think they would be addressed, but those concerns were things that I brought up before. So, you know, I want to make sure that we have the right to use the community center for as Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 55 of 68 long as possible. I think that's really important for our Parks Department to help create a transition plan of how they are going to continue our city services. I also think it's important that we understand -- I -- I appreciated that we have the -- the right to buy the property back embedded within this document, but what I don't see is the mechanics of MDC's right to buy the property back from the developer if something goes wrong. So, just -- I think it's a little bit of an order of operation thing, but that's just a comment and maybe a question for you would be what is the timing of the MDC agreements? Baird: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Strader, in the audience tonight we have representatives from Meridian Caddis and an attorney representing the Meridian Development Corporation and I suspect that they have been making notes and can address your questions directly. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, sorry. Ashley Squyres is also online and -- Simison: All right. Strader: Mr. Mayor that would -- that would be super if we could hear from her. Simison: Well, why don't we go through regular order, so we can take public testimony and they can address those issues through the regular order of public testimony as they take their three minutes, because I assume they all want three minutes minimum to talk about this. So, Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone who signed up specifically? Johnson: No one signed up specifically. Simison: Okay. Well, then, why don't we go to the MDC administrator, since she had her hand raised already to provide any comments generally or specifically to what's been discussed to this point. Squyres: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I apologize I'm not there in person tonight. I have caught the cold that is going around the valley right now. To answer your question, I -- we had no idea that Council Woman Strader would want to see the purchase and sale agreement for MDC. If we had known we certainly would have shown the draft that is in progress right now. Our goal is, if this should be approved this evening, is to have it on our June 22nd board meeting for -- for consideration for discussion and potentially approval. I just want to reiterate that it will not be fully executed until River Caddis meets the intentions and all the conditions of the MOA period. So, that is what we had anticipated. I did not realize, again, that you all would like to see that, because we are still kind of going back and forth with tweaking some language. Regarding -- regarding the OPA that was mentioned, Council Woman Strader, that won't come for quite some time. That won't come until River Caddis has a full understanding of what the project costs will be and what the project that will actually be approved. We also need the CZC that we anticipate any land use entitlements with the project to be included as an exhibit to that OPA. So, that comes later. In fact, just for your reference for Union 93, they just submitted their OPAto us for consideration. So, it usually comes several months Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 56 of 68 after the land entitlements come, because that has to be included as part of the discussion. I think I have answered all the questions. Did I miss anything, Mayor and Council? Simison: Council Woman Strader? Strader: Thank you. Yeah. I mean -- so maybe what would be helpful -- thanks for clarifying the timing on your two agreements. I -- I guess I would just ask you directly are -- are you ready to talk about whether your agreement includes the right for the city to use the community center and how the buyback works and, then, you know, any further detail on -- I guess those two items and, then, I guess another question I had is whether you are going to have a condition for their financing to be in place at closing or how you are planning to tackle that. Squyres: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, yes to all of that. Yes, we are finalizing the agreement. We will -- we will ensure that the closing of the financing at the time that we transfer the property is in place. We will also work with the city to determine and -- and River Caddis to determine the latest possible date in order for the city to be able to utilize the community center. I think River Caddis has said over and over again that they are more than willing to do that. We still need to figure out what that date looks like and that -- what that schedule looks like, but absolutely we will work with everybody and I think there was a third question or a third point and I just forgot it. My apologies. Strader: Yes. Thank you. Ashley, I had spoken with Ted, our city attorney, earlier on my questions and one thing he had mentioned is that there could be a condition that their financing be in place at the time of closing your agreement. I didn't know if you were requiring that condition and if you are not ready to talk about that yet that's fine, but that was another question I had. Squyres: Thank you for reminding me. Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, yes, that is -- that is something that we are anticipating putting into the agreement. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I apologize, because I do feel like this is a public hearing, but it's getting a little awkward, which is my fault. I apologize. It's been a busy week, but, yeah, I think -- I think it makes sense -- I understand the OPA wouldn't be ready, but I -- I think if the other agreement was ready it would make sense to have that available for Council to review. Hopefully in advance of your -- obviously in advance of your June 22nd meeting. Just some feedback. I -- I think that's it on questions for Ashley. I do have a different question. Simison: Well, we will let the next people that want to provide comment come up and, if not, we will invite them up to answer questions. Any other questions for Ms. Squyres? Okay. Then is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony at this time on this Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 57 of 68 item? Then I will turn it back over to Council Woman Strader for questions. So, hopefully, someone in the audience can come forward and, then, answer. Strader: That -- that would be great. Yeah. That's -- thank you. I would like to just understand six month due diligence period, that feels like a long time. Just wanted to understand if you need a six month due diligence period to actually finally move forward and what kind of drives the timing there and I don't think that's a terrible thing from our perspective, at least we hopefully have the use of our community center at that time, but help me understand the timing, please. McGraw: Sure. Hi, everyone. So, good to see you again. Thanks for having us. Or having me. Excuse me. John McGraw. River Caddis Development. 1038 Trobridge Road, East Lansing, Michigan. So, to answer your questions, it was intentional that that is long. It was a long period of time. Mainly because we have a lot of work to do with the Hunter Lateral. You know, we -- we ended up closing the -- the -- the irrigation line in October and, then, we can't turn it back until April, May and, then, we have to wait -- if -- if we finalize all that construction over the winter, then, we still have to wait an additional two months before we can switch over. So, we won't know that we can actually build on the property until later and so our past discussions about making sure that all of our ducks are in a row, so we can get our financing in play and everything else, it kind of triggers that. So, we set it along that timeline. It wasn't for an intentional purpose of, hey, let's just take as much time as possible. It's that's really what set us along for our timeline, so that we can get all those things in a row, close, and, then, your second question as to the community center, that has been -- I mean we have been open on what that looks like. I think the community center requested some time ahead of time to let them know what our plans are to close, but -- but really so is everybody, you know, around the area. So, we are -- we are definitely going to let people know when we plan to do things, but as to allowing them to stay there, of course. The -- the details -- the devil is in the details there what that looks like, but, absolutely, we would work with --with the city and what that looks like going forward. Strader: Thanks, John. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Thanks for -- for making the trip out and being here tonight and -- and I -- I just wanted to follow up on discussions we have had and I think you talked about it the last hearing about your willingness to help move some of the park amenities that -- that we have to move off the site. That would be part of the building project down the road and you -- you guys are still fine with that? I think at the time it was not to exceed 150,000 in those park amenity moves. Is -- are you guys still good with that? McGraw: Absolutely. Yes. We -- we had spoken about trying to work with the city and being further invested into the partnership that we have started with. So, we wanted to Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 58 of 68 offer that as -- as a way to work together, so that we can find a -- find a new home for the existing equipment. Hoaglun: Appreciate that, John. Thank you. McGraw: Absolutely. Simison: Council, any additional questions for Mr. McGraw or is there anyone else from the public that would like to provide comments during this public hearing? Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Would it be appropriate to have a discussion at this point while the public hearing is open? Simison: I would think that would be the most appropriate, yes. Strader: Okay. So, I appreciate the feedback from everybody. You know, I -- I take a lot of comfort I think that Ashley is -- is confirming the -- the rough outlines of I think an understanding between the city and MDC about how the community -- use of the community center is going to work, about the -- you know, there is going to be mechanics for some sort of a right for them to repurchase the property if things fall through. I -- I personally think it would make sense to continue this to see that agreement. I don't think we need to see the OPA, but I think we need to see the -- I think the draft purchase agreement. It doesn't have to be signed, but I -- I would take more comfort from seeing their conditions, just given that we are conveying property with -- without any additional recourse or action on our part and I think it would -- I'm just a paranoid banker. That's -- that's why I'm like that, so I apologize. It's just my history and my career. But I -- personally as a decision maker would prefer to see -- I prefer to see that draft before making a decision. Simison: So, maybe a question for -- I don't know if it's legal, Ashley, or John. If it was delayed until the 21 st, which we would definitely have seen it, then, because the 22nd is a date, so they would have had to have published that. In theory does that delay any aspects of this process to our knowledge? Baird: Mr. Mayor, the question of delay should probably be addressed by Mr. McGraw. I know that they are --they are currently working on the Hunter Lateral matter as we speak. Let's -- let's -- let's hear his -- Simison- I didn't know who to ask though. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 59 of 68 McGraw: Yeah. Hi again. So, you know, the timing is very important of -- of both agreements to -- to continue this working forward. While I'm up here I was wondering if maybe there is some things that we can work through as -- to kind of make sure that the -- the -- the terms in the MOA that we are portraying, then, in the MDC agreement, that all those things that we are all saying that we are going to work through. I mean we still have to finalize those and -- and your concerns are definitely valid and the questions are great and I'm wondering if even -- if Ashley can also jump on to kind of add some color to things that we are going to have to make sure, so that we are not postponing to postpone, because I think, one, our agreement is very close to being finalized with -- just based on all of our conversations, that we have put these agreements right next to each other and we have been working very closely and -- and -- and it's been a great experience I think from both sides. So, I'm wondering if Ashley can also add some -- some notes to kind what I'm talking about right now as to the process in the MOA, those terms and the like. So, Ashley, would you be able to speak to that a little bit? Squyres: Yes, Mr. Mayor, Members to the Council. John, I hope I'm understanding everything correctly. I'm on cold medication, so my apologies. So, just to talk about through the process. The only reason why we were targeting June 22nd was because we just assumed we would have an approval this evening and we wanted to be able to get the purchase and sale agreement in front of our board to just have a discussion and see if they were comfortable with it. Again, not fully executing on this, because there are a number of conditions through the MOA that have to be met first and -- and John and I have been working through what a tentative schedule would look like for each of those conditions. So, that way we understand kind of what that timing looks like, when triggers will be pulled, and when we need to come back and have conversations with the Council as well to --just to give you updates. So, that is -- that's kind of where we are at this time. I perceive that, you know, as CZC application -- John -- and please correct me if I'm remembering the scheduling correctly -- but we foresee having a CZC most likely approved probably late summer, early -- early fall and, then, that would give us the appropriate time to start working through an owner participation agreement with River Caddis as well, too. And, again, we can bring that back and update, you know, the Council as to what those -- those conditions look like and, you know, what that structure looks like. But, again, we do need that entitlement first. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I -- I don't think we are intending to hold up the CZC or anything along those lines. I think the request would just be for City Council -- perhaps we could even close the public hearing, but I -- I wouldn't recommend that. I think the request would be simply to see the draft MOA that you are working on. So, you have to keep in mind we have -- we haven't -- there was no MOA in our packet. So, I'm just giving you a piece of city property -- and I do trust you. I think you are a straight shooter. But we are -- we are giving MDC a piece of property. We have good connections with them. We have an understanding. But I haven't seen anything written down that reflects use of the Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 60 of 68 community center and these other concerns. So, I guess I just feel like what's the harm in -- in continuing until the 21 st? By then that gives us a good over a week to review whatever draft MOA is here. I'm sure it will confirm all the points I'm concerned about and anybody else could be concerned about and we could possibly take action on the 21 st right before that board meeting. I guess is that an issue? Simison: That was my basic question. What -- what -- what does that delay potentially, if anything, from any government entity or individual standpoint? Is anybody -- Squyres: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council, I don't think it delays anything specifically. Again, we are not on a specific time frame. I think we were just trying to expedite this process as quickly as we could, just to get to the next step and to close as many loops. I think the 21 st, at least for MDC's point of view to be able to have our meeting on the 22nd, works. I will just kind of caveat that with our legal counsel has been out of town and is out of town for most of this week as well. We are working on some of those final details. It is not finalized yet, so it will probably be next week before we could get you that draft. Simison: John? McGraw: If I could also say-- so, I -- I understand what you are --what you are requesting and -- and if that's -- if you guys need time to see that and go through it, again, understand. My big timing is I have a window with the Hunter Lateral and I have a lot of work to do and we have pulled the trigger early to do that and now if we postpone there is a chance also that time doesn't come on our side and something else happens where this doesn't end up going through and, then, we miss another month. All of these things -- just -- just as you are concerned so am 1. So, I'm sitting on both sides of this understanding and I want to make it work. I want you to feel comfortable that we are going down the right road, but, you know, we have pulled the trigger on full design packages of the Hunter Lateral. We have already set meetings going forward and -- and we -- you know, we -- I understand that -- that risk. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just to put a finer point on it from my perspective, if the MOA includes the right for the city to use the community center as long as possible, including during your due diligence period. If it includes the right for MDC to buy the property back if the deal falls apart and if it includes a financing condition, I can't wait to move forward. But I just want to see that reflected in -- in the agreement and maybe there is something in that due diligence period -- because I saw a little gleam in your eye that we need to work out. Maybe there is something I'm missing here, but it seems to me like during that period we should have full use of our community center and perhaps pass that date as long as your site work hasn't actually gotten to a point that it makes it unusable. Am I -- do I have any misunderstanding there? Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 61 of 68 McGraw: If I'm -- Strader: Yeah. McGraw: -- understanding right -- and I -- I don't think that there is a misunderstanding. Strader: Yeah. Perfect. So -- but, Mr. Mayor, I -- I guess you are hearing from only one person so far and I apologize, because this has been really clunky, but from my perspective I -- on -- on the 21 st, as long as that MOA reflects those three things I just mentioned, I will be voting in favor. I will be approving that ordinance or however we have it structured. So, you heard from me. So, maybe you want to hear from others. McGraw: Well, I wonder if there is a -- a median that we can reach possibly where -- mean Ashley has mentioned that these things are going to be in the agreement. Strader: Yeah. McGraw: If they are -- if this changes by then -- right? Because we -- we can't close or we can't execute the agreement without fully approving all of the MOA items, so -- Baird: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Baird. Baird: Members of the Council. I got two points to make. I want to discuss what's in the purchase and sale agreement that's in your packet and that's the agreement between the city and MDC. It's been agreed upon. We are just waiting for it to be presented to MDC to sign. It does contain provisions that if the project fails, you know, then -- then the city has the opportunity to buy the property back from MDC. It's in there. The six month due diligence actually works in the city's favor, because we will continue to own it during that time. So, no one can tell us we can't use it. We will still own the property. It's after the city transfers it to MDC that you are going to want to see some language -- aspirational language in the MDC agreement about how long they -- they can do that or -- or they will be in contact. I have seen this before and a lot of it has to do with time of the year, timing of the -- the work on the lateral. If the closing is delayed beyond six months I can guarantee you the developer is probably going to be ready to go when they own the land and that's just the way these things work. So, I have talked to Steve Siddoway, mentioned the six month due diligence, I told him right now that's all that's guaranteed. Of course, he would like more and I think you will see that in the MDC agreement. So, just wanted to -- to get that on the record that the agreement that's before you -- if the ordinance is approved the Mayor has the ability to sign it. The Mayor would also have the ability to sign any addenda that we would need to do if there are little pieces that don't match up with the MDC-River Caddis agreement. So, those things can be worked out. So, I do -- I do also respect the fact that you might want the -- the comfort of seeing what's in that MDC agreement. However, I want to talk about the timing. That's the second thing is the timing of that agreement. It needs to be in the packet for the meeting of the 21 st, Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 62 of 68 which means it has to be ready to be published on the 14th. From what I'm hearing Ashley say that might not happen. You might have to consider the 28th. So, I'm going to leave that out there and see if anybody wants to respond, but those -- those are the two points that I wanted to make. Did I -- I think there was a question for me there. Did I answer? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Maybe a different way to tackle it is would you commit that -- because you will have the authority to sign the property over under this agreement, would you commit that if those three things were not in it you would come back? I assume so. It would be in our best interest. Maybe that's another way -- Simison: I will do whatever -- what legal tells me I can and can't do where my discretion is involved in these type of issues, even though it won't be that legal, it will be that legal out there, but -- Baird: Mr. Mayor, the -- and Members of the Council. The ordinance does specifically give you the authority to sign it. It doesn't say when. So, if the ordinance is passed, yet the agreement never gets signed, I think the City Council would need to take some action to rescind that ordinance. You don't want that hanging out there. You may have other legal counsel on the 21 st -- the 28th who have other ideas, but there is some flexibility there that we can work around, but it's going to require sort of a gentlemen's or person's agreement on that. Simison: And I know that's -- that's the difficult part. Yeah. I -- I -- I believe in the -- in the agreement that we are all working towards the same thing, that no one is trying to do anything that they have not stated through that process and, you know, whatever good faith we need to provide I'm willing to do that however we can to make this move forward in a productive manner. That being said, we could do this for one week, because if -- as Mr. Baird says, you know, in theory they would have an agreement close or maybe they just work on those three provisions of what will be in it and the rest --just so we can see it and, then, do this next week, even though it may not be the final version, you can at least see those three elements and perhaps counsel that's represent-- representing MDC is in the room, could just work out those three tomorrow and -- and, then, there would -- that would be fantastic. But I'm -- I'm -- I'm here to serve at the pleasure with my signature. So, that's my role tonight. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I -- I understand Council Woman Strader's concerns and I understand her intent and I also completely understand what -- what you are saying as well and -- and what's been stated by Ashley. I -- I feel comfortable going forward knowing that there is Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 63 of 68 safeguards in place that are protecting all parties. I -- I would like to have this information that you are working on and -- and -- and, honestly, it's the reason why I love having you sit right next to me, because of your approach with these -- with these issues, because of your high level experience with your -- your professional employment you had before. So -- but -- but I -- I -- I feel comfortable, you know, with -- with the safeguards that are in place going forward. I -- looking at you and you are looking at me and you are shaking your head and you give me big smiles and so I'm -- I'm in favor. I will approve knowing that you have said you are going to do everything up until now. I have no reason not to believe that that's going to happen. I think we are protecting the -- Borton: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I have been privileged to be part of the meetings that we have held every couple weeks and early morning and getting to work with the people and everything and -- and working with MDC and -- and others it -- it -- it -- it is ready to go. I -- and -- and also I'm just really concerned what we -- Council Woman Strader, you know, acknowledged herself-- her paranoid banker self and I thought, boy, if I agree am I buying into that paranoia? So, I -- that just -- no. Seriously, this is a project that everyone wants to move forward. Yes, there are a few questions about timing of community center and believe that those can be worked out. We can make that work out. We can -- we can move forward, have -- have these things take place and, then, all those smaller details -- everyone agrees in principle, there is an understanding on that, and we just have to make that move forward when the time comes at the appropriate time. We just know things aren't going to work to the timing of the calendar necessarily, but we just have to do our part and trust the party will do their part and so on and -- and -- and I -- I do believe that's going to work out. So, I'm -- I'm in favor of moving forward tonight, but it's -- it's up to the Council in how we want to proceed. I don't want to delay it beyond the 21 st. I think that would give us enough time. If Council does want to delay, then, okay, the 21 st we can have a report back and have some of those high level things heard, but, yeah, I -- I'm ready to move forward now. But it's up to the -- up to the Council. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Reading the number of votes and figuring it out pretty quickly -- and I -- I'm in support of the project, but I will just say this, I -- Ashley Squyres is on the public record promising those three things and I have full faith in you, Ashley, that if you don't get those three things you are not going to move forward and I know we have a great relationship and you will make sure that we get those three things. So, given that fact pattern, I almost always would reject a scenario where I can't review something in order to make a decision. I don't like that at all. But given that Ashley has promised it, let's do it. Simison: So, Ashley, if you didn't promise that speak now. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 64 of 68 Squyres: She heard me correctly, Mayor. Simison: Okay. And while it's not a solution yet, we did -- we did find a good option for back up for the community center with the American Legion across the street. Especially I think during the day for -- for space. They have got two great -- two nice sized spaces that they have made available. But might have to work with some of the other people in there with the classes. Maybe help find them other spaces that maybe work for their needs, but that's been a nice find. It's just right now everything is calendared, so it's hard to find a good solution, so -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would move that we close the public hearing on the conveyance of approximately 0.73 acres of city owned property -- real property for a minimum price of 335,000 dollars to the Meridian Development Corporation for redevelopment purposes in downtown Meridian. Strader: 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. The public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding action will be taken under Item No. 7. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 6. Ordinance No. 22-1980: An Ordinance (Oaks North Rezone - H-2022- 0010) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the North 1/2 of the Southwest '/4 of Section 28, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 12.02 Acres of Land From the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Correct. So, we will first move to Item 6, which is Ordinance No. 22-1980. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 65 of 68 Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to Oaks North Rezone, H- 2022-0010, for rezone of a parcel of land located in the North '/z of the Southwest '/4 of Section 28, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-8 (Medium- Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the Ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in this entirety? Seeing none, do we have a motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 22-1980 with the suspension of rules. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-1980 under suspension of the rules. Is there in discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the ordinance is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 7. Ordinance No. 22-1981: An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of Approximately 0.73 Acres of City-Owned Real Property to the Meridian Development Corporation, Located at 201, 223, 231, and 237 East Idaho Avenue in the City Of Meridian (Commonly Referred to as "Centennial Park" and the "Meridian Community Center") and Legally Described in this Ordinance; Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute and Attest on Behalf of the City of Meridian the Sale Agreement, Deed, and Other Documents Necessary to Complete the Transaction; Providing For a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next item is Item 7, which is Ordinance No. 22-1981 . Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 66 of 68 Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of approximately 0.73 acres of city-owned real property to the Meridian Development Corporation, located at 201, 223, 231, and 237 East Idaho Avenue in the City of Meridian (commonly referred to as "Centennial Park" and the "Meridian Community Center") and legally described in this ordinance; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and attest on behalf of the City of Meridian the sale agreement, deed, and other documents necessary to complete the transaction; providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 22-1981 with the suspension of rules. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-1981 under suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, nay; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: Four ayes, one no, and the ordinance is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NO. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: That brings us to Future Meeting Topics. Anything in future meeting topics? Okay. Then do I have a -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: If I might take a point of personal privilege. Simison: You are recognized for five minutes. Hoaglun: Five minutes. Oh, great. Starting now. No. We are just -- it -- it's fortuitous that it worked out this way, but we have a deputy city attorney who is sitting in tonight for Bill, who has given us 17 years of outstanding work and just wanted to take a moment to -- to recognize that work. We go way back. I -- I graduated from College of Idaho and Ted was there at the same time. In fact, we would have been in the same class, but since I transferred there I just went two years. I had another class to make up. So, I happened Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 67 of 68 to find something circa 1981 in the C of I yearbook. So, I -- I just thought, you know, Ted -- he was a good looking guy at one time and now with the beard he looks great. You know, it's a -- so, I have -- I have known Ted a long time and it's just been fantastic to work with Ted here at the city and the -- the service that you have provided to the Council, to the departments, and to the citizens of Meridian has been outstanding. It's something we look to, we trust, and we are sorry to see you go. Maybe it's partly, you know, for the same age I'm jealous, but it's just with much appreciation and well wishes that you -- you move into retirement or whatever else is out there for you. Who knows. I don't see you just totally retiring. But just truly appreciate the work that -- that you have done for our community. It was outstanding. Baird: Thank you. Simison: Would the gentleman yield? Hoaglun: Gentleman yields. Simison: It's -- it's been a pleasure -- you know, I came shortly after you, Ted, but I think I -- you and I had the pleasure of always engaging on some of the more fun projects for the city during our time frame and some of the more fun people to work with. Railroads. Large agricultural companies in the state of Idaho on -- on -- on -- on projects and -- and large annexations and so you were always there and willing to give sound advice and willing to, you know, work through some pretty tough projects on behalf of the city and it -- while sad to see you go, miss seeing you on your walks around downtown through that, but you can always come back and go for a walk anytime and we will be happy to entertain you in whatever way, shape, or form. It -- it may be grumpy old men, but that's okay. We will take that one, too. But congratulations. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, if I may? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks. President yields. I have been fortunate to have a lot of different working relationships with you. As -- as a colleague and as a Council Member and for many years I got to sit where Jessica sits and was appreciated that when you were up here you would placate with my comments sometimes under the breath, sometimes encouraging, sometimes calming me down. When I worked here as an employee I always appreciated that -- how you would explain both complicated and easy topics in a way that I could understand, both as a Council Member and as an employee and I just think that you are a fine and fitting example of a great Meridian employee. You really care about our community. You are a -- a fine legal mind, a fine colleague, a fine father, just a fine man and I have really appreciated being able to call you a colleague and a friend over the past 15 years and really wish you well in this next new chapter. You will be missed. Strader: Thanks for everything, Ted. Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 68 of 68 Baird: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman -- Mr. Baird. Baird: Appreciate the comments. Totally unexpected. I was hoping to leave under the radar. But Bill -- Bill set it up this way. He knew he was going to be gone and he wanted me to stay long enough to take this meeting. So, I guess I appreciate Bill for that. Couldn't have asked to work with a greater group of people and having met and worked with Kurt for the time that he's been here and, of course, Emily and we have a new deputy Tishra, who started Monday, I think you guys are going to be in great hands. Bill -- Bill has a good vision for the office and -- and I don't expect that to -- to change, but it's been a blast. Thanks. Simison: Here. Here. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we adjourn. Simison: I have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:02 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 6 / 21 / 2022 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 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 : June 7 , 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 Good Evening members of city council : My name is Laurie Boesch . I am attending this meeting in hopes that you may do what you can to reduce the speed limit on Lagle Road to 35 mph . As many of you already know , it is a very dangerous stretch of highway in Idaho . I should know, for my daughter, Kess , was killed in a car accident on Eagle and Bald Cypress road on Saturday , November 13 , 2021 . My daughter' s boyfriend , Jordan Plaster was driving a small Mitsubishi Mirage at the time of the accident . Kess was his passenger . Traffic was busy that day, as it is every Saturday on Eagle Road . Jordan was traveling north on Eagle , and attempted to turn left onto Bald Cypress , between Ustick and Wainwright Roads . The left lane headed south on Eagle was backed up for a large stretch in front of him . A woman driving a SUV, traveling south in the left lane, stopped to let Jordan through . Jordan could not see beyond her vehicle into the right lane . The truck that hit Jordan ' s car was a Ford F - 250 . It was determined that the driver was traveling at S3 mph . Kess died at the scene . There was nothing anyone could do to save her . Jordan suffered life threatening injuries and they weren ' t sure if he would survive that day . He survived , but suffered brain injuries and a broken arm . The mortician at Bowman ' s Funeral home told us that Kess ' s body was so badly injured that she could not allow an open casket , if we were to request it . We did not . My husband and I could not even go to her at the funeral home and hold her hand one last time , before her cremation . I tell you this because I want you to understand what 53 mph does to a person . It is important to note that I have seen the 40 mph signs up at Eagle while it is under construction . From my standpoint , traffic seems to be flowing just fine . Eagle road , which is Highway 55 is the only place on any highway in the entire state of Idaho where the speed limit does not drop when entering a town or a city . There is an accident every day on Eagle, every day ! The Idaho Department of Transportation tells me that they have been aware of the problems on Eagle for over 10 years . They have meeting after meeting and yet no action seems to be taken . My husband has a co - worker who was involved in a very similar accident last week on Overland road , just west of Eagle . The speed limit there is 40 mph . The co -worker was headed east when another driver, who was headed west , made a left turn in front of the co -worker . The co- worker t - boned the vehicle at 35 to 40 mph . There was no one in the passenger seats in either vehicle . Both vehicles were totaled but both duvets walked away fro m the accident, neither needed to be taken to a hospital and both drivers continued on with their days . This is a very different outcome than the car accident my daughter and her boyfriend were in . This tells me that if the truck who hit my daughter was traveling at 35 instead of 53 , she very well could have survived . It' s too late for my family and I . We ' ve already lost Kess . But you can help other families not go through the hell we have been through . You can save lives . Please lower the speed limit and if possible put up barriers at Bald Cypress lane at Eagle Road , so no one makes a deadly left turn there again . Thank You . E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 City Council Meeting June 7, 2022 Item #1: Alamar Subdivision AZ, PP PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Revised Preliminary Plat Revised Landscape Plan Revised PlanPhasing Conceptual Floor PlansElevations and Item #2: Burnside Ridge Estates AZ, PP PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Revised PlatPreliminary LandscapePlan RevisedPlanPhasing Outstanding Issues for Council Any plat/landscape revisions that were not made prior to the Council hearing.7.Linder until property redevelops consistent with approved phasing plan.Add a DA provision allowing existing use of horse boarding to remain on 3801 S. 6.common open space dispersed throughout the site.proposed lot sizes offer ample private open space and subsequently less need of and condition VIII.A.3d should be removed based on the Applicant’s belief the Council should determine whether amount and location of open space is sufficient 5.along arterials);Modify DA provision VIII.A.1d or concur with Staff’s included recommendation 4.linear feet and strike condition VIII.A.2d;Council waiver is needed to allow block length of Red Angus Way to exceed 1,200 3.8 zoning;-RCommission’s recommendation to strike condition VIII.A.2a regarding the addition of Council should determine if they agree or disagree with the Applicant’s request and 2.services;Council waiver is required for existing home to remain and not connect to City 1. Item #3: Grayson Subdivision AZ, PP AERIALZONING MAP Revised Preliminary Plat Plat with Roundaboutpresumed Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Item #4: Ferney Subdivision AZ, PP PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Changes to Agenda: None Item #1: Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of two parcels totaling 5.63 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in the county, located at 4380 W. Franklin. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium-High Density Residential (within the Ten Mile Plan) Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 8.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 building lots (32 single family attached lots and 18 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots, and 2 other lots (common driveways) on 5.63 acres in the proposed TN-R zoning district. Designated as MHDR within the Ten Mile Specific Area Plan. The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre and is noted with a “target” density of 12 du/ac. Proposed plat consisting of 50 residential units of a mix of attached and detached homes constitutes a gross density of 8.9 du/ac and is consistent with the Comp Plan. Access to the development is proposed via a new connection to W. Franklin Road at the south property boundary. Access to Franklin is intended to be temporary until such time a future connection is made to adjacent properties. Specifically, future access should occur to the east via a local street connection to W. Atomic Street in the Ascent Townhome project on the east side of Zimmerman Lane (not part of this project area) and to a future extension of W. Aviator Street on the adjacent property to the north/northeast. Staff has conditions of approval associated with the future road connections. In response to the Staff Report, the Applicant has requested a new/modified DA Provision regarding the phasing of the project to include the homes along W. Atomic Street within phase 1 instead of phase 2 if this street connection can occur early enough in the process. Commission agreed to this modification and it is reflected in the Commission Recs to Council staff report. The termination of the proposed north-south local street at the north boundary deserves some flexibility due to ongoing conversations with an adjacent landowner and future development. Staff has included a DA provision to allow this Applicant the flexibility to revise the road alignment and lot layout with the future Phase 2 final plat should they be able to work out a mutually beneficial agreement with the adjacent property owner. This recommended provision does not require this Applicant revise their plat at any point but its intent is to provide flexibility to the Applicant to make any necessary revisions to the plat without having to go through the hearing process for subsequent changes that do not increase the number of building lots or drastically change the project design but help the overall road network in this area of the City. Proposed plat has a minimum building lot size proposed is 2,038 square feet with an average lot size of 2,762 square feet and includes detached sidewalks and 6-foot parkways (report notes 8-foot – staff mistake). As noted, the plat is currently proposed to develop in two phases due to the available access to the site. The phasing plan depicts construction of 27 building lots in the southern half of the site with three open space lots (including the largest centralized open space lot) in Phase 1 with the public roads terminating less than 150 feet from the internal intersection. Phase 2 then depicts the remaining building lots to the north and east of the centralized intersection to be constructed along with some remaining open space drainage lots along the north boundary. Planning and Fire support the proposed phasing plan and the requested revision, should the access to Atomic Street be constructed. A minimum of 15% qualified open space is required for projects over 5 acres within the TN-R district, per the UDC. Based on the plat area of 5.63 acres, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 standards is approximately 36,786 square feet. According to Staff’s analysis of the revised plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 36,800 square feet of qualified open space; this area meets minimum 15% requirement. Specific to the Ten Mile Plan, front loaded dwellings are not preferred and if they are proposed, the garages should be set back from the living area façade to help create a more porch dominated streetscape rather than garage dominated. According to the submitted elevations and floor plans, the Applicant has proposed units with the garages considerably behind the living area facades. This design provides for a more porch dominated street façade compared to traditional single-family residential, as desired. Staff is including a DA provision to ensure this type of design is maintained for the project. Overall, Staff fully supports the proposed home design and street- oriented design of the project. Written Testimony Since Commission: Adjacent future applicant, DevCo – presented support for project but notes concerns over overall lack of understanding of transportation network in this area of the City. Commission Recommendation: Approval Commission Summary: 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jeff Wrede, Applicant/Developer b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Jeff Wrede; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Functionality of the common drives and lot design proposed on the 1-acre piece of project; b. Amount of open space proposed and how the Applicant can get to the minimum qualified amount – a loss of building lots may have to occur; c. Clarification on the irrigation easement and its width, use, and access for this developemtn and future residents; d. Can building pads shown on plat fit with the wide irrigation easement? – Yes. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Ability to modify the phasing plan to allow additional lots within pahse 1 should a road connection occur to the east prior to the connection to the north. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. Applicant has requested an additional DA provision that specifically limits the garage to be setback from the living area façade no less than 16 feet. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0004, as presented during the hearing on June 7, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #2: Burnside (Jackson) Ridge Estates Subdivision (H-2021-0070) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 6 county parcels totaling 119.31 acres of land, zoned RUT in the county, located generally near the southwest corner of Linder and Victory. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential Summary of Request: Request for Annexation & Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts and a preliminary plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Proposed plat shows compliance with UDC dimensional standards for the proposed R-2 and R-4 lots with an average lot size around 10k square feet and 5-foot detached sidewalks and 8-foot parkways throughout the entire development. Three (3) new accesses are proposed to the adjacent arterial streets, Linder and Victory Roads. Two of these are new collector streets per the Master Street Map (shown as S. Farmyard Avenue and E. Holstein Drive) with each one connecting to the arterials. All other access to proposed homes is via new local streets. Applicant is proposing to stub the new collector street (E. Holstein) to the west boundary for future connectivity. E. Holstein is also proposed along the entire southern boundary for future connectivity to the south. Proposed north-south collector street, S. Farmyard, provides a stub street to the east property line adjacent to 1995 W. Victory Road (Parcel #S1226110255). No other stub streets are proposed. Staff recommended a new stub street from Pivot Drive to the north property boundary and a new cross street from S. Red Angus Way heading northeast to S. International Way across the Calkins Lateral in alignment with E. Drawbar Street to create compliant block lengths. Applicant revised the plat to show the new stub street from Pivot Drive to the north boundary. The Applicant is seeking a Council waiver for the proposed block length of S. Red Angus Way, approximately 1,400 feet long, and to not include an additional cross street as proposed by Staff. Project is proposed to be constructed in 5 phases per the phasing plan with at least two fire approved access points proposed within phase 1 (no limit on number of building lots). Staff has recommended including the clubhouse and pool and its open space lot within phase 1 but after discussion with Applicant and Staff, Commission recommended this lot and amenities to be constructed with phase 2 instead (148 building lots in first two phases). Applicant has submitted a revised phasing plan showing this change. The Calkins Lateral currently bisects the south half of the project site and at the time of staff report writing, Staff thought the lateral was proposed to remain open—this is incorrect per discussions with the Applicant. Therefore, some of staff’s conditions were not entirely accurate and they have now been stricken. Applicant and Staff are awaiting confirmation from the irrigation district on the correct easement width with the lateral being piped instead of left open for the purpose of any building lot encroachment and required landscaping along the multi-use pathway segment within this common lot. Application was submitted prior to the latest open space standard revisions. Therefore, project was analyzed against previous code. Based on the proposed plat of 119.3 acres, a minimum of 11.9 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy the requirements. According to the Applicant’s open space exhibit, a total of 12.19 acres of qualified open space (approximately 10.22%) is proposed which meets the minimum code required. However, the open space exhibit does not include the parkways proposed throughout the entire development. Should the parkways be vegetated per code with the correct number of trees, this additional area would count towards the open space and add a considerable amount of qualified area. A minimum of six (6) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the old open space standards (1 amenity for every 20 acres). According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing at least eight (8) qualifying amenities to satisfy UDC requirements: Clubhouse, swimming pool, children’s play structures, pickleball court, multi-use pathways, shaded picnic area, public art, and outdoor fitness equipment. The proposed amenities exceed code requirements. Proposed amenities would also exceed current amenity point requirements in the updated open space code. The subject project area contains two future land use designations, Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR), with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, approximately 80 acres compared to 39 acres respectively. Future Land Use designations are not parcel specific. An adjacent, abutting designation, when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used. A designation may not be used however, across planned or existing collector or arterial roadways, must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more than 50% of the land being developed. Based on this policy, the LDR designation can be “floated” beyond the area depicted on the future land use map up to the east side of the north-south collector street proposed with this development (S. Farmyard Avenue). Subsequently, the Comp Plan requires the gross density west of S. Farmyard should meet the minimum gross density for the MDR designation (at least 3 du/ac.). Additionally, the plan allows gross densities to be rounded up or down, therefore the minimum gross density of this area must be at least 2.5 du/ac. According to the submitted plans, the area west of the proposed collector is approximately 54 acres and contains 126 units which is approximately 2.33 du/ac and does not meet the minimum gross density of the MDR designation. Therefore, the Applicant should add at least 9 additional building lots to meet the minimum density requirement. However, to increase the number of lots in this area it would require the applicant to amend their plat and propose smaller lot sizes that would likely not meet the R-4 dimensional standards. Therefore, Staff recommended the applicant include an area of R-8 zoning in the north area of the plat (Blocks 2 & 3) to allow for some lot sizes smaller than R-4 dimensional standards. Commission, the neighbors, and the Applicant do not wish to increase the number of lots in the plat. Council should determine if the proposed plat meets the intent of the Comp Plan and additional density is not required. Should Council determine density should be added, the project should be continued out so the Applicant can revise the plat or submit a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment. Written Testimony: 1 piece from Stetson Estates residents – Noting project does not comply with Comp Plan and vision of Meridian. Desire to keep the existing outer areas of Meridian as more rural and less developed consistent with existing lifestyles in this area of the City. 1 piece following the Commission meeting – Claire Manning, Meridian Resident – Support for project and its proposed density; desires for this type of development to be Meridian standard instead of higher density. Commission Recommendation: Approval with modifications Commission Summary: 1. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Support of proposed project due to larger lots proposed and quality open space theme and amenities; b. Support of project and developer and a wish to not include any R-8 lots as Staff recommended; c. History of neighborhood meetings and the Applicant’s diligent attempts at working with the existing neighbors surrounding the development; d. Support of project as proposed and without Staff’s recommended revisions to include R-8 zoning or the micro-path lot to the west boundary; e. Assurance that the two project developers are coordinating the construction of E. Holstein. 2. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Inclusion of any original and existing farm equipment for the development’s open space/amenity areas; b. Logic behind recommending the micro-path lot to the west boundary behind Stetson Estates and what would it mean if it was removed; c. Density of project and why Staff recommended adding additional lots with the R-8 district—Council can approve project as is and with it not being compliant with the Comprehensive Plan density; d. Phasing of project – specifically, when the existing home should be included into the development and whether the “first right of refusal” to purchase the property plays a role in Commission’s decision; 3. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Recommendation to Council to strike condition VIII.A.2a and keep project density as presented; b. Strike portion of condition VIII.A.2f regarding micro-path connection to the west boundary from S. Agronomy Avenue; c. Strike condition VIII.A.16 – Applicant is proposing to tile Calkins Lateral consistent with the UDC. d. Modify DA provision VIII.A.1b to require clubhouse and pool lot within phase 2. e. Modify condition VIII. A.2b consistent with discussions between Staff and the Applicant to offer option of a shared agreement between adjacent landowners. f. Recommend to Council the existing home does not connect to City services. 4. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. Council waiver is required for existing home to remain and not connect to City services; b. Council should determine if they agree or disagree with the Applicant’s request and Commission’s recommendation to strike condition VIII.A.2a regarding the addition of R-8 zoning; c. Council waiver is needed to allow block length of Red Angus Way to exceed 1,200 linear feet and strike condition VIII.A.2d; d. Modify DA provision VIII.A.1d or concur with Staff’s included recommendation; e. Council should determine whether amount and location of open space is sufficient and condition VIII.A.3d should be removed based on the Applicant’s belief the proposed lot sizes offer ample private open space and subsequently less need of common open space dispersed throughout the site. f. Add a DA provision allowing existing use of horse boarding to remain on 3801 S. Linder until property redevelops consistent with approved phasing plan. g. Any plat/landscape revisions that were not made prior to the Council hearing. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0070, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0070, as presented during the hearing on June 7, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0070 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #3: Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 3.1 acres of land, zoned RUT in the county, located near the northeast corner of Amity and Locust Grove. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Summary of Request: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Proposed plat for 15 residential units on 3.1 acres constitutes a gross density of 4.84 du/ac, consistent with the MDR designation. The minimum building lot size proposed is 5,489 square feet (average lot size of 6,169 square feet) which is nearly 1,500 square feet above the minimum lot size for the requested R-8 zoning district. The adjacent Estancia Subdivision is of lower density and has larger building lots than what are proposed with this project. There are no more than 2 building lots proposed adjacent to any single existing lot along the north boundary and the Applicant has placed their drainage lot in the northeast corner of the project adjacent to two Estancia lots. Furthermore, there are 6 building lots within Estancia along the north boundary where the Applicant has proposed 7 building lots and 1 common lot with this project. Staff does not find the difference of one (1) building lot along this shared property line to be significant enough to recommend any lot count revision. Consistent with the existing Estancia development, the Applicant is proposing to continue the parkways and detached sidewalks into this development to match that design characteristic. The Applicant is also proposing a micro-path at the southwest corner of the property to add a pedestrian connection to the required multi-use pathway along Amity. Per the Pathways Coordinator and the Master Pathways Plan, a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the E. Amity Road frontage. This required pathway should be located within the required landscape buffer and outside of the ACHD right-of-way. Applicant is showing this pathway along Amity with their revised plat so Staff has stricken the condition of approval to correct this prior to Final Plat submittal. Plat complies with all UDC dimensional standards except for block length of Grayson. Proposed block length is approximately 550 feet; UDC allows a maximum dead-end street length of 500 feet without a Council Waiver. Due to constraints of existing development, an arterial street as a border with no access allowed, and the projects proximity to the intersection of Amity and Locust Grove, Staff finds a Council waiver applicable in this case. Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street, E. Grayson Street stubbed to the east property boundary; it is proposed to be extended into the site and terminate in a hammerhead-type turnaround by encumbering a building lot. ACHD has denied this type of temporary turnaround and is requiring a temporary cul-de-sac instead. Staff anticipated this and already has a condition with this potential outcome in mind (will encumber 2 building lots instead of 1). Written Testimony: 1 piece – Mr. and Mrs. Jimenez voiced concerns over their view being taken away by adding more homes; desire for the existing privacy fence to be replaced as it is in disrepair; and a note about an existing large willow tree on the property. Commission Recommendation: Approval Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0014, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0014, as presented during the hearing on June 7, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) Item #4: Ferney Subdivision (H-2021-0103) Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.1 acres of land, zoned RUT in the County, located near the half mile mark on the north side of E. Franklin Road, between S. Eagle Road and S. Cloverdale Road. History: Subject site was denied annexation and zoning approval in 2020 (H-2020-0033) because no development plan accompanied annexation request but the Applicant withdrew the application before Findings of Denial were approved by the Council. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Industrial Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.64 acres with a request for the I-L zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2) building lots on 4.93 acres of land in the requested I-L zoning district. In addition, the Applicant is seeking a Council Waiver to reduce a required landscape use buffer per the specific use standards for the proposed use of self-service storage facility (UDC 11-4-3- 34). The Applicant is proposing to annex the property into the City with the I-L zoning district and propose two different uses on the property, self-storage and flex space—both of these uses are listed above as anticipated uses in this designation and the proposal for the I-L zoning district complies with the industrial future land use designation. Both uses are subject to specific use standards. According to the submitted plans, Staff finds the proposed self-service storage facility complies with all specific use standard except for the requirement to screen the property and the minimum 25-foot buffer to any residential use. It is unclear on the submitted plans whether any fencing is proposed. The Applicant should clarify this and provide an exhibit showing the type of fencing/wall proposed to satisfy this requirement. As noted above, the Applicant is proposing a 15-foot buffer adjacent to the residential use along the east boundary. Reducing a landscape use buffer requires a City Council waiver and is not eligible for Alternative Compliance, per UDC 11- 5B-5. According to the resident’s child to the east, it is not anticipated for their parents to be in this location long-term and this property is also shown as industrial on the future land use map. Staff is recommending denser landscaping is proposed along the first 150 feet of this buffer measured from the back of the required street buffer (185 feet from back of sidewalk). Further, the Applicant is required to provide a solid fence/wall to satisfy the specific use standards. With Staff’s recommendation, the specific use standards, and the fact the property to the east is planned to be an industrial zoned property, Staff is supportive of the reduced buffer. The proposed building lots meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested I-L zoning district for setbacks, building height, and proposed use and comply with UDC subdivision standards. Main access to the project is proposed via two driveway connections to the extension of E. Lanark, an industrial collector street. Lanark is stubbed to the subject property’s west boundary and is required to be extended into and through the property. Lanark is not able to be extended further than the subject property so the Applicant is required to terminate Lanark in a temporary cul-de-sac near the east boundary, according to the ACHD staff report. According to the submitted plat each property is proposed to have one driveway connection to Lanark in alignment with each other located approximately 45 feet west of the east property line. No other access is proposed for the flex building on the north property. The south property containing the self-storage use is proposed to have an emergency only-access to Franklin Road; a secondary access is required to satisfy the specific use standards of the proposed use. Applicant has proposed an alternative temporary turnaround by incorporating the needed space for a hammerhead type turnaround within the Lanark right-of-way and the driveways proposed to Lanark. This alternative was proposed after the ACHD staff report was issued so Staff is not aware if ACHD will approve this alternative. The Applicant should continue working with ACHD on the type of temporary turnaround allowed. The Meridian Deputy Fire Chief have given their approval of the alternative temporary turnaround shown on the submitted plat with the requirement that Lanark be signed “no parking” on both sides; the Applicant has agreed to this. Buffers are required along Franklin and on both sides of the Lanark extension. Plans depict required landscape buffer widths but does not show correct amount of landscaping within the Franklin buffer. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.3, no more than 65% of the landscape buffer area shall be comprised of grasses and additional landscape design is required along entryway corridors. Therefore, additional vegetative ground cover beyond that of grasses and additional landscape features are required to meet UDC standards. For example, a berm, decorative walls, or a dry creek design are specifically noted within code. Staff has included a condition of approval regarding this. Written Testimony: None Commission Recommendation: Approval Outstanding Issues for Council: None of the revised plans have been submitted consistent with the conditions of approval because design team got Covid and was unable to submit plans consistent with condition of approval. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0103, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0103, as presented during the hearing on June 7, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0103 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #51210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single-family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4 common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. Page 4 Item#1. C� fIEN , IN1, IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: June 7, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 17, 2022 for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022- 0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 7.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 building lots (22 single-family attached lots and 20 detached single-family lots) and 4 common lots on 4.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 5 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 7 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 1 PROJECT NAME : Alamar Subdivision ( H - 20 M004 ) 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 STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �u HEARING June 7,2022 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council mu U"' FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 - SUBJECT: H-2022-0004 Alamar Subdivision A LOCATION: The site is located at 4380 W. Franklin Road(Parcel#S1210346603),near the -_ Mpg northeast corner of N. Black Cat Road and W. Franklin Road,on the north side of Franklin Road, in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 3N, Range 1 W. woo— L PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of approximately 8.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood Residential)zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 51 building lots(30 single family attached lots and 21 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots, and 2 other lots(common driveways)on 5.63 acres in the proposed TN-R zoning district. NOTE: After ongoing discussions between Staff and the Applicant regarding the qualified open space location,the Applicant has revised the project and lose one(1)building lot in order to gain the required qualified open space within the project area. Furthermore,this change has resulted in the Applicant making a slight modification to the distribution of housing 13Tes—according to the revised plans,the Applicant is now proposing 18 detached lots and 32 attached lots totaling 50 building lots instead of 50. The loss of one(1) building lot and shuffling of the housing types results in the addition of approximately 4,350 square feet of qualified open space. The revised qualified open space complies with the minimum 15%required in the TN- R zoning district. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—8.23 acres;PP—5.63 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential(8-15 du/ac)within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant County residence = IF Proposed Land Use(s) Attached Single-Family Residential(SFR)and Detached SFR. Page 1 Description Details Page Lots(#and type;2ldg../common) 51 building lots(30 single-family attached,21 detached single family);and 6 common lots. Physical Features(waterways, Purdam stub drain runs along the north boundary of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site; Purdam Gulch Drain runs along the west boundary but is not located on the subject site. Density,Gross 9.06 du/ac Neighborhood meeting date December 2,2021 and March 17,2022 History(previous approvals) No application history with the City of Meridian B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No as of April 20 2022-yes—May 9,2022 • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via a new connection to W.Franklin Hwy/Local)(Existing and Road at the south property boundary.Access to Franklin Proposed) is intended to be temporary until such time a future connection to the extension of W.Aviator Street is constructed,a planned collector street that should abut the north boundary of the subject property. Access to the lots within the subdivision are proposed via the new local street. Traffic Level of Service Franklin Road(0' of frontage)—Better than"E"(474/575 VPH) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to extend the new internal local Access streets within the site and stub them to the cast and north boundaries with Phase 2 of the development. See the attached preliminary plat. Existing Road Network W.Franklin Road abuts the south property boundary and is an existing arterial constructed with 5-lanes and at its full width. Proposed Road Improvements ACHD—CIP Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from Franklin to Cherry between 2031-2035. Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from Overland to Franklin between 2036-2040. Franklin Road is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from McDermott Road to Black Cat between 2026-2030. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Fuller Park(21.96 acres)—approximately 1.7 miles by size) vehicle. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.5 miles from Station#2 • Fire Response Time Falls just outside of the 5-minute response time goal • Resource Reliability 85%(above the goal of 80%) • Accessibility As submitted,plat does not meet all requirements—Site needs secondary emergency access to construct homes behind the first phase 24 lots). • Additional Because project is at a dead-end road with no secondary Comments/Concerns access,only Phase 1 will be allowed to be constructed until a Fire Department approved secondary access is constructed. Page 2 Description Details Page Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Water Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 2 • Water Quality Concerns Water main will be a 1000 foot dead end until future development extends the main.A hydrant will be required at the end of the main to improve flushability. • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 3 C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend � 0 lvr 0 Legend MINE Project Location Medium Project Location � Density� Ries duntidl -- - 1-- - - r, General Industrial M igh Density r ^r dential --Commercial - - Low Density Employment MU-Res - Mixed Employment MU-Corn Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend � , R-� 0 0 Legend Project Location R-8m �- aProject Location � R-15 ® R Y, i City Limits �—=—Rl R`UU Planned Parcels _ ______________ -- R(l M- Ml M_E R-15 C-N , LC2 Ml R-15 R-15 M1 RUT momown �p�pa 00 M-E �7 C-C III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jeff Wrede,Noble Rock Development,Inc. - 13601 W. McMillan Road, Ste. 102-162, Boise,ID 83713 B. Owner: Jeff Wrede,Marala Investments,LLC- 13601 W. McMillan Road, Ste. 102-162,Boise,ID 83713 Page 4 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/5/2022 5/22/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/4/2022 5/20/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/11/2021 5/27/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022 5/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums,and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre and is noted with a"target"density of 12 du/ac. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. Per the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),MHDR designated areas should include a mix of housing types such as row houses,townhouses, condominiums, alley-loaded homes, and apartments with higher densities near MU-C and Employment designated areas transitioning to smaller-scale and lower density buildings as the distance increases from higher intensity uses. The Applicant is requesting Annexation and Zoning of three parcels totaling 8.23 acres of land with a request for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R) district and a Preliminary Plat to construct a mix of single-family dwelling types, single-family detached&attached units. The Applicant is proposing to annex the federally owned land west of the subject site that contains a segment of the Purdam Gulch Drain that is not part of the project area. The Applicant is proposing 51 total residential units on two parcels totaling 5.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district which constitutes a gross density of 9.1 du/ac; this density complies with the minimum density required within the future land use designation and is at the lower end of the allowed range. Further,the two proposed uses and site design are not currently seen within this area of the City or Ten Mile Plan but are two aspects desired by the Ten Mile Plan. In addition to the subject project, surrounding development should be taken into account,to the northwest of the site,Hensley Station is currently under construction as a medium-high density townhouse subdivision and Aviation Subdivision was recently approved by Council which will bring Aviator Street extension even closer to the subject site;to the east of the subject site additional high- density residential projects are currently underway,Ascent Townhomes and Entrata Farms. In addition, south of Franklin Road is a larger area of the Ten Mile Plan with a mix of residential, commercial, employment, and industrial zoning. This site is part of a large area of MHDR that is slowly redeveloping from both the west and east of this site. Despite the subject site not being directly adjacent to existing or approved development,the subject site design and proposed uses are ones that are desired within this area of the City. Specifically,the Applicant's proposal of two different housing types, detached sidewalks, and garages set back behind the living area are desired within this area of Meridian and propose a project design consistent with many comprehensive plan policies. Page 5 Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific general comprehensive plan policies are analyzed below. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use and development of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed development contains two types of housing units (attached and detached single-family) that will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the Ten Mile area and within the requested TN-R zoning district as desired. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City." (2.01.01 G) Two (2)housing types are proposed in this development, as noted above, which contributes to the variety of housing types in this area. Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing the entire project with detached sidewalks and parkways and each unit is shown with the garages set behind the living area, as desired within the Ten Mile Plan. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed site design provides a maximum use of the land with the proposed residential dwelling types and should be compatible with planned development on adjacent properties that are also designated for MHDR uses. The project does abut three(3) existing I-acre County residential properties to the east and until such time as these properties redevelop, there could be conflict between the two land uses as multiple structures are shown adjacent to these existing homes. However, the Applicant has held two neighborhood meetings on the property and only one of the current owners have attended while voicing minimal concerns. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The proposed plat depicts relatively smaller areas of open space spread throughout the site. Notably, the main open space area is in the center of the development and is approximately 6,000 square feet with a bicycle repair station noted as the amenity. There are other, smaller open space lots at the north end of the site that are shown to contain storm drainage facilities but still provide open grassy areas (these are not proposed as open Swale drainage ponds). Further, the Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks throughout the entire site that connect to the existing sidewalk along Franklin Road, an arterial. This should provide safe and easy access to this arterial sidewalk network and to the nearby charter school to the west. An open space exhibit was not submitted with the applications but it appears the Applicant has proposed approximately 32,500 square feet of qualified open space; this area does not meet the minimum 15%requirement which amounts to at least 36,700 square feet. However, if the Applicant is able to obtain irrigation district approval and provide a pathway along the west boundary and Page 6 other internal pathway connections to it, this area of the plat would become qualified open space and the Applicant would exceed the minimum area required by approximately 10,000 square feet. Further analysis is below in subsequent sections. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. In addition to the general Comprehensive Plan,the following sections of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) should also be used to analyze the project(Staff analysis is in italics): Connectivity(3-17): Connectivity to adjacent parcels is proposed by extending a stub street to the north boundary which would connect to the planned W. Aviator Street extension and to the east boundary through the 1-acre parcel that is part of this project. This connection to the east boundary aligns with a stub street further to the east within the Ascent Townhome project—Staff anticipates the approximate 50 feet of the Zimmerman parcel that separates the two will be utilized as a public road once a future cross- access agreement is made with that property owner. NOTE:the Zimmerman parcel has been sold to a developer and this area of their plan has been discussed with that Applicant;they agree a portion of this area of their existing access should be utilized to allow the public road connection between the subject project and the Ascent Townhome project currently under construction for the purpose of additional connectivity in this area.Although staff cannot require the connectivity now, with the annexation of the Zimmerman property staff will require the ROW dedication to allow the two roadways connect.If the applicant can facilitate the connection sooner and reach a written agreement to allow the connection,staff would be supportive as this would eliminate the need for the temporary access to Franklin Road in favor of an emergency access as desired by the City.Furthermore, the proposed detached sidewalks throughout the site provide the needed connectivity between existing and planned sites and sets the stage for neighborhood designs desired within the Ten Mile area. Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile area, direct access via arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections. The subject site proposes a temporary access to W. Franklin Road, an arterial, as no other public road access is available at this time. The proposed stub street to the north boundary will connect to the W.Aviator Street extension, a collector street, should the Zimmerman parcel redevelop as anticipated. Because the proposed access to Franklin is only temporary, the project complies with this policy.As noted above, if the applicant can facilitate the connection of the eastern stub street with the Ascent Subdivision, the temporary access to Franklin wouldn't be required. Complete Streets (3-19): The TMISAP incorporates the concept of"complete streets,"meaning all streets should be designed to serve all users, including bicycles and pedestrians unless prohibited by law or where the costs are excessive or where there's clearly no need. The proposed development includes detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the entire site for pedestrian use and on-street parking along the new local street. Further, the proposed home designs depict garages set behind the living area and shared driveways that minimize curb cuts within the site (35 driveways for 51 units). This design sets the stage for future development of the surrounding area as this is a desired site design in the Ten Mile Plan. Page 7 Streetscape(3-25): All streets should include street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed development incorporates tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks throughout the site. DESIGN: Street-Oriented Design—Residential Buildings(3-33): Usable porches should be a dominant element of these building types. Porches should be located along at least 30%of the front fagade of the buildings (the fagade facing the primary street)although a higher percentage is recommended as is porches on one or more facades as well. When possible,garages should be loaded from a rear alleyway.Where garages must be accessed from the front,the garages must be located no less than 20' behind the primary fagade of the residential structure. The proposed residential units are all front-loaded but show a garage that is set back from the living area fa(ade facing the internal local street. The submitted elevations and conceptual floor plans are not dimensioned but the garages appear to be considerably behind the living area facades. This design provides for a more porch dominated street fagade compared to traditional single-family residential, as desired. Staff is including a DA provision to ensure this type of design is maintained for the project. Buildings to Scale(3-34): The key elements to consider are the continuity of building sizes,how the street-level and upper-level architectural detailing is treated, elements that anchor and emphasize pedestrian scale,roof forms,rhythm of windows and doors, and general relationship of buildings to public spaces such as streets,plazas, other open space and public parking. Human-scale design is critical to the success of built places for pedestrians. Staff believes the proposed 2-story homes and submitted conceptual building elevations demonstrate compliance with this policy. However, to further the neighborhood and street-oriented designs desired in the Ten Mile Area, Staff is recommending additional decks are added on the second stories of some of the homes. This addition furthers the concept of living area closer to the street which helps to activate the sidewalks and create more of a community identity for the project. Neighborhood Design(3-36): In the Ten Mile area, all residential neighborhoods should be developed in consideration of traditional neighborhood design principles and concepts,which include mixed housing stock, architecture and design, streetscapes and streets.A mix of housing stock is proposed consisting of single family attached and detached dwellings which contribute to the diversity of housing stock in this area. The public street proposed within this development provides a fair framework for future connectivity that can provide short block lengths and minimize curb cuts on the public streets. The proposed block lengths are relatively short and provide for safe pedestrian connectivity due to the detached sidewalks and parkways. The proposed parkways and conceptual floor plans also add to the project's consistency with the neighborhood design element of the Ten Mile Plan. As noted above, Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with both the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan,per Staffs recommended revisions. The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) The proposed preliminary plat consists of 51 building lots(30 single-family attached lots and 21 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots,and 2 other lots(two common driveways)on 5.63 acres of land in the requested TN-R zoning district. The minimum building lot size proposed is 2,038 square feet Page 8 with an average lot size of 2,762 square feet. According to the submitted plans,the plat is currently proposed to develop in two phases due to the available access to the site being only from Franklin Road at this time. The phasing plan depicts construction of 22 building lots in the southern half of the site with three open space lots(including the largest centralized open space lot)in Phase 1 with the public roads terminating less than 150 feet from the internal intersection—thus,20 of the 21 detached single-family lots and two single-family attached lots are proposed in Phase 1. Phase 2 then depicts the remaining building lots to the north and east of the centralized intersection to be constructed along with some remaining open space lots along the north boundary. Further,Phase 2 depicts the north-south local road within the site terminating at the north boundary over the Purdam Gulch stub drain with a slight curve to the northeast to match the property line. Staff has had multiple discussions with this Applicant and the Developer of the Zimmerman property to the north in regards to the proposed termination of the north-south local street within this development. The issue that has been brought up is the preferred alignment of this street at the north property line and consequently where it would connect to the extension of W. Aviator Street,the collector road required to be developed with the project to the north. Staff notes it has been the City's practice to require an Applicant change their road alignment based upon conceptual drawings of a project that has not yet submitted to the City. However, Staff has included a DA provision to allow this Applicant the flexibility to revise the road alignment and lot layout with the future Phase 2 final plat should they be able to work out a mutually beneficial agreement with the adjacent property owner; this is predicated on IF the property to the north receives approvals from the City.This recommended provision does not require this Applicant revise their plat at any point but its intent is to provide flexibility to the Applicant to make any necessary revisions to the plat without having to go through the hearing process for subsequent changes that do not increase the number of building lots or drastically change the project design but help the overall road network in this area of the City. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: Map imagery depicts an old residence and accessory buildings on the southern half of the subject site; no other site improvements appear to be in place. All existing structures are proposed to be removed upon Phase 1 development. 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-6 for the requested TN-R zoning district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with these standards, including dwelling types, inclusion of parkways, and initial review of building setbacks outlined on the submitted preliminary plat. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): AGHD has not yet submitted a staff report for-the subjeet pr-oje Access for the project has been briefly discussed in the comprehensive plan analysis section above those comments are in conjunction with those in this analysis section.Ultimate access to the project site is from a future local street connection at the north property boundary to a future extension of W. Aviator Street on the adjacent property to the north/northeast.Additionally, future access should occur to the east via a local street connection to W. Atomic Street in the Ascent Townhome project on the east side of Zimmerman Lane (not part of this project area). Until Aviator Street is extended and constructed north of the subject site OR W.Atomic Street is extended,temporary access to W. Franklin Road is required for public street access to the site. Because no other public roads are available to serve the subject site, development code permits this temporary access to Franklin. However,permanent access to Franklin Road is not desired by the City or ACHD in this location so as soon as an additional public road access is available,this access to Franklin shall be closed OR converted to an emergency-only access with Fire Page 9 Department approved bollards. Staff has included a DA provision to address the timing for the closure of this access. Vehicular access for the proposed dwelling units is via driveway connections to the new local streets within the project. The local street is proposed with 5-foot detached sidewalk and 8-foot parkways strips; the street is proposed as a 33-foot wide local street within 37 feet of right-of-way and is consistent with ACHD policy. The Applicant has proposed shared driveways for the single-family attached units to minimize the number of curb cuts on the local street and has included two common drives within the east parcel to better maximize the available land and provide access to six units(four access one common drive, and two access the other). There is no secondary access to the site because the proposed local streets within the site do not connect to additional public roads. This is an additionalfactor in the Applicant's decision to propose the project in two phases and keeps the Applicant from putting sprinklers in each unit because the Fire Department requires a secondary access for each access that has more than 30 units taking access from it. As discussed above, there is an anticipation of a project being constructed on the property to the north/northeast that would extend Aviator along the north property line and offer a secondary public street connection to satisfy the Fire Department requirement. However, regardless an additional public road access being to the north to Aviator Street or the east through Ascent Townhomes, Staff is recommending the temporary access to Franklin convert to an emergency-only access to add an additional Fire approved access for this project and area of the City. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There are no regional pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this property. However, Staff believes the Applicant should work with the irrigation district to install a micro-path through the common lot along the project's west boundary containing the Purdam Drain easement OR work with the district to utilize their gravel access road as a walking path for the development and include some landscaping along the east side of this common lot. The addition of a meandering 5-foot wide pathway and landscaping in this open space lot could connect in multiple places throughout the site and allow for a looped walking trail. Further,this revision to the project would make this area of the site qualified open space and allow the Applicant to meet and exceed the minimum amount required for the project; without it, additional area will need to be added in other places which will likely require a loss of building lots. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets that loop through the site (not shown with any names at this time)with 8-foot parkways throughout. In addition,the Applicant is showing the existing 5-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of Franklin Road with a segment near the west boundary as being attached and the remaining length being detached from the roadway. This does not meet ACHD nor UDC standards for sidewalks along collector streets. Overall, the proposed sidewalk networkfor this development meets UDC requirements. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): -feet 6-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along both sides of the proposed local streets in the project site.All parkways within the site adjacent to detached sidewalks shall be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and UDC 11-3A-17.E.2 for a 6-foot wide parkway—these additional standards include the requirement for a root barrier system and Staff will verify this with all future final plats.With the future final plat applications,the Applicant should add data to the plan to demonstrate compliance with these standards. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Franklin Road,landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-313-7C.A 25-foot wide common lot is shown at the south boundary of the project site meeting UDC standards. However,the subject property boundary does not directly abut Franklin Road because ACHD owns land that goes beyond the pavement and includes the sidewalk along this frontage. Page 10 Therefore,the actual buffer along Franklin is at least 38 feet deep instead of just 25 feet. According to the submitted landscape plan,the required buffer area is landscaped in accordance with code. Therefore, the proposed project complies with these standards. The Applicant is also proposing 86-foot wide parkways throughout the site in accordance with the requirements of the Ten Mile Plan and the requested TN-R zoning district. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is showing compliance with the required landscaping standards in UDC 11-3B-7. According to the submitted landscape plan, some trees are included in the common open space areas where there is no storm drain retention areas. These retention areas are shown to be vegetated with grasses which complies with UDC 11-3A-11 and is allowed to qualify towards the minimum qualified open space for the project. Staff is recommending the most central tree in the centralized open space lot (Lot 12, Block 1) on the west side of the project be removed so a larger area of usable grass can be proposed in this lot. Further analysis on landscaping and open space qualification is in the next section below. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The area of the preliminary plat is 5.63 acres within the requested TN-R zoning district. According to the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15%qualified open space should be provided for projects over 5 acres within the TN-R district.As noted above,the Applicant did not submit a separate open space exhibit so Staff had to dissect the submitted plans and the applicable areas that qualify. Based on the plat area of 5.63 acres, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 standards is approximately 36,786 square feet.According to Staffs analysis of the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 32,500 square feet of qualified open space, this area does not meet the minimum 15%requirement. This includes the proposed parkways, arterial street buffer to Franklin, the central open space lot(portion of Lot 12,Block 1), and other smaller areas of open space throughout the site.As discussed throughout this report, there is potential of the entire Lot 12,Block I counting towards the qualified open space if additionalpedestrian facilities are added to this lot. Specifically,Staff recommends adding a 5-foot wide micro path from the detached sidewalk along the local street in two locations;within the central open space lot and in the open space area in the northwest corner of the site. Further, additional pedestrian facilities would need to be added to this lot within the drain easement area to create a looped system for the project. These cumulative revisions are required in order for this easement area of Lot 12 to count towards the qualified open space.If these revisions cannot occur, the Applicant will need to add approximately 4,300 square feet of additional qualified open space in the project—because of the site design, this would likely require the loss of building lots. Based on the size of the plat, one(1)point of site amenity is required to meet UDC 11-3G-4 standards. According to the submitted landscape plan,the Applicant is proposing a bicycle repair station within the central open space lot(Lot 12,Block 1). This amenity is noted as being worth one(1)amenity point per UDC Table 11-3G-4. The proposed amenity meets the minimum UDC requirements. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plan,the Applicant is showing 6-foot tall vinyl fencing along the project boundary on the east portions of the site and a 5-foot tall wrought iron fence on the rear property lines of the lots abutting the Purdam Drain easement along the west boundary. Both of these fence types and their locations comply with UDC standards.No fencing appears to be proposed along the Franklin Road street buffer; should fencing be proposed at a later date,it cannot exceed 6 feet in height per UDC 11-3A-7. Parking: On-site parking for each unit is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per single-family residence. For the detached single-family homes,two car Page 11 garages with two(2)parking pads per unit are shown on the submitted conceptual elevations and floor plans in accord with UDC standards for up to 4-bedroom homes. The single-family attached homes are depicted with a single-car garage parking pad for each unit.Therefore, it appears as a two-car garage and parking pad from the street view. Because of this proposed design,the future attached units cannot contain more than 2 bedrooms to comply with UDC minimum parking standards. Staff finds this as a positive for the project because there is a shortage of smaller homes for sale within the valley and Meridian. In addition to the off-street parking shown, a number of on-street parking spaces are also available due to the proposed site design. Waterways: The Purdam Gulch Drain, an NMID facility,runs along the west boundary of the subject property but is not on the subject site. However,this project does contain a large portion of the east half of the required irrigation easement(50 feet to each side of the drain centerline)for this drain. Therefore, all of the proposed lots along the west boundary of the project are encumbered by approximately 9 feet of this easement. Per UDC 11-3A-6,no more than 10 feet of the irrigation easement shall be located on a buildable lot so the plat complies with this standard as proposed. Any encroachment within this easement will require an exclusive License Agreement with NMID and the future HOA will be responsible for maintenance of this lot. The common lot appears to show the required NMID access road which will be fully gravel with no vegetation,as discussed above. In addition to the Purdam Gulch Drain easement,the Purdam Gulch stub drain runs along the north property line of the site and is located within the project boundary. The Applicant is proposing to pipe this stub drain in its current location for better maintenance and to stub the local street within the site to the north property line for future connectivity to W. Aviator Street. The proposal to pipe this segment of the stub drain and place it within common lots complies with the UDC. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): 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. Per the submitted plans, a PI system is proposed and will be analyzed by the applicable departments with each Final Plat. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual) (TMISAP Conceptual building elevations and first-floor floor plans were submitted for the proposed detached and attached single-family units, as shown in Section VII.F. The conceptual elevations do not list specific materials but appear to show a combination of lap siding and stucco field materials with porches and brick or stone accent materials along the front of the homes. In addition to the elevations,the submitted conceptual first-floor floor plans depict living area and garage on the first floor with the garages set back from the living area fagade closest to the street. The submitted document is not dimensioned but Staff infers that the garage doors should be at least 30 feet from the edge of the street with parkways,detached sidewalks, and parking pad between. Final design is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP as stated herein. Submittal and approval of an Administrative Design Review application is required prior to submittal of building permit application(s)for the single- family attached units. Should it be determined the detached units should also require design review, Staff recommends Council add a specific DA provision addressing the project as a whole. Page 12 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the recommended conditions of approval in Section VIII of this report and per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 28,2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Jeff Wrede,Applicant/Developer b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Jeff Wrede; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Functionality of the common drives and lot design proposed on the 1-acre piece of project; b. Amount of open space proposed and how the Applicant can get to the minimum qualified amount—a loss of building lots may have to occur; c. Clarification on the irrigation easement and its width,use, and access for this developemtn and future residents; d. Can building pads shown on plat fit with the wide irrigation easement?—Yes. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Ability to modify the phasing plan to allow additional lots within pahse 1 should a road connection occur to the east prior to the connection to the north. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Applicant has requested an additional DA provision that specifically limits the age to be setback from the living area fagade no less than 16 feet. Page 13 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps EL►J ENGER)UTSONLAND SURVEYS,PLLG 2251 S.Sumac Street,Boise,Idaho 83705 (208)859-6032—mike@elsurveys.com 10 March 2022 Amended Land Description Project No.201204 Marala Investments,LLC. Contains 358,362 square feet or 9.227 acres+I- EXHIBIT A Properly Annexation Parcel A tract of land located within the SE%of the SW'/,Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, Ada County,Idaho described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap monumenting the SW comer of said Section 10,from which a found aluminum cap monumenting the S'/.corner of said Section bears S 89'15'34"E a distance of 2540.54 feet;thence easterly along the southerly line of said SW'%S 89'15'34"E a distance of 1320.31 feet to a found aluminum cap monumenting the W 1115m comer,the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence northerly along the west line of said SE'%of the SW 114 N 00°36'35'E a distance of 1087,89 feet to a point; Thence leaving said line S 59°29'07'E a distance of 74.36 feet to a point; Thence N 59°04'2£E a distance of 103.00 feet to a point on the center line of the Purdam Drain; Thence along said center line 5 60'56'14'E a distance of 160.88 feet to a point from which a witness comer bears S 00°34'2T W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said Drain S 00'34'27"W a distance of 250.26 feet to a found steel pin; Thence 5 89'15'34'E a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin on the westerly rights-of-way line of a private road easement known as North Zimmerman Lane; Thence southerly along said rights-of-way S 00°34'27'W a distance of 187.11 feet to a point from which a found witness comer bears N 89'15'34"W a distance of 2.00 feet; Thence leaving said line N 89'15!34"W a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 00'34'27'W a distance of 557.46 feet to a found steel pin on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road; Thence leaving said rights-of-way and continuing S 00°34'27"W a distance of 33.88 feet to a point on the southerly line of said SE'/.of the SW'%of Section 10; Thence westerly along said southerly line N 89°1534'W a distance of 294.33 feet to the POINT OF 3EGINN ING. The above-described tract of land contains 8.227 acres more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way. (See Exhibit B attached hereto and made part of) �/J o 0� 8793 2 FAELSiPROJECTM02DO120CAOMIMLEGAL51201204 Updated AnnexDac 031022.doc ��aF��o Page 14 xor xa. tzzso OR Dyi S 59Z9'04-36 y 4, i 9'°�0� � °gip �h0'r ei5d e o GO IN R!3 0 W p W r o LZ b t S 89'15'34" E 232.SD�-_—Tit: 3 0- q 1 yyt. y + Cc, 232.80' cn m r�� �� � Wr �S�a iw o"�rya� p N �9'�5'34" W � �, N 1 V Q ,i0 Z k a�0.a x� �QW65vixyw i•n ,d°d 14 W cc I +^� �v] cr y ry❑N 3 ¢¢ Z 40 ap F lLo v Li F- tip ' `pia«y33 O~ f lr ® R 0 0 o r� Z T ¢¢ I ny h� L l9Y31_ I 9 320. �700.QI1' 33.88'194.33' 3388' 1025-9 70 - 294.----- rs r5 3.3' S 89'15'34"E 2640-54' f5 BASIS OF BEARING I W FRANKLIN ROAD 3 R0S N0. tg p 5a Page 15 ELSENGEBRITSON LAND SUR VEYS, PLLC.. 2251 S. Sumac Street, Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 859-6032-mrke@elsurveys.com 11 March 2022 Project No.201204 Marala Investments,LLC, Amended Boundary Alamar Subdivision Contains 245,100 square feet or 5.627 acres+/- PROPERTY LAND DESCRIPTION Alamar Subdivision A tract of land located within the SE%of the SW'/<,Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap monumentirig the SW corner of said Section 10,from which a found aluminum cap monumenting the S'/.corner of said Section bears S 89°15'34"E a distance of 2640.54 feet;thence easterly along the southerly line of said SW'/a S 89'15'34"E a distance of 1320.31 feet to a found aluminum cap monumenting the W 1/160,corner;thence continuing along Bald Section line S 89'15'34'E a distance of 100,00 feet to a point;thence leaving said section line and running parallel to and 100.00 feet easterly of the westerly line of said SE'/of the SW%N 00'36'35"E a distance of 33.88 feet to a found aluminum cap on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said rights-of--way and continuing along said parallel line N 00°36'35"E a distance of 1038.98 feet to a point from which a witness corner bears S 00°36'35"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said parallel line N 59°04'26°E a distance of 61.30 feet to a point on the center line of the Purdam Drain; Thence along said center line S 60°56'14"E a distance of 160.88 feet to a point from which a witness comer bears S 00'34'27"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said Drain S 00'34'27"W a distance of 250.26 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 89'15'34"E a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin on the westerly rights-of-way line of a private road known as North Zimmerman Lane; Thence southerly along said rights-of-way S 00034'27"W a distance of 187.11 feet to a point from which a found steel pin witness corner bears N 89'15'34"W a distance of 2.00 feet; Thence leaving said rights-of-way N 89'15'34"W a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 00°34'27"W a distance of distance of 557.46 feet to a found steel pin on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road; Thence westerly along said rights-of-way line N 89'15'34'W a distance of 194.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described tract of land contains 5.627 acres more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way. 8793 IPA F:IELSIPROJECTSU02012012041ADMINILEGALS12012Q4 Amended Alamar Sub 031122.doc g rE 4f[i�F 1IIl AAVe_,# tozL Page 16 RQS N0. IPP5❑ . OR n gw g �� 74.36 .�(7.8 V w'f 4 61Coco . r �w � r 1II �� '. � � ry❑ co 1 'C S 89,75,34" E Q Io_ ° 232.80a'°�-Y� 11, � q po ca QCOQQ� Q ��o �' ry� zr 11 ri 4�I � LU N 89'15'34" W `1D y a f I x LLJ ���' Or5� �� os y7a� ! �+ a ^ cQn O 1 (OD LU Z Nxww I W��^�c I. U � �� 6 U Q r I $�a`� Z1 v v raj 5 wa i w I a s I y as 4 � � � zIV�i LC) a z� maa Ld r If co d s y❑ �6 r94.31'33 b 1 ra I I I J E 132�.3r' 100.Fp' 33.$8 194.33' Q25.9 ' iS 15 S 89'15'34" E 21540,54' BASIS OF BEARING 1 W. FRANKLIN ROAD Roy No. r2258 l i Page 17 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: March 18,2022) 17 til 1I AI� IJ. -..ice: 1 I VI ...:: 7I g Q. i` ;I V, — ` E .: ,F n I I •:� w� dffi r 'i 1: ....IL. IL-J x -� 11L ' I Ili L-�I I ill rIl I -iJ ,E L I I I iF- l 11 .I 1 •-- I II 'I I p In ➢ I `�0\ Page 19 C. Landscape Plan(dated: Mar-ehMaw,2022) �< ® moll" MIR RI ir N14fflig�JI-A WPM, 'I It lilliffi, RNA lap s L- k e&W gw �➢p 4S®jsF�� 3�a� � � � V• Riga MINH a If 42H ''N' FF4WLIN P \'-1i.'i:K L_.L 1� r�TT Iu'E' ALL: x ,seaW z r;��� ����r✓jet S���rz�IVISI•�hJ B7F2 K-17TH nit s55...i - 3- s 16F s7 a ,-H r s:am.,oz.6 3!-S".L 83:=5p BG:SE."u B3�`J2 pE��iAN,.'BERG 20d-�JS C-�23a 288-?42-32]� - Page 20 D. Phasing Plan(dated: N4afeh 15 Mqy 30,2022) • q� ALL INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE COMPLETED VITH PHASE L aa,`a a �T •`aa DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE II VILL COINCIDE WITH THE `. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THIS VILL PROVIDE A SECONDARY FIRE ACCESS IN ADDITION TO THE r�aab ►►• TEMPORARY ENTRY ROAD AT FRANKLIN.. '►►0� a►a+� THE TEMPORARY ENTRY FROM FRANKLIN ROAD WILL NOT BE ► REMOVED UNTIL THE ROAD CONNECTION TO THE NORTH AND A • LaT1 �+ ROAD CONNECTION TO THE ASCENT SUBDIVISION AT THE EAST ARE COMPLETED, LOT 2 LOT 24 PHASE II -2] lOf 4 .. LOT 22 PHASE I 27 BUILDING LOTS _ l6T 5 PHASE II 23 BUILDING LOTS LOT 20 STUB STREET LOr7 LOT 12 LOT 6 lAT 15 lOf 11 �6 lllf 5 LOT PHASE II ADJACENT PROPERTY LOT 17 CSWVN FOR REFERENCE) lAf 10 tv IOT 12 lAf 7 LOT 4 LOT 15 LOT 11 lAT 15 lAf 12 � wr if RlWr ROW COMEOM L �, a TO ILSMT SULOfA90M !� r=ia• I =� STUB STREET Llif 14 lOf B . 1AT 15 co . 1 w -14■ ~�ti PHASE 1 -7 � -• 0 � -• � R LOT 18 I = Q —. 0 LOf 4 (D �ti r LOf IT --T--- i —, i! —r IDV LOT 5 II I w [� ! r• (D r. LOf is ' If r.r wr (r e I7 1DT 19 I I �• (� + � � LOT.3 ' ' w ® M. r• LOT 20 I I r r (7 i LOT 2 LOT a i s OR• r LOf 22, LW 23. O C.(D 0000 [ - TEMPORARY ACCESS T13 ASCENT SU6DrvISM FRANKLIN ROAD ACCESS TO FRANKLIN ROAD Page 21 E. Conceptual Building Elevations(dated: March 15,2022) SINGLE FA1"Ifi L Y .mil131 E DUPLEX TD'v IWISM S 1 �tPr6lAel IIAN4 7t - -1 L - - _ 1 1 11 ..r .}''• 11.1 01■■■M 11=1111■■1■ EN 111■IX■Ir■■■1 Y{ ,•�• 11'n' J■�lY �. 111 u■■■111 ul�ul■ 1■u1�pw�1 p a �■ Itl ■ 11■1 ���I��FJJ ��45 -moo G tic w o.ccr ars w _ _ _ _ 1•.11 1 rr Y1 _ ,•�n�rr' _ wRwc LT Page 22 F. Open Space Exhibit ♦IFEN GRASSY AREA _ OPEN SPACE REUU REMENT: a63 ACRE*1 Sk=36.786 SF 5,889SF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE AREAS: STLRM BRAIN AREA 11-3-13.1- OPEN ORASSY AREAS -12,42D 4,494SF 11-3-11.1,c PROTECTIVE BUFFER ON DITCH 13 11-3-B,1.a ARTERIAL BUFFER[5DXX 4,116SF•SOS - 2,066 11-3-8-4 PARKWAYS EXCLUDING DRIVEWAYS 18,8465E- 31465E=13,748 11-3-B.5 STORM DRAIN(11-3-9.11) = 8,628 TOTAL' d6,664 PARKVAYS 18.896,SF AMENITIES: 1 POINT REQUIRED - SICYCLE REPAIR STATION AT CENTRAL OPEN GRA55Y AREA DPEN GRASSY AREA 6,331SF STa9K BRAIN AREA 4AS49F ARTERIAL BUFFER 41I69F Y 50X=2658..W Page 23 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)/developer at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, and conceptual building elevations and floor plans included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein, except that phase 1 may be modified tos include additional building lots on the 1-acre east le of the should a public road connection to W. Atomic Street occur. b. Final alignment at the north property line of the north-south local street proposed with the subject applications shall be determined at the time of the second final plat submittal to allow the Applicant flexibility to work with the adjacent developer to the north/northeast—the Applicant shall not be permitted to increase the number of buildable lots with any road alignment revisions. c. Future development of the residential units shall be generally consistent with the required design elements outlined in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and include second story decks on at least half of the future residential units to better comply with the design standards. d. The access to W. Franklin Road is approved as a temporary access until such time an additional public road access is available to the project site(connection to W. Aviator Street or W. Atomic Street); at that time,this access shall be closed OR converted to an emergency-only access with Fire Department approved bollards. e. No final plat shall be accepted by the City until the Annexation and Zoning ordinance and Development Agreement are executed. Preliminary Plat(PP) Conditions: 2. Appheai4 shall obtain approval ftem NN11D to iasta4l a mier-e pa4h thfough the eeffffneft lot along the pr-qjeet's west boundafy(Let 12,Bleek 1) een4aining the Pur-dam Guleh Dr-ain easement a*d provide-a eepy of the exeeu4ed lieense agreemefft to the Planning Division with the first f4fial pW submiffal i square feet of additional qualified open spaee to the pr-qjeet in aeeer-d with UPC 11 3G 3. 3. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the TN-R zoning district. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 5. Future development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7 and UDC I I-3A-6 for any future fencing constructed within the development. 6. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the single-family attached units prior to building permit submittal—this shall be submitted with the first final plat application due to the inclusion of two single-family attached lots in Phase 1. Page 24 7. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2) obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 8. The submitted preliminary plat, dated March 15,2022, shall be revised as follows with the first final plat submittal: a. Revise the plat to include the required revisions to meet the minimum open space requirements as outlined in Condition VIII.A.2 above. 9. The submitted landscape plan, date Mare '5 revised on May 30,2022, shall be revised prior to the first final plat submittal,unless otherwise noted: a. Depict the revisions outlined in Condition VIII.A.2. b. Add data to the landscape plans showing compliance with UDC 11-3B-7C for the proposed parkways. e. Remove the most een�ml tT-ee shev,%in the eenter-of the eentfalized open spaee lot within Le 10. 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. 11. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 12. Applicant shall remove any existing structures on the subject sites with the first phase of development. 13. Applicant shall provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 14. In accordance with the approved plans and UDC 11-3A-6,the Applicant shall tile the Purdam Gulch Stub Drain along the north property boundary at the time of final plat submittal for the relevant development phase. Page 25 B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. To meet the City to and through policy, developer shall be required to continue a sewer main extension from manhole SSMH C1 to the eastern property boundary and install a cleanout for future extension. 2. A fire hydrant is required at the dead end main at the north side of the subdivision due to water quality concerns. The hydrant tee should have a blind flange on the north leg,place the tee as far south of the gravity irrigation pipe as possible to allow for future crossing and vertical offset without having to remove the tee. 3. The water tee to the east near 11+00 requires two valves,with one of those valves being located on the north leg. 4. Provide a fire hydrant at the end of the 8 inch water main to the east on the south end,which shall have two valves. Configure this with a tee and blind flange for future connection. 5. It appears that water and sewer mains run through a landscaped area with a fence. This landscaping and fencing must be reconfigured so there are no permanent structures over City mains and/or easements. 6. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing&Inspection, there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. 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 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 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 Page 26 for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C- 3B. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 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 Page 27 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.meridianciU.oMlpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251688&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. ADA COUNTY https:llweblink.meridianciU.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251863&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254211&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252443&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=263133&dbid=0&repo=Meridian CitX H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.oL-glWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=255719&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX I. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258750&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Page 28 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 annex the property into the City of Meridian with the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN--R)zoning district and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for different types of residential dwelling types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and specifically within this area. Staff finds the proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential district included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because of the proposed addition of differing dwelling types within a neighborhood zoning district and the general site design, Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat: 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 the specific area plan (Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan) in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Page 29 — 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 VIII 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.ACED considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the proposed road layout and street connections. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic, or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 30 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll ALA 4AR SUBDIVISION Annexation, Rezone and Preliminary Plat (H-2022-0004) Noble Rock Development Rock Solid Civil OVERVIEW The Alamar Subdivision will provide the diversity that is key to Meridian's Comprehensive and Future Use Plans as well as the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. These plans stress mixed income, mixed family size and mixed age communities. To balance the surrounding developments in the area which include three-story townhomes and large apartment complexes, Alamar Subdivision will provide a mix of single-family detached and attached duplex homes to provide a diversity of housing types in the area. To provide for a successful urban environment, a `Street Oriented Design' has been incorporated. Alamar Subdivision will consist of porch oriented homes and tree lined streets with detached sidewalks. The front of the homes will be placed close to the sidewalk while the garages will be set-back to the rear of the homes. This will provide a `Home Fronting' edge to the public space which will make the streets more friendly and walk-able. ❖ Annexation of Parcels 51210346603 and S1210346730 L ❖ Rezone from RUT to TN-R (R-1 5) ❖ Preliminary Plat of 50 Building Lots and 5 "`: Common Lots --- - «hi10 IFltr �TATZCMlav�hMw SG1BDIvis�YV r wrnex sw 2ua£�; - -- StoDI4 igN (CITY C2h w2L ADPRIQVM, 47WLMNARY WrM FL-D � - • PROJECT SITS - DEVELOPED PROPERTIE . • • I f I IIEL r7PINGCE i I Ld { -JI w q I} PC'VFLBpED PR&PLPTIE.S f Med-High Density Residential alIL" I:k h,' I PRELMINARY PLAT ; Traditional Neighborhood Residential Street Oriented Design -� Tree-lined Streets with Detached Sidewalks i , Y 8.9 Units per Acre Density • 50 Building Lots • 18 Single Family Detached Homes • 32 Single Family Attached Homes S g y 0 Average Lot Size is 2659 SF (2000 SF min) OPEN SPACE AND SITE AMENITY • Open Space Area (22%) • Central Open Grassy Area • Northwest Open Grassy Area 0 • Parkway Buffers along Street • Landscape Buffer along Franklin Road • Shallow Storm Drain Areas E - • Linear Open Space along Purdam Drain Open Grassy Areas with Pathways that connect the Walking Loops through Subdivision Sidewalks to the Linear Open Space along the CL w 0 Purdam Drain lei • Site Amenity w • Bicycle Repair Station (1 pt) located at Central Open Grassy Area ROAD CONNECTIONS Q9Q f ' o goUO�I f �} Ila 00 IQLy f� Imo!Ur 7 I IQ E Ior a, iIN i Iff I o IR IR II LOl f IN b e I f7 Alamar Subdivision Bulb Outs at Wr" Lull it Intersection for IN� UE g � P x provides Key Traffic Calming CONMECTEMTOf.XENT� IMASKM 00 Infrastructure Wrilp '•1b - Connections to the '•" O4 -� Surrounding Ur Developments l .SCENT r� IQr Iota �••—,—, jUQL1�41 ION Full ACHD 33-Foot Franklin Access is i temporary and W* '°" i Road Sections will be closed after Northern INS k Collector Road is completed ur a I (Emergency WTI Access) FRANKLIN RGAD INFRASTRUCTURE ❖ Existing services include 8- inch sewer and water mains located at the entry on Franklin Road P1 UTIL ITr ❖ Utility stubs will be provided SITE ION to the neighboring lots I I ❖ For Lines in landscaped areas, a 14 foot wide access i will be provided. No permanent structures will be STREET LIGHT— placed in the accesses and LOCA T.194S OTILITY I their entry points will be FrPE HYDRANT— from within the subdivision. 4 LDCaTlEWs __ NT � ASCENT ❖ Street Lights are located ; 3MEMDIMSION , every 250 Feet ❖ Fire Hydrants are located every 400 Feet UTILITYEX TE14SIEW { i Water and Sewer Service GRAVITY AND PRISSURIZED IRRIGATION Pressurized Irrigation NMID Easement • Pressurized Irrigation will • 1 7' Wide NMID Access Road is be provided by the Nampa- provided Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) via an existing ` - • All Building Pads are located r � regional pump station that outside of the 100' NMID is located to the northwest J centerline Easement • Pressurized Irrigation loops t Fencing within the easement will be designed per UDC 1:7 will be removable and NMID Requirements Easement will be Road Base • Pressurized Irrigation will with Chip Rock not be placed in the ROW K Gravity Irrigation ' • The small Lateral at the - r northern road connection with be Tiled =. � F r Rrl W Frjiik11n Rd PHASING PLAN PHASE I • Will consist of 18 single family ; detached homes and 10 single family attached Homes —PHASE II • Street Stubs will be less than ` 150 Feet STUB STREET • Since there are less than 30 � lDTid ; lots, fire sprinklers will not be � >'� required a� S TUJP .STREET IL414 PHASE II PH{SE I • Will coincide with the completion of the northern n LW collector road connecting Black „ Cat to Franklin Road � • Entry at Franklin Road is temporary and will be closed after connection to the northern �>s collector road is completed (Emergency Access) I L TE FRAWLIN RDO V FRAMILIN ROAD ELEVATIONS E FAMIL Y -DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (DOPLEX) Meets the Ten Mile Plan's Traditional Neighborhood Residential Requirements Front Porches close to IFI-11 F1171 Detached Sidewalk FF-TFF-71 Garages setback from F�� FF� Wj� FM-1 F] the front fa�ade with single Doors Mixture of materials, colors and design elements including lap siding and stucco with F1111 M IFT-11 F[T I brick and stone accents MW 76 E] Single family detached homes will be 3 bedrooms with 2.5 baths (1750-1900 SF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attached duplex home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . units will be 2 bedrooms with 2.5 baths (1250 1 350SF) FLOOR PLANS SINGLE FAMILY A T TA CNED (DUPLEX) SINGLE EA NIL Y -DETACHED ram. e2r� WW o k d o =. ,r;,7 — �co f 0 rya ' 00 - a a r, k- - > ems• SECDND FLOOR SECOND ELDDR ur PA7m FATR kx i 1 . GiM6i 4WAff SWAarmncx a f YEIf "M 2 f a7T31EA' A'4�1T P 4 P 4 J]R:hYr dlYi'4 41' FAY-Y f2' FJF�Y FAIL■ :2 :2 E er:va arlim ilk J'9 TgPE 1" ?W 2F 8d1;&1 xrr an ;dRd'ortal 12G low Perch 30 fr Pooch H SF P14:h' S' P.V.0 W F tk 46 SF _Nr t--4 y G Nof 4,w# 16` ar FrRST FL 11DR FIRST FL EUR REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION ■ We would like to thank the Planning and Zoning Staff for their support and direction during the past year, and we concur with all of their decisions and Commission Recommendations. ■ We would like to address the TMISAP 50% second story deck requirement identified in Section VIII.A. I .c of the Commission Recommendations. We understand that upper story decks are desired in multi-level apartment and condominium complexes that have limited exterior access. Since Alamar Subdivision will consist of single family homes, we are questioning the need for a second story deck in this environment. It is typical that second story decks are rarely used by the owners of single family homes, and they create a long term maintenance issue. We would like to eliminate this requirement. Else, we would like to request a reduction from the 50% requirement to 25% of the homes with street frontage. In exchange, we would increase the number of front porches from the required 30%, to 80% of the homes. CONCLUSION Alamar Subdivision provides the atmosphere needed for families to live and work in the steadily growing area of the Ten Mile Interchange while providing an affordable mix of home types. Thank You s�. 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels 51226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Page 49 Item#2. E IDIAN IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: June 7, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W.Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels S1226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 50 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 7 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 PROJECT NAME : Burnside Ridge Estates ( W2021 - 0070 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes , please provide HOA name ✓ C � 11 , �w � N .c�u fL w N 2 70 S Allee\ Ij( 32- tov Z �, ,,� �i via � � M,eri144h 4 5 � 3579' S , �� e � Lio%� 6 � ✓ ✓� ( a f S 3 5Z s l ✓ , YE S s 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#2. STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN -•- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 6/7/2022 Legend DATE: -- Project Location � TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0070 Burnside(Jackson)Ridge Estates Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located near the southwest corner of S. Linder Road and W.Victory Road,including 2365 W.Victory Road, 3801 S. Linder Road, and parcels 51226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022,and R0831430010,in the -- NE 1/4 of Section 26,Township 3N., Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation&Zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (11.76 acres)and R-4 (109.53)zoning districts and a preliminary plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots)on 119.31 acres of land,by Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 121.29 AZ acres(R-2— 11.76 acres;R-4— 109.53 acres); Preliminary Plat on 119.3 acres. Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential&Low Density Residential Existing Land Use(s) County residential and farm land Proposed Land Use(s) Detached single-family residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 299 total lots—275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as five(5)phases Number of Residential Units(type 275 detached single-family units of units) Density(gross) 2.31 du/ac Open Space(acres,total 12.19 acres of qualified open space(approximately [%]/buffer/qualified) 10.22%).Further analysis below in Section V.J. Page 1 Page 51 Item#2. Description Details Page Amenities At least eight(8)qualifying amenities are proposed with this project—Clubhouse, swimming pool,Children's play structures,pickleball court,multi-use pathways, shaded picnic area,public art,and outdoor fitness equipment. Physical Features(waterways, Calkins Lateral bisects the property—no floodplain on hazards,flood plain,hillside) property. Neighborhood meeting date June 18,2021 Distance to nearest City Park(+ Approximately 2 miles to Bear Creek Park(18.34 acres in size) size and to the northeast of the site) History(previous approvals) No application history with City of Meridian B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Traffic Impact Study Yes—ACHD has accepted the TIS and is reviewing it to be part of their final es/no staff report. Access Three(3)new accesses are proposed to the adjacent arterial streets,Linder and (Arterial/Collectors/State Victory Roads. Two of these are new collector streets per the Master Street Map Hwy/Local)(Existing and (shown as S.Farmyard Avenue and E.Holstein Drive)with each one connecting Proposed) to the arterials.All other access to proposed homes is via new local streets. Stub Applicant is proposing to stub the new collector street(E.Holstein)to the west Street/Interconnectivity/Cross boundary for future connectivity.E.Holstein is also proposed along the entire Access southern boundary for future connectivity to the south. Proposed north-south collector street, S.Farmyard,provides a stub street to the east property line adjacent to 1995 W.Victory Road(Parcel#S 1226110255).No other stub streets are proposed. Traffic Level of Service Unknown until ACHD report is received. Existing Road Network W.Victory Road and N.Linder Road are existing arterial streets.All other roads proposed would be new development. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers along Victory or Linder Road frontages. Buffers Proposed Road Unknown until ACHD report is received. Improvements Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station Approx. 1.4 miles from Fire Station#6 • Fire Response Time This project does fall within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#6 reliability is 85%(above goal of 80%). • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Proposed phasing plan shall be adhered to;any changes in the phasing shall be approved by the Fire Department. Applicant shall have strict adherence to proposed phasing plan. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 4.3 miles from MPD Headquarters • Response Time Approximately 3:14 response time to an emergency in this reporting district. Page 2 Page 52 Item#2. Description Details I Page • Call Data Between 2/l/2020— 1/31/2022,the Meridian Police Department responded to 1,380 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 127. See attached documents for more details. Between 2/l/2020— 1/31/2022,the Meridian Police Department responded to 12 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for more details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District Estimated Additional School 157 estimated children at full build out(specific to the area) Aged Children • Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary—675 students Victory Middle School— 1,000 students Meridian High School—2,075 students • #of Students Enrolled Mary McPherson Elementary—442 students Victory Middle School—996 students Meridian High School— 1,698 students School of Choice Options . Christine Donnell Elementary(Arts)—480 enrolled w/capacity of 500) • Spalding Elementary STEM —651 enrolled w/ca acit of 750 See West Ada letter for additional context and analysis(Section VIILH Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Flow is committed •See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water _ • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 5 • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns Fittings should be used instead of pipe deflection. Page 3 Page 53 Item#2. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend 'II Project Location Project Location .,��,,,,,,{�,�, • g.� 4i Y-[I LLUIIIIhftl F� a .y .. i a Medium uensi� High Density Residential Residential Low Density = MU-N Residential Zoning Map Planned Development Map 8' rt o m Legend R-2 R-4 Legend Project Location $ Project Location �I R1 City Limits - RU- y Planned Parcels J Rl R1 R1 ' - • �� �� RUT ® R-4 R-40 R�8" R-4 RUT R1 III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jay Walker,Kimley Horn&Associates—950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 1100,Boise,ID 83702 B. Owner: Linder Holdings,LLC—849 E. State Street, Suite 101,Eagle,ID 83616 C. Representative: Nicolette Womack,Kimley Horn&Associates 950 W. Bannock Street, Suite 1100, Boise,ID 83702 Page 4 Page 54 Item#2. IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/5/2022 5/22/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/4/2022 5/20/2022 Site Posting 4/6/2022 Nextdoor posting 4/18/2022 5/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan) The subject project area contains two future land use designations,Low Density Residential (LDR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR),with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, approximately 80 acres compared to 39 acres respectively. Low Density Residential(LDR)—This designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails, and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. 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. The subject property has two future land use designations on the property, as noted above. The majority of the site is designated Medium Density Residential(approximately 80 acres compared to 39 acres)which calls for a different type of lot size and density than the LDR designation. MDR allows a gross density range of 3-8 du/ac while the LDR designation allows gross densities of 3 du/ac and less. Future Land Use designations are not parcel specific.An adjacent, abutting designation, when appropriate and approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used. A designation may not be used however, across planned or existing collector or arterial roadways, must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more than 50%of the land being developed. Based on this policy, the LDR designation can be "floated"beyond the area depicted on the future land use map up to the east side of the north-south collector street proposed with this development(S. Farmyard Avenue).Subsequently, the gross density west of S. Farmyard must meet the minimum gross density for the MDR designation (at least 3 du/ac.).Additionally, the plan allows gross densities to be rounded up or down, therefore the minimum gross density of this area must be at least 2.5 du/ac.According to the submitted plans, the area west of the proposed collector is approximately 54 acres and contains 126 units which is approximately 2.33 du/ac and does not meet the minimum gross density of the MDR designation. Therefore, the Applicant should add at least 9 additional building lots to meet the minimum density requirement. If the Applicant does not wish to increase the number of lots, then a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment is required and this project should be delayed to allow Page 5 Page 55 Item#2. the applicant to submit a concurrent CPAM application which could be processed no earlier than June IS'h. The Applicant is proposing larger lots throughout the development(minimum lot size of 9,900 square feet in this area of the plat)so Staff believes there may be ample area west of the proposed collector to add these additional building lots.However, to increase the number of lots in this area it would require the applicant to amend their annexation request to incorporate an R-8 zoning district due to differing dimensional standards from the R-4 district. Staff recommends the applicant include an area of R-8 zoning in the north area of the plat (Blocks 2& 3) to allow for some lot sizes smaller than R-4 dimensional standards. Fifteen (15) days prior to the City council hearing the applicant should submit an amended annexation legal description and exhibit map to incorporate R-8 zoning as recommended by staff. The subject project is comprised of six(6) county parcels located near the southwest corner of W. Victory Road and N. Linder, directly west of Brundage Estates on the east side Linder that has yet to record a phase I final plat despite obtaining initial City approval for a preliminary plat in 2016 This project's path to annexation is via the existing R-4 zoning of Brundage Estates to the east; no other City zoning is adjacent to the subject project area. Therefore, City Council should determine if the requested development is a logical expansion of City zoning. Overall, the Applicant is proposing 275 detached single-family residences with an average lot size of 10,125 square feet within the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts; the proposed lot sizes and requested zoning districts are not common in recent City development approvals. The Applicant is also proposing to develop the project in five (5)phases with adequate Fire access in each phase. The submitted plans depict a number of new local streets throughout the site anchored by a collector street along the south boundary and an additional collector that generally bisects the property and connects to Victory Road from the southern collector street at the '/mile mark west of Linder Road. Both collector streets are shown on the Master Street Map (MSM) but the north- south collector street is shown at the mid-mile mark on Victory and along the entire west boundary, it is not shown bisecting the property nor connecting to Victory at the %mile mark as proposed. Staff has not received the ACHD staff report to know if the collector street alignment is acceptable to them. Staff is supportive of this alignment, if approved by ACHD. In terms of nearby and adjacent development,Staff recognizes this area is lacking neighborhood serving commercial uses. Specifically, the closest commercial developments are more than a mile from the project boundary which incentivizes the use of vehicles instead of pedestrian or bicycle facilities, which are also absent. The Comprehensive Plan does contemplate the development of a Mixed-Use Neighborhood node approximately a %mile to the west of this project but it may not develop in the immediate future. Therefore,staff believes, the Commission and Council should determine if the project is a logical expansion of city limits given the lack ofpublic infrastructure and neighborhood serving uses in the area. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancioy.orglcompplan): Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to this development; Staff analysis is in italics: Page 6 Page 56 Item#2. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G).Burnside Ridge Estates proposes different lot sizes than what is existing most adjacent to the subject properties. A majority of the county residential lots adjacent to this development range in size with the smallest being 2 acres in size. Furthermore, the proposed lot sizes in this development are most consistent with the approved R- 4 lots on the east side of Linder Road. Because of the disparity of lot sizes along the west boundary, the Applicant is proposing R-2 zoning and lots at least 21,000 square feet(almost half an acre) in size along the entire west boundary. In addition to what is proposed, Staff is recommending an area of R-8 is added to the north end of the project in order add additional lots to meet the minimum density requirements of the plan. The addition of a block of smaller lots would further the housing type and lot size available in this project. Therefore, Stafffinds the proposed project complies with this policy, especially with the recommended zoning revision. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A).As noted above, the properties nearest the subject development vary in size but are no smaller than 2 acres in size. Because of this, the Applicant has proposed its largest lots along the west boundary adjacent to existing County lots of approximately 5 acres. Furthermore, the Applicant has proposed to place the required north-south collector street along the east boundary in the northwest quadrant for future connectivity opportunities to the east and subsequently acts as a buffer between that 10 acre parcel and the proposed development. The proposed layout in the southeast quadrant abuts multiple county parcels but is removed from existing structures accept for the 2 acre parcel directly adjacent to the very northeast corner of this area. In order to help mitigate this, the Applicant has proposed an extended buffer lot directly adjacent to the existing County residence which should offer adequate transition and screening. In general, the proposed development consisting of lots averaging at least 10,000 square feet are consistent with the City's anticipated land uses and lot sizes in this area of the City. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing network abutting the site to the east and north,per Public Works comments. Subsequently, all public utilities will be extended at the Applicant's expense in order to connect to the existing services within the right-of-way. Further, the entire site is within the Fire Department response time goal of 5-minutes. West Ada School District has offered comments on this project and estimates 157 additional school aged children from this development. West Ada discusses within their letter there are thousands of homes not yet constructed in the same area of this project which will also add to school enrollment. However, there is currently capacity at each designated school. The adjacent roadways will be impacted by this development because neither Victory nor Linder Road have been widened. ACHD has not submitted their report but a TIS was completed. According to the submitted TIS, it contemplates 261 single-family residential units which is lower than what was submitted with the subject applications. Based on 261 units, the proposed development is estimated to generate approximately 2,513 vehicle trips per weekday. Further analysis of the TIS is below in the Access section of this report and will be even further analyzed by ACHD within their future staff report. Based upon the data presented in the TIS, the proposed development appears to be of minimal impact to the adjacent roadways and intersections but ACHD will determine what arterial road improvements are required. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.0IF). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the unified development code (UDC) at the time of application submittal(prior to the open space Page 7 Page 57 Item#2. code changes in October 2021) by proposing slightly above 10%qualified open space. According to the submitted open space exhibit, approximately a quarter of the qualified open space is street buffers along the proposed collector streets and adjacent to Victory and Linder Roads and an additional quarter of the area consists of the Calkins Lateral easement and regional pathway. The remaining qualified open space consists of two large common lots in the center of the development consisting of approximately 5.5 acres of land with one of the lots containing the proposed clubhouse and swimming pool; the other large open space lot has a series of connected micro paths and open grassy areas. The entire development will share the open space and amenities which add to the walkability and usability of the open space within this development. The proposed centralized open space and pedestrian connectivity to it is an example of what the comprehensive plan and our development code currently aims to deliver to Meridian residents, despite leaving some areas without usable open space in their respective 40 acre quadrants. "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together and to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system."(6.01.01H). The Applicant is proposing multiple micro paths and regional pathway segments with the development consistent with the Master Pathways Plan. Further, the Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the subdivision and along the arterials as required by code. Because there is currently no other adjacent City development, there are no opportunities to connect to any existing facilities. However, the Applicant has the capacity to lay the foundation for a connected neighborhood with this development. The Applicant's proposed road layout offers some of this desired interconnectivity by placing S. Farmyard along the east boundary for easy connectivity to the detached sidewalks on its east side and by including the required regional pathway along the collectors and the Calkins Lateral. However, there is minimal connectivity to the west boundary or the north boundary of the southeast quadrant of the site. Staff is recommending specific revisions to address these two areas and increase the connectivity in this area for future development. "Work with transportation partners to identify locations for future park&ride lots, shuttle buses, and/or transit stations."(6.01.05).According to the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS), a future express bus route is planned along Linder Road from Downtime Kuna to Chinden Boulevard. COMPASS and Staff recommend the Applicant work with Valley Regional Transit(VRT) to include a bus stop along this development's Linder Road frontage. Staff has included a DA provision consistent with this recommendation. With the recommended revisions,Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): NOTE: Staff has not received ACHD's staff report for the subject development,which includes analysis on the accepted traffic study. Therefore,there is minimal information regarding ACHD analysis of the proposed and existing transportation network. Main access to the project is proposed via two new collector streets proposed with this development—one to W.Victory Road and one to S. Linder Road,both arterial streets. The north-south collector is shown as S. Farmyard Avenue and the east-west collector that runs along the southern boundary is shown as E. Holstein Drive. These two collector streets are required to be constructed per the Master Street Map. However,the north-south collector street is shown at the mid-mile mark on Victory and along the entire west boundary on the Master Street Map (MSM),it is not shown bisecting the property nor connecting to Victory at the '/4 mile mark. Page 8 Page 58 Item#2. ACHD will determine if this revised location of Farmyard requires a formal modification to the MSM. In general, Staff is supportive of the proposed collector street placement. In addition,the third access to the adjacent arterials is via a local street connection to Linder Road (shown as E. Pivot Drive)that aligns with a local street connection on the east side of Linder that was approved with the approved Brundage Estates development(currently undeveloped but approved).According to the submitted TIS, all proposed arterial connections comply with ACHD offset requirements but the ACHD staff report will verify this.All local streets are shown as 33- feet of pavement within 60 feet of right-of-way—the right-of-way includes the pavement and the parkways and detached 5-foot sidewalk on each side.ACHD will confirm if this right-of-way design complies with their policies. According to the submitted plat, the required collector street along the south boundary(E. Holstein Drive)is fully on the subject property at the east and west boundaries but curves down to be evenly split along the majority of the south property line. Specifically, this road is shown to be constructed with 18 feet of pavement from the property line to the back of curb on Burnside Ridge side of the property line. Typically, the first development in is required to construct their half of the street section (18 feet in this instance)plus 12 feet of pavement which would total 30 feet of pavement instead of the 18 feet proposed. This is important to note because this segment of road is adjacent to a County parcel that is not part of the subject annexation request and may require the road to shift 12 feet north to accommodate the additional ROW ifACHD does not accept this road segment as proposed. Lastly, the subject development abuts a number of county parcels to its northeast and the Applicant has proposed to stub a street to their shared property line near the northeast corner of the site (east side of Farmyard Avenue). Because of the number of parcels adjacent to this project, Staff recommends an additional stub street be added to the north property boundary from E. Pivot Drive in the southeast third of the project to help create better opportunity for interconnectivity in the future. Specifically, Staff is recommending this stub street be located approximately in the area of Lot 11 or 12, Block 5. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: The proposed project proposes more than 100 units and therefore requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and specific conditions of approval will be outlined in their future staff report. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject development consists of 6 county parcels and contains multiple agricultural based structures on the property; specifically, at the northwest corner of the site and near the southern boundary south of the Calkins Lateral.In addition,there is an existing residence in the southeast quadrant of the development that takes access from Linder Road and was illegally split from one of the lots with the County.This home and associated outbuilding are proposed to remain until the final phase of the development.All other structures on the properties are proposed to be removed at the time of site development. In addition, a portion of an unknown irrigation facility was piped along the west boundary of the site but appears to be outside of the property boundary.Boise Project Board of Control,the governing irrigation district in this area of the City, did not call this facility or easement out within their submitted letter so Staff assumes there are no issues with this facility and its proximity to the project. Staff has concerns surrounding the existing home shown to remain until the final phase of development. Unless specific provisions are outlined in the DA, the home may never connect to Page 9 Page 59 Item#2. City services or provide the required frontage improvements if allowed to wait until the noted phase only. Because of this and consistent with UDC 9-1-4& UDC 9-4-8, Staff is recommending a DA provision the existing home connect to City water&sewer within 60 calendar days after Council has granted approval of the annexation ordinance. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The Applicant is proposing detached single-family residential homes for the entire project area. This residential use is a permitted use in the requested R-2 and R-4 zoning districts,per UDC Table 11-2A-2; this use is also permitted within the recommended R-8 zoning district. The Applicant has provided a phasing plan notating the project is to be constructed in five(5) phases with each phase showing adequate Fire access,per Meridian Fire Department review. According to the phasing plan,the first phase includes a segment of the required north-south collector street(S.Farmyard)and the proposed local street connection to Linder Road at the northeast corner of the southeast quadrant of the project. Phase 1 depicts 56 building lots with minimal open space and no amenities beyond a segment of multi-use pathway along Farmyard. Staff is not supportive of this phasing of open space inclusion so Staff is recommending a revision to the phasing plan to include the central open space lot containing the clubhouse and pool,Lot 1,Block 12, and is approximately 102,000 square feet; including this with the first phase instead of phase 3 creates better opportunity for equitable use of these amenities by all residents. Phase 2 is depicted to include 92 lots and the remaining area of the northwest quadrant with the full area of the largest open space lot,Lot 6,Block 4. This second phase contains the first R-2 lots along the west boundary and includes the area of the plat Staff is recommending being revised to include an area of R-8 to meet the minimum density requirement. Phase 3 is shown to include the southeast corner of the property,the east third of the collector street required along the south boundary(E. Holstein Drive), a large segment of the Calkins Lateral regional pathway, and the proposed clubhouse and swimming pool. Based on the submitted phasing plan,the first 148 building lots are proposed prior to the inclusion of the clubhouse and pool; this accounts for slightly more than half of the proposed homes and is why Staff has recommending placing these amenities and lot within phase 1 instead. Phase 4 includes the remaining R-2 lots along the west boundary,the remaining Calkins regional pathway, and the remaining length of E. Holstein along the southern boundary. Phase 5 contains the noted outparcel along Linder Road, 3801 S. Linder, and the remaining 12 building lots and last piece of the Linder Road street buffer. Stafffinds the proposed use meets all UDC requirements. Furthermore, with Staff's recommended revisions noted in this section and the next, the phasing of the project should provide livability and access to usable open space through each phase of development. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed building lots meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested zoning districts for lot size,lot frontage,and proposed use. All subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The Applicant has proposed a number of streets within the development with block lengths that exceed the allowed 750 linear feet. The three east-west local streets in the northwest quadrant are allowed to be up to 1,000 feet because each one has a micro path lot approximately mid-block Page 10 Page 60 Item#2. that provides a pedestrian access from the Victory Road sidewalk into the development and the large central open space lot. E. Pivot Drive along the north boundary in the southeast quadrant is approximately 1,200 linear feet with no breaks in the block length. To correct this, Staff recommends an additional stub street is stubbed to the north boundary near Lot 11 &Lot 12, Block 5 for future connectivity and to break up this block length consistent with UDC provisions. Further, Staff recommends an additional IS foot wide micro path lot is added to the south side ofE. Pivot in line with the recommended stub street location to head south between pivot and E. Drawbar to provide a more convenient pedestrian access through this area of the site. S.Agronomy Avenue near the west boundary is block that exceeds 750 feet on its west side (approximately 900 feet) but does have two streets on its east side. However, consistent with other areas of the site noted above, Staff recommends an additional micro path lot is added along the west boundary of this street for future pedestrian connectivity. Lastly, S. Red Angus Way is a local street that goes at a diagonal angle to the arterial streets in the south half of the development and is approximately 1,400 feet in length with a micro path connection near mid-block. However, UDC 11-6C-3Fspecifically limits the maximum block length allowed to 1,200 feet regardless of a pedestrian connection without site constraints; this code section also outright prohibits any block length greater than 1,200 feet without obtaining a City Council waiver. Because the proposed block length is greater 1,200 feet,Staff recommends the Applicant provide an additional cross street from Red Angus northeast to S.International Way across the Calkins Lateral in alignment with E.Drawbar Street to create a compliant block length. Furthermore, this new cross street would also provide better interconnectivity within the site and better access to the multi-use pathway along the Calkins Lateral.Staff finds this solution favorable to a Council waiver. In addition to block lengths, UDC 11-6C-3 discusses double fronted homes and prohibits this type of lot configuration unless unusual topography or other conditions make it impossible to meet this requirement; no such circumstances exist for this development so the Applicant must comply with this requirement. Lots 1-4, Block 8 are depicted as havingfrontage on both S. Agronomy and S. Cultivator which does not comply with this section of code. In order to comply with the UDC, the Applicant should attach the sidewalk and include a minimum 10 foot wide common lot measured from the back of sidewalk to the rear property line adjacent to one of these local streets; Staff does not have a preference as to which street has the common lot added. The Applicant should make the noted revisions in order to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards in UDC 11-6C-3. G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will analyze compliance with this standard at the time of each building permit submittal. H. Sidewalks&Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed along all of the proposed local streets serving the detached single-family homes. The proposed sidewalks meet the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the project including to and from the proposed open space lots, the multi-use pathway segment along the Calkins Lateral, and adjacent arterial roads. All open space areas also appear to be directly adjacent to sidewalks and Page 11 Page 61 Item#2. include micro paths which add to the pedestrian accessibility of the development. Staff believes the additional micro path connections recommended above further the pedestrian network within this development. With the proposed sidewalk network in conjunction with the recommended revisions, Staff supports the overall pedestrian facilities for this development. As noted, the Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks with parkways throughout the development. The pathways appear to measure at least 8 feet wide in all areas as required by code. However, these parkways do not contain the required number of trees per the UDC. Staff has analyzed this further in the subsequent landscape section below. I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W.Victory Road and S. Linder Road, arterial streets,required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC I1-3B-7C. According to the submitted plat, a minimum 25-foot common lot is depicted along both arterial streets. The submitted landscape plans appear to show landscaping in excess of code requirements. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to Farmyard Avenue,the north-south collector street, and Holstein Drive,the east-west collector street along the south boundary—the submitted plat depicts a common lot at least 20 feet wide along all required areas but depicts the required detached sidewalks outside of the common lot and instead within the right-of-way. This is not typical but is allowed. Therefore,the submitted landscape plans depict an actual buffer width of greater than 30 feet adjacent to the collector roadways. Further,the submitted landscape plans appear to show the correct amount of landscaping per the UDC standards for these buffers. Landscaping is required along all pathways (including micro-pathways) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of all pathways with the required and proposed number of trees is included in the Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans. This table should be revised following the addition of the recommended micro- path lots throughout the site as discussed in sections above. Currently,the correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted plans. The Calkins Lateral currently bisects the south half of the project site and the Applicant is proposing to keep this lateral open as it is a relatively large facility. Further, as noted above, the Applicant is proposing a multi-use pathway segment along the north side of the Calkins consistent with the Master Pathways Plan. According to the letter submitted by the irrigation district, the easement for this lateral consists of 27 feet on its west side and 25 feet on its north side, measured from the centerline of the facility. The submitted plans depict a 40 foot wide irrigation easement which is inaccurate and does not clearly depict the centerline of the lateral. Therefore, it is unclear if any of the buildable lots on the west/southwest side of the lateral are encumbered by the easement. The Applicant should revise the plat to depict the correct width of the irrigation easement and depict whether any buildable lots are encumbered by its easement. Typically, no trees are allowed within irrigation easements which may present an issue since the submitted plans do not accurately depict the irrigation easement and the required regional pathway is shown within this common lot with the required trees.In order for this area to be qualified open space, the Applicant is required to landscape this area per code.If it turns out the irrigation easement prevents the inclusion of trees along the regional pathway,Staff recommends this common lot is widened to allow for at least 5 feet of landscaping on the north/northeast side of the lot and pathway to allow for the required number of trees for the purpose of creating areas of shade along the pathway. Should this revision be required because of the irrigation easement, the Applicant will be required to obtain for Alternative Compliance approval per UDC 11-3B-12C. The Applicant should submit for this approval with the second Final Plat application to propose how this revision meets or exceeds code requirements, Page 12 Page 62 Item#2. alternatively, the Applicant can propose a regional pathway and landscaping that meets these standards. 8-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along all local streets within the development and are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.According to the submitted landscape plan,the correct number of trees are not shown and the table does not list the parkways at all.Prior to City Council, the Applicant should correct this by adding the correct number of trees (I per 35 linear feet) and list the linear feet ofparkway within the landscape table and show the correct number trees per the provisions outlined in UDC 11-3B-7C. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the old standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is not included in the Landscape Calculations table but the submitted plans appear to show UDC compliance.Prior to City Council, the Landscape Calculations table should be corrected to include this requirement and reference the requirement of 1 tree18,000 square feet of common open space. J. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Per the previous open space code,a minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the overall development. Based on the proposed plat of 119.3 acres, a minimum of 11.9 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy the requirements. According to the Applicant's open space exhibit, a total of 12.19 acres of qualified open space (approximately 10.2201o) is proposed which meets the minimum code required. However, the open space exhibit does not include the parkways proposed throughout the entire development. As discussed above, these parkways do not include the required number of street trees but if those were added, the parkways could also be added to the amount of qualified open space. Therefore, with Staffs recommended revision to include the required number of trees, the actual amount of qualified open space is much greater than what is shown on the open space exhibit. The Applicant should revise the open space exhibit prior to City Council to reflect the qualified area of the parkways per code(linear feet of parkway minus 26 feet for each lot for the driveway, and then multiplied by 8; this will obtain the qualified open space area). Despite the proposed open space exceeding the minimum 10% requirement, a majority of this open space is centrally located within the 119 acres. Generally, the comprehensive plan and City code desire this but with a project of this size, it has left areas of the development without usable open space where residents will have to walk or drive almost a quarter mile to the central open space lots. For a child or a moderately healthy adult, this should not be an issue. But,for the elderly or those who cannot physically walk that far for other reasons, smaller areas of open space should be available in other parts of the development for more equitable access to green space. Therefore,Staff is including a condition of approval to replace a lot in each of the two southern quadrants(southwest third and southeast third) with an additional open space lot.Staff will leave the ultimate placement of these to the Applicant but does recommend Lot 21 or 22,Block 13 in the southeast third be utilized as an open space lot to be consistent with the recommendation to add a micro path through this area of the plat. In addition,Staff recommends Lot 7 or 8,Block 7 be utilized as an open space lot and be aligned with S. Brown Swiss Way on the east side of Farmyard Avenue for efficient pedestrian access to and from different areas of the development. With Staffs recommendation to revise Blocks 2 & 3 of the plat to be R-8 lots, the Applicant should be able to add at least 12 lots that area which would meet the 9 additional lots required to meet the minimum density and recoup the two lots lost with this recommendation. Page 13 Page 63 Item#2. NOTE:If the subject development was required to comply with the current open space standards for the requested R-2&R-4 zoning districts, the minimum amount of open space required would be approximately 14 acres instead of 11.9 acres. With the additional area of the parkways and two additional open space lots that will be qualified open space,Staff anticipates the additional 2 acres of open space would be present within the development. K. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(119.3 acres),a minimum of six(6)qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the old open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C (I amenity for every 20 acres). According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing at least eight(8) qualifying amenities to satisfy UDC requirements: Clubhouse, swimming pool, children's play structures, pickleball court, multi-use pathways, shaded picnic area,public art, and outdoor fitness equipment. The proposed amenities exceed code requirements. Further, according to the submitted narrative from the Applicant, the proposed play structure is more consistent with a natural play area than traditional playground equipment which Staff fully supports.A majority of these amenities are proposed within the two central open space lots which leaves the other areas of the development without an amenity outside of sidewalk connections to the regional pathway along the Calkins Lateral. As discussed above, Staff is recommending a loss of a few lots in different areas of the project to increase the accessibility to open space for all areas of the development. In conjunction with this, the Applicant should include an amenity within each of these areas for recreation purposes. Staff is not recommending three additional amenities be added but is anticipating amenities can be moved from the central open space to these areas. If this is not possible, additional amenities should be required. NOTE:If the subject development was analyzed against the current open space and amenity code, the minimum amount of amenity points for the development would be 24 points and an amenity from each category would be required. The proposed amenities would exceed the required amount of amenity points. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Privacy fencing is proposed in essentially all areas of the development which does not comply with the UDC and no exhibit is shown depicting the actual type of fencing proposed. Specifically, all fencing along irrigation facilities cannot be 6-foot tall privacy fencing and instead must be 6- foot tall open vision fencing per UDC 11-3A-6C—this requirement applies to all lots abutting the Calkins Lateral as well as the rear of lots abutting the piped irrigation facility abutting the west property boundary, as discussed above. In addition, 6-foot tall privacy fencing is not allowed along micro paths unless they are no deeper than 2 lots, or 250 feet in length, and connect two public roads. Therefore, the fencing along the micro paths on Lot, 35, Block 1, Lot 7, Block 12, and the recommended micro path along the west boundary must be no more than 4 feet solid fencing or be constructed as semi private fencing with 4 feet of solid fencing and no more than 2 feet of open vision fencing(at least 80% open) to total 6feet in height. Page 14 Page 64 Item#2. M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed detached single-family homes. Unless specifically required by City Council, single-family residential homes do not require Administrative Design Review(DES)approval prior to building permit submittal. The conceptual elevations submitted depict estate homes with multiple finish and accent materials, home sizes, and color concepts. Based on the submitted images, the future single- family homes appear to be custom homes that will add to the quality of housing in the City of Meridian. N. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): A segment of the Calkins Lateral bisects the southern half of the development with no floodplain present. As noted above,the Applicant is proposing to keep tilt this lateral open and include a regional pathway on its north/northeast side to count this area as qualified open space. According to the submitted plat, the lateral and regional pathway are shown in a common lot approximately 55 feet wide and shows the irrigation easement as 40 feet of this width.As discussed above, the Boise Project Board of Control notes the easement width for the Calkins Lateral is 52 feet in total; 27 feet on its south/southwest side and 25 feet on its north/northeast side, measured from the centerline of the facility. The Applicant should revise the plat to depict the correct easement width so Staff can adequately analyze this piece of the development. Regardless, the Applicant is required to comply with all standards in UDC 11-3A-6. Fencing and landscaping have been analyzed in other sections of the report and includes specific recommendations consistent with the analysis in this section. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat application 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 28,2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Dave Young,Applicant;Nicolette Womack,Applicant Representative; b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Dave Young;Nicolette Womack; Chris Rose,Applicant Team; Clair Manning,resident; Tina Dean,neighbor; Darcie Dille,Real Estate Consultant; Paula Connely,neighbor; Patrick Connor, developer representative (property to the south); d. Written testimony: 1 piece—in support of project proposal from collective of residents of estate lots to the west of development area. e. Staff presentinggpplication: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Current Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Support of proposed project due to larger lots proposed and quality open space theme and amenities; b. Support of project and developer and a wish to not include any R-8 lots as Staff recommended; Page 15 Page 65 Item#2. c. History of neighborhood meetings and the Applicant's diligent attempts at working with the existing neighbors surrounding the development, d. Support of project as proposed and without Staff s recommended revisions to include R- 8 zoning or the micro-path lot to the west boundary; e. Assurance that the two project developers are coordinating the construction of E. Holstein. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Inclusion of any original and existing farm equipment for the development's open space/ameni1y areas; b. Logic behind recommending the micro-path lot to the west boundary behind Stetson Estates and what would it mean if it was removed; c. Density of project and why Staff recommended adding additional lots with the R-8 district—Council can approve project as is and with it not being compliant with the Comprehensive Plan density; d. Phasing of project—specifically,when the existing home should be included into the development and whether the"first right of refusal"to purchase the propegy plan role in Commission's decision, 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Recommendation to Council to strike condition VIII.A.2a and keep project densi, as presented; b. Strike portion of condition VIII.A.2f regarding micro-path connection to the west boundary from S. Agronomy Avenue; C. Strike condition VIII.A.16—Applicant is proposing to tile Calkins Lateral consistent with the UDC. d. Modify DA provision VIII.A.lb to require clubhouse and pool lot within phase 2. e. Modify condition VIII.A.2b consistent with discussions between Staff and the Applicant to offer option of a shared agreement between adjacent landowners. f. Recommend to Council the existing home does not connect to City services. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Council waiver is required for existing home to remain and not connect to City services, b. Council should determine if they agree or disagree with the Applicant's request and Commission's recommendation to strike condition VIII.A.2a regarding the addition of R-8 zoning; C. Council waiver is needed to allow block length of Red Angus Way to exceed 1,200 linear feet and strike condition VIII.A.2d; d. Modify DA provision VIII.A.1d or concur with Staffs included recommendation, e. Council should determine whether amount and location of open space is sufficient and condition VIII.A.3d should be removed based on the Applicant's belief the proposed lot sizes offer ample private open space and subsequently less need of common open space dispersed throughout the site. f. Add a DA provision allowingexisting xisting use of horse boarding to remain on 3801 S. Linder until property redevelops consistent with approved phasing plan. g_ AU plat/landscape revisions that were not made prior to the Council hearing. C. City Council: Enter Summary of City Council Decision. Page 16 Page 66 Item#2. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps (NOT APPROVED) D) G CW 1Ss LAND SURVEYING PLLC Client:Kimley Horn Date: February 4,2022 Jab No._9519 ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being the W 1/2 NE 114 and a portion of the SE 114 NE 1/4 all of Lot 1 and Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho,all located in Section 26,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4,(North 114 corner),from which a found Aluminum cap stamped"PLS 17665"marking the NE corner of said NE 114, (Section corner common to Sections 23,24,25 and 26)bears S.89'06'38"E.,a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 112 NE 1/4,S.89'06'38"E.,a distance of 1328.23 feet to the NE corner of said W 112 NE 1/4,(East 1/16 corner common to sections 23 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary of said W 112 NE 1/4,S.00'33'37"W.,a distance of 1326.54 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with illegible cap marking the Northwest corner of said Basslin Ridge Estates; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates,S.89108'36"E.,a distance of 1326.07 feet to the NE corner of said SE 114 NE 1/4,(North 1116 corner common to sections 25 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary line of said SE 1/4 NE 114,S.00137' 17"W.,a distance of 1325.84 feet to the SE corner of said SE 114 NE 114,(East 1/4 corner); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said SE 114 NE 114,N.891 11'36"W.,a distance of 1325.93 feet to the Southeast corner of said of said W 1/2 NE 1/4,(Center east 1116 corner); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said W 112 NE 114, N.891 10'56"W.,a distance of 1326.91 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with cap stamped"PLS 6901"marking the Southwest comer of said of said W 1/2 NE 114,(Center 1/4 corner); Thence along the Westerly boundary of said W 1/2 N€114,N.00°33'35"E.,a distance of 2655.21 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. 1.L N This parcel contains 121.29 acres more or less. 4 s 2 of, �4D A• 623 1 lth Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0 t 15 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com Page 17 Page 67 Item#2. s89°06'38"e 132821 3 AL Ar c�v M GJ �C S M p �O N NI/ o. O 2 s � l 'TEO fOp' F P 4 Rp A. . M 0 0T 0 c 3 N� N M M O N 1326`9f 43 :93< :: n8 n °11'36 9519 Revised Annexation 2/4/2022 Scale: 1 inch=350 feet File: Tract 1:121.2924 Acres,Closure:s47.4756w 0.01 ft.(1/999999),Perimeter=10615 ft. 01 s89.0638e 1328.23 07 n00.3335e 2655.21 02 s00.3337w 1326.54 03 s89.0836e 1326.07 04 s00.3717w 1325.84 05 n89.1136w 1325.93 06 n89.1056w 1326.91 Page 18 Page 68 Item#2. PA LAND SURVEYING PLLC j Client:Kimley Horn Date:February 8,2022 Job No.:9519 Re:Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R-4 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the W 1/2 NE 1/4 and a portion of the SE 114 NE 1/4 all of Lot 1 and Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County, Idaho,all located in Section 26,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 1/4,(North 114 corner),from which a found Aluminum cap stamped"PLS 17665"marking the NE corner of said NE 114, (Section corner common to Sections 23,24,25 and 26)bears S.89'06'38"E.,a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 112 NE 114,S.89106'38"E.,a distance of 118.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along the Northerly boundary of said W 112 NE 114,S.890 06'38"E.,a distance of 1209.92 feet to the NE corner of said W 112 NE 1/4, (East 1/16 corner common to Sections 23 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 114,S.000 33'37"W.,a distance of 1326,54 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with illegible cap marking the Northwest corner of said Basslin Ridge Estates; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said Basslin Ridge Estates,S.89,08'36"E.,a distance of 1326.07 feet to the NE corner of said SE 114 NE 114,(North 1116 corner common to sections 25 and 26); Thence along the Easterly boundary line of said SE 1/4 NE 114,S.000 37' 17"W.,a distance of 1325.84 feet to the SE corner of said SE 1/4 NE 1/4,(East 1/4 corner); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said SE 1/4 NE 114,N.89111'36"W.,a distance of 1325.93 feet to the Southeast corner of said of said W 112 NE 1/4.(Center east 1/16 comer); Thence along the Southerly boundary of said W 112 NE 1/4,N.89°10'56"W.,a distance of 1326.91 feet to a found 5/8 inch diameter iron pin with cap stamped"PLS 6901"marking the Southwest corner of said of said W 1/2 NE 114,(Center 1/4 corner); Thence along the Westerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 114,N.001 33'35"E.,a distance of 75.78 feet; Thence leaving said Westerly boundary,S.89,07'51"E.,a distance of 88.77 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 73.14 feet along the arc of said curve right,having a radius of 250.00 feet,a central angle of 16'45'49",the long chord of which bears S.801 44'57"E.,a distance of 72.88 feet; 623 llth Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com Page 19 Page 69 Item#2. COMPASS LAND SURVEYING,PLLC Kimley-Hom-95191SurveylDescriptionslRev 2-8-22Rezone R-4 Boundary.doc Page 2 of 2 Thence non tangent to said curve right,N. 11°11'16"E.,a distance of 112.50 fleet to the beginning of a tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 37.10 feet along the arc of said curve left,having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 10'37'41",the long chord of which bears N.050 52'26"E.,a distance of 37.05 feet; Thence N.001 33'35"E.,a distance of 734.35 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 144.30 feet along the arc of said curve right,having a radius of 100.00 feet,a central angle of 82140'31",the long chord of which bears N.410 53'51"E.,a distance of 132.10 feet; Thence non tangent to said curve right, N.06'45'54°W.,a distance of 284.12 feet; Thence N.221 27'48"E.,a distance of 232.34 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 256.60 feet along the arc of said curve right, having a radius of 203.00 feet,a central angle of 721 25'30",the long chord of which bears N.35139'10"W.,a distance of 239.86 feet; Thence N.00'33'35"E.,a distance of 709.53 feet; Thence N.231 43'26"W.,a distance of 153.41 feet; Thence N.001 53'22"E.,a distance of 69.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 109.53 acres more or less. L ly �C S 7 2 o x o �'�RD A•� 623 I lth Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0115 ,C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com Page 20 Page 70 Item#2. s89°06'38"e 09.92 m Ix N f+I C7 � 3 ro m N 73 g 0 IOP� P N� C s89*08'36"e :-:-1326.07 rnga N f 3 M N m o r 0 8 1326:91 1325.93 n89°1 "w n 911 6w 9519 Revised R-4 Zone Jackson Ridge Estates 2/8/2022 Scale: 1 inch=350 feet File: Tract 1:109.5353 Acres,Closure:s04.5931 a 0.01 ft.(1/812335),Perimeter=10812 ft. 01 s89.0638e 1209.92 14 n06.4554w 284.12 02 s00.3337w 1326.54 15 n22.2748e 232.34 03 s89.0836e 1326.07 16 Rt,r=203.00,delta=072.2530,chord=n35.3910w 239.86 04 s00.3717w 1325.84 17 n00.3335e 709.53 05 n89.1136w 1325.93 18 n23.4326w 153.41 06 n89.1056w 1326.91 19 n00.5322e 69 07 n00.3335e 75.78 08 s89.0751 a 88.77 09 Rt,r=250.00,delta=016.4549,chord=s80.4457e 72.88 10 n11.1116e 112.5 11 Lt,r-200.00,delta=010.3741,chord=n05.5226e 37.05 12 n00.3335e 734.35 13 Rt,r-100.00,delta=082.4031,chord=n41.5351e 132.10 Page 21 Page 71 Item#2. A- 1 Iss LAND SURVEYING PLLG Client: Kirnley Horn Date:November 29,2021 Job No.:9519 Re:Jackson Ridge Estates REZONE R2 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A parcel of land being a portion of the W 112 NE 1(4 and a portion of the SE 1/4 NE 114 all of Lot 1 and Lot 3 and a portion of Lot 2 of Basslin Ridge Estates as on file in Book 64 of Plats at Page 6469 in the Office of the Recorder of Ada County,Idaho,all located in Section 26,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found Brass Cap marking the NW corner of said NE 114,(North 114 corner),from which a found Aluminum cap stamped"PLS 17665"marking the NE corner of said NE 114, (Section corner common to Sections 23,24,25 and 26)bears S.891 06'38"E-,a distance of 2655.71 feet; Thence along the Northerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 114,S.89'06'38"E.,a distance of 118.31 feet; Thence leaving said Northerly boundary,S.00'53'22"W.,a distance of 69.00 feet; Thence S.231 43'26"E.,a distance of 153.41 feet; Thence S.00'33'35"W.,a distance of 709.53 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 256.60 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 203.00 feet,a central angle of 720 25'30",the long chord of which bears S.35139'10"E a distance of 239.86 feet; Thence non tangent to said curve,S.220 27'48"W.,a distance of 232.34 feet; Thence S.060 45'54"E.,a distance of 284.12 feet to the beginning of a non tangent curve left; Thence a distance of 144.30 feet along the arc of said curve left, having a radius of 100.00 feet,a central angle of 82°40'31",the long chord of which bears S.410 53'51"W.,a distance of 132.10 feet; Thence&000 33'35"W.,a distance of 734.35 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve right; Thence a distance of 37.10 feet along the arc of said curve right,having a radius of 200.00 feet,a central angle of 10'37'41",the long chord of which bears S.05,52'26"W.,a distance of 37.05 feet; Thence S. 11 1 11' 16"W.,a distance of 112.50 feet; 623 11th Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail.com Page 22 Page 72 Item#2. COMPASS LAND SURVEYING,PLLC Kin ley-Horn-95191Survey\DescriptionslR-2 Rezone.doc Page 2 of 2 Thence a distance of 73.14 feet along the arc of said curve left,having a radius of 250.00 feet,a central angle of 160 45'49",the long chord of which bears N.801 44'57"W.,a distance of 72.88 feet to a point; Thence tangent to said curve,N.89107'51"W.,a distance of 88.77 feet to the Westerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4; Thence along the Westerly boundary of said W 1/2 NE 1/4,N.001 33'35"E.,a distance of 2579.44 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 11.76 acres more or less. "s y a: llr3p ?f o 4 0 623 11th Ave.South,Nampa,ID 83651 T.(208)442-0115 C.(208)608-2510 rgray.cls@gmail,com Page 23 Page 73 Item#2. `I v m o ' 0 rn A N N 9 A 3 ^^ o �� L N 2 �7732 '`I o E of AID Q� 9519 R-2 Zoning Jackson Ridge Estates 11/30/2021 Scale: 1 inch=318 feet File: 9519 Zone R-2.ndp Tract 1:11.7573 Acres,Closure:s72.2943w 0.01 ft.(1f717202),Perimeter-5593 ft. 01 s89.0638e 118.31 11 s11.1116w 112.5 02 s00.5322w 69 12 Lt,r=250.00,delta=016.4549,chord=n80.4457w 72.98 03 s23.4326e 153.41 13 n89.0751w 88.77 04 s00.3335w 709.53 14 n00.3335e 2579.44 05 Lt,r=203.00,delta=072.2530,chord=s35.3910e 239.86 06 s22 2748w 232.34 07 506.4554e 284.12 08 Lt,r=100.00,delta=082.4031,chord=s41-5351w 132-10 09 s00.3335w 734.35 10 Rt,r-200.00,delta=010.3741,chord=05.5226w 37.05 Page 24 Page 74 Item#2. B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/3/2022) (NOT APPROVED) OHV41 •NVIa183w m V1-1 AH'd�WI UJ0H<((Aajwi� _ '_ �j 531V153 39aIN 3aISNN(19 ti "/ gz � j I mmiry I LU rf'� vJ In nh wwo P u '< ` LU W 2 F ZZ u � <'a'a %an'. Z r Z �d n/ O O s a LL _gam 2 2 LLJ J `Sa a 9 k w ❑ LLI z LL o 1 ssz ❑ e` M � Esc ` _ rzin �s -- - 7 Ujl�l'I _ B j � ICI 6 `� ✓ ry �� g� d ; - s jju HV G �. � ill fl Page 25 Page 75 Item#2. IT 2N—ND ms"°LENT Ro` R2N6N 11-11T IT °ft23� _ aF.m IIE , _� _ 121 TT 2s e. -s - r ' R� -- - F�802 cF 18 is ,v t0 a I'v eeTs s y A 5— F l 1—D 5F n 1— is f^,00 SF/^n 3 21'io IF \ ` L ` ox5J 25'J `owa 5F R taaw,,sF�(1104C0 SF f, 2S0 SF�9P'S6 SF - F/^�14Ta�IF NI R8f31]]OIW HILL �.p//f'"i;w� EEEEEE.. `'9�' lily "5 r�._ Ts i�eLacx2 �x2 p�fk B221 IF s � s z' TS �I �IS SF 112,E ,p12 Im255F IP258F1116126 lmas SF ,olx1 sF 32 23 III SF 125 �i 1 1126IF 1ocan ,00ao SF �I >s -7 �5�+,5� o�'�--�-T ,2„ � -�-i 75 1-1 IF I'0119 I25- I� �s If 2E5 4 Im -N 2-� _ ,F 1,21xs 5F 11121 1 �I,21z,EF 121�.,.41 5�J,o2�s IF it �serss: �I APNROPERtt LINE Rev\ 2 IF �T5�'>s'SLL` R813imIa00 f 'pn-8 - J D \� 3 21744 sF14 25 R1 OeJ�I ��I 2i �_VI� IeII eLOCKi g1,D115 SF I IF Il2 �1,21a ,DIM cF 111>5K IF IM SF 113125 EFI la IF 11 IL— R/2iV 3 - a �I '-I n1 nn�1 ml FlI nl w I= 21„a IF m�„ —>_ -5- T,. Flo s-- =SSTs 1111 _3'IT �11 51' 13 25 Fl In a6 26 s5 2 In es 8771 -- � 2,es s= - ,zs 1 � reei3fnasvo z'x 2,�so sF ����T��s—� IF s—sT s _ 2 14 17 V I•b r I�f I1_•� E MNG _S J ' Y J1�10—L PP`r � �rROrERTY LINE -12' 5 216 s I I I ���F 1w 5F 13125 sF 10 25 Y IA IF 11�m v,sr lso IF Al ,2 IF1-7 IF 71 APN III'n Na+nTToaoo _ ,�,' �>�0.,'�•."'�. � eLacx, i 14.-IF 11-SF mlxs F xa0]5 woo �o: Jvv\ �� F \ \J. / v25M/ �4,yh,y Ix2J5% rah a9l s ' I IF 7 IF I ® aLGGK v2 j I MATCHL&E.-SEE SHEET 06 Page 26 Page 76 Item#2. j -_ s . ^N t�sl a9 F�I ¢Is sr- +�I 5 Fn\ 3�\MTCHLINE-SEESHEET0 11] i e,3 —76 SF I, 0 -1.sw I T; �`°/ Br•sEl,,t aw IE,'x2]29 1 <� I' zsws sv T \ o S,I� illy it Ilr - °" -__ __ � sz ,\sis➢sr/'� `�_�\�" ,y- 71 . E ==ass - w Is' r -lao3 s41 \9'Am Iorz uero sr - Issas sv - Ims s �Ila IF ,c °; Rv�A' = u>„os IF A \ o � � 7'41 �� I NN Page 27 Page 77 Item#2. \\ N- FouNo MONUMENT AT /\\ APN- APN.. SEL 23,24,N25&20, \ I 51228110}9] 5}2261}05]5 T3N PIW, I PROPERT"IJNE T _ _ Sa9'a8'36"C 1286 OT _ � I BLOCR� I �� 18 13•� 3 5858 29 nI 11 12 1 13 14 15 I 16 17 Ns 11969 6F 61 .iu.1% 10065 SF 11—IF 1100BU IF 110080 SF 109B0 SF 100B0 IF 110080 SF 1a130 sF "� FR R W _ 13 _ J2 J2' 3 Y $ ]2' 72' ]2 Y51 5d � 5B 29 F\ 38222 IF 75 16 JS 75' ]5 J5 75' 17GI'�IF w 104152 9S'FJ I eLOCK IF-: I1005 9'Ffl 016 509 SF-: 11 165 574 SF-: F1101®5 9' 18 501 2SF 1 2 l z S3' IB' S9' 18' 1 1 - - - 15103 IF I I . 21 a 22 - ZS = 24 = 28 = 26 - P F 10]OJ SF 11711 SF 101a]SF 1-7 51 IOJa]SF 1-1 IF 1-1 SF W q 75' J6' J5' J6 J6' B9 '__- Q 14994 SF C i° 75 �75 ]5 J5-T 75' J6 J2 30 ? Ir w 10992 SF = 2 10 If Job _ 12 I` 13 If\ 10702 IF 10]04 IF Ilp SF 1a]Oa SF 10J11 IF II—IF 122J0 IF 31 a - L 6a' w 1.21 IF \\ 1' R/W 75 18' SJ' 96' 29' Sfi' 15 T\ /' eLOCK i9 IF 108 4 32 \ O I 112 6 SF n 3 - 25 m —M 6F o,l —ASF 10626 SF 10625 SF 10619 SFf 125 la yq 21' 10212 26 �• a5 65'- 7 BLOCK 13 m j 41 s NA 21 IF � f -- - '2}A 9. m 10625 SF .^ "D2y1�._ _��_ E.fRR1GATOR ST 20 -34-125 o \ / 1024E IF 9 / - // ( F ' 63' 70' 70' JO' 106' 1 6 2500 IF iJ 93 21 f i 36 18248 IF 2566 IF ry 66 ',5 Iry m 10091 SF N m 10625 SF / 1fi �/ y. \ Q 0 Sf 1 6J506 44 5]5 5FJ_ 1zG 6750 IF _ - /// h h / \ zs sFh \ \ s l0 11s 121 lol g m 9. �/ 16 IF \ 11 / ry' ']0' 70 ]0 10125 IF / \ �/ fir. \ 20 12 11' 11 65 m 14869 SF 1-1 IF 18 y /S- 15993 SF q 10125 IF \ `9A V 'l�" Bi• A / B"` h0 yl 250 N �S '41 ���� v9� 1] 6 3 r /W J' 10248 SF "' p9 _ 9" 1—J IF F S ti .I ,14992 SF , 26 } 9 \ 10280 IF 60 \\ 910[K 12 \ , 037 6 i,ya �. '. 13 ,5h 2029fi 5= 2I Q102aB$L/ O s— BLOLK 13 112908 9 \ 2I 21807 IF \ 150 \4 15101 18a^�� 11648 IF zas— 21---imm za' —zae it it 6r 4i BB��__s_ 1o3•__J� J_5092 IF __ -_]fi•- -2482 SF 99 �' Sl 45' ----_ � 1285.93' -,�1��E.HOLSTEINOR-- Na91 36"µ J -� �Fl—NONN—T APN: AT E CORNER OF S1220417350 I_28,— R1W. 899'I1'3fi'E j 0.00 APN: APN: $1226417250 SW226417300 t 3 3 i Page 28 Page 78 Item#2. C. Open Space Exhibit(NOT APPROVED) I i VICTORY ROAD———— _I. _ GH I E FWOTA 9T - N cao aPu:R91a1nozoa � J � � I�y \ I eMAssevsr — — I AOJACNT'P PROPER NOTAPTI I 11.PITH —II ---__�I I I I aPN:Rsrsrnmao _ �=1. RIND �FaRW E!aMEMxL LPTURE9 �- � CH'IA�EN'S RPY STRU:IRF E , aPYL S]SM]fA1B3 --- - -IRRP xv r acFalsscl,an>s PE I yF9 arlln F--- —_ _� i r r r � of❑ o� F F r_,, , a r, a xNOTW a APN:R8141]80900 1 1 J 0 I - Q I r_-n uaE=ark F � - -1 S�NANGUS F•AY E.l7RAWBAN si r , r �E Am.R9rsr]aamo , y R F f I � I 1 Nor.sre,FOF I avN rnrvx000x P //]]�� aeo -------------- � AVN.slaaennsa PROPERN LINE \ ———� APN.SIP2661T159 \ APF:912P641]990 Y 3 E Page 29 Page 79 Item#2. D. Landscape Plans(dated: 1/31/2022) (NOT APPROVED) NOTE:THK J W VICTORY ROAD I -- -- 777 I I I \I I I I T - I 10 71 4 i Page 30 Page 80 Item#2. rmv v.a OHV41 'NVI13la3M �wecr�e, '1' 133HSN3AOO ? d # = uaoH�«�La�uai� .e 3dtlOSONVIAHVNIWll3Hd ` \.� I N°,,ar x 531V1S3 Mall 301SNNnG L, pt a .1 _ €1 � 3I ;. :. 'I , � U r N � z ❑❑ a vi C ? fat ❑ ��3 to `� �g^ >; � � z 3 6 5 � $ � e a � � � � a ., � � m � d d z sae ��3a� �5k€� � it R D -.MN. Aye �-�, ?��ax_�»Ea..H �� QVOl!ly 30N17 S ------------------------ ' r I 0 I s f; j I � I I ' I I ----� ' I I 7 I Iry� I I II � it I I I I ----------- —————————— Page 31 Page 81 Item#2. --T T—I I I ---� I I I PRIVACY 40'x l'SIGHT —�� — — — — WVICTORYROAD FENCE,TBU yVDIBILTY TRI �PROPOSEN _ _ MONVMENT SIGN I PRINCE T BU PROPGSEV-� 5 CRO-PA PRIVACY Eo MNOMILL FEATURE M&IUEWPLK FE ou I FE IVADY \ FENCE THO I I I ' I PRIVACY 5'MICRO-PATH FENCE,TEO I 5'PUAiHWAV \I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I / I I I I I I I I FENC€,TEC I I I I I � I I I F€NCE,TBPI I I I I I I I I I I —_ I 5'MICRO-PATH I I 910EWALK I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I.�__—`_ I I 5'MICRO-PAT1- PRIVACY— I I I I 91UEWM1LK NCE 6U � PRIVACY I FENGE,THo I 5'MICRO-PATH —EWALK PRIVACY _ _ I FENCE,TEC PRIVACY FENCE TEO F FENCE.TES PRIVACY 10'MPATULTHWAY I-USE FENCE,iE❑ I _ - I 4tl sA0'SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE C I I ` Page 32 Eiil Item#2. 7--------------------,---- -- PRIVACY o I PAliWAY (� _ - / I r 1 I I 1 I I r I ,aMuuFusE, —_-- I i i I I � �1Fn7`2LnrusE r FAIH I � rEN�E.,ao I I --- j -- p Y w� : II I f I I `C 1 \ —y LE I � I � I � ———————————————————————————————————————————————————— ------------- Page 33 Page 83 Item#2. v I I I I PRIVACY- 4d N 40'51GHT — —— I FENCE,TED VISIBILITY TRIANGLE I I PROPOSED MONUMENTS ION �,1 I _ I I I I I I I I I I + I 25 LAW—APE I I I I \ I 1 � I FEN E TBD I 2 I h � I r I 10 MULTI-USE I PATHWAY—— — —— pUFfEfi,TYP. I PRIVACY ` I \ PRIVACY FENCE,TBD FENCE,TBD rLT LErz.1'F ,F I 40'v 4V SIGHT ----_------i----- VISIBELITY TRIANGLE iE E I I I I � I iry I I I J Page 34 Page 84 Item#2. E. Proposed Phasing Plan EOU NO—MENT FOUNT)M9x MMENT // A'N d CORNER OF AT E CORNER CF SEC.2B,T3N, 5EC-26,iyy,R1W T g�g I S\ Na,s,�im9v — �LFT 7T- � 7—ji PROPERTY LINE �\ — Aeraf nv�vM I — __\——_\ I H JI I w I I I — -I I. I I I I —i / PR9P£RTY LINE — rsarxnonm i I�� PHASE NNE \ A I IJ \ � 7 LINE PHp5F5 _ I 1 4—L — Pa�PERTY LINE 4 PRaPERT'uNE-/--, PNA�LINE \ —II InRw g \,��\\� I xrF - - --- — s ,NOR------ : aTf255opoz9 —— I �—NC,MONUMENT IT POUNM MONUMENT sfSxaf nw ATE CORNER CE SECC 26 CT HE R1 W. SEC.26.i3N,R- - —— sfasen]S6v 51]T89f19(w 6 J Page 35 Page 85 F. Proposed � 1 F Figure 4- I Shade ag . r A - ti � L ' _• s 'r r .yc• ti Figure Play a rea Q Figure - F u mishi ngs Item#2. G. Conceptual Building Elevations: TWQ - ?' 40* i ■■ , ��. maw--- Page 38 Page 88 Item#2. Page 39 Page 89 Item#2. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the Annexation and Zoning ordinance is approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation; The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, conceptual building elevations, and amenity examples included in Section VII,and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development shall be substantially consistent with the proposed phasing plan with the modification to include the clubhouse and pool and the entirely of Lot 1,Block 12 with the€rr4 second phase of development. c. Applicant shall work with Valley Regional Transit(VRT)to include a bus stop along the Linder Road frontage prior to the final phase of development. d. The required landscape street buffer, detached pedestrian facilities, and road improvements along W. Victory Road and S. Linder Road shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development. e. The existing home at 3801 S. Linder Road shall connect to City services within 60 days of the City Council approving the Annexation ordinance per UDC 9-1- 4 &UDC 9-4-8,unless City Council grants a different timeline of service connection—the home's existing access to Linder may remain until phase 3 when the property will have access to Linder through internal local streets and the first leg of E. Holstein,as shown on the approved phasing plan. f. The rear and/or sides of homes abutting all arterial and collector roadways shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated February 3,2022, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise Bleeks 2 &3 to inelude R 8 eempliant lots and add additional building lots eemply with the minimum gfess density r-e"ir-ements west of S. Fam+yar-d Avenue (at leas!2.5 duA \ b. With the first final plat submittal,provide the Planning Division proof of the cooperative construction agreement(or similar)between the subject landowner and the landowner to the south(Parcels S1226417275, S1226417350& S1226417300,)to Page 40 Page 90 Item#2. construct the full width of E. Holstein OR Shift E. Holstein at least 12 feet to the north to allow for the standard requirement of constructing half of the street section plus 12 additional feet of pavement for safe vehicular access—the stub location of this collector street along the west project boundary should also be shifted this distance to mitigate future connectivity issues with the adjacent county residence to the west. c. Add an additional stub street to the north boundary near Lot 11 or Lot 12,Block 5 for future connectivity and to break up the block length of E. Pivot Drive. d. Add an additional cross street from S. Red Angus Way heading northeast to S. International Way across the Calkins Lateral in alignment with E. Drawbar Street to create a compliant block length,provide better interconnectivity,and provide an additional access to the multi-use pathway along the Calkins Lateral. e. Attach the sidewalk and include a minimum 10-foot wide common lot measured from the back of sidewalk to the rear property line adjacent to one of the local streets abutting Lots 1-4,Block 8 to remove the double frontage on these lots. f. Add the following additional micro-path lots at least 15 feet in width with a 5-foot wide pathway: 1) south side of E. Pivot in line with the recommended stub street location to head south between pivot and E. Drawbar and; 2)a rg the west 1.,,,,n .., from S. Agfeaen+y Avemie to the west pr-epeAy line neaf the shared pr-epeAy hn Lets 10 Q. 11, Blee,6. g. Deftic4 Verify the correct width of the Calkins Lateral easement and depict whether any buildable lots are encumbered by said easement. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated January 31, 2022, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Revise the landscape plans to match the revised preliminary plat as detailed above; b. Per UDC 11-313-7C, depict the correct number of trees(1 per 35 linear feet)within the proposed parkways and list the linear feet of parkway within the landscape calculations table. c. Include the required number of trees for the common open space areas within the landscape calculations table at the ratio of 1 tree per 8,000 square feet. d. Replace a lot in each of the two southern quadrants(southwest third and southeast third)with an additional open space lot—Staff recommends Lot 21 or 22, Block 13 in the southeast third and Lot 7 or 8,Block 7 in the southwest third. e. Per UDC 11-3A-6C, depict 6-foot tall open vision fencing along both sides of the Calkins Lateral. f. Remove the micro-path common lots of Lot 7,Block 12 &Lot 10, Block 11 in lieu of the recommended new cross street noted in VIII.A.2d. g. Depict the proposed type of fencing on a sheet within the landscape plans to ensure compliance with development code. 4. The Applicant shall revise the open space exhibit to match the revised plat and landscape plans and include the eligible parkway area per the provisions in UDC 11-3G-3B.4. 5. If required landscaping along the regional pathway adjacent to the Calkins Lateral is not allowed in the irrigation easement,the Applicant shall submit Alternative Compliance per Page 41 Page 91 Item#2. UDC 11-3B-12C to propose an alternative that meets or exceeds code requirements OR propose a wider common lot that allows the regional pathway and landscaping to meet UDC standards. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-4, and UDC Table 11-2A-5,and TT�able 11 2A 6 for the R-2, and R- 4,, a�zoning districts,respectively. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. Prior to City Engineers signature on a final plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along the north-south collector street(shown as S. Farmyard Avenue),the east-west collector street(shown as E. Holstein Drive), and along the Calkins Lateral to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 10. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 11. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. The proposed clubhouse and swimming pool on Lot 1,Block 12 shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review approval prior to building permit submittal. 15. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 16. Applieafft shall tile all iffig4ien f4eilities within the development area per-UPC 11 , tialess waived by City Getineil. The appheant is seek4ag a waiver-te lea-ve the Calkins Later-a4 B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. There is an existing 8-inch sewer stub to the property. It must either be utilized, or abandoned per City of Meridian requirements. If it is utilized, end the line in a manhole. 2. Any sewer main outside of right-of-way must have a City of Meridian utility easement provided. 3. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 4. Use pipe fittings to provide water main bends instead of deflecting the pipe. General Conditions of Approval Page 42 Page 92 Item#2. 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so, how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. Page 43 Page 93 Item#2. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping,amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 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 ACED. 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.meridianciU.oMIgublic works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Page 44 Page 94 Item#2. Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. Page 45 Page 95 Item#2. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254441&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=254500&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=256164&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr=1 F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=255027&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=255751&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=259251&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv I. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT—PATHWAYS https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254505&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv J. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) Are staff report t this fime. 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 annex the property into the City of Meridian with the requested R-2 &R-4 zoning districts is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and site design will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and within this area. Commission Page 46 Page 96 Item#2. finds the proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because of the proposed addition of estate lots, adequate open space, and the general site design, Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City, if all conditions of approval are met. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Page 47 — Page 97 Item#2. Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. So, Staff finds, if all recommended conditions of approval are met, the proposed development meets this finding. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. The Applicant is proposing to keep tile the Calkins Lateral epee gnd„Fe&eFv&djbr added open space and aesthetics so Commission finds a significant�� Meprejee area for recreation and active open space is preserved. Page 48 Page 98 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll u t r.•t .1 •••{,= �^� r��,a`�.• ;�,�•� c;!• r�J�. �J�yam`:��*�'-�f� •K �`: Ire. �. . ._.� �n!'t;�,.�• ��• �.,•f,w >^ 4 ' t � 1. s - t �"•'`;�= ,:� k,� a.,�; .:.°��`.'i '_r-"t�i� ,'`1�`tip! _ d' _ `tea`�� •.a "— .� i.� k r-,r.. ,,,W4-�-,ry �w ELAN t ` �� ���-.� � _.,' � �• ��1��fF�' ��������q�� �� III Opp # � � Q AL kpwv�-q IMF, �4 a" w Ti m tin e e NOV 2019 - Pre-Application Meeting MAY 2020- Pre-Application Meeting MAR 2021 - Pre-Application Meeting MAR 2021 - Neighborhood Meeting JACKSON RIDGE SEPT 2021 - Permit Submittal OCT 2021 - Neighborhood Meeting ESTATES _�.. Q_ 1 - 2022_- Individual Neighbor Meetings r s APR 2022 - P&Z Commission Hearing OEM- 1 4 BEFOREYOU TONIGHT 1. ANNEXATION/ZONING • Annex into Meridian, Zone property R-4 & R-2 • Staff recommends adding R-8 zoning 2. PRELIMINARY PLAT • Plats the parcels and rights-of-way JACKSON RIDGE Staff Recommends adding: ESTATES 3. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT • Adding conditions, site plan, finalized before City Council wr w vict ry 0.44vpvictory Rd W 1lictorym Rd 1y y r 1p L CD iX ti L r e wl IN ti RArTllty-Rd i lty � I- • • • JL. F i _ A n10 "� "h - rr1d, • r.:.. !. r - - a ir7 �...r 5 �1r-T. Am JACKSON RIDGE t i ESTATES � � ., a _ IL i r �Lu`�liu T en Zoning Ma R-4 -. r I Property Size: 121 .29 acres Number of 275 Single-Family Buildable Lots: Homes Minimum Lot Size: 8,750 sf MIT-Y---------------- . Average Lot Size: 10, 125 sf Residential Density. 2.35 du/acre �� H .J . --------------- -- Yf�b1CTCVPI`AdLQ - - -I 21 —1 9II 18I—17II 1II51 0�_II—9 �I 8 -I 7—}fII 5 BLCK T 5 R.A0207A Sr 22 13 14 15 F17� B 9 i IT 21 � 323 _7 _ IE � 121 4- I � II I - - 10 g g I 5 f S 3 2 1 Q I I I JACKSON RIDGE - 13 14 15 16 111 1gT19 .T 2� 22� Zoning ESTATES ; 12+ 11 I 10 I I s I7 I 5 I a I-3 s I 1 � 19 sari I I 25 0{ - I I I 1 ]a _ J :f Si22@7f0255 , _ L 11 f �� Lf I EH�6klNGS 18 � PROPERTY LINE t ' I Proposed 27 ,' 7 �8 I9 111) id 11 12 13 15 15 - Zoning28 �29 BLOCJf 4 BLOCK I I R-Z f. STMTTOT93 Updates u 3 Af 2 pIOPERiY LINE ST226if6S75 Zoning 31 31` s 1 . 3 - - - - - - - I * • II+I III+ BLOCK 5 18 19 7 11 6 f 1 6 7 B-9 10 11 12 13 u 15 15 17 y / BIOL'X 12 2 �- f -..._ 3 .....�: /� .._ 5 11S 14 13 12 11 T 6 5 1(1 B 3 d 3 1 F'- •�[Aylg{,{-}-}. 3 9�OLYi 19 T I 1 I 9 I BLOCK 7 x.r { 2 3 17 4 5 . 15 R 4 _� 2b 27 2 �.i k -_ ,qFp HtCICX 1 T \ & 24 I I I .. 7 , Zoning 10 �snw�sr�. I�� '� �' �" x� . _ 3 I, 29 28 8 $ f 9LOCK r I I 11 1 I + 6 III , 27 26 \ .~ 9 ti 9 7 8 9 10 1. 12 113 14 15 I 31 x. +s I 2 3 24 BLOI:Jf B 7 I 4 OLCCK 1O32 12 12 3 11 5 d 3 2 1 1 ad "� -�. 5 i 21 1d ` 1��no dlft�IGAFbRST I 30 f20 fan aF I �. �.g,I I d 9 I 2 a I 14 zV 43 d3 F 36 c I 13 i 1 16 Y 45 a5 44 3 P.&AirTdleBr 10 I 9 1B 4 \ ,pc" 17 15 I . S 12 36 I i 11 10 17 qv, 1 13 {�, 15 �41 13 III id II 12 11 I I 5 1011 15 a ., 19 17 4p 9 • I 15 �} \ -8- BLOCK 15 as 37 ' HLOCX7 I BtOpf9 S '' I 12 14 19 39 - f HOLSY MOR - - P ilbLS713Nr 6JP -} - - - - - - e R-2 R-4 R-8 JACKSON RIDGE ., ESTATES `m N M -_- a r7rrrrr.T7. , nna, + 50 c(dng I I e-u I I I amrr� I � 7 5 Ji 140' J ° % �? ` B° R ng - Typical Lot Dimensions I — `K�� I H7, TT44TT��nn n R�. YV'1Jl.l L1MS FCLIl�YJ } Y + p : t JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES _ Access & Connectivity a � � f Tim,lna sar+w ar; ujr JR I I •- -- i I I i I� I I � i >Ti U"E ICI * I mp?, J * I I r.auirrsr 4 i , JACKSON RIDGEI I I + PHASING DATA ESTATES I PHASE 2 i PHASE# BUILDABLE LOTS I I 1 56 I ' 2 -92 I 1 I 3 B4 Phasing � 5 12 I ,ars i H-E u E' ~ 4 I TOTAL 275 Diagram ' s�rrarxw � � I k a r.:FTr U'E xr.wiarr, LhE ' PHASE 1 x nixr�ne PHASE 5' t -y �H—E u,E _ waura °ERTt rr Lr.r I� 11 � L y � I, I ' PHASE 4 H-E u E I L/ awanrrcrir I I 1 rr,rrae � � K L� 4, ��',,PHASE 3 t ' k I 1 111 3k JI rye APW. .. VICTORY RDAD I i New Open Space Requirements JACKSON RIDGE __ - Required: 24 points ESTATES Proposed: 42.5 points DUCE GRjUEN w Required: 10% or 11 .67 acres - Proposed: 10.78% or 12.59 acres _. I max, . I 40.00' IRRIGATION DISTRICT EASEMENT 'jO I FENCE ENCE .• 12.00' 10.00' 1 ALL WEATHER MULTI-USE CLEAR f ACCESS(GRAVEL) PATHWAY ZONE 55.00' Poo - .. , ENTRY MONUMENT CONCEPT VICTORY ROAD WHITE 3-RAIL FENCE SHRUB&GAD NDCOVER — — -- ROW PLANTING ORNAMENTAL TREE ORCHARD S'SIDEWALK WINDMILL/ .(.., PRIMARY ENTRY MONUMENT '/ ^ //''►► Y{IOD POST&BEAM ENTRY GATE II� '� WITH BACKLIT Comm UNNY LOGO J AC 1\S O 1 Y 1 \I D V E AND FREESTANDING LETTERS COLUMNAR MEDIAN TREES ENTRY aT BOARD-FORM CONCRETE d TURF LAWN . WHITE 3-RAIL FENCE FREE-STANDING STEEL LETTERING sass SF 4 (f^ I ESTATES 6'DIA STEEL COMMUNITY LOGO(BOTH SIDES) LR WITH BA[RLIT OPAQUE BACKGROUND PROPOSED IO'MULTI-USE TRAIL COLUMNAR STREET NATURAL STONE VENEER BASE TREES @ ENTRY O WHITE 3-RAIL FENCE PRIMARY MONUMENT- ENTRY MEDIAN SIDE ELEVATION SHRUB&GROUNDCOVER / ROW PLANTING LARGE STREET TREES ENGRAVED(OMMUNITY LOGO S) BOARD-FORM CONCRETE sass s SHRUB 6 GROUNDCOYER FREE-STANDING STEEL LETTERING ROW PLANTING NATURAL STONE VENEER BASE ' ENT',ADvi SECONDARY MONUMENT-ENTRY AT LINDER RD COLUMNAR STREET WINDMILL TREES @ ENTRY STEEL COMMUNITY LOGO WITH BACKLIT OPAQUE BACKGROUND ORNAMENTAL TREE ORCHARD WOOD POST R BEAM ENTRY GATE STEEL COMMUNITY LOGO WITH NATURAL STONE VENEER COLUMN - BACKLIT OPAQUE BACKGROUND rJACKSONBOARD-FORM CONCRETEL ' FREE-STANDING STEEL LETTERING NATURAL STONE VENEER BASE PRIMARY MONUMENT-ENTRY ATVICTORY RD,LOOKING SOUTH r� PROPOSED 10'MULTI-USE TRAIL WHITE 3-RAIL FENCE 11 JR THE FIELD & THE MEADOW -- treat Lawn JAC KS O N RIDGE Meadow Path &Exercmalise seulptures *- Walking Patth&6oercise Stations Grain Bin Ramada _ ESTATES THE CORRAL Nature Plat Boulders,Nets,Tires Water'aitch'Play Feature �. THE GARDEN Farm Equipment L ~ 'y Ornamental Garden awn Berms&Mounds Seating&Shade Heritage Garden Trail Harvestore Silo Remnant Orchard tiM Walking Path&Exercise Stations OPEN SPAU'"E & fir,-- - Clubhouse t +i Pool&Spa Outdoor Kitchen twvm Games ti Pickle Ball Courts AMEh'ITIESCommunity Garden Fire Pit *'� x Remnant Orchard 1 ti� la a � THE BARNYARD LR F' S JACKSON RIDGE ESTATESTHE GARDEN { + _ 4 - r , r JACKSON RIDGE r 4x ESTATES - � 4 } f . '- _ c ?'•14- ds,THE CORRAL i � LR aCKSON RIDGE ESTATES � �■ � . � t - _ THE BARNv.L.'IRD � | � . � VICTORY ROAD �5 }� AAMM *JACKSON RIDGE AL ESTATES Lu COMMUNITY CHARACTER •r •w y 20 b � � t � f IIJ E. .PT Pool, workout room, meeting area, kitchen, outdoor lounge. x �� MON -------- j r� �,.I it�illll i.— � i �;"" .r � I ^ ���Y � dif& Z A'll err• �. -�� .�.,_ _� _�-�� _ _ __� a�`_�=>>� .. • _ .ales' _ i �1 - ail a •:' � .. J � t 22 fr \ x om" IRM OWL , pL 91 LA. MP pp, I 23 s . � '9 Y-5= _ � i_ - •- � -iF- _ ..��. --. __-_ ," �' `�_ �fw +1 ���� tii.'M7FliMARti. GINS M E Dp_y 1• t i.i 0 _;: or;.., , F ® rera■IN OW r - 25� OUTSTANDING GONDIIONS Phase 1 : All of Victory Road Improvements and a portion of Linder Road Phase 3: Remainder of Linder Road Existing Home Services/Access JACKSON RIDGE Cross Street from Red Angus to ESTATES International Additional Open Space Lots REQUESTED _ - RECOMMENDATION Ilzl -.11 . 1 Approval of the 1 . Annexation/Zoning 2. Development Agreement JACKSON RIDGE 3. Preliminary Plat ESTATES With modifications proposed in response letter. 1 MONUMENT FOUND uONUNENT GARNER OF —— — ATE 11d CORNER OF 5, T3N, R1W_ SEC 2$, T3N, R1w wffo1RYf7&6 21 20 19 18 1al. 11 10 9 6 7 APhL BLCICM f 5 RBT3TT7CT-017 a 22 16 19 . I I I 1 I- 1 1� 14 15 lfi F17 20 21 22 23 23 2 I I PERTY LINE 9 12 11 10 8 5 5 d 3 2 1 1 \ I I Ra1sr�7anua , a— I l f _ �l � JACKSONRIDGE 24 � - ->< >i 13 1 14 15 16 17 1-T 19 2I] 21 21 F. I 21 ESTATES - - BLOCfS1 w I I e19 I � �11 �6 �7, 6 i S a 3 2 1 J APFL AA4: o} 1111 If 19 SiY281f92S6 I f FM WW S} 7 -� 10 ~ < I7 [11 PROPERTY LINE27 57 I 9 10 11 12 15 13 I L Original -2a - - � - - � I nFW: EilOC1f< amass 1 Preliminary Tn • , 5 •`{2 ' 1 + 572 W - - ARM r - - _ _ � 2 PROPERTY 3 � , I � �lfaTA? Plat 31 s LINE - - ST226TfAS7r 3 E10CJ€ 31 1 • 9 I 1 3ML3 �Y � BLOpL S 19 7 }4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1d A 16 17 Z l fi 35 I 5 8!O[K12 a APFL d { 3 1a 15 ld 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 a 3 2 I RA'7377&RtfIXJ • 3 �,.v _ ELUCJ€7 { 2 3 3 17 ya 2 3 5 £ 76 19 211 21 22 33 2d 25 -A27 4 d �' �-�� --`t HlOCIC 1 f 6 � 29 10 g 90671E S! I � r 7 f alrawllur al• - s r 4 5 29 � 5 a 90f{1! I � 1 1 2'7 2fi 9 9 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 x 1 11 'K 1 • • 31 }' 'K 3 'EkTr LI'•E !3lUC1C! t 7 d EiL40FL19 yj 13 11 5 5 a 3 2 f � 12 3 wST I 8 ~ 5 r 21 � -- �fRpfBA61Q 35 I 71 1 Rd73i?•✓F09tQ �� 11 ~ f 15 d7 2 B 1 id 43 APAL � 15 d5 �5 -0d 1 13 1�RAlffO1M 17 t g 18 41 3 9 16 ' 15 10 17 � 1 16 Cf. 1fi ai 4 II. KI 1; 13 12 11 I 5 11 i6 �, 1B 17 ,� d0 1 9 � 1 15 aF BtocKf5 37 .I Excu(7 5 7 8 x 1 12 1+ 19 39 a& l _ F-hb�L4 8R - Jt ftiO1STFJN OR -y dPK APR R7125500M 51226RT7W4 Aphr. - - FfA INR — fk UIGT0RYRdLd_ _ 21 19 18 13 15 ld 11 10 9 B 7 I 11 U&M 22 — I- 13 14 iS 16 17 18 19 2p 21 22 �#I II aI ClI I I I R 3 23 j I 2E , I 9 B 5 S 5 3 2 1 2M I I JAl/'►KC N R I D(/►� E � � _ V O V 13 14 iS 16 17 16 y9 2p 2� 23 y; 21 BLG�SY w � 5 � I I I r et❑Cxa I I J I � � I ` I ESTATES - I -p+j 3 12 11 10 9 B 5 5 a 3 2 1k5 s ++ 19 f +� Si22dYYn253 I - �L �� I _ III c�� _: I I ._ — DrOnEFTY LINE I ' I 27 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ya 15 y5 17 I I — — Preliminary Plat after • 3 •' 2 1 S12W1OW APM r 3i 2 PROPERTY LINE 5722/ I0575 PZC off` 31 - 1 3 - ELOCltQ � �'�yt � �� etGx.7C5 16 19 �I 7 I 34 * 5 6 7 8 9 SD11 y2 13 14 15 if, y7 } I � � + 36 _ I � BlUCX Y2 2 k _ d 16 iS 14 13 12 11 111 9 B 7 6 5 a 3 2 I a 1 4 3 2 AYegL BLOCfi 19 � + I 9 r B10CF{7 f 2 3 a 28 17 5 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 4 I d `�- AFWB7Loex11 B —� 2 2 II io a f1o�sr I +�r 8 &LBLOM u I 30 I s 29 I 4I�, I 9 9 7 5 9 15 11 12 ya ld 1 5 6 I � � � • � 31 ' .T c I 2 a 2A l i y,p q B LLICKM 7 d BL0CK 10 2M313 11 5 a 3 2 1 �� I 1321 12 5 5 9 I 2 k g 11 1d � 47 43 F I 13 I15 + c 3 ( 16 445 45 4d 14 it i 9 16 13 1S 42 36 I I 10 17 41 ya is 12 11 � I 5 10 11 15all °� y I 15 �� ~ti BZOQ}C YS 37 5 7 — — k` I i I( -t � BL 9 B I 12 1a `; 2 19 l i i I I I r i , r f LR L TR JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES - - - i r9 Future Y Land Use _ { Map r= Qum i I I L }k - � I 1 1 Y Parks Park Halo Schools 1 r 1 1 i I'1!' YN ' 03 84 55 m — anb:R _ - . . 123 ' ' 7 - - .view Rgti �..1Ripe kRark r 45% _ P140 L�' { 10 15 % 4 r SITE r -a 1s st TRAFFIC 0% lim 5% DISTRIBUTION {� - � 3 5 8. Capital Improvements Plan { IP}f Integrated Fine Year Work Plan (IFYWP): • VictoryRoad is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to -lanes from Linder F oad to LRAleridian Road with the design year in 2026 and the construction date has not been determined_ JACKSON RIDGE * Ten Mile Road is scheduled in the IF WR to be widened to 5-lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road and includes Bridge #'118'1 over the Calkins Lateral and is currently Linder ESTATES construction. • The intersection of Ten Mile Road and Victory Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout and is currently under construction_ Road • The intersection of Overland Road and Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened Programing to 5-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south, -lanes on the east, and 6-lanes on the vest g g leg as part of the Linder Road widening project from Overland Road to Franklin Road.. The design year is scheduled for022 and the construction date has not been determined_ • Victory Road is listed in the oIP to be widened to -lanes from Ten Mile Road to Linder Road between 2036 and 2040_ • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to -lanes from Victory Road to Amity Road between 2036 and 2040_ • Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to -lanes from Victory Road to Overland Road between 2036 and 2040_ • The intersection of Victory Road and Linder Road is listed in the C I to be reconstructed as a single lane roundabout between 2036 and 040_ • The intersection of Amity Road/ H- 0 is listed in the CIP to be widened to 0-lanes on the north leg, 0-lanes on the south, 7-lanes.on the east, and 7-lanes on the west leg and signalized between 20 '1 and 2035. I � I I y I r I i JACKSON RIDGE — — — — d ESTATES — _ ' 3801 S LINDER RD cc.: W' 1 1 1 1 1 I _ - '�,�•"""_ ""� _.. '�• •��^� '��r^�� 'T� =ram •__ •.,-. .__T' �' ter:-- �-• T•�ra� _ , _- ��•=-- -_ �C m#fr_. ���-�' f.h�z GAF r��T' -'' _ - - ---- - ��,�.-_+e�:r.:�� �-•-• .- ��_-_::-= �5-ass.•• �:r��__-•�r�+v Sr��-•^r ��"� - - - 1 _. w.��y�`-_'�`'-���•�-_'����� _=terra - _'�..- ^•Fy-�.'�_:- -�I_��n'._ _ - _ -- ` y 1 �' '.:,- -+ wT.� --� ' _ .- :-+�v;-_-- - ••�'�'� _. ._:.. _. M1• � - �, it _.,$��;� --.__ 5• ram{ - r - - �. • 5 f , 1 Y'. ILI Lv s - TiI oilvj I � -V� S ` L ;• l I� 1 �_1111 jj��� F '• lick4 jal .4 E r1 a ' rx JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES VISION IMAGES ADA COUNTY,IDAHO JULY 2021 35 ANN- - A lk - iri 's i . JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES VISION IMAGES ADA COUNTY,IDAHO JULY 2021 1 36 1�'1 � "may 4 _ _ � _ ,'-��^,•�■ - ra r.1 "• jai � 4�.;� ''�"`�;,t ' � �' � 1 �....r`1.I:_�� � -��-q, 6. FRS y s i - L fl-P I :z e _ ^S 3 a. v. i MATERIALS JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES MATERIAL IMAGES ADA COUNTY, • Kim ey >>Horn JACKSON RIDGE 0 ESTATES 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Page 121 Item#3. C� fIEN , IN1, IDAHO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: June 7, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E.Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E.Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 122 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 7 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Grayson Subdivision ( H - 20 M014 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#3. STAFF REPORT C:�*%_ W IDIAN --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 6/7/2022 Legend � � DATE: 0 Project Location - _N_� E, TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 �® FR �® SUBJECT: H-2022-0014 ® ® Grayson Subdivision LOCATION: Located at 1710 E.Amity Road,near the northeast corner of E.Amity Road and S. Locust Grove Road,in the SW 1/4 of the --.� SW 1/4 of Section 29,Township 3N, �. Range 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district,by Schultz Development, LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—3.39 acres; PP—3.1 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR, 3-8 du/ac) Existing Land Uses County Residential Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 18 total lots— 15 residential building lots and 3 bldg./common)) common lots Phasing Plan(#ofphases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units 15 single-family units Density Gross—4.84;Net—7.1 Open Space (acres,total None required—Approximately 12,000 square feet [%]/buffer/qualified) proposed(half of the arterial buffer,micro-path lot, and parkways) Neighborhood meeting date December 9, 2021 History(previous approvals) No application history with the City Page 1 Page 123 Item#3. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not a4 this tifne Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street,E. Grayson Street (Arterial/Collectors/State stubbed to the east property boundary; it is proposed to be extended into the Hwy/Local)(Existing and site and terminate in a hammerhead-type turnaround by encumbering a Proposed) building lot. Stub I Grayson Street is proposed to be stubbed to the west property line for future Street/Interconnectivity/Cross connectivity. Access Existing Road Network No Proposed Road The Applicant is required to extend Grayson Street into the site and dedicate Improvements additional right-of-way for a future Amity Road widening and intersection improvements at the Locust Grove and Amity intersection to the west. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2.4 miles from Fire Station#4;project area will eventually be serviced by Station Fire Station 7, currently under construction. • Fire Response Time The project lies inside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. Once Station 7 is constructed,response times will be reduced in this area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 78%(below the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions but proposed design of a hammerhead-type turnaround will likely be denied by ACHD. In anticipation of this, an alternative design with an offset cul-de- sac was submitted. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 4 • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Water Quality None Concerns • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 Page 124 ' l l 1 1 1 5111�A _ g _ ��N-PRISONill 521 �j�Iiti�♦ Ili���� �i. i �.. [,���✓��� Oil ,� _. � •� - • I - � �� '`� ° -o - � 1���{� nlllll�■IIIII��� '- I�---- `II�11:1 I��i iwn���:d mil,+�L�� •_O�� _ 4: 1-, ' � :A: �,l 1r —_ AM IT■�Y�,I 1�I� n� * AM. 'f � C� 111 ■■ IIIIIIII w !' l.i milli milli 1 1 1 1 1Fill No NINE • ��i\I �i1J�.���� tea_���:... �. ■■. nun I Illn --•l 111 IHII=i• - • -• '• _ Ill!♦ : Iln =�I Il�.il=nnnu 1 nunm 1 .�xn - 11 n �1 __ Illd�.►m - 11 ll\ 111 C �O ••• ■. Ill p "" C pO ■•n'�p��II ■ ll ;��lln �� 11 �w 11 �o pl � mil■ �. IIII �IIII-�� � �-l7 _ p llll�l::IIII �= nn ' �• now 'IIIC C'■ uu � nu �n �j ::mow�mI p No { ..... mum�� ■ IIII= � mum��f ® IIL'�]I:A�I,����J �_, :im ''.�.�� ■ `II�IIrAhO�l.���_;__Ilnl •'. __ �� ■111 � IS��111 ' �_ C j1111 ■■�1111111 � :'� �Gi ■■111111111 � ►�il�ipi�•�• 'i'ilii '��� � �'O� � "inii liEll I► ♦ �rlw► ' so • ll Item#3. IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/5/2022 5/22/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/4/2022 5/20/2022 Site Posting 4/8/2022 5/25/2022 Nextdoor posting 4/18/2022 5/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g 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. The subject 3.1 acres currently contains a number of buildings and non-functional vehicles through the property. The property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with existing development to the east and north, Estancia Subdivision. The subject site has an existing local street(E. Grayson Street)stubbed to its east property line through Estancia so the Applicant is proposing to take access from this location which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Directly to the west of the subject site is a smaller county residential parcel that would be required to take access through this site should it ever request annexation into the City. Because of this, the Applicant has included an anticipated redevelopment plan for that property on the submitted preliminary plat at the request of Staff— the dashed lines on this plat are only representative of a potential option and that property(1670 E.Amity) is not part of this application. The Applicant is proposing 15 building lots on 3.1 acres of land which constitutes a gross density of 4.84 units per acre and is well within the allowable range of the MDR designation. The minimum building lot size proposed is 5,489 square feet which is nearly 1,500 square feet above the minimum lot size for the requested R-8 zoning district. The adjacent Estancia Subdivision is of lower density and has larger building lots than what are proposed with this project. There are no more than 2 building lots proposed adjacent to any single existing lot along the north boundary and the Applicant has placed their drainage lot in the northeast corner of the project adjacent to two Estancia lots. Furthermore, there are 6 building lots within Estancia along the north boundary where the Applicant has proposed 7 building lots and 1 common lot with this project. Staff does not find the difference of one(1) building lot along this shared property line to be significant enough to recommend any lot count revision. Consistent with the existing Estancia development, the Applicant is proposing to continue the parkways and detached sidewalks into this development to match that design characteristic. The Applicant is also proposing a micro path at the southwest corner of the property to add a pedestrian connection to the required arterial sidewalk. Outside of the 18 feet of additional right- of-way required to be dedicated to ACHD, the Applicant is proposing the required street buffer and depicts a 5-foot detached sidewalk along Amity. The sidewalk along Amity should be constructed as a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway per the Meridian Parks Pathway Coordinator so Staff has included this revision with the future final plat application. Page 4 Page 126 Item#3. In addition to these elements, the proposed termination of the Grayson Street extension should be discussed. Specifically, this Applicant has proposed to stub Grayson to the west boundary as required by ACHD and the UDC but is showing a temporary hammerhead-type turnaround that encumbers a building lot, Lot 7, Block 1. Typically,ACHD has not allowed this type of turnaround in recent years, even on a temporary basis. The Fire Department and Planning Staff support the proposed design as it meets Fire requirements and does not make two future lots non- buildable for the near future. However, Staff anticipates ACHD will not approve this temporary turnaround. So, the Applicant has provided an exhibit showing Lots 7&8, Block I encumbered by an offset cul-de-sac as an alternative temporary turnaround should ACHD not allow the hammerhead. See snip below and Exhibit VII.E for this proposal: OPTION "A" OPTION "B" 48' RADIUS TEMP PAVEMENT E GRAYSON ST. Because the proposed development extends parkways and detached sidewalks and a logical site design,Staff believes annexing this land into the City to remove this small county enclave is in the best interest of the City so long as the Applicant adheres to Staffs recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval. Staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed above. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation and rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA that encompasses the land proposed to be annexed and zoned with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Page 5 Page 127 Item#3. Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. Staff is not analyzing the project against any mixed-use policies but is instead analyzing the project against general policies as the project is being reviewed with the MDR designation. "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G). The proposed project offers a density similar to the Estancia Subdivision to the north and east but is generally denser due to smaller lot sizes. However, this policy calls for a variety of housing products in every part of the City and the proposed plat accomplishes this without cramming incompatible building lots on the subject 3.1 acres by proposing slightly smaller lots than what exists in Estancia. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing stub street on its east boundary.Applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way for future Amity Road improvements. The future Fire Station 7 will place this project further within the Fire Department response time goal and Fire has approved the accesses for the proposed plat. West Ada School District has not sent a letter regarding this application but with a relative low number of homes a large number of school aged children is not anticipated to be generated by this development. Stafffinds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create appropriate conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.0ID).Proposed project is extending the detached sidewalks along Grayson Street and is proposing a micro path connection to the arterial street buffer and detached sidewalk along Amity. Staff finds the proposed pedestrian facilities show compliance with this policy. "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction." (2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing lot sizes smaller than the adjacent Estancia Subdivision to the north and east but is not maximizing the allowable density. Specifically, the north property boundary is shared with 6 existing building lots and the Applicant is proposing 7 building lots and one common lot adjacent to these 6 homes. Staff finds this difference in lot number and size to be marginal and therefore cohesive with the existing neighborhood. Furthermore, the Applicant is extending the detached sidewalks and parkways into the development and adding an additional micro path connection to Amity for better pedestrian circulation in the area. Because of the proximity of the Estancia open space and an assumption future residents would naturally utilize this existing open space area, Staff is hopeful the subject development can be made a part of the existing Estancia homeowners association to spread the maintenance cost of said open space for additional users. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a drainage lot in the northeast corner of this development which has the potential for some green space within this development. Staff recommends a small shade structure and seating area is added to this lot in order to provide some usable open space within the subject 3 acres. "Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is required to and is proposing to extend Grayson Street into the site and stubbing it to the west boundary for future Page 6 Page 128 Item#3. connectivity to the underdeveloped county parcel at the northeast corner of Amity and Locust Grove. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: According to GIS imagery,there appears to be a couple residential structures multiple out- buildings, and dozens of dilapidated vehicles on the subject site.Any and all structures and debris are proposed to be removed upon development of this project. Furthermore,the existing access for this site is via a driveway connection to E. Amity that will also be closed upon development. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential with an average lot size of 6,169 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,489 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and all lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of 4,000 square feet and minimum street frontage requirement of 40 feet by proposing lots with a minimum of 50 feet of frontage. The Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop as one phase due to the size of the proposed project. However, any lot(s) encumbered by the temporary turnaround/cul-de-sac would be platted and labeled as non-buildable on the plat until such time as Grayson Street is extended to the west. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. hi addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans appear to meet all UDC requirements except for Grayson Street being a dead-end street and greater than 500 feet in length. Per UDC 11-6C-3B.4, City Council may approve a dead-end street up to 750 in length where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope, railroad tracks, an arterial roadway, or a large waterway that makes extension impractical. In the case of the subject site and underdeveloped county parcel to the west, the site is bordered by two arterials in Amity and Locust Grove. Furthermore, the intersection of Amity and Locust Grove just to the southwest of this development is planned for a roundabout which has specific designs and will not allow for additional connections to these arterial streets for either of these parcels. Therefore, the subject site is encumbered by a `physical barrier"as outlined in code and the project requires a City Council waiver for Grayson Street to be a dead-end street longer than 500 feet. Staff notes that the length of Grayson Street from the existing intersection in Estancia to the west boundary of the subject site is approximately 550 feet. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed detached single-family homes.Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval therefore Staff does not review these for compliance with any architectural standards. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding and fiber cement board and differing accent materials, roof profiles, and overall varying home styles. Staff finds the conceptual elevations should be adhered to closely in order to offer an array of potential home designs for this subdivision. Furthermore, half of the proposed development has the rear of homes adjacent to Amity Road, an arterial street.In these cases, Staff includes a DA provision that the rear and/or side elevations of any two-story home incorporates articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. Page 7 Page 129 Item#3. projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs), bays, banding,porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject arterial street. Staff has included this provision as noted. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via extension of E. Grayson Street(an existing residential local street) into the site and is proposed to terminate within the site at the west boundary for future connectivity.As discussed above,the Applicant is proposing to provide a temporary hammerhead-type turnaround instead of a temporary cul-de-sac. Staff supports this temporary turnaround design in order to save space and minimize the waste of asphalt within this development but anticipates ACHD will not approve this type of temporary turnaround.If ACHD does not approve the hammerhead design as recommended by Staff,the applicant shall restrict Lots 7 and 8 as non-buildable lots as proposed and place a note on the final plat stating these lots will be developable with the extension of the public street. Further,according to the proposed plat,Grayson is proposed as 33-foot wide local street with 5- foot detached sidewalks and 8-foot wide parkways; this street design complies with all UDC standards. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. In addition,there is opportunity for on-street parking where there are no driveways because Grayson is proposed as a 33-foot wide street section. The submitted landscape plan best shows the areas within the development where on-street parking could occur(see Exhibit VII.C). I. Sidewalks/Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and 8-foot wide parkways are proposed along the E. Grayson Street extension,consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements. The proposed sidewalks meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. The proposed parkways meet the minimum width requirement but do not show the correct number of trees per UDC 11-3B-7. Further analysis is in the Landscaping section below. J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Per the Pathways Coordinator and the Master Pathways Plan, a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the E.Amity Road frontage. This required pathway should be located within the required landscape buffer and outside of the ACHD right-of-way. In addition,the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide micro-path within a 15-foot wide common lot in the southwest corner of the project to provide a connection from the internal sidewalks to the pedestrian network along Amity. The Applicant has proposed a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk within the Amity Road street buffer which does not comply with this requirement. Therefore, Staff is including a condition of approval for the Applicant to revise the landscape plans to depict the required regional pathway within this buffer. Furthermore, this pathway should be at least four(4)feet north of the ultimate right-of-way line to allow for landscaping on both sides of the pathway and ensure the pathway is detached from the roadway and allow the 25 foot buffer to be measured from the ultimate right- of-way instead of the back of the pathway,per UDC 11-3B-7C.1a. The proposed micro path and common lot comply with UDC standards. Further, the proposed landscaping within this lot also comply with the minimum UDC requirements. Page 8 Page 130 Item#3. K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E.Amity Road, an arterial street, landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. In addition,the proposed parkways are required to be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-7 and the proposed micro-path is required to comply with the landscape requirements in UDC 11-3B-12. The Applicant is showing a 25 foot wide common lot with 16 trees, multiple landscape beds, and other vegetative ground cover along E.Amity; this proposed landscaping complies with UDC requirements. The micro path lot is I S feet wide and is depicted with two (2) trees which exceeds the minimum ratio in code of 1 tree per 100 linear feet as the pathway lot is approximately 100 feet long. As noted above, the proposed 8-foot wide parkways do not appear to depict the correct number of street trees. Each parkway is approximately 420 feet long which requires a minimum of 12 trees on each side of Grayson Street. The submitted landscape plans depict 8 trees within each parkway so an additional four(4) trees are needed on each side of the street. Staff is including a condition of approval consistent with this requirement. NOTE: In lieu of analyzing the common open space in a specific section because the project is below the 5 acre minimum to require common open space, Staff has analyzed this within the Comprehensive Plan analysis in Section V.A and V.B above.Within this analysis, Staff recommended a seating area be added to the drainage common lot in the northeast corner of the site for the purpose of providing some passive open space component to the development. Staff has included a condition of approval consistent with this analysis. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC I I-3A-7. The Applicant is proposing 6-foot vinyl fencing along the rear lot lines adjacent the Amity Road landscape buffer and the subdivision boundary and is proposing 6-foot tall steel tub fencing on the west property line of Lot 8, Block 2 adjacent to the micro-path common lot. In addition,the Applicant is proposing to protect the existing 6-foot tall wood fence along the north property line. The proposed fencing meets or exceeds all UDC requirements. Staff notes, the proposed steel tube fencing along the micro path lot is not required by code because the micro path is one (1) lot deep and is fully visible from a public street. Per UDC I I- 3A-7, 6-foot tall privacy fencing is allowed on both sides of this micro path if the Applicant or future homeowner desires it. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the conditions of approval in Section VIII of this report per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 28, 2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. I. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Matt Schultz,Applicant; b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Matt Schultz; d. Written testimony: None Page 9 Page 131 Item#3. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. None 3. Key issues)of discussion by Commission: a. Location of existing cell tower(not located on subject propertyt b. Will open space be shared with adjacent and existing subdivision to the east,both proposed open space lot in this project and open space lot in Estancia Sub. 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 10 Page 132 Item#3. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map ID5G IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 GROUP Phone: (208)846-8570 Fax: (208)884-5399 Grayson Subdivision City of Meridian Annexation Description Project Number 21-547 February 10,2021 Situated in the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 29,Township 3 North, Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the southwest corner of Section 29,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,which bears SOO°30'07"W,2651.95 feet from the west quarter-section corner of Section 29; Thence S89143'41"E,238.00 feet along the south line of Section 29 to the Point of Beginning: Thence N00°27'04"W,350.30 feet to the south boundary of Estancia Subdivision as filed in Book 97 of Plats at Pages 12,189 through 12,194,records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence S89°44'09"E,421.65 feet along the south boundary of Estancia Subdivision; Thence S00'30'07"E,350.36 feet along the west boundary of Estancia Subdivision to the south line of Section 29; Thence N89'43'41"W,421.96 feet along the south line of Section 29 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 3.39 acres,more or less. ANC SG 1,3 4 of Page 11 Page 133 Item#3. to cn � PROF � o Basis of Bearings o S00'30'07"E 2651.95' �` y51 �•� S. Locust Grove Rd. Ln i— 0C) N I tND o W ao N w m 4�- o Unplatted 0 Cog 3 o I N00'27'04"W 350.30' G) Cn - `� - v � Q 0C2 Q. c m 0 = 3 0 z A oo J a o -p� w a o CA - m m U) — �.. O cy my � 0 0 - fTl 4t {L iTl (kCO m D j `mow C � [ J a � 3 050 � 1p m (A b m w A O S o � a N CCD 7 i a I 50030'07"E 350.36' a� p' U) Cr a 7 <:g I W N °c n� CD O� rn E Q 7 O m O I a T� Q IN a I o S. Alma Ave. Z 0 Page 12 Page 134 Item#3. B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/17/2022) PRELIMINARY-LAT 51-10'N1NG GRAYSON SUBDIVISION LADAA COUNTY 7MER�o AN, IDAHO FEBRl1ARY,2 2022 (9 a F s a� Ek I - ° �zo RM Kim Wn- I, 33'TYPICAL STREET SECTION WIT- . n. .u.. w - T_ T fun m, I o ����1®� �asanrEvR Ti �� ,YuR �r aw"Kp— �eem € a e u�nx'i�w a°94 2 s P1.0 Page 13 Page 135 Item#3. MAW AEEL,EI15E OM S ALIi4 ME YARIE7EI L PAGE keDI M.D 93042 49%5 DENISIM ME REFIDWI,ID 8 2 CEHMVE71i OIRA L DW Rg■ALL i I RECHER 9R1'N1 4IN]IEi SHERRI A CMH IMR 1015 1 AREL IR,.1'E ML9f$f 101 E MWLYF Sr 1725 E DAUL9i Sf 1743 E MLEY Si 1751 E DWAN SE �'R i�PIRfl1 IM E DRIM Si YFidW, Ril42 MORIDOL 10 13M YEREIRN,ID S3RA2 WMDIAR•ID B3642 AERCIAM,p mm 1x A 0 11056442 L Dft u s 2 DOWN JOHN 11R91i'f191 421.53' 4M 5&uA AVE -- MEMID141,ID&M42 71A,' J A 60or --dSR � 56.G / SOA' DUNG 6`P AAW 0.1� !L0%I 1 4 �/��x/�_ 415'g 7 4 O O 1 mm BNIVI Alp SF ,Q u4 4711 8 NLN AYE 1 21 AC MW SF "71 SF - 6An SF 035 SF _ 1477 5F " MEMM%ID 0 0.14 At 0.14 AC 0.1i At (W At: 0.14 AL .m r7 lUFN--A I 7'9Ll NNk u J 1 IXGMG R'PI WH TFi)AAAS PA4L A — --- — -- --L— —1� --J 771 kR--lfl --L— — 1 1670 E AWRY RD R0.b' SG i5_ . 11 YEFIoIa.ID 83541 0 — E CAA'S0N py — 5 --T— —T-- —� = =— �*-- —� — —r --1-- 1677 5F `'� L 2 WFA LA FMW)Hr � P114 AC •S1IM SF o� 7� 71K7 SF w SF 3"1 SF 5'm SF � -9 cm SF IgrsF30v1 s1EEvaEA 1 NKMER ASC A0 4 L12 AL - 2 AC 0.1E I m 1112 AC AO m 0.12 AC 0.12 AC ce 0.13 AL 1913 E CRR730Y Sf 1847 E GRA150M b c o $ &' 8 $ IE]IM*D d3642 MERIRRR7.IR&W 9 ^x61t O 7 Cl 1.R' SOLI SD.D' 10 M=9f 4GOE 2 • ¢~ •g A24 ABC g,E _ :mtr4Y4tY 4ztsf ICi� � d3 ■ EX M 12 1AA1E4 111N EP � EP Page 14 Page 136 C. Landscape Plans(date: 3/9/2022) ......... iV-1d),HVNILNI-17]6d -i -138d Cd AiIAV 3 O�Zl NOISIAiasnS NOSAV&D INVId 3dVOSONVI AHVINIVII K Eg alNVIGIH-11N t'q A LU a E E H c 3 e d A f El LU Lu �MW-oe of LLj Lu �q gFa 0- NO Rim V'mll - N I,w- z�z "k it H Lu w LU_j *L LLI LLI _j 4 P: 1 T�4 to 2 r ON 'w 1;'�14 ".3 LL cc Lu Rm from - 16 Page 15 Item#3. IRRIGATION NOTES: PROJECT CALLOUT LEGEND LANDSCAPE LEGEND INFORMATION Vvo may, == --------- ------ M o xnlo w s.unn reaw..s O7 - -,•r_a raeE� — rizsrtsLoa TntL�rrcL�x!R snnms �o�anrartoa ,slo w 6 rn wcw.F. E rz Oe rwrs Fare om is sr 1� w� r nF na V////AI �Fm _.c«Ibl,wu+h-Ic—1 urvs5,nN.vwe c�.c,v.Lw,.1 1 �J Nl1i A�trrxra<Ar<cr va�. /. " L _ K � J 1 � r � e 4�+1 .4+` —AO EST GRAYSON m 3 t 3 �h E O� 5 .3: 0 3 9 �m o s ws u Po 3 �ro 6 as x C B — — E AMITY RD T PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ^` x Page 16 Page 138 Item#3. D. Conceptual Building Elevations 1000000 o� Y ¶' ' NEW ENE ANSI MEN SINS �tsa r nr Page 17 Page 139 Item#3. A126 - :<s R y. Photo Similar OMM AMF Vol 464 11 loon I4 Page 18 Page 140 Item#3. E. Temporary Turnaround Options—West terminus of E. Grayson Street extension o O O OPTION "A" OPTION "B" 48' RADIUS TEMP PAVEMENT E GRAYSON ST. 0 0 Page 19 Page 141 Item#3. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)/developer at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from E. Amity Road(Lots 1-8,Block 2) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies, material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. c. A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the Annexation and Zoning ordinance is approved by City Council. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The applicant is seeking a Council waiver for E. Grayson Street to be a dead-end street greater than 500 feet in length,per UDC 11-6C-3BA. 3. Per Exhibit VILE attached hereto, E. Grayson Street shall terminate along the west property boundary as either a temporary cul-de-sac or hammerhead type turnaround—if a hammerhead type turnaround is approved by ACHD, Lot 7,Block 1 shall be a non-buildable lot until such time as Grayson is further extended; if a cul-de-sac turnaround is required,Lots 7 & 8, Block 1 shall be non-buildable lots until such time as Grayson is further extended. 4. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated February 17,2022,is approved as submitted. 5. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated March 9,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Depict the correct number of street trees within the parkway per UDC 11-3B-7. b. Add seating and a shade structure within the drainage common lot(Lot 1,Block 1). c. Depict the required 10-foot wide regional pathway within the Amity Road landscape buffer and place it at least four(4)feet north of the ultimate right-of-way line to allow for landscaping on both sides of the pathway and ensure the pathway is detached from the roadway and allow the 25-foot buffer to be measured from the ultimate right-of-way instead of the back of the pathway,per UDC 11-3B-7C.1a. d. Common Lot 1,Block 1 shall meet minimum standards in UDC 11-3B-11. e. Common Lot 9,Block 2 shall be landscaped as proposed. Page 20 Page 142 Item#3. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 1I- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 10. 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. 11. 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. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The walking path from the proposed development to Amity Road will require a 20-foot-wide water main easement,which shall be free from any permanent structures or encumbrances. 2. Relocate the fire hydrant at the west end of the site so it is located at the furthest east property boundary line. The line serving this hydrant shall be 8" diameter; this hydrant will be used as a blow-off until future extension of the main occurs. 3. Minimum slope for a dead-end sewer main is 0.6%. 4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 5. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked Page 21 Page 143 Item#3. EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. Page 22 Page 144 Item#3. 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 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at htip://www.meridianciiy.orgzpublic works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aWx?id=255656&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC iv D. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT-PATHWAYS https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=255690&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC iv E. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT—TREE MITIGATION https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=255631&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=255804&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C i &cr--1 Page 23 Page 145 Item#3. G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.or,g/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=256396&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ity H. NAMPA/MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258729&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr=1 I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=260206&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-8 zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested 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. 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. Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: Page 24 Page 146 Item#3. 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 25 Page 147 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ferney Subdivision (H-2021-0103) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at Parcel #51109438871, Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.64 acres with a request for the I-L zoning district. Page 154 Item#4. E IDIAN:-- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact: Joe Dodson Meeting Date: June 7, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Ferney Subdivision (H-2021-0103) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at Parcel #S1109438871, Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. Request: Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.64 acres with a request for the I-L zoning district. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 155 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 7 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4 PROJECT NAME : Ferney Subdivision ( W2021 - 0103 ) 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 �l S Li 4 N /VVi 1celA zcC "j 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 � 11 12 13 14 Item#4. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 6/7/2022 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ------ SUBJECT: H-2021-0103 L Ferney Subdivision ID llJ ,.--� LOCATION: The site is located near the half mile mark on the north side of E. Franklin Road,between S.Eagle Road and S. 9 Cloverdale Road,in the SW '/4 of the SE r m' '/4 of Section 9,Township 3N.,Range 1E. -=- 029�.m°'� I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of 5.64 acres with a request for the I-L zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2)building lots on 4.93 acres of land in the requested I-L zoning district. NOTE: The Applicant is seeking a Council Waiver to reduce a required landscape use buffer per the specific use standards for the proposed use of self-service storage facility(UDC 11-4-3-34). Analysis is provided throughout the report below. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—5.64 acres;PP—5.143 acres Future Land Use Designation General Industrial Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Future self-storage facility and Flex Space building Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning I-L Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 2 industrial building lots Physical Features(waterways, Evans Drain runs along norther boundary of property hazards,flood plain,hillside) (minimal flood hazard). Neighborhood meeting date November 22,2021 History(previous approvals) Subject site was denied annexation and zoning approval in 2020(H-2020-0033)because no development plan accompanied annexation request but the Applicant withdrew the application before Findings of Denial were approved by the Council. Page 1 Page 156 Item#4. B. Community Metrics Description Details Pa e Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two(2)driveway accesses to Franklin Rd. currently exist; Hwy/Local)(Existing and Main access will be provided via proposed extension of E. Proposed) Lanark St(an industrial collector roadway)and one emergency-only access is proposed to Franklin to comply with code. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross E.Lanark is proposed to be stubbed to eastern property Access boundary with attached sidewalks. See analysis in Section V below for more information. Existing Road Network W.Franklin Road is built to its ultimate configuration. 5- travel lanes,bike lanes,curb,gutter and detached sidewalk. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is existing attached sidewalk.A landscape buffer is Buffers required along Franklin frontage. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station Approximately 2 miles from Fire Station#1 • Fire Response Time The project lies inside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 76%(below the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths,and turnaround dimensions. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 5 - • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Water Quality Concerns None • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 Page 157 Item#4. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map 0 Legend Project Location Project Location MU-R,Gs": General Civic Industrial - Lul �4 L�STK Commercial - - MU-C Office a . Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R=4 �.. R=B e A- Legend � � 0 R-1 T Project Location 0El Project Location I y City Limits IJ L-O Planned Parcels ; L-O I-L M-1 T ' C-G L=F� Ml _ Rll� t� C-ICIaaL-O M-1 ' �J -2 R L-+ ao � L-O A �m IIL APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions, LLP— 1029 N. Rosario Street,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner/Developer: Greg Ferney,Franklin Storage,LLC—4549 N. Mackenzie Lane, Boise, ID 83703 C. Contact: Same as Applicant Representative Page 3 Page 158 Item#4. IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published 4/19/2022 5/22/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/18/2022 5/20/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/25/2022 5/25/2022 Nextdoor posting 4/18/2022 5/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) General Industrial—This designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and offices uses. In some cases,uses may include processing, manufacturing,warehouses, storage units,and industrial support activities. Sample zoning include: I-L and I-H. The subject property is noted as Industrial on the future land use map (FL UM) and shares this designation with multiple properties to the east and west along the north side of Franklin Road. The Applicant is proposing to annex the property into the City with the I-L zoning district and propose two different uses on the property, self-storage and flex space—both of these uses are listed above as anticipated uses in this designation and the proposal for the I-L zoning district complies with the industrial future land use designation. The subject property has a planned extension of an industrial collector street(E. Lanark) that will bisect the property into two parcels which accounts for the main reason a preliminary plat is required and was submitted. According to the submitted plat, the Applicant is proposing the self- storage buildings on the front parcel(approximately 2.89 acres) and a flex space building on the back parcel along the railroad corridor(approximately 1.75 acres). Further analysis on the proposed uses are in subsequent sections below. In terms of nearby and adjacent development, there is existing industrial zoning to the west with developing flex and other industrial type buildings. The parcel directly abutting to the east is still a county RUT parcel that contains a single-family residence and still maintains some farm animals. Directly east of the county parcel is an ACHD facility that is currently under construction. Therefore, the county parcel to the east would be surrounded by industrial uses until such time that parcel redevelops. Because of the existing residential use to the east, this Applicant is required to provide a landscape buffer to that use. Staff has had conversations with that homeowner and they anticipate selling the property in the next five (5)years once their parents decide to leave that home. The applicant is seeking a Council waiver to reduce the buffer along the parcel as the City anticipates this property will redevelop with industrial uses in the future. Based on the proposed uses and plat,Staff finds the subject development to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Specific policies are analyzed below in the next section. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651IA.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council Page 4 Page 159 Item#4. and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to this development; Staff analysis is in italics: "Plan for industrial areas with convenient access to state highways or the rail corridor,where appropriate."(3.06.02D). The subject property abuts the railroad corridor along its north boundary. The subject development preserves this property as an industrial use along the rail corridor despite not utilizing that service at this time. Staff finds the most important factor being that this development does not eliminate that option nor proposes a use that is non-compatible with the rail corridor. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities,and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A).As noted above, the Applicant is required to provide a landscape buffer along the east property boundary as an existing county residence is present on the parcel directly to the east. This is a requirement of the specific use standards for the proposed self-storage use;specifically, that the use is required to be wholly enclosed which should help minimize the impact to the existing homeowner. The Applicant is depicting a buffer along this entire boundary but is proposing a reduced buffer width because the property to the east is anticipated to be redeveloped with an industrial use similar to what exists in this area. Within the reduced buffer, the Applicant appears to depict code compliant landscaping and elevated building design facing the existing residence. To help ensure this buffer closest to the existing residence(the southern quarter of the site) provides adequate screening, Staff is recommending the Applicant include additional trees for the first 150 feet of this buffer to show the trees touching at maturity. Staff believes with this additional landscaping, the proposed development offers compatible site design, buffering, and screening to the existing development to the east. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer,police,transportation, schools, fire,and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing network abutting the site to the west and south, per Public Works comments. Subsequently, all public utilities will be extended at the Applicant's expense in order to connect to the existing services within the right-of-way. Further, the site is within the Fire Department response time goal of 5-minutes. Franklin Road is widened to its ultimate width in this location adjacent to the site and the Applicant is required to extend Lanark Street through the site to its east boundary. The subject development is only allowed an emergency access to Franklin because access to Lanark will be available. The required access to the public street network helps appropriately disperse vehicle trips for the subject site and the nearby uses as well. "Preserve the industrial base within designated industrial land use areas by discouraging non- industrial uses and focusing on light manufacturing, distribution, flex-space, and base- employment."(3.07.01D). The subject development does not propose non-industrial uses by proposing self-storage and flex space which are uses supported by the future land use designation as a whole and by this specific policy. "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers,and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation,low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01 Q.As noted above, the Applicant is required to provide landscaping adjacent to the existing residence to the east but additionally the Applicant is required to provide a 35 foot landscape buffer along Franklin, an entryway corridor. Furthermore, the required E. Lanark extension is a collector Page 5 Page 160 Item#4. roadway which requires a minimum 20 foot landscape buffer with detached sidewalks. The Applicant is depicting both of these buffers and, as shown, should provide noise mitigation and buffer the transportation corridors from the proposed development. With the recommended revisions,Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Annexation: The Applicant is proposing to annex approximately 5.64 acres of land which is larger than the property size of 4.93 acres. This discrepancy is due to the Applicant being required to annex land to the centerline of adjacent right-of-way. In this case,this area includes Franklin Road right-of- way south of the property and railroad right-of-way north of the property. With previous applications north of the subject site,Applicants did not annex to the centerline of the railroad right-of-way which was a mistake and the City did not catch it. In light of this, Staff is asking the Applicant to revise their annexation and zoning request to include the full railroad right-of-way instead of just to the centerline. Staff has included this comment within the conditions of approval. D. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Main access to the project is proposed via two driveway connections to the extension of E. Lanark, an industrial collector street. According to the submitted plat that depicts the proposed layouts for each use, each property is proposed to have one driveway connection to Lanark in alignment with each other located approximately 45 feet west of the east property line(measured from property line to center of driveways).No other access is proposed for the flex building on the north property. The south property containing the self-storage use is proposed to have an emergency only-access to Franklin Road; a secondary access is required to satisfy the specific use standards of the proposed use. Lanark is stubbed to the subject property's west boundary and is required to be extended into and through the property. Lanark is not able to be extended further than the subject property so the Applicant is required to terminate Lanark in a temporary cul-de- sac near the east boundary, according to the ACHD staff report. However, because the timeline of extension is not known and temporary cul-de-sacs require a large amount of area, the Applicant has proposed an alternative temporary turnaround by incorporating the needed space for a hammerhead type turnaround within the Lanark right-of- way and the driveways proposed to Lanark. This alternative was proposed after the ACHD staff report was issued so Staff is not aware ifACHD will approve this alternative. The Applicant should continue working with ACHD on the type of temporary turnaround allowed. The Meridian Deputy Fire Chief have given their approval of the alternative temporary turnaround shown on the submitted plat with the requirement that Lanark be signed "no parking"on both sides; the Applicant has agreed to this. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed alternative to be sufficient for approval by the City but understands revisions may occur to satisfy ACHD. These revisions would not affect the layout but would only increase the amount of asphalt on the property. Because the Applicant has to obtain final approval from ACHD on the proposed alternative turnaround and Staff includes a general provision to comply with ACHD conditions of approval, Page 6 Page 161 Item#4. Staff does not find it necessary to include a specific condition as part of this application and will confirm the outcome of the temporary turnaround at the time of final plat submittal. No other accesses are proposed or required with the submitted plat or proposed uses and each access complies with UDC requirements. E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: No existing structures or site improvement appear to be present on the subject site. Two curb cuts exist to Franklin Road and both are proposed to be removed in lieu of the emergency access to Franklin for the proposed self-storage use. The Applicant is required to construct vertical curb, gutter, and repair any sidewalk while closing the two existing curb cuts. F. Proposed Use Analysis: The Applicant is proposing two industrial type uses, self-storage and flex space. Both uses are permitted use in the requested I-L zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2C-2. Self-service Storage Facilities are subject to specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-34 and Flex Space is subject to the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-18. Although self-storage is an anticipated use on the subject property, Staff has expressed that more flex space and less storage is preferred in order to help provide more employment opportunities and contribute to the overall need of flex space in the Valley. Commission and Council should also determine if the proposed mix of uses is preferred by the City. According to the submitted plans,Staff finds the proposed self-service storage facility complies with all specific use standard except for the requirement to screen the property and the minimum 25 foot buffer to any residential use.It is unclear on the submitted plans whether any fencing is proposed. The Applicant should clarify this and provide an exhibit showing the type of fencing/wall proposed to satisfy this requirement.As noted above, the Applicant is proposing a 15 foot buffer adjacent to the residential use along the east boundary.Reducing a landscape use buffer requires a City Council waiver and is not eligible for Alternative Compliance,per UDC 11-5B-5.According to the resident's child to the east, it is not anticipated for their parents to be in this location long-term and this property is also shown as industrial on the future land use map. Staff is recommending denser landscaping is proposed along the first 150 feet of this buffer measured from the back of the required street buffer(185 feet from back of sidewalk). Further, the Applicant is required to provide a solid fence/wall to satisfy the specific use standards. With Staff s recommendation, the specific use standards, and the fact the property to the east is planned to be an industrial zoned property,Staff is supportive of the reduced buffer. Future development applications that show the floor plan of the proposed flex building will determine compliance with the flex space specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-18. Staff typically verifies code compliance for flex space buildings at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) which is a required approval prior to submitting for building permits. Staff notes, all buildings on the subject property will be required to obtain CZC and Design Review approval prior to building permit submittal. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed building lots meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested I-L zoning district for setbacks,building height, and proposed use. All subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). This applies to the subject development because a preliminary plat was submitted. Staff finds the proposed plat complies with the standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3. Page 7 Page 162 Item#4. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6B for nonresidential buildings based on the gross floor area of the flex building and the area of the office for the self-storage facility at the ratio of 1 space per 2,000 square feet. Staff will confirm code compliance with this code section at the time of CZC and Design Review submittal. However, initial review of the submitted landscape plan depict parking in excess of code requirements on each site and for both uses. I. Sidewalks&Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17& UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along the E. Lanark Street extension per UDC 11- 3A-17C. There is existing 7-foot attached sidewalk along the Franklin Road frontage that is proposed to remain. The proposed sidewalks comply with UDC requirements and the existing sidewalk along Franklin is required to be maintained or repaired should it sustain damage during construction. A multi-use pathway segment is shown within the railroad corridor north of the subject property. Per the Meridian Parks Department,the City is requiring a 14-foot wide pedestrian easement along the north property boundary for the preservation of a potential regional pathway segment along the rail corridor consistent with the Master Pathways Plan.According to the submitted plat, the Applicant is showing the required 14 foot easement along the north property line. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E.Franklin Road, an arterial street and labeled as an entryway corridor. This buffer is required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. According to the submitted plat and landscape plans, a minimum 35- foot landscape easement is depicted adjacent to Franklin,measured from the back of sidewalk. The submitted landscape plans confirm the minimum width of the landscape buffer but do not appear to show code compliant vegetation. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.3, no more than 65%of the landscape buffer area shall be comprised ofgrasses and additional landscape design is required along entryway corridors. Therefore, additional vegetative ground cover beyond that of grasses and additional landscape features are required to meet UDC standards. For example, as outlined in code, landscape features may include berms of no less than four to one (4:1)slope at a three- foot minimum height, decorative landscape walls (no greater than three (3)feet in height), decorative open vision fencing(no greater than four(4)feet in height), or a dry creek design with river rock, boulders, etc. are acceptable to meet this standard. Staff has included a condition of approval to comply with this standard.However, there are existing power poles along the Franklin frontage so the Applicant will be limited to Class I trees only; this does not preclude the Applicant from meeting the maximum ground cover percentage noted above. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required on both sides of the E. Lanark Street extension,an industrial collector street—the submitted plat depicts at least a 20 feet wide easement on both sides of this road extension measured from approximately the middle of the detached sidewalk. Therefore,the parkway strips between the sidewalks and back of curb for Lanark are not shown as part of the landscape easement. Staff has concerns with the parkways strips not being included within the landscape buffer easements along Lanark and the lack of any vegetation shown within these parkways on the submitted landscape plans. Staff recommends the landscape buffer easement be extended to the back of curb to comply with the UDC and to revise the landscape plans to show additional grasses within the parkway strip. Further, the landscape buffers along Lanark do not show the required vegetative ground cover, similar to the Franklin buffer. Therefore, Staff is also including Page 8 Page 163 Item#4. a condition of approval to add additional vegetative ground cover beyond grass to comply with UDC 11-3B-7C.3. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and those areas applicable to the specific use standards for the proposed self-service storage facility(UDC 11-4- 3-34). No fencing is shown on the submitted landscape plan but fencing is required per the specific use standards for the proposed self-service storage facility use adjacent to the existing residential use to the east. Staff is including a condition of approval to include code compliant fencing along the entire east property boundary. L. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed storage buildings and flex space building. All new nonresidential buildings require Administrative Design Review(DES) approval prior to building permit submittal. DES was not submitted concurrently with these applications so the Applicant will be required to submit for this with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application. The conceptual elevations submitted depict 17 foot tall storage buildings at their highest and a 21 foot tall flex building. The storage buildings vary in overall size but appear to show varying roof profiles and finish materials facing relevant areas (roadways and the residence to the east). However, it is not entirely clear if the paneling shown facing the residence is metal or otherwise, metal paneling will not be allowed as a future field material. Overall, Staff finds the conceptual elevations should comply with the relevant standards but will review it in more detail at the time of CZC and Design Review submittal. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Evans Drain runs along the north property line with a majority of its easement on the subject property.No floodplain exists on the subject site nor along the Evans Drain in the vicinity. According to the submitted plat,this drain is proposed to be piped compliant with UDC 11-3A-6. Because this area of the plat is adjacent to a vehicular use area around the Flex building, parking lot landscaping is required per UDC 11-3B-8 and should include trees and other vegetative ground cover. The submitted landscape plans do not depict any trees within this area as the irrigation easement does not allow trees. Further, the Applicant will need to obtain a license agreement with the irrigation district in order to construct what is shown on the landscape plans. Staff does not find what is proposed on the landscape plans to comply with the minimum code requirements discussed. The Applicant should submit for Alternative Compliance with the future final plat to propose an equal or superior means of complying the landscaping outlined in UDC 11-3B-8 within or adjacent to the Evans Drain easement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for annexation&zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and the preliminary plat request with the conditions noted in Section VIILA per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. Page 9 Page 164 Item#4. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on May 5,2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Becky McKay,Applicant Representative; Jeff Hatch,Applicant Architect; b. In opposition:None C. Commenting. Becky Mckay; Jeff Hatch; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Support of project and synopsis of previous application in 2020—by Jeff Hatch 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Applicant's request to reduce landscape buffer to the east and discussion on landscaping along Franklin that needs to be revised to meet code. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None of the revised plans have been submitted consistent with the conditions of approval. Page 10 Page 165 Item#4. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map ACCURATE SURVEYING & MAPPING �< XFRVICE Job No.19-274 Land Description Annexation/Rezone A parcel of land located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found aluminum cap monument at the Quarter Corner common to Sections 9 and 16,T3N,R1E as perpetuated by document 113006165,Records of Ada County,from which the found aluminum cap monument at the corner common to Sections 9,10,15 and 16, T3N,R1E as perpetuated by document 11084522,Records of Ada County bears 5 89'20'44"E a distance of 2702.61 feet;thence S 89'20'44"E along the section line for a distance of 639.62 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 00'34'57"E for a distance of 1148.13 feet to the centerline of the railroad right-of- way; Thence S 88"27'42"E along said centerline for a distance of 214.12 feet; Thence S 00'34'S5"W for a distance of 1144.83 feet to the section line; Thence N 89'20'44"W along said line for a distance of 214.10 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel contains 5.635 acres,more or less. ND 15 � O 11463 yAreorvo"" t A�AN J.DAB i 1520 W.Washington St., Boise,ID 83702•Phone.200-488-4227 www.accuratesurveyors.com Page 11 Page 166 Item#4. EXHIBIT MAP ANNEXA77ON AND REZONE FOR HATCH DESIGN ARCHITECTURE A POR77ON OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SEC77ON 9, T.3N., R.1E., B.M. COUNTY OF ADA—STATE OF IDAHO _ S 88'2742'E -T RAILROAD o 214.12' Ct o o RIGHT—OF—WAY O ROW ~ROW ROW ROW�- BASIS OF BEARING S 89 20'44" E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS AT THE THE SOUTH 114 CORNER AND SOUTHEAST SCALE: 1"=200' CORNER OF SECTION 9 COMMON TO SECTIONS 9 & 16. LEGEND ANNEX AND REZONE BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE Row RIGHT-OF-WAY W - - - SEC77ON LINE FOUND ALUMINUM CAP z N $ Q IN ASPHALT Q o nj Q • FOUND 518'IRON PIN, WITH PLAS77C CAP, PLS 7861 OM OR AS NOTED (Ll o o 0 FOUND 112" IRON PIN, WITH � 51109438871 WITH PLAS77C CAP, PLS 7881 LINE TABLE 224,0441 S.F. O SET 518'IRON PIN NTH 5.143f AC. 2'ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 12720 LINE BEARING DISTANCE A CALCULATED POINT L1 IS 00.34 57 W 42.00 L2 IN 00'34 55 E 42.00 114 CORNER SECTION CORNER CP&F No, 113006165 CP&F No. 11084522 3" ALUMINUM CAP 1N 2 112" ALUMINUM MONUMENT WELL, CAP IN ASPHALT, PLS 1029 ROW ROW PLS 13551 9 639.6: � 214.10' 206_2.919' K 16 N 89 2044" W 2702.61' 16 15 BASIS OF SE4MMG W. FRANKLIN RD. L ANp F _ 11463 5"&V" OF 97� ,OPT W 1520 W. Washington ti G u1 c Boise, Idaho 83702 qAN J.D (208) 488-4227 www.accuratesurvegors.com DATE: JAN. 2022 JOB 19--274 Page 12 Page 167 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: December 21, 2021) Woo d v, I K-n BLOCK 2 r LF tg q ---------- !Man Page 13 Item#4. s - � 1 44 5 a i f � cs i ry awn€ w _ ......... ...�. ....., ....-.-. 3 =tik d ss x�uv��•a �, .Ls xaVKvi�!-�.-� '$1 N. s � ry ` ll a I I _ ..... ..... .. � � s I I I I � I I I I �N I . i ......... I - •CLLl3V]]S�135 3YLf1f- � syixrt ��� 'au nrr�h►v[e-s s.u� ua� Page 14 Page 169 Item#4. C. Landscape Plan(stamped date: March 16,2022) VlN0.5CAPE NOTES- IRRIGATION NOTES PROJECT INFORMATION LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPEeeLEGEND GALLODT NOTES�. IE P; . .: ..-.:e.. �.::..s. fIANT SCHEDULE 'f iEf{ TO s...�.r.r © ,.,. ....w .... ...,, a uls i�� w — z i I ql Sc aulLoiNG _ uJ -— auILOIN — G5 . N suaaNc n C� o LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN ^^`..., L-1 .0 Page 15 Page 170 Item#4. (7VOb7lVd 0 E.Zi'pIZ 3.Z6,�Zo885 Epi _ O I•o m %3a W J9 _ � 1S�Rlb'Nb'7 3 I �1 ti 3 I p o z , I- I l� ry 0 I Z Z Z O 7D m m � I m I I 0 z I ¢ 111 IL - U �V N � .0I'LIZ M.YG,OZo6B N _ _ Z (78 NI7,/NVd-4 'M � ¢ J Page 16 Page 171 Item#4. A Conceptual Building Elevations(full file linked here) KEYNOTES E%TERK) FINISH �° •":, ©es"reca—...E SPECI FI CA TIC Ns V MEA_FRIM 6 FINISH EILMEi115 P --wLsnm —TER,FAscIA. J mac.coP�vc uP. CO.OR',CHh?CO—PAY IRE FINISHE'rurv.- Mr ENIPRE=1iHfE P E MEA_PAN_i,^.1bOI PBO 1 cRa rrecvm Lcu;� [l m3c_rlA.m�niwnLLsnva_ CO:JH:S.V)11 I F',VN O cr-rw�.I�o mTe�amnrve_ .M3:MEA_-INSH EL-EN1S —LPA INTE-0NOOE$T-COLL— - - �,o;xrvaLvvl,vtnvs.n, CU6RUWN STUNS RE FINI?HED1 LWALL rAVC_ .3311'.,,. n11FINE v1 MA PRE=INLi'STERLIRTICALMEre.L PANEL var r�rv»nE�m�ar.,urtea •A9CI-1-1-LRJ-I6 PM1NEL OR 1 1 A.-.P..... . ear - ®w CO�R',RROti'`'N STONE �s3• fy:'-•''�' .M S:v=RIICPL fiiLIFL WALL PRE-IWISLED MEA_JU'NNSPUJT, MRGI C.1Lf`RROWN STONC '-��z __ 5".Sl I1CL'.0 YVT LL F NLH STUCCO FIM1I.iH CO_3R,NCHI 5ONE S2',STI111 RTNCIY::F VISH slue o FI,RN �>�q:..) =) Y•) 'a> IX�'� CO OR,S iFLE" rx—F� MRI'M7 LROCFP hELS rn.onwrrr ,.iwu<r is wNSR J=' ';�) - n wx.k lAC U K t G OF FAM O(CII.1L N raW� CRrA1 _ 2—REIJ ENIS.NL mC"L'RER y °..o sas r.a s�ro r,r„sn ...Ze CI COU R'.CY.:?CO.v._GRM1Y 0 Q ry C• 'r f `H M hN C R R—SANTE. O PR JfT_FI FACE CMU. SOUTH ELEVATION-BUILID ING II IaNu<NI, u N ORTH ELEVATION BUILDING I � LL H a co tea,HE in o acxe.i-vo Rcal F''-�c kEIALTCVEE RHEA EOM F t YJ � Sc—PER PE!-AE M;�h L=.SEEP l,NS3 SCHELIILE. Z f Fad%SL�F%nOi?F T Fr,N I: � IA"'I J CCL02 MATCH AC ACENTN'A L Y u.wMx�i PANEL FI NISE_ -. , am LE M. EAST ELEVATION- BUILDING 1 ..-"" EXTERIOR WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS Page 17 Page 172 Item#4. KEYNOTES O eraarre cucuno n,_e. - V - Ti GENERAL NOTES -� �° W SOUTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 3 NORTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 3 E3 I-E,V-1 ,l E.r-o Q o 13� 71p --Yu an l9 Z a w EAST ELEVATION- BUILDING 3 c w Z q LL - �uY tin xrr:,, � f � l.o.Aw PnYE 6w WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-4.2 Page 18 Page 173 KEYNOTES A9--T--1 I-E 0 1 N4,4A GENERAL N CTFS T7 y NORTH ELEVATION-BUILDING 5 SOUTH ELEVATION BLI ILDINU 5 L9 o IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII Hill ul FF I YFF] z EAST ELEVATION BUILDING 5 LL EAST ELEVATION BUILDING 5 ELEVATCKS A-4.4 Page 19 Item#4. KEYNOTES J ca art caoarorece. �JG.: _ J .s s�cccvcccrr w;rvo. =ir._zL, ,1 °a�«x6ruEcm lai cavre. , GENERAL NOTES - ;.3 4' ♦n nx FnuF i.n �v.FavF a iP BUILDING#5 ° n BUILDING#1 ° m NORTH ELEVATION - LANARK ST. FACADE ❑ R k Ill a Z o Y Ex LL BUILDING#2 Y BUrIYLDING#3 BUILDING#4 SOUTH ELEVATION - FRANKLIN RD. FACADE IXH1OR EEVA1pIy5 A-4,6 Page 20 Page 175 KEYNOTES L)4�Tr2,� GENERAL NOTES . ...................... p Em Ld NORTH ELEVATION-FLEX BUILDING SOUTH ELEVATION-FLEX EX BUILDING 19 < Lrl E; fT I I I i I T I I I I I I I I I z se zi WEST ELEVATION-FLEX BUILDING d� LI EAST ELEVATION-FLEX BUILDING 1EVAEONS A-4.5 Page 21 Item#4. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION Please submit a revised annexation legal description and exhibit map 15 days prior to the City Council hearing that includes the full width of the railroad right-of-way north of the subject site. 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer; a final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and AZ ordinance has been approved. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of the subject site shall be substantially consistent with the proposed concept plan,preliminary plat,landscape plan,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Prior to issuance of any building permits,the applicant shall subdivide the property in accord with UDC 11-6B. c. The uses allowed on this property are those listed in UDC Table 11-2C-2 for the I-L zoning district. d. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. e. Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-34 and UDC 11-4-3-18 for the proposed uses of Self-service Storage Facility and Flex Space Building,respectively. f. The Applicant shall comply with the Commercial architectural design standards in the City of Meridian's Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submittal for the elevations facing Franklin and the east elevations of the two storage buildings adjacent to the existing residence on Parcel S 110943 8907. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated December 21,2021, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Show the required landscape easements adjacent to E. Lanark Street to include the parkways along Lanark and start at the back of curb. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, stamped on March 16, 2022, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15) days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.3, depict no more than 65%of the landscape buffer area to be comprised of grasses for all required landscape street buffers(adjacent to Franklin and Lanark). Page 22 Page 177 Item#4. b. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.3 for development along entryway corridors,depict additional landscape features within the 35-foot buffer along E. Franklin Road. c. Include additional trees and show they will touch at maturity along the east property boundary for a minimum of the first 185 feet measured from the back of the existing sidewalk for additional screening. d. Depict the proposed type of fencing on a sheet within the landscape plans to ensure compliance with UDC 11-3A-7 and the applicable specific use standards. Chainlink fencing with or without slats does not qualify as a screening material in accord with UDC 11-3B-5M. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-613 for nonresidential uses in the I-L zoning district. 6. Prior to City Engineers signature on a final plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along the north boundary to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 7. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 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. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 11. Applicant shall tile all irrigation facilities within the development area per UDC 11-3A-6, unless waived by City Council. B. Public Works Department Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. City utility easements must be clear of any permanent structure including but not limited to buildings, carports,trees, shrubs,fences,infiltration trenches, light poles,etc. There appears to be a fence separating the property from Franklin Road which will need to be removed to allow for a water crossing and easement. 2. The water main in East Lanark Street must end in a blow-off for future extension. 3. Sewer must be extended to the southern boundary at Franklin Road. 4. Easements must be a minimum of 20-foot-wide per utility,or 30-foot-wide for combined utility easement, as long as the minimum separation is maintained between water and sewer mains. The depicted easement going south is currently shown as 25-foot-wide,which does not meet this requirement. Page 23 Page 178 Item#4. 5. No permanent structures can be within a City utility easement including but not limited to buildings, carports,trash enclosures,trees,bushes, fences, light poles,infiltration trenches, etc. 6. Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. Page 24 Page 179 Item#4. 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 I I-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 proj ect. 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.meridiancioy.oMIgublic works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, Page 25 Page 180 Item#4. 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. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=260239&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=258728&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv 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 annexation of the subject site with an I-L zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan General Industrial FL UM designation for this property(see Section V for more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds that a map amendment to the I-L zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the industrial districts in UDC 11-2C-1. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 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 that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. Page 26 Page 181 Item#4. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-6B-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 27 Page 182 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing to Consider the Conveyance of approximately 0.73 acres of City-Owned Real Property for a Minimum Price of$335,000.00 to the Meridian Development Corporation for Redevelopment Purposes in Downtown Meridian, located at 201, 223, 231, and 237 East Idaho Ave., Commonly Known as the Meridian Community Center and Centennial Park Page 189 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : June 7 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : Meridian Development Corporation for Redevelopment Purposes in Downtown Meridian 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: Ordinance No. 22-1980: An Ordinance (Oaks North Rezone - H-2022-0010) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the North % of the Southwest % of Section 28, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 12.02 Acres of Land From the R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules, and Providing an Effective Date Page 199 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-053697 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 06/08/2022 08:43 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1.980 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (OAKS NORTH REZONE -H-2022-0010) FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE NORTH V2 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE I WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 12.02 ACRES OF LAND FROM THE R-4 (MEDIUM LOW- DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE R-8 (MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for rezoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Toll Southwest, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby rezoned from R-4(Medium Low- Density Residential) Zoning District to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to rezone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to rezone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. REZONE ORDINANCE—OAKS NORTH REZONE H-2022-0010 PAGE 1 OF 3 SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned,with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor, and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2)plus one(1)of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 7th day of June, 2022. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 7th day of June, 2022. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 7th day of June 2022, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing At: Meridian,Idaho My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 REZONE ORDINANCE—OAKS NORTH REZONE H-2022-0010 PAGE 2 OF 3 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Proposed City of Meridian Rezone The Oaks North Subdivision A parcel located in the N '/2 of the SW '/4 of Section 28, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the southwest corner of said Section 28, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the southeast corner of the SW '/4 (S % corner) of said Section bears S 89'16'58" E a distance of 2635.25 feet; Thence N 1 000'42" E along the west boundary of the SW '/4 of Section 28 a distance of 2630.85 feet to an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the SW '/4 (W % corner) of said Section 28; Thence along the north boundary of said SW'/4 S 89021'17" E a distance of 971.05 feet the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing S 89021'17" E along said north boundary a distance of 340.07 feet to the northwest corner of the NE '/4 of the SW '/4 of said Section 28; Thence along the west boundary of said NE '/4 of the SW% S 0052'12" W a distance of 16.99 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary S 89"I V34" E a distance of 596.07 feet to a point; Thence S 0°45'26" W a distance of 146.93 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 189.18 feet along the arc of a 600.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 18003'57" and a long chord bearing S 8016'32" E a distance of 188.40 feet to a point on the centerline of W. Burnt Sage Drive; Thence along said centerline the following courses and distances: Thence S 72041'29" W a distance of 157.31 feet to point of curvature; Thence a distance of 275.35 feet along the arc of a 1000.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 15046'36" and a long chord bearing S 64'48'11" W a distance of 274.49 feet to a point of tangency; Thence S 56054'53" W a distance of 368.06 feet to a point; Thence leaving said centerline N 33005'07" W a distance of 144.00 feet to an angle point on the northerly boundary of the Oaks North Subdivision No. 8, as shown in Book 121 of Plats on Pages 18996 through 18999, records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence along said subdivision boundary the following courses and distances: Thence S 56054'53" W a distance of 90.00 feet to a point; / Prposed Rezone Lail dL61I-1-tj)r3� The Oaks North Subdivision land Surveying and Consulting Job No. 1 Page 1 of of Page 203 Item#6. Thence S 63°40'51" W a distance of 73.86 feet to a point; Thence S 83°00'24" W a distance of 70.71 feet to the northeasterly corner of said The Oaks North Subdivision No. 8; Thence leaving said boundary N 6038'19" W a distance of 137.94 feet to a point; Thence N 0°38'42" E a distance of 135.00 feet to a point; Thence S 89°21'17" E a distance of 46.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0038'43" E a distance of 425.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 12.02 acres more or less. Clinton W. Hansen, PLS oNPL LA NO Land Solutions, PC NCO S T F i p November 11, 2021 G o c 1 118 �j 9TF OF Prposed Rezone The Oaks North Subdivision k.— Land Surveying and Consulting Job No. 18-3 Page 2 of Page 204 EXHIBIT B Item#6. THE OAKS NORTH SUBDIVISION_ PROPOSED CITY OF MERIDIAN REZONE LOCATED IN THE N 1/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 28, TAN., R.1W., B.M. CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO I � 1/4+28971.04'� _ S89'21'17"E 1311.11' CW 1/16 _ S89'21'17"E 1311.13' C 1/4 29 340.0T - - - - POINT OF BEGINNING 3 I I S89'14'34"E 596.0T V-0 NC� 1LO CD _L_ / o� o N / N I I IM I I I I I I 1 I coI I I I _I REZpNE PREP pROPOSEO PORES t I" I I S89'21'17"E ! l coI w - 46.00' NI O:�r M° CN ^z I LL _ LJ _ LJ Z LAOD \ I rOFj��� '50 Sh 7 n I 3^ 3� tea' OI 4- I N^d o^ L �S Q: im 00 o cn T1 I � z 29 28 W. McMILLAN RD 28 32 33 S89'16'58"E 263525 33 BASIS OF BEARING `vNp L,LA No 1/4 0' 100, 200' 400' o ��, S TF 111 .18 it I II I'LI 0� CURVE TABLE �ti�,TF OF ON CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD W.NP C1 189.18' 600.00' 18'03'57" S8'16'32"E 188.40' Lan futions C2 275.35' 1 1000.00' 1 15'46'36" S64'48'11"W 1 274.49' Land Surveying and Consulting 231 E 5TH ST..STE.A MERIDIAN,ID 83642 (208)288-2040 (208)288-2557 fax Ww .landsolutions.b iz n - Page 205 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . illiam L. M . Nary, Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 224980 An Ordinance (Oaks North Rezone - H-2022- 0010) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the North %2 of the Southwest '/4 of Section 28 , Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho ; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 12 . 02 Acres of Land From the R4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) Zoning District to the R- 8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules ; and Providing an Effective Date. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B . ] REZONE ORDINANCE - OAKS NORTH REZONE H-2022 - 0010 PAGE 3 OF 3 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1981: An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of Approximately 0.73 Acres of City-Owned Real Property to the Meridian Development Corporation, Located at 201, 223, 231, and 237 East Idaho Avenue in the City Of Meridian (Commonly Referred to as "Centennial Park" and the "Meridian Community Center") and Legally Described in this Ordinance; Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute and Attest on Behalf of the City of Meridian the Sale Agreement, Deed, and Other Documents Necessary to Complete the Transaction; Providing For a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Page 206 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1981 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN,PERREAULT,STRADER AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF APPROXIMATELY .73 ACRES OF CITY OWNED REAL PROPERTY TO THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LOCATED AT 201, 223, 231, AND 237 EAST IDAHO AVENUE IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS "CENTENNIAL PARK" AND THE "MERIDIAN COMMUNITY CENTER") AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN THIS ORDINANCE; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN THE SALE AGREEMENT, DEED, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION; PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code 50-1401, the City Council has statutory authority to sell, exchange, or convey any real property owned by the city which is underutilized or which is not used for city public purposes; and, WHEREAS, when it is determined by the City Council to be in the City's best interest, the Council may by Ordinance duly enacted, authorize the transfer or conveyance of the real property to any tax supported governmental entity with or without compensation; and, WHEREAS, the proposed transaction would convey certain real property to the Meridian Development Corporation for purposes in furtherance of its mission to stimulate and expand Downtown Meridian into a thriving area that provides opportunities in which to live, work, and play; and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the Meridian City Council on June 7, 2022 and at the conclusion of said hearing, the City Council moved to approve the conveyance, subject to certain terms and conditions, and directed staff to bring forth this Ordinance authorizing the conveyance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That a public hearing on the proposed conveyance was held at the June 7, 2022 meeting of the Meridian City Council. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY-Page 1 of 4 Section 2 . That the City Council determined after the public hearing that the proposed conveyance is in the City ' s best interest and that the property should be transferred to the Meridian Development Corporation in exchange for compensation in the amount of $ 335 ,000 . 00 and other terms and conditions contained in the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property to be entered into by the parties . Section 3 . That the City Council has reviewed and approved the legal description of the Subject Property as identified and depicted on the attached Exhibit A , incorporated herein by this reference . Section 4 . That the Mayor and City Clerk shall be authorized to execute and attest the Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Real Property, a standard form warranty deed, and any other documents necessary to complete the conveyance authorized by this Ordinance . Section 5 . That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half ( 1 /2) plus one ( 1 ) of the Members of the full Council , the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one ( 1 ) reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in fiill force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication . PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian , Idaho, this 7th day of June, 2022 . APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian , Idaho, this 7th day of June, 2022 . CITY OF MERIDIAN <,-O� r ek� Mayor Robert . Si ison Veo�o��� nChri o n ,, City Clerk ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY - Page 2 of 4 26. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. 27. Governing Law.This Agreement is governed by,and construed and enforced in accordance with, the laws of the State of Idaho. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first written above. SELLER: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simison, Mayor Attest,City Clerk BUYER: MER IAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By: Real [:state Purchase Agreement Page 9 Item#7. EXHIBIT A Legal Description and Map Lots 5 and 10, and the North 90 feet of Lot 6, 7 and 8, and the East 8.5 feet of the South 30 feet of Lot 6,All in Block 6of the Amended Plat of the ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF MERIDIAN, as shown on the plat thereof,filed in Book 1 of Plats at Page 30, records of Ada County, Idaho. AND Lots 1, 2, 3,4 and 5 in Block 2 of the Amended Plat of ROWAN ADDITION TO MERIDIAN, according to the plat thereof,filed in book 2 of Plats at Page 52, records of Ada County, Idaho. = lu-ifIr.Ave — I 2]1 • nl y� Lu 22 2 7 LU v l .a'T z 1100 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY-Page 4 of 4 Page 210 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the Dublic . illiam L. M . Nrry, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22 4981 An ordinance authorizing the conveyance of approximately . 73 acres of City- owned real property to the Meridian Development Corporation, said property being located in Downtown Meridian at 201 , 223 , 231 , and237 East Idaho Avenue, commonly known as the Meridian Community Center and Centennial Park. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at Meridian City Mall, 33 E . Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. Ordinance Exhibit A (Legal Description and Map) shall be published as part of this Summary. ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY - Page 3 of 4 Page 209 REAL ESTATE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF MERIDIAN AND THE MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CIVIC BLOCK PROPERTIES THIS PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") , is entered into and made effective on June 7th , 2022 (the " Effective Date " ) , by and between the City of Meridian , an Idaho Municipal Corporation, whose address is 33 E . Broadway Ave, Meridian, ID 83642 (herein the " Seller " or "CITY") , and Meridian Development Corporation , and whose address is 104 E . Fairview Ave #239 , Meridian, ID 83642 , (herein the " Buyer" or "MDC ") . WHEREAS . CITY and MDC have selected a proposal to redevelop portions of downtown Meridian , including the Property as defined below (the "Proposal") ; and, WHEREAS , the Proposal includes a provision that MDC would acquire the Property from CITY and then transfer the Property to Meridian Caddis , LLC , ("Meridian Caddis ") pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement between Meridian Caddis and MDC , and an Owner Participation Agreement (" OPA") for purposes in furtherance of its mission to stimulate and expand Downtown Meridian into a thriving area that provides opportunities in which to live, work , and play; and, WHEREAS , when it is determined by the City Council to be in the City ' s best interest, the Council may by Ordinance duly enacted, authorize the transfer or conveyance of real property to any tax supported governmental entity with or without compensation ; and, WHEREAS , City Council is satisfied that the Project elements as proposed by the third party developer will be a benefit to the community, that the third party developer has the resources and experience to complete the Project in a timely manner, and that the transfer of the Property is in the best interest of the City; and, WHEREAS , a public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the Meridian City Council on JUNE 7 , 2022 and at the conclusion of said hearing, the City Council approved Ordinance 224981 authorizingthe conveyance subject to certain terms and conditions ; and Y J > WHEREAS , CITY wishes to sell the following described Property to MDC and MDC desires to purchase the Property under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement . NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises , covenants , representations, and warranties set forth in this Agreement, and for other valuable consideration , the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, CITY ( Seller) and MDC (Buyer) agree as set forth below . Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 1 Item #7. 1 . Definitions . The following terms have the following meanings when used in this Agreement : " Agreement " . This Purchase and Sale Agreement, including all exhibits attached to this Agreement. " Business Day " . A day other than a Saturday, Sunday, or any federal holiday. " Closing " . The consummation of the Transaction, as evidenced by the delivery of all required fitnds and documents to Escrow Agent and the disbursement or delivery of such funds and documents by Escrow Agent in accordance with this Agreement and any other consistent instructions . " Closing Date " . Closing of this transaction shall occur at a date agreed to by the parties , and simultaneous with the Closing set forth in the Purchase Agreement to be entered into by and between Meridian Caddis and MDC . " Effective Date " . The date this Agreement is signed by all parties . " Escrow " . The escrow to be created in accordance with this Agreement . " Escrow Agent " . First American Title and Escrow Company, whose address is 2150 S . Bonito Way, Suite 100 , Meridian , ID 83642 , Attn : Ruth Rubel . " Property " . The land commonly known as "The Civic Block City Parcels " or "Community Center and Centennial Park", Meridian , Idaho and more particularly identified as Ada County Parcel #R5672000856 , 201 E Idaho ; Parcel #R7596000080, 223 E . Idaho ; Parcel #R7596000075 , 231 E . Idaho ; and Parcel #R7596000065 , 237 E . Idaho and Legally Described as : Lots 5 and 10 , and the North 90 feet of Lot 6 , 7 and 8 , and the East 8 . 5 feet of the South 30 feet of Lot 6 , All in Block 6 of the Amended Plat of the ORIGINAL TOWNSITE OF MERIDIAN, as shown on the plat thereof, filed in Book 1 of Plats at Page 30 , records of Ada County, Idaho . AND Lots 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 in Block 2 of the Amended Plat of ROWAN ADDITION TO MERIDIAN, according to the plat thereof, filed in book 2 of Plats at Page 52 , records of Ada County, Idaho . " Purchase Price " . The total purchase price to be paid by Buyer for the Property, as set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement . " Transaction " . The purchase and sale of the Property contemplated by this Agreement . Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 2 Page 212 Item #7. 2 . Definitive Agreement for Purchase and Sale of Property. Upon full execution , this Agreement will be a binding agreement between Buyer and Seller for the purchase and sale of the Property on the terms , conditions and provisions set forth in this Agreement . This Agreement supersedes all other written or oral agreements between Buyer and Seller concerning the Transaction . If Buyer and Seller execute any separate escrow instructions with respect to the Transaction on Escrow Agent's form, as may be modified by Buyer and/or Seller in the sole discretion of each , and if there is any conflict or inconsistency between any provision of such escrow instructions and any provision of this Agreement, the provision of this Agreement will control . 3 . Purchase Price and Method of Payment. The Purchase Price shall be $335 ,000 . 00 to be paid in full at Closing. 4. Title Commitment. Within three (3 ) days from the date this Agreement is signed by all parties, Escrow Agent shall issue and deliver to Buyer and Seller a commitment for title insurance with respect to the Property disclosing all matters of record and other matters of which Escrow Agent has knowledge which relate to the title to the Property, detailing Escrow Agent 's requirements for closing the Escrow, committing to issue to Buyer an ALTA Standard Owner's Policy of Title Insurance with respect to the Property, and providing legible copies of all instruments referred to in the report (collectively, the " Commitment" ) . Buyer has ten ( 10) days after the Effective Date or after receipt of the Commitment , whichever occurs later, to review and to object in writing to any easements , liens , encumbrances or other exceptions or requirements in the Commitment (the " Title Objections " ) . If Buyer does not approve the Commitment or object within the time specified , then the condition of title to the Property reflected on the Commitment will be deemed approved . If the Title Objections are made within the time specified, Seller may, but shall not be required to , attempt to eliminate the matters covered by the Title Objections by or before the Closing Date . If Seller is unable or unwilling, in their sole discretion, to eliminate the matters covered by the Title Objections by or before the Closing Date upon terms acceptable to Buyer, Seller shall so notify Buyer, and Buyer may either waive the Title Objections that Seller was unable or unwilling to eliminate or terminate this Agreement . 4 . 1 Amendments to Title Commitment. If the Commitment is amended by Escrow Agent, Escrow Agent shall immediately deliver to Buyer and Seller the amendment and provide legible copies of all additional instruments referred to in the amendment (collectively, the "Amendment " ) . Buyer has five (5 ) days from the date of Buyer's receipt of the Amendment or through the Closing Date, whichever occurs earlier, to review and to object in writing to any easements , liens , encumbrances , or other exceptions or requirements in the Amendment which were not disclosed by the Commitment or a previous Amendment ( " Additional Title Objections ") . If Buyer does not approve the Amendment or object within the time specified, then the condition of title to the Property reflected on the Amendment will be deemed approved . If the Additional Title Objections are made within the time specified , Seller may attempt to eliminate the matters covered by the Additional Title Objections by or before the Closing Date . If Seller is unable or unwilling to eliminate the Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 3 Page 213 Item #7. matters covered by the Additional Title Objections by or before the Closing Date upon terms acceptable to Buyer, Seller shall so notify Buyer, and Buyer may either waive the Additional Title Objections that Seller was unable or unwilling to eliminate or terminate this Agreement. 4 . 2 Title Insurance Policy. At Closing, Escrow Agent shall commit to issue to and in favor of Buyer or its assigns a Standard Owner's Policy of Title Insurance with respect to the Property in the amount of the Purchase Price, insuring fee simple title to the Property in Buyer effective on the Closing Date, subject to the standard exclusions and exceptions in such form of policy and subject to the Permitted Exceptions (the " Title Policy" ) . 4 . 3 Inspection and Seller ' s Property Disclosure Statement. Buyer has one hundred eighty ( 180) days after the Effective Date ("Inspection Review Period") , together with any Extension Options as defined below, to inspect the Property and to conduct, review and approve any investigations , tests , analyses or studies deemed necessary by Buyer to determine the condition and feasibility of the Property for Buyer' s purpose (the " Inspection Review " ) . The Inspection Review Period will automatically extend for three (3 ) periods of sixty (60) days each (each, an "Extension Option" and collectively, the "Extension Options") at the end of the then - current Inspection Review Period, unless the Buyer delivers written notice to Seller on or before the expiration of the then- current Inspection Review Period that the current period shall not be extended in which case the Inspection Review Period shall not be extended . Seller hereby grants to Buyer and Meridian Caddis and their agents , employees , and contractors a nonexclusive right and license to enter upon the Property after giving reasonable advance notice to Seller to conduct the Inspection . Upon completion of the Inspection Review, Buyer shall restore the Property to its condition existing immediately prior to the Inspection Review . Buyer and Meridian Caddis shall each indemnify and hold Seller harmless from any loss incurred by Seller resulting from damage to the Property caused by the Inspection Review . If for any reason Buyer determines that the Property is not in a suitable condition or not feasible for Buyer's purpose, Buyer may terminate this Agreement within the Inspection Review Period and in such event any Earnest Money Deposit paid shall be returned to Buyer and this Agreement shall be terminated . If Buyer does not either approve or disapprove the Inspection Review , or otherwise terminate this Agreement prior to the expiration of the Inspection Review Period , then the Inspection Review will be deemed approved and any Earnest Money Deposit shall be non-refundable to Buyer, subject only to Seller ' s default under this Agreement . 5. Closing. 5 . 1 Time and Place. Closing will take place in the offices of Escrow Agent on the Closing Date (defined above) or on such date as may be mutually agreed to by the Parties to coordinate a simultaneous closing of the Purchase Agreement between Meridian Caddis and MDC . 5 . 2 Seller' s Closing Deliveries . At Closing, Seller shall deliver to Escrow Agent : 5 . 2 . 1 A Warranty Deed fully executed and properly acknowledged by Seller, conveying the Property to Buyer, free and clear of any mortgages or deeds of trust. 5. 2 . 2 As a prerequisite to Seller ' s delivery of the Warranty Deed, Buyer must have provided sufficient proof to Seller that Buyer has entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement for the I Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 4 Page 214 Item #7. Property with the third party developer identified in the Proposal , and that all of the contingencies and conditions under that agreement have been satisfied or waived . 5 . 3 Buyer ' s Closing Deliveries . At Closing, Buyer shall deliver to Escrow Agent : 5 .3 . 1 Payment in full for the Purchase Price . 5A Closing Costs . Buyer shall pay the premium for the standard owner ' s Title Policy. Buyer will pay the additional premiums required for any extended coverage or endorsements requested by Buyer. Escrow and Closing fees will be split equally between Buyer and Seller . All costs associated with the Transaction must be borne by the parties in accordance with custom in Ada County, Idaho , as determined by Escrow Agent, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement . 5 . 5 Possession . Buyer will be entitled to possession of the Property on the Closing Date . 5 . 6 Right to Repurchase . Buyer intends to sell or transfer the Property to a third party for development purposes as outlined in the premises to this Agreement . Buyer may also enter into a Development Agreement or OPA with the third-party developer which may include certain rights of reverter. In the event that Buyer exercises or benefits from its right of reverter and retakes possession of the Property, Seller may exercise its option to repurchase the Property by delivering written notice of such intent within 90 days of Buyer retaking possession of the Property. If Seller exercises its repurchase rights as set forth herein , the price for such repurchase shall be the same purchase price as set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. The repurchase of the Property shall be consummated through the Escrow Agent, at a time determined by Seller no later than 90 days after the delivery of Seller ' s notice that it intends to exercise its repurchase rights . The repurchase price shall be payable in cash or other immediately available funds . Title to the Property shall be conveyed by warranty deed, and any mortgage or liens , including any potential mechanics liens or other liens outstanding on the Property shall be discharged by Buyer prior to closing under this Seller ' s repurchase provision . Taxes shall be prorated prior to closing . Escrow and Closing fees will be split equally between Buyer and Seller. 6 . Seller ' s Representations and Warranties . Seller represents and warrants to Buyer that : 6 . 1 Authority. Seller has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and complete the Transaction . U Binding Agreement. Upon Seller's execution of this Agreement, this Agreement will be binding and enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms , and upon Seller' s execution of the additional documents contemplated by this Agreement , they will be binding and enforceable against Seller in accordance with their terms . 6 . 3 Title . Seller has fee title to the Property. Seller represents that Seller owns the property free and clear of any mortgages or deeds of trust . 6A No Violations . Seller has not received notice of any violation with regard to any applicable law, regulation, ordinance , requirement, covenant, condition or restriction relating to the present use , Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 5 Page 215 Item #7. occupancy or condition of the Property from any person , authority or agency having jurisdiction over the Property. 6 . 5 Compliance with Law ; Municipal Ordinances . Seller has not received any notices of violation of any law, regulation, condition of permit or license, order, ordinance, or any requirement noted in or issued by any federal , state, or local department having jurisdiction over or affecting Property which has not been corrected, resolved, or withdrawn , and to the knowledge of Seller, the Property is in compliance with all applicable federal , state, and local laws and regulations in all material respects . 7. Buyer ' s Representations and Warranties . Buyer represents and warrants to Seller that : 7 . 1 Authority. Buyer has frill power and authority to enter into this Agreement and complete the Transaction . 7. 2 Binding Agreement. Upon Buyer's execution of this Agreement, this Agreement will be binding and enforceable against Buyer in accordance with its terms , and upon Buyer's execution of the additional documents contemplated by this Agreement, they will be binding and enforceable against Buyer in accordance with their terms . 7 .3 Investigation of Property. Buyer has been or will be permitted access to the Property and will have actually inspected the Property prior to Closing. Buyer's consummation of the Transaction is based upon such inspection and not on any representations or warranties of Seller . 7.4 No Oral Representations . Buyer hereby acknowledges that neither Seller nor any person acting on behalf of Seller has made any representation, warranty, guaranty or promise concerning the Property, whether oral or written . 8. Broker' s Commission . Seller and Buyer warrant, each to the other, that they have not dealt with any broker, realtor or finder in connection with the Transaction . 9. Risk of Loss . The risk of loss will be upon Seller until Closing. In the event of any material loss or damage to or condemnation of the Property prior to Closing, Buyer may terminate this Agreement . If Buyer waives any material loss or damage to or condemnation of the Property and proceeds to consummate this Transaction, or in the event of an immaterial loss , damage or condemnation , Seller shall , at Closing and as a condition precedent to Closing, pay to Buyer the amount of any insurance or condemnation proceeds attributable to the Property which have been received by Seller and assign to Buyer as of Closing all rights or claims to proceeds payable thereafter. 10. Remedies . 10 . 1 If Seller fails to perform an of Seller's obligations under this Agreement and that failure P Y g g continues for five (5) days after Seller' s receipt of written notice from Buyer, Buyer may, as Buyer's sole remedy for Seller's failure, either: (i) terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 11 , or (ii) bring an appropriate action for specific performance of this Agreement . I Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 6 Page 216 Item #7. 10 . 2 If Buyer fails to perform any of Buyer' s obligations under this Agreement and that failure continues for five ( 5 ) days after Buyer' s receipt of written notice from Seller, Seller may, as Seller' s sole remedy for Buyer's failure bring an appropriate action for specific performance of this Agreement. 10 . 3 If the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Meridian Caddis and Buyer is terminated due to Meridian Caddis ' (i) failure to meet the Financing Condition as defined in the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Meridian Caddis and Buyers or (ii) default, as declared by Buyer under the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Meridian Caddis , beyond all applicable notice and cure periods , Buyer or Seller may, as its sole remedy, terminate this Agreement in accordance with Section 11 . Seller hereby acknowledges and agrees that the termination right set forth in this Section 10 . 3 represents its sole and exclusive right to terminate this Agreement . 11 . Termination . If Buyer or Seller elects to terminate this Agreement as provided under this Agreement, the terminating party shall give written notice of the termination to the other party and Escrow Agent . Upon termination by a party as provided in this Agreement, Escrow Agent shall return all documents deposited in the Escrow to the Seller. Upon delivery of such documents, this Agreement and the Escrow will be deemed terminated , and except as provided in this Agreement neither party will have any further liability or obligation under this Agreement . 12 . Attorneys ' Fees . If there is any litigation or other action taken by any party to enforce or interpret any provisions of or rights arising under this Agreement, the defaulting party shall pay to the other party all costs and expenses , including but not limited to reasonable attorney fees and costs , which the other party may incur in enforcing this Agreement or in pursuing any remedy allowed by law, whether such is incurred by the filing of suit or otherwise . 13 . Omitted . 14 . Escrow Cancellation Charges. If the Escrow fails to close because of Buyer' s default, Buyer will be liable for any escrow and title commitment cancellation charges by Escrow Agent. If the Escrow fails to close because of Seller's default, Seller will be liable for any such cancellation charges by Escrow Agent . If the Escrow fails to close through no fault of either Seller or Buyer, any such cancellation charges by Escrow Agent shall be divided equally between Seller and Buyer. 15. Additional Acts . The parties agree to execute promptly all other documents and perform all other acts as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purpose and intent of this Agreement. 16 . Business Days . If this Agreement requires any act to be done or action to be taken on a date which is not a Business Day, that act or action will be deemed to have been validly done or taken if done or taken on the next succeeding Business Day, 17. Waiver. The waiver by any party to this Agreement of any right granted to it under this Agreement is not a waiver of any other right granted under this Agreement, nor may any waiver be deemed to be a waiver of a subsequent right obtained by reason of the continuation of any matter previously waived . Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 7 Page 217 Item #7. 18. Survival . All of the covenants , agreements, representations and warranties set forth in this Agreement survive Closing, and do not merge into any deed, assignment or other instrument executed or delivered under this Agreement . 19. Counterparts/Facsimile . This Agreement may be executed in counterparts , each of which is deemed an original but all of which constitute one and the same instrument . The signature pages may be detached from each counterpart and combined into one instrument . This Agreement may be signed and delivered by facsimile which shall be effective as an original . 20 . Successors and Assigns . This Agreement is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and their respective successors and assigns . 21 . Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the parties with respect to the matters set forth in this Agreement as of the Effective Date ; it supersedes all prior oral or written agreements of the parties as to the matters set forth in this Agreement; and it cannot be altered or amended except by an instrument in writing, signed by Buyer and Seller. 22 . Construction . This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties , neither of whom has acted under any duress or compulsion , whether legal , economic or otherwise . Accordingly, the terms and provisions of this Agreement must be construed in accordance with their usual and customary meanings . Seller and Buyer hereby waive the application of any rule of law which otherwise would be applicable in connection with the construction of this Agreement that ambiguous or conflicting terms or provisions should be construed against the party who (or whose attorney) prepared the executed Agreement or any earlier draft of this Agreement . 23 . Headings . The headings in this Agreement are for reference only and do not limit or define the meaning of any provision of this Agreement . 24 . Third-Party Beneficiary. Except as set forth herein, no term or provision of this Agreement or the exhibits to this Agreement is intended to be, nor may any term or provision be construed to be , for the benefit of any person, firm, corporation or other entity not a party to this Agreement (including, without limitation, any broker) , and no other person, firm, corporation or entity has any right or cause of action under this Agreement . Meridian Caddis , LLC is hereby named as an express and intended third-party beneficiary of this Purchase Agreement, such that if the Seller fails to close the transaction contemplated by this Agreement, Meridian Caddis , LLC shall be permitted to either seek the remedy of specific performance to ensure that both the Seller and Buyer perfonn their respective obligations under this Agreement or Meridian Caddis, LLC shall be permitted to seek damages against the Seller equal to Meridian Caddis , LLC ' s Pre-Closing Expenses (including, without limitation, the Lateral Relocation Expenses) , as set forth in the April 12 , 2022 Memorandum of Agreement between Meridian Caddis , LLC , Seller, and Buyer. 25 . Severability. If any provision of this Agreement or any portion of any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the invalidity, illegality or unenforceability may not alter the remaining portion of such provision, or any other provision of this Agreement, as each provision of this Agreement is deemed severable from all other provisions of this Agreement . Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 8 Page 218 Item #7. 26 . Time of Essence . Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement . 27. Governing Law. This Agreement is governed by, and construed and enforced in accordance with , the laws of the State of Idaho . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement to be effective as of the date first written above . SELLER : CITY OF MERIDIAN Ro ert E . imi on , Mayor 6 -7-2022 AV e s t, CY115 son , City Clerk 6-7-2022 BUYER : MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION By : Real Estate Purchase Agreement Page 9 Page 219