Loading...
2014-04-15Tuesday, April 15, 2014 at 6:00 PM Roll -Call Attendance David Zaremba X Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance by Boy Scout Troop 280 Victory LDS Ward 3. Community Invocation by Larry Woodard w/ Ten Mile Christian Church 4. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted 5. Consent Agenda Approved A. Approval of April 8, 2014 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Public Hearing: PP 13- 042 Centre Point Square by Center Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty (40) Single -Family Buildable Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Public Hearing: MDA 13-025 Centre Point Square by Centre Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to Change the Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family D. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-011 Paramount Subdivision No. 25 by Brighton Investments, LLC Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of Producer Drive, North of W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Single Family Residential Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 9.17 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 15, 2014 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. E. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 13-018 Whitebark Subdivision by Cindy K. Lewis Trust and T & M Holdings, LLC Located 2135 E. Amity Road Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Increase the Number of Building Lots Allowed to Develop on the Site Consistent with the Proposed Preliminary Plat F. FP 14-010 McLinder Subdivision by TS Development Located 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437 W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -One (21) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 11.8 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District C. FP 14-014 Paramount Subdivision No. 26 by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road Intersection Request: Thirty -Two (32) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 8.39 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District H. Cooperative Agreement for Illumination/Lighting Along Meridian Road at the Interstate 84 Meridian Road Interchange Memorandum of Agreement with Bingham County Sheriff's Office for Incident Tracking System and E -Citation Software J. Approval of Sole Source Purchase for Kruger Disk Filter Media from Kruger, Inc. for the Next Five Years; Estimated Yearly Costs for this Equipment is $72,000.00 K. Recreational Pathway Easement Between Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian Regarding a Pathway Across ACHD's Park -and -Ride Facility Located on Overland Road at Ten Mile Road 6. Community Items/Presentations A. Public Works: Meridian Environmental Excellence Awards Presentation 7. Items Moved From Consent Agenda None 8. Action Items A. Public Hearing: Proposed Summer 2014 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department B. Resolution No. 14-984: A Resolution Adopting the Summer 2014 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 15, 2014 Page 2 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. C. FP 14-015 Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 by T&M Holdings Located 2135 E. Amity Road Request: Final Plat Consisting of Twenty -Nine (29) Building Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 10.54 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning Districts Continued to May 6, 2014 D. Public Hearing: AZ 14-002 Revolution Ridge by C13, LLC Located at 1100 W. Riodosa Drive Request: Annexation and Zoning of 20.39 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District Approved with Conditions E. Public Hearing: PP 13-040 Revolution Ridge Subdivision by C13, LLC Located at 1100 W. Riodosa Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 64 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 5 Common Lots on 19.74 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-4 Zoning District Approved F. Public Hearing: PP 13-043 Summerwood Subdivision by Kent Pintus Located at 4202 and 4052 W. Daphne Street Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty (30) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Ten (10) Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Approved G. Public Hearing: AZ 14-003 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 1.49 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R- 15 (Medium High Density Residential) Zoning District Approved H. Public Hearing: PP 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 121 Single Family Residential Lots and 19 Common Lots on Approximately 21.71 Acres in an Existing and Proposed R-15 Zoning District Approved I. Public Hearing: PUD 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Planned Unit Development to Modify the R-15 Dimensional Standards of the Mew and Alley Loaded Lots to Allow for Exemplary Design Approved J. Public Hearing: MDA 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to Change the Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family Approved K. Public Hearing: TEC 14-004 Ambercreek by Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road Request: One (1) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on Final Plat Continued to April 2, 2014 Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 15, 2014 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. L. FP 14-012 Ambercreek No. 2 by Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty -Four (54) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 10.58 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District Continued to April 2, 2014 9. Department Reports A. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 14-985: Re -Appointment of David Ballard to Seat 1, JoAnn Bujarski to Seat 2 and Jack McGee to Seat 3 of the Meridian Transportation Commission Approved B. Continued from April 8, 2014: Community Development: Review and Approve City Roadway, Intersection, and Community Program Project Priorities for 2014 Approved C. Community Development: Review Draft Downtown Street Cross-section Master Plan 10. Future Meeting Topics None Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda — Tuesday, April 15, 2014 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m., Tuesday, April 15, 2014, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, David Zaremba, Genesis Milam, Joe Borton and Luke Cavener. Others Present: Jaycee Holman, Ted Baird, Caleb Hood, Justin Lucas, Sonya Watters, Bill Parsons, Justin Lucas, John Overton, Chris Amenn Mollie Mangerich, Patrick Dille, Ryan McClure and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll -call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba X Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Genesis Milam X Luke Cavener X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: Thank you for joining us this evening. It's 6:00 o'clock straight up. We will go ahead and start our regular meeting. First I would like to welcome all of you. We appreciate seeing people in our -- in our Council Chambers. So, thank you for joining us this evening. For the record it is Tuesday, April 15th. It's 6:00 o'clock. We will start with roll call attendance, Madam Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance by Boy Scout Troop 280 Victory LDS Ward De Weerd: Item No. 2 is our Pledge of Allegiance. Tonight we are going to be led in the pledge by Troop 380. They are with the Victory LDS Ward. I would invite them to come forward and ask you all to rise. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) De Weerd: Boys, can I invite you to take one of our City of Meridian pins and thank you for leading us tonight. Item 3: Community Invocation by Larry Woodard w/ Ten Mile Christian Church De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 3 is our community invocation and even though I don't have a name here, I see Larry Woodard in our -- in the room. He's with Ten Mile Christian Church. If you will all join us in the community invocation or take this as an opportunity for a moment of reflection. Thank you for joining us, Larry. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 2 of 73 Woodard: Good evening. I see in the paper tonight that we are now the second largest city in the state. So, I will pray a little more diligently. Rountree: Please do. De Weerd: We appreciate that. Woodard: Our dear Heavenly Father, it's always good when we pause in our deliberations and ask you for wisdom and guidance before we proceed. Just give the Council and Mayor Tammy your wisdom tonight as they consider issues affecting our growing community. We thank you for the blessings that have come to our town. We thank you for the prayer breakfast last month and for the leadership present. It lifted the -hearts of all who were present and we thank you for that. Tonight beyond just this Council meeting, we ask for your guidance on our city staff, police, firemen, and EMTs. We ask that you protect them and watch over them. We also ask for a blessing on our school teachers and our youth workers in this community. We are anxious as a people about the growing influence of pornography and drugs and how that impacts our community. We just pray that you would keep us safe. Today we kick off the rebuilding of the Meridian overpass and we are excited to see work commence on that project and, again, we ask that the traveling public and workers be safe during the next couple of years. In all things we give you thanks for blessing Meridian, our temporary home here on earth, in Jesus' name, amen. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. Item No. 4 is adoption of the agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: A few notes for the agenda. Item 8-B, the resolution number is 14-984. Item 8-C is requested by the applicant to continue to May 6th, 2014. And Item 9-A, the resolution number is 14-985. And with those annotations, Madam Mayor, I move we approve the agenda. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as noted. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: Consent Agenda A. Approval of April 8, 2014 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 3 of 73 B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Public Hearing: PP 13-042 Centre Point Square by Center Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty (40) Single -Family Buildable Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District C. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Public Hearing: MDA 13-025 Centre Point Square by Centre Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to Change the Development Plan from Multi Family to Single Family D. Final Order for Approval: FP 14-011 Paramount Subdivision No. 25 by Brighton Investments, LLC Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of Producer Drive, North of W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Single Family Residential Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 9.17 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District E. Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 13-018 Whitebark Subdivision by Cindy K. Lewis Trust and T & M Holdings, LLC Located 2135 E. Amity Road Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Increase the Number of Building Lots Allowed to Develop on the Site Consistent with the Proposed Preliminary Plat F. FP 14-010 McLinder Subdivision by TS Development Located 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437 W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -One (21) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 11.8 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District G. FP 14-014 Paramount Subdivision No. 26 by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road Intersection Request: Thirty -Two (32) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 8.39 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District H. Cooperative Agreement for Illumination/Lighting Along Meridian Road at the Interstate 84 Meridian Road Interchange I. Memorandum of Agreement with Bingham County Sheriffs Office for Incident Tracking System and E -Citation Software Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 4 of 73 J. Approval of Sole Source Purchase for Kruger Disk Filter Media from Kruger, Inc. for the Next Five Years; Estimated Yearly Costs for this Equipment is $72,000.00 K. Recreational Pathway Easement Between Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian Regarding a Pathway Across ACHD's Park -and -Ride Facility Located on Overland Road at Ten Mile Road De Weerd: Item 5 is our Consent Agenda. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as published and authorize the Clerk to attest and the Mayor to sign. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Community Items/Presentations A. Public Works: Meridian Environmental Excellence Awards Presentation De Weerd: Item 6-A is under our community presentations and I will turn this over to Mollie. Mangerich: Thank you. I'm going to turn this around and, Madam Mayor, if I may ask your help this evening in giving the annual environment -- City of Meridian Environmental Excellent Award to a few of the individuals within our community. This is an annual event that I always get very excited to do and, Madam Mayor, our awards are over here. Good evening, everybody. I'm Mollie Mangerich and I'm your environmental division manager here within the City of Meridian and I'm mighty proud to be able to bring to you each year around Earth Day, which is April 22nd, to look back over the last Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 5 of 73 12 months and look at all the wonderful activities that individuals, communities, organizations have done within the City of Meridian that have taken an environmental or stewardship focus to the activities within our own hometown. This evening I'd first like to introduce Mr. Ron Kern. If you would, please, step up here by our Mayor and, please, feel free to bring your wife if you would like. Or if she agrees. As I begin this -- Clint, would you, please, take that basket and start allowing people to pass it around. Kind of like a church, except you don't have to put into it, you can take out what's in the basket and it has relevance to the award that I'm here tonight to speak about. Ron Kern is the owner of The Voice Master, one of Meridian's local businesses. I kind of want to start with the back story as to how I met Ron. Our communications manager at the time Natalie was continuing production of our very popular weekly video series what's new in Meridian and you can find this on our city home page. It's great. And he took this -- as - - - she took her production outonsite andconductedit at local businesses and, then, she met Mr. Kerns and she produced one of those sessions at your place of business. Well, Natalie came back to the office and she said, Mollie, I think you need to meet with Mr. Kerns. Natalie knew that I had been working on an educational graphics animation about our wastewater utility. In fact, it was titled It Starts At Home: Understanding Meridian's Wastewater Utilities. So, I needed a narrator. I needed a voice and I hadn't a clue to know where to start looking. Well, I met with Ron and we had a great conversation and he volunteered to help us out and as it turns out, in my very humble opinion, he is the best professional voice I have had the opportunity to work with and listen to. Ron volunteered his services for that wastewater educational animation and repeated his offer again on our solid waste and recycling services animation and he's even recording for us again this Thursday night on our City of Meridian water utility graphic animation. Ron has volunteered his services in all these efforts and already the graphic animation that I'm passing around in the basket this evening has already won a regional award. I encourage you to go ahead and take a CD, share it with friends, play it at home. It's really actually entertaining what we do with our wastewater water utility. Ron, thank you for your generosity and your genuine interest in our city's environmental efforts. Congratulations and if the Mayor would, please, read the award and present it to Ron. De Weerd: So, this 2013 Environmental Excellent Award presented to Ronald Kerns, The Voice Master, is for volunteering his time, energy, and talent to make our educational animation engaging and fun, insuring our first impression is always an outstanding one and certainly Ron is not a stranger to this community, his contributions certainly go far beyond this, but we would like to recognize him for your efforts in telling our story. Thank you so much. Kerns: Well, I should have brought my disk jockey voice. It's a blast working with everybody and it's just a lot of fun. In high school they said that my silly voices and always talking would never amount to anything. They stand corrected. Thank you very much. Mangerich: Our second award is near and dear to me, because we are giving it to Mr. Elroy Huff, who is our city's tree arborist -- our arborist for the entire community. Elroy, Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 6 of 73 would you, please, be kind enough to stand up here while I talk about you. Please bring your family. Is this Edith your wife? Terrific. We are going to be showing some PowerPoints as I talk and you will see some of the work and efforts that Elroy has done wonderful things in our community. As our city arborist Elroy accomplishes things regarding our urban forest. He works each year to expand our tree program. Last year, you guys, he planted over 168 new trees in our parks, in our golf courses, and our schools. Many of these plans and projects are done with the help of volunteers or scout groups. Elroy acts upon educational opportunities and he really sees the benefit in developing the study of cultivation and management of the urban trees in our community. As a result of Elroy's work in Meridian we are able to maintain our Tree City U.S.A. status and that's something that we are very proud of. Part of maintaining this status involves organizing Arbor Day celebration events and he organizes and involves - - hundreds of children in these efforts. Some of thesephotosdepict those efforts. Elroy works to maintain our urban forest by impacting -- implementing a sustainable approach by being -- he plants the right tree at the right spot. He practices integrated pest management, which means reduction of pesticides and herbicides and he implements correct watering practices and principals and supervises all the pruning efforts within our city. We truly have good care and good hands in our urban forest. We are appreciative. It's important to realize that trees -- one, they lower the ozone production by blocking sunlight. Two, they lower temperatures on our surfaces that emit nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds caused by asphalt and fuel tanks and buildings and our tree canopy also effectively intercepts and filtrates particulate matter. Now, in the Treasure Valley those are two of our major air pollutant concerns. In fact, ozone and particulate matter are those two pollutants that trees, through research, have been found the most effective in reducing. The work Elroy does for our urban forest accomplishes these important tasks. Congratulations, Elroy, on receiving the City of Meridian Environmental Excellence Award. De Weerd: So, this is the 2013 Environmental Excellence Award presented to Elroy Huff, our city arborist, for his leadership role in the health and future of our park trees, street trees, and the urban forest and I would agree with the comments that Mollie shared. Elroy is passionate about trees. He's a long time employee of the City of Meridian and he has helped guide us to being a Tree U.S.A. City and that's been something that we have long desired. So, thank you for all of your efforts, Elroy, and congratulations. Huff: I'm short winded. Just thank you all very much and to the Mayor and Council and it's nice to be recognized by your peers and your friends. Thank you so much. Mangerich: Our final recipient this evening is -- I'm proud to present the next environmental excellence award to Macy Miller. Macy, would you, please, come up and -- family in tow, please. And I believe we have a new one here. Thank you for bringing her. Macy Miller sits on our city's Planning and Zoning Commission and is the communications chair for the Idaho Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council. She's an architect who works locally, just right around the corner in fact with Johnson Architects. She's LEED certified, which means that she knows how to design and Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 7 of 73 construct energy efficient, water conserving buildings that use sustainable or green resources and materials. Now, Macy wanted a place of her own without a big burdensome mortgage, so she decided to build a tiny house from the ground up. You know, she has been quoted as saying the idea of building a micro home came to her in a dream in 2011 and she's doggedly pursued this vision ever since. Tiny homes, of which you're seeing a picture of her home, are a growing trend in our housing choices. She built her 196 square foot home by herself using reclaimed materials, energy efficient appliances, and complete with a radiant floor heating, powered by ground source heat. Macy shared with me that this house was built on a flat top trailer, made with completely sustainable materials and do you know what the most expensive amenity or appliance that she has that she installed in her house? It's her composting toilet. Macy has been interviewed, filmed, and photos of her tiny home is featured - worldwide, such as -- she has been on National Public Radio and been interviewed. She's been a feature in the documentary Tiny, a story about small living and her story is highlighted in magazines and social media from the United Kingdom all the way to Australia. Congratulations, Macy, on your City of Meridian -- on the Meridian Environmental Excellence Award. De Weerd: And she also brought tiny with her. So, this is the 2013 Environmental Excellence Award presented to Macy Miller for exemplifying sustainable design and construction practices when building her tiny home, demonstrating one's life can be enlarged by simply -- by living simply. So, congratulations, Macy. Miller: I don't really have much to say. This is a very unexpected award. Thank you guys very much. And thank you, Mollie. Thank you, Tammy. Appreciate it. De Weerd: There is something about babies that you just can't resist. Congratulations to all of our winners. This is what that passing generations -- something that we enjoy. Our Idaho, our Meridian that we enjoy. We have a stewardship responsibility and all three of these individuals that were recognized today are playing an important and integral role in the future of our community. So, heartfelt thanks to each of you and congratulations. Item 7: Items Moved From Consent Agenda De Weerd: Okay. There were no items moved from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Action Items A. Public Hearing: Proposed Summer 2014 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department De Weerd: So, we will move straight to Item 8-A, which is a public hearing on our summer 2014 fee schedule in our Parks and Recreation Department. Good evening, Patrick. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 8 of 73 Dille: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. Thank you for your time, as always. We are pretty much finished up planning our summer activity season in the Parks and Recreation Department and the activity guide will be published this Friday in the Meridian Press and we think we have a successful docket of classes and camps and events and sports that we typically do, with, obviously, some new added fees and new added activities here. The new classes you can see before you were disseminated to the public and notice of this hearing was given on March 31st and on April 7th of this year and, please, look over the proposed new fees and, again, I thank you for your time and I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions for Patrick? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: One quick question for you. Dille: Yes, sir. Cavener: The Discovery Africa that's being offered for free, it's amazing. Maybe you can share a little bit more information about that. Dille: Yeah. So, we were approached by one of -- an independent instructor, like we are with most of our activities in the guide and he offered us a proposal and in the Parks and Rec Department we take it amongst our recreational professionals and our director and say what would you like to add and then -- so, we have all these proposals that come before us and this one was there and it's just offering information on Africa and so it was a -- it was a class that was proposed to us and we thought we would go with it for the guide. The thing that's different about Meridian is that the continuing education type of classes, like this one specifically, Discovering Africa, or things like soap making or things like that, the outlet for it is the Parks and Rec Department. So, we get approached with a lot of -- of those sorts of classes. Cavener: Thank you. Dille: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further from Council? Thank you, Patrick. Dille: You're welcome. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like offer testimony on this fee schedule? Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 9 of 73 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Seeing no public testimony, I move that we close the public hearing. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-A. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Resolution No. 14-984: A Resolution Adopting the Summer 2014 Fee Schedule ofthe Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: I move that we approve Resolution 14-984 and include all testimony. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution on 8-B. Is there any discussion from Council? Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. C. FP 14-015 Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 by T&M Holdings Located 2135 E. Amity Road Request: Final Plat Consisting of Twenty -Nine (29) Building Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 10.54 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning Districts De Weerd: Item 8-C was requested to continue to May 6th. Council, do I have a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 10 of 73 Rountree: I move that we continue Item 8-C, FP 14-015 until May 6th, 2014. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 8-C to May 6th. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. D. Public Hearing: AZ 14-002 Revolution Ridge by C13, LLC Located at 1100 W. Riodosa Drive Request: Annexation and - -- Zoning of 20.39 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District E. Public Hearing: PP 13-040 Revolution Ridge Subdivision by C13, LLC Located at 1100 W. Riodosa Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 64 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 5 Common Lots on 19.74 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-4 Zoning District De Weerd: Item 8-D and E are public hearings on AZ 14-002 and PP 13-040. 1 will open these two public hearings with staff comments, followed by the applicant, who will have ten minutes to do his presentation and, then, we will have public testimony with three minutes each. So, we will go ahead and start with our staff. Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The first applications before you tonight are a requested for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 20.39 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County, and is located at 1100 West Riodosa Drive. This land is currently platted as Lot 3, Block 3, Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision. Their request is for annexation and zoning of 20.39 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district consistent with the low density residential and future land use map designation for this site, which allows for densities up to three dwelling units per acre. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown, consisting of 64 single family residential building lots and five common area lots on 19.74 acres. The average lot size within the proposed development is 9,400 square feet and the gross density is 3.2 units per acre. This plat is a revised plat. It is a little different than the one that was originally submitted and that the staff report was written on, just to note. Access is proposed via two stub streets from South Kentucky Way in Kentucky Ridge Subdivision. That's this street right here. With an emergency access via West Victory Road right here. Stub streets are proposed to the west and south for future extension and interconnectivity. Five foot wide detached sidewalks are required along West Victory Road and South Kentucky Way. In lieu of the sidewalk on the west side of Kentucky Way, where the site fronts right here, the applicant is requesting Council allow the sidewalk to be constructed on the east side of Kentucky Way instead from Victory to Riodosa Drive intersection. Actually, it's a little bit north of the intersection. This is an exhibit that the applicant brought with him tonight. This shows in blue for the Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 11 of 73 requirement where the sidewalk would typically be and the green is where the applicant is proposing at the request of the Kentucky Ridge Homeowners Association. ACHD has approved this request contingent upon the city's approval. There is an existing home on the site that is proposed to remain on Lot 14, Block 2, that is required to comply with the building setbacks of the R-4 zoning district and it is located right here. The landscape plan depicts street buffers along Victory Road and South Kentucky Way and open space landscaping in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent or 1.97 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. The applicant proposes a total of 1.98 acres of qualified open space, consisting of a 1.39 acre park, a parkway, and half the street buffer along West Victory Road and the full street buffer along South Kentucky Way and a micropath emergency access connection to Victory Road in compliance with this requirement. The application proposes a fitness - -park thatwillfeature 1.3 acres of play area. That's the large -area -right -here.- Aneighth mile long pathway around the perimeter of the park and nearly a dozen workout stations as quality of life amenities in accord with UDC standards. The exhibit here on the right does show the fitness equipment that is planned for that common area. The Sundial Lateral crosses the southwest corner of the site right here. All ditches are required to be piped, unless waived by Council. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Council to allow the Sundial Lateral to remain open due to its large capacity, which the applicant anticipates would require a 36 to 48 inch diameter pipe to the the lateral. A six foot tall vinyl fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision. A five foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed around the internal common areas in accord with UDC standards. If the Sundial Lateral will not be approved -- improved as part of the development to be a water amenity, the lateral is required to be fenced in accord with UDC standards for ditches. The application has submitted conceptual building elevations as shown for the future homes in this development. Because homes on lots that back up to West Victory Road and South Kentucky Way will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of the structures on these lots incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation and our architectural elements, horizontal and vertical, to break up monotonous wall plains and roof plains. The Commission recommended approval of these applications. Jim Conger testified in favor of the applicant -- application. No one testified in opposition. The following people testified with comments. Norma Petty. Rick Fisch. Tamara Hamilton. Brenda Jones. Christy Rye. Val Hill. Gordon Hamilton. These folks all spoke for several groups in the audience that night. Alex McNish and Roberta Livesay. Written testimony was received from Kevin Petty and Laren Bailey, the applicant's representative, in agree with the staff report. Key issues of discussion by the Commission. They just noted that the applicant should continue to work with the neighborhoods regarding their concerns about connection to water and sewer, timing of construction of the fencing along the west boundary. A construction entrance and expectations for contractors on the site. Key Commission changes to the staff recommendation. They wanted to modify condition 1.1.1 13 to allow for bollards with a chain, instead of a gate for the emergency access driveway off of Victory Road and they included the revised plat that was shown here tonight and at their hearing as an exhibit and updated condition 1.1.2 accordingly. Outstanding issues for City Council. There is only two. The first item staff requests a new condition is added that requires a water main to be installed under the micro Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 12 of 73 pathway in Lot 8, Block 3, and this is a new micropath that we had them add here at the south boundary here. This main will connect into the water main being required in the proposed Biltmore Subdivision to the south. And the next one is the applicant requests approval to construct a sidewalk offsite along the east side of Kentucky Way, as I previously mentioned, rather than the west side of Kentucky along the site's frontage. Written testimony since the Commission hearing. We did receive a letter from Jim Conger regarding that sidewalk and from the Kentucky Ridge Homeowners Association also. Staff will stand for any questions the Mayor and Council may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: Not at this time. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Does the requested change in sidewalk -- does that east side sidewalk connect with an existing sidewalk? Watters: Madam Mayor, Mr. Rountree, yes, it does. You can see here on this exhibit the existing sidewalk that comes up from Riodosa. The applicant intends to connect to that. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Madam Clerk, it seems like we received a number of e-mails and letters on this and the names don't look familiar on this. Are they part of the record? Holman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, anything that we have gotten my Deputy City Clerk would have put into the record, so I need to look at the packet real quick and see. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Conger: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Jim Conger, 1627 South Orchard Street, Boise. First I would like to start out by thanking the City of Meridian staff, as well as the coordinated efforts with the Ada County Highway District. It really -- this project took -- took both entities -- all projects take them, but this one in particular took both entities working together. We had numerous meetings up front -- neighborhood meetings with -- not numerous with the neighborhood, but two or three regarding the design aspects that you see today, along with your city, and that's what's in front of you today and it was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the Ada County Highway District. First, I'd like to take a moment to walk you through our land plan. It is the replatting of Lot 3, Block 3, of the Kentucky Ridge Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 13 of 73 Subdivision. This is phase two of the previous development that had stubbed two roadways and utilities for this parcel -- for this parcel's future platting. The site plan was designed with a goal to match or exceed the existing Kentucky Ridge neighborhood. We are requesting, as you heard from Sonya, the matching zone of R-4, as well as the lot sizes and widths are similar to Kentucky Ridge and comply with the R-4 zoning. This project will have a great builder team anchored by Tahoe Homes and will be similar to what you see in Carmelle and Spurwring Greens. The landscape design, to walk you through that, has been thoughtfully planned and created to create this active use park that is one and a half acres in size. This park will include the walking path, approximately a dozen athletic stations, and we specifically located the mailbox portion of that as well, hopefully, to get all people coming in and using these machines in an exercising manner. The park was designed to appeal to the residents of all ages to - promote anactivelifestyle and, hopefully, be an amenity that gets used on a daily basis Next I'd like to discuss our waiver of not to the the Sundial Lateral. This existing lateral is a great amenity for our residents, as well as for the wildlife. We are pretty passionate this is a -- it's a great setting and will do nothing but enhance it -- we will plant, you know, some additional natural grasses, as well as we will provide pressurized irrigation into this area. The riparian area will be maintained by the homeowners association and we aren't using this as part of our open space calculations, that's not the ploy here, it's truly a great open amenity, very similar to the wildlife area we did at Woodbridge and we did also in east Boise. Woodbridge, of course, in Meridian at Locust Grove. We have done these before and we are very excited to use this as part of our -- part of our neighborhood enhancement. We have met with Project Board of Control and understand all requirements from both entities to make this a success. Next I will discuss our ACHD approval and the roadways. Early in our neighborhood meetings we did hear concerns of potential traffic and understand these concerns. We met early and often with ACHD and ACHD proactively addressed these concerns as well. ACHD did produce a traffic study. This project wasn't big enough to require one and I think it's important to understand Kentucky Way, once we are at full build out, will be operating at 27 percent of capacity. So, it's well under engineered -- engineered and design capacities. The final item I wanted to discuss tonight is, really, the sidewalk issue. If Sonya would pull that up for us. What we had before our -- kind of after the Planning and Zoning approval, but prior to ACHD approval, the neighbors came forth and -- and requested that we relocated the sidewalk to the east side of Kentucky Way as you see, which I will start calling the green line. Our requirement with ACHD and our requirement with the City of Meridian is the blue line. The green line is approximately 40 percent more in cost, it's 40 percent more in quantity. We are very much acceptable to -- to taking the burden of the additional cost, but it's a scenario of either you get the green or you get the blue and through our highway district approval they have given us and/or -- or an or approval, basically. Build the blue or build the green if the City of Meridian will allow it. So, what we are doing -- I guess on behalf of the neighbors, on behalf of ACHD and I guess ultimately on behalf of us, we are asking you to remove the requirement of -- of the UDC, which requires adjacent sidewalk, which is the blue line and you approve the green line. We are open to either approval. I guess we would all prefer the green. And with that I will stand for any questions. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 14 of 73 De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: On the -- on the green line or the blue -- the green line in particular, is there sufficient right of way to build that sidewalk and what are the standards to which you're going to build that sidewalk if it's to be approved? Conger: Yes. Madam Mayor, Council- Member Rountree, great question. That is a 50 foot right of way as it exists today. It will disrupt some landscaping inside that right of way, but it will be -- be built to ACHD standards, which would be five foot. It will be detached, so it will be I believe approximately nine foot of separation, if not a little bit more to that sidewalk. It will be attached to the existing sidewalk to allow the pedestrian to come out of Kentucky Ridge and get down to Victory where today they do not have that option. That is the goal. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Rountree: And you have indicated there is some landscaping to be disturbed. assume that's the trees that are shown in the graphic. Are those to be replaced? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, no. The landscaping will be disturbed will be sod only and they will restore around our sidewalk the trees. We have gone to great length to preserve all these trees. Rountree: Very good. Thank you. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council at this point? Rountree: Madam Mayor, there was a comment about the emergency approach onto Victory, that it -- there is a request that it be bollard and a chain versus a gate. I read that here somewhere. Bird: Yeah. That's right. Rountree: What's your comment -- that's your request. Conger: Well, Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, that is not quite our -- our request. It's actually your fire marshal. We -- we and the City of Meridian's planning department had it as bollards, because it is an emergency, but first and foremost it's a Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 15 of 73 pedestrian connection. The fire department was worried about bollards and wanted it completely gated off and we struck a middle ground of a partial gate and still a very -- I guess presentable opening for pedestrians. Rountree: Thank you. Conger: So, we have accommodated the fire department. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further at this point? Thank you. Conger: Thank you. Watters: Madam Mayor, if I may real quick, add to the written testimony. I did miss a couple of names that have submitted written testimony that is part of the record and Council already has copies of these letters. I just wanted to make that clear to anybody that didn't hear their name. I did receive a letter from Kimberly Hollingsworth and also Curtis Hoagland that I failed to mention, so -- just for the record. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is the public hearing portion. I do have a name on the sign-up sheet. Tamara Hamilton signed up as neutral. Good evening. Hamilton: Good evening. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Hamilton: My name is Tamara Hamilton. I live at 3496 South Arcaro. De Weerd: Thank you. Hamilton: Okay. What I would like to discuss is more of a totality view. We have not only this subdivision coming in, but very shortly we will have another subdivision to the south and both subdivisions are planning to use Kentucky Way as their main entrance and exit, which will mean that we will not only have the residence that currently reside in Kentucky Ridge of 66, but in Revolution Ridge 64 and to Biltmore Estates 159 and a possible residual traffic from the subdivision to the east of us along Meridian Road called Meridian Heights. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: I'm sorry. Mr. Baird. Baird: Apologies for interrupting the testimony. I just wanted to remind both City Council and the presenter that this is a public hearing solely on the application that's before the City Council and I'm not going to tell you what you can or cannot testify, but I thought you should know before you make your testimony that all that will be considered Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 16 of 73 for tonight's decision is the pending application. And, Madam Mayor, from my previous experience with Planning and Zoning, I believe this person is representing the HOA -- Hamilton: I am. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. You have some more time. Hamilton: Okay. Thank you. Baird: There you go. And you can deduct my interruption. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you, Ted. Hamilton: I felt it did have bearing to mention the upcoming subdivision to the south and that's why I mentioned it. De Weerd: Thank you. Hamilton: So, it produces more traffic along our park, which is more of a triangle shape. So, it would be two of the three sides that border our park with increased traffic along those. We do have five school buses that stop in our subdivision during peak hours. There are eight driveways on Kentucky Way and ten driveways that would be impacted on Blue Downs and Riodosa by Revolution Ridge residents. Right now Kentucky Way is very narrow, it's at 29, which I believe is the lowest acceptable width for a neighborhood collector. And we want to thank Mr. Conger for coming to the table with changing the sidewalk location to the east side, which I believe will be a little bit more accessible for all the residents. However, there is a no curb and gutter or sidewalk or bike lanes at this time. Right now we would really appreciate the consideration of adding another road onto Kentucky Way, which would help decrease all of these issues that we have and I have drawn up a rendering of a possibility for a new road coming in off of Kentucky Way and shown an arrow to the existing road. It has been mentioned that the grade is significantly different from Kentucky Way onto the land being proposed and right now we do have a cul-de-sac that has a significant grade as well and it has been adapted. Just to briefly show the area of the bus stop and the two views of -- or the two roadways that would impact our park area. Riodosa is on the left and Kentucky Way is on the right side as you're looking north. We would like to increase our park safety, create an alternate route for traffic during bus stops and increase our safety for existing driveways. De Weerd: Sorry. Hamilton: That's okay. We feel that since both of the developers would be using Kentucky Way as their main entrance that the existing road could be updated to allow for a better capacity. Mr. Conger did come to the ACHD meeting with his idea of going ahead and putting the sidewalk next to the east side of Kentucky Way, but because of the cost restraints has decided -- or I believe reconsidered putting curb and gutter that Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 17 of 73 would attach the sidewalk. We feel like both developers should share the cost in updating it to today's standards. Also Mr. Conger agreed to make our irrigation water available to our subdivision and, then, we will take it from there and possibly share costs on a pump house. So, we also appreciate that. Our next proposal is -- it kind of goes along with -- with updating the sidewalk and the road itself. It would support possibly our children walking to a future Meridian middle school, which is going to be on the ballot I believe in May and it will also promote Meridian's commitment to healthy living and create a safer access to Bear Creek Park. Because we do not have a sidewalk on Victory that is a very dangerous -- even though it's short, is a dangerous area to get to Stoddard. I'd also like to propose -- I went to the meeting last week for ACHD and understand that Kentucky Way is not deemed as a mid mile collector at this time, but I believe that it is in close proximity to being utilized as a mid mile collector and I feel like there is very ---quite a few -differences -between Kentucky Way and Stoddard. For instance, we have eight homes on the driveway. Stoddard does not. We have a 25 mile an hour speed limit. Stoddard has a 40 mile an hour speed limit. We have a two lane wide road. Stoddard has a three lane wide road. Let me show you the picture, too. We don't have a buffer for our park. It's pretty close to the sidewalk and we also have our -- our bus stop, which is within the -- the subdivision. That could change with a middle school going in off of Stoddard to the west behind the current subdivision that is being built near the church. We also want to comment on the fact that there will be commercial building in the future at Meridian Road and Amity and if you will look at this picture, Harris Street is the very southern point of Meridian Heights Subdivision and connected -- can connect to Kentucky Way at the future build out in the near future. So, we are concerned about the idea of people utilizing Kentucky Way as a mid mile collector when it's not very adequate for that use. As I mentioned I went to the ACHD meeting and they were impressed with the idea. I would like to avoid using Kentucky Way as a mid mile collector. Like Stoddard we will need a true mid mile collector and I believe that there will just be more commercial property developed in the near future at the intersection of Amity and Meridian Road. We do have the opportunity right now to plan, because Kentucky Ridge Estates is surrounded by farmland. Here is my -- my proposal. We have Mr. Petty's property, which is highlighted in the purple, in conjunction with Revolution Ridge outlined in purple. We have Meridian Heights Water - Sewer District property if blue. We have Mr. Hansen's property is red. And, then, we have Biltmore Estates, which is to the south. And if you will look toward the right-hand side underneath Harris Street, that is where the new commercial development is being proposed. We would also like to encourage one neighborhood -- as you mentioned this was originally regarded as a second portion of Kentucky Ridge Estates and we would like to see Revolution become part of Kentucky Ridge Estates as originally planned. We connect with Mr. Conger with the original developer Mr. Preston and he gave permission to utilize the Kentucky Ridge theme and we have sent Mr. Conger street names that would be appropriately addressed for that and I believe I have missed something in my presentation, so if I could just take a moment out of -- out of this to address it. One thing that we are concerned -- very concerned about is the curve of Kentucky Way from our pond to north to Victory Road has a curve to it and it does have a changing slope and during icy times it is quite dangerous. We feel that having a sidewalk helps, because there won't be people walking on the road, but a detached Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 18 of 73 sidewalk is not enough. We feel like there should be at least curb and gutter to accompany the sidewalk and, again, we want to reiterate that we believe that both developers should share in this cost and not use future taxpayer's money to do it when it needs to be improved. And I believe that's it. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none right now. De Weerd: Thank you so much. Hamilton: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is the public testimony. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony in addition? Yes, sir. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Petty: My name is Kevin Petty. I live at 1155 West Victory. De Weerd: Thank you. Petty: My property adjoins this property by a thousand feet. We have conjoining lots and I was wanting to be sure that we have got a six foot privacy fence going in a continuous line and also across the roadway in the future that would come onto my property, so, therefore, the people's dogs and whatever else will not be coming through some just boarded area. I would like a continuous fence and -- because they are going to have dogs and I got chickens and I got tractors out in the field and I don't really want all that coming through there. So, I would really like for that road to be straight through there. My second question is on the irrigation. He said something about not tiling the lateral and I get that, but my water comes out of that lateral as well and I have not heard any -- anything about how my water will be delivered and I sent a registered letter to Mr. Conger, got no reply, so I would like to have something on that, so I know now and what is going to be done in order to deliver my water to my property. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Petty. And I can tell you at least to the second part of your statement, that there is a responsibility to make sure that water delivery is not impeded, so -- but we will have Mr. Conger make note of that. Petty: Well, I understand that, I'm a contractor myself and I never get a permit to do anything without having specifications, drawings, and everything and I see nothing. To me this seems like it's out of the norm, but maybe it's not. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we will have him address that. Okay. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 19 of 73 Petty: So, will I be getting some kind of diagrams or anything or I just sit there and wait until the water comes to the yard? De Weerd: Oh, certainly the water shouldn't come through your yard. We will ask -- Petty: The irrigation is coming right away. So, right now. And they are going to start digging. What are we going to do to make sure that I can still get my water? They will be digging everywhere. I mean is that going to be still working? De Weerd: They aren't supposed to interrupt the delivery of your water. But I will have Mr. Conger address that in his remarks. Petty: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Additional testimony? Okay. Mr. Conger. Conger: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Jim Conger, 1627 South Orchard Street, Boise. So, addressing a couple of the things that we heard. The stub street -- as far as primary access on Kentucky Ridge, we do have a stub street when Mr. Petty's land does -- does develop, we were not allowed to access Victory with the setbacks and requirements from that intersection. ACHD's policy won't allow that. So, we will stub out. I know other developments have -- have requirements to stub out. This will not be the only method of in and out for any of these developments over time. We are a phase two -- there were two existing stubs. There is not room for another stub to Kentucky Way. There was discussion of can we come here to Kentucky Ridge. If you pull the 1995 -- which is not tremendously old, but the '95 approvals with the highway district, there is a specific of this entire plat, which would be this Lot 3, Block 3 of absolutely no -- no access to Kentucky Way, other than the two stubs that are allowed. We have gone through the highway district process. All of these items have been discussed in depth prior to getting to the commission at ACHD and during the commission at ACHD and we did get approval with -- without any of that. They don't want extra points coming onto Kentucky Way. The two stubs for this phase two are the two stubs for phase two. The emergency -- yes, you know, right now Kentucky -- Kentucky Ridge neighborhood is on a dead end and as far as fire and safety -- life safety items, it's our requirement to put in the emergency -- not only helps our neighborhood, it now is going to provide Kentucky Ridge as soon as we build it, their secondary access for emergency purposes. So, it's actually a win-win at the end of the day from a life safety standpoint. Again, roadways, you know, are the purview of ACRD. We have gone in depth with this layout and in depth with all the roadway issues. Kentucky Way -- the width of Kentucky Way, sidewalk, no sidewalk, curb, no curb, it -- we are very comfortable and I'm very comfortable that ACHD has made the right play in leaving Kentucky Way the way it is and with the detached sidewalk on the east side. I think addressing Mr. Petty, he did send me a registered letter. He was asking for drawings and all this stuff that we aren't able to give him. We did discuss at the highway district meeting -- he must have failed to remember. We will provide water. We have a requirement to provide water to the exact point that he gets it today. We don't have drawings to give him yet. Once we get Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 20 of 73 through this process of approval, get our development agreement done, we will be submitting construction plans to the City of Meridian and I will be more than happy to share those with Mr. Petty when I have them. He has a gate that -- irrigation gate outside of the Sundial lateral, so that the tiling or not tiling of the Sundial is irrelevant compared to the delivery to him. And also we have some delivery to some -- some neighborhoods off site of Kentucky Way over on this side of the world. I think in closing we agree with the staff condition of approval -- the additional approval from the fire department on the -- on the gating and the fencing or the gating and the bollards and I think it just leaves us with two items that need addressed. We still request the waiver of the Sundial Lateral to be left open to continue its usefulness for habitat and the sidewalk location -- Sonya, if you would put it up really quick -- is the other item we need to address. It's clearly in -- in your court on the blue versus the green. I put you on the spot. Watters: I thought we were done with that. Conger: I apologize. It really doesn't matter. You have it. She will pull it up. ACHD has approved me to do either. We are willing to pay 40 percent more, but this sidewalk is either going to be on the east side or the west side and we are happy to go with the west side -- or the east side. I apologize. I will stand for any further questions. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Conger, I'm for allowing you to go on the east side with the sidewalk. Can you tell me if the existing sidewalk has curb and gutter, too, along the road? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Bird, the existing streets inside of Kentucky Ridge are rolled curb with attached sidewalk. Bird: Sidewalk. And you're putting unattached sidewalk here, but even with an unattached sidewalk if we are going to do the work along there, I would sure like to see curb and gutter to there, too. I think that -- that it would definitely -- the traffic is increasing. Not being a road expert, but just common sense I would think that the curb and gutter would make that road a much more viable solid road by having the curb and gutter there, not having a slough off gutter. Would you be available to do that, the curb and gutter along there, too? Along with your detached sidewalk? I do like detached sidewalks, but I don't -- I want to see it curb and gutter while we are doing it. Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Bird, we have gone through great lengths in meetings with the highway district and the neighbor -- neighborhood groups -- oh, you're close. You're close. One more. With that being an existing road we are -- we are able to do -- and fulfill our requirements of doing our sidewalk as it is. The highway district has studied Kentucky Way and curbs aren't a requirement. We aren't able to pay 40 percent more for the sidewalk and provide a vertical curb along the way. So, we have -- Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 21 of 73 we have gone through the highway district's approvals with no curb requirement. We still want to very much give to this neighborhood and do the 40 percent more sidewalk. We are not able to do the vertical curb and gutter. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further questions for the applicant? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: On this particular graphic what does the line along Victory coming off the end of the blue line represent? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, are we talking this guy right here? Rountree: Yeah. Bird: Yeah. Conger: Yeah. So, that is the required sidewalk along Victory. It will tie in and tie across to -- to the sidewalk if we put it on the east side. Rountree: And I did not hear your response -- and you may have -- to Mr. Petty's concern about a continuous enclosed fence on the east side adjacent to his property, apparently. Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, you are correct, I did -- I did stay away from that somehow inadvertently. But that is ACHD public right of way. I guess if I can get a permit to put a fence across right of way we would consider it for sure. I guess I would need to submit a permit for that. We will not own that property when it's done, so there will be a 48 foot strip right there that's ACHD public right of way and we have done it before, so I assume we could do it again, but we will -- Rountree: Where is that again? Conger: That will be -- so, either way you want to look at it. Right -- right there. Right there. That will be the stub. Mr. Petty has the ownership of this property on this boundary and he's worried about that 48 feet. I get that. We can accommodate that. Rountree: I believe you can. De Weerd: Okay. Any other Council questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 22 of 73 Borton: Jim, you brought up the -- the open space at Woodbridge as an example of how not tiling this lateral can be an amenity. I didn't see a DA as part of this. Maybe -- that's another question I was going to ask. But what type of language or parameters did you use in the Woodbridge example that you think would fit here to try and insure that if it were to remain open it will be utilized, because the Woodbridge example is really well done. Conger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, Woodbridge was definitely in the day with simpler rules. We have more rules with your ordinance. So, I think we are in a world that's actually probably easier to assure that it will be useful, as you have a very specific ordinance from slopes to usage to vegetation. I really have a little bit less - flexibility withyournew ordinance. I'm not saying it's bad, I mean it's -- so definitely we will have a development agreement, but your ordinance alone will keep us in check with your water amenities. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Borton: One other question that probably came up in your discussions with -- on the sidewalk if the west portion, the blue, is not the detached sidewalk of choice and green is utilized, who, if anybody, ultimately builds the blue in the future and -- what mechanism is there to insure that gets put in? Conger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Council Member Borton, that's a very good question. The blue in the future will never be built. That -- it's problematic. We can build it. It's got a lot of slope, it's up about eight to 11 feet to 12 feet, depending -- from the roadway, depending on where it is. We are happy to build it. We can build it. That is our base approval with the highway district. The highway district also approved delete the blue and build the green if the city is okay with it. So, I guess we are all here trying to work with neighbors, work with developers, work with the highway district, work with the city, so at the end of the day it's give and take. We are giving 40 percent more, but we are not required to build the blue. If you want the blue we will be more than happy to build the blue, but we can't build the green. So, it's give and take. Yeah. I think to follow up on that is a good point. The blue doesn't connect to any other sidewalks. Somehow when this development got in -- I can connect up here, but to connect the blue up around the park is just -- there is no sidewalks on their property or around that. So, the best viable solution to get pedestrians out of Kentucky Ridge is a sidewalk along the east side. The highway district -- we have had I think up to two meetings prior to the commission meeting to discuss how we could do this. We didn't really want to pay the extra 40, but ultimately it came down to a point that it was that important to the neighbors and the highway district actually got behind it and pressed pretty hard on me. So, there has been a tremendous amount of thought into leaving the blue and adding the green and I think you heard that from your neighbors and definitely can see that in Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 23 of 73 the approval from the highway district. I think ultimately it's costing us more money. The green is what connects the pedestrians and it's definitely the correct choice. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Again, looking at this graphic, the -- the lot that the blue line is on, is that a common lot with this subdivision or is that a common lot that is with the existing Kentucky Ridge? Somebody's improved it and is maintaining it. How is that to be continued? - Conger: No. Madam Mayor, Council Member Rountree, that is a common lot buffer that we still are required by the City of Meridian's ordinance. We are not asking for you to waive the buffer requirement, so the landscaping in the -- in the 50 foot right of way, which I will show with the green, is right here, our common area is this entire buffer. We do not propose to remove that, we still landscape that as per city code, just no walkway. It doesn't connect. Rountree: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: There was a question raised -- and if I understood it correctly, you are actually producing phase two of the original Kentucky Ridge sub development -- subdivision and I think the question was whether or not this development would be part of the Kentucky Ridge Homeowners Association or are you planning to have a separate homeowners association? Conger: Madam Mayor, Council Member Zaremba, that -- we have been asked to use the name, we have not been asked to be part of the association until tonight. So, wasn't ready or prepared to answer that, but the quick answer is probably not. We will have pressurized irrigation. They do not. They want it, but they don't have main lines in existing neighborhoods. That's usually pretty difficult to put. So, I don't see any -- any synergy or energy with that and we will definitely have our own park requirements. They have their own park requirements. Ours are probably a little bit greater with the ten percent requirement of the city ordinance, but, no, we are not able to do that. We were going to talk to them about sharing the pump station at some point. The likelihood of that is still probably slim as well, but -- De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 24 of 73 Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question for Sonya and it just whispered in my ear and I wasn't going to ask it, but the DA comes with the action of the Council on this annexation; correct? Watters: That is correct, Councilman Rountree. Rountree: So, Mr. Borton, it's yet to come. Watters: If there is any other additional provisions you'd like to add now is the time. The existing DA provisions that staff's proposing is in Exhibit B. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I have kind of an off-the-wall question, but I will ask it anyhow. The name that you're proposing has been sounding familiar and I just sort of figured out why. On Victory on the east side of Meridian Road on the north side of Victory there is another subdivision with a very similar sounding name. Does anybody remember what -- the name of that subdivision? It's behind Victory Greens and takes its access on the north side of Victory. De Weerd: Observation Point, wasn't it? Bird: That's Observation Point. Zaremba: Okay. That -- okay. So, it's not even close. Thank you. I told you it was off the wall. De Weerd: I'm just glad I could answer it. Zaremba: Somehow it sounded similar. De Weerd: So, staff, I don't think this is a Mr. Conger question, but I know there is -- with these -- these county approved subs that -- that now the city is starting to grow around, the HOA did bring up a very valid point on what do you do with these collectors that typically collectors don't have driveways that access out onto them, they are a collector to move traffic and have a different fit and feel than a neighborhood and as we look at the development in and around this who pays attention to the appropriate roadways that connect this and if we only get little bits and pieces of the puzzle at one time how do you ever focus on how to do it right? Watters: Madam Mayor, there is a member of ACHD staff here tonight in the audience if you would like to direct that towards him. De Weerd: And Ryan loves my questions anyway. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 25 of 73 Conger: Madam Mayor, can I take it before he gets here? De Weerd: You can attempt it as well. Conger: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, so, yeah, ACHD definitely does not look at our project in a bubble. It took the entire area. It had known Biltmore was coming in, but more than Biltmore, there is other properties on each side where we are going to connect to and who is connected to Kentucky Ridge. So -- so, ACHD -- I mean that is what they do all day long for a living, they definitely look at these projects from a global standpoint, not just a 20 acre site. I mean every time they look at it with the bigger picture in mind. Of course they are not detailed land plans, but when you have adjacent properties you -- you do this long enough, as you guys well know and well do, you know where the roads are going or not going as far as connecting over to Linder or connecting back to Victory and things of that nature. De Weerd: Well, normally we don't and that's why I asked it. So, I will see what -- what Ryan can add. Head: Madam Mayor, Ryan Head, Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street, Garden City. De Weerd: Thank you. Head: If you would remind me of our question. I was thinking of something else at the moment. So, if you could tell me your question again. De Weerd: I thought you hung on our every word. Head: I try to. I do. De Weerd: You try to. My question was as we look at road infrastructure and collector roads and of -- of a larger view -- so, not the ten foot view, but more the 300 foot view, we are seeing one puzzle piece at a time and there is going to be a lot of traffic generated in every square mile, so how does ACHD look at this in where collectors should be and how to integrate that into development applications that come in front of your -- your commission and how is that going to relate to this. Head: Okay. I can answer that. In working with your staff we have developed what we call a master street map, which establishes a long range vision of both the arterial and the collector system and these particular areas it would identify if -- where there is not a collector currently in place, but identifies future collectors. In this particular case staff looked at this -- it identifies every neighborhood residential collector. A similar one that you may have now is -- shouldn't have said that, because now I'm blanking on what the name of the one that I would draw. Chateau. Thank you. I heard that somewhere. Chateau. It would be something similar to that. In this particular case, because of the Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 26 of 73 nature of the subdivision it was felt that it wasn't necessary to require all -- all the amenities of the collector roadway, which would be the -- the curb, gutter, sidewalk, the bike lanes, those facilities and it wasn't felt in this particular case that was necessary in that the existing road fit the criteria in what would be needed in this particular area. There is the right of way always there for -- for improvement as do we require 50 feet of right of way for a collector roadway at a minimum. I believe there is actually 60 feet, if I recall from the staff report for this particular area. If I may just clarify one particular point from our commission meeting. If we could -- Sonya, if you could bring up the green and the blue line. Thank you. You're getting good at that. For what is the -- the Fisk property, which is where the -- where the -- the section from where the existing sidewalk -- it ends to the parcel line -- so, that small -- it's like 120 feet or something along those lines, it was ACHD -- the intent of the commission was that piece be attached to a curb, gutter, sidewalk. If required, ACHD is willing to pay for that curb, gutter for that one piece. It's our understanding that that was the interest for -- for that particular land owner, so that -- so that would be the intent of our commission for that particular piece. The rest we are fine with the detached. So, just wanted to clarify that point in the testimony that has been given. De Weerd: So, as I look at Chateau, the more current -- I guess none of those subdivisions or developments aren't necessarily new, but the newest one did not allow the -- the driveways to connect, so they gave connecting points rather than the old one and what we try to do is every application we need to learn from the other and so we don't like to encourage those collector -- neighborhood collectors and you're our road department, so I guess my question is to you, what is the longer term plan for this area if -- if this is not going to be it -- and I don't think that is adequate, what -- what is the long-term plan in that as development occurs? Not just this development. And I'm not talking about any particular application, Mr. Baird. I guess you said there is plans. What's the plan? Head: Well, this area is identified as a residential collector and a residential collector would have -- in most applications curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lanes, all of those types of facilities. Because this -- this particular application fronts this -- this residential collector in such a small way, the commission didn't feel that it was appropriate to put upon this -- this applicant the -- the requirement to develop even half of that, because ultimately they would only be responsible for half of a roadway to meet those standards, that it wasn't appropriate in this particular case. That doesn't mean in all cases we -- we would apply that same logic, it's just based on this particular case it's a small amount of frontage on the collector roadway to put that upon them at this time, especially where you have a part to the south that doesn't have those curb, gutter, sidewalks that's already established. The commission didn't feel comfortable and it was staff's recommendation to not put that on this developer and which would ultimately, then, put it upon us in the long run if -- if it were to need to be developed to a more -- to a full build out status. That's really what the commission is acknowledging in making that decision if at a later date that is required. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 27 of 73 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Ryan, in other words, five or six years from now our taxpayers are going to wind up putting that blue sidewalk in with curb and gutter and getting that road up to date is what you're telling me, instead of having the developer do it at this point? Head: I would say that if appropriate that may be the case. We don't have curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of the road in all cases. For most -- for most of new development we would require that if they were doing something along those lines. In this particular case, because of the condition of the roadway now, we felt it was better to try and make an actual connection to the sidewalk, whereas if it were on the east side -- or on the west side it would be going to a -- a stub into a park. So, it would -- if we can require sidewalk, we wanted to require a connection that would be -- would actually provide some connectivity at this point in time. Bird: Follow up? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: I agree with going to the green, but in Revolution where are you going to get the young kids and stuff out and down to Victory to walk and where they don't have to cross Kentucky Way to get to the sidewalk? You have no sidewalk on the west side. You need it on both sides. I mean that one -- this place up there at the north is a temporary deal. I don't even know if they are going to have sidewalks at that point anyway and you go down to the south end of that subdivision, they are going to go out and they are going to have to go walk over, which there will be sidewalks until they get to Kentucky Ridge and, then, they will have to go across the road there at Kentucky Ridge and get on the sidewalk. Head: That is the case at this point in time. Bird: To me that's -- we are solving one problem and creating another we are going to, as taxpayers, pick up down the road. De Weerd: Council, any other questions for Ryan? Thank you, Ryan. We always remember you're the messenger. Bird: Yes, Conger: Can I address that or not? De Weerd: Yes, please. You know, Jim, you will always be allowed the last word, so -- Conger: Okay. Not at home. But, Madam Mayor, Council Member Bird -- Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 28 of 73 De Weerd: Okay. At least in this chamber. Conger: That's right. So, our pedestrians have -- their main choice, Mr. Bird, is they are going to go down -- this is a -- that's a pedestrian connection to our sidewalk on Victory. That is not temporary, that will go away. That is landscaped on both sides. Yes, it is an emergency as well, but it is first and foremost a pedestrian link and a pedestrian link that we want. What -- what this requirement with this sidewalk coming down -- this sidewalk coming down Victory will have a crossing at Kentucky Way. That is no different than any -- and this happens to be a three-way intersection, which is even easier to cross, but any four way, three way intersection in this entire county -- or city crosses to get to the other side. So, if we -- now, I guess I don't why they cross and get to that sidewalk, because our people are going north through our neighborhood and out to that pathway. -1 guess if they were crossing over and, then, going to walk back up the neighborhood, I -- but they are going -- ultimately there will be some other -- some other pedestrian ability in Victory, but all our people go north. Now, if they are going to the bus stops which are over here, they are just simply coming up and coming out of our neighborhood into the bus stops. If this sidewalk is done and why we committed to the additional cost, the Kentucky Ridge doesn't connect to anything. Taxpayers aren't covering our burden, they are covering the existing burdens of just neighborhoods to somehow figure out a connection. We are the link to that connection and, again, this Kentucky Way width and how it's configured for the future, ACHD didn't make that decision in a week, I mean that was numerous traffic studies and a tremendous amount of time. This road width, which is just shy of 30 -- everybody calls it 29 -- is a standard they would put in today's world. So, the lack of vertical curb or rolled curb isn't an issue with ACRD, it's all about the road width and, of course, they love the detached sidewalk. We are willing to give that and have it actually be useful the day we put it in, which we would hope is later this summer. I stand for any further questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information needed? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Conger: Thank you very much. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: If there is no further discussion, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 8-D and 8-E. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 29 of 73 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on these two items. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a comment. I support the idea of the sidewalk on the east. It does connect with the internal workings of the existing neighborhood and to the extent of curb and gutter that ACHD has required on the -- apparently the south end, that that be included as well. I support the idea that the drain be incorporated into the community through the requirements in ordinance with respect to providing habitat. I concur in the compromise on the access, that it could be a combination of a gate and bollard to provide access to Meridian. I support that the entire east side adjacent to Mr. - Petty would be fenced, including across ACHD's eventual right of way on stub street and that's all the items I think that were requested that were changed or different. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would add a quirk to that, I guess, and that is that the fence that does cross the right of way -- if they put uprights right on the outside of the right of way, so that that section can be removed at some time without destroying the whole fence, I believe there is a way to construct it so that it appears permanent now, but it can be removed without destroying the rest of the fence and I would suggest that. De Weerd: And that it would be signed this will be a through road -- Zaremba: It will be a through road later. Yeah. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would suggest that on all of the stub streets, that sign be provided. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Is that a motion? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 8-D, AZ 14-002, Revolution Ridge, subject to staff and applicant comments, including the continual fencing along the east side adjacent to Mr. Petty's property, the habitat establishments on that drain, the bollard gate combination for emergency access. That a sign be provided -- signage be provided on the stub streets that indicate those streets will eventually be a through Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 30 of 73 street and the sidewalk be on the east side with curb, gutter as requested by ACHD on the southern portion. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Cavener: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Maybe a question for the maker of the motion. Early on staff also -recommended the addition of the water main to be installed on tot 8, Block 3. Would you want to include that in this motion as well? Rountree: I would say that the inclusion of staff comments was -- covers that item. But, yes, that's included. De Weerd: Okay. Any other discussion? Second agree? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Item 8-E. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 8-E, PP 13-040 with staff and applicant comments and a request that the applicant consider the theme idea that was proposed for the existing Kentucky Ridge as it relates to street naming. That does not mean you have to do it, but direct you to consider that. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Any discussion from Council? Madam Clerk. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 31 of 73 Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. F. Public Hearing: PP 13-043 Summerwood Subdivision by Kent Pintus Located at 4202 and 4052 W. Daphne Street Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty (30) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Ten (10) Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District De Weerd: Item 8-F is a public hearing on PP 13-043. 1 will open this public hearing with comments. Watters: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is a request for a preliminary plat. This site consists of ten acres of land. It's currently zoned R-4 and is located at 4202 and 4052 West Daphne Street. This property is currently platted as Lot 6 and 7, Block 2, in the Black Cat Estates Subdivision No. 2. A preliminary plat for Prado Villa was approved in 2006, but has since expired. The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat consisting of 30 building lots and three common lots on ten acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in two phases as shown. The gross density of the subdivision is three dwelling units per acre consistent with the low density residential future land use map designation of three dwelling units per acre or less. There are two existing homes and a barn on this site. One of the existing homes is proposed to remain. The others will be removed. And the primary access for this subdivision is at the south boundary via West Daphne Street. A secondary access is planned at the northeast boundary of the site to connect to a future street in Bridgetower Estates Subdivision, which is currently under construction. A stub street is proposed at the northwest boundary for future connection and interconnectivity. The plat depicts 1.1 acres of 10.1 percent of qualified open space, consisting of a large open common area, .74 acres in size, and parkways along internal local streets. A barbecue, benches, and gazebo are proposed as amenities consistent with UDC requirements. A six foot tall privacy fence is propose along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision. All fencing should comply with UDC standards. The Scribner Lateral and the East Drain crosses the northwest corner of the site. These waterways are proposed to be relocated along the south and west property boundaries within a 35 foot wide easement. The waterways should be piped in accord with UDC requirements. An encroachment agreement is required to be obtained for the lots that encroach within the irrigation easement. The Commission recommended approval of the subject preliminary plat. Sabrina Durtschi, the applicant's representative, testified in favor. No one testified in opposition. Eugene Thompson and Paul Poorman commented on the application and Sabrina Durtschi submitted written testimony in agreement with the staff report. There Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 32 of 73 were no major issues of discussion by the Commission or changes to the staff recommendations and there are no outstanding issues for Council. Written testimony since the Commission hearing was received from Sabrina Durtschi, applicant's representative, in agreement with the Commission recommendations. Staff will stand for any questions the Major and Council may have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. - Rountree: What's proposed through the new 30 foot easement where the irrigation facilities will be relocated? Is there some kind of landscaping, some kind of -- is it going to be a common lot that's going to be maintained? What's going on there? Watters: It is with -- Mayor and Council. Excuse me. It is within an easement shown on the south boundary and the west boundary here. So, obviously, no building will be allowed within that easement and an encroachment easement will be required for the lots. Rountree: But will it be maintained or is it going to be what we commonly see in these irrigation easements? Watters: It will be in each homeowners' lot, so it will be maintained by the homeowners. It's only an easement, it's not a common lot. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Any other questions? Is the applicant here? Good evening. Durtschi: Good evening. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Durtschi: Absolutely. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, hello and good evening. For the record my name is Sabrina Durtschi and I am here on behalf of the applicant and Briggs Engineering. My business address is is 1800 West Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. 83705. And -- De Weerd: Thank you. Durtschi: You're welcome. And this evening we are in front of you for a 30 lot subdivision plat for Summerwood Estates. Back in 2006 -- this site might look a little familiar -- we got an annexation, zoning of R-4, a development agreement and a preliminary plat approved at that time. However, we didn't have any services to the site, Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 33 of 73 so, unfortunately, the plat got -- expired and I have had a very patient owner. I would check in periodically and was always told, no, there is no services yet until last fall when we pleasantly got the answer that, yes, finally they do have services that are stubbed in by -- from Bridgetower that is to the east of the site. So, that is why we are here today. We are still going to stay true to the signed and recorded development agreement, that way -- so, we are only presenting this evening as a preliminary plat. It's still for 30 lots, as was approved in 2006. A few changes have been made I just would like to point out. Originally our ingress -egress was -- is that writing? Watters: Select a color. Durtschi: Oh. A color. Ingress -egress is here. Mr. Thompson to the south of our property, was concerned about headlights coming into his household and so we realigned the road to its current location off of Daphne, so it wouldn't impede into anyone's residence. And, then, we did change the open space. I believe it was more centrally located and after talking to a landscape architect and whatnot they decided to locate it at this location. Other than that it's very similar to what was already approved in 2006. And with that I respectfully request approval and thank you for your time and consideration and will stand for any questions that you may have at this time. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Durtschi: Great. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who wishes to provide testimony on this item? Sabrina, do you have any further comment? Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Seeing no more, I move we close the public hearing on PP 13-043. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-F. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 34 of 73 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 13-043 and include all staff and applicant comments. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-F. If there is no conversation from Council, Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. G. Public Hearing: AZ 14-003 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 1.49 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) Zoning District H. Public Hearing: PP 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 121 Single Family Residential Lots and 19 Common Lots on Approximately 21.71 Acres in an Existing and Proposed R-15 Zoning District Public Hearing: PUD 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Planned Unit Development to Modify the R-15 Dimensional Standards of the Mew and Alley Loaded Lots to Allow for Exemplary Design J. Public Hearing: MDA 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to Change the Development Plan from Multi - Family to Single Family De Weerd: Items 8-G, H, I and J are public hearings on AZ 14-003, PP 14-001, PUD 14-001 and MDA 14-001. 1 will open these four public hearings with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda this evening the Heritage Grove Project. It's located on the northwest corner of Locust Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 35 of 73 Grove and Ustick. If some of you live out in that area or live in north Meridian you can tell that that intersection is currently under construction with ACHD and that's what actually facilitated the application before you this evening to expedite some of that moving forward. I would mention to you that the developer has worked very closely with ACHD on this project as far as getting utilities extended into the site, so that is happening as well and the only reason why we have a small annexation this evening is because, again, of that roadway. This little sliver is approximately 1.49 acres and because of the roadway project that homeowner is losing their well and so ACHD is connecting that home to city services as well as part of the roadway project, but the applicant has taken it upon himself to bring them in as part of a lot and block in the subdivision as well. So, this project was before you in 2008. It had a little bit different flavor at that time. It was called the Chalet Marsalis project and at that time that it was presented to you there was a development agreement and in that development agreement it was required to develop with 120 multi -family units. Now that that applicant is not proposing the multi -family development we do have the zoning in place, but they want to bring forth a new subdivision before you that has single family homes. So, in order to do that they do have to amend that development agreement as well. You can see here that the development is primarily surrounded by residential development in the city and so what the application doing this evening trying to kind of marry in or tie this development into the surrounding developments as well. Here is the plan for you this evening. As the Mayor mentioned, there are multiple applications on this site. I will start the preliminary plat. As similar to what was approved in 2008, this preliminary plat consists of 121 residential lots instead of units. The primary -- one of -- the lots range in size between approximately 4,000 square feet all the way up to 27,000 square feet and the main reason for that has to do with -- as I mentioned to you that one property that they are proposing to annex in there is a half acre lot that they are carving out to keep the existing residence on that property for the Trail property, as I have -- that's what I will call it moving forward, but it will be remaining. Those homes are hooking up and that will -- will be a lot and block in the subdivision, but not necessarily tied to the CC&Rs of the subdivision. They will still be their own legal parcel of record in the future. The applicant is proposing a planned unit development and in this yellow graphic that you have before you it shows what the proposed setbacks are for that -- for this development. I would mention to Council that under our PD process in the Unified Development Code the perimeter lots to have to comply with the dimensional standards of the UDC. So, those -- all the lots that you see along the perimeter here will be traditional single family garage loaded homes. There is no modifications requested. The only PD modifications will be to the internal lots that you see along -- internal to this portion of the development and, then, also the northwest quadrant of the development and what the applicant is requesting as part of their PD process is requesting a five foot setback to living space that would apply to the lots that front on the MEW here and, then, along the alleys or the street here. The internal -- and the interior setbacks would be five feet consistent with current ordinance and, then, off the alley the applicant is requesting a two foot setback to the garage. So, basically, the alley becomes livable space. You will have your garages, but that will allow the applicant to build living space over top of the garage to actually use the entire footprint of the lot for the home and, then, MEW, essentially, becomes the open space or the usable yard for the residents Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 36 of 73 that live in the subdivision. The traditional lots, again, will have the typical setbacks that we see in the R-15 zone or R-8 and there should be ample open space for them as well. One unique aspect of this plan as well is that it does have over 15 percent open space, which is currently our UDC requires ten percent. So, the applicant's actually providing more than what the UDC requires and the amenity package that the applicant is proposing with the development will consist of a clubhouse, outdoor patio area, and, then, also two picnic areas within the MEW. So, that's something unique to this development as well. One thing the applicant wanted to do as well -- is if you're familiar with the Heritage Commons Subdivision to the north of this site, it's pretty typical what you see in that development and the applicant wanted to bring that design element to this project as will. Here are the home elevations. Because this was a PD we like to get a little bit more specific details as to the quality of the homes, the style of the homes. The applicant has to demonstrate how these homes will fit on the lots, so that we make sure we are approving something or recommending approval of something that will actually work and the property can actually be developed as proposed by the applicant and so what the applicant has done here for you this evening is not only provide sample elevations, but they have also provided a materials board for you to review the specifies of all the design criteria and staff has also required that they provide a lot fit -- or at least show you how the homes would be oriented along the alleys and also the MEW lots. One unique aspect for this project and one requirement that we have under our conditions of approval this evening is that we want the applicant to provide variations along the streetscape, so we don't want each home to be on the same plain along the street, so what this exhibit shows you -- it shows that the applicant can actually work within those setbacks that I presented to you as far as the PD process, but they can also vary the homes or stagger them along the streetscapes, so you don't get every home on the same plain, so you don't have a monotonous streetscape and that's very critical to something of this design. The applicant will also be providing eight foot parkways throughout this development to get you that tree -lined street development as well, which is pretty typical of a traditional neighborhood district -- traditional neighborhood design as well. So, once we presented this to Planning and Zoning Commission, they did recommend approval to you this evening from their March 6th hearing. Testifying in favor of that was Tucker Johnson at that hearing. There were several neighbors that came and testified and actually -- they actually provided comments and were very excited about this project. They felt it did emulate again Heritage Commons to the north and, then, something that they had envisioned seeing next to them moving forward. ACHD did submit their original -- staff report on this. They have recommended approval, as well as it's submitted to you this evening. There were some concerns with the public alleys for the MEW lots, as they did not have street frontage as required by ACRD, but the applicant and the city has worked with ACHD to iron out that issue, so moving forward those alleyways will be private. They will have to come back through the fire department, get some signage, basically, similar to what we did in Reflection Ridge where we actually had an exhibit or a plaque along the roadway to identify which homes -- their addresses for each of those homes, but we have that ironed out in the staff report and it should transition very smoothly going forward. The applicant is actually -- if I could step back here very quickly as well, is to let you know that they are planning on developing this in four development stages and one of our Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 37 of 73 recommendations -- and it also came forth from Planning and Zoning Commission -- was the timing for those improvements. Because we have the intersection under construction at this point the applicants want to start phase one and two near that intersection and because of the existing residence the Trail property currently have access to Ustick Road. We wanted to make sure -- and we have tied this to the development agreement and also to the conditions of this project -- we want to make sure that we get all of the landscaping along the arterial roadways with the first phase of development. We felt that was critical not only to having that as part of the new intersection to have that piece of design theme, but we also have several subdivisions in there that are developed as well, so we wanted to make sure we close off that access for the Trail property, have that consistent landscape theme in front of the Trail property as well, and, then, tie into the west and, again, this plan doesn't reflect that, but our conditions -of -approval state that we want those improvements with phase one as well. And the applicant is also providing a local street access in this vicinity here, if you can see my cursor, to provide access to the Trail property. And so, again, this phasing plan doesn't slow that, but that is a condition of moving forward. As I mentioned earlier in my presentation there is a development agreement on the site. It's not a very robust development agreement. The only requirement in that DA is that they construct the maximum of 120 residential units -- multi -family units. So, in moving forward this evening we have multiple approvals running with this land, but this is staff's best guess at what the Council would like to see in the development agreement for a project of this size. So, first of all, we want to tie them to the home elevations and that pallet -- or at least those design features that you saw in that earlier presentation. We want a mix of material on the elevations along Locust Grove and Ustick Road. I would mention to you that applicant did provide a detail of a berm along Ustick and Locust Grove, so a lot of the homes you won't see from the roadway, because there will be such a tall berm and fence combination, but you may want to add to, but we feel like we have a combination -- if you can see the back of the home we do want to see a mix of materials on that. We also want to make sure that they comply with the submitted plat, because of the uniqueness of it having the MEW development, the amount of open space that they are proposing, we want to tie them to that as well and, then, as I mentioned to you the phasing of those improvements along the arterial streets, provision number C speaks to that. We want to make sure that those landscape buffers are installed with the first phase and that would include the Trail property as well. And we want to make sure that that buffer compliments the buffer that they put in. We are not telling them to put a 50,000 dollar landscape buffer in front of the Trail property, we just want them to work with that homeowner to make sure there is a consistent design theme there as they transition from their landscaping buffer to Wanda's Meadows. And, then, of course, like anything, the ordinances change as you move forward and because there is multiple spaces proposed we want to make sure that they are going to comply with any ordinances in effect at the time of their final plat submittal. Stepping back really quick -- or at least giving you a summary of the public hearing. As I mentioned to you a couple of neighbors did testify. They were from the adjacent subdivision Heritage Commons. Again, they were in support. That was Joshua Blanc and Randy Sewick. Staff did receive written testimony on this prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing from Roberta Garben, Wendell Martin, and Ann Hutchinson and the concerns from Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 38 of 73 those neighbors had to do with the perimeter fencing. At the public hearing the applicant did testify that there would be vinyl fencing along the perimeter of the site and he thought he may have to cost share with some of the adjacent neighbors. They didn't feel should be on the bubble for cost sharing on any fencing when they were proposing the development, so the applicant did testify that he would be paying for the cost of the fencing along the perimeter, so we have that addressed as well and so as I mentioned to you, the applicant did not -- wasn't really in favor of doing those improvements with phase one, meaning the landscape improvements. The Planning and Zoning Commission stayed with staff's recommendation and they did not propose any changes to our conditions of approval. And so with that the applicant did not submit any written testimony on that moving forward this evening, nor did staff receive any additional written testimony on the application since the Planning and Zoning Commission, so, really, for you this evening we have no outstanding issues for you. This is a fairly clean application moving forward. We feel we have all the conditions into place -- in place to move forward pretty smoothly and this concludes my presentation and I will stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, if I may. Bill, I'm trying to visualize something that you described and that would be the places where there is a garage along the alley. I think I heard you say that the garage would be setback two feet from the alley. But, then, there could be a second story living space over that that would overhang two feet and, therefore, be back flush to the alley and I guess my question is, one, did I interpret that correctly? Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that wasn't my intent to describe it that way. The alley -- the public alleys will have to be 20 feet wide per our standards, so that's in place. That's the separation between the units. From the edge of alleyway is a 20 foot right of way. The garage could be up to two feet from that property line. So, the living space would be built above the garage, it wouldn't necessarily project beyond the garage -- Zaremba: Okay. Parsons -- is what I'm getting at. The two foot is the cut off. You just won't have a parking pad in front of the garage. That's the intent here you get the parking on the street, you get the open space in the MEW lot. That's the uniqueness to this -- this project, is that you're trying to get more of that traditional neighborhood look by getting the tree lined streets, allowing the footprint of the home to basically fit the whole lot -- buildable lot and you move the open space to where ever you can use it as an amenity. But this will give them flexibility to either have a single level home or if there is a two story, they want a larger home, they have that ability to build that living space over the garage, so it's not all garage dominated along the alley as well. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 39 of 73 Zaremba: Thank you. That helped me. I was concerned about fire trucks going down the alley, but as long as we are not -- Bird: Plenty of room. Zaremba: -- closing it in, that's fine. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Zaremba. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. Johnson: Good evening. De Weerd: Nice to have you here. If you will state your name and address for the record. Johnson: Tucker Johnson. Work address is 372 South Eagle Road in Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. Johnson: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's a pleasure to be before you. I'm glad to see that some things don't change, Councilman Bird. It's been awhile since -- it's been a while since I have been before you. We are excited about this -- this application and appreciate the staff's input, direction, help and guidance. We are in general agreement on most everything with the exception of maybe the one item relative to phasing and I will touch on that before I'm done. The -- the project has evolved in its -- its conception. We have come to the point where we are going to target the 55 or older community. In fact, the signs on the site actually say that right now. As we believe that there is a large demand for that type of project at this location, single level is probably the dominate type of home. Empty nesters tend to have concerns over stairs for hip replacements, knee replacements, and so forth. So, the project has evolved. I'd like to take you through just a few aspects of the project. There are some samples locally, as well as regionally, of MEW parks with homes facing on that. I won't go into detail. This happened to be -- the top two pictures happened to be from the Highlands in the Seattle area. The bottom two here happen to be from Hazelwood Village, one of my projects in southwest Boise where you see each home actually gets to have a piece of their own private little park in front of their house and part of the design with this project has been -- we have seen in different jurisdictions and the different areas is to have the homes on the end actually come forward a little bit more than the balance of the other lots facing the MEW. It kind of creates a slight enclosure, if you will. Just kind of a psychological sense of a private, protective environment. It's this kind of nuance that we have been paying attention to and have been incorporating into the design. This particular graphic doesn't show it. I'm not sure why. I must have grabbed the wrong one. But we have -- since this application was submitted to staff we Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 40 of 73 have decided to detach the sidewalks in front of all the traditional lots, in addition to the alley -loaded lots. So, the sidewalks will be detached and you will see the same emphasis on street trees to create a very livable and walkable environment. This is our vision. One of our vision boards. One picture, top left corner comes from the San Francisco Bay area. Sometimes confused with local projects, but, then, the other three have come from a project just north of Denver. We have traveled far and wide trying to find different nuances, different traditional designs that would fit into a perfectly designed project. It creates a very inviting, walkable community. This is very similar to our project in southwest Boise where we have detached sidewalk and trees on both sides and the -- the number of people walking enjoying that environment regularly is significant. Phasing plan -- I will come back to that perhaps. A quick zoom in on a representative MEW area and I, basically, want to focus on this -- these lots here to kind of illustrate a cross -access approach. Again, the house here on theendclosest to a side street has the capability of protruding a little closer into the park. The setbacks are delineated there, as well as at the point of that -- the front setbacks would be a shorter wrought iron fence along the front and, then, this property here will actually be able to live over to the -- to within a few inches of the neighbor's house. So, we call it in this case -- call it living to the east. So, this entire area here would be an area for dwellings to use as part of their living space. And theme just carries forward here. This lot here is actually next to the pathway. It's an extra five feet wider, because it has no neighbor on which to have an easement. So, it's counted as the same square footage. Same size house and same kind of living space environment. This is, again, part of our vision board of what that space can look like. Samples both local and regional. This one here happens to be in Eagle. I would love to live in that kind of environment. I hope my builders and the folks who buy in this community will get to this level at some point in time. It creates a very exciting, inviting living option. As an option in that same cross - access easement area -- back up here. I'm going to focus on this area for just a moment. This actually is in Eagle. Alderwood Creek. The staff report before you conditions -- gives the opportunity to do something of this nature -- it doesn't require it, but it gives an opportunity for a family, friend, or a third vehicle or so forth to park in this location and through the CC&Rs we are going to keep it tidy, don't want an ugly environment, we don't want to downgrade the alley at all. Basically restricting it to a nicer vehicle, the AC, and trash cans. And, again, some kind a fencing to separate it from the actual outdoor living space. This is a -- this is from Alderwood Village also in Eagle. The homes in this particular situation -- I would call it a monster truck here -- don't anticipate a lot of empty nesters having too many monster trucks, but I wanted to show you the possibilities of what can actually fit in these spaces. These ones happen to be 12 feet apart and accommodate that. But we are going to be fairly picky in our CC&Rs relative to the use of that space. Just wanted to show a quick graphic of the possible fence styles. There is actually a picture missing here. I apologize. More of a vinyl style for our berm along Locust Grove and Ustick Road. The fence along the MEW part would be similar to this and if we go with the wood style fence it may look something to this -- this type of fence. So, a typical cross-section of the berm. We are interested in separating the homes and the people within the home from being able to have to have visual interaction with the vehicles and moving trucks and so forth out here on the public roadways. We have worked closely with landscape architects to achieve Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 41 of 73 the right design and that gives you a flavor of buffering the intended place there. Staff has already pointed out this park. Our clubhouse plan is to incorporate a patio area where people can congregate in a very artistically created outdoor area. Again, kind of our vision board of what those might look like and the clubhouse itself -- we originally thought a potential placement within the -- at one of the common areas, but due to constraints the sewer actually goes through that location, so we can't put it over the top of it. We have identified this location which may get bumped a lot one way or the other, perhaps. We want it centrally located, but ACHD's storm drain requirements are pretty hefty and may require us to lose a lot for a storm drain detention facility -- landscaped fully as a park, you know, until Noah comes back and, then, it would have water in it. That concludes most of my comments. I want to go back to the phasing plan, however, and quickly touch on the only disagreement that staff and I ultimately have and that has to do with the property here, referred to as the Trail property. As staff indicated, you know, Locust Grove and Ustick are under heavy construction, due to be finished per contract by July and we will be making the connection here, so they can delete this connection here and, then, finish it up with some landscaping in this location. It's going to happen. We are going to do it. My only contention is that since we have to start here with phase one to our entrance, we are trying to split this into more manageable bites and don't get our heads too strung out there, having been nearly, you know, snipped the head off during the 2008, 2012 era. We are a little more cautious in our approach. Staff is recommending that this road be paved and access to here be accomplished as part of phase one and our contention -- it's going to happen -- exactly what it did at P&Z. Are you guys doing that? We have agreed with staff to place the landscaping in its entirety along here. Our only request is -- and difference with staff is that this section would be installed once this connection for the internal road is complete and that that could come in phase two. So, we don't, essentially, have to build these entire first front hundred -- or 60 lots all at the same time. The sewer -- let me erase this a little bit. If we -- you can see a manhole here. If we pave this street to here it starts to force us to put facilities in this location and the connection will happen. The -- the berming along Ustick Road will be completed, I'm just suggesting that the staff report -- the staff and conditions be amended to say along with phase two those items must be addressed at that time. I would -- I would stand for questions. We are, again, very excited about the possibility of those who have had already numerous phone calls relative to the project, the -- the concept. We, actually, are approaching closer to 19 percent total open space, not that we have detached the sidewalks on both sides. Clubhouse. A picnic location, both areas, both new park. We are working with the neighbors to our north and west, but primarily to the west are in attendance here this evening and I would just quickly point out something here on the phasing plan. The concern has been generally with these homes in this location and we have agreed to limit those to single level -- potentially single level with a bonus space, but not a true two story home. These homes here are -- are single level in nature. And we can actually do that all -- all around this block right here. I have actually had a conversation with him -- he's not here tonight, but this may end up being a storm drain facility. We don't know yet. This is the lowest spot of the whole site. It drains in that direction. With that I will actually stand for questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 42 of 73 Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: Mr. Johnson, my -- so, I just want to clarify. This is a 55 and up neighborhood, not just your target market? The main reason I ask that is because most of my questions revolve around that. You read my mind, because I had all my questions written down. Obviously, there is a sign -- I drive by here on a regular basis. I live nearby, so -- but part -- -with some of the -- the questions that we had were -- it was about the school, the schools being overcrowded that that would feed. Also there is a playground in the open space -- so I just want to make sure that that -- that is --specifically what you're doing and that that doesn't change, because that would change -- I love the project. I think it's beautiful. I would like to live there, you know, but you were talking about single level homes and, then, two story homes, so I'm just a little bit confused on what that plan is concretely. Johnson: Council President and Members of the Council, the -- when we submitted the application we were -- we were focused on a target group of empty nesters. We weren't defined at that time. We weren't quite comfortable yet. There is some federal regulations that start to get in there and I'm not an expert yet and I'm kind of tentatively stepping, but with some additional research since we submitted the application we are more confident and headed that direction. It's my understanding currently that a 55 and older community by federal regulations, you could have up 20 percent of the residents actually less than 55 or older. There could be a 55 and older couple or single parent that has a high schooler, that has maybe a junior high or middle school type age. But that's not going to be the typical group that we are targeting. So, I'm going to stop just shy of saying absolutely it's going to be restricted to 55 or older, because part of our -- we actually have a focus group tomorrow night for 35 people that have responded to the sign, to explore this very facet and to make sure we do it right and do it well, but we also make sure we don't stub our toes on some federal regulations that we are not currently aware of. But I understand the issue was the schools, traffic -- sadly, somewhat like roads, this body doesn't have -- you know, there is not one stop shop so to speak of the city that would affect all different aspects of society, including schools. But I anticipate a significantly less -- lower number of school age children at this location. Milam: Okay. As well as I -- if I was 55 and older and I was living there and -- Johnson: Not quite yet. Milam: I wouldn't -- I would be mad if some kids moved in next door. Be part of that focus group. Thank you. Johnson: Please come. De Weerd: Any other questions from Council? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 43 of 73 Bird: Not at this time. Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you. De Weerd: This is a public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? I will note that, Dr. Johnson, we were sad to see your home leave. Bird: Yes. De Weerd: But I think this application is -- is very nice and, hopefully, you can see with pride what's being developed on your land. Thank you for joining us tonight. So, any comments? Any public -- yes. Johnson: Just to clarify something in staff comments. I think the report's different. The alleys will be public. ACHD gave us three options and we can incorporate the public alley with addressing to meet the fire and EMS requirements and so just a clarification, they will be public. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Seeing no more testimony, I move that we close the public hearings on AZ 14- 003, PP 14-001, PUD 14-001 and MDA 14-001. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on all four of these items. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 44 of 73 Bird: First before I make a motion, I -- this is a beautiful project and I, like the Mayor, am going to miss Dr. Johnson's house out there and his cattle and stuff, but this is progress and we are getting a decent -- De Weerd: Intersection. Bird: -- intersection out there now, so -- anyway, this is a beautiful project that Tucker and you have put together and we certainly appreciate it coming to our community. And with that I would move that we approve AZ 14-003 and to include all staff and applicant comments. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-G. Any comments from Council? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: I would just say to the Johnsons that this is a great product and it's something that I have heard from our 55 and older community that is much needed. They want less yard to maintain, but they want that sense of community, they want an ownership, they want to have ownership and I think this meets all of those different desires. So, thank you. It looks exciting. Madam Mayor, will you, please call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Before I make the next one I got a question for Mr. Baird. The -- in the phasing, the berm for -- it being phase one there at the Trail Creek property, but tie in with the road, would go in with phase two. That would be under PUD, won't it, instead of PP? Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor and Council Member Bird, I thought my booming voice would be enough. Okay. I'm going to ask planning staff, I think he's got the answer. So, I'm going to flip it over there to you. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 45 of 73 Parsons: I will take that for 200 dollars. Bird: You're too low for a lawyer fee. Parsons: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is -- there is a couple of areas that need to be modified if that's your desire. Currently there is a DA provision in the staff report that requires the landscape buffer with phase one and that's DA Provision No. C. What we can do is just strike the Trail property statement out of there. I think the applicant testified he's willing to do his landscape buffer with his -- with the first phase. Just allow the Trails to keep their access to Ustick until he builds the road and gets him a connection from the local street and, then, once they remove that -- once the street's in, then, he will put in the landscaping or work with the Trails to put in the landscaping and close off the access. So, I think as long as we modify DA Provision C just to remove the reference to the Trail property I think we have it captured there -- Bird: Okay. Parsons: -- and there is a preliminary plat condition that also -- it's actually Condition B. One thing to kind of elaborate a little bit more on here while you think about your motion is because the Trail property -- although it is a lot and block in the subdivision, as we have come before you with subdivisions typically we like a common lot platted along the arterial street, so it's maintained by the HOA and so that we can restrict access to the arterial street to -- by a common lot. Because the Trail property won't -- it will be a lot and block in the subdivision, but it won't be subject to their CC&Rs, the applicant will have to come back at some future phase with an alternative compliance application, rather than platting that common lot across the Trail property we will have to do a landscape easement across their frontage, so that they can include their property from it as part of their buildable lot, so we don't create a nonconforming structure on the property and so there is a condition in the staff report that says with first phase they would submit an alternative compliance application to plat that 25 foot landscaping to and across their property and that it would be installed with the first phase. So, we just have to wordsmith that to say second phase, but it's something to keep in mind that they have other approvals for that property moving forward with more than just the landscaping and closing off the access. We want to make sure we have it all captured here. But it is the preliminary plat. Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Ted, that -- as long as I reference staff and applicant testimony this covers it, I don't have to -- I don't have to say just what he did. Baird: Madam Mayor, Council Member Bird, Members of the Council, now that you have approved the annexation, I would suggest that you roll your next motion into the Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 46 of 73 last three items, mention the staff comments -- it's very clear what your intent is in that motion and staff will work with legal in getting the preliminary plat and the DA -- Bird: The findings. Baird: -- to make that happen. Bird: Thank you. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: With that I would move that we approve PP 14-001 and include all application and - staff comments, including the last comments regarding the property to the west. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I wanted to hear you repeat that. Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on this item? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I know the applicant's comments are covered by the motion, but I just want to point out that the applicant did identify in color on the plat that probably isn't covered with verbiage that the lots north of the Trail property and moving towards the west would be single level homes. Bird: Single elevation. Help the motion maker. De Weerd: Appreciate that clarification. Okay. Any further comments? Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PUD 14-001 and include all staff and applicant comments. Milam: Second. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 47 of 73 De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-1. Madam Clerk, roll call, please. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve MDA 14-001 and include all staff and applicant comments. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 8-J. Madam Clerk. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. K. Public Hearing: TEC 14-004 Ambercreek by Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road Request: One (1) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on Final Plat De Weerd: Item 8-K is a public hearing on TEC 14-004. 1 will open the public hearing with staff comments. Parsons: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda is the Amber Creek time extension. The property is located near the southwest corner of North Meridian Road and West McMillan Road. This is actually the fifth time extension that the Council has acted on, or at least the second -- third one the Council has acted on, but the fifth overall and so the applicant is here trying to -- requesting a one year time extension. They anticipate moving forward on a second phase early this spring, late early -- late spring, early summer. There are -- like the previous time extensions, staff did require certain -- the plat to comply with current UDC requirements. This time extension we are recommending that a new condition be added to the -- the Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 48 of 73 time extension request and I wanted to bring it to your attention on this graphic here and this is what I want to explain to Council as far as the new condition. As far as utility locations and street lighting and open space, all of that does -- has been required to comply with the UDC and it will continue to do so. Probably the biggest change that we want to memorialize with this time extension is what I have highlighted here in this graphic is that when you acted on this preliminary plat back to 2006 you actually -- you and ACHD -- the Council and ACHD actually approved a road connection to McMillan Road. The applicant has been working with staff and ACHD and they want to actually remove that roadway from that connection point to McMillan Road, which actually aligns better with our current ordinance where we want access at the half mile and the collector street and so this will actually do that. And in doing so staff felt it appropriate to -- in lieu of the street, we still need to get a micropath connection because of, one, - -block length, but, two, there is a detached sidewalk there to get kids to the school, so it made sense if we are going to lose a street let's get at least pedestrian connection. So, we at least want to memorialize that as part of the time extension. So, what I have done for you is I have place a condition on the time extension that requires the pathway connection with the third phase and as I get to the final plat after this application I will explain that a little bit more, but we are requiring that connection with the third phase and, then, because of the water -- Public Works tagged onto our condition and want to make sure that we are still getting the water connection through that as well, so the applicant has seen those conditions, they are in agreement with that, and so moving forward you can anticipate seeing a pedestrian connection in lieu of the street connection. I would mention that ACHD did support the removal of the street as well. So, we did coordinate that with them as well. So, no need for Ryan to come up and testify to that, we have got it covered, but with that new condition we are asking for your approval this evening and I would stand for any questions you have. De Weerd: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Good evening. If you will state your name and address for the record. Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. Grateful for staff and them kind of schooling us a little bit and helping us -- you know, do we modify the plat, but realistically we needed this time extension. We are -- as he mentioned the next application is the final plat. They want to begin construction as soon as possible and we need the time extension approved and the final plat approved for your staff to start looking at the plans type of deal. They have been sent to the highway district and other agencies anticipating an approval. I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 49 of 73 Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. De Weerd: Thank you. I do have several people who have signed up. When I call your name if you would like to provide testimony I would welcome you forward. Carol Purcell signed up against. Good evening. Thank you for joining us. If you will, please, state your name and address record. Purcell: My name is Carol Purcell and I live in Amber Creek at 204 West Whitesands Drive -- De Weerd: Thank you. Purcell: -- and I saw the notice at the beginning of our development that the meeting was being held tonight regarding an extension of the timeline to complete our development and I wanted to come down and share a very sincere concern I have with you and I will only take a few minutes, but I think it's really important -- I didn't want -- I'm not in favor of a time extension, because I feel that there is a very important and dangerous issue at hand that needs to be addressed more immediately and that is our main entrance into Amber Creek is on Lava Falls and on the north side of Lava Falls there are a number of houses with an alley behind it. That alley is adjacent to the area that is receiving the extension or may receive the extension and that area is currently being used as a dump and it's very dangerous for the kids to play there. I brought a few pictures showing that the tailings from cement trucks are being dumped there. There is old furniture. There is piles of dirt. Old wood. Garbage. Trash bags. The property has not been maintained and when I saw that there was a possible extension I was seriously concerned, because kids play over there. They play in the alleys and they play over there in that open area. So, with the help of a friend I took a few pictures so you can see the tailings and some of the garbage. The grass is concealing some of the lumber and you can see the hills and if I could just share these with you -- De Weerd: If you can hand them to Madam Clerk. Purcell: And I what -- what I'm -- what I'm proposing is that before any action takes place that that issue is addressed, that no dumping signs are put up, that that area is cleared and maintained until building can occur and that it's maintained in a way that the children that play there are provided a much safer environment and I sincerely appreciate your time and I would answer any questions that you might have. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Cavener: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 50 of 73 De Weerd: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Just a quick question. I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. In your opinion have these issues been there for a significant amount of time? Have they shown up recently? Is there -- Purcell: They have been there for a significant time. I was one of the first homeowners and I have been there four and a half years and the first couple of years I was there that area -- the sage brush was cleared on -- once a -- on an annual basis. Since, then, you will see the piles of dirt, because it's been used as a dumping area -- are quite evident and there is just more and more trash and lumber and other people use it, not only, you know, who -- the construction people, but it is a dumping area and kids love to go over there -- you know, that lumber- makes -great forts and they climb on the pieces of concrete and -- and I have grandchildren and I'm concerned about that. De Weerd: Thank you. And thank you for bringing this to our attention. Purcell: Thank you. De Weerd: Letia Fasano. And I'm sorry if I just mutilated that name. Signed up opposed. Karen Duff signed up against. Good evening. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Duff: My name is Karen Duff. I live at 4464 North Portage Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. De Weerd: Thank you. Duff: My home is in Cedar Springs North Subdivision and my backyard butts up to a common area, which then hits Amber Creek and I have lived there for six and a half years, so I can attest to her saying the junk has been there forever, because it's been there since I have lived there, so -- and it continues to grow. My concern is the plat where they have the alleyway with the homes, because in this particular subdivision the homeowners and the renters are not using the alleyways as they were intended. They seldom park in their garages, because the garages are now their junk yard and, you know, their sheds or whatnot and they are parking on the street and going down the street over the winter was next to impossible when you have cars parked on both sides and you have a foot and a half -- a foot and a half of ice. Nothing's cleared. So, the road never clears during last winter and it made it difficult. So, I don't like the plat. don't like the -- the alleyways that are functioning here. The homeowners are not cleaning up their yards. Code enforcement knows me personally from my own subdivision and so, you know, I would like to see things taken care of and I don't see it happening. The garbage she's talking about is very real, because as they were building these homes in Amber Creek they would just pile it to the next lot and so when they come in and they start working this next plot -- I understand they are going to do it rather quickly -- they are hoping to. I'm concerned that they are going to continue to Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 51 of 73 shift the garbage like they always do, rather than removing it entirely the first time around. So, that's my say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. No, but we will get you code enforcement's phone number. Duff: I have it on speed dial. De Weerd: Oh, you already know it. Yeah. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Okay. Kent. That's hard to follow, uh? Brown: I had fun talking to Karen outside and -- and what they understood is that by doing the extension we would be delaying doing anything is what Karen told me and our intent is to -- to get it done and the area where the concrete piles -- I know what they do is they -- I poured concrete for ten years for a living and they would tell you to pour it into a pile, so that they could come in and pick it up and it looks like they have stacked those piles in a location and whether that's from the house construction or the subdivision roads -- I'm new enough on this project to not know, but it looks like they are like from the house clean up when they tell them to wash out in certain areas. But the area that she showed as the dump area is the part that is in the phase that we want to build and the area that we want to park. Currently there isn't -- very little open space in there. I know it's -- it might not be appropriate, Ted, but can we show the portion that we want to do immediately, even though we are talking about the overall site that -- is that appropriate or is that not appropriate? Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it's in response to the allegation of where the -- where the dump is and if that's an issue that you're going to take into consideration with your approval or denial of the time extension I think he should be allowed to -- Brown: It helps us show what's done and the areas that's left to be done and I think -- De Weerd: I don't know. I think, really, the issue is get rid of the junk. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Kent, you're asking for a time extension. Brown: Yes, sir. Bird: But you're telling me you're getting right on this. I -- I have no problem giving you a time extension, but there is going to be some stuff attached to it, like immediately cleaning that junk up. It should have never been allowed out there. Our code -- if our code was called and they didn't do something about it, we need to -- I'm sure the Mayor Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 52 of 73 will find out about that, but I -- you're asking for a time extension and you're going to get right on this, but the junk is still there. Let's get that cleaned up and, then, start our building. It's an eye sore. Brown: And I would agree and I don't see that -- that being an issue for us to make the a priority as part of getting a time extension to make that happen, so -- Bird: You would have no problem with that being a condition on this time extension and getting it done? Brown: I agree. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: So, I guess, Kent, I have a question in terms of -- it sounds like the developer is -- is still the HOA. Brown: Pardon me? De Weerd: Is the -- Brown: Yes. That's correct. The developer is over all open space or the fencing and the common areas and there is very little currently, yes. De Weerd: Well, I'm sure the developer still probably is running the HOA. Brown: Correct. Uh-huh. De Weerd: So, the developer should pay a little bit more attention to the code issues and it kind of sounds like there is not just the -- the garbage that we saw pictures of, but some other items that are of concern. So, if there is a chance that we can get whoever this person is and their contact number that we can pass on to Lieutenant Overton over there, that he can pass on to code enforcement, it sounds there needs to be better property management going on and if they want to develop they need to be better neighbors. Brown: I agree. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, a question for -- De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: A question for Kent. Are these alleys -- are they public or private? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 53 of 73 Brown: They are public. Rountree: They are public. So, there is an enforcement capability. That's all I really needed to know. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comments? Mr. Zaremba? Milam: Madam Mayor? Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Unfortunately, I have looked ahead and I have caused myself some confusion. What I want to clarify is what we are doing the time extension on. The next item is Amber Creek No. 2 and we talk about withdrawing the plat. Is that a different piece of property than Amber Creek? Brown: Amber Creek Two is -- Ted? Zaremba: I don't want to jump ahead -- Brown: Amber Creek Two is -- Zaremba: If that's going to be a discussion about withdrawing the plat, what are we extending this time? Brown: You're extending the entire preliminary plat -- Zaremba: It does or not include -- it does not include our next subject? Brown: It includes almost all of the subject here,. Baird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: I wanted to avoid having a direct conversation with Mr. Brown, that's why I was pointing at you, since all questions should come through you, I wanted to acknowledge that. But, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think because we are talking about time extensions here, that it might be helpful if Bill did give you the bigger picture about why you have one before the other. I don't think it's messing up the record. I think it's good information for you to have. So, if it's in your discretion to request that, I would suggest it. De Weerd: Okay. Well, let's -- Rountree: April 10th. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 54 of 73 Baird: In furtherance of answering Mr. Zaremba's question, I guess, is what I'm saying, is that big picture is helpful. Thank you. Brown: Madam Mayor? I don't have a final plat if I don't have a time extension. So, I need a time extension for me to move forward with a final plat. If you choose to deny my time extension, then, the process for us is to start all over with a new preliminary plat and bring that forward to you and, then, upon approval of the preliminary plat, then, bring a final plat. So, the reason that the next item is it's a final plat and this is the item that's before you as a time extension. De Weerd: Well, as long as Mr. Baird just told us we can move to the next item, while keeping this one open -- Baird: Madam Mayor, I was only suggesting that you hear what he had to say about the whole picture. I think to keep the record straight let's do them one at a time. I wasn't suggesting that. Sorry if I'm confusing things. De Weerd: Okay. Baird: I was just -- the explanation that you heard I think was answering Mr. Zaremba's question and Mr. Brown was hesitant to give you that information. I was just encouraging to get it out there. Brown: I could try. De Weerd: Now that we have all gotten it out there -- Rountree: Madam Mayor? If I might just make a comment. It seems to me that the final plat is the key issue here and getting to there is -- this is just one step towards it. We have the final approval or non -approval of the final plat. My suggestion would be -- even though I hate to reward anybody that's not been a particularly good neighbor to move forward with the time extension and hold off any action on the final plat until we get assurances from this developer, who apparently is operating the HOA, that he's going to be a better neighbor and there is going to be some conditions levied against that final plat that he's going to have to meet. I'm in no hurry to have another community developing in Meridian that is not taken care of and I have said that before and I'm -- for a long time, that there is no rush on my part to create more problems for the citizens of Meridian and our code enforcement people. So, that would be my suggestion. If that's consistent with Mr. Baird's analysis that we can still request the conditions at the final plat stage. If not, then, we better do it with the time extension. De Weerd: Mr. Baird. Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would suggest that you do them both. It makes it crystal clear that the -- to get the time extension you have got the requirements, but before any action on the final plat, same requirements there, so -- Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 55 of 73 Rountree: All right. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with that. I think that for the benefit of ourselves and also for our citizens and everything that we got to put these conditions on both and I mean if we give him his time extensions there is no guarantee that the final plat is going to pass. Rountree: True. Bird: So, I for one would -- let's just get this time extension solved, whether we are going to or not, and, then, we will go to the final plat and see if we solve it nor not. That's my personal opinion. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: I just need to state for the record that I own a home in this subdivision. I don't know if that matters or not, but -- I do not reside there, but I own a home in Amber Creek. I don't know if -- De Weerd: I don't know. Mr. Baird, I -- Baird: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm running the script through my head that we go through and we look at whether you have a conflict and the question that you need to ask yourself is whether your participation in this would result in a financial gain to your household. I think the answer to that is probably no. If you disagree we can have a chat about that on a side bar, but I appreciate you asking the question and think you're okay to deliberate. Milam: I told Bill before -- I e-mailed him when I saw this coming and he said, no, could -- Baird: There you go. It's on the record. De Weerd: Okay. Lieutenant Overton. Overton: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to get it out there, I'm not prepared to answer where we are at on Amber Creek. I do know that code has been mentioning Amber Creek for several years. I apologize if it's not in the state it should be, but code enforcement doesn't care where you issue a time extension or not. They meet tomorrow morning for their weekly meeting and they will be meeting with me Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 56 of 73 tomorrow morning for their weekly meeting. They will go over this and make sure it's addressed. So, I would expect when the applicant leaves here today and the neighbors leave here today, they can rest assured -- it doesn't matter to me what happens next, but we will be addressing this tomorrow morning. De Weerd: So -- was it your turn? Brown: I don't know. But I have a suggestion I guess. De Weerd: Okay. Brown: As I understand the process, your Public Works Department does not begin reviewing our plans, which is vital for us for a final plat, until this hearing and we are approve for the final plat. I really appreciate what Councilman Rountree said and as a suggestion that there is -- this area that's -- Carol. I forgot what her name was. Carol talked about and provided pictures of as being a dump, my -- my clients can go take care of that and clean that area up and have that looked at by someone from Public Works before they start reviewing our plans would be a suggestion as a possible condition for the time extension that would help address those concerns that you have there. I know that development -- and especially developers they hire management companies and it doesn't sound like that they have been doing a very good job of this location, so I apologize. But that's maybe a possible solution to the time extension and getting that resolved before granting approval for this. De Weerd: And you just got on this not too long ago. Welcome. Brown: Yes. Brown: It goes with the job. Rountree: You're the messenger. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Yeah. We won't kill the messenger needed? Bird: I have none. Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Brown: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there is nothing further -- Council, any other information Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 57 of 73 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearing on TEC 14-004. Milam: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 8-K. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: For discussion purposes, I have got just some -- some general concern when you see five time extensions and preliminary plat that have a public approval process, neighborhood meetings, it encourages people to come and discuss in a meeting like tonight concerns about a preliminary plat. Time extensions are discretionary, but I don't -- they are not automatic and, boy, five is a lot and this was originally approved in 2006 and it's a totally different -- totally different city and a different community around this project, so I struggled with a fifth time extension. I would probably struggle with a fifth time extension on just about any fifth time extension that comes up. In this case it's not Mr. Brown's fault, he's new to the project, but -- but it is problematic, because I don't think -- this is a public hearing, but when a member of the public notifies that there is a time extension at issue that doesn't really jazz you up as much as perhaps a preliminary plat public hearing in which you might want to be more actively involved and participate. So, that concern makes me -- gives me pause on this one in particular. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mrs. Milam. Milam: In response to Mr. Borton's comments, I -- I agree with that, with the exception of what the economy and the housing market has been like for the last five, six years. You know, I think that we all are aware of that situation and, you know, you see -- you know, you have plans and, then, everything crashes and you're not able to build in on the houses that you had planned in the amount of time that you had planned. I can see over the last several years why developers would be extending. But in general I definitely agree with you. De Weerd: Okay. Well, any other comments or do we have a motion? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 58 of 73 Rountree: Madam Mayor. I guess I would just add to those comments with some reluctancy on this project that apparently the alley -- alley -load product has not been successful in this area. I don't know if that's because of the -- the design and type of dwelling that's going on or the lack of -- of the homeowners association and/or enforcement to be able to deal with it and I'm not sure on record how -- the design type and quality of materials that were ultimately -- were originally included with this, even though it would have a new -- would have to meet our new UDC conditions, but -- but maybe a redo is in order. I -- I don't know. I agree with Joe, five times is -- is plenty, even though it sounds like this -- and the next applicant -- and the next item on our agenda is that it's done. It's just a concern I have with it. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Let me put a motion out there and we will see whether it votes yea or nay and I might not even vote yea, even though I'm making the motion. I move that we approve TEC 14-004 with the conditions that the existing property be cleaned within one week to the satisfaction of our code enforcement officers and if it is not done the time extension is pulled. De Weerd: Can we do that? I think that sounds great, but can we do that? Baird: You would have to do a conditional approval. What I would suggest if you want to have it cleaned up in a week is that you continue this matter for a report next week from the code enforcement people. Bird: That's what I would -- that was my first thought and, then, I thought -- after Kent was up here I thought, well, we need to do something and I didn't know if we could. I would -- to be truthful with you, I'd like to see both of these continued until next week and -- and let's see if they get that thing cleaned up, then, we will have it -- we will have a clear picture next week whether yea or nay. I don't like time extensions five times either, but since 2008 the economy hasn't been really good and we have -- we have also done some time extensions the third and fourth times here in the last couple of years because of it, so while I don't like it -- and I'm like Councilman Rountree, I'd like to see them start over at times, but I think that -- I think that seeing how we didn't get a motion on that -- or second on that motion, I would move that we continue Amber Creek TEC 14-004 until April 22nd, 2014. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing on Item 8-K until next week, April 22nd. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 59 of 73 L. FP 14-012 Ambercreek No. 2 by Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty -Four (54) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 10.58 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District De Weerd: On Item 8-L would that be your desire as well? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: 1 would move that we continue FP 14-012 to April 22nd, 2014. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to continue Item 8-L until next week. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 9: Department Reports A. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. 14-985: Re -Appointment of David Ballard to Seat 1, JoAnn Bujarski to Seat 2 and Jack McGee to Seat 3 of the Meridian Transportation Commission De Weerd: Item No. 9-A. Council, in front of you you do have a request for reappointment of three of our existing commissioners to the Meridian Transportation Commission. As you know, this is a newly combined and established commission and we staggered the seats and so this is just kind of a clean-up. All three of these members do desire to continue to serve and I ask you to confirm these appointments. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item 9-A, Resolution No. 14-985, appointing David Ballard and JoAnn Bujarski and Jack McGee to the Meridian Transportation Commission. Zaremba: Second. And discussion if I may. De Weerd: Yes. I have a motion and a second. Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 60 of 73 Zaremba: I just wanted to comment -- I attend these meetings as well and all three of these people have contributed. I support having them reappointed. I was just going to clarify for the record that they were appointed to one year terms the first time, so that we -- since everybody started at the same time on the commission, that we would end up with staggered terms and that even though their last term was one year, this new term would be three years, if I -- De Weerd: That's correct. Zaremba: -- that's correct, so -- De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Madam Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea; Milam, yea; Cavener, yea. De Weerd: All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. B. Continued from April 8, 2014: Community Development: Review and Approve City Roadway, Intersection, and Community Program Project Priorities for 2014 De Weerd: Item 9-B is continued from April 8th and I will turn this over to Caleb. Hood: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This item actually was continued first from March 11th to April 8th, last week, and, then, with some direction from you all last time to make some changes to a draft letter you had before you and come up with a top 15 list. So, I do not plan this evening on going through the priorities that we have looked at the past two meetings. I do have them here if you want to look at them anymore. I did provide a memo dated April 10 for tonight's hearing. I would like to spend a little bit of time -- if you can look at page two of that memo and the overall priority ranking -- again, the top 15 that ACHD has asked us for. This is my first brush, my take on what our top 15 list could look like, but this is just me individually. I have not received any other comments from anyone else. In the first table there I have got the overall top 15 and, then, on the right-hand side how that project ranks either as a roadway project or an intersection project. The one on that list that I would -- well, a couple things to call out for you. Number 15 on what I will call my top 15 isn't number ten roadway project, it's, in fact, number 21 roadway project. So, that one leap frogged ten other projects to make it into the top ten. A little bit of my -- my thinking on that. the Mayor made a comment last week about south Meridian and some of where we are starting to see some growth. And so Locust Grove, Amity to Victory, if there is one roadway in south Meridian that isn't on your list on Eagle, Amity to Victory, is already on the list, but the parallel road at Locust Grove is also in need. The level of service is right there. It's on a corridor and in an area of south Meridian where we are seeing a lot of Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 61 of 73 development happening, even points south of there, but folks use this section of Locust Grove to commute more north. So, that project leap frogged again to the number ten roadway project, which would have been Linder Road, Cherry to Ustick. So, other than that, the top 15 is, essentially, in order of the roadway projects. Just another thing to call out. There are three projects in these top 15 that are in south Meridian. So, I don't know if anyone's keeping score there, but -- but just -- if you kind of look at Meridian -- De Weerd: No one is. Hood: -- you know, if you look at three out of 15, rough proportionality there, roughly a third of our lane miles would be in south Meridian and two-thirds would be north of the freeway. So, to me there is some, you know, litmus test there of, okay, that seems about right. Now, if these are the right projects or not, again, there is your discretion there to say this list you don't like it or move this up or down, but this is, essentially, based on our priority list within the caveat the number 15 is actually the number one -- 21 roadway project now and I would pause to see how you like that, because if you like that project being in the top 15, 1 maybe have a suggestion to the roadway project list to kind of clean that up, so that that project, then, in above -- on the roadway list as well, so, Madam Mayor, again, if I could pause there and see how the Council maybe just -- how we feel about this being the top 15. And, then, I would also put there on the bottom two columns what are the next five in each category, so if you want to move some stuff around you have it all there on one sheet to look at. De Weerd: Thank you. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I -- I appreciate your going through this, Caleb, and putting it in this order. It alerts me to something I probably should have noticed before and that is what you have as number 13, the Chinden-Ten Mile intersection. Isn't that already being done and, you know, some -- we have discussed in the past whether you leave something on the list or if it drops off suddenly they say they don't want this and they remove it. But if that one is already done I would say number six, Ustick-Black Cat up into that spot. Hood: Madam Mayor, just an update or a -- what the scope of that project actually is. So, Walmart is doing a developer project with ACHD to that intersection. However, they are not building it out to its ultimate configuration. They are adding some turn lanes and there will be a signal put in, but it's more like an interim condition than the ultimate configuration for that intersection. So, they are really doing what's necessary for the Walmart patrons if you will. I mean other motorists will be able to use those improvements as well, but it's not the full intersection improvements in all legs. So -- it could go down. Zaremba: Okay. In that case I would leave it alone the way you have it. Hood: But I just wanted to -- identification here, in six months when they build the project it's not going to be the ultimate configuration, it still will need some work. But Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 62 of 73 there are some substantial improvements there still. So, if you wanted to move that down -- I could see going either way. I just wanted to let you know it's not the ultimate configuration being built my Walmart. Zaremba: It's not final and perfect. Hood: Yes. Zaremba: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird Bird: Caleb, while every one of them is number -- number one, I think you have done a great job, to be truthful with you, of doing this. They are all very, very, very important and, you know, if we can get four of five of them accomplished this time around it would be great. Hopefully we get all 15, but we know we are not. And, like I said, in my book everyone of them could be number one. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yeah, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: The only suggestion I would make for consideration is moving the next five roadways -- the 13th one, Pine Avenue, Meridian to Locust Grove, up to ten to replace Ustick Road or -- no. Number eight, Locust Grove, Fairview to Ustick. It seems to me that Pine gets a lot of traffic on a -- on an old narrow two lane road and Locust Grove at this point in time in that section is at least a fairly modern three -lane facility with curb, gutter, sidewalk and -- and -- anyway. Just throw that out. De Weerd: That one's going to be a challenge at best anyway. I would also ask Ustick- Meridian move to the top of the next five intersections as well. That area can back up tremendously and while I appreciate the temporary intersection light there, it's really in need of -- of an improvement. Hood: Madam Mayor, just for clarification. Would Ustick-Meridian then jump to number six out of Ustick-Black Cat or are you moving it all the way up into the top 16? De Weerd: Frankly, I think it's more important than Amity and Ten Mile. Yeah, I actually think that's a high priority intersection improvement. So -- and I'm not an engineer, I just -- Rountree: You sit there. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 63 of 73 De Weerd: I do. I sit there a lot. I don't live in that area, but I think like many we travel through that area and it's -- it's by a park that is heavily used and I -- it's -- yeah, I think it's one of our top priorities in intersection improvements, so, I guess, yeah, you asked the right question that now I changed my mind and want it on a priority list. If Council supports that. Rountree: I'm okay. Bird: I would certainly support that. De Weerd: And I guess if you're wondering where to put it, you can -- in my opinion change out the Amity -Ten Mile for that one and you can put it to the top of the list. I don't know where to put if Hood: Do you want to -- Madam Mayor, if I may, though, we can -- I could put it at the top of the list and just slide everything down or if you want to swap it out I could do that, too. It's -- if you just put it up it just pushes everything down one versus taking Amity - Ten Mile and moving it down substantially. De Weerd: I would not want to move Locust Grove, Victory to Overland, off of that. So -- Bird: I would just exchange it. Hood: For Amity -Ten Mile. Bird: Yes, because I think she had a -- that one's used a lot more than Ten Mile and Amity is, in my opinion. I have never seen cars backed up there like you do at Meridian and Ustick. Hood: And if I can -- so, these changes on the top 15, is everyone comfortable with me, then, making the changes to our -- our overall roadway and intersection priority list accordingly, so they match up? Okay. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Rountree: Yeah. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: And just -- are we going to put that intersection up on -- in a top three? Hood: So, Madam Mayor, what I heard was I am taking Amity -Ten Mile and that will be our new number nine priority intersection project out of the top 15. Franklin -Black Cat will be our number one intersection, with Ustick-Meridian being the number two and on our number seven overall. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 64 of 73 De Weerd: So, I -- yeah. No, I think it needs to have a higher priority. Hood: Number one? Or higher priority on the top 15? De Weerd: Higher priority as -- as the intersection improvement. Yes. A higher -- Hood: A higher number. De Weerd: Well, yeah, I would put that as number six and Franklin -Black Cat as number seven. Hood: Okay. Bird: Yeah. Agree. Milam: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Milam: Sorry. Is it not better to do the intersection at the same time as you're doing the road that's right there or is it better to space them out and like constantly be doing construction. De Weerd: We like to constantly be doing construction. Milam: Have the road on there. Rountree: Ryan is probably going to state this, but we need time in order to accumulate enough funds to do a project of that size and a roadway and an intersection are going to gobble up probably everything they are going to spend in Meridian at some point in time in 2016, '17, '18 and that's what we are going to get, not anything else. De Weerd: And an improved intersection moves traffic with the turn lanes much -- much better, so -- oh, hi, Ryan. Head: Hi, how are you, Mayor. Ryan Head. Ada County Highway District. Again, 3775 Adams Street, Garden City. I guess I would just give you some insight into this process. You may -- may provide whatever prioritization you would like and I won't own a piece of it. However, the Franklin -Black Cat project has federal funds at this point in time and we do not foresee that going away. So, it's -- that project moving forward is likely and it will go forward. As well as Ustick and Meridian we are wrapping up design at this point in time, as well -- with that intersection, as well as two files -- we call it Ustick-Meridian and legs. The two miles -- the mile in each direction from that intersection. We are wrapping up design. We are moving towards right of way at this point in time. So, having it in your top priorities helps insure that we want to keep it up Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 65 of 73 -- up with that high priority. We are anxious to move that forward and recognizing the priority of that Ustick corridor. But where you put it on that list -- if it's in that top 15 you're probably good anywhere, so -- just to try and ease your process tonight. De Weerd: So, basically, what I heard is we can move Franklin -Black Cat to 15 and move everything up and make it look even better; right? Head: I'm not meaning to shoot myself in the foot at this point in time. I just would clarify as long as things are high priority in some way the likelihood that they will move forward is pretty clear. De Weerd: Okay. Head: At the discretion of our commission. De Weerd; Thank you so much. Head: You're welcome. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I will ask Charlie this. On that Pine Road from -- from Meridian to Locust Grove, how long is it going to take to buy all that right of way? Could we get -- I mean can they get -- can they get started on that, which I know is expensive, but it isn't like putting the road in at the time, because they phase that, Charlie, so -- I mean there is a lot of right of way that we are going to have to buy. Rountree: I don't know what the concept has been tossed around on that, Caleb, but it's probably just an improved two lane facility with possibly squeezing in from maybe a bike lane. Is that the concept? Hood: Yeah. Council Member Rountree, Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, there -- there has been some pretty high level concept work -- actually, there is parking on one side of the street for portions of this mile as you enter our downtown. One side of -- do you remember if it's going north or south? Do you remember? But bike lanes both ways. And two -three lane roadway is what's called for in the CIP right now. You can't just go out and buy right of way, because it does need to be designed first. So, you can't just fast forward a property acquisition, because you do need to go through design and figure out how much right of way you need to -- to accommodate that design. So, it sounds good, but it -- you can't be challenged if you went and just tried to acquire the property without having justification for how much property you actually need to buy from somebody. So, we need to go through the process of scoping it and designing it before we design that roadway as it enters our downtown, but starts as a five lane Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 66 of 73 roadway at Locust Grove. There is definitely some work that needs to be done with figuring out what exactly that road looks like. Rountree: I can't answer your questions, it's going to take some time to figure out what it's going to take in terms of right of way. Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Any other comments on this? Hood: Madam Mayor, I have a couple more things. I don't know if that was enough pause on -- on that general direction. I have got some notes and what I plan on doing is -I will reiterate everything I heard here before a motion. I did want to touch touch base with the Council and just make sure that the letter looked okay to everyone or if there was any other changes. I did have a draft last time. I did incorporate a new paragraph talking about the funding levels. That was I believe Councilman Zaremba that requested that we talk supporting ACHD as look for additional funding sources, so that's going to be included in the letter, as well, so I just wanted to make sure that everyone was on board. And, then, finally, we can come back to any comments you may have on the letter. You had another item on this evening -- I can't remember the name of the project, but it was there on Kentucky Way and I did just want to let the Council know -- this seemed to be -- I know Councilman Bird commented on it. We do have -- and this was sort of a late add to the list of community program projects, but we do have on there a request that the general taxpayers at ACHD retrofit portions of Kentucky Way on our community programs project list. So, we didn't know when this was put together where that sidewalk would go or -- but we were pretty sure that there would be some deficiency on one side or the other or both of the roadways. So, that is on here. It's not a very high priority, it is number 20 out of 34, but I just wanted to let you all know it is on our list. It doesn't mean it's going to be constructed right of way, it's just we are asking ACHD to look at it. There is right of way 50 to 60 feet -- I don't know that we ever determined exactly how much existing right of way is out there, but it can be done. So, again, I just wanted to try and clear the circle on that a little bit and say it -- from our standpoint we -- I don't see it ever being sidewalk on one side of that street. Now with ACHD -- when it ranks high enough to actually get sidewalk on both sides I don't know that, but we are tracking it anyways is I guess my point, so -- with that, Mr. President, Members of the Council, I would stand for any comments you have on the letter or any other priorities before I reiterate what I heard this evening. Rountree: Any further comments, direction? Zaremba: Mr. President. Sorry. The paragraph that mentions funding is third from the last in your letter and well said. Appreciate how you did that and appreciate it being there and appreciate how you put it together. Thanks. Rountree: Any other comments? Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 67 of 73 Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: Caleb, just on your last point on that sidewalk, if it's community development funds that's at the discretion of ACHD, it's not federal? Hood: Correct. They are local funds. Rountree: They may want to look at that and do it in conjunction with the improvements out there and maybe even get a better price on getting that sidewalk installed with that now as opposed to waiting for it to be prioritized to '20, because I know their board is very much aware of the issue that some of these old county subdivisions have created and that's a potential remedy for that one right now I think in taking care of that up front, instead of having it going on both sides -- one side now and, then, the other side in two or three or four years. If we got them down maybe the pressure would be off a little bit for that next development that's coming in. Bird: Mr. President? Caleb, that would include curb and gutter, wouldn't it, out there, too? I just can't imagine putting in -- putting in sidewalks without curb and gutter. I mean -- I don't care if it's detached or what it is -- Hood: Mr. President, Councilman Bird, what I have got right now in our request to ACHD as I scope this is Main access, Victory Road for the subdivision. Sidewalk. And I have got in parenthesis: And possibly curb and gutter, because, I don't know where that water would go. I don't know where they would store it. So, maybe if there is curb and gutter, but they will scope it and they will figure out if they can do curb and gutter with -- when ACHD does a project, so -- but there has got to be an engineer that's got to look at that and figure out if you put in curb and gutter where is that water going to drain to or even collect it. Where are you going to store it? So, right now it does say sidewalk and pathway, curb and gutter. So, if they can get it in there they can do curb and gutter. Bird: Yeah. If they can figure out a way to drain it. Rountree: Well, I think we are ready for you to -- Hood: Restate. Rountree: -- tell us what we said. Hood: Yes. So, here is what I heard and I hope this is easiest for everybody to track. I'm going to work off again page two, which is the overall priority ranking table and I'm going to go just in order. I'm just going to state them all, even if there aren't -- aren't changes to them. One. Ten Mile, Cherry to Ustick. Two. Ustick, Meridian to Locust Grove. Three. Linder, Franklin to Cherry. Four. Ten Mile, McMillan to Chinden. Five. Ten Mile, Ustick to McMillan. Six. Ustick-Meridian intersection. Seven. Franklin -Black Cat intersection. Eight. Pine Avenue Meridian to Locust Grove. Nine. Eagle, Amity to Victory -- no. Sorry. Nine. Amity -Ten Mile intersection. Ten. Eagle, Amity to Victory. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 68 of 73 Eleven. Ustick, Linder to Meridian. Twelve. Chinden-Meridian. Thirteen. Chinden- Black Cat. Fourteen. Chinden-Ten Mile. Fifteen. Franklin, Black Cat to Ten Mile. And that doesn't work, because now Locust Grove isn't in the top 15. So, what did I do wrong? One, two, three, four, five. Oh. Sorry. Nine. Amity -Ten Mile is not nine. It actually comes off the list and switch with Ustick -- that's what I did. So, sorry about that. I had it right the first time. And then -- so, Amity -Ten Mile is not in the top 15, as just stated. Everything except for Amity -Ten Mile is the same. Amity -Ten Mile comes out. I'm sorry. I did not do a very good of summarizing what I heard. Bird: That's fine. Rountree: That's correct. Your list is. Any other -- any other thoughts? That's a -- and the letter is being commented on. Do you want just a general consensus or a motion to approve the letter and -- Hood: Mr. President -- oh, I don't know if you were directing that at Mr. Baird. I would request a motion requesting authorization for the Mayor to sign the letter, send it to ACRD, with our attached priorities. Rountree: We need a motion. Bird: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Bird, Bird: I would move that we approve the letter for the Mayor to sign and also the formula of our priorities to ACHD. Milam: Second, Rountree: It's been moved and seconded to approve the prioritization list and letter to ACHD and authorizing the Mayor to sign. All those in favor signify by aye. Those opposed? Motion passes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: Thank you, Caleb. Hood: We will see you next year. C. Community Development: Review Draft Downtown Street Cross-section Master Plan Rountree: Yeah. Next item is 9-C, Community Development. Brian, this is your show. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 69 of 73 McClure: Mr. President, Members of the Council. Thank you. I will try to be brief. I'm here to speak to you about the downtown Meridian city core, a street -car section master plan. I know most council members have already heard this in some form or another several times, so I apologize in advance. When this project began we set out to accomplish the following objective. Identify key street and street components and preserve for them. Enhance connectivity and placement. Unify the plan and guidelines. Clearly identify redevelopment expectations and support long range partnerships. And what has transpired bringing to you today. The status of the working group that identify needs of adopted guidelines and plans. Discuss challenges and goals and bring strong solutions. We met regularly to discuss progress and to make revisions as needed. We have engaged in public outreach that included several hundred mailers to all property owners and physical addresses in the planning area for an open house. We also - maintained - a website for which during the - public -review process had a online questionnaire. We had an open house and heard Council's request. We reached out again and targeted stakeholders. We worked according with ACHD. Planning projects -- the draft plans through Legal, Development Services, and the traffic departments. ACHD is currently in the process of additional internal review and coordinating -- sorry about the mike. We are also coordinating how to integrate this in the development review process. This plan will have an integral GIS component within the same page. It will not just be a plan that sits on the shelf. Lastly, this draft was presented to MDC was given their endorsement. This graphic here is -- and just in case anyone is not familiar, this area is -- was defined as the city core in the UDC. This is an older designation that predates Destination Downtown and overlaps several other districts, which coincides with the license agreement area that the city has with ACHD and the boundary from Ada to Carlton and Meridian to East 3rd. This area is all Old Town land use designation and I think with the exception of one parcel is all Old Town zoning. Typical use. How are we going to implement and use this? This is an example of the text. It kind of makes your eyes hurt. But there is a lot to read here. The good news is that there is only seven pages of text like this and half of this text here is -- I don't want to say optimal, but it's really kind of a side bar discussion, it's an opportunity to break the monotony a little bit and also have some education along with it. The way this document is set up is that all the intent, history, and all condition type text is covered at the beginning. The rest of the documents are pick and choose. You will need to review the relevant information for the street you're interested in. We set this up to function like cut sheets. The plan looks big and it is, but to use is much smaller. This is a corridor description page. For the most part this is just kind of a placeholder to have some photos that archive, you know, where we have been when we move forward. There is also some discussion in some cases for unique conditions like Main where the split corridor peels off. You can't really capture that in a cross-section, so we didn't even try. But there are some discussions in here that kind of point towards what we would like to see happen there anyways. This is an actual cut sheet or a cross-section. All these are designed to work largely independent from most of the other pages. After you review the first few pages, as mentioned before, you pull out the relevant cross-section and as you can see it's mostly graphics. The cross-section is the key bit here. But the text helps to provide framework for alternatives and needs that must be addressed regardless of location or circumstance. The text for the cross-sections explain the Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 70 of 73 conveyance intent and need, allowing for creativity, rather than simply listing expectations without explanation. Flexibility is built in. This is just another one that they all share the same kind of theme. And moving forward how this plan be used. At a minimum city staff will use the plan in coordination with ACHD for private and public redevelopment. It will be used to preserve and improve connectivity and encourage safe pedestrian -bicycle environments connecting to and through downtown. The city and ACHD may or may not make actual placement improvements apart from MDC or redevelopment projects for that matter. But we will preserve for them. So, how is the plan best used then? That's a little more subjective. But the heart of the plan is really to convey the idea of the partnerships. This plan doesn't have to be illustrative to describe sidewalk alignments in thou shalt build and install type language. In most cases there is sidewalk and preservation for future improvements are required. It is illustrative and be transparent, encourage ease of use and,then, promote Joint efforts to fill all the bits and -- pieces in consideration together and to be supportive of a variety of department and agency initiatives. It is hoped that this plan can be of benefit to and used by MDC to take in the full context of efforts to explore opportunities for the greatest return and would also be used as a starting point for specific concept plan and construction of actual improvements. So, where do we go from here? Hopefully Council will be comfortable endorsing the plan at this point, in which case we were going to work with ACHD to get commission to adopt it as an amendment to the ACHD master street map. There is a little uncertainty over this process working with ACHD. Recently they had a -- they had a similar project in Garden City and it kind of fell out. I'm not really sure the specifics. That was supposed to be the pilot for this effort. As a result of that not going through we are kind of the Guinea pigs at this point. I think everyone is trying to be positive and avoid road bumps. I just wanted to throw that out there. We will also continue to integrate this plan into the development review process, including geographic information system as mentioned before. We are going to be back before Council for adoption. Moving forward there is an opportunity for expansion. This is something we have talked about internally and also brought up by the MDC board. The city core isn't really a zoning designation, land use, or destination downtown district boundary. There is some areas being excluded that we probably want to look at and that would be Main south of Ada and Main north of Carlton or the residential area to the west and east of the city core and we do want to preserve for parkways, for example. So, what is this plan? It doesn't make money, but describes a whole host of nice to have that are often more expensive, especially to in -fill projects that are more costly to convert into a green field development. You know, old stuff is always harder to retrofit. You never know what you are going to get and so these projects usually tend to cost a bit more. Some will fall on larger development agencies, as it's not feasible to expect most of this from small parcel development. In fact, the plan says this. There is, essentially, three categories of redevelopment that outline the broader higher level expectations of requirements. There is instructions for agencies, for small parcel redevelopment and from the majority of the block a greater development. In all cases, though, it's really going to take everyone chipping in to get a lot of this done. There are some suggestions for prioritization of improvements, but in all cases that will be something that MDC will have to decide upon and lead. It is not feasible for them to do all this, though. They don't have the budget. It is going to take everyone pitching in Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 71 of 73 finding grants and other sources of funding and occur over a long period of time. With that I will stand for any questions. Rountree: Questions for Brian? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Ryan, can you address what the downfall was in Garden City? And if we fell into the same trap. Head: Councilman Rountree -- or Council. Ryan Head, Ada County Highway District. 3775 Adams Street again. No -- and I wouldn't say that you're falling into any trap, it's -- at this point in time we justneedto work through how we are going to incorporate it and, really, that's the question. It's a matter of how. With the Garden City plan we just -- and in all truthfulness we had an issue with our consultant and our working through finalizing the plan, which is why it has not been incorporated yet, so -- we are working it out. So, this -- we have -- we are already planning for in the next month or so having a summit to work with your staff on how -- how we could incorporate it that would best serve you and ACHD at the same time. Rountree: Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate that. Comments? David? Zaremba: Just a question. Is there any chance that any of these projects might quality for CDBG funds? McClure: Council President, Councilman Zaremba, Lori is going to be the person that can really ace that question. My understanding is CDBG funds would be usable. It can't be something that ACHD has already got scoped to occur within the next five years. So, if it's not something in their community development program CDBG dollars could potentially be -- be used for that. The likelihood of that I don't know. Lori's got kind of a test project going on on Idaho west of Main -- Meridian Road that's supposed to take place relatively soon I think and we will kind of see how HUD feels about that project and, then, maybe after that if it is successful there will be some more opportunity. Zaremba: Thanks. Rountree: Any other questions? What kind of timeline are we looking at in terms of getting -- seeing this back and for our ultimately approval? McClure: Council President, my understanding is tentatively we are scheduled to go before ACHD commission in May. Rountree: Okay. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 72 of 73 McClure: Mid May. And then -- and after that any changes we could be right back before you. Rountree: Okay. June, July, maybe? Okay. Hood: Mr. President, I was just -- a couple quick things. You all should have received in your mailbox a CD of the plan. Like Brian stated, it's pretty large. Don't expect you to read every word. But over the next couple of months we would like you to be comfortable with it, so when we come back June or whenever we are ready that you're comfortable and familiar with it then. And just a quick shout out to Brain. I mean there is a lot of work here, so I don't know if you have had a chance to look at it or -- there is so much here, but it's a pretty quality document and it's been almost right exactly a year --I think ago that we started this -- something that we initiated with your blessing that we first brought up in our strategic plan in working with MDC. So, appreciate all his work. I won't go through all the other -- he mentioned the steps, you know, about engaging folks and the MDC board and ACHD and all that, but I really do appreciate his work on this project. Rountree: Very good. Thank you. Milan: Thank you. Rountree: Nothing further? Bird: I have none. Item 10: Future Meeting Topics Rountree: Then Item 10, Future Meeting Topics. Bird: I have nothing. Zaremba: Mr. President? Rountree: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: It's not really an item, but just thinking ahead to May, there is a primary election on one of our Tuesdays, which means our meeting would move to Wednesday. Rountree: That's correct. So, Madam Clerk has probably got that noted for us, so she will take care of that. Zaremba: I forget what -- Bird: It would be the third one. We go to the 21 st. Meridian City Council April 15, 2014 Page 73 of 73 Rountree: Yeah. No future topics? Motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. Rountree: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Rountree: We are adjourned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:35 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF HESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR TAM -MY DE WEERD DATE APPROVED ATTEST: s _ w HOLMAN, CITY r`r Changes to Agenda: 0 Item 8C: Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 (FP -14-015) - Request for continuance to May 6th Item #8D, E: Revolution Ridge Subdivision (AZ -14-002; PP -13-040) Application(s): 9 Annexation & Zoning Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 20.39 acres, is currently zoned RUT in Ada County, and is located at 1100 W. Riodosa Drive. History: This land is currently platted as Lot 3, Block 3, Kentucky Ridge Estates Subdivision. Summary of Request: Request for annexation & zoning of 20.39 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district, consistent w/the LDR FLUM designation for the site which allows for densities up to 3 d.u./acre. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 64 SFR building lots & 5 common area lots on 19.74 acres of land. The average lot size within the proposed development is 9,400 s.f. and the gross density is 3.2 d.u./acre. (The plat has been revised since the staff report was written.) Access is proposed via two stub streets from S. Kentucky Way in Kentucky Ridge Sub w/ an emergency access via W. Victory Road. Stub streets are proposed to the west & south for future extension and interconnectivity. Five-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along W. Victory Road & S. Kentucky Way. In lieu of the sidewalk on the west side of Kentucky Way, the applicant is requesting Council allow the sidewalk to be constructed on the east side of Kentucky Way instead from Victory to the Riodosa Drive intersection at the request of the Kentucky Ridge HOA. ACHD has approved this request contingent upon the City's approval. There is an existing home on the site that is proposed to remain on Lot 14, Block 2 that is required to comply with the building setbacks of the R-4 zoning district, The landscape plan depicts street buffers along Victory Road &S. Kentucky Way and open space landscaping in accord w/UDC standards. A minimum of 10% (or 1.97 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided within the development. The applicant proposes a total of 1.98 acres of qualified open space, consisting of a 1.39 acre park, a parkway &'/z the street buffer along W. Victory Road, the full street buffer along S. Kentucky Way, and a micropath/emergency access connection to Victory Road, in compliance with this requirement. The applicant proposes a fitness park that will feature 1.3 acres for play area, an 1/8 mile long pathway around the perimeter of the park, and nearly a dozen workout stations as quality of life amenities in accord w/UDC standards. The Sundall Lateral crosses the SWC of the site. All ditches on the site are required to be piped unless waived by Council. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Council to allow the Sundall lateral to remain open due to its large capacity, which the applicant anticipates would require a 36-48" diameter pipe to tile the lateral. A 6 -foot tall vinyl fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision; a 5 -foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed around the internal common areas in accord with UDC standards. If the Sundall Lateral will not be improved as part of the development to be a water amenity, the lateral is required to be fenced in accord w/UDC standards for ditches. The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for the future homes in this development. Because homes on lots that back up to W. Victory Road & S. Kentucky Way will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of structures on these lots incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Jim Conger, Applicant ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Norma Petty; Rick Fisch, Tamara Hamilton, Brenda Jones, Kristy Rye, Val Hill, Gordon Hamilton (all speaking for several groups); Alex McNish; and Roberta Livesay iv. Written testimony: Kevin Petty; and Laren Bailey, Applicant's Representative (in agreement with staff report) Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: I. The applicant should continue to work with the neighbors regarding their concerns about connection to water and sewer; timing of construction of the fencing along the west boundary; the construction entrance; expectations for contractors on the site; etc. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: I. Modify condition #1.1.1 b to allow for bollards with a chain instead of a gate for the emergency access driveway off of Victory Road; ii. Include the revised plat shown at the hearing in Exhibit A.2 and update condition #1.1.2 accordingly; Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: I. Staff requests a new condition is added that requires a water main to be installed under the micropath in Lot 8, Block 3. This main will connect into the water main being required in the proposed Biltmore Subdivision to the south. ii. The applicant requests approval to construct a sidewalk off-site along the east side of Kentucky Way, rather than the west side of Kentucky Way along the site's frontage. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Jim Conger; Kentucky Ridge HOA Notes: Item #817: Summerwood Subdivision (PP -13.043) Application(s): Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 10 acres of land currently zoned R-4, located at 4202 and 4052 W. Daphne Street. History: This property is currently platted as Lots 6 & 7, Block 2 in the Black Cat Estates Sub. No. 2 (A preliminary plat for Prato Villas was approved in 2006 but has since expired.) Summary of Request: The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat consisting of 30 building lots & 3 common lots on 10 acres of land in the R-4 zoning district. The plat is proposed to develop in 2 phases as shown. The gross density is 3 dwelling units per acre consistent with the LDR FLUM designation (3 d.u./acre or less). There are 2 existing homes & a barn on the site. The home located in phase 2 & the barn located in phase 1 are proposed to be removed; the home in phase 1 is proposed to be moved to a future lot in the subdivision. The primary access for this subdivision is at the south property boundary via W. Daphne Street. A secondary access is planned at the NE boundary of the site to connect to a future street in Bridgetower Estates Subdivision which is currently under construction. A stub street is proposed at the NW boundary for future connection & interconnectivity. The plat depicts 1.1 acres (or 10.1 %) of qualified open space consisting of a large open common area (0.74 acre) & parkways along internal local streets; and a barbeque, benches & a gazebo, consistent with UDC requirements. A 6' tall privacy fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision; all fencing should comply w/ UDC standards. The Scribbner Lateral & East Drain crosses the NWC of this site. These waterways are proposed to be relocated along the south & west property boundaries within a 35' wide easement. The waterways should be piped in accord with UDC requirements. An encroachment agreement is required to be obtained for the lots that encroach within the irrigation easement. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Sabrina Durtschi, Applicant's Representative ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Eugene Thompson; Paul Poorman iv. Written testimony: Sabrina Durtschi, Applicant's Representative (in agreement w/staff report) Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. None Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Sabrina Durtschi, Applicant's Representative (in agreement w/staff report) Notes: Item #8G, H, I & J: Heritage Grove (AZ -14-003, PP -14-001, PUD -14-001 and MDA -14.001) Application(s): Annexation, preliminary plat, planned unit development and development agreement modification Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 21.71 acres, is currently zoned RUT and R 15, and is located on the NWC of Locust Grove and Ustick. History: In 2008, a majority of the subject property (excluding the Trail property) received annexation, preliminary plat, conditional use permit, private street and alternative compliance approval to develop a 120 unit multi -family development for the Chalet Marseilles Subdivision. The annexation was approved with a development agreement which recorded as instrument #108065962. Summary of Request: The applicant is requesting to annex approximately 1.49 acres from the RUT zoning district in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium High-density Residential) zoning district. Currently, the property is developed with two dwellings and several outbuildings that will remain with the development of the subdivision. The applicant is requesting the R-15 zone so that the zoning is consistent throughout the Heritage Grove development. Development Agreement Modification (MDA): At the time of annexation approval in 2008, the two larger parcels were approved to develop with 120 multi -family units. Now that multi -family is no longer desired for the property and a single family residential development is proposed, the applicant is requesting to replace the existing development agreement with a new one. Planned Unit Development (PUD): The applicant is requesting approval of a PUD for deviations from the R-15 district requirements pertaining to building setbacks for the alley and mew lots internal to the proposed development (Blocks 3-5 and 10-12). The perimeter lots within the proposed development are not proposed for modification and must comply with the R-15 dimensional standards in the UDC. All of the proposed lots exceed the lot size requirements (2,400 square feet) of the R-15 district. Preliminary Plat: The proposed preliminary plat consists of 121 single family residential lots and 19 common lots on approximately 21.71 acres of land in an existing and proposed R-15 zoning district. Lot sizes range between 3,082 and 27,234 square feet respectively. The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 5.57 dwelling units per acre which is consistent with both the density requirements of the comprehensive plan and the R-15 zoning district. All of the proposed lots must comply with the dimensional standards established in the UDC Table 11-2A-7. Phasing Plan: The applicant is proposing to develop the subdivision in four (4) phases. The first two (2) phases are to commence on the northwest corner of the intersection and the last two (2) phases will consume the northern half of the development. Currently ACHD has commenced with Ustick/Locust Grove intersection project. This roadway project has necessitated the need to connect the existing dwellings on Lot 25, Block 6 to City water and sewer and close the existing dwellings access to E. Ustick Road. In general staff is supportive of the proposed phasing plan however, the Commission supported staffs recommendation to include Lot 25, Block 6 and complete all of the landscape improvements adjacent to E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road with the first phase of development. Street Network: UDC 11-3A-3 limits access points to collector and arterial roadways. Currently, the existing dwellings on Lot 25, Block 6 (Trail property) have an access to E. Ustick Road. On the submitted plat, a common lot (Lot 23, Block 6) prohibits the Trail property from accessing E. Spring Place Street. Staff recommends the existing home (Lot 25, Block 6) be included in the first phase of development and Lot 23, Block 6 should be incorporated as part of the Lot 25, Block 6 so the lot has frontage on the local street. Since the existing homes will no longer have access to E. Ustick Road, the property owner will have to coordinate with the City's Addressing Specialist and obtain a new street address from one of the adjacent local streets. The main access to the development is proposed from N. Locust Grove Road. The internal street layout provides adequate internal connectivity and extends existing stubs streets from the north and south boundary. In addition, E. Prairefire Street, located in the north half of the development, is proposed to stub to the Ada County parcels abutting the west and east boundary, For the homes along the internal blocks, access will be provided from public alleys. Open Space/Amenities: The applicant is proposing 3.32 acres of common open space with this development which equals approximately 15.3% of the total development area. Qualifying open space consists of 50% of the arterial street buffers and 10 -foot wide parkways adjacent to the arterial streets, two (2) mew lots, several micropath lots and 8 -foot parkways adjacent to the local streets for the internal blocks. The proposed amenities include the following: 1) Clubhouse 2) (2) picnic areas in the mews and; 3) 5% additional open space Arterials: On the submitted landscape plan the applicant is proposing to construct a 35 -foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to Ustick Road and a 32 -foot wide landscape buffer is proposed adjacent to Locust Grove Road. The submitted landscape plan does not depict any landscape improvements on the Trail property (Lot 25, Block 6). Typically, the UDC would require the applicant to plat a common lot across the front of the buildable lot which is to be owned and maintained by the home owners association. In this particular case, this lot and block will not be part of the CCR's for the subdivision however; staff believes the applicant should install a berm and landscaping across the front of the Trail property to have a consistent landscape buffer with the Heritage Grove development. Design Concepts and Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted design criteria, lot fit map and sample elevations for the Heritage Grove Subdivision. The supporting documents include the details of design concepts for the subdivision, architectural elements of the different housing types and dimensional standards for the development. Staff has reviewed these guidelines and found them to represent a unique and innovative residential development. Future homes constructed within the subdivision will be required to comply with the submitted materials. Commission Recommendation: Approval at the March 6, 2014 Public Hearing Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Tucker Johnson ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: Josh Leblanc and Randy Spiwak iv. Written testimony: Roberta Garvin, Wendell Martin and Anne Hutchinson Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Costing sharing for the perimeter fence. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Notes: Item #8K: Ambercreek (TEC -14.004) Application(s): Time Extension Location: The subject property is located near the southwest corner of McMillan Road and Meridian Road. Summary of Request: This is the fifth time extension requested for approval. The previous two-year time extension approved by City Council has expired on March 23, 2014. The applicant has met the necessary deadline by filing a written request for a time extension before the final plat expired. The applicant states the development of the property was slowed due to the downturn in the housing market in 2011 and 2012. With previous time extensions, the applicant has been required to comply with the most recent requirements of the UDC. Those previous conditions remain in effect with the subject time extension. The applicant must also comply with all previous conditions of approval for this site. For informational purposes, the applicant is requesting to withdraw the approved second phase of the final plat (FP - 06 -027) in order to receive approval of a smaller second phase. The applicant has submitted the final plat concurrent with the subject time extension for Council's consideration. The applicant has also coordinated with the Planning staff and ACHD to remove the road connection to McMillan Road. Both ACHD and the Planning staff support the removal of the roadway in lieu of a micropath connection. To memorialize the change, staff recommends a new condition with the time extension which requires a micropath connection to the McMillan Road sidewalk in lieu of the public street connection with the third phase of development. Written Testimony: Kent Brown in agreement with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: Item #8L: Ambercreek No. 2 (FPA14.012) Application(s):, �> Final Plat Location: The subject property is located near the southwest corner of McMillan Road and Meridian Road Summary of Request: The applicant has applied for approval of a final plat consisting of fifty-four (54) residential lots and two (2) common lots on approximately 10.58 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district. The applicant requests withdrawal of the approved final plat (file #FP -06-027) in order to construct a smaller phase proposed with the subject application. Staff recommends the Council acknowledge the withdrawal request before acting on the subject application. The average lot size is 4,253 square feet. The gross density of the development is 5.13 dwelling units per acre with a net density of 7.8 dwelling units per acre. Open space proposed for this phase consists of the McMillan Road street buffer, 8 -foot parkways, a micropath, and passive open space. Overall open space with this phase is 1.61 acres which totals approximately 6.5%. The open space proposed with this phase is consistent with the overall project open space. The proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat. Written Testimony: Kent Brown in agreement with the conditions of approval in the staff report. Staff Recommendation: Approval Notes: DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5A =10TIAM-NIET111, ITEM TITLE: APRIL 8, 2014 MINUTES Approval of April 8, 2014 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS UEZ DOEMMUMMMMl r April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 59 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Public Hearing: PP 13-042 Centre Point Square by Center Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Forty (40) Single - Family Buildable Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Approximately 5.28 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: POINTITEM TITLE: CENTRE A.4 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Approval: Public Hearing: MDA 13-025 Centre Point Square by Centre Point Square, LLC Located West of N. Eagle Road and South of E. Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to Change the Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • • r w',. AprilR. ■ I 1 Final Order for Approval: FP 14-011 Paramount Subdivision No. 25 by Brighton Investments, LLC Located West of N. Meridian Road and South of Producer Drive, North of W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty (50) Single Family Residential Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 9.17 Acres of Land in an R- 8 Zoning District WEETIVG VOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DAApril 15, 2014 Development Agreement for Approval: MDA 13-018 Whitebark Subdivision by Cindy K. Lewis Trust and T & M Holdings, LLC Located 2135 E. Amity Road Request: Modification to the Development Agreement to Increase the Number of Building Lots Allowed to Develop on the Site Consistent with the Proposed Preliminary Plat VOTESMEETIVG N Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT .00 I BOISE IDAHO 04h7114 01:16 PM DEPUTY Che Fowler III II I'IIIII'II'I�II'llll'II�IIII'll RECORDED -REQUEST OF Meridian City 11402 847 ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Cindy K. Lewis Trust, Owner/Developer 3. T & M Holdings, LLC, Owner/Developer THIS ADDENDUM TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is dated this (5- day of 1 r, , 2014, ("ADDENDUM"), by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho ("CITY"), whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 and Cindy K. Lewis Trust, whose address is 2025 E. Chateau Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642 hereinafter called OWNER/DEVELOPER and T & M Holdings, LLC whose address is 16166 N. 20th Street, Nampa, Idaho 83687, hereinafter called OWNER/DEVELOPER. RECITALS A. City and OWNER and/or former OWNER entered into that certain Development Agreement that was recorded on January 25 2007 in the real property records of Ada p � County as Instrument No. 107011191 ("DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT"). B. City and OWNER/DEVELOPER now desire to amend the Development Agreement, which terms have been approved by the Meridian City Council in accordance with Idaho Code Section 67-6511. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. OVY'NER/DEVELOPER shall be bound by the terms of the Development Agreement, except as specifically to Section 4, Section 5 and Section 16, amended as follows: 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT.- 4.1 GREEMENT. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under City's Unified Development Code codified as Meridian City Code Section 11-2A-2, as follows: Construction and development of SS single-family building lots on 19 acres in the proposed R-4 zone pertinent to the PP 13-028 application. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. Whitebark MDA -13-018 Page 1 S. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 1. That all future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 2 That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. 3. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 4. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. S. That the following shall be the only allowed uses on this property: detached single family homes and allowed accessory uses of the R-4 zone. 6. That a maximum of SS units will be constructed on this site. 7. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 8. That a street buffer, constructed in accordance with City Code, be installed along Amity Road prior to occupancy of any new dwelling units. 9. Future homes constructed on the site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual building elevations submitted with the preliminary plat (PP -13-028) application. The rear (or side) of structures on Lots 4 and 6, Block 1 and Lot 4, Block 4 that back up to E. Amity Road shall incorporate articulation through changes in materials, color, modulation, and architectural elements (horizontal and vertical) to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Whitebark MDA -13-018 Page 2 16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 OWNER/DEVELOPER: Cindy K. Lewis Trust 2025 E. Chateau Dr. Meridian, Idaho 83646 with copy to: City Attorney City of Meridian 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 T & M Holdings, LLC 16166 N. 20th Street Nampa, Idaho 83687 16.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 2. OWNER/DEVELOPER agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian that are consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement and this Addendum and the Project Site shall be subject to de -annexation if the DEVELOPER, or their assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions of this Addendum as herein provided, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian that are consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement and this Addendum. 3. If any provision of this Addendum is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Addendum and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 4. This Addendum sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition, and understandings between OWNER/DEVELOPER and City relative to the subject matter herein, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or under -standing, either oral or written, express or implied, between OWNER./DEVELOPER and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Addendum shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to City, to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City. Whitebark MDA -13-018 Page 3 a. Except as herein provided, no condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing development of the subject Project Site herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 5. This Addendum shall be effective as of the date herein above written. 6. Except as amended by this Addendum, all terms of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. OWNER/DEVELOPER: CINDY K. LEWIS TRTST, 6 CITY OF 10 Mayor Tann T & M H D GS, LLC ATTEST: n m� Weerd SEAL h: x .tJL� / N, 1 2il/1r . Holman, City Clerk Whitebark MDA -13-018 Page 4 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this 1 cS- day of A:j�r-1 \ , 2014 before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee L. Holman, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. 0000000 A .w (SEAL):6t,1`, Not y Public fd Idaho Residing at: Commission expires:��o� n _ D.CD3- C) i s: 0V so**** Whitebark NIDA -13-018 Page 6 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ): ss County of Ada, ) On this da of 201 , before mePe4undersigned, a YNotary Public in and for said State, ersonally appeared known or identified to me to be the - of Cindy . Lewis Trust, and the person who executed the above on behalf of said Trust. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) 0 10 P U lei 46 0 10 •• ••• .` ♦ • • O TE o� t��IfI11i���� STATE OF IDAHO, ) ): ss County of Ada, ) My Commission Expires: On this 3 day of 2014, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally a gearedMc-MAw4known or identified to me to be the. T & Of Holdings, LLC, and the person who executed the above on behalf of si imited Liability Corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) 6k6-10 q4Ekz�- Notary Publicfq� daho Residing at: �tu►.t My Commission Expires: '1 ' a -18 Whitebark MDA -13-018 Page 5 • • r DATE: April 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5F FP 14-010 McLinder Subdivision by TS Development Located 4650 N. Linder Road and 1437 W. McMillan Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Twenty -One (21) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 11.8 Acres of Land in an R-15 Zoning District J114WhCrhE91111 Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • • r DATE: April 15, 2014 0 A;U.ANLU1jU• • FP 14-014 Paramount Subdivision No. 26 by SCS Brighton, LLC Located Northeast Corner of N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road Intersection Request: Thirty -Two (32) Building Lots and Two (2) Common/Other Lots on 8.39 Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ITi F1 •=1 011 • •' NUMBER:DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM ■ ■ Cooperative Agreement for Illumination/Lighting Along Meridian Road at the Interstate 84 Meridian Road Interchange MEETING NOTES 4,1 V Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS (:> E IDIA Publi*c IDAHO Works Department TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd Members of City Council FROM: Austin Petersen, EIT — Transportation and Utility p Utility Coordinator DATE: April 1, 2014 Mayor Tammy de Weerd Clay Coundl N*Mbers: Joe Borton Keith Bird Luke Cavener Brad Hoaglun Charles Rountree David Zaremba SUBJECT: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR ILLUMINATION/LIGHTING ALONG MERIDIAN ROAD AT THE INTERSTATE 84 MERIDIAN ROAD INTERCHANGE I. RECOMMENDED ACTION A. Move to: 1. Approve the Cooperative Agreement for Project No. A010(939) - I-84, Meridian Road Interchange. 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. II. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS Austin Petersen, Transportation and Utility Coordinator (PM) 489-0352 Warren Stewart, PW Engineering Manager 489-0350 Tom Barry, Director of Public Works 489-0372 III. DESCRIPTION A. Background As part of the Meridian Road Interchange rebuild project, ITD will be removing and replacing the existing street lights along Meridian Road. There are currently 17 lights owned and maintained by the City within the project area. This includes seven fixtures installed on ACRD signal poles. The existing street lights must be removed to accommodate the new sidewalk and bike lanes being installed. B. Proposed Prosect ITD will install 30 new LED fixtures within the ACRD right of way along Meridian Road. Eight of these will be installed on ACHD signal poles, and several of these lights will be installed in areas that currently lack roadway lighting. For a depiction of the new light locations, please see the attached exhibit. ITD is requesting that the City accept p ownership and maintenance responsibility of the new lights within ACHD's right of way. IV. IMPACT Page I of 2 A. Strate ig c Impact: This agreement is in accordance with the Public Works Department's objective to increase street lighting within the City limits to comply with our Improvement Standards. g g B. Service/Delivery Impact: The new lights will provide adequate illumination for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists to comfortably and safely navigate the new Single Point Interchange. C. Fiscal Impact: The street lights will be installed at no cost to the City. The increase in the City's annual electric bill will be approximately $350.00. V. TIME CONSTRAINTS Execution of the attached agreement i E �'s required for the City to take ownership of these lights upon construction completion. Construction is scheduled to start later this month. VI. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS A. Cooperative Agreement B. Exhibit A Approved for Council � 7 D6 Page 2 of 2 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT (Illumination/Lighting) CITY OF MERIDIAN PROJECT NAME: MERIDIAN IC PROJECT NUMBER: A010 (93 9) KEY NO. 10939 PARTIES pu THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 01 _ day of '1401,9- , 2014, by and between the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTRENT, hereafter called the STATE, and the CITY OF MERIDIAN hereafter called the CITY. PURPOSE Both Parties mutually agree that it is in the public' s interest to construct highway and street lighting on the Meridian Interchange, Federal-Aid Highway Project A010 (93 9) and hereafter referred to as "Project" , within Ada County. The improvements are being made in accordance with the attached plans entitled Exhibit "A" . Authority for this Agreement is established by Section 40-317 of the Idaho Code. The Parties agree as follows: SECTION I . That the STATE will: 1. Program the construction of the project and execute all necessary agreements . 2. Provide to the CITY a copy of the approved construction plans. 3 . Advertise for the construction of the project, open bids, and prepare a contract estimate of cost based on the successful low bid. 4 . Award a contract for construction of the project based on the successful low bid if it is not over ten (10) percent above the estimate for cost of construction. 5. Include all equipment, construction, and engineering costs for the project illumination and miscellaneous specialty items necessary to complete the Project in the construction contract . - 1 - 4ranteevf • 6 . Indemnify, save harmless and defend regardless of outcome the CITY from expenses of and against suits, actions, claims, or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs, expenses and attorney fees that may be incurred by reason of any negligent act or omission of the STATE in the construction of the lighting. Such indemnification is subject to the limitations of the Idaho Tort Claims Act currently codified at chapter 9, title 6 of the Idaho Code. The indemnification shall not apply to any loss, damages, expense or attorney fees attributable to the negligence of the City. SECTION II. That the CITY will : 1 . Acknowledge that the STATE may need to make changes and decisions within the general scope of the plans and specifications . 2 . Accept from the STATE ownership of all street lighting equipment installed on Meridian Road in accordance with Exhibit "A" , and upon request to energize, assume all operations and the costs thereof required to maintain the equipment in continuous service during the hours of darkness and not remove, alter or abandon the lighting equipment without the prior concurrence of the STATE. In the event that the "Average Maintained Foot-Candles" of the lighting system drops below seventy (70) percent of the original installed values, the CITY shall cause the light intensity to be restored to approximately the original values. Any combination of relamping and/or cleaning of fixtures may be used to achieve the necessary desired intensity. 3 . Indemnify, save harmless and defend regardless of outcome the STATE from expenses of and against suits, actions, claims, or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs, expenses and attorney fees that may be incurred by reason of any negligent act or omission of the CITY in the maintenance of the lighting. Such indemnification is subject to the limitations of the Idaho Tort Claims Act currently codified at chapter 9, title 6 of the Idaho Code. The indemnification shall not apply to any loss, damages, expense or attorney fees attributable to the negligence of the State. SECTION III. Both parties agree that : -2- g 1. The street lighting equipment installed with the Project will not be altered or abandoned without the prior concurrence of both parties. 2. Should any of the street lighting or equipment be damaged or destroyed through the wrongful or negligent act of any thirdP arty, the CITY will make every effort to determine the identity and whereabouts of the responsible party and will attempt collection of the cost of repair or replacement. L 3 . This Agreement shall become effective on the first date mentioned above and shall remain in full force and effect until amended or replaced upon the mutual consent of the CITY and the STATE. EXECUTION This Agreement is executed for the STATE by the District Engineer; and executed for the CITY by the Mayor, attested to by the City Clerk, with the imprinted corporate Seal of the CITY OF MERIDIAN. CITY OF MERIDIAN IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT APPROVE' BY• , C - r,, ,:-./, -1":7>______ 142 Mayor Di rict Engineer 4, 74L RECOMME t D . GARVEE Program Manager BEST: J City lerl Seal4 4 By regular meeting on 115-19 • -3- 11 -31 .......... t x !s F i s • �F. 41, . 's �Y � t y An' iy i p .a 11 -31 .......... t x DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 51 Memorandum of Agreement with Bingham County Sheriff's Office for Incident Tracking System and E -Citation Software Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM AND E -CITATION SOFTWARE This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE ("Agreement") is made this day of April, 2014 ("Effective Date"), by and between the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho ("Meridian"), and Bingham County Sheriff's Office, whose address is 501 N. Maple #405, Blackfoot, Idaho ("Licensee") (Meridian and Licensee may hereinafter be collectively referred to as "Parties"). WHEREAS, Meridian created the Incident Tracking System ("ITS") and E -Citation with the objective of facilitating communication and information sharing between public law enforcement agencies using software that can be customized to meet the individual needs and administrative operation of each agency while also serving the shared need of all law enforcement agencies to access information gathered by or known to other agencies; WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Meridian to make ITS and E -Citation software readily available to government entities, for the limited purpose of use by such government entities, and to prevent exploitation of ITS or commercial gain from ITS by for-profit or other third -party entities; WHEREAS, in order to further these objectives, it is Meridian's desire to provide to Licensee a limited version of ITS and E -Citation software, including compiled binaries and databases, while also prohibiting dissemination to any person or entity with a differing objective, such as commercial or private use or profit; and WHEREAS, Meridian is authorized by Idaho Code section 67-2328 to enter into agreements with other law enforcement agencies for joint or cooperative action; NOW, THEREFORE, subject to the limitations of this Agreement and in order to meet the objectives described above, the Parties hereby agree as follows: I. LICENSE. Meridian grants to Licensee, and Licensee accepts from Meridian, a non- exclusive, revocable, royalty -free, non -sub licensable and non -transferable enterprise site license under Meridian's copyrights for the term of this agreement to install and use the compiled binaries and databases provided ("Software"). A. Title. Subject only to the license granted by this Agreement, Meridian shall retain all right, title and interest, including all patent rights, copyrights and trademarks, in and to the Software and all derivative works. Licensee shall own any data placed in ITS, though Licensee shall not own the software or any derivative works therefrom. This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. B. Backup copies. Licensee may make copies as necessary for installation in multiple development, testing, training, and production environments and incident to computer and server backup, including four weeks of daily backup and twelve months of monthly MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE I OF 5 backup for data recovery purposes and backup for post disaster recovery and operations restoration purposes. Licensee must reproduce and include the copyright and trademark notices and any other notices that appear on the original Software on all copies, including installed, backup, and archival copies, and any media therefor. C. Restrictions. The following restrictions shall apply to the license granted to Licensee by this agreement, and shall survive termination of this Agreement. Except with notice to and written consent of Meridian: 1. Licensee shall not provide, give, lease, lend, use for timesharing, service bureau or hosting purposes or otherwise use or allow persons or entities not a party to this Agreement to use the Software; 2. Licensee shall not, and shall not allow any third party to decompile, disassemble, or otherwise reverse engineer or attempt to reconstruct or discover any source code, underlying ideas, algorithms, file formats or programming or interoperability interfaces of the Software by any means whatsoever; 3. Licensee shall not remove any product identification, copyright, trademark or other notices; 4. Licensee shall not allow any third party to modify, incorporate into or with other software create a derivative work of any part of the Software; 5. Licensee shall not use the output or other information generated by the Software (including, without limitation, output describing the structure of a software program) for any purpose other than for the exclusive benefit of Licensee and/or other ITS Licensees. II. NO WARRANTY. The Software is provided by Meridian "as -is" and with all faults accepted, with no warranties, express or implied, of any kind. No dealer, agent or employee of Meridian is authorized to make any modifications, extensions or additions to this section. Meridian makes no other representation or warranty of any kind whether express or implied (either in fact or by operation of law) with respect to the software or other materials provided by Meridian. Meridian does not warrant that the software is error -free or that operation of the software will be secure or uninterrupted. Licensee may have other statutory rights; however, to the full extent permitted by law, the duration of statutorily required warranties, if any, shall be limited to the shortest permissible duration. Moreover, in no event will warranties provided by law, if any, apply unless they are required to apply by statute. This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. III. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date, and shall continue until deployment of E -Citation statewide, or until terminated as provided herein. IV. TERMINATION. Meridian may terminate this Agreement for convenience or for cause. Termination shall be effective thirty (30) days following mailing of written notice. Upon MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE 2 OF 5 termination, Licensee shall immediately cease all use of the Software and return all copies of the Software and all portions thereof and so certify to Meridian. Termination is not an exclusive remedy; all other remedies will be available whether or not this Agreement is terminated. V. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. Notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary, Meridian shall not be liable or obligated, and Licensee shall hold Meridian harmless, with respect to any subject matter of this agreement or under contract, negligence, strict liability or any other legal or equitable theory for the following: A. Any special, punitive, incidental or consequential damages (including, without limitation, for any lost profits, cost of procurement of substitute goods, technology, services or rights); B. Interruption of use or loss or corruption of data; or C. Any matter beyond its reasonable control. This provision shall survive termination of this Agreement. VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS. A. Cumulative remedies. The remedies under this Agreement shall be cumulative and not alternative. The election of one remedy for a breach shall not preclude pursuit of other remedies unless as expressly provided in this Agreement. B. Governing law. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the substantive laws of the State of Idaho, United States of America (excluding conflict of laws rules) as applied to agreements entered into and to be performed entirely within the State of Idaho between Idaho residents. Any dispute regarding this Agreement shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of and venue within the state or federal courts located in the state of Idaho, and the parties agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of these courts. C. Notices. All notices, statements, and reports required or permitted by this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed to have been effectively given and received three (3) business days after the date of mailing by registered or certified U.S. mail, postage prepaid, with return receipt requested. Notices shall be addressed as follows: Licensee: Bingham County Sheriff's Office Meridian: City of Meridian Attn: Sheriff Craig Rowland Attn: City Attorney 501 N. Maple #405 33 E. Broadway Avenue Blackfoot ID 83221 Meridian ID 83642 D. Assignment. Licensee shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights, obligations or licenses hereunder without the prior written consent of Meridian. The provisions of MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE 3 OF 5 this Agreement shall apply to and bind the successors and permitted assigns of the parties. E. Independent contractor. The relationship created by this Agreement is one of independent contractors, and not partners or joint venturers. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, no employees, consultants, contractors or agents of one party are employees, consultants, contractors or agents of the other party, nor do they have any authority to bind the other party by contract or otherwise to any obligation, except as expressly set forth herein. Neither party will represent to the contrary, either expressly, implicitly or otherwise. F. Third party beneficiaries. Licensee acknowledges and agrees that there are no third party beneficiaries of this Agreement. G. Severability. If any covenant set forth in this Agreement is determined by any court to be unenforceable by reason of its extending for too great a period of time or by reason of its being too extensive in any other respect, such covenant shall be interpreted to extend only for the longest period of time and to otherwise have the broadest application as shall be enforceable. The invalidity or unenforceability of any particular provision of this Agreement shall not affect the other provisions hereof, which shall continue in full force and effect. H. No waiver. The failure of either party to insist, in any one or more instances, upon the performance of any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement or to exercise any right hereunder, shall not be construed as a waiver or relinquishment of the future performance of any rights, and the obligations of the party with respect to such future performance shall continue in full force and effect. I. Entire agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete, final and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between Meridian and Licensee and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations and discussions of the parties, whether written or verbal. No modification or rescission of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by both Meridian and Licensee. J. Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated by reference and made a part of hereof as if the exhibits were set forth in their entirety herein. K. Presumptions/review. In construing the terms of this Agreement, no presumption shall operate in either party's favor as a result of that party's counsel's role in drafting the terms or provisions hereof. Further, it is agreed that Licensee has had a full and fair opportunity to review the terms herein and to consult with legal counsel before signing. Accordingly, because Licensee has had ample review opportunities and because Licensee is and was free to elect not to accept these terms, Licensee acknowledges that this is not a contract of adhesion. MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE 4 OF 5 L. Attorney fees. The prevailing party in any legal action brought by one party against the other and arising out of this Agreement will be entitled, in addition to any other rights and remedies it may have, to reimbursement for its expenses, including court costs and attorney fees. M. Authority. Each party represents that all corporate action necessary for the authorization, acceptance and delivery of this Agreement by such party and the performance of its obligations hereunder has been taken. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day of April, 2014. BINGHAM COUNTY -SH RIFFS OFFICE: By. Craig Rowland, Sheriff STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss: County of BINGHAM ) I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day of April, 2014, before the undersigned, a Notary Public in the State of Idaho, personally appeared CRAIG ROWLAND, known to me to be the person who executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. IN WITNESS W F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and yea _ first ave written. tary Public for Idaho iding a`l � F�� r s' �) , Idaho Commissioiy'Expires:� r� CITY OF MERIDIA By: Tammy de ; Mayor Attest: Jay e Ho an, Meridian Clerk MOA: INCIDENT TRACKING SYSTEM SOFTWARE PAGE 5 OF 5 DATE:PROJECT NUMBER:ITEM TITLE: SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE FOR KRUGER DISK FILTER MEDIA Approval of Sole Source Purchase for Kruger Disk Filter Media from Kruger, Inc. for the Next Five Years; Estimated Yearly Costs for this Equipment is $72,000.00 -UEETIVIG VOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS To: Jaycee L. Holman, City Clerk, From: Keith Watts, Purchasing Manager C: Jacy Jones, Tracy Crane Date: 4/8/14 Re: April 15 City Council Meeting Agenda Item The Purchasing Department respectfully requests that the following item be placed on the April 15th City Council Consent Agenda for Council's consideration. Approval of Sole Source Purchase for Kruger Disc Filter Media Kruger, Inc. for the next five years. Estimated yearly costs for this equipment is $72,000.00. Recommended Council Action: Approval of advertisement for Sole Source Purchase in the local paper 14 days prior to purchase and authorize the Purchasing Manager to issue a purchase order for the first year of replacement media at the conclusion of the notification period if no objection is received. Thank you for your consideration. Page 1 X. E IDIAN I (), A t-1 �....� CITY OF MERIDIAN SOLE SOURCE FORM Requisition Number: PURCHASING AGENT 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 Phone: 208-888-4433 Fax: 208-887-4813 Date: March 27, 2014 Item or Service: Replacement media and hardware for Kruger Disc Filters Sole Source: Item is available from only one vendor. Item is one -of -a kind item and is not sold through distributors. Manufacturer is a sole distributor. ❑ Sole Brand. Various vendors can supply the specified model & brand, and Competitive bids will be solicited for the brand requested. Refer to instructions on 2nd page for completion. JUSTIFICATION: (Attach additional pages if needed) This request is to purchase replacement filtration media and hardware for our Kruger Disc filters that are an essential part of our tertiary filtration process. In 2008 we installed cloth disc filters, these filters came with a five year warranty on their filter media which has now expired. Since it is unknown how long the media will last past the warranty period, we are proposing to purchase replacement media for one of the filters this year so we have it on hand as the existing media nears the end of its life -cycle. This media is available from only the equipment manufacturer and is not sold through a distributor. This is the first year of a five year filter replacement program. CERTIFICATION: I am aware of the requirements set forth in the City's Purchasing Policy & Procedures Manual for competitive bidding and the established criteria for justification for sole source/sole brand purchasing. I have gathered technical information and have made a concerted effort to review comparable/equal equipment. I hereby certify as to the validity of the information and feel confident that this justification for sole source/sole brand meets the City's criteria and is accurate. Tracy Crane Aft AMC /'Depart net?M a'`n_ -a g e Counci I (� Approval: 11"'DWt t q Purchasing Approval: Pur ng Man ger April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 5K ITEM TITLE: RECREATIONAL PATHWAY EASEMENT - ACHD PARK AND RIDE Recreational Pathway Easement Between Ada County Highway District and the City of Meridian Regarding a Pathway Across ACHD's Park -and -Ride Facility Located on Overland Road at Ten Mile Road Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich AMOUNT .00 BOISE IDAHO 04/11114 01:16 PM DEPUTY Che Fowler RECORDED -REQUEST OF III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Meridian City 1140 8846 RECREATIONAL PATHWAY EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this is day of A' r % N , 20145 between the Ada County Highway District, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian desires to establish a public pathway; and WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish the pathway and provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway; and WHEREAS, Grantee will construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantor does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property, described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of providing public recreational pathway easements for multiple -use non -motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that Grantee shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements. Recreational Pathway Easement THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and year first hereinabove written. GRANTOR: 9ItBY: -e- /I s: i STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this c� day of r�'l , 2014, beforeme the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeare • k1,known or identified to me to be the President of the7ne that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such co executed the k �ame. r r .0UI'l� Toffici�a ��� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set y and and affixed myiseal the day and year list above written. �` RPorPatinnal Pathiunu PacpmPnt NOTARY PUIO FO Residing aL-/ Commission Expires:, GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN I A Tammy Oe-y(eerd, Mayor Attest bj,Iiycee Holman, City Cl Approved By City Council On: STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2014, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and JAYCEE HOLMAN, 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. (SEAL) �,� .y N,n 0 • ' two i 8 0.< ',M. C Aa..u� 0000060 N RY PUR ID'AH6 Residing at: Pb'-_���(t (A n 0 Commission Expires: �ja r-1 ACHD Project: Ten Mile and Overland Park and Ride ACHD Project No.: 513049 Owner of Record: Ada County Highway District Ada Co. Parcel No.: S 1223233920 S.23, T.3 N., R.1 W., B.M. Recreational Pathway Easement A parcel of land situated in the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 23, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and being a portion of the land described in the Warranty Deed recorded as Instrument Number 112134262 in the office of the Recorder, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at a found brass cap marking the west quarter corner of said Section 23 from which an aluminum cap marking the northwest corner of said Section 23 bears N 00'57'23" E a distance of 2629.48 feet; Thence N 00'57'23" E a distance of 666.98 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of said Section 23 to a point; Thence leaving said west line, S 89'02'37" E a distance of 74.66 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of West Ten Mile Road; Thence S 89'14'14" E a distance of 7.90 feet along said southerly right-of-way to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said southerly right-of-way, S 89'14'14" E a distance of 315.26 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way, S 45°30'48" W a distance of 21.12 feet to a point 15.00 feet south of and measured perpendicular to said southerly right-of- way; Thence N 89'14'14" W a distance of 275.16 feet along a line parallel with and measuring 15.00 feet south of said southerly right-of-way; Thence leaving said parallel line, N 58'30'01" W a distance of 29.35 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said described parcel contains 4,428 square feet or 0.102 acres and is subject to any covenants, easements and restrictions of record. z Q 0 z Q z w Q Z g w 0 In w N 0 (n n Of LLJ J 00Q LLJ U^ � 0. . IJ O rn N O v IO O Of rn CY m O Z O p N w 60n I LO N U O= 0 Z Z O Of p z = O p Z — Z W W z .. U z JQLL) o O Z �UOw � Z 3 OU J 0 � O U �p Q !0 2 - - �d r�ry o n Q a -w ~ Q D Q OL, O N V) w = .. Q Z Q W W CY U z V)0 Q (f) U w N 0 (n n O W W 3: V I Z LLJ J 00Q = F— U^ � 0. . IJ O rn N O v IO O () N O Z I 60n I z Lo0) Z N I I uiI I W Oo , w 2 ` w w (01to--gid��Gt col cn o O w � Z �,�, i �� cn 10� � Q !0 2 - - �d r�ry o Z W _ :2.-. w V) w Q Q Q U WOQ �I Q Z Q W N O I � L6 Q � N w w w z L` <0 of � Q — w zU Q OW CY W 00 . ryU N c) I— W qq- ry O W W 3: V I Z I I = F— m W W . I D O v IO O w o r�r) LO 60n Lo0) Z N I I v W Oo , w 2 ` CY) w (01to--gid��Gt col Lp �C9 o O N 40 � Z �,�, i �� cn 10� � !0 2 - - �d r�ry o Z Ul "' 86'999VA N 3�,�Z,LS.ON GMJ 3W4 N31 �J N\ \ N -------------- 2,v*6z9z -------- -- 3«�Z�LS.ON — ill �illillill 1111111111 1 1111' • I I' DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: • • Public Works: Meridian Environmental Excellence Awards Presentation MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • • r J-1,1ATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 'Z Items Moved From Consent Agenda I►►i1AzuIki Eel IN, [Q9 Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • • r 1;AApril , ITEM NUMBER: 1 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED SUMMER 2014 FEE SCHEDULE Public Hearing: Proposed Summer 2014 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department MEET G NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Motes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS - • • (' _ ; r DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: • ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. Resolution No. lg- !& : A Resolution Adopting the Summer 2014 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. Z�Z- ?L BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FEE SCHEDULE OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on April 15th, 2014, the City Council of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in ExhibitA hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said proposed Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit,4 hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 15th day of April, 2014. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 15th day of April, 2014. ATTEST: APPROVED: Tammy terd, Mayor R lman, City Clerk tid ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 1 AL CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 15th, 2014, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding the 2014 Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Fee Schedule, including proposed new fees as set forth below. Further information regarding these fees, as well as the entire Parks & Recreation fee schedule, is available at the Parks & Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, (208) 888-3579. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk no later than 48 hours prior to the public hearing. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Beginning Spanish for Kids $50.00 Camp Mer -IDA -Moo Summer (3 day 7:30-5:30) $59.00 Camp Mer -IDA -Moo Summer (3 day 9:00-3:00) $47.00 Discovering Africa Free Math Attack $45.00 Parkinson's Exercise Class $45.00 Pop Dance $30.00 Shoshin Ryu $35.00-$65.00 Yoga - Prenatal $20.00 DATED this 28th day of March, 2014. PUBLISH on March 31, 2014 and April 7, CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEEIF DATE April 15, 2015 ITEM # 8A PROJECT NUMBER Proposed 2014 Fee Schedule for Parks and PROJECT NAME Recreation Department PLEASE PRINT NAME FOR AGAINST NEUTRAL ­rry • • r DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: $C PROJECT : FP 14-015 ITEM TITLE: WHITEBARK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 FP 14-015 Whitebark Subdivision No. 1 by T&M Holdings Located 2135 E. Amity Road Request: Final Plat Consisting of Twenty -Nine (29) Building Lots and Five (5) Common Lots on 10.54 Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning Districts MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS a DATE:April PROJECT NUMBER: AZ _11 ITEM TITLE: REVOLUTION RIDGE SUBDIVISION Public Hearing: AZ 14-002 Revolution Ridge by C13, LLC Located at 1 100 W. Riodosa Drive Request: Annexation and Zoning of 20.39 Acres of Land with an R-4 Zoning District. MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: • Public Hearing: PP 13-040 Revolution Ridge Subdivision by C13, LLC Located at 1100 W. Riodosa Drive Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 64 Single -Family Residential Building Lots and 5 Common Lots on 19.74 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-4 Zoning District. MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS April 1 PROJECT NUMBER: PP 13-043 ITEM TITLE: ••D SUBDIVISION Public Hearing: PP 13-043 Summerwood Subdivision by Kent Pintus Located at 4202 and 4052 W. Daphne Street Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Thirty (30) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Four (4) Common/Other Lots on Ten (10) Acres of Land in an R-4 Zoning District Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS 1ATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 8G :TEM TITLE: HERITAGE GROVE Public Hearing: AZ 14-003 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Annexation of Approximately 1.49 Acres from RUT in Ada County to the R-15 (Medium High Density Residential) Zoning District MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE: April 15, i ITEM NUMBER: • ■ II Public Hearing: PP 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 121 Single Family Residential Lots and 19 Common Lots on Approximately 21.71 Acres in an Existing and Proposed R-15 Zoning District MEETING NOTES >A Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: 81 Public Hearing: PUD 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Planned Unit Development to Modify the R-15 Dimensional Standards of the Mew and Alley Loaded Lots to Allow for Exemplary Design MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS D • ITEM TITLE: HERITAGE GROVE Public Hearing: MDA 14-001 Heritage Grove by Tucker Johnson Located Northwest Corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Ustick Road Request: Development Agreement Modification to Change the Development Plan from Multi -Family to Single Family Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS N, 11111,11 1• •MMUM=0 April 15,2014 ITEM NUMBED.@ ..♦11M TEM TITLE: A111BERCREEPI Public Hearing: TEC 14-004 Ambercreek by Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road Request: One (1) Year Time Extension on the Preliminary Plat in Order to Obtain the City Engineer's Signature on Final Plat WEETING NOTES ead�Lj yl)-,�111(1 Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS • • 1 NUMBER:DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM ■_� . . Mel ITEM TITLE: AMBERCREEK No. 2 FP 14-012 Ambercreek No. 2 by Trilogy Idaho Located Southwest Corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Meridian Road Request: Final Plat Approval Consisting of Fifty - Four (54) Single Family Residential Building Lots and Two (2) Common Lots on 10.58 Acres of Land in an R-8 Zoning District MEETING NOTES e6� Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: • 1 ITEM TITLE: MAYOR'S OFFICE - RESOLUTION NO. Mayor's Office: Resolution No. ILl- 9 ,�5 Re -Appointment of David Ballard to Seat 1, JoAnn Bujarski to Seat 2 and Jack McGee to Seat 3 of the Meridian Transportation Commission MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, CAVENER, MILAM, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REAPPOINTING DAVID BALLARD TO SEAT 1, JOANN BUJARSKI TO SEAT 2 AND JACK MCKEE TO SEAT 3 OF THE MERIDIAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Meridian City Code Title 2, Chapter 3 established the Meridian Transportation Commission, its members and terms of their appointments; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2013 by Resolution no. 13-925, Mayor De Weerd designated David Ballard to fill Seat 1 of the Meridian Transportation Commission, with a term to expire May 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2013 by Resolution no. 13-925, Mayor De Weerd designated JoAnn Bujarski to fill Seat 2 of the Meridian Transportation Commission, with a term to expire May 31, 2014; and WHEREAS, on May 22, 2013 by Resolution no. 13-925, Mayor De Weerd designated Jack McGee to fill Seat 3 of the Meridian Transportation Commission, with a term to expire May 31, 2014. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That, effective May 31, 2014, David Ballard shall be reappointed to Seat 1 of the Meridian Transportation Commission, which term shall run from May 31, 2014 through May 31, 2017, pursuant to Meridian City Code Section 2-3-3 (C). Section 2. That, effective May 31, 2014, JoAnn Bujarski shall be reappointed to Seat 2 of the Meridian Transportation Commission, which term shall run from May 31, 2014 through May 31, 2017, pursuant to Meridian City Code Section 2-3-3 (C). Section 3. That, effective May 31, 2014, Jack McGee shall be reappointed to Seat 3 of the Meridian Transportation Commission, which term shall run from May 31, 2014 through May 31, 2017, pursuant to Meridian City Code Section 2-3-3 (C). Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING BALLARD, BUJARSKI AND MCGEE TO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PAGE 1 OF 1 ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of April, 2014. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, thisday of April, 2014. APPROVED: Mayor -Ta de Weerd ATTEST: A By. Clerk RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING BALLARD, BUJARSKI AND MCGEE TO TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION PAGE 2 OF 2 DATE: April 15, 2014 ITEM NUMBER: ■ Continued from April 8, 2014: Community Development: Review and Approve City Roadway, Intersection, and Community Program Project Priorities for 2014 MEETING NOTES t w� Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS ( �� E IDIAN:--- 1 n n u n April 10, 2014 151D150)A.11011051 TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members CC: City Clerk Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam Charlie Rountree David Zaremba FROM: Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager e� RE: Roadway, Intersection, Highway and Community Program Project Priorities April 15`x', 2014 City Council Workshop Agenda Item During the March I I and April 8`h, City Council meetings transportation priority projects were discussed. At the direction of Council, staff has created a draft Top 15 Project List and a draft cover letter for our priorities to send to ACHD (attached). Staff now seeks the Council's endorsement of the lists and cover letter so ACHD can consider them in their programming and budget processes. The District has asked to have all of the cities' transportation project priorities by April 30'', 2014. 2014 Overall Priority Rankine (Roadways and Intersections) Priority Project Name 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 15 10 11 12 13 14 Ten Mile Road, Cherry to Ustick 1 (road) Ustick Road, Meridian to Locust Grove 2 (road) Linder Road, Franklin to Cherry 3 (road) (including RR crossing/signal) 7 Ten Mile Road, McMillan to Chinden 4 (road) Ten Mile, Ustick to McMillan 5 (road) Franklin/Black Cat 1 (intersection) Amity/Ten Mile 2 (intersection) Locust Grove, Fairview to Ustick 6 (road) Eagle, Amity to Victory 7 (road) Ustick Road, Linder to Meridian 8 (road) Chinden/Meridian 3 (intersection) Chinden/Black Cat 4 (intersection) Chinden/Ten Mile 5 (intersection) Franklin Road, Black Cat to Ten Mile 9 (road) Locust Grove, Victory to Overland 21 (road) ection Rank Next 5 Roadways Next 5 Intersections Linder Road, Cherry to Ustick 6 Ustick/Black Cat Linder Road, Ustick to McMillan 7 Overland/Linder Linder Road, McMillan to Chinden 8 Amity/Eagle Pine Avenue, Meridian to Locust Grove 9 Ustick/Meridian Locust Grove, Ustick to McMillan 10 Fairview/Locust Grove 2 C� fIEKZ AHO April 15, 2014 DRAFT John S. Franden Commission President Ada County Highway District 3775 Adams Street Garden City, ID 83714 Dear Commissioner Franden: Mayor Tammy de Weerd Cky Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam Charlie Rountree David Zaremba On March l Vh, April 8'n, and April 15`h, the Meridian City Council discussed priority transportation projects for 2014. The City of Meridian appreciates the opportunity to submit the attached lists of transportation projects for consideration in the ACHD 2015-2019 Integrated Five -Year Work Plan (IFYWP). The City is thankful for ACHD staff attendance at both the Meridian Transportation Commission and City Council meetings in recent months, for the many questions they have answered, and for generally assisting the City as we navigate through the programming process. With this assistance the City has been able to develop a greater understanding of all the work that goes into programming and budgeting for roadway, intersection and Community Program projects. While we understand that congestion, safety and ultimately cost -benefit dominate the process, the City's priorities also reflect areas of our community where we are currently experiencing and anticipate eminent growth. So our priority project lists for 2014 represent both the technical merits, the reality of where roadway and intersection projects are needed today, and in the near future, as well as an effort to complete corridors and not necessarily a mile -by -mile approach to road improvements. One of the projects we'd like to highlight this year is a Community Program project: Pine Avenue, Locust Grove to Main Street. This project will help to enhance a key regional corridor for motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists traveling between Downtown Meridian and Boise. The Pine/Emerald corridor has been recognized by ACHD as the primary east -west bicycle connection in Ada County and ACHD has invested, or plans to invest, in several critical projects throughout this corridor (Pine/Linder Intersection, Cloverdale/Pine Intersection, Emerald, Orchard to Americana and Pine, New Have Cove to Rotan to name several) which increases its attractiveness an alternative route to Fairview and Franklin roads. This segment of Pine represents one of the final pieces of the Pine/Emerald corridor that does not have sidewalks and bike lanes completed or planned in the near future. In addition to its regional significance this project also has direct impacts on access into the City of Meridian's Downtown and it connects The Honorable John S. Franden Page 2 directly to the City's growing pathway network. We would appreciate the District allocating some resources to scope this project as soon as possible. We also want to express the City's gratitude to ACHD for ensuring that improvements occur along Ustick Road, a key mobility corridor. The recent improvements east of Eagle Road, and the current and planned improvements in Meridian to the west of Eagle Road, are very encouraging. While the short-term inconveniences of dealing with construction zones are not fun, the long-term benefits of having a fully -improved Ustick Road corridor will be valuable for all users. The City is aware of the efforts the District has gore through over the past several years to make sure it is as efficient as possible. As part of the District's vision to be more efficient, we would encourage you to look at potential additional funding sources to offset the increased costs of projects, and the fact that revenue sources have remained flat for the past several years. Please let us know how we can support you as you seek additional funding for new capital and maintenance projects. The City strongly believes the attached prioritized lists are not a wish -list of niceties but rather an identification of Meridian's most -needed transportation system projects. As we continue to see development in both north and south Meridian, this list is our attempt to hold true to previous IFYWP submissions from the City and identify areas where investments both immediate and long-term can have a meaningful impact based upon current realities and future expectations. Please communicate with Caleb Hood, 8845533, with any questions or issue that may arise regarding the City's lists of priority projects. Thank you for your time and considering our priority requests. Sincerely, Tammy de Weerd Mayor Attachments 13 2014 Roadway Project Priorities 1 Ten Mile Road, Cherry to Ustick 2 Ustick Road, Meridian to Locust Grove 3 Linder Road, Franklin to Cherry (including RR crossing/signal) 4 Ten Mile Road, McMillan to Chinden 5 Ten Mile, Ustick to McMillan 6 Locust Grove, Fairview to Ustick 7 Eagle, Amity to Victory 8 Ustick Road, Linder to Meridian 9 Franklin Road, Black Cat to Ten Mile 10 Linder Road, Cherry to Ustick 11 Linder Road, Ustick to McMillan 12 Linder Road, McMillan to Chinden 13 Pine Avenue, Meridian to Locust Grove 14 Locust Grove, Ustick to McMillan 15 McMillan Road, Linder to Meridian 16 Linder, Overland to Franklin (Includes Overpass of I-84*) 17 Ustick Road, Ten Mile to Linder 18 McMillan Road, Locust Grove to Eagle 19 Meridian Road, Fairview/Cherry to Ustick 20 Ten Mile, Victory to Overland 5 21 Locust Grove, Victory to Overland 22 Locust Grove, Amity to Victory 23 Meridian Road, Ustick to McMillan 24 McMillan Road, Meridian to Locust Grove 25 Meridian Road, McMillan to Chinden 26 Franklin Road, McDermott to Black Cat 27 Fairview Avenue, Eagle to Cloverdale 28 Linder, Chinden to State 29 Fairview Avenue, Locust Grove to Eagle 30 Fairview Avenue, Meridian to Locust Grove 31 Cherry Lane, Linder to Meridian 32 Fairview Corridor 33 Ten Mile, Amity to Victory 34 E. 3rd Connection 35 Broadway Ave/Idaho Ave, E. 6th to Locust Grove 0 2014 Intersection Priority Proiects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Franklin/Black Cat Amity/Ten Mile Chinden/Meridian* Chinden/Black Cat* Chinden/Ten Mile* Ustick/Black Cat Overland/Linder Amity/Eagle Ustick/Meridian r Fairview/Locust Grove Cherry/Linder Chinden/Locust Grove* Victory/Locust Grove Cherry/Black Cat Victory/Ten Mile Lake Hazel/Meridian* McMillan/Black Cat Amity/Black Cat McMillan/Star Amity/Linder Franklin/McDermott Ustick/McDermott Cherry/McDermott McMillan/McDermott Ustick/Star *ITD Facilitv 7 2014 Communitv Program Priorities 2014 Priority Community Programs Project Description ;a Rank Project so Create connection from Fairview to Meridian Elementary, and south W. 4th, Broadway to across Pine. May require pedestrian crossing at Pine. Existing pole and 1 Maple (aka Broadway to flashing school zone light/sign at Pine/W. 2nd; striped crosswalk at Cherry) Pine/W. 1st. Adjacent to Meridian Elementary, within 1/2 mile of Meridian Middle school. West side of roadway - extension needed for connection to existing sidewalk approaching Meridian Elementary school. W. 1st at Pine is 2 W. 1st, Broadway to Pine designated elementary crossing with guards; main entrance for buses and parking. Partial sidewalk exists, but block between Idaho and Broadway missing; other portions substandard. Five Mile Creek Path - Connect Bud Porter Pathway with Fairview Ave. via James Court. Meridian Rd./Lakes Intersection was recently striped for a cross -walk; add signage at 3 Ave.(Segment G)(James James Court and install RRFB, HAWK signal, or other. Parks Court/Meddian Rd Ped Department Priority. Crossing) 2 travel lanes exist. CIP has Pine as a 3 -lane roadway. This is a key bicycle corridor and full improvements on both sides of the street will Pine, Locust Grove to help pedestrians and bicyclists both east -west and north -south along 4 Main Street the Five Mile Creek Pathway. Major investments made in corridor already; this is a big gap. (see Pine, Ralstin into downtown project) Parks Department Priority. Locust Grove, McMillan to Sidewalk needed on west side of roadway. Two parcel connections s Chinden (Comisky to needed (Alpha and Allmon) to tie existing segments together. Central Commander) Academy and Foundations/Ambrose Academy are within the mile. Shoulder along Locust Grove is not very wide. Sidewalk is needed on the north side of McMillan connecting the intersection improvements at L.G./McMillan with the sidewalk and McMillan, Locust Grove to pathway in Saguaro Subdivision, connecting to Heritage Middle 6 Red Horse Way School. This will also make the connection to Prospect Elementary just south of the McMillan/Red Horse intersection. Large portion of this segment will be completed with the Tustin #2 Subdivision. The remaining portions will need to be completed. Fairview, E. 3rd to Locust Project comes out of the Downtown Meridian Ped/Bike Plan. Missing 7 Grove several pieces of sidewalk in this section. Both sides or roadway. Lighting would be nice too. NW 2nd Street, Railroad Sidewalk on both sides of NW 2nd Street, in front of new food bank. 8 to Broadway The project will benefit the pedestrians (and motorists) that use the Meridian Food bank. Black Cat and Moon Safe Routes to School request of JSD2. Pedestrian signal at Black Cat 9 Lake/Ustick and Moon Lake for kids crossing Black Cat to get to school. Ridenbaugh Need a pedestrian crossing of Eagle Road at the Ridenbaugh Canal. 10 Pathway/Eagle Rd. Add signage, stripe crosswalk, install RRFB, HAWK signal, etc. Part of Crossing (Copper Pt - pathway system, Segment F. Parks Department Priority. Easy Jet 2014 Priority Community Programs Project Descriptio Rank Project There is no sidewalk on the south side of Ustick near W. 3rd Street, Ustick & West 3rd HAWK directly across from the entrance to Settlers Park. Residents south of 11 Signal the park currently have no "safe" route to get across Ustick in this area. Please scope and construct ASAP, possibly with Meridian/Ustick intersection or Ustick, Meridian to Linder widening project. There is approximately 1,000 feet of sidewalk missing on the west Eagle Road, River Valley side of Eagle Road, between River Valley and Leslie Drive. This 12 to Ustick Road* connection will allow safe passage between existing and new development and River Valley Elementary and Kleiner Park. This is on an ITD, not ACHD facility. No good pedestrian connections from subdivisions on west side of S. Locust Grove at Locust Grove Road to Sienna Elementary, west of Eagle Road. Add 13 Palermo flashing lights/ped signal, crosswalk and signage across S. Locust Grove at/near E. Palermo add short section of sidewalk). Locust Grove, Overland to Out parcel near Mountain View HS with no sidewalk. Maybe interim 14 Puffin improvements, until site develops? Meridian Road and RRX This pedestrian crossing will be a key component in the first phases of is Pedestrian Crossing the Meridian Rail w/ Trail project. The City has received TAP funding and is looking at all roadway crossings of the RR tracks. Main Street and RRX This pedestrian crossing will be a key component in the first phases of 16 Pedestrian Crossing the Meridian Rail w/ Trail project. The City has received TAP funding and is looking at all roadway crossings of the RR tracks. Locust Grove, Paradise to Interim/temporary connection (Paradise to Red Rock) constructed in 17 Settlers Bridge Sub. 2010. Please keep long-term solution on radar for more permanent fix in the future. Five Mile Creek Pathway - Fairview to Pine pathway along Five Mile Creek. Construct remaining 18 Badley to Fairview segment from Badley to Lakes Avenue. Parks Department Priority. (Segment HSA Lloyd Kennedy, a property owner in this block, requests this block be 19 E. State, 3rd and 4th retrofitted with sidewalk. His is the only property with sidewalk currently and it is in disrepair. Development is occurring to the south, east and west of this County Kentucky Ridge Way, subdivision that currently has rural street sections. School bus stops, 20 south of Victory the community open space and the main access to Victory Road is via Kentucky Ridge Way. Sidewalks (and possibly curb and gutter) are needed on this existing section of roadway. 2014 Priority Community Programs Project Description Rank project Duane is currently a rural street with no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Recently, Duane was opened up to connect with Redfeather Duane Drive, Ustick to Subdivision. Duane is approximately 0.4 miles long and straight. Kids 21 Redfeather (and others) walk up to Ustick to catch the bus and get to other services. Request for pavement widening and/or sidewalk, curb and gutter on at least one side (east probably, due to less vegetation.) East-West pathway connection within and/or adjacent to the RR corridor. This pathway should extend through Meridian and connect 22 Meridian Rail -With -Trail with Nampa and Boise, creating a regional multi -use pathway. Main request at ACHD is for crossings at arterial intersections. Parks' Department Priority. Eagle Road, Falcon to Property owner request to ACHD. Bus stop on Eagle near Falcon. 23 Victory ACHD now has ROW. McMillan, Goddard Creek Need pedestrian access to/from Hunter Elementary across McMillan. 24 to Palatine Please consider new cross -walk to access school south of McMillan. Citizen request to build continuous sidewalk on McMillan between McMillan, Linder to Linder and Meridian. NOTE: There is more sidewalk missing than 25 Meridian existing in this mile. Large sections of this sidewalk will be built with future development. Broadway, W. 4th to W. Spotty sidewalk segments. Segment from 4th to Meridian constructed 26 7th in 2013 by ACHD but not all the way to 7th. 27 Victory, west of Mesa Safe crossing of kids near Sienna, west of Eagle Road. Crosswalk and speed zone in front of Rocky Mountain High School. Linder, McMillan to My son goes to this school and everyday we watch helplessly as kids 28 Chinden dart across 4 lanes of traffic with cars doing 45 miles per hour. The Linder/Divide Creek crossing (CN 2014) appears to be the same as this request. Concerns about the potential of a pedestrian being hit on McMillan Road near Linder. She says she has seen two close calls in recent McMillan, Ten Mile to days, involving school children walking in that area — due to the lack 29 Linder of complete sidewalks. She says that the children are walking correctly at the edge of the road but cars are coming too close to the pedestrians, in some cases going around cars waiting to turn into subdivisions and then almost making contact with the pedestrians. 30 Chinden, east of Ten Mile Small gap in between 2 subdivisions — Spurwing and Tree Farm. Two parcels prevent continuous sidewalk. Narrow shoulder - high 31 Eagle, Zaldia to Victory speed, high volumes of traffic. Children walk to Sienna Elementary along this route. Fill in the gaps in the sidewalk on the west side of the roadway, 32 Linder, RR to Franklin between the railroad tracks and Franklin Road. Higher priority as a Roadway project; meets all users needs. Between Linder and Ten Mile there is a small gap in the sidewalk on 2695 McMillan Road the south side of McMillan (between Bridgetower and Caymus Cove 33 (Montellino/ Pallatine) Subdivisions). This gap is only about 30' long and is part of the "flag" of a county -zoned parcel. This gap would create continuous sidewalk on the south side of McMillan between Ten Mile and Linder. E. 3rd Street, Railroad An upgraded crossing of the RR tracks is needed to tie in with the 34 crossing (Pine to Franklin) pedestrian improvements existing and planned between Storey Park and downtown. 10 2014 Roadway & Intersection Priorities Legend — Area of Impact City Limits Intersection Rank Roadway Rank Interstate Principal Arterial Minor Arterial — Collector Local a.+ CO Q V t V ake Haz Print Date_ 41 V2014 0 0.5 t z 0� Miles The information shown on this map is compiled from various sources and is subject to constant revision. The City of Meridian makes no warranty or guarantee as to the content, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of any of the data provided, and assumes no legal responsibility for ft information contained on this map. Chinden F3z (��E IDIZ IAN�..- �J 11 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: April 15,2014 ITEM NUMBER: 9C PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: CD -REVIEW DRAFT DOWNTOWN STREET CROSS-SECTION Community Development: Review Draft Downtown Street Cross-section Master Plan MEETING NOTES Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: &MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS TO: Mayor Tammy de Weerd City Council Members CC: City Clerk FROM: Brian McClure, Associate Planner RE: Downtown Meridian Street Cross-sections Master Plan Mayor Tammy deWeerd City Council Members: Keith Bird Joe Borton Luke Cavener Genesis Milam Charlie Rountree David Zaremba Last October staff provided City Council with a status update on the Downtown Meridian Street Cross-section Master Plan (Plan). This long-range plan merges together a variety of ideas and goals from other adopted plans and initiatives by Meridian Development Corporation (MDC), Ada County Highway District (ACHD), and the City, into one cohesive big -picture document for downtown City Core streets. Part of the discussion during the last update on this project included next steps, and it was noted that additional coordination with ACHD would occur. Since that time the Plan has undergone additional review through several more departments at ACHD, and as a result a number of revisions and additions have been made. As a refresher, the intent of this Plan is to provide a clear and consistent vision of previously identified needs and wants in the streetscape environment, but which otherwise lacked transparent guidance and descriptions which were supportive of one another. In most cases there is no consistent direction, specified alignments or actual location of improvements, consideration for interim treatments, or priorities for improvements in constrained locations. Most streets cannot be all things to all users. This Plan addresses these issues with the goals of • identifying which street and streetscape elements and at what scale, are appropriate for improvements on specific street segments in Downtown; and Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642 Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org • clearly and consistently identifying redevelopment expectations that impact or are impacted by the street environment. To do this, the Plan identifies specific cross-sections for each street segment within the City Core and a few key entryway corridors into downtown. The City Core is the area generally located between Carlton Avenue, Ada Street, Meridian Road, and East 3`d Street. These cross-sections include descriptions and locations of sidewalks, parkways, street furnishing zones (lighting, tree - grates, etc.), back of curb, parking configurations, and more. The framework provided by these cross-sections will help to enhance synergies of efforts by local agencies and private development, and to promote appeal, reinvestment, and economic development within the City Core and greater downtown area. Each cross-section, which functions like a cut sheet, lists required elements regardless of existing conditions. Generally, requirements will only be for sidewalks/pathways consistent with the plan, and preservation for identified future improvements, but the plan also addresses broad expectations which relate to scope and scale of a project. The Plan identifies three categories of development and the expectations of improvement for each: projects exclusively by public agencies, large projects (projects that make up a majority of a block), and small projects (one or several small parcels). In this way the Plan does not burden small scale redevelopment with costly improvements, only requiring accessibility, connectivity, consistency and preservation for the roadways eventual ultimate improvement. It is worth noting that on many streets no single cross-section will work in every circumstance. For this reason, street cross-section designs are explained so as to convey intent and need, allowing for creative alternatives, rather than to simply list expectations without explanation. One item this Plan does not address is funding of infrastructure improvements. While it would be ideal to just build streets and curb lines to ultimate conditions, burdening the entirety of that cost on private stakeholders would likely prohibit any redevelopment. It is also unlikely that any single public agency would be able or willing to make full improvements on any given street. This is why the plan speaks so often to partnerships, both public-private and public -public. This is also while the Plan is not just simply a policy document, but illustrative and descriptive — the intent is to also raise awareness and educate. MDC leadership and involvement will be critical in identifying and initiating public agency led efforts, in supporting private efforts, and in coordinating multi jurisdictional cooperation. The Community Development Department will use and reference this Plan to make clear development requirements and work towards meaningful connectivity improvements; however the most valuable placemaking improvements will likely only occur as a result of partnerships. As mentioned during the last update to Council, several hundred postcards were sent to every property owner and physical address within the planning area for an open house. Staff also went door to door and left postcards with many stakeholders having previously expressed interest or which were thought to be most impacted. After light open house attendance, and after discussion 2 with Council, staff again reached out to specific business owners, especially those on Idaho Ave. Despite limited public involvement, staff is comfortable with the direction of this Plan, as the framework for most of it has already been endorsed and adopted through other policy and guidelines — this for the most part is just workable solutions to an array of unique existing conditions. Staff is requesting an endorsement of the draft Downtown Meridian Street Cross-sections Master Plan by City Council. The draft Plan has already been presented to the Meridian Development Corporation (MDC) Board for discussion, and was subsequently endorsed. Staff intends to take both endorsements from City Council and MDC, to the ACHD Commission on May 21, with a request for adoption into the Master Street Map. Once the ACHD Commission has adopted, or endorsed, the Plan staff will then return to request adoption from City Council. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE Street Cross-section Master plan SUPPORT OF: Destination: howv��owv� ( DRAFT ) C>o EN 'LAN,, - This page intentionally left blank - DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE Street Cross-section Master plan It is floe !rope 6& this Plan will 7x used to Pasitiudy or and guide tyre continual derrei fW&Tt and U"Prouenaa t Downtavn Meridian. %dais Plan is intended to Protect and suppa-t easewy hmm& excite and enceuraye nav izsi„ess and to Pre e and orate 6 ndwork of rrods, Pathways, and dtra&ffe WtV environnaen v4zh s effort m acfabe and vdrwat Plane to luny work, and P� Council Adapted on. Month, Day, Year IN SUPPORT OF: Destination: Do"&" Assembled by the Meridian Community Development Department. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CRO55-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) For questions, please call 208.884.5533. SPECIAL THANKS TO: Street Cross-section Work Group Meridian Development Corporation Ada County Highway District Contributing stakeholders Contact Information Community Development 208.884.5533 33 E Broadway Ave.. Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Economic Development 208.489.0537 33 E Broadway Ave.. Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Parks 6 Recreation 208.888.3579 33 E Broadway Ave.. Suite 206 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Attn: Meridian Development Corp. Administrator 208.477.1632 33 E Broadway Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 DistrictAda County Highway Development Services 208.38 7,610 9 3775 Adams St. Garden City, Idaho 83714 For new inquiries, the City of Meridian Community Development Department can help to coordinate efforts and direct interested parties to the correct agency staff person. 77 C%E IDIAN*-- IDAHO TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1-1 Goals............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1-1 Approach....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1-1 Howto use this document...................................................................................................................................................................................................1-1 KeyConcepts.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1-1 DesignFlexibility .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1-2 4-7 PlanOutline..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1-2 Whento Use this Document................................................................................................................................................................................................1-2 PublicAgencies.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................1-2 Largeprojects (Street Blocks)..............................................................................................................................................................................................................1-2 Small Projects (one or several parcels)............................................................................................................................................................................................1-2 CityCore: Street Map.............................................................................................................................................................................................................1-3 Creatingthe Plan.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Conceptualization...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-1 Outreach.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-1 SupportingDocuments.........................................................................................................................................................................................................2-1 ACHDPolicy Manual.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-2 Downtown Streetscape Design Guidelines....................................................................................................................................................................................2-2 City of Meridian Improvement Standards, Section 11 Streets................................................................................................................................................2-2 Cityof Meridian Unified Development Code................................................................................................................................................................................2-2 DesignManual........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-2 MeridianPathways MasterPlan.......................................................................................................................................................................................................2-2 East 3rd Street Extension Alignment Study Report....................................................................................................................................................................2-2 DestinationDowntown........................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-2 PartnerAgencies.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................2-3 AdaCounty Highway District............................................................................................................................................................................................................2-3 MeridianDevelopment Corporation................................................................................................................................................................................................2-3 Cityof Meridian...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2-3 DestinationDowntown Districts.........................................................................................................................................................................................3-1 Washingtonand Main District...........................................................................................................................................................................................................3-1 TransitOriented Development District........................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 Traditional City Core (also known as Old Town).........................................................................................................................................................................3-1 NeighborhoodPreservation Area..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3-1 treet .- Cross-section Format.............................................................................................................................................................................................................4-1 Cross-section Requirements...............................................................................................................................................................................................................4-1 Cross-section Alignments....................................................................................................................................................................................................................4-1 Cross-section Alternatives....................................................................................................................................................................................................4-1 LowImpact Development.................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-1 Parking....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4-2 ParkingRequirements..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................4-2 AccessibleDesign...................................................................................................................................................................................................................4-2 Cross-section Corridors & Segments................................................................................................................................................................................4-2 Corridor: Main Street.............................................................................................................................................................................................................4-3 Main Street: Carlton Avenue to Fairview Avenue.......................................................................................................................................................................4-4 Main Street: Ada Avenue to Carlton Avenue................................................................................................................................................................................4-5 Corridor: East 2nd Street......................................................................................................................................................................................................4-6 East 2nd Street: Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue............................................................................................................................................................. 4-7 East 2nd Street: Bower Avenue to Ada Street...............................................................................................................................................................................4-8 Corridor: East 3rd Street.......................................................................................................................................................................................................4-9 East 3rd Street: Franklin Road to Broadway Avenue...............................................................................................................................................................4-10 East 3rd Street: Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue............................................................................................................................................................4-11 Corridor: Ada Street.............................................................................................................................................................................................................4-12 AdaStreet: Main Street to East 3rd Street...................................................................................................................................................................................4-13 Corridor: Bower Street.........................................................................................................................................................................................................4-14 Bower Street: Meridian Road to East 3rd Street.........................................................................................................................................................................4-15 Corridor: Broadway Avenue...............................................................................................................................................................................................4-16 Broadway Avenue: Meridian Road to Main Street....................................................................................................................................................................4-17 Broadway Avenue: Main Street to East 2nd Street...................................................................................................................................................................4-18 Broadway Avenue: East 2nd Street to East 3rd Street.............................................................................................................................................................4-19 Corridor: Idaho Avenue.......................................................................................................................................................................................................4-20 Idaho Avenue: East 2nd Street to East 3rd Street......................................................................................................................................................................4-21 Idaho Avenue: Main Street to East 2nd Street............................................................................................................................................................................4-22 Idaho Avenue: Meridian Road to Main Street............................................................................................................................................................................4-23 Corridor: Pine Avenue..........................................................................................................................................................................................................4-24 Pine Avenue: Meridian Road to East 3rd Street.........................................................................................................................................................................4-25 Pine Avenue: West 8th Street to West 4th Street......................................................................................................................................................................4-26 Pine Avenue: West 4th Street to Meridian Road.......................................................................................................................................................................4-27 Pine Avenue: East 3rd Street to East 6th Street(Appx.)..........................................................................................................................................................4-28 Pine Avenue: East 6th (Appx.) to Locust Grove Road...............................................................................................................................................................4-29 Corridor: State Avenue........................................................................................................................................................................................................4-30 State Avenue: Meridian Road to East 3rd Street........................................................................................................................................................................4-31 Corridor: Carlton Avenue....................................................................................................................................................................................................4-32 Carlton Avenue: Meridian Road to Main Street.........................................................................................................................................................................4-33 CarltonAvenue: Main Street to East3rd Street.........................................................................................................................................................................4-34 SpecificPlans...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................5-1 Expansionof the Planning Area..........................................................................................................................................................................................5-1 EstablishingPriorities............................................................................................................................................................................................................5-1 DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION This plan was created to identify future street cross- sections within an area of downtown Meridian known as the City Core (see street map on page 1-3). Previous planning efforts have indicated basic aesthetic and infra- structure elements that were desired in the downtown area, but did not: resolve issues with alignments and identify the specific location of improvements; » provide consideration for interim conditions, or » discuss priorities for improvements in constrained areas. Part of the issue stems from a focus on areas outside of the actual roadway — those areas behind the back of curb. Without an understanding for what the ultimate design of a street is and where the back of curb would lie, there is no way to identify a starting point to ensure linear and continuous installation of partial or phased improvements along the street edge. GOALS The Downtown Meridian I City Core Street Cross-section Master Plan is designed to: identify which elements and at what scale, are appropriate for improvements on specific blocks in the City Core; and » clearly define redevelopment expectations that impact or are impacted by the street environment. The framework provided by these cross-sections is critical to enhance synergies of efforts by local agencies and private development, and to promote appeal, reinvestment, and economic development within the City Core and greater downtown area. It is expected that redevelopment with the City Core will occur as a result of partnerships and collaboration. APPROACH This plan identifies specific cross-sections for each street segment within the City Core and a few key entryway corridors into downtown. By identifying cross-sections that consider the future alignment for each street, agen- cies are more able to efficiently facilitate redevelopment opportunities in the City Core. Regardless of scope, scale, or speed of redevelopment within the City Core, this plan provides a framework that ensures: » pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular network connec- tivity is created and maintained; that future improvements are supportive of the long-term vision for downtown; and » that improvement expectations are transparent and clearly defined for agencies, developers, and property owners. Additionally, the plan seeks to build upon the previously developed Downtown Streetscape Design Guidelines by providing additional considerations for actual use of the streetscape, and not just the implementation of consistent aesthetic elements. Some streets for example should place greater emphasis on pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, due to location or being a thoroughfare, while others are much more valuable in supporting street presence for local businesses. Others still because they lack thoroughfare or arterial visibility, offer opportuni- ties for unique designs and features to generate greater awareness and attraction. KEY CONCEPTS Working with this plan is straight forward. Despite the large number of pages, the vast majority of the plan are the cross-sections contained in Chapter 4. In most cases only a few of these cross-sections will be of interest to any given stakeholder. It is important for to review and understand: » the supporting documents to this plan (Chapter 2); » how partner agencies are involved and can help (Chapter 2); » the applicable cross-section for an area or property of interest (Chapter 4); and » corridor goals and background information for each cross-section of interest (Chapter 4). This master plan is only one component of the develop- ment process, and the supporting material and processes listed in the background section must also be understood and complied with. This plan is a very high level first -step in identifying the vision for streets downtown. In some cases streets may have a more detailed and specific vision, DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) INTRODUCTION -.c.0 m.. ... y ..... a v..c—,.n ,­ —any v'.. u..c. o ." for Police. Mail addressed to MDC may also be delivered here. and may require unique solutions to work around special tions, contact the City of Meridian Planning Division circumstances or impediments. In all cases implementation at 208.884.5533. will require coordination with the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). For questions on development applica- DESIGN FLEXIBILITY It should be understood that on many streets no single cross-section will work in every circumstance. For this reason, street cross-section designs are explained so as to convey intent and needs, rather than to simply list expectations without explanation. These cross-sections allow for flexibility in design elements provided: » the intent and connectivity requirements are main- tained; » that the finished product reflects a form and function which meets the vision of the Destination Downtown plan (see Chapter 2 for information about Destina- tion Downtown); » that the design can be consistently carried through and integrated in build out conditions for an entire block; and » alignments are safe across intersections. PLAN OUTLINE Following this Chapter 1 Introduction, a background is provided in Chapter 2 explaining the history leading up to this plan and an explanation of supportive planning documents and agency roles. Chapter 3 briefly touches on existing conditions (to memorialize where we've been) and is followed by a street design discussion in Chapter 4, which includes street cross-sections. This document then concludes with next steps in Chapter 5 and some additional appendices. WHEN TO USE THIS DOCUMENT The variations in scope, size, and location of a redevel- opment, roadway, or streetscape project have different improvement requirements appropriate to the impact a project has on the surrounding environment. In general, the Features checklist included on the top -left of every cross-section in Chapter 4 provides a high-level indica- tion of what elements must be provided; items which are not marked are not applicable. In all cases preserva- tion for improvements consistent in dimension with the depicted cross-section must be provided, regardless of when improvements are installed. Preservation must be created through dedication of easement or right-of-way. Sidewalks and parkways are required, where described, and must always be installed. Other improvements are required where they can be built, and space allocated and preserved for when they cannot. Determinations with regard to what features are appropriate will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the City of Meridian Planning Division, in coordination with Ada County Highway District. PUBLIC AGENCIES For projects led by a public agency, all permanent improve- ments which can be installed, must be, and to the extent possible, consistent with the identified cross-section. This requirement should not be triggered by: fagade improvements, change of use, interim facilities, or utility/ infrastructure improvements occurring entirely within right-of-way. In no circumstance is street furniture ever required. A public agency should seek partnerships with both private development and other agencies regardless of scope to seek joint improvements, cost -savings and cost-sharing, and to coordinate timing of efforts in order to limit construction impacts. LARGE PROJECTS (STREET BLOCKS) For large projects led by private development, the expec- tation is for identified cross-section improvements to be built to their ultimate configuration, including any necessary modification to existing curb alignments and adjustments to storm -water infrastructure. Partnerships and support should be explored with public agencies for projects aligned with and supportive of the Destination Downtown plan. Large projects are defined as develop- ment along the majority of a typical downtown street block (more than half a block). SMALL PROJECTS (ONE OR SEVERAL PARCELS) For small redevelopment projects, such as those on one or several small parcels, the expectation of improvements is generally limited to preservation. Preservation will allow for installation of improvements through agency -led partnerships at a later date. Life -safety and ADA improve- ments are also required, with sidewalks installed or modi- fied consistent with the applicable cross-section to the extent possible. While placemaking improvements can be costly, they are a critical element for promoting safe and attractive environments that increase awareness and draw in an urban pedestrian environment. Partnerships should be explored to realize additional placemaking improvements with redevelopment, which is supportive of Destination Downtown and consistent with the appli- cable cross-section. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) INTRODUCTION CITY CORE: Street Map IST IR ■ ■ MERIDIAN City ■ MAIN 2ND Meridian Elementary 3RD��■ r CitCore Boundaries Traditional City Core District Washington &Main District Transit Oriented Development City t . (Old Town) sct . District Note: For a description of the various districts shown on this map, see the Destination Downtown Vision plan @ www.maridiandeveloomentcoro.com `4 i IST �F=1 �� A © DS Post Office 2 AND A HALF L Neighborhood Preservation Public Open Space Areas =DD' -"" O D' 399' North DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) INTRODUCTION This image from the Destination Downtown Vision Plan depicts urban concept for the future of downtown Meridian. Created by the Meridian Development Corporation (MDC), the City's urban renewal agency, Destination Downtown is a narrative describing the long-term vision of downtown Meridian. Comprised of six unique districts, the framework of the Plan outlines desired characteristics for the different geographic areas of the urban renewal area. Districts include the: Northern Gateway; • Southern Gateway; • Washington & Main; Traditional City Core; Transit Oriented Development / Cultural; and Neighborhood Preservation Areas. Destination Downtown (the Plan) also broadly touches on green space, transit, parking, and then delves into four main goals, also described as focus areas. These focus areas include: Livability, Mobility, Prosperity, and Sustainability. While each focus area provides several objectives and includes a number ofpriority action items, the bulkof the plan is more illustrative and intended to provide a framework for greater discussion and further refinement. The key working component of the Plan is actually a separate implementation document, titled Implementing the Vision. This supplemental material is comprised of many additional objectives and action items, categorized by the four focus areas 04 (goals). These objectives and action items identify strategies, scope, timing, and priorities. While helpful, this document did not identify champions or lead roles, and in some cases were cumbersome and difficult to implement due to complexity of tasks. To further support and assist with implementation of the Plan, City staff refined the implementation strategies by assigning lead roles for the strategies and creating smaller more manageable action items. For City led efforts, departments were identified to champion speck action items. For additional information on the Destination Downtown Vision Plan, see the Meridian Development Corporation website @ www.meridiandevelopmentcorp.com CREATING THE PLAN This master plan effort began by establishing a street cross-section work group of agency staff from the City and Ada County Highway District (ACHD), and by repre- sentatives from Meridian Development Corporation (MDC). This work group collectively discussed the long-range vision of the plan, challenges, and implementation of the cross-section plan. The work group began by exploring existing conditions and with familiarization of expectations provided by related planning efforts and existing studies. CONCEPTUALIZATION For each street, a corridor focus was determined to ensure that connectivity was maintained (or preserved), and that the street environment (existing right-of-way, buildings, land use, etc.) could support desired elements throughout the corridor. Some streets for instance are more residen- tial in nature while others are more oriented towards a pedestrian supportive commercial environment. These streets were then examined in the context of both the existing environment and what is envisioned within the Destination Downtown plan, and priorities for improve- ments were set based on identified needs. Some streets for example would prioritize pedestrian oriented commercial, and others in constrained condi- tions would need to balance improvements for all users. Not every street can cater to every need, and reasonable street cross-section widths must be maintained not only to protect existing environments and improvements, but to preserve an urban character that is comfortable and safe for motorists and non -motorists alike. Additionally, streets must be considered as a network, and the spe- cial features or conversely the burdens of one must be considered for their impacts on the others. After priorities were set for each street, such as safe routes to school or on street parking, street cross-section concepts were developed to illustrate what reasonable solutions might look like. These cross-sections were dis- cussed among the planning working group members, and then used as a launching point for broader outreach with stakeholders. OUTREACH The outreach process first targeted stakeholders likely to be more directly impacted, or who have shown past interest in this topic. Outreach was then extended to a general audience, and 434 postcards were sent out invit- ing every property owner and building tenant within the planning area to an open house. The open house was held on September 30th, 2013 in Meridian City Hall from 4pm to 6pm. Public comments were generally supportive of the draft cross-sections pre- pared by the working group. After the meeting, an online comment form was made available on the City's website to encourage and allow for additional participation. The online comment form was left up forthe month of October 2013. While most of the plan is based and reliant upon other planning documents vetted through other public processes, some of the more unique cross-sections such as those on Idaho and East 2nd, did not receive much feedback. Staff sought further involvement and comments as a result, and extended additional invitation to discuss key sections of the plan with stakeholders. There were no additional comments as a result of this subsequent outreach. See the appendices for outreach materials. In addition to public comment, the City also actively and regularly engaged ACHD and MDC to ensure their comfort and support with proposed cross-sections. While mem- bers of both agencies were on the working -group, the City coordinated with additional agency representatives. This coordination helped to ensure that other staff and members with relevant specialties were able to comment on applicability, safety, and to provide opportunities for joint partnerships in the future. DocuMENTS The Downtown Meridian I City Core Street Cross-section Master Plan is intended to work cohesively with previously adopted plans and standards adopted by the City and other partner agencies. While designed to be accessible and readable, and to convey a general vision of streets within the City Core, it is not intended or designed to provide the full breadth of information necessary for installation of actual improvements. Coordination with otherjurisdictions such as the Ada County Highway Dis- trict (ACHD), Meridian Development Corporation (MDC), impacted stakeholders, and familiarization with other requirements and standards is critical for construction of roadway improvements consistent with this plan. The following paragraphs summarize some relevant docu- ments and requirements to be considered when improving streets in the City Core. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CRO55-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) BACKGROUND ACHD POLICY MANUAL ACHD is responsible for all streets and roads in the City Core. Since this oversight includes the planning, design, construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and traffic supervision of these streets, all improvements must meet adopted ACHD Policy. This includes ACHD Tree Planting Policy. DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES The City of Meridian Downtown Streetscape Design Guidelines, by MDC, were the original design guidelines that specified product materials and installation details for streetscape improvements within the City Core. While the Downtown Streetscape Design Guidelines are no longer the enforcement or design tool used by the City and MDC for installation of improvements within the City Core, it was the principle source of design criteria and product selection requirements used during the creation of Sec- tion 11 Streets, in the City Standards (see below). These standards, while streamlined, reflect the intent and use of the original Downtown Streetscape Design Guidelines. CITY OF MERIDIAN IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 11 STREETS The City of Meridian Standards Section 11 Streets detail and describe the required products and installation meth- ods for streetscape improvements within the City Core. These standards provide specifics on different types of pavement, street furniture, landscaping, and other more detailed requirements for the streetscape environment. The Section 11 Streets standards are an integral part of this plan, and verify proper specification and installation of any street improvements made behind the back of curb(s). CITY OF MERIDIAN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE The Unified Development Code ([UDC], Title 11 of Merid- ian City Code), constitutes the official zoning ordinance for the City of Meridian. This code provides allowances and restrictions for development within the City. While the UDC does not directly regulate the look and feel of the streetscape environment within public right-of-way, it enables the other applicable standards that do. The UDC works in conjunction with the City's Design Manual and Standards to define and provide guidance for how devel- opment should look and function within the City Core. DESIGN MANUAL The City of Meridian Design Manual is a tool which communicates through formal and transparent design guidelines, the City's expectations for a safe, vibrant, and caring community. The manual is separated into several sections covering Urban, Urban/Suburban, Suburban, and Residential Developments. Section B, Design Guidelines for Urban Developments, is the applicable Design Manual section associated with development and redevelopment in the City Core. This section in conjunction with the UDC provides guidance for site and building aesthetics within the City Core. MERIDIAN PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN The City of Meridian Pathways Master Plan is a collection of design guidelines, specifications, and descriptions for both existing and future pathway locations. The purpose of the plan is to develop a comprehensive network of multi-purpose pathways that link important pedestrian generators, environmental features, historic landmarks, public facilities, Town Centers, and business districts. This plan was critical to ensure identified pathway connections were preserved for in street cross-sections. EAST 3RD STREET EXTENSION ALIGNMENT STUDY REPORT The 2009 East 3rd Street Extension Alignment Study Report by Six Mile Engineering memorializes the com- munity's desire and commitment to the construction of a missing road segment downtown. Despite East 3rd being one of only three public roads to cross the railroad tracks between Linder and Locust Grove (two -miles), the roadway does not currently connect Fairview to Franklin. The study examined several potential alignments, iden- tifying one preferred, to connect the missing section of road between Carlton and Gruber. DESTINATION DOWNTOWN The Destination Downtown plan was created by the MDC in 2010 to promote the vision of downtown Meridian. The vision, to support a family -friendly community centered around a hub of pedestrian friendly cultural, recreational, dining, and shopping opportunities, is paramount to the success of downtown. Six distinct districts divide the plan into focus areas and uses. These districts include the Northern Gateway, Neighborhood Preservation Areas, Washington & Main, Transit Oriented Development and Cultural District, the Southern Gateway, and Traditional City Core (also known as Old Town). The vision plan boundaries match the Urban Renewal Area, and extend from Fairview Ave down to the Interstate. Destination Downtown is adopted by reference in the City's Comprehensive Plan, From the Destination Downtown Vision Plan. This image is an example ` of vibrancy and activity. Paramountto the success of downtown Meridian is the realization of what makes it irreplaceable and the opportunities which set it apart from big box stores and strip malls. "The challenge for downtown is to not compete, but to be unique and special. For Meridian, what needs to be developed is a downtown that does not revolve around neighborhood retail, but is instead driven by destination retail, en- tertainment, events, and an active nightlife all located in a compact, intimate, and beautifully landscaped setting — a true gathering place." "The elements most commonly identified as missing by younger generations are what sociologist Ray Oldenburg has referred to as third places. Third places are the traditional gathering places found outside the home (our first place) and the workplace (our second place). Third places include cafes, pubs, town squares, small retail shops, village greens, and entertainment venues. Creating a third place can put a community on the map and give it a focal point, a heart, and identity. After all, besides its people, the heart and soul of any community is its downtown:' Third places must also be connected and accessible —they are not just islands independent of their surroundings. "Tourist will not go where locals are not present, so it is important to make sure that Meridian Downtown residents are active, engaged, and highly visible." Residential neighborhoods must be connected, accessible, and safe. Context sensitive street designs can connect neighbor- hoods, create comfortable environments, and increase awareness of downtown businesses. {quotes from the Destination Downtown Marketing Analysis, by Bonneville Research. 20 10) I Public plaza in Portland Oregon with a number of activities, entertainment venues, and accessible food -cart and restaurant services. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CRO55-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) BACKGROUND and staff has been actively supporting implementation of the plan through a number of directives included within the City's Comprehensive Plan. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Meridian, like all other cities in Ada County, does not own or maintain its own roadway network, and responsibility is instead left to the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). As the right-of-way authority for public roadways in Ada County, many of the traditional improvements typically paired with streets, such as streetscapes, are generally also within ACHD's oversight. For the City Core, ACHD has granted the City a master license agreement that enables the City to work more closely with MDC and other downtown stakeholders, to enhance place -making opportunities. While the City is able to regulate and make improvements in the streetscape, those elements behind the back of curb, ACHD still retains full control of the right-of-way and must approve any alterations to the street. Any improvement which impacts line of sight for vehicles, even behind the back of curb, must also be approved by ACHD prior to placement or construction. All other improvements must be coordinated with the City or MDC. ACHD involvement, feedback, and cooperation in the creation of this plan was critical, as will their ongoing par- ticipation for implementation and infrastructure improve- ments in the future. All redevelopment and place -making improvements should seek the cooperation of ACHD to maximize investment, cost-sharing, and to reduce construc- tion impacts through timing of installation, co -placement of improvements, and to install joint -use facilities. MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MDC is the City's Urban Renewal agency and was created through adoption of the Meridian Revitalization Plan, by ordinance 02-987 on December 3, 2002. The plan, which outlines special powers, duties, and obligations of MDC, also includes several major goals. These goals vary in scope, and include: » the elimination of environmental and structural deficiencies; » the assembly of land into parcels suitable for mod- ern development, » making public improvements which stimulate new economic growth; » implementing performance and design standards; » strengthen the tax base, and » creating public plazas, civic facilities, gateways, and the like. The Destination Downtown vision plan, created by MDC, was developed to supplement the tools and guidelines of the Meridian Revitalization plan with more specific projects, efforts, and direction to realize a bright and vibrant downtown Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN While the City formed an urban renewal agency to focus efforts and dedicate funding to the improvement of down- town, the City still supplies a great deal of other resources to promote economic health and vitality in the heart of the City. The Public Works Department continues to make utility infrastructure improvements within the City Core, and the Parks and Recreation Department installs and maintains all streetscape improvements, parks, and plazas within this planning area. City staff also dedicates time and resources in support of MDC led activities, from planning and coordination to administration of funds from both local and federal resources. This also includes allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars. With the City's heavy involvement and active participation in efforts towards realizing a vibrant downtown, develop- ment interests in Downtown should seek to understand on-going City improvements and activities that may be jointly beneficial, in order to realize cost -savings or capitalize onjoint-venture opportunities. The Community Development Department can facilitate inquiries about City led efforts, and communicate standard policies and procedures for development within the City Core. r _ ry— —'From the Destination Downtown Vision Plan. This image is an example of pedestrian improvements to enhance safety. Wide pedestrian walkways, trees, plant material, trafficcalming features, and pedestrian scale design elements help to make pedestrians a priority focus (The Gateway, in Sah Lake City, UT). tc� Vehicular traffic and even on -street parking may be important on pedestrian oriented streets, but the priority is to create safe and comfortable pedestrian environments that promote connectivity, activity, and social experiences. A few benefits of pedestrian oriented streets include: » Enhanced safety - Wider sidewalks, on -street parking, landscaped parkways, and other physical buffers such as street furniture all provide greater separation of pedestrian and vehicular ar- eas, which enhances pedestrian safety.' Safer, accessible, and attractive environments support uses typical in a traditional downtown, where walking and leisurely activity is expected. » Vibrancy - Streets with active pedestrian life become vibrant cultural and economic centers that not only draw visitors from surrounding areas, but encourage Third Place. The principle of Third Place, as written by sociologist Ray Oldenburg, is a "setting beyond home and work (the "first" and "second" places respectively) in which people relax in good company and do so on a regular basis:'[ » Health & Comfort - Street trees and other landscaping not only provide shade and reduce heatisland, which creates more comfortable environments for leisurely activity, but they are also shown to reduce stress, by reducing mental fatigue and feelings of irritability.' I Tumlin, J. (2012). Sustainable Transportation planning. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2 Oldenburg, R. (2001). Celebrating the Third Place. Marlow & Company. 3 University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign. (Vol. I No. b). Cooler in the Shade: Aggression and Violence are Reduced with Nature Nearby. University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign, Human -Environment Research Laboratory. University of Illinois at Urbana -Champaign DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) BACKGROUND 3. Exisnm6 CONDITIONS Downtown Meridian and more specifically the City Core is a collection of old and new. Some streets lack basic sidewalk improvements and others are equipped with enhanced lighting, parkways, and other aesthetic improve- ments. Similarly, properties and existing structures vary from old and in disrepair to new and state-of-the-art. A number of buildings in the City Core are historic with their construction dating back more than 100 years. Uses also vary, from single -level commercial and industrial to multi-level mixed use and residential. Right-of-way (ROW) for streets in downtown is typically limited to 80 -feet, with some streets having as little as 50 -feet. In some locations limited ROW can be overcome either because of generous setbacks of existing structures and facilities or because redevelopment is likely to occur. However, other locations for a variety of reasons are likely restricted to what's currently available. This plan is sensi- tive to ROW and, wherever possible, works with existing availability to minimize impacts to property owners and structures. In many areas of downtown storm -water infrastructure is old and accurate data is not always available for the loca- tion and sizing of facilities. Storm -water is an important consideration for any development making improve- ments along public right-of-way, and best discussed and investigated early on. DESTImATiom DowNTOWm DISTRICTS The following is a brief summary describing the state of existing conditions for Destination Downtown districts impacted by this plan. WASHINGTON AND MAIN DISTRICT The Washington and Main District has successfully devel- oped into a charming area with a number of residential to commercial conversions, infill projects, and an assortment of professional services, dining, and retail uses. Buildings are generally well maintained with interesting architecture, improved landscaping, and as a whole are very inviting. There are occasional gaps in sidewalks and streets do not generally have consistent streetscape thematic elements. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT The Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Cultural District promotes multi -modal access and transit sup- portive densities to provide for future transit services to downtown. Today, existing uses within the TOD are almost all low-density. Residential areas are isolated and lack any pedestrian friendly connectivity within core areas of downtown, and other uses are generally auto -oriented or industrial in nature. City Hall is the only notable new improvement within the Destination Downtown TOD vision. The multi -story structure provides interesting architecture, supports a large work -force, was developed in conjunction with a public plaza, and supports pedestrian friendly community events. TRADITIONAL CITY CORE (ALSO KNOWN AS OLD TOWN) The Traditional City Core (TCC) on the surface very much presents the appearance of a traditional downtown area, but for the most part lacks any integrated mixed uses or residential opportunities. The TCC has not yet been able to attract enough destination uses to create and sup- port a lively environment, or regularly draw people in from the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Activities are generally limited to peak hours and special events, with off hours largely vacant of pedestrians. The COM- PASS and VRT building is a notable new construction project which reduced blight and provides a desirable architectural aesthetic, but is more akin to development within a strictly employment area, or as a resource for transit supportive development within the TOD (which it is immediately adjacent to). No new projects within the TCC have included a residential component, created additional draw to neighboring residential areas, and have not created synergies to support or enhance other desired TCC uses and an active pedestrian environment. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION AREA Though very little of the Neighborhood Preservation Areas (NPA) overlap the planning area of this document, they are essential in supporting Destination Downtown, which this plan builds upon. While some residential infill and redevelopment has occurred, improved and renovated properties are generally isolated and do not truly feel like part of downtown, other than to be in an older area. Connectivity with the core areas of downtown is limited with sidewalks frequently in disrepair, missing, or unus- able due to poor drainage and other existing conditions. Lighting is often inadequate, and a number of existing uses create the appearance of an unsafe environment. Pedestrian activity is generally non-existent, and there appears to be very limited synergies shared between most of the residential areas with the core downtown area. IT=0R1 ENTEDiDE��:EL'OPMENT From the Destination Downtown Vision Plan. This image is an example of transit oriented development. Transit -oriented development (TOD) is compact, mixed-use development near transit facilities and high-quality walking environments. The Transit Cooperative Research Program concludes that the typical TOD leverages transit infrastructure to promote economic development and smart growth, and to cater to shifting market demands and lifestyle preferences. TOD is about creating sustainable communities where people of all ages and incomes have transportation and housing choices, in- creasing location efficiency where people can walk, bike and take transit. In addition, TOD boosts transit ridership and reduce automobile congestion, providing value for both the public and private sectors, while creating a sense of community and place'. Meridian's future Transit Oriented Development and Cultural District includes those areas in Downtown Meridian around the Railroad Corridor, between Franklin Road and Broadway Avenue. By laying the groundwork for future public transit opportunities, Meridian would be able to offer residents and visitors convenient and sustainable transportation options within the City and greater Treasure Valley area. Benefits of a TOD include: I Federal Transit Administration. (n.d.). Transit Oriented Development. Retrieved October 4, 2013, from US Department of Transportation: http://ww ..fta.dot.gov/12347 6932.htmi 11 rift AN �1. • reduced vehicular congestion;' • greater access to services and activities;' • reduces household spending on vehicular transportation' • promotes a healthier lifestyle with more walking,' • more affordable transportation through increased densi- ties;' and • reduces sprawl through infill and compact development 3 2 Federal Transit Administration.(n.d.). Transit Oriented Development. Retrieved October 4, 2013, from US Department of Transportation: httr.flwwwfta.dot,gov/12347 6932.html 3 US Departmentof Transportation.(2005, December). Transit Oriented Development. Retrieved from TOD: Lessons Learned: http://www.fta. dot.gov/dmuments/TOD—Lessons—Learned-12_21.pdf DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CRO55-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) EXISTING CONDITIONS 4. STREET PES14H Each street segment in the plan has an identified cross- section. Street segments are generally those areas with a consistent design, but some streets may have additional segments because they are intersected by major road- ways or have other special considerations. The following is provided with each segment: » a typical cross-section exhibit; » a chart comparing existing vs. ultimate conditions; and narrative describing the design, intent, special con- siderations, and implementation. CROSS-SECTION REQUIREMENTS Cross-section exhibits represent a desired vision of the future and address identified needs and features from other transportation and vision planning documents, but do not necessarily reflect all conditions and some varia- tion may be required. The supporting narrative describes not only why certain elements exist or how the street is likely to reach a fully improved and ultimate condition, but also what any variation to the plan must address. Regardless of cross-section or extent of variations, each street must not only support identified needs, but do so consistently for the length of a block and sometimes throughout the entire corridor. While some variations are likely, they should occur only as a result of obstructive existing conditions, for intersection configurations, or to provide additional improvements and features which better serve the pedestrian environment. All future variations to this plan must seamlessly integrate with the designated cross-section, or be consistently carried through for the length of a block or corridor as appropriate. CROSS-SECTION ALIGNMENTS For each cross-section to be realized, the identification of a starting point and alignment for future street configu- rations is critical. While some improvements may occur as a result of improvements for the length of an entire block, others may be intermittent occurring mid -block (for example). The starting point for an alignment, identified as the centerline of the existing road (or in some cases as the edge of existing ROW), is used to ensure that regard- less of existing conditions, some improvements (such as sidewalks) may be improved gradually. Each cross-section generally identifies the existing centerline of roadway, edge of existing ROW, and directional orientation. It is the intention of this plan that gradual and partial improve- ment of the street environment be considerate to both public and private funds, and be installed in their ultimate configuration wherever possible. In general, improvements should be installed consistent with existing curbs, and curb alignments only modified to ultimate configurations when they can appropriately transition into existing improvements (such as with drive- ways or street corners), or when the curb can be adjusted for the length of an entire street segment. Dimensional standards for the installation of some elements such as streetscape improvements may not always be feasible without other modification to the curb alignment and storm -water infrastructure, in which case improvements must be designed with flexibility for expansion to ultimate configurations later (including preservation of space to do so). Opportunities should be explored for interim condi- tions which maximize immediate value, and for providing resources to jointly finish improvements when ultimate conditions may be realized. CROSS-SECTIOm ALTERNATIVES While most cross-sections are intended to bear some flexibility, there are cases where significant design alterna- tives may be needed. The intent of design alternatives is not to allow for a reduction of facilities. Instead, they are intended to allow for more preferential improvements that require greater participation and partnerships that may otherwise be financially infeasible for smaller scale redevelopment. Alternatives may also be used to accom- modate special site conditions with respect to existing trees, utilities, and to resolve other unique existing conditions. These alternatives should strive to maintain proposed alignments, and still provide improvements consistent with identified priorities for each cross-section segment. In no case should design alternatives be allowed which are detrimental to planned connectivity or negatively impact street network operations, which is not supportive of the long-term Destination Downtown vision, or which compromises safety. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT Low Impact Development (LID), also known as Green Storm -water Infrastructure ([GSI], and included more broadly under the term of Green Infrastructure [GI]), is, at a very basic level, storm -water management and treatment processes intended to protect our water resources. There are however other benefits to LID, including aesthetic Low Impact Development in Portland, Oregon. For more information, see www.cleanrivers do x.org Low Impact Development (LID) also known as green infrastructure, is an ecologically -based stormwater management approach favoring soft engineering to manage rainfall on site. The goal of LID is to sustain a site's pre -development hydrologic regime by using techniques that when pos- sible infiltrate, filter, store, and evaporate stormwater runoff close to its source. Contrary to traditional "pipe -and -pond" conveyance infrastructure that channels runoff elsewhere through pipes, catchment basins, curbs, and gutters, LID often remediates polluted runoff onsite or through a network of distributed treatment landscapes.' Permeable surfaces as a finished grade material is one basic form of LID. A permeable hardscape surface, as opposed to traditional non -permeable asphalt or concrete, allows water to pass through gaps or porous material and infiltrate, rather than flowing into other conveyance facilities. Unit pavers are a common form of permeable surface as they are durable and easy to maintain, and come in a wide variety of forms and uses. Other less modular materials include permeable concrete and asphalt. Maintenance is an important consideration with permeable surfaces, and the location and environment should be an important consideration when choosing the type. Some permeable surfaces are more difficult to clean or are more sensitive to runoff with debris. Tree trenches are another LID tool well suited for use in an urban environment. Tree trenches are a structural framework, used in lieu of heavily compacted soils directly beneath a paved surface. This subgrade framework supports the roadway and/or pedestrian sidewalk or plaza environment. Large hollow cavities within the framework and below the finished grade allows the use of non -compacted soils to promote plant I Architecture, Fay Jones School of. LID a design manual for urban areas. Fayette- ville, Arkansas: University of Arkansas Press, 2010. Water is conveyed into a rain garden between breaks I in curbing and through permeable stone pavers, in Portland, Oregon. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN Low impact development (green infrastructure) system and trail Kaiser Permanente in Modesto, CA growth, increase the water storage capacity of the soil (loose soil can hold more water), and provide easy access to buried utilities (in conjunction with unit pavers). Silva Cells by dee- proot are one example of a modular tree trench framework. Rain gardens are another form of LID bioretention which not only store stormwater, but also mitigates for pollutants. Mitigation of stormwater pollutant is accomplished through phytoremediation processes (treatment of toxins with plants and organics), as runoff passes through the plant and soil com- munity. Rain gardens combine layers of organic sandy soil for infiltration and mulch to promote microbial activity. Native plants are recommended based upon their intrinsic synergies with local climate, soil, and moisture conditions without the use of fertilizers and chemicals. Rain gardens are best applied landscaping improvements and opportunities to use them as buffers between pedestrian facilities and the roadway. LIDS may also be able to provide both short-term and long-term cost savings through planning and partner- ships of multi-purpose facilities. While LID is desired for protection of our interconnected system of rivers, creeks, and riparian outdoor recreation facilities, from excessive discharge and pollution, they may also be required with increasingly complex and stringent federal permits for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems. on a relatively small scale. They work well along drive in low lying areas of a property.' Bioswales are another bioretention device in which mitigation occurs through phytoremediation and sim ral processes. Bioswales combine treatment and coi services, reducing land development costs by elimin need for costly conventional conveyance systems. l function of a bioswale is to treat stormwater runo conveyed, whereas the main function of a rain gar, treat stormwater runoff as it is infiltrated. Bioswales found located along roads, drives, or parking lots.' I Architecture, Fay Jones School of. LID a design manual areas. Fayetteville, Arkansas. University of Arkansas Press LID and other green infrastructure are preferred design alternatives to parkways in some locations of the City Core. LID's should not however be installed where improvements would significantly restrict safe pedestrian activity, particularly in locations with zero -setback development. LIDS are very appropri- ate in landscaped bulbouts, parkways, medians, and spaces where pedestrian activity is not envisioned, or where adjacent facilities will meet the described intent. Preferred types of LID include permeable pavers, bioswales, and tree trenches. Streets most appropriate for LIDS are generally those seg- ments with landscaped parkway strips, and buildings with larger setbacks, though tree trenches may be integrated almost anywhere. Some appropriate roadway segments for consideration of LID improvements may include: » Bower between Main and East 3rd; » Idaho between Meridian and Main (full redevelop- ment); » State (depending on property owner interest); » Carlton (depending on property owner interest); » Main North of Carlton; and » Pine in residential areas and where existing trees can be protected. LIDS should also be considered for smaller, interconnected systems throughout Downtown. Regardless of where low impact development is installed, design features should ensure that on -street parking is easily accessible and that 5 -foot sidewalks at a minimum are still provided. When LID's are not ancillary and directly integrate with existing storwmater management systems for a roadway, they will require extensive analysis, planning, and coordina- tion for integration into existing systems. These systems require very specialized plant materials, soils, and other construction materials to maximize efficiency and value, and to meet local, state, and federal standards. For more information on LID, see sidebars on page 4-1 and 4-2. This street cross-section master plan is not a parking plan. While parking is a critical issue and an essential continu- ing discussion, because this plan has no horizon year and represents a build out, the evolving nature of the topic is better left to more dynamic and comprehensive con- siderations. While it is possible to estimate future needs, when and where those needs occur requires solutions to be more flexible. Solutions that also take into account interim and progressive needs, and that also consider on-site redevelopment requirements and future off- street public parking facilities. This plan is considerate of on -street parking provisions, provides consideration for impacts, and recommends minor improvements to optimize efficient on -street availability, but ultimately on - street parking needs to be considered as part of a larger and more comprehensive parking management plan. PARKING REQUIREMENTS In general all redevelopment which does not provide access to public or shared parking lots, and which have or may have alley accesses, should remove curb -cuts and driveways from public roadways. Private off-street parking facilities should only take access from public roadways when alleyway access is not available, or traffic to the property would create unsafe traffic conditions. Within the urban environment, protection of and provision for multi-purpose public parking should take priority over limited single -use private facilities, when one may nega- tively impact the other. In areas where on -street parking may be significantly reduced due to future improvements by identified cross- sections, implementation of this plan should consider triggers and thresholds for prioritizing and phasing improvements, such that parking is not lost in one area without appropriate and timely compensation in others. Opportunities should be explored by the parking author- ity (MDC) to consider and balance current, interim, and ultimate parking needs, and to make or require improve- ments which are fair to existing stakeholders, without unintentionally discouraging redevelopment. Future development will ultimately determine need, but a park- ing management plan should be considered to identify projected needs, solutions, and most importantly create realistic implementation strategies. It is the intention of this plan that all future facilities are constructed with thoughtful design that seamlessly integrates accessibility features for all ages and abilities. At a minimum, this plan supports the Americans with Disability Act, and all requirements within the current ADA Standards for Accessible Design, as published by the United States Department of Justice, must be met. CORRIDORS The following pages function as cut -sheets and contain cross-sections for each street segment within the planning area. Measurements are always in an orientation perpen- dicular to the existing centerline. Sizes are approximate and based on Geographic Information System (GIS) roadway centerline and right-of-way data. Record GIS information is kept by the City for centerline and right-of-way data used by this plan. All improvements must be surveyed and verified prior to final design and installation. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN : Main Main is the primary roadway into the heart of Down- town. While Meridian Road may facilitate more traffic through the area, it is not as accessible or visible to most downtown businesses, and is not supportive of the pedestrian environment contributing to the charm, appeal, and marketability of downtown. With the completion of the split corridor project, Meridian Road supports higher speed through traffic prefer- ences, and provides the framework for Main to be an inviting environment that balances connectivity and pedestrian safety, making special events, shopping, and dining more attractive. Main extends the full length of the Urban Renewal Area and is integral to the connectivity of all of the districts described in the Destination Downtown vision plan. Within the extents of this planning area, Main connects the Washington and Main District, the Traditional City Core (TCC), and the Transit Oriented Development District (TOD). Main is also integral to the identification of each district, and provides the greatest opportunity and visibility for distinct district thematic. Reflective of both existing conditions and vision plan descriptions of the future, there is a north to south intensification of land use moving south from the Wash- ington and Main District into the TOD. This transition is supportive of the smaller residential to commercial conversion and infill redevelopment to the north, and encourages more dense development within the TCC and TOD, necessary to someday support transit opportunities along the rail corridor to the south. Main between Ada and Franklin is constrained by a unique roadway and traffic configurations in support of the split corridor cross-over. Gradually changing conditions make single cross-sections ineffective to address this area, but streetscape improvements and way -finding enhancements should never -the -less be proactively implemented as an entryway corridor into Downtown. Priorities should be on maintaining pleasant and safe pedestrian connectivity despite the vehicle focus, by adding street trees, pedestrian lighting, and making all reasonable efforts to provide for detached sidewalks. Improvements should be parallel to and follow the back of curbs, except where bulb outs or curb extrusions may occur. Ise Looking south along Main Street, between Pine Avenue and Idaho Avenue. LOCATION MAP Looking north along Main, between Ada and Bower. Generations Plaza: located on the north-east corner of Main and Idaho, Generations plaza is a downtown anchor that enhances the visibility, attractiveness, and draw of downtown Meridian. The plaza provides pedestrian amenities, supports community special events, and creates additional opportunities for attractive outdoor dining and catering frontage. Looking north along Main, between Pine and State. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN �i OMEN SO Looking north along Main, between Ada and Bower. Generations Plaza: located on the north-east corner of Main and Idaho, Generations plaza is a downtown anchor that enhances the visibility, attractiveness, and draw of downtown Meridian. The plaza provides pedestrian amenities, supports community special events, and creates additional opportunities for attractive outdoor dining and catering frontage. Looking north along Main, between Pine and State. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN MAIN STREET: Carlton Avenue to Fairview Avenue j CARLTON VE (View Facing North} 9 Design is hosed on extents Preservation PINE VE of existing ROW. Maintain existing curhline along Parkingv IJ ' parallel parking. Sidewalks ; c Pathway T IM � Streetscape Buffer .. IM Z < Q Parkway Buffer ADA %T F_ Furniture y FG_ lighting ✓ Required. 0 Desired —1 Existing edge of ROW L Maintain existing curh lines with parallel parking (typ.) 14' Pedestrian MAIN STREET Carlton Avenue to Fairview Avenue CONSIDERATIONS: Maintain existing CL of road Existing edge of ROW 26'to CL of Road 26'to CL of Rand 14! Pedestrian 11' 17 II' 0161, 7-8' B-7' Drive Lane Center Turn Lane Drive Lane I Parallel Parking Streetscape Walkway Main north of Carlton is a traditional downtown street lined predominately with residential to commercial conversions and some infill redevelopment. Restaurants and profes- sional services are the predominate types of existing uses, with some government services and a number of historic structures. The street is critical for north -south vehicular and pedestrian connectivity into downtown, and is the primary arterial access for business and residential access between Fairview and Franklin. This roadway segment is outside of the planning area, and not covered by the City's ROW master license agreement with ACHD. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is to maintain and improve connectivity, and to balance the needs of both automo- tive and pedestrian uses. Detached walkways and land- scape buffers are the top priority, with on -street parking also being critical. Street trees, signage, and lighting are intended to be consistent thematic elements, with pavers and streetscape furniture occurring where appropriate, and must be carried forward as consistent entryway thematic elements for the length of the corridor. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: The only significant variation to the typical existing (2013) street cross-section is the potential for short center median islands. These islands are envisioned to occur where traf- fic patterns will be minimally impacted, generally only restricting alleys from becoming through streets, and be built to provide additional aesthetic and thematic benefits to the street environment. In some cases planter strips between the back of curb and detached sidewalk may be preferred over pavers, especially in conditions where building setbacks are further from the roadway, but should still integrate other typical improvements. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: In most cases the actual roadway for the Main cross- section is already built -out with little need for roadway reconfiguration. Future improvements will generally be located behind the back of curb or involve relatively minor curb line adjustments, and occur either through private redevelopment and infill projects or improvements by MDC and partner agencies. PF v WON Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Three lanes with Three lanes with center center turn lane turn lane Parking Parallel (both sides) Parallel (both sides) Parking Capacity' Varies Varies Walkways (ea. side) B -feet detached. 6 -feet detached, min. varies Buffer (ea. side) Varies by area B -feet landscape buffer Pathway None None Bike support Sharrows Sharrows ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON VE PINE VE Z � G Z < Q ADA %T I Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Three lanes with Three lanes with center center turn lane turn lane Parking Parallel (both sides) Parallel (both sides) Parking Capacity' Varies Varies Walkways (ea. side) B -feet detached. 6 -feet detached, min. varies Buffer (ea. side) Varies by area B -feet landscape buffer Pathway None None Bike support Sharrows Sharrows ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN MAIN STREET: Ada Avenue to Carlton Avenue Existing edge of ROW 14' Pedestrian Ada Avenue to Carlton Avenue CONSIDERATIONS: Maintain existing curb lines L Maintain existing CL of road Existing edge of ROW with parallel parking (typ.) ,. 11' 17 II' 0161, 7-8' 8-7' Drive Lane Center Turn Lane Drive Lane Parallel Parking7 Streetscape Walkway Main between Ada and Carlton is a traditional downtown street lined predominately with older buildings and some infill redevelopment. Restaurants and professional services are the predominate types of existing uses, with some gov- ernment services and a number of historic structures. The street is critical for north -south vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, and is the primary arterial access for busi- ness and residential uses between Fairview and Franklin. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is to maintain and improve connectivity, and balance the needs of both automotive and pedestrian uses. Detached walkways and landscape buffers are the top priority, with on -street parking also being critical. Street trees, signage, pavers, and lighting are intended to be consistent thematic elements, and must be carried forward appropriately as consistent entryway thematic elements for the length of the corridor. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: The only significant variation to the typical existing (2013) street cross-section is the potential for short center median islands. These islands are envisioned to occur where traf- fic patterns will be minimally impacted, generally only restricting alleys from becoming through streets, and be built to provide additional aesthetic and thematic ben- efits to the street environment. On -street parking should generally be parallel where it occurs, with angled parking discouraged due to traffic and safety impacts, especially for bicycle users. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: In most cases the actual roadway for the Main Street cross- section is already built -out with little need for roadway reconfiguration. Future improvements will generally be located behind the back of curb, and occur either through private redevelopment and infill projects, or improvements by MDC and partner agencies. Driveways and unnecessary access points to Main should be restricted or removed with redevelopment, particularly near alleyways. r I LOO OATIOO N MAP CARLTON VE I f1liewFacing North} cDesign O is based on extents i� Preservation-' °' p�'> oiexisting ROW. Maintain existing curMine along' Parkingv z •� parallel parking. V' Sidewalks ! o w f c a Pathway f �N Fe Streetscape Buffer m �` F_ Parkway Buffer c F6_ Furniture y FG_ Lighting ✓ Required. 0 Desired —14 ..., C —1 ,.. Existing edge of ROW 14' Pedestrian Ada Avenue to Carlton Avenue CONSIDERATIONS: Maintain existing curb lines L Maintain existing CL of road Existing edge of ROW with parallel parking (typ.) ,. 11' 17 II' 0161, 7-8' 8-7' Drive Lane Center Turn Lane Drive Lane Parallel Parking7 Streetscape Walkway Main between Ada and Carlton is a traditional downtown street lined predominately with older buildings and some infill redevelopment. Restaurants and professional services are the predominate types of existing uses, with some gov- ernment services and a number of historic structures. The street is critical for north -south vehicular and pedestrian connectivity, and is the primary arterial access for busi- ness and residential uses between Fairview and Franklin. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is to maintain and improve connectivity, and balance the needs of both automotive and pedestrian uses. Detached walkways and landscape buffers are the top priority, with on -street parking also being critical. Street trees, signage, pavers, and lighting are intended to be consistent thematic elements, and must be carried forward appropriately as consistent entryway thematic elements for the length of the corridor. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: The only significant variation to the typical existing (2013) street cross-section is the potential for short center median islands. These islands are envisioned to occur where traf- fic patterns will be minimally impacted, generally only restricting alleys from becoming through streets, and be built to provide additional aesthetic and thematic ben- efits to the street environment. On -street parking should generally be parallel where it occurs, with angled parking discouraged due to traffic and safety impacts, especially for bicycle users. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: In most cases the actual roadway for the Main Street cross- section is already built -out with little need for roadway reconfiguration. Future improvements will generally be located behind the back of curb, and occur either through private redevelopment and infill projects, or improvements by MDC and partner agencies. Driveways and unnecessary access points to Main should be restricted or removed with redevelopment, particularly near alleyways. r I LOO OATIOO N MAP Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Three lanes with Three lanes with center center turn lane turn lane Parking Parking Capacity' Parallel/Angled (both sides) III Parallel (both sides) 82 Walkways (ea. side) 8 -feet detached. B -feet detached, min. varies Buffer (ea. side) Varies 8 -feet per standards Pathway None None Bike Support None Sharrows ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hydrants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON VE PINE VE 0 z Q � o o w f z a � a ADA ST I Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Three lanes with Three lanes with center center turn lane turn lane Parking Parking Capacity' Parallel/Angled (both sides) III Parallel (both sides) 82 Walkways (ea. side) 8 -feet detached. B -feet detached, min. varies Buffer (ea. side) Varies 8 -feet per standards Pathway None None Bike Support None Sharrows ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hydrants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN 2 East 2nd ends on its north extent at Carlton, to the south at Franklin, and is also interrupted bythe Railroad properties immediately south of Broadway (with no crossing). Despite the lack of north -south connectivity, East 2nd is important both for local vehicular traffic and for pedestrian connectivity within the Traditional City Core (TCC). The shorter block lengths enhance accessibility and visibility for businesses, and provide great connectivity for those looking to live in walkable residential neighborhoods with access to goods and services. Within the planning area, East 2nd primarily serves the TCC, but also supports the Transit Oriented Devel- opment & Cultural district (TOD) to the south of the railroad tracks. The local connectivity on each segment of the corridor is critical for both of these districts, and more -so than even Main, provides the opportunity to enhance multi -modal and pedestrian friendly uses and activities, which is absolutely essential to critical elements of the Destination Downtown vision plan. The support for and provision of vibrant and active streets and streetscapes is paramount to the vision of Looking south along E 2nd, between State and Pine. the TCC, and the limited out -of -network connectivity for this roadway provides a unique opportunity to support these activities without creating congestion on more through corridors. LOCATION MAP Looking south along E 2nd, between State and Pine. Meridian Community Center: just down the street from Generations Plaza, the Community Center holds the south-east corner of Idaho and E 2nd. Formerly a police station, the Community Center now provides a central and convenient location for a variety of classes and events. The Meridian Community center is adjacent to Centennial Park. Looking south along E 2nd, between Carlton and State. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON AVE E AV E 0 Z a i - L u�� rT7"rC � Z � c ADA 5T Looking south along E 2nd, between State and Pine. Meridian Community Center: just down the street from Generations Plaza, the Community Center holds the south-east corner of Idaho and E 2nd. Formerly a police station, the Community Center now provides a central and convenient location for a variety of classes and events. The Meridian Community center is adjacent to Centennial Park. Looking south along E 2nd, between Carlton and State. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN EAST 2ND STREET: Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue FEATURE -S It/ Preservation FG_ Parking i� Sidewalks Pathway FG_ Streetscape Buffer F_ Parkway Buffer F6_ Furniture FG_ Lighting ✓ Required. • Desired " �t3 Existing edge of ROW Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue CONSIDERATIONS: East 2nd between Broadway and Carlton consists of short block lengths with frequent cross -street and alley inter- sections. The only through cross -street on this segment however is Pine, with all other streets dead -ending within a mile. This limited connectivity is less conducive to heavy traffic movements and provides additional opportunities for pedestrian supportive focus and enhancement. INTENT: This street segment is unique in that the short block lengths and limited traffic allow for multiple cross-sections, which while consistent in thematic and alignment, offer a vari- ety of configurations. Priority improvements should be focused on a wider pedestrian environment with emphasis on unique and memorable place -making configurations. Mn w I i ' d n3i y fw NOW 'twom {view Facing North} Design is hosed on extents of existing ROW. Existing edge of ROW 21'to CL of Road 21' to CL of Road 19' Pedestrian I I I I Note: See the appendices for alternative cross-section designs While cross-section configurations with increased parking are provided, in most conditions parking servicing local businesses should be consolidated off-street or located elsewhere, allowing for a more lively and dynamic pedes- trian environment that increases area draw. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: East 2nd is intended to be a charming traditional down- town street that is able to cater to social shopping and dining experiences through unique design enhancements and comfortable pedestrian spaces. While trees are kept to provide a more pedestrian scaled and comfortable pedestrian environment, they are pulled further from the buildings to allow for more unobstructed business and community streetscape uses, such as outdoor dining. Cross-section options exist for medians or other special street features such as topiary or artwork. See appendix. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: As a segment, the frequent cross -street and alley breaks allow East 2nd to be developed more piecemeal than many other areas of the City Core. However, the curb -less nature of the identified cross-sections and resulting grade changes with new facilities will likely require improvements to be made for the full width of the cross-section (both sides of the road). It may be possible for redevelopment to occur in half -block increments, between a cross -street and alley, but there is likely greater long term cost -savings to do a whole block at a time. Storm -water is an important con- sideration. Improvements should occur as public-private partnerships to generate and foster greater place -making, raise awareness, and be supportive of new businesses or renovations able to make use of the facilities. LOCATION MAP Comparison of Existing and Ultimate Conditions Cross-section Width 80 -feet (ROW) 80 -feet Road Two-way Two-way. curb -less Parking Angled and parallel Angled, parallel, and none Parking Capacity' 79 57 (may vary) Attached, detached. Detached or bollard Walkways (ea. side) and missing segments. separated, width varies. 5 -feet or less 5 -feet min. Buffer (ea. side) Varies Varies, min 19' where exists with walkway Pathway None None Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hydrants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON VE itiE AVE 0 z Q � o 0 Z. Q ADA %T I Comparison of Existing and Ultimate Conditions Cross-section Width 80 -feet (ROW) 80 -feet Road Two-way Two-way. curb -less Parking Angled and parallel Angled, parallel, and none Parking Capacity' 79 57 (may vary) Attached, detached. Detached or bollard Walkways (ea. side) and missing segments. separated, width varies. 5 -feet or less 5 -feet min. Buffer (ea. side) Varies Varies, min 19' where exists with walkway Pathway None None Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hydrants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN EAST 2ND STREET: Bower Avenue to Ada Street FEATURE -S It/ Preservation FG_ Parking Sidewalks Pathway Streetscape Buffer F_ Parkway Buffer F_ Furniture F_ lighting ✓ Required. • Desired 0 0 (view Facing North} Design is based an extents of existing RDW. ..,many cuyu u1 nun ..,many — ui I uuu uyc m nun 5' Pedestrian I 19' B" to CL of Road Bower Avenue to Ada Street CONSIDERATIONS: East 2nd between Bower and Ada, much like the seg- ment north of Broadway, consists of short blocks lengths intersected by multiple cross -streets and alleys. This street segment dead -ends at Bower along properties with rear abutment to the railroad corridor. The street is currently dominated by older single-family residential housing, in an area largely cutoff from the rest of the City Core and surrounded by major arterials and industrial uses. Exist- ing public ROW is limited to approximately 49 -feet, and with parcels both small in overall size and short in depth, acquiring more ROW is unlikelyto occur. Additional mobil- ity improvements, streetscape enhancements, and general redevelopment within the Destination Downtown vision, without concerted parcel assembly efforts, will be difficult. 19' B" to CL of Road M 5' Pedestrian INTENT: Sidewalks and then on -street parking are the priority. There is no existing ROW available for other improvements or enhancements, and additional acquisition is unlikely to occur. If through redevelopment or parcel assembly additional ROW is made available, Streetscape improvements should focus on safety and pedestrian supportive improvements and activities, such as detached walkways and landscape buffers consistent with other areas of downtown. Main- taining unique assets such as existing trees should be a priority, and improvements should be careful to avoid their removal whenever possible. On -street parking should be secondary to preserving existing assets. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: Though this cross-section requires limited improvements in ultimate conditions, the narrow streets and older trees provide their own unique charm and character to the street environment. Interim and ultimate improvements which continue to build upon this aesthetic with large canopy deciduous trees will help to provide a comfortable and active pedestrian environment. The narrow roadway, on -street parking, and limited connectivity should keep automotive speeds slow, and reinforce the neighborhood feel. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Implementation of this roadway segment is most likely to occur through redevelopment. While future access to alternative transportation is likely to create demand for higher density and mixed uses, with limited existing connectivity and visibility, development will likely be slow to occur until transit services are made available. Street improvements are minimal however and may occur gradu- ally with individual parcel redevelopment. I LOCATION MAP Cross-section Width 49-feet(ROW) 49 -feet Road Two-way CARLTON VE Parking Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' IB IB Attached. various Walkways (ea. side) PINE i VE service Buffer (ea. side) None None Pathway None None Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future 0 do not indicate interim conditions, and assume z section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions Q � o o w f Z a f a ADA T Cross-section Width 49-feet(ROW) 49 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' IB IB Attached. various Walkways (ea. side) widths and gaps in Attached. 5 -foot min. service Buffer (ea. side) None None Pathway None None Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CORRIDOR. East 3rd Street Other than the Meridian Road and Main, East 3rd is the only other north -south roadway between Linder and Locust Grove which crosses the railroad tracks. The corridor intersects several major east -west arterials, including Pine and Franklin, and will be extended north to Fairview in the future. A HAWK pedestrian signal at Franklin provides for safe pedestrian connectivity to Storey Park and the Ada County public swimming pool. With the future extension from Carlton to Fair- view, East 3rd would provide for increased north -south connectivity, and be a viable alternative to Meridian Road and Main for local traffic, especially bicycle and pedestrian users. A connective multi modal East 3rd corridor is critical to the vision of the Destination Downtown plan, and is noted in both the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Parks and Recreation Master Pathway Plan. The roadway will be important as a defining and sup- portive resource for both the Traditional City Core and Washington and Main districts, and to support greater pedestrian connectivity between the business and residential oriented districts. While the preferred cross-section within the East 3rd Street Extension Alignment Study Report (Six Mile Engineering, 2009) does not provide accommodation for the pathway identified within this plan, the pre- ferred alignment could be modified to support one, and do so without additional right-of-way impacts not considered with the study. The space provided for the dedicated bike lanes within the study, which are not provided south of Carlton, could instead be utilized for the pathway. Bikes could then either consistently use the identified ten -foot pathway, or ride on -street with sharrows for the length of the corridor. The pathway is a critical and required element along the identified East 3rd corridor, between Fairview and Franklin. With no bicycle lanes and limited sidewalks along Meridian Road and Main, East 3rd is the only north - south opportunity to provide safe dedicated bicycle facilities for all age groups and users, into and through downtown. LOCATION MAP Centennial Park: Located on the south-west corner of Idaho and E 2nd, Centennial Park has a number of community facilities, in addition to those provided bythe adjacent Meridian Community Center. The public playground at Centennial Park is the only one within the City Core. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN ARLTON AVE IKEA E 0 Z ~ a N o �"rTC � Z � m Q ADA 5T Centennial Park: Located on the south-west corner of Idaho and E 2nd, Centennial Park has a number of community facilities, in addition to those provided bythe adjacent Meridian Community Center. The public playground at Centennial Park is the only one within the City Core. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN EAST 3RD STREET: Franklin Road to Broadway Avenue ZZ Pedestrian Franklin Road to Broadway Avenue CONSIDERATIONS: East 3rd between Franklin and Broadway is predominately residential in nature, but is entirely within the Transit Ori- ented and Cultural district (TOD). Improvements should be supportive of higher density and transit supportive uses in ultimate conditions, and all efforts should be made with redevelopment to provide for additional enhancements which capitalize on these future services. Alleyways are another important consideration with the corridor, and must be adequately signed and enforced to ensure pedes- trian safety along the corridor. While alley use is already predominately one-way for westbound travel, this should be verified and coordinated with impacted stakeholders, and considered for access with redevelopment. 18' to Existing CL of Road INTENT: L v {View Facing North) Design is based on eastern edge of • existing ROW, but may vary if can- ^' sistent for continuous segments Existing edge of u'8' 7 --, Drive Lane ParallelParking Parkway Wa The primary intent of this cross-section and any varia- tion is to provide for safe and convenient north -south pedestrian connectivity between Franklin and downtown. The required ten -foot detached pathway must be on the west -side of the road, which has fewer driveway conflicts and opportunities for further reductions with redevelop- ment taking access from alleyways. Walkways must be detached, and residential appropriate lighting provided to enhance safety. On -street parking should be provided, but angled and perpendicular configurations are heavily discouraged to ensure continuity of the pathway and to reduce back -out conflicts with through traffic. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: While East 3rd is not intended to serve as an entryway corridor, it is important for connectivity into the down- town area and should be inviting. Tree lined streets with ample buffers for the detached pathways and sidewalks are all important safety and aesthetic elements for the long-term health of the neighborhoods. Bulbouts should be developed at street corners to further enhance safety and provide additional opportunities for landscaping and additional district thematic elements. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Though implementation may occur with fragmented parcel specific redevelopment, it is assumed that implementation of the pathway will require concerted efforts on behalf of MDC and City. The pathway is critical for accessibility, safety, and quality of life, and should be implemented in blocks and segments. Interim redevelopment enhance- ments may not require full improvements if MDC and the City are not able to expand and maintain pathway components, but redevelopment must make allowances for future installation. KIP UPFAIII;UNC L L p -• v 1 c N d 'L > �/ It/ Preservation Parking o I� Sidewalks c'2 0 � Pathway � Streetscape Buffer Parkway Buffer y F_ Furniture m FG_ lighting v ✓ Required. • Desired (� y ZZ Pedestrian Franklin Road to Broadway Avenue CONSIDERATIONS: East 3rd between Franklin and Broadway is predominately residential in nature, but is entirely within the Transit Ori- ented and Cultural district (TOD). Improvements should be supportive of higher density and transit supportive uses in ultimate conditions, and all efforts should be made with redevelopment to provide for additional enhancements which capitalize on these future services. Alleyways are another important consideration with the corridor, and must be adequately signed and enforced to ensure pedes- trian safety along the corridor. While alley use is already predominately one-way for westbound travel, this should be verified and coordinated with impacted stakeholders, and considered for access with redevelopment. 18' to Existing CL of Road INTENT: L v {View Facing North) Design is based on eastern edge of • existing ROW, but may vary if can- ^' sistent for continuous segments Existing edge of u'8' 7 --, Drive Lane ParallelParking Parkway Wa The primary intent of this cross-section and any varia- tion is to provide for safe and convenient north -south pedestrian connectivity between Franklin and downtown. The required ten -foot detached pathway must be on the west -side of the road, which has fewer driveway conflicts and opportunities for further reductions with redevelop- ment taking access from alleyways. Walkways must be detached, and residential appropriate lighting provided to enhance safety. On -street parking should be provided, but angled and perpendicular configurations are heavily discouraged to ensure continuity of the pathway and to reduce back -out conflicts with through traffic. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: While East 3rd is not intended to serve as an entryway corridor, it is important for connectivity into the down- town area and should be inviting. Tree lined streets with ample buffers for the detached pathways and sidewalks are all important safety and aesthetic elements for the long-term health of the neighborhoods. Bulbouts should be developed at street corners to further enhance safety and provide additional opportunities for landscaping and additional district thematic elements. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Though implementation may occur with fragmented parcel specific redevelopment, it is assumed that implementation of the pathway will require concerted efforts on behalf of MDC and City. The pathway is critical for accessibility, safety, and quality of life, and should be implemented in blocks and segments. Interim redevelopment enhance- ments may not require full improvements if MDC and the City are not able to expand and maintain pathway components, but redevelopment must make allowances for future installation. KIP UPFAIII;UNC 1ON Comparison Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 76 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' Walkways (ea. side) Varies Varies. 4 to 5 -feet, fragmented gaps Buffer (ea. side) Varies Pathway No 51 Detached. 6 -feet min. (east side) B -foot landscape buffer. min. Yes. 10 -feet min. (west side) Bike Support No Sharrows ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN EAST 3RD STREI FEATURE -S It/ Preservation F6_ Parking IV Sidewalks F6_ Pathway F6_ Streetscape Buffer V Parkway Buffer F_ Furniture F6_ Lighting ✓ Required. • Desired 2? Pedestrian Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue CONSIDERATIONS: Mn W 11�Q Existing edge of 17to Existing CL of Road (varies) _T 20' to CL of New Road Alignment 14' Pedestrian Though East 3rd between Broadway and Carlton is pre- dominately residential in nature, it is adjacent to three different commercial districts including the Northern Gateway, Washington & Main, and Traditional City Core districts. While efforts should be made to enhance district identities, with the proximity to the commercial districts, opportunities exist to blend boundaries for uses supportive of the overall Destination Downtown vision plan. INTENT: The primary intent of this cross-section and any variation is to provide for a safe and convenient north -south pathway connection between Carlton and Broadway. The required ten -foot detached pathway must be on the west -side of the road to maintain alignment with the pathway configura- tion south of the tracks, and to help improve pedestrian connectivity with urban uses to the west. Walkways must be detached by landscape buffers with large canopy trees, and residential appropriate lighting must be provided to enhance safety. On -street parking should be provided, but angled and perpendicular configurations are heavily discouraged to ensure continuity of the pathway and to reduce back -out conflicts with through traffic. All rede- velopment must be considerate to and supportive of the residential nature of this corridor segment. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: While East 3rd is not intended to serve as an entryway corridor, it is important for connectivity into the downtown area and should be inviting. The tree lined streets with ample buffers for the detached pathways and sidewalks are all important safety and aesthetic elements for the long-term health of the neighborhoods. Bulb -outs should be developed at street corners to further enhance safety (View Facing North) Design is hosed on eastern edge of existing ROW, but may vary if con- sistent for continuous segments on- sistentforcontinuoussegments and provide additional opportunities for landscaping and additional district thematic elements. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Though implementation may occur with fragmented parcel specific redevelopment, it is assumed that implementa- tion of the pathway will require more concerted efforts on behalf of MDC and the City. Interim redevelopment enhancements may not require full improvements if the City is not able to expand and maintain pathway com- ponents, but redevelopment must make allowances for future installation. I LOCATION MAP Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) CARLTON VE Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' 63 PINE VE Attached 4 to 5 -feet. Detached. 6 -feet min. fragmented gaps (east side) Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -foot landscape buffer. min. Pathway No Z side) Bike Support No < Z. < Q ADA %T Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 76 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' 63 64 Walkways Attached 4 to 5 -feet. Detached. 6 -feet min. fragmented gaps (east side) Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -foot landscape buffer. min. Pathway No Yes. 10 -feet min. (west side) Bike Support No Sharrows ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN Stree Ada is a short corridor that ends to the west at Merid- ian Road and to the east at East 3rd. It is primarily used for local residential and business access, with no existing destination locations or significant vehicle trip generators. With the completion of the Split Corridor, East 3rd is bisected by both Main and the cross-over. These crossings greatly limit east -west connectivity efficiencies on Ada. The segment of Ada between Main and Meridian Road was reconstructed as a part of the Split Corridor Phase 2 project, and may be viewed as an ultimate configuration, with one exception. The new roadway is abnormally wide for a single -lane one-way travel direction. Extra space is provided for on -street park- ing, despite very little accommodation for it along the roadway, when considering turning movements, curb cuts, line of sight, and safety considerations. This should be considered for modification in the future. Two-way traffic along Main ends at Ada, with south -bound traf- fic on Main forced to make a left or right turn onto Ada, and either go west (turn right) towards Meridian Road or east (turn left) towards East 2nd. Northbound Looking east along Ada, between E 2nd and E 3rd. traffic crossing Ada is one -lane only. No cross-section is provided for this segment. All properties along Ada to the west of Main have alleyway access, and should be considered for property access, parking, and other site improvements with redevelopment. While additional improvements should be made to encourage and take advantage of future transit sup- portive elements, these enhancements should occur behind the back of curb and be made through rede- velopment. Improvements equivalent to the Standard City of Meridian Improvement Standards apply, to the extent possible, with detached walkways being required where possible. In cases with attached walk- ways, equivalent improvements to the standards must be made behind the walk and include appropriate trees, such as columnar varieties, and other safety, site, and hardscape amenities provided. Additionally, alley frontage may be considered for improvements, such as plazas, particularly with efforts where site conditions restrict the ability to meet City standards along the street. LOOCATI�N MAP Looking east along Ada, between Main and E 2nd. The Split Corridor Phase 2 project brought with it significant changes to Ada. As a result of the project, traffic heading south on Main must turn onto Ada and then turn onto Meridian to continue heading south. The segment of Ada between Meridian and Main is one-way westbound traffic only, which helps to limit conflicts with prioritized cross-over traffic. Looking west along Ada, between Main and Meridian. 7 DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN ■ MEN Looking east along Ada, between Main and E 2nd. The Split Corridor Phase 2 project brought with it significant changes to Ada. As a result of the project, traffic heading south on Main must turn onto Ada and then turn onto Meridian to continue heading south. The segment of Ada between Meridian and Main is one-way westbound traffic only, which helps to limit conflicts with prioritized cross-over traffic. Looking west along Ada, between Main and Meridian. 7 DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN ADA STREET: Main Street to East 3rd Street rag ✓ /�s�l n-,xl'3•y, r. CARLTON VE ICU E �/ It/ Preservation c FG_ Parking VE i� Sidewalks o Pathway a FG_ Streetscape Buffer o c O 0 Parkway Buffer Y IM v (— Furniture m m FG_ Lighting Z. a f c Required,41 Desired I � d a cz (view Facing East} Design is based and centered on a extents of existing RDW and not the existing centerline of road ' Y IJ IMT Existing edge of RDW � Existing CL of road, varies Existing edge of II' Pedestrian fid 19' B" to CL of Road 19' B" to CL of Road II' Pedestrian Main Street to East 3rd Street CONSIDERATIONS: Ada between Main and East 3rd is a small segment spanning two short blocks. Primary users are residential, though a few existing businesses face Main. Existing ROW is limited to only 55 -feet, though there is flexibility with setbacks of existing development and through redevelopment, for additional acquisition of ROW or easement in the future. As redevelopment occurs, especially with future TOD supportive improvements, bulbouts and other pedestrian improvements should be considered to increase safety and provide additional opportunities for aesthetic improvements. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is primarily to comply with the City's Master Pathway Plan, by providing a formal route for bicycle users wishing to cross from the East 3rd pathway and HAWK pedestrian signal, over to Main. The sharrows, primarily for commuters, are striped to promote motor- ist awareness of bicycle users and provide direction to all users to share the road. Ada between Main and East 3rd has a number of large existing street trees which should be preserved whenever possible. Preservation should be prioritized and secondary only to safe and continuous pedestrian facilities. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: As uses are intensified, pedestrian improvements and other aesthetic enhancements such as the tree lined streets and landscaping will become increasingly more important. Com- mercial and professional uses should consider long-term benefits to outdoor seating areas and other improvements. While existing ROW is limited, the detached sidewalk, reduced (six-foot) planter strip, and on -street parking were all deemed important for the long-term needs, vision, and character of the street. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Implementation of this roadway segment may occur gradually through redevelopment, though striping efforts to provide sharrows for bicyclists may be difficult with- out street widening to maintain and provide formal on - street parking. Additionally, the width of the identified cross-section exceeds the available right-of-way. Certain improvements, namely sidewalks, should be detached and installed outside of existing ROW through agreements with property owners or required with redevelopment. While future access to alternative transportation is likely to create higher demand for more intensive development, limited existing connectivity and visibility will likely slow redevelopment. LOO WAX A5 MAP Comparison of Existing and Ultimate Conditions I Cross-section width 55-feet(RDW) 61 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel(non-pavedParallel shoulder) Parking Capacity' Varies Varies Walkways (ea. side) None, except for one Detached. B -feet parcel. Buffer (ea. side) None 5 -foot landscape buffer. min. Pathway None None Bike Support None Sharrows Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON VE PINE i VE 0 Z Q � o 0 w f Z. a f a ADA ST Comparison of Existing and Ultimate Conditions I Cross-section width 55-feet(RDW) 61 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel(non-pavedParallel shoulder) Parking Capacity' Varies Varies Walkways (ea. side) None, except for one Detached. B -feet parcel. Buffer (ea. side) None 5 -foot landscape buffer. min. Pathway None None Bike Support None Sharrows Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN Bower is a short road corridor along the south side of the railroad tracks, dead ending just past Meridian Road to the west and just past East 5th to the east. Bower is intersected by Meridian Road, the Split Corridor cross-over, and Main. As a result of these restrictions, there is very little connectivity or access for east -west through traffic. While predominately light industrial in nature, there are also some existing commercial and residential uses along the corridor. With Bower entirely within the Transit Oriented Devel- opment and Cultural district (TOD) of the Destination Downtown vision plan and running adjacent to and parallel the railroad corridor, the road is critical for future access of transit supportive development. TOD's typically have higher densities with a mix of uses to maximize investment, accessibility, walkability, conve- nience, and appeal. To realize the type of development envisioned in Destination Downtown, Bower must be re -built. LOOCATI�N MAP Several properties along Bower and abutting the railroad are undeveloped. Within the Destination Downtown vision plan, this area is within a Transit Oriented Development & Cultural district (TOD), and in the long-term is planned for higher density redevelopment. Increased residential and employ- ment densities are critical for the provision of affordable transit services to someday serve Meridian.. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN � E ■ om OMEN WO Several properties along Bower and abutting the railroad are undeveloped. Within the Destination Downtown vision plan, this area is within a Transit Oriented Development & Cultural district (TOD), and in the long-term is planned for higher density redevelopment. Increased residential and employ- ment densities are critical for the provision of affordable transit services to someday serve Meridian.. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN BOWER STREET: Meridian Road to East 3rd Street {View Facing East} Design is hosed and centered on GO �+ ci� �+ extents of existing RDW and not Preservation FG_ Parking � � 9 ry the existing centerline of road ' i� Sidewalksm Pathway f! c Fe Streetscape Buffer 0 F_ Parkway Buffer v F6_ Furniture , m c FG_ Lighting� ✓ Required. • Desired m A C-3 � Existing edge of ROW Existing CL of road, varies Existing edge of ROW � 13' Pedestrian 20'to CL of Road 211' to CL of Road 13' Pedestrian I�I I I I Meridian Road to East 3rd Street CONSIDERATIONS: Bower has a number of existing conditions which may require several variations of the plan defined cross-section, to ease the build out of future improvements and devel- opment. There are several existing building facades and footprints which encroach upon public right-of-way, and some grading challenges along back of walk with newer improvements that may restrict opportunities for streetscape improvement. The roadway should be welcoming and pedestrian friendly. INTENT: This cross-section while ROW restricted is intended to provide a consistent thematic that is reflective of both the TOD district and greater downtown area. Supporting automotive and pedestrian uses is critical, and the street must facilitate all modes. Streetscape improvements sup- porting an active and safe pedestrian environment are the priority, but on -street parking is also important and should be provided when possible. While the required sidewalk widths are reduced from other areas, due to the limited available ROW, whenever possible wider walkways should be integrated into the streetscape environment with new development. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: It is likely that with future transit services and proximity to activities and services in the Traditional City Core (Old Town), redevelopment pressures will leave few of the older more industrial and residential buildings standing. Ultimate conditions are intended to be dense and focused on transit access, and for the streetscape to be supportive of those uses. Improvements should include lively additions and thematic to increase awareness, interest, and sense of place. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Redevelopment along Bower is expected to occur gradu- ally and over -time. While some larger redevelopment may occur through parcel assembly or larger public-private or public -public partnerships, such as development of an actual transit station, it is assumed that in most cases redevelopment will occur through private and parcel spe- cific redevelopment. Limited right of way and a number of existing conditions do limit interim improvements, but all opportunities should be explored to preserve and protect buildings of existing businesses. Bower should be a priority for public improvements when opportunities for transit, or transit supportive uses begin to develop. LOO OMW N MAB Cross-section Width 54-feet(ROW) BB -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel. limited Parallel Parking Capacity' Varies 34 Walkways (ea. side) Attached 4 to 5 -feet. Detached. 5 -feet, min. fragmented gaps Buffer (ea. side) None B -foot landscape buffer Pathway None None Bike Support None None Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON VE PINE i VE 0 z Q o w f z f o M i ADA %T Cross-section Width 54-feet(ROW) BB -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel. limited Parallel Parking Capacity' Varies 34 Walkways (ea. side) Attached 4 to 5 -feet. Detached. 5 -feet, min. fragmented gaps Buffer (ea. side) None B -foot landscape buffer Pathway None None Bike Support None None Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN : Broadwav Avenue Broadway is a critical corridor within the City Core and larger downtown area. It is important for east -west pedestrian, bicycle, and automotive connectivity due to its length, existing and planned signalization cross- ings on both Main and Meridian road, and potential for future expansion. Like Idaho, and with the exception of Pine, Broadway is significantly longer than every other east -west corridor in the area, and it may be extended east to Locust Grove in the future. Currently, Broadway extends to the westjust beyond West 8th, andjust past East 6th to the east. The City's Comprehensive Plan discusses an extension to Locust Grove in this area. Broadway serves as the boundary between two of the most prominent, unique, and complimentary districts of the Destination Downtown vision plan — the Traditional City Core (TCC) and Transit Oriented Development and Cultural District (TOD). More than the other districts, the TCC and TOD districts are both intended to support higher densities of mixed use development, and to be places which support art, civic, and social activities. Broadway provides convenient access to the Neighbor- hood Preservation Area (NPA) districts on both sides of Meridian Road, which will be critical to support the increased social retail and dining venues needed for greater draw, awareness, and true destination status of downtown Meridian. It is critical for the Broadway corridor to effectively support a variety of uses, activities, and transporta- tion opportunities, and to be supportive of existing services and environments. Ultimately, Broadway will also need to provide future access to the transit and transit supportive services spanning the length of the TOD and urban renewal areas boundaries, and beyond. LOOCATI�N MAP ww� City Hall: Located on the south-west corner of Broadway and Main, the reconstructed City Hall includes a public plaza, amphitheater, fountains, a grassy park area, and public parking. City Hall is a critical draw for downtown Meridian, bringing employees, City residents, those looking to do business in the City, and supporting a number of regular events and activities. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN A R LTC` N Z ADA ST 0 Z a rT7"rC ww� City Hall: Located on the south-west corner of Broadway and Main, the reconstructed City Hall includes a public plaza, amphitheater, fountains, a grassy park area, and public parking. City Hall is a critical draw for downtown Meridian, bringing employees, City residents, those looking to do business in the City, and supporting a number of regular events and activities. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN BROADWAY AVENUE: Meridian Road to Main Street Meridian Road to Main Street CONSIDERATIONS: There are a variety of existing conditions along this segment of Broadway. Angled parking exists for most of this street segment, but is cut short along the north-east edge by an existing building. While full streetscape improvements have been made adjacent to Bank of the Cascades and the City Hall public parking lot, there are no streetscape improvements along a portion of City Hall. Improvements adjacent to the old Farmers and Merchants bank building on the north-west corner of Broadway and Main deviate from streetscape standards. A future signal is planned at the Meridian Road and Broadway intersection, and may necessitate removal of some existing streetscape and parking to facilitate left or right turn movements. Parking for City Hall is generally adequate today without on -street facilities, but parking demand from special events and the existing environment on the south side of the street. meetings frequently exceed off-street availability. Potential redevelopment of existing buildings along the north-west corner of Broadway and Main could also alter INTENT: the streetscape, if more retail or dining services with street The intent of this cross-section is to provide east -west pathway connectivity and to balance pedestrian and parking needs along a mixed use street. A buffer adjacent to the required ten -foot multi -use pathway is necessary for safety along the northern face of City Hall, to provide greater visibility and additional stopping separation. All elements of this cross-section including pedestrian con- nectivity, streetscape aesthetics, and on -street parking are priorities and must be provided where feasible. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: While existing improvements are in good condition and for the most part could easily be viewed as ultimate conditions, provision for a needed pathway providing connectivity into downtown would dramatically alter presence were, for example, accommodated. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Implementation of ultimate conditions between Merid- ian Road and Main Street will most likely occur through development of a pathway by the City. Existing improve- ments along most of the north street edge are viewed as ultimate condition, with the pathway missing from the southern side. Implementation of the pathway will require alteration of existing curb -line and removal of angled parking along the south side of the street. It is likely that parking will not be removed until additional surface lots or garage facilities are available elsewhere, to offset loss of existing on -street facilities. Cross-section Width 79 -feet (ROW) 89 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel and angled Parallel and angled Parking Capacity' 36 26 Walkways (ea. side) Mixed attached and Detached. 5 -feet (min.) detached. 5 to 7 -feet Buffer (ea. side) None 8 -feet per standards Pathway No 10 -foot (south side) Bike Support No No Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN (View Facing East} RockunwMAD Design is hosed on southern edge �/ -- o It/ Preservation o �' - _ry of existing ROW and constrained ! by existing northern curb along Parkin v Parking '" 'O existing angled parking I� Sidewalks m c / m CARLTON VE F6_ Pathway J Vf/s streetscape Buffer c Parkway Buffer Ej `! �Yy F6_ Furniture PINE i vE FG Lighting c � c ✓ Required. • Desired m y V W AW�Z J C1 Existing edge of ROW Existing edge of ROW ADA T Existing streetscape improvements outside of ROW - 9' Pedestrian -4' 33'to Existing CL o1 Road (varies) -T B" -IT B" to Existing CL o1 Road (varies) 22' Pedestrian Meridian Road to Main Street CONSIDERATIONS: There are a variety of existing conditions along this segment of Broadway. Angled parking exists for most of this street segment, but is cut short along the north-east edge by an existing building. While full streetscape improvements have been made adjacent to Bank of the Cascades and the City Hall public parking lot, there are no streetscape improvements along a portion of City Hall. Improvements adjacent to the old Farmers and Merchants bank building on the north-west corner of Broadway and Main deviate from streetscape standards. A future signal is planned at the Meridian Road and Broadway intersection, and may necessitate removal of some existing streetscape and parking to facilitate left or right turn movements. Parking for City Hall is generally adequate today without on -street facilities, but parking demand from special events and the existing environment on the south side of the street. meetings frequently exceed off-street availability. Potential redevelopment of existing buildings along the north-west corner of Broadway and Main could also alter INTENT: the streetscape, if more retail or dining services with street The intent of this cross-section is to provide east -west pathway connectivity and to balance pedestrian and parking needs along a mixed use street. A buffer adjacent to the required ten -foot multi -use pathway is necessary for safety along the northern face of City Hall, to provide greater visibility and additional stopping separation. All elements of this cross-section including pedestrian con- nectivity, streetscape aesthetics, and on -street parking are priorities and must be provided where feasible. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: While existing improvements are in good condition and for the most part could easily be viewed as ultimate conditions, provision for a needed pathway providing connectivity into downtown would dramatically alter presence were, for example, accommodated. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Implementation of ultimate conditions between Merid- ian Road and Main Street will most likely occur through development of a pathway by the City. Existing improve- ments along most of the north street edge are viewed as ultimate condition, with the pathway missing from the southern side. Implementation of the pathway will require alteration of existing curb -line and removal of angled parking along the south side of the street. It is likely that parking will not be removed until additional surface lots or garage facilities are available elsewhere, to offset loss of existing on -street facilities. Cross-section Width 79 -feet (ROW) 89 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel and angled Parallel and angled Parking Capacity' 36 26 Walkways (ea. side) Mixed attached and Detached. 5 -feet (min.) detached. 5 to 7 -feet Buffer (ea. side) None 8 -feet per standards Pathway No 10 -foot (south side) Bike Support No No Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN BROADWAY AVENUE: Main Street to East 2nd Street FEATtU,R,E-S V Preservation FG_ Parking IV Sidewalks F6_ Pathway FG_ Streetscape Buffer I— Parkway Buffer F6_ Furniture FG_ Lighting ✓ Required. • Desired Existing edge of ROW IB' Pedestrian 20' Main Street to East 2nd Street CONSIDERATIONS: Broadway between Main and East 2nd is generally indus- trial storage on the southern side of the roadway, along to the railroad tracks, and dominated by older buildings in disrepair on the northern side. Sidewalk facilities are also in disrepair, and non-existent on the south. The streetscape on the north -side of Broadway has been redeveloped on the corridor segments both to the west and east - only this segment is lacking improvements. INTENT: Future improvements will need to support mixed use development and balance the pedestrian environment with parking provisions. It is expected that future redevelop- ment on both sides of the road will be transit supportive higher density mixed uses, and the pedestrian environment A CJ Z v CL of Road (varies) 20'to CL of New Road should reflect this. While the ten -foot multi -use pathway is required on the south -side of the street, it's possible that future pathway connectivity may be integrated with redevelopment, and the pathway pulled within the adja- cent property. On -street parking and standard streetscape improvements are required, and must align and integrate with improvements to the east and west. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: The north -side of this cross-section includes standard required streetscape improvements, and a wider walkway consistent with other corridor improvements to the east. The south -side of the street provides the required path- way connection, but may simply mirror improvements on the north -side, orjust meet streetscape standards if the pathway is integrated into future development through the southern properties. Parallel parking is provided instead of angled to enhance safety and create a more pedestrian friendly corridor, and to limit wider cross-sections, maintain L v {view Facing East} Design is based on ROW along a northern edge 22' Pedestrian alignments across intersections, and to reduce setback impacts to neighboring properties and buildings. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Curb line changes necessary to be supportive of pedestrian activities and allow businesses greater street presence will likely require improvements to occur for the full length of the block, on one or both sides of the roadway. Unless large scale redevelopment occurs, public participation will be necessary for implementation and play a large role in redevelopment of the streetscape, particularly with the multi -use pathway. With eventual removal of existing angled parking, it is expected that additional off-street surface or garage parking will need to be provided elsewhere to offset loss and accommodate future downtown parking needs. Improvements on the north -side of the roadway should be a focus to compliment Idaho and increase demand for land to the south. Cross-section Width 79-feet(ROW) 84.5 -feet Road Two-way CARLTONVE Parking Angled Parallel Parking Capacity' 31 IB Detached. 4 to 5 -feet Walkways (ea. side) PINE VE south side. Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -feet per standards Pathway 0 Yes Bike Support z None ' Parking impacts and future Q do not indicate interim o o w f z a f a may alter final count. See Parking section under ADA %T Cross-section Width 79-feet(ROW) 84.5 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Angled Parallel Parking Capacity' 31 IB Detached. 4 to 5 -feet Walkways (ea. side) north side, none on Detached. 5 -feet (min.) south side. Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -feet per standards Pathway None Yes Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN BROADWAY AVENUE: East 2nd Street to East 3rd Street FEATIU,R,E-S V Preservation FG_ Parking IV Sidewalks F6_ Pathway FG_ Streetscape Buffer I— Parkway Buffer F6_ Furniture FG_ Lighting ✓ Required. • Desired Existing edge of ROW 18' B"' Pedestrian a ';`o - v m V East 2nd Street to East 3rd Street CONSIDERATIONS: ZZ to CL of New Road Broadway between East 2nd and East 3rd is a mix of either finished ultimate improvements, or weed patches and drainage ditches without any streetscape enhance- ments. The north -side of the roadway is completed along the COMPASS & VRT building, with a wide walkway and a typical buffer including street trees and pedestrian fur- nishings. The south -side lacks curb, walks, trees, and any other improvements, and is adjacent to open drainage, canal equipment, and largely vacant railroad property. INTENT: Future improvements will need to support mixed use development and balance the pedestrian environment with parking provisions. It is expected that future redevelopment on the south -side of the road will be higher density mixed a to CL of New uses, be transit supportive, and the pedestrian environment should reflect this. While the ten -foot multi -use pathway is required on the south -side of the street, it's possible that future pathway connectivity may be integrated with redevelopment, and the pathway pulled within the adja- cent property. On -street parking and standard streetscape improvements are required, and must align and integrate with improvements to the east and west. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: The north -side of this cross-section includes standard required streetscape improvements and a wider walkway. The south -side of the street provides the required path- way connection, but may simply mirror improvements on the north -side, orjust meet streetscape standards if the pathway is integrated into future development through the southern properties. Parallel parking is provided instead of angled to enhance safety and create a more pedes- trian friendly corridor, and to limit wider cross-sections, 1 7' W. {View Facing East} Design is teased on ROW along northern edge maintain alignments across intersections, and to reduce setback impacts to neighboring properties and buildings. The wider roadway is for facilitation of bus loading and unloading in the future. This may be reduced if provisions are made outside of ROW with future development on the south side of the street. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: With ultimate condition improvements existing on the north side of the road, future enhancements are expected to only occur on the south -side of the roadway. Unless large scale redevelopment occurs, public participation will be necessary for implementation and play a large role in redevelopment of the streetscape, particularly the multi- use pathway. Improvements may occur through private redevelopment of existing railroad properties, as part of a public led effort to provide connectivity to and through downtown with the pathway, or a combination of the two. I LOO OAXff N MAP Cross-section Width 78-feet(ROW) 84.5 -feet Road Two-way CARLTONVE Parking Angled B Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' 13 26 Detached, 10.5 -foot Detached, ID.5-feet Walkways (ea. side) PINE VE none on south side. Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -feet per standards Pathway None 10 -feet (south side) Bike Support None 0 ' Parking impacts and future z do not indicate interim conditions, and assume Q � o 0 w f Z. a f a ADA %T Cross-section Width 78-feet(ROW) 84.5 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Angled B Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' 13 26 Detached, 10.5 -foot Detached, ID.5-feet Walkways (ea. side) walkway north side. (north -side) none on south side. Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -feet per standards Pathway None 10 -feet (south side) Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN Idaho Avenu Idaho is an iconic downtown corridor in Meridian, providing connectivity to Generations Plaza, Centen- nial Park, and the Meridian Community Center. This street also provides primary access for a number of popular shops and services between Main and East 2nd. Similarly to Broadway, Idaho is important for east - west connectivity, and with the exception of Pine, is significantly longer than every other east -west corridor in downtown. Currently, Idaho extends between West 8th and approximately East 6th. In the future, Idaho may be extended further east to Locust, though Broadway is the preferred alignment extension. Idaho currently serves the Traditional City Core (TCC) district and both of the Neighborhood Preservation Areas (NPA) within the urban renewal area. The TCC district supports greater densities of mixed use devel- opment, iconic to traditional downtowns. The NPA are intended to preserve historic housing, promote resi- dential infill, and provide a local base of residents to participate in events, frequent restaurants and shops, and to provide residential opportunities for individuals r SIDEWALK CLOSED Looking west along Idaho, between Meridian and Main. and families interested in a more urban and pedestrian friendly environment. Idaho due to its location within downtown, the con- nectivity of the local roadway network, and its prox- imity to several key community resources, provides a framework for the corridor to act as a centerpiece of vibrancy and activity. Moving forward it should con- tinue to host events, activities, and provide exciting opportunities for a variety of businesses and uses. The proposed cross-sections for Idaho establish this framework. ti LOOCATI�N MAP Looking west along Main, between E 3rd and E2nd. Despite streetscape improvements on both sides of the street, heavy surface parking, utility infra- structure, and government owned property limits activity on part of Idaho between Meridian Road and Main. With the exception of Sunrise Cafe and the Heritage Building, there are limited existing uses on this segment of Idaho with daily community draw into the downtown area. Looking west along Idaho, between Main and E DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN A R LTC` 0 Z a N rT7"rC Z ADA ST Looking west along Main, between E 3rd and E2nd. Despite streetscape improvements on both sides of the street, heavy surface parking, utility infra- structure, and government owned property limits activity on part of Idaho between Meridian Road and Main. With the exception of Sunrise Cafe and the Heritage Building, there are limited existing uses on this segment of Idaho with daily community draw into the downtown area. Looking west along Idaho, between Main and E DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN IDAHO AVENUE: East 2nd Street to East 3rd Street 80-feet(ROW) ICARLTON VE Road Two-way Two-way It/ Preservation Angled (two -sides) Parking c m IN I� Sidewalks m c c m Pathway rf 3 Varies, B to 9 -feet � Streetscape Buffer � c c 8 -feet per standards F_ Parkway Buffer J No No F_ Furniture .1 - m m No � Lighting c r W � Z £ Required, Desired X m �' xu V jY J Existing edge of ROW 14' Pedestrian 29 to East 2nd Street to East 3rd Street CONSIDERATIONS: There are a number of unique existing conditions which provide both opportunities and challenges for future improvements. On the north side of the street, structures belong to non-profit churches and clubs, and along the south edge of the street is the Meridian Community Cen- ter and Centennial Park which extend the length of the street. There is incredible opportunity for activities and social events to create community attraction and draw more people into the Traditional City Core here. Existing parking configurations on the street do not meet design standards. INTENT: This street provides a great deal of opportunity for place - making and supporting large gatherings. While there is CL of Road -T some public parking available on neighboring properties and streets, it is important to maintain existing parking to the extent possible. Some parking will have to be modified to rectify inadequate existing facilities, and to enhance safety and limit opportunities for collisions. While parking is criti- cal for events, it is also a priority to enhance and support the pedestrian environment. Street buffers, street trees, and other landscaping must be provided where feasible for pedestrian safety, comfort, and thematic continuity with other downtown improvements. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: With no signalized intersections and limited connectivity, this cross-section is able to maintain angled parking on the north side of the street without sacrificing streetscape improvements or comparable facilities (e.g. grassy park area instead of street furnishing zone). Angled parking should be removed in front of the Community Center, but be preserved along the park edge where there is adequate IB'to CL of Road {View Facing East) Design is hosed on extents of existing ROW and not the exist- ing centerline of road. ' Existing edge of IT Pedestrian ROW and City owned property, for standards compliant angled parking facilities. Additional efforts should be made to integrate other streetscape elements into the roadway segment and to maintain a cohesive corridor thematic. Wider lanes are to protect angled parking on the north and to maintain safe intersection alignments. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: While it is unlikely that significant redevelopment of existing properties will occur, future investments may still occur as part of public-private or public -public partnerships. For the most part, it is possible for future improvements to occur as smaller separate projects. However, if the intersection with East 2nd is ever reconfigured either due to changes along Idaho between Main or East 2nd, or parking and alignment configuration changes occurring along East 2nd, bulbouts and other intersection elements should be evaluated on this roadway segment. LOO OATIOO N MAP Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) ICARLTON VE Road Two-way Two-way Parking Angled (two -sides) Angled (one -side) Parking Capacity' 31 (including Centen- 27 (including Centennial PINE VE Walkways (ea. side) 4 to 5 -feet Varies, B to 9 -feet Buffer (ea. side) Varies 8 -feet per standards Pathway No No Bike Support Z No W � Z £ Q ADA %T Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Angled (two -sides) Angled (one -side) Parking Capacity' 31 (including Centen- 27 (including Centennial nial Park parking) Park parking) Walkways (ea. side) 4 to 5 -feet Varies, B to 9 -feet Buffer (ea. side) Varies 8 -feet per standards Pathway No No Bike Support No No Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN IDAHO AVENUE Main Street to East 2nd Street FEATURE2% V Preservation F6_ Parking Sidewalks Pathway F6_ Streetscape Buffer F_ Parkway Buffer F_ Furniture F6_ Lighting ✓ Required. • Desired Existing edge of ROW Pedestrian Main Street to East 2nd Street CONSIDERATIONS: 4 ti+t v —a 29 to This segment of Idaho between Main and East 2nd is the definitively classic downtown street. Businesses are a traditional downtown mix of restaurants, shops, and services, the buildings are older, and the street is spatially constrained. The streetscape is important for pedestrian connectivity, sharing a special connection with Main Street and Generations Plaza, and connecting to both the Merid- ian Community Center and Centennial Park. INTENT: This cross-section is intended to enhance the streetscape and provide greater opportunities for pedestrian and busi- ness use. The priority improvements with this cross-section are pedestrian safety, creating greater opportunities for businesses streetscape presence (such as outdoor dining), i. CL of Road e:y and aesthetic enhancements such as street furnishings, way - finding, and banners. Parking is important, but considered secondary to unique place -making opportunities which allow for both safe pedestrian facilities and business uses. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: Due to the central location and importance of Idaho, this street uses a unique cross-section to address parking con- siderations while maximizing the pedestrian environment. Parallel parking which currently exists on both sides of the street has been relocated and converted to perpendicular parking on the north side. Existing curb cuts for a park- ing lot on the south side of the street, currently serving a bank, greatly reduces the effectiveness of on -street parallel parking configurations and parking availability for other businesses. Without dedicated turn lanes at intersections and because the street corridor does not serve as a throughway, drive speeds are envisioned to be slower with limited impacts to safety by back out parking. v m m r� m 5 m {View Facing East} Design is based an extents of existing RDW. Existing edge of 14'to CL of Rand Pedestrian IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Because a rebuild of this street is a total re -configuration that calls for removal of curbs, relocation of all trees, and changes to finished grade, this street segment should be reconstructed all at once. Curbs may be included, but reduce emphasis on the pedestrian. Full closure is likely unnecessary as elements may still be phased. This redevel- opment project is envisioned to occur as a public-private or public -public partnerships. In the interim, maintenance should continue to occur and efforts made to ensure safe conditions of existing walkways and other improvements. The unique design of this street will require further con- siderations, additional refinement, and coordination with ACHD. 4 WON Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) ICARLTON VE Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel (both sides) Perpendicular (one -side) Parking Capacity' IS 21 Walkways (ea. side) PINE i VE Buffer (ea. side) Varies Varies Pathway None None Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim 0 full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- z may alter final count. See Parking section under Q � o 0 w f Z. a f a ADA %T Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel (both sides) Perpendicular (one -side) Parking Capacity' IS 21 Walkways (ea. side) 4 to 5 -feet 10 to 14 -feet Buffer (ea. side) Varies Varies Pathway None None Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN IDAHO AVENUE Meridian Road to Main Street U 1_6 \LI l un� � v� 'E �/ I1/ Preservation FG_ Parking ry c I' Sidewalks 4CARLTON 0 23 26 Walkways (ea. side) F_ Pathway (� F FG_ Streetscape Buffer B -feet Pathway F_ Parkway Buffer y m F6_Furniture 4 m FG_ lighting v � ✓ Required. • Desired H 'x Existing edge of ROW II' 8' , Walkway Streetscape Parallel Parking Meridian Road to Main Street CONSIDERATIONS: Idaho between Meridian Road and Main is a street that could potentially see a great deal of redevelopment, or very little. A number of the existing properties are owned by non -profits, utility, or the City, and a large number of streetscape improvements have already been made in line with existing streetscape design standards. There are six curb cuts despite the short block and alley access for most every property. These curb cuts reduce on -street parking and impact safety. Sidewalks are typically much more generous in size on the south -side of the street than the north. INTENT: This segment of Idaho is intended to support a variety of existing and future uses, balance parking and pedestrian c m v -31 a {View Facing East} v Design is hosed an extents of - •O euo ROW. Maintain existine crh ' Y r urhalignmentexceptforfull m redevelopment of a street edge. Existing edge of ROW a'to CL of R = aad I®'Pedestrian functions, and be consistent with other improvements and thematic elements in the corridor and Traditional City Core (TCC). Priorities may vary if significant block redevel- opment occurs, but based on current users and trends, parking, pedestrian uses, and aesthetic improvements are all equally important. It is intended that as redevelopment occurs, on any level, that excessive curb cuts be removed or appropriately sized and internal circulation of larger parking areas be adjusted. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: This cross-section largely maintains the status -quo and builds upon existing conditions and previously implemented improvements. Trees, streetscape furnishings, and other thematic elements should continue to be maintained and enhanced. Depending on redevelopment, walkways may be wider to provide additional outdoor dining and small open spaces, but should occur outside of ROW. This cross-section does not propose improvements necessitat- ing full redevelopment or heavy alteration to the existing streetscape environment. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Improvements to this street segment are most likely to occur through gradual redevelopment. Public improve- ments can be viewed as minimal, likely limited to addi- tional thematic elements or maintenance / replacement of existing improvements. Redevelopment might include rebuilding the curb line and widening walkways on the north side of the street, and the adjustment or removal of excess curb cuts. LOO OATIOO N MAP Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) VE Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel 4CARLTON Parking Capacity' 23 26 Walkways (ea. side) Varies. 5 to 8 -feet VE Buffer (ea. side) B -feet B -feet Pathway None None Bike Support None None 0 Z Q � o 0 w f Z. a f a ADA T I Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' 23 26 Walkways (ea. side) Varies. 5 to 8 -feet II -feet Buffer (ea. side) B -feet B -feet Pathway None None Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN : Pine Avenue Pine is the primary east -west arterial roadway to and through downtown, and the only roadway which con- nects Linder on the west, to Locust Grove on the east. Fairview and Franklin to the north and south traverse the edges of downtown, but do not actually move cars through downtown. While the name changes, Pine actually extends all the way from Ten Mile in west Meridian to the greenbelt in Boise, and is an increas- ingly important corridor for bicyclists. There are a significant number of broken, missing, and isolated sidewalk, bicycle, and pathway supportive improvements along Pine, which limits east -west pedes- trian and bicycle connectivity. Areas of Pine outside of the downtown (mostly to the west) generally provide more improved and consistent pedestrian and bicycle facilities, allowing greater use. Pine is classified as an arterial roadway and is critical to moving both local and regional traffic. Pine is currently only a two-lane road throughout the downtown area. ENTRYWAY IMPROVEMENTS While a number of identified cross-sections along Pine are outside of the project limits and even the urban renewal area boundaries, these considerations are nec- essary due to the importance of Pine as an entryway corridor. An existing I-84 overpass on Locust Grove, and a future crossing on Linder further emphasize this importance, for connecting north -south corridors and attracting residents of south Meridian. These intersec- tions and connectivity provide special opportunities to create additional awareness and draw through enhanced aesthetic, branding, and way -finding. Efforts should be made to improve safety, provide greater connectivity, and make aesthetic improvements consistent with other downtown efforts outside of the planning area and throughout the corridor. ACHD involvement will be critical for cross-section improvements outside of the City Core and urban renewal area, especially around intersections and in areas with ROW limitations. LOOCATI�N MAP There are a number of small canals littered along Pine, between Main and East 5th. Many of these small canals overflow or leak, flooding sidewalks and areas of the street. Some of the sidewalk surfaces have become slick, have heaved, or are narrow and unsafe adjacent to other fencing, walls, and landscaping. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTC` TJ I NE AVL 0 Z v a � Z ADA 5T There are a number of small canals littered along Pine, between Main and East 5th. Many of these small canals overflow or leak, flooding sidewalks and areas of the street. Some of the sidewalk surfaces have become slick, have heaved, or are narrow and unsafe adjacent to other fencing, walls, and landscaping. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN PINE AVENUE: Meridian Road to East 3rd Street FEATURE -S V Preservation FG_ Parking V Sidewalks F6_ Pathway 7 Streetscape Buffer V Parkway Buffer F_ Furniture FG_ Lighting ✓ Required. • Desired Existing edge of ROW 15' Pedestrian ■ Meridian Road to East 3rd Street CONSIDERATIONS: 25' to Limited right of way and a number of existing improve- ments restrict expansion opportunities for this segment of Pine. This is further complicated by the need to safely support and facilitate movement not only forvehicles, but also bicyclists and pedestrians. Existing on -street parking provides yet another challenge and must be balanced with other considerations. Most properties facing Pine currently have alleyway or side street access, or are able to do so, and large setbacks for many existing properties provide additional voluntary opportunities for redevelopment driven improvements. INTENT: Maintain existing CL of road CL of Road 25'to CL of Road tion and ensure efficient and safe travel for all modes, and to provide opportunities for thematic entryway elements leading into and through downtown. Connectivity for all modes is the top priority, but entryway improvements and other streetscape aesthetics such as landscape buffers, lighting, and other improvements should not be forgotten. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: All sidewalks are enhanced, a seven -foot pathway is provided on both sides of the roadway, and bike lanes provide a place for commuter cyclists. Parallel parking is maintained and formalized (where there is no curb or striping) on both sides of the street. Existing parkway behind the back of curb is enhanced to maintain the safe, friendly, and comfort- able pedestrian elements provided by tree -lined streets. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: The intent of this cross-section is to balance the needs of Many of the ultimate improvements occurring behind the auto, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity, to limit conges- back of curb may be provided through redevelopment, (View Facing East) Design is based on extents of existing RDW. Existing edge of ROW 15' Pedestrian through public improvements, and through public-private partnerships. Improvements within the street or adjust- ment to existing curb lines would need to be part of larger infrastructure improvements occurring for one or multiple blocks, and likely initiated by ACHD, MDC, or the City. r� LOO OATIOO N MAP Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) CARLTON VE Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel both sides Parallel both sides Parking Capacity` Varies Varies PINE VE Walkways (ea. side) 5 -feet with many areas 7 -feet on both sides having none or in 0 Buffer (ea. side) Z B -feet, min. Q � o o w f Z a f a ADA %T Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel both sides Parallel both sides Parking Capacity` Varies Varies Varies greatly, 4 to Walkways (ea. side) 5 -feet with many areas 7 -feet on both sides having none or in disrepair Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -feet, min. Pathway No Yes Bike Support Bike lane, with large Yes broken segments ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS—SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN PINE AVENUE: West 8th Street to West 4th Street FEATURE -S It/ Preservation FG_ Parking Sidewalks Pathway Streetscape Buffer F_ Parkway Buffer F_ Furniture FG_ lighting ✓ Required. • Desired v 0 m co {view Facing East} Design is hosed an centered extents of existing ROW. Pedestrian 25' to CL of Road West 8th Street to West 4th Street CONSIDERATIONS: This cross-section is outside of the City Core. Limited right of way and a number of existing conditions restrict expan- sion opportunities for improvements on this segment of Pine. This is further complicated by the need to safely support and facilitate movement for not only vehicles, but also bicyclists and pedestrians. Existing on -street parking provides yet another challenge and must be balanced with other considerations. Most properties facing this section of Pine do not have alleys and must take access from Pine. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is preservation of existing facilities, and to balance the needs of auto, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity. Connectivity for all modes is the top priority, but to the extent possible, entryway improve- 25'to CL of Road ments and other streetscape aesthetics such as signage should be provided. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: Within ROW, this segment of Pine has no pathways or detached sidewalks. Parallel parking is maintained on both sides of the street, not only to preserve existing parking capacity, but to buffer pedestrians from through traffic with no formal parkways to separate sidewalks from the roadway. Existing property owners and redevelopment should continue to carry -forward planting of large canopy trees of similar varieties near back of walk, to shade the pedestrian environment and create an inviting downtown entryway thematic. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: This segment of Pine is predominately preservation of existing facilities. There are no missing sidewalk or bike lane segments, though some facilities are undersized. Improve - Pedestrian ments will likely occur gradually and overtime through private redevelopment. ACHD involvement will be critical for cross-section improvements outside of the City Core and urban renewal area, especially around intersections and with regard to traffic impacts, actual alignment, and other design considerations. MDC, ACHD, and the City should continue to expand and improve signage and way finding as appropriate. r I I A LOCATION MAP Cross-section Width 60-feet(ROW) 60 -feet CARLTON VE Two-way Parking Parallel both sides Parallel both sides Parking Capacity' Varies Varies (no impacts) Walkways (ea. side) 5 -foot attached 5 -foot attached Buffer (ea. side) None None PINE i VE None Bike Support Bike lane Bike lane 0 Z Q � o 0 w f Z. a f a ADA %T Cross-section Width 60-feet(ROW) 60 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel both sides Parallel both sides Parking Capacity' Varies Varies (no impacts) Walkways (ea. side) 5 -foot attached 5 -foot attached Buffer (ea. side) None None Pathway None None Bike Support Bike lane Bike lane ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN PINE AVENUE: West 4th Street to Meridian Road FEATURE -S It/ Preservation FG_ Parking Sidewalks Pathway Streetscape Buffer F_ Parkway Buffer F_ Furniture FG_ lighting ✓ Required. • Desired v 0 m Pedestrian 25' to CL of Road West 4th Street to Meridian Road CONSIDERATIONS: This cross-section is outside of the City Core. Limited right of way and a number of existing conditions restrict expan- sion opportunities for improvements on this segment of Pine. This is further complicated by the need to safely support and facilitate movement for not only vehicles, but also bicyclists and pedestrians. Existing on -street parking provides yet another challenge and must be balanced with other considerations. All properties facing this segment of Pine have access to a side street or alley. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is preservation of existing facilities, and to balance the needs of auto, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity. Connectivity for all modes is the top priority, but entryway improvements and other 25to CL of Road streetscape aesthetics such as signage, landscape buffers, lighting, and other improvements should not be forgotten where feasible. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: Within ROW, this segment of Pine has no detached walk- ways. Parallel parking is maintained on both sides of the street, not only to preserve existing parking capacity, but to buffer pedestrians from through traffic with no formal parkways to separate the sidewalks from the roadway. Existing property owners and redevelopment should con- tinue to carry -forward planting of large canopy trees of similar varieties near back of walk, to shade the pedestrian environment and create an inviting downtown entryway thematic. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: This segment of Pine is predominately preservation of existing facilities. There are no missing sidewalk or bike lane IV iew Facing East} Design is based on centered extents of existing RDW. Pedestrian segments, though some facilities are undersized. Improve- ments will likely occur gradually and overtime through a combination of private redevelopment and public agency improvements. While there is ample ROW for the build out of the identified cross-section, widening of the bike lanes and sidewalks will require adjustments to existing curb lines and resolving a number of existing conditions on the north side of the street. ACHD involvement will be critical for cross-section improvements outside of the City Core, especially around intersections and with regard to traffic impacts, actual alignment, and other design considerations. LOO CATIOO N MAP Cross-section Width 70 -feet (ROW) CARLTON VE Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel both sides Parallel both sides Parking Capacity* Varies Varies (no impacts) Walkways (ea. side) PINE VE Buffer (ea. side) None None Pathway None None Bike Support 0 Bike lane Z Q o 0 w f Z. a f a ADA %T Cross-section Width 70 -feet (ROW) 64 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel both sides Parallel both sides Parking Capacity* Varies Varies (no impacts) Walkways (ea. side) 5 -feet attached 7 -feet attached Buffer (ea. side) None None Pathway None None Bike Support Bike lane Bike lane ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN PINE AVENUE: East 3rd Street to East 6th Street (Appx.) ICARLTON VE Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel both sides i� Preservation Parking Capacity' Varies Varies FG_ Parking PINE VE Walkways (ea. side) i� Sidewalks m f .Jm^.. c (m none or in disrepair F6_ Pathway 0 Varies 7 Streetscape Buffer m Yes Q Parkway Buffer rn 0 w f Z. a f F_ Furniture ADA %T FG Lighting lL ✓ Required. • Desired 1; N Existing edge of ROW 15' Pedestrian 25' to Existh PINE AVENUE East 3rd Street to East 6th Street CONSIDERATIONS: This cross-section is outside of the City Core. Limited right of way and a number of existing improvements restrict expansion opportunities for this segment of Pine. This is further complicated by the need to safely support and facilitate movement for not only vehicles, but also bicy- clists and pedestrians. Existing on -street parking provides yet another challenge and must be balanced with other considerations. Most properties facing Pine currently have alleyway or side street access, or are able to do so, and large setbacks for many existing properties provide additional voluntary opportunities for redevelopment driven improvements. Maintain existing CL of road CL of Road (varies) 25'to CL of Road INTENT: IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: The intent of this cross-section is to balance the needs of auto, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity, to limit conges- tion and ensure efficient and safe travel for all modes, and to provide opportunities for thematic entryway elements leading into and through downtown. Connectivity for all modes is the top priority, but entryway improvements and other streetscape aesthetics such as landscape buffers, lighting, and other improvements should not be forgotten. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: All sidewalks are enhanced, a seven -foot pathway is provided on both sides of the roadway, and bike lanes provide a place for commuter cyclists. Parallel parking is maintained and formalized (where there is no curb or striping) on both sides of the street. Existing parkway behind the back of curb is enhanced to maintain the safe, friendly, and comfort- able pedestrian elements provided by tree -lined streets. {View Facing East) Design is hosed on centered extents of existing ROW. Existing edge of ROW 15' Pedestrian Many of the ultimate improvements occurring behind the back of curb may be provided through redevelopment, through public improvements, and through public-private partnerships. Improvements within the street or adjust- ment to existing curb lines would need to be part of larger infrastructure improvements occurring for one or multiple blocks, and likely initiated by ACHD, MDC, or the City. ACHD involvement will be critical for cross-section improvements outside of the City Core, especially with regard to traffic impacts, actual alignment, and other design considerations. I LL LOCATION MAP Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) ICARLTON VE Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel both sides Parallel both sides Parking Capacity' Varies Varies PINE VE Walkways (ea. side) many areas having 7 -feet on both sides none or in disrepair 0 Varies B -feet. min. Z No Yes Q � o 0 w f Z. a f a ADA %T Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 80 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel both sides Parallel both sides Parking Capacity' Varies Varies Varies greatly, with Walkways (ea. side) many areas having 7 -feet on both sides none or in disrepair Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -feet. min. Pathway No Yes Bike Support Bike lane, with large Yes broken segments ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN PINE AVENUE, East 6th (Appx.) to Locust Grove Road FEATURE -S It/ Preservation F6_ Parking I, Sidewalks Pathway Streetscape Buffer F6_ Parkway Buffer F_ Furniture 46— Lighting ✓ Required. • Desired YY "/ 15' Pedestrian ■ East 6th to Locust Grove Road CONSIDERATIONS: 24'to CL of Road This cross-section is outside of the City Core. There are also a large number of missing bike and pedestrian con- nections within this area. Most properties facing this sec- tion of Pine do not have alleys and must take access from Pine, though roadway expansion (such as East Broadway) may allow for new access considerations in the future. There are several roadways leading into subdivisions on this segment of Pine, but except for the intersection at Locust Grove, there are no center turn lanes to facilitate turning movements. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is to balance the needs of auto, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity, to limit conges- tion and ensure efficient and safe travel for all modes, and 24'to CL of Road to provide opportunities for thematic entryway elements leading into and through downtown. Pathway connec- tions must also be maintained and expanded between Downtown, Locust Grove, and with the Five Mile Creek pathway. Connectivity for all modes is the top priority, but entryway improvements and other streetscape aesthetics such as landscape buffers, lighting, and other improve- ments should not be forgotten. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: A seven -foot pathway is provided on both sides of the roadway, and bike lanes provide a place for commuter cyclists. Parkways behind the back of curb are added to enhance and create safe, friendly, and comfortable pedestrian elements provided by tree -lined streets. Where parkways are not feasible, existing property owners and redevelop- ment should continue to carry -forward planting of large canopy trees of similar varieties near back of walk. In urban areas, parallel parking should be maintained or installed 15' Pedestrian (View Facing East) Design is hosed on centered extents of existing RDW. ' on both sides of the street to enhance capacity and buffer pedestrians from the roadway, but may be omitted where property impacts are substantial. The cross-section may vary dramatically at intersections. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: This section of Pine is missing a large number of critical pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and improvements will likely require public agency support for installation. Other improvements may occur gradually and overtime through private redevelopment. MDC, ACHD, and the City should continue to expand and improve signage and way find- ing as appropriate. ACHD involvement will be critical for cross-section improvements outside of the City Core and urban renewal area, especially around intersections and with regard to traffic impacts, actual alignment, and other design considerations. LOCATION MAP Cross-section Width 5D-feet(ROW),varies 78 -feet Road Two-way Three, lanes with center turnlane Parking No CARLTON VE None None Walkways (ea. side) None 7 -feet on both sides Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -feet Pathway Varies Yes Bike Support PINE AVG Bike lane 0 z Q � o 0 w f Z. a f a ADA %T Cross-section Width 5D-feet(ROW),varies 78 -feet Road Two-way Three, lanes with center turnlane Parking No No Parking Capacity' None None Walkways (ea. side) None 7 -feet on both sides Buffer (ea. side) Varies B -feet Pathway Varies Yes Bike Support None Bike lane Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN Avenu State is a short east -west corridor which extends from Meridian Road on the west, to Cathy on the east. There are no traffic signals at crossings with Main or Merid- ian, and so the corridor primarily serves local traffic. Sidewalks have generally been provided along State between Meridian Road and East 2nd, but there are a number of missing segments to the east of East 2nd where pedestrian connectivity becomes more limited. Most properties along State have alleyway access. Within the Destination Downtown vision plan, State is split between the Traditional City Core (TCC) and the eastern Neighborhood Preservation Area districts (NPA). Areas within the TCC have seen a number of residential to commercial conversions, and include a number of professional service and retail shops. It is expected that additional conversions and redevelop- ment will occur within this mixed use and business friendly district. Areas within the NPA are primarily residential, with very little redevelopment or improve- ments. Additional infill and residential redevelopment is expected to continue within the NPA. LOCATION MAP East State has seen a number of residential to commercial conversions, which is encouraged and supported bythe Destination Downtown Vision Plan, and by City Code for Old -Town zoning. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON AVE LN E Av E 0 Z a � rT7 rC Z ADA ST East State has seen a number of residential to commercial conversions, which is encouraged and supported bythe Destination Downtown Vision Plan, and by City Code for Old -Town zoning. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN STATE AVENUE: Meridian Road to East 3rd Street Existing edge of ROW II' Pedestrian Meridian Road to East 3rd Street CONSIDERATIONS: CL of Road With increasing residential conversions and a number of professional and retail services being provided, it is expected that State will have continuing need for parking facilities. All future improvements should be considerate of parking needs, but ensure that effective and safe pedes- trian facilities are still provided. While urban streetscape improvements may not be required with larger existing setbacks, some consistent aesthetic improvements are still necessary not only protect the charm, appeal, and marketability of the downtown environment, but to also enhance pedestrian safety. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is to ensure that adequate parking is provided for conversions and redevelopment, Existing CL of road, varies to provide adequate pedestrian connectivity, and to pre- serve the charm, appeal, and marketability of downtown Meridian. Pedestrian connectivity and safety features, such as detached walks and lighting enhancements, are most important, followed by parking and then other enhance- ments such as hardscape. To improve on -street parking, and because properties have alley access, curb cuts should be removed from all locations where public or shared surface parking lots are not provided. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: With street traffic being slow, with limited existing and future connectivity, and to help mitigate parking chal- lenges needed to support continuing unit conversions and redevelopment, angled parking is provided with this cross-section. Parkways separate the pedestrian environ- mentfrom parking, and provide room fortree-lined streets that reduce heat island, enhance pedestrian comfort and safety, and support elements consistent with downtown Existing edge 30.5 to CL of Road aesthetic. Island breaks should occasionally split long rows of parking stalls, similarly to City of Meridian off-street parking requirements. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Improvements along State Avenue are likely to occur both through private redevelopment and public-private partnerships. While possible to only redevelop segments of a street with angled parking, it is less confusing and safer for improvements to be made for the entire street block. At a minimum and regardless of ultimate conditions, redevelopment should ensure that adequate pedestrian facilities are provided and that aesthetic improvements behind existing back of curb are consistent with the final vision. LOO WAX AN MAP and Ultimate Conditions ICARLTON eVE Cross-section Width fView Facing East) 83 -feet Road Two-way 4 Design is hosed and centered on ROW it Preservation Angled a c .4 extents of existing and not 0 Walkways (ea. side) the existing of road FG_ Parking z m Yca ' Sidewalks Z. a f a m a = Pathway None 3 m Streetscape Buffer � " c o Parkway Buffer o' V F_ Furniture m m FG_ lighting c ✓ Required. • Desired v /• Existing edge of ROW II' Pedestrian Meridian Road to East 3rd Street CONSIDERATIONS: CL of Road With increasing residential conversions and a number of professional and retail services being provided, it is expected that State will have continuing need for parking facilities. All future improvements should be considerate of parking needs, but ensure that effective and safe pedes- trian facilities are still provided. While urban streetscape improvements may not be required with larger existing setbacks, some consistent aesthetic improvements are still necessary not only protect the charm, appeal, and marketability of the downtown environment, but to also enhance pedestrian safety. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is to ensure that adequate parking is provided for conversions and redevelopment, Existing CL of road, varies to provide adequate pedestrian connectivity, and to pre- serve the charm, appeal, and marketability of downtown Meridian. Pedestrian connectivity and safety features, such as detached walks and lighting enhancements, are most important, followed by parking and then other enhance- ments such as hardscape. To improve on -street parking, and because properties have alley access, curb cuts should be removed from all locations where public or shared surface parking lots are not provided. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: With street traffic being slow, with limited existing and future connectivity, and to help mitigate parking chal- lenges needed to support continuing unit conversions and redevelopment, angled parking is provided with this cross-section. Parkways separate the pedestrian environ- mentfrom parking, and provide room fortree-lined streets that reduce heat island, enhance pedestrian comfort and safety, and support elements consistent with downtown Existing edge 30.5 to CL of Road aesthetic. Island breaks should occasionally split long rows of parking stalls, similarly to City of Meridian off-street parking requirements. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Improvements along State Avenue are likely to occur both through private redevelopment and public-private partnerships. While possible to only redevelop segments of a street with angled parking, it is less confusing and safer for improvements to be made for the entire street block. At a minimum and regardless of ultimate conditions, redevelopment should ensure that adequate pedestrian facilities are provided and that aesthetic improvements behind existing back of curb are consistent with the final vision. LOO WAX AN MAP Comparison of Existing and Ultimate Conditions ICARLTON eVE Cross-section Width I 83 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Angled Parking Capacity' 4B 119 0 Walkways (ea. side) z Detached. 5 -feet Q � o 0 w f Z. a f a None None ADA %T None None Comparison of Existing and Ultimate Conditions Cross-section Width 80-feet(ROW) 83 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Angled Parking Capacity' 4B 119 Fragmented. attached Walkways (ea. side) and detached 4 to Detached. 5 -feet 5 -feet Buffer (ea. side) Varies 5 -feet, min. Pathway None None Bike Support None None ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN Carlton Avenue Carlton, similar to State, is a short east -west corridor extending from West 1st to just past East 5th. While there are no traffic signals along Carlton, there is a HAWK pedestrian signal at the Meridian Road intersec- tion, providing a safe pedestrian crossing and school route for children attending both Meridian Elementary and Cole Valley schools. While through connectivity is limited, a number of popular destinations including both schools and the US Post Office directly front Carlton. Most small parcels have alley access, and large parcels all take access off multiple roadways. Carlton serves as the boundary between the Traditional City Core (TCC) and the Washington and Main (WAM) districts, and serves both of the Neighborhood Preser- vation Areas of the Destination Downtown vision plan. A number of properties in both the TCC and WAM have redeveloped or converted from residential uses, and this process is expected to continue in the future. Where the TCC is geared more toward integrated mixed use, the WAM especially is expected to see additional conversions and lower density uses. Additional infill and residential redevelopment is expected to continue within the neighborhood preservation area. BOT19CUDb ' Oak :a Looking west along Carlton, between E 2nd and E 3rd. qLooking east along Carlton, between E 2nd and E 3rd. Carlton is a diverse mix of residential, residential to commercial conversions, services, and public services. Carlton is also a connection serving both of the existing schools within the Downtown area, Meridian Elementary School and Cole Valley Christian School. between Main and Meridian, DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON AVL wEAv 0 Z a rT7 r C � Z ADA 5T qLooking east along Carlton, between E 2nd and E 3rd. Carlton is a diverse mix of residential, residential to commercial conversions, services, and public services. Carlton is also a connection serving both of the existing schools within the Downtown area, Meridian Elementary School and Cole Valley Christian School. between Main and Meridian, DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON AVENUE: Meridian Road to Main Street I1/ Preservation FG_ Parking IV Sidewalks F6_ Pathway 7 Streetscape Buffer V Parkway Buffer F_ Furniture FG_ Lighting ✓ Required. • Desired Existing edge of RDW y 1 r Pedestrian 19' 6" to CL of Road Meridian Road to Main Street CONSIDERATIONS: This segment of Carlton has limited ROW, but still needs to balance parking and pedestrian needs while providing a consistent downtown aesthetic that promotes safety, comfort, and economic development. With a number of destinations on Carlton including two schools, pedestrian uses are expected to be higher, particularly with a dedi- cated pedestrian crossing at Meridian Road. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is to promote infill, con- versions, and redevelopment consistent with downtown design guidelines and the Destination Downtown vision plan, while protecting existing uses and strengthening pedestrian connectivity. Pedestrian connectivity and safety such as detached walks and lighting enhancements m c c .L m d v t� a Y v m - r T �N are most important, followed by parking and then other enhancements such as wider buffers and hardscape. To improve on -street parking, and because properties have alley access, curb cuts should be removed from all loca- tions where surface lots are not provided. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: Parallel parking is preserved to maintain existing capacity, and removal of driveways will provide additional oppor- tunities over time. The lower density and more residential feel of the street, along with limited ROW and reduced streetscape buffers, lends itself to parkways with trees planted among decorative grasses and groundcover, rather than hardscape. The 7 -foot detached pathway on the south side of the street will provide safe accommodations for pedestrians, most notably school children. -I Existing edge of RDW {View Facing East} Design is hosed an centered extents of existing RDW IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Redevelopment along this segment of Carlton is expected to occur through gradual private redevelopment. While some improvements such as curb alignments may require coordinated public support, walkways and landscaping should occur through all other redevelopment, and curb - cuts removed at every opportunity. LOO CATIOO N MAP Comparison of Existing and Ultimate Conditions CARLTON VE 59 -feet (ROW) 63 -feet Road Two-way Two-way PINE VE Parallel Parking Capacity' 21 22 Fragmented. attached Detached, 5 -feet north Walkways (ea. side) and detached 4 to and 7 -feet south 5 -feet Buffer (ea. side) Varies 6 -feet. min. z Z N Pathway No and HAWK signal at Z Q Bike Support No ADA %T Comparison of Existing and Ultimate Conditions Cross-section Width 59 -feet (ROW) 63 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' 21 22 Fragmented. attached Detached, 5 -feet north Walkways (ea. side) and detached 4 to and 7 -feet south 5 -feet Buffer (ea. side) Varies 6 -feet. min. Yes, 7 -feet for schools Pathway No and HAWK signal at Meridian Bike Support No No ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN CARLTON AVENUE Main Street to East 3rd Street or, EATURE-S umuny cuyc 1 nu.. 7 Pedestrian 19' fi" to CL of Road Main Street to East 3rd Street CONSIDERATIONS: This segment of Carlton has limited ROW like the rest of the corridor, but still needs to provide adequate pedestrian connectivity and maintain a consistent downtown aesthetic. Off-street parking facilities at an existing funeral home, the US Post Office, and the Cole Valley Christian School greatly reduce public on -street parking. Limited ROW and a number of constrained properties virtually eliminate opportunities for additional improvements outside of public ROW, and in some cases within ROW. INTENT: The intent of this cross-section is to promote infill, con- versions, and redevelopment consistent with downtown design guidelines and the Destination Downtown vision plan, while protecting existing uses and strengthening maintain existing t.L or roan LAI 111y UUH� UP 1-11 19' G" to CL of Rand 13' Pedestrian 7 Parallel Parking Parkway Walkway {View Facing East) Design is based on southern edge of existing RDW pedestrian connectivity. Pedestrian connectivity and south side of the street will provide safe accommodations safety such as detached walks and lighting enhancements are most important, followed by parking and then other enhancements such as wider buffers and hardscape. While off-street parking is limited, all efforts should be made to explore creative and innovative design options which provide for more. DESCRIPTION OF ULTIMATE CONDITIONS: Parallel parking is preserved to maintain existing capac- ity, and removal of driveways will provide additional opportunities over time. The lower density and more residential feel of the street, along with limited ROW and reduced streetscape buffers provides some opportunity for parkways on the southern side of the street, rather than hardscape. Existing conditions and limited ROW reduce opportunities on the north side of the road, but a narrow band separates the sidewalk from the street and provides a space for lighting. The 7 -foot detached pathway on the for pedestrians, most notably school children. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS: Redevelopment along this segment of Carlton is expected to occur through gradual private redevelopment. While some improvements such as curb alignments may require coordinated public support, walkways and landscaping should occur through all other redevelopment. LOO CATIOI N MAR Cross-section Width 59-feet(ROW) 59 -feet CARLTON 1E Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Parallel PINE VE 28 Fragmented, attached Detached, 7 -foot min. Walkways (ea. side) and detached 4 to south and 5 -foot min. 5 -feet north Buffer (ea. side) Varies 6 -feet, min. south, and 2 -feet min. north Z Yes, 7 -feet for schools Pathway No and HAWK signal at Z Q Bike Support No ADA T I Cross-section Width 59-feet(ROW) 59 -feet Road Two-way Two-way Parking Parallel Parallel Parking Capacity' 18 28 Fragmented, attached Detached, 7 -foot min. Walkways (ea. side) and detached 4 to south and 5 -foot min. 5 -feet north Buffer (ea. side) Varies 6 -feet, min. south, and 2 -feet min. north Yes, 7 -feet for schools Pathway No and HAWK signal at Meridian Bike Support No No ' Parking impacts and future values are estimates, do not indicate interim conditions, and assume full compliance with cross section. Driveways, fire hy- drants, and other conditions may alter final count. See Parking section under Street Design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) STREET DESIGN S. NEXT STEPS The next steps discussion is included as an opportunity to suggest a process to identify priority areas for reinvest- ment by the Meridian Development Corporation (MDC) and other agencies. In some cases there may be needs which should be addressed before redevelopment occurs, or because development will not occur without certain improvements. This master plan represents phase one of a larger effort to prioritize and implement a cross-section improvement program. While this master plan identifies cross-sections, the concept and intent are equally important since existing conditions will vary along the street, and conditions may change. Phase two efforts will be more focused on taking a closer look at identified priority segments with specific plans, and then implementing improvements. Priority segments mayjust include preparation and readiness for when partnerships are available. Prioritized projects may be complete installation of full cross-sections for streets, or partial installation of critical improvements needed to enhance safety and to address specific goals. Specific goals may be to partner with identified redevelopment partners, implement critical improvements to improve connectivity, or to improve issues identified as road blocks for further private redevelopment. While this plan supports Destination Downtown, the City Core which this planning area matches, does not actu- ally match several of the districts within the Destination Downtown plan. The results are several gaps in design guidelines and standards for several districts of the plan. Two prominent examples are the areas between Ada and Franklin, which are part of the Transit Oriented Develop- ment & Cultural District, or the areas north of Carlton which are part of the Washington and Main District or Northern Gateway Districts. There are also areas of both Neighborhood Preservation Areas important for connectivity and preservation considerations, which are not covered by this plan. In the future this plan may be expanded to cover these other areas. While private redevelopment, the City, and ACHD all play a critical role in revitalizing downtown streets, the extents of this master plan are wholly within the MDC urban renewal area boundaries. Furthermore, this plan is largely intended to support the Destination Downtown vision plan. As such, projects will, for the most part, need to be coordinated with and prioritized by MDC. While some cross-section projects may work indepen- dently of other agencies or interested groups, all efforts should never -the -less be made on the part of all involved agencies and parties, to maintain clear communication and provide regular updates to discuss ongoing activi- ties and efforts within the planning area. Where possible, synergies should be sought to maximize efficiencies and provide greater return on investment. The following are recommended considerations for pri- oritizing areas of improvement: 1. Connectivity — will improvements provide greater access, enhance safety, and increase awareness of existing improvements, infrastructure, and allow for greater public engagement with downtown busi- nesses and activities? 2. Destination supportive—will improvements provide greater opportunities to make downtown Merid- ian more marketable, attractive, and supportive of activities? 3. Community supportive — do the existing businesses generally support the improvement? 4. Rooftops — will improvements capitalize on and improve the number of rooftop and residential units which are needed to directly supply, create, and enhance a sense of 3rd place and create the critical mass necessary to make downtown more active outside of peak hours? 5. Return on investment—are improvements in a loca- tion where private redevelopment is likely to occur and in turn enhance property values and the effec- tiveness of TIF? 6. Funding — are there interested partnerships, or opportunities to create them, which will provide greater impact and help to reduce the investment requirements on any one agency? Can improvements serve more than one function and provide benefit to other potential partners? Are grants available that could help to otherwise fund projects that would not be feasible? All efforts should be made to seek local, state, and federal grants ranging from planning to site preparation and construction. 7. Timing — are the necessary supportive improvements in place to support construction? For example, if on -street parking is being removed/re-configured, are there other parking facilities nearby to offset the need? Can redevelopment occur in an area without ready partnerships to install such facilities if they are missing? DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) NEXT STEPS 6. APPENDICES A. East 2nd Street Cross-section Alternatives B. Other Street Design Concepts C. Downtown Meridian Street Network "Needs Map' by Work Group DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CRO55-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES SEE FOLLOWING PAGES DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CRO55-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES EAST 2ND STREET: Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue (option 2) Existing edge of ROW ZT Pedestrian Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue (option 2) This cross-section is an an alternative concept for East 2nd Street between Broadway and Carlton. The intent of this alternative is to provide a design example in a condition where no parking was warranted or needed, and a larger pedestrian gathering area was preferred. Existing edge of 13'to CL of Road ITto CL of Road ZT Pedestrian 10' 10 3' is, Drive Lane Drive Lane Band Streetscape Note: See page 4.7 for baseline cross-section. {View Facing North) Design is hosed an extents of existing ROW. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES - EAST 2ND STREET: Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue (option 3) - Existing edge of RDW 21'ta CL of Road Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue (option 3 This cross-section is an an alternative concept for East 2nd Street between Broadway and Carlton. The intent of this alternative is to provide a design example in a condition where no parking was warranted or needed, and a median or special street palcemaking feature was preferred. m � c m y m v o � ' � c •v 3 d S c Vito IV � m m � m c .y y rz .X W . T a Existing edge of RDW 21'to CL of Road 19' Pedestrian Note: See page 4-7 for baseline cross-section. {View Facing North) Design is hosed an extents of existing RDW. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES EAST 2ND STREET: Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue (option 4) 9 c m � a a .L m L M1 Existing edge of RDW 33' to CL of Road Broadway Avenue to Carlton Avenue (option 4) This cross-section is an an alternative concept for East 2nd Street between Broadway and Carlton. The intent of this alternative is to provide a design example in a condition where more parking was preferred, and pedestrian and other placemaking features was less desired. ^y 6 r e^ — d d L V ' 3T to CL of Road —I Existing edge of Pedestrian Note: See page 4-7 for baseline cross-section. {view Facing North} Design is hosed an extents of existing RDW. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES SEE FOLLOWING PAGE. THESE ALTERNATIVES ARE LESS PREFERRED CONCEPTS INTENDED TO SUPPORT EXISTING USERS WHEN IDEAL CONDITIONS CANNOT BE MET. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CRO55-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES THE5E ALTERNATIVES ARE LE55 PREFERRED CONCEPTS INTENDED TO SUPPORT EXISTING U5ER5 WHEN IDEAL CONDITIONS CANNOT BE MET. Main Street to East 3rd Street This concept is an alternative cross-section variation of how important streetscape and parking conditions can be made, while working around constrained existing right-of-way. This example is in front of the Meridian Meat and Sausage facility, which lacks any streetscape improvements. The idea can be applied elsewhere. Meridian Meat and Sausage has its own offstreet parking. Design is only a rough concept, and other solutions may exist for a variety of existing conditions. Meridian Road to East 3rd Street This concept is an alternative cross-section variation of how important streetscape and parking conditions can be made, while working around constrained properties. This example is in front of the Meridian Methodist Church. It is important to note that backout angled parking along a roadway with important bike facilities is not safe nor preferred, especially in the long-range. However, onstreet parking is an important consideration Downtown. If a project with necessary pedestrian and bicycle improvements cannot move forward, due to impacts by angled to parallel parking conversion losses, a concept such as this may be a solution. This alternative would require an easement to provide pedestrian facilities outside of existing right-of-way. Design is only a rough concept. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES THESE ALTERNATIVES ARE LE55 PREFERRED CONCEPTS INTENDED TO SUPPORT EXISTING USERS WHEN IDEAL CONDITIONS CANNOT BE MET. East 2nd Street to East 3rd Street This example represents all three fo the preferred cross-sections for Idaho. Example is for contrast to adjacent alter- native. Please note that plan view design is a very rough schematic and does not necessarily reflect a final concept or design. East 2nd Street to East 3rd Street This cross-section is provided to illustrate how parallel parking may be kept on the north -side of the Meridian Com- munity Center, in lieu of other streetscape improvements. This solution is not desired as streetscape improvements and buffers from edge of roadway are preferred. There is normally ample parking on this street. Please note that plan view design is a very rough schematic and does not necessarily reflect a final concept or design. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CROSS-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES SEE FOLLOWING PAGE. THE MAP WAS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS TO IDENTIFY STREET AND STREETSCAPE NEEDS. COMMENTS ARE COLOR CODED BY DATE. DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN I CITY CORE STREET CRO55-SECTION MASTER PLAN ( DRAFT ) APPENDICES Downtown Meridian Street Network N.T.S. Future HAWK eeacon rsiyrwp e Franklin &sM 2ND ❑N"I❑ Nae Allfl dimensbnsarea,rotlmrte IV13M 2MfIC Mee[Ing Comm m/OB/]D13 Mnr Mee[Ing Comments 0}/AM13 MIX: Meering Comments transit Oriented Development 1. Integrate and Transition Existing Businesses 2. Art and Cultural Opportunities 3. Emphasize civic/TOD facilities 4. Create an event or performance venue 5. Dense Development 16 Need unique elements for different districts e.g. poles, banners, tree species, etc. Ran corridor IST I . I I I Continue r----------------- MERIDIAN on Pine (Ilkl I —A--�W ——-— I r I J W Nord. side of Br Neighborhood Preservation 1. Residential Preservation 2. Historic Designation 19 IDIAN-- Heridian I D A H O Flex+enmry 8"&b LA mow RA MIN , ------ Hendian Road is Crosswalks/ c b,4,, d with HAWK Beacom o ornpleteim of HSC. Port Olfics `- I M r ' � Assume continued I ss � FuWm: , G__ 10 I u ®r®rrr - storey park I l LJ 6 Future HAWK eeacon rsiyrwp e Franklin &sM 2ND ❑N"I❑ Nae Allfl dimensbnsarea,rotlmrte IV13M 2MfIC Mee[Ing Comm m/OB/]D13 Mnr Mee[Ing Comments 0}/AM13 MIX: Meering Comments transit Oriented Development 1. Integrate and Transition Existing Businesses 2. Art and Cultural Opportunities 3. Emphasize civic/TOD facilities 4. Create an event or performance venue 5. Dense Development 16 Need unique elements for different districts e.g. poles, banners, tree species, etc. Ran corridor IST I . I I I Continue r----------------- MERIDIAN on Pine (Ilkl I —A--�W ——-— I r I J W Nord. side of Br Neighborhood Preservation 1. Residential Preservation 2. Historic Designation 19 IDIAN-- Heridian I D A H O Flex+enmry 8"&b LA mow RA MIN , ------ V/ Crosswalks/ 6a rking. a HAWK Beacom I streetsca I � Port Olfics `- I M r ' � Assume continued I residentiallcomm � converiionsi�p'e� � 10 I u ®r®rrr l LJ 1a Lin- ''31 i - a ...ice• � i�31`� ----------y -r-3RR �80'Y Faarecorwctim to Locurt 4reve Editional City Care 1. 2 - 4 Story Infill and Restoration 2. Traditional Architecture Themes 3. Continuous Urban Edge 4. Vertical & Horizontal Integration of Uses 5. Preserve Downtown Housing 6. Emphasize Walkability and Activity 7. Develop Civic Uses 's^Ylre' En _� •_� _J V/ Crosswalks/ 6a rking. a HAWK Beacom I streetsca I � Port Olfics `- I M Assume continued I residentiallcomm � converiionsi�p'e� 10 I u ®r®rrr Entry corridor ----- . SEM I comm¢i-tia 2A -Ng A NA{ F _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ to Carlton from Pine ~ . r I I we P L* I _____ N__ ________.- •__ • I 80 so' LL� i JEnt, corridor "Family Conrl¢ction' (bike) from Bike & vehicle supportive park to Downtown and Fairview. Street should support b&e &ped. a� a ¢� -s' m idor Fu are en[eot FZTW c o a',e o otiFairview shington D Main Legend 1. Small Scale Buildings ----- Proposed Pathway 2. Residential Streetscape •---- On -street Pathway 3. Integrate Historic School and Post Office ------ Future Pathway - Park / Plaza NORTH , APPENDICES - This page intentionally left blank - (IE NDIANt6- IDAHO 0 Meridian City Council Meeting DATE: April 15,2014 ITEM NUMBER: 10 PROJECT NUMBER: ITEM TITLE: Future Meeting Topics MEETING NOTES L Community Item/Presentations Presenter Contact Info./Notes CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION DATE: E-MAILED TO STAFF SENT TO AGENCY SENT TO APPLICANT NOTES INITIALS