Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-07-19 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, July 19, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Joe Borton PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted as amended (Item 10 vacated) PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\] 1. Finance Department: Approval of the Fiscal Year 2022 Amended Revenues and Expenditures in the Amount of $194,907,732.00 Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 2. Finance Department: Tentative Approval of Fiscal Year 2023 Proposed Revenues and Expenditures in the Amount of $219,724,309.00 Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Proposed New and Amended Fees of the Parks and Recreation Department Fall 2022 Activities and Classes 4. Resolution 22-2337: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 5. Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3 (Lots 11 and 12, Block 3) (H- 2022-0041) by Sam Johnson, Located between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 of the Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3, North of W. Chinden Blvd. and West of N. Black Cat Rd. Approved A. Request: Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 6. Public Hearing Continued from January 4, 2022 for Centerville Subdivision (H- 2021-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 4111 E. Amity Rd. (including the outparcel to the south) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale Ave. and E. Amity Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.38 acres), R-15 (24.17 acres), and C-C (2.95 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 249 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 79 townhome lots, 4 multifamily lots, 4 commercial lots, 34 common lots, and 4 other lots) on 38.95 acres of land. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Hoaglun Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener 7. Public Hearing continued from June 14, 2022 for Bountiful Commons East (H- 2022-0015) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 5960 and 5984 N. Linder Rd. Approved A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Linder Mixed Use - Inst. #2018-052340) to update the conceptual development plan and building elevations. B. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 8. Ordinance No. 22-1983: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-3- 3(C), Regarding Limitation on Release Fees; Repealing any Conflicting Ordinance; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 9. Ordinance No. 22-1985: An Ordinance (Alamar Subdivision – H-2022-0004) for Annexation of a Tract of Land Located Within the Southeast ¼ of the Southwest ¼, Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 8.23 Acres of Land from RUT to the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun EXECUTIVE SESSION Vacated FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 9:53 p.m. E IDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday,July 19, 2022 at 6:00 PM All materials presented at public meetings become property of the City of Meridian.Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities should contact the City Clerk's Office at 208-888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Agenda VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS To join the meeting online: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88029902800 Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833 Webinar ID: 880 2990 2800 ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE Jessica Perreault Joe Borton Brad Hoaglun Treg Bernt Liz Strader Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA PUBLIC FORUM - Future Meeting Topics The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at Public Forum. However, City Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 1. Finance Department: Approval of the Fiscal Year 2022 Amended Revenues and Expenditures in the Amount of$194,907,732.00 2. Finance Department: Tentative Approval of Fiscal Year 2023 Proposed Revenues and Expenditures in the Amount of$219,724,309.00 ACTION ITEMS Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15 minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a Homeowner's Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented homeowners who have consented to yielding their time.After all public testimony, the applicant is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote. 3. Public Hearing for Proposed New and Amended Fees of the Parks and Recreation Department Fall 2022 Activities and Classes 4. Resolution 22-2337: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date 5. Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3 (Lots 11 and 12, Block 3) (H- 2022-0041) by Sam Johnson, Located between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 of the Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3, North of W. Chinden Blvd. and West of N. Black Cat Rd. Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0041 A. Request: Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3. 6. Public Hearing Continued from January 4, 2022 for Centerville Subdivision (H- 2021-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 4111 E.Amity Rd. (including the outparcel to the south) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale Ave. and E.Amity Rd. Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2021-0046 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.38 acres), R-15 (24.17 acres), and C-C (2.95 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 249 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 79 townhome lots, 4 multifamily lots, 4 commercial lots, 34 common lots, and 4 other lots) on 38.95 acres of land. 7. Public Hearing continued from June 14, 2022 for Bountiful Commons East (H- 2022-0015) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 5960 and 5984 N. Linder Rd. Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0015 A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Linder Mixed Use - Inst. #2018-052340) to update the conceptual development plan and building elevations. Meridian City Council July 19, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday, July 19, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault and Brad Hoaglun. Members Absent: Joe Borton and Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Alan Tiefenbach, Joe Dodson, Berle Stokes, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X_ Luke Cavener X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is July 19th, 2022, at 6:01 p.m. We will begin this evening's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item is the community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by Pastor Troy Drake. If you all would, please, join us in the invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Drake: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Lord God, we just want to -- at least I want to, on behalf of those here, express our gratitude towards you that we have life and we live in this beautiful place and we just thank you for what we have the freedom to do it and, you know, we are just gathered here to get some city business done and so I just pray that you would be over the proceedings, God, and -- and, you know, just outside of this building I pray for our city that there would be peace, pray against those who would seek to do evil and harm against the citizens and that, you know, we could just all get along peacefully here. So, we -- we ask that you would give special protection to our first responders, the police officers and the firefighters and those who, you know, protect those Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 2 of 71 things and that you bless them and, Lord,just pray for the things that happen here tonight, that you would help our elected representatives here to make good decisions, that I know you care about all the details of life and -- and so I just ask that you would give them a lot of wisdom and we appreciate them for what they do and the sacrifices they make on our behalf. So, anyway, God, we just appreciate you and pray that there will be lots of grace here, in Jesus' name, amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Council, adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: For the agenda we had listed Item No. 10, an Executive Session. We completed our work during the Executive Session portion of the work session, so we can omit Item 10 from the agenda. So, Mr. Mayor, I move adoption of the agenda as amended. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted as amended. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, running around, did we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 1. Finance Department: Approval of the Fiscal Year 2022 Amended Revenues and Expenditures in the Amount of $194,907,732.00 Simison: Okay. Then, with that we will move into the Department/Commission Reports. First item up is Finance Department, approval of the fiscal year 2022 admitted revenues and expenditures in the amount of 194,907,732 dollars. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, this is just seeking Council's approval to publish that number for the public hearing. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 3 of 71 Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move the approval of the fiscal year 2022 amended revenues and expenditures in the amount of 194,907,730 dollars for publication. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 1. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? And ayes have it and the item is agreed to and will be published as such. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 2. Finance Department: Tentative Approval of Fiscal Year 2023 Proposed Revenues and Expenditures in the Amount of $219,724,309.00 Simison: The second item is Finance Department tentative approval of fiscal year 2023 proposed revenues and expenditures in the amount of 219,724,309 dollars for publishing for the budget. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move the tentative approval of fiscal year 2023 proposed revenues and expenditures in the amount of 219 million dollars 720 -- let me start that again -- 219 -- 219,724,309 dollars and approve that for notice of public hearing. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item No. 2. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is agreed to for publication. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. ACTION ITEMS 3. Public Hearing for Proposed New and Amended Fees of the Parks and Recreation Department Fall 2022 Activities and Classes Simison: So, now we will move into Action Items of the -- for the evening. First item up is Item 3, a public hearing for proposed new and amended fees of the Parks and Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 4 of 71 Recreation Department Fall 2022 activities and classes. We will open this public hearing with comments from Jenna. Fletcher: How's it going? In front of you you will see fall 2022 activity fees. We do have one new class coming in, but other than that everything has stayed the same. Any questions? Simison: Council, any questions or -- Bernt: That was the best presentation I have ever seen from the Parks and Recreation Department. Did you take a note? Okay. Simison: Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone that signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I did not get to the back to check, but nobody's online and I would see if anyone's here. Sorry. Simison: This is a public hearing. If anyone would like to provide comments on the proposed fees for the fall 2022 activities -- if you would like to come forward now and make any comments or if you are online use the raise your hand feature and we will bring you into the conversation. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Wondering if we shouldn't post the fees maybe on the screen? Simison: Yeah. I don't think they will fit, but we -- we can do that if we like and I know it's in the agenda packet. And -- and seeing no one who is coming forward yet -- what's the rock climbing fee? Do we have one of that this -- this upcoming -- all right. With that we will close the public hearing on this item. 4. Resolution 22-2337: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Which moves on to Item No. 4, Resolution 22-2337. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 5 of 71 Cavener: Thank you, Jenna. Appreciate the work you do for our community and in the expeditiousness of the presentation tonight. Thank you. The public appreciates that as well. Mr. Mayor, I move approval of Resolution 22-2337, resolution adopting new fees for the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department. Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to collect such fees and providing an effective date. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 4. Is there discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3 (Lots 11 and 12, Block 3) (H-2022-0041) by Sam Johnson, Located between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 of the Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3, North of W. Chinden Blvd. and West of N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3. Simison: Item 5 is a public hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3, Lots 11 and 12, Block 3, H-2022-0041, and we will open this public hearing with staff comments from Alan. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Alan Tiefenbach, planner with the City of Meridian. Okay. So, this is a vacation of a utility easement. The site is two lots, zoned R-8, located northwest of the North Black Cat-West Chinden Boulevard intersection. Council approved the Fairbourne Subdivision for 176 single family lots and one commercial lot in 2018. It's built out in three phases with this most recent being approved recently for 65 lots. A potential buyer intends to construct a single family home across the lot line between two lots. That's what you can see there in the red. That's between Lot 11 and Lot 12. However, there is a note on the plat that requires a five foot drainage utility construction and maintenance easement on either side of this line. So, a property boundary adjustment would be required as part of this, but in order to have this easement -- utility easement vacated this would have to take Council action. We do recommend approval. The applicant has submitted letters of no opposition from any of the interested parties. With that I would stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 6 of 71 Hoaglun: Alan, the approval would require, though, that they complete a property boundary adjustment before getting approval? Tiefenbach: That is correct, sir. That's a condition of approval. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant with us this evening? Alan, is that a no to your knowledge? Tiefenbach: They might be online, but I don't know if they are present. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes, they are online. I am promoting them in now. Simison: Mr. Money, if you can unmute yourself. Money: Okay. Can you hear me? Simison: We -- we can. Just need you to speak up or -- or we can turn up the volume. Money: Great. Mayor Simison, Members of the Council, my name is Jim Money. I'm with Civil Survey Consultants. I'm an engineer representing the owner of the project Sam Johnson, who is looking to sell the lot to -- to a prospective buyer as was described by Alan. I don't have anything to add to Alan's report, but I stand for any questions you might have. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Mr. Money, seeing no questions, we will see if there is anything from the public. So, Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no one's signed up. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody that would like to provide testimony on this item at this time? Seeing nobody and the one person online I know is from our staff, so they are not looking to do it. Would the applicant like to make any final comments, Mr. Money? Money: No. Thank you. Simison: Okay. Then with that, Council, do I have a motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we close the public hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 7 of 71 Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After hearing from the staff and applicant, I move to approve file number H- 2022-0041 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2022, and that the -- also include the condition that the applicant complete a property boundary adjustment prior to issuance of the building permit. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 6. Public Hearing Continued from January 4, 2022 for Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 4111 E. Amity Rd. (including the outparcel to the south) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale Ave. and E.Amity Rd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.38 acres), R-15 (24.17 acres), and C-C (2.95 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 249 total lots (124 single- family residential lots, 79 townhome lots, 4 multifamily lots, 4 commercial lots, 34 common lots, and 4 other lots) on 38.95 acres of land Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 8 of 71 Simison: Next item up is Item 6, which is a public hearing continued from January 4th, 2022, for Centerville Subdivision, H-2021-0046. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Since it's been six months plus since we have seen this I will just briefly go over what is before you tonight. It is for Centerville Subdivision. It's at the southeast corner of Amity and Hillsdale directly east of the South Meridian YMCA and Hillsdale Elementary School. It is a request for annexation and zoning of approximately 40 and a half acres, which is three existing parcels, from RUT to the R-8 zoning district, R-15 and C-C zoning district. The concept plan includes 219 single family units and 16 multi-family units. Includes a preliminary plat request for 249 total lots, 124 single family lots, 79 townhomes, four multi-family lots and four commercial lots, with 34 common lots on 30 -- approximately 39 acres. There has been no CUP submitted for the multi-family, which would be for the four four-plex units. That would be required in the future. Between --this was actually continued twice now. It was November of last year -- to November. In that change there was some changes that did occur, as you can see here. So, the applicant removed all of the traditional multi-family apartments along Hillsdale and replaced them with a majority of townhome units and more commercial buildings proposed to be flex space, as well as added flex -- or, sorry, four- plexes along Amity. They did reduce their total units of more than one hundred. They also added the three commercial lots to help with more commercial in the mixed-use neighborhood future land use. They overall reduced the density from 8.4 down to six units per acre and they moved the proposed pool amenity to the large central open space per the Commission's recommendation at the time. In January the majority of the discussion was around transportation and school capacities and schools. My understanding was there was not a specific motion to close the public hearing or limit the discussion. However, the main points of discussion remaining were regarding the schools. Staff -- or I should say Council wanted to have some -- I guess seminars -- I can't think of the word right now, but meetings with the school district to discuss the data, as well as proposed future improvements and plans for future school construction. My understanding is that those have occurred. So, at this time there is no outstanding issues from staff and I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for your staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I struggled all day trying to think about what I was going to say to the Council. We submitted this project on July 11 th of last year. My first letter from West Ada School District was the 28th or 29th of July of last year and I got a new letter today. Sometimes good things take time and I think this is a particular project that that is the case. The Council asked us to be patient. They asked us to pause and allow them to have the workshops with the West Ada School District. I did watch those workshops online. I think Jonathan and Marci and Dr. Bub and the board are, obviously, taking significant strides to come up with a ten year plan to figure out how we are going to build these schools, how we are going to adjust boundaries. The one thing that always Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 9 of 71 puzzled me is there was discussion about bussing the children when this particular project is kitty corner to the elementary and when I looked at the -- when I watched the workshop they submitted a site plan for the middle school, which is also kitty corner to this project and when we are designing projects, obviously, we want schools within walking and biking distance. We want that -- those public facilities to be within the grasp and within an economic distance. We have sewer. We have water. And Councilman Cavener said what about the streets. We already have an intersection at Hillsdale and Amity that operates at a level of service F without me and that's because the original developer of Hill Century Farms was supposed to install a signal and somehow it was eliminated. They were supposed to install a signal at Eagle Road across from Sky Mesa and that was also eliminated, because they were -- the ACHD said, well, not that many people make left- hand turns out of the project of Hill Century Farms, so the burden, obviously, falls upon my project and the Mayor has mentioned many times if you have a project before Meridian and we have some issues with transportation, then, you need to figure out a way to mitigate it. Well, our way to mitigate it is we got to install a signal and that has to be done with the first phase and that's part of my ACHD requirement and part of your conditions of approval and we have never skirted that. There was concerns about safety. Safe route to schools. We volunteered that we will do the rapid flashing light. They will also have a crossing guard at the same time to help those kids get across the -- the -- the collector roadway to get over to the Hillsdale Elementary School. I -- I look at a map and -- and it's developed everywhere. Everywhere. Even east of Boise. You look at this map and, gosh, I'm -- I'm in purple. I'm in purple and all the way east to Boise it's subdivisions. All the way west in Meridian it's subdivisions. To the north is Shelburne. It's all developed. This area is completely developed. This is a priority area. This Council, this Mayor, their planning staff have determined they are going to build a new fire station in this area. That this area is a priority. All the utilities, the schools are there to support this development. We have -- we have really tried -- I don't think I have ever tried harder on a project than on this 38 acres. I -- I can honestly say that. Even Bridge Tower was not -- I didn't spend as much time designing Bridge Tower as I did this 38 acres and I think what we have now is an excellent mixed-use project. Councilman Perreault, I read -- I read your -- your article in the boisedevelopment.com and -- and, you know, the -- the subject matter was affordable housing. What are we going to do in Meridian to, obviously, create housing for our workforce, housing for Idahoans, and not somebody that comes in from out of state with a 700,000 dollar cash check and, Councilman Perreault, I mean your words rang true. You spoke of the benefit of encouraging some higher density developments, such as -- and you mentioned Centerville and bringing in a mix of single family townhomes, multi-family, a variety of housing types and that it's encouraged in your Comprehensive Plan and I think now facing the financial situation that we are, looking at the interest rates, that home ownership may be getting further away from people and we need to make sure that we do what we can to have diversity in our projects and we --when we are on a major transit corridor, like Eagle Road, that's where we want to see some of this density and -- and a lot of people called it higher density -- 6.01 dwelling units per acre, that's -- that's medium density in today's world. You have got Eagle View Landing taking off. There are -- there are going to be hotels. There is going to be TopGolf. We have the St. Luke's facilities and everything happening around that Eagle Road interchange. I remember a day where the interchange was there and there was nothing. There was nothing, because Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 10 of 71 there was no sewer, there was no water, there was just a two lane rural road. But, you know, this area is blossoming and for it to be a priority area I think is -- is appropriate. As Joe indicated, we reduced this project by 108 units. We took 30 -- 33 percent of the density out. We are --we are matching all of our exterior lot lines with our neighbors. Our density around our perimeter within our R-8 is like 3.45. We have got I think one of the best mixed-use projects that -- that we can provide. We have our neighborhood commercial component. Mr. Mayor, you -- you questioned well, you know, how is that going to work where they have townhouses. We have significant landscape buffering. You know, we are --we are trying to integrate this project and blend it and that's the whole idea between -- behind mixed-use that we blend these projects, so that they -- these uses coexist and they create a better community that they fill a need that's there and when I look at Hill Century Farm and Sky Mesa I see seven hundred, eight hundred, million dollar houses. I don't see affordability. And so that's why in your land -- own land use map in your comp plan you talk about diversity and you talk about let's -- let's create housing for all residents. Amity Road is going to be expanded. ACHD is moving it up on its priority list. The dual roundabout at Eagle and -- and Amity is completed. I mean a lot of things have happened since I submitted this application for the good and I think these -- these strides forward are a positive step and I think this project is a positive step and we are committed to building something that the city can be proud of. Mr. Barton has been coming up, he's been having his designers work on new townhome product, new single family product. We have pool facilities, pickleball courts, multiple play equipments, linear open space pathways. I mean I -- I love what we are doing here. I really really do. And I ask the Council tonight to think about the struggles we have gone through. The patience that we have had and I think we have checked all the boxes and one of the neighbors came up to me tonight and -- and he had some kind words and he said you guys have went through a lot and I empathize with you and he said I just want it to get approved and be over and I'm kind of the same way. I mean I -- I don't know what the Council -- what more they want from me, because I have done everything I possibly can and my client has -- has bent over backwards to make sure that -- that this is a quality project and something that we can be proud of. That you can be proud of. I can be proud of. If I put my name on it it better look good and Mr. Barton has the same commitment here. He wants to be part of this community and I ask the Council and the Mayor to consider all the facts and the strides that have been made by the school district and the board and their staff and let us go in there and make this neighborhood safer, make the -- improve this transportation system and do our part to mitigate our impact. Do you have any questions? Simison: Thank you, Becky. Council, questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Becky, would you remind us where you were proposing the flashing crossing? Was that all the way in the southwest corner of the project or -- okay. Right across the middle -- Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 11 of 71 McKay: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, the -- the -- I allowed Ada County Highway District and West Ada to pick the location. There were discussions about putting it clear at the southwest corner. ACHD and the school district said they wanted it right there at our collector roadway. They thought that would be a significant distance from the existing rapid flashing and crossing guard and so they picked that location. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: And the existing is to the southwest farther -- farther south on that road; is that correct? Closer to the school entrance? McKay: That is correct. Perreault: So, a lot of the conversation we have had in the last two hearings has been about safety-- student safety. That's really something that's been a big part of this. That's kind of unique to this specific location and we had conversations about students being able to -- being able to safely walk and there is a -- a property that sits on the -- the west side of this street to the southwest of the project that does not allow -- or does not have a sidewalk. Have you had anymore conversation or progress on that? McKay: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I believe Mr. Nary reached out to Mrs. Hill, who still resides in the property. She's very elderly. And it's my understanding from what I was told by Ada County Highway District and I believe Mr. Nary's comment at the last hearing that she has a life estate for that property and she has a septic system and a well that she wanted to keep that would conflict with any improvements of sidewalk and until -- as long as she lives there that property will remain the same. Now, how that -- how that got approved, why that collector wasn't adjusted to accommodate that, I can't answer that question. I didn't -- I didn't design Hill Century Farm. I would have done it different. I'm surprised that the city allowed it when they are so sensitive to safe route to schools and ACHD, if we have an out parcel, even if it was split off within a year we are required to install sidewalk across their frontage to make sure that we have continuous sidewalk. So, I'm not sure how that happened. Maybe it had to do with -- with stipulations on the donation that was done by -- by Mrs. Hill. I can't answer that question. But I can't -- can't solve what's already been done. What I can do is try to make it safer and how is it going to be -- I mean what -- what I can -- what I can do is limited. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Becky, just -- I was just kind of curious for the townhome areas it talked about now that you have private streets and they have been approved, but is that all those interior streets are private that are where the townhomes are now located. Following that cursor down there and, then, up -- Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 12 of 71 McKay: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Hoaglun, we did --we did do --we have private alleys and some private streets and that was encouraged by Ada County Highway District that they would prefer that those be private streets. We did submit a supplemental private street application to your staff, which was approved administratively. We -- we still have guest parking. We still have two car garages for each townhome, plus a 20 by 20 pad. We also have notches out in the private road area, so we can have parallel parking. So, I have parallel parking along here and -- and it's notched out, so it's very visible. We also have parking down south for guest parking on the townhomes and if you notice all the townhomes are on common areas. They are long common areas here along Hillsdale Avenue. Linear open space here with a playground. Linear open space here. And, then, we also have detached walks with common areas all along these -- these townhomes. This is a public street here. So, the only private streets would be this, this one, the private alley and, then, this alley. And the reason for that is ACHD will not allow a public alley unless you have a public street in front of it and so that's what kind of nudged us into the private roads. It gave us more flexibility in our design and allowed me to add more open space, because we are over 15 percent qualified open space and at the time we submitted the requirement was ten and I did not even calculate in my detached eight foot buffers as my open space. So, that's over and above the 15.4 percent. Hoaglun: Thank you. McKay: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Becky, I think in January you submitted your phasing plan. McKay: Yes, sir. Cavener: Any intention to -- if this were approved to change your phasing plan based on calendaring and, if so, maybe walk Council through that. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, we have to build our -- our collector roadway coming off of the Hillsdale collector. I have to also install my secondary access, which is my -- my entrance road right off of Amity. I have to install turn lanes, decel lanes, that matches up with Shelburne. We kind of looked at this from a logical perspective. I think we put the -- the neighborhood commercial component in the third phase and, then, we have the fourth phase down in that southwest corner and the second phase made sense, because, then, we are making those interconnections to those other stub streets and if you recall we -- we changed our street network, so they are circuitous so we are not pushing traffic into the Rockhampton neighborhood or into the Hillsdale Creek neighborhood to the south, that we are -- it's -- it's kind of a circuitous connection and, then, we have our pedestrian connection. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 13 of 71 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you. Just in terms of timing on that, are you planning to adjust your timetable that you have presented? I think I -- maybe I'm mistaken. I thought you sent a letter in early January and I -- I guess I thought it had timing on it. I guess maybe, then, walk Council through what is the proposed amount of time between each phase. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I did submit a letter that -- that -- that basically laid out the phasing, which units would come online and the number of students generated by each phase. Obviously, that's been pushed out for a year, because it started with a 2022 design and infrastructure install. So, based on where we are now and how long the agencies are taking to review, we won't even start infrastructure until 2023. So, we won't have any -- we won't have any homes going vertical until probably spring of 2024 and based on the market conditions if the clients kind of pull back those phases may get a little smaller, as we saw in --when we went through the great recession. We had hundred lot phases and fifty lot phases and, then, all of a sudden the phases went down to about twenty lots and, then, the phases just kind of stopped. So, you know, we -- we don't know what the future holds. Obviously I wanted to give you the worst case scenario and that is what I provided you as far as that they would build approximately a phase every year. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Becky, then, still if -- if this were to be approved your timetable is to have the whole thing constructed by 2027? McKay: That would be the plan. In a perfect world with a continuing housing market and not ten percent interest rates. Cavener: Thank you. McKay: I know it's scary, isn't it? It's very scary. Yes. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? McKay: Yeah. I -- I -- I read an article that said that when the interest rates were at three percent the same individual -- you know, family that could afford -- or qualify for a 400,000 house now with the interest rates being where they are can only qualify for 275 and I -- I think Councilman Perreault can -- can confirm that. So, we -- we do have a situation on our hands and -- and we need to adjust and the only way we can adjust is, obviously, creating some diversity in these projects. Otherwise, they struggle. The single product projects will struggle in a harsh economic environment. But if we have diversity that allows us to have pricing ability. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 14 of 71 Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Ok. Okay. Thank you, Becky. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, my only question for Joe -- Joe, just to confirm -- and it's been, you know, since January since we heard this application, but to confirm the -- the -- the multi- family that's on the north side, the four buildings of -- of multi-family, is that necessary to accomplish the -- the zoning that's for this area? Dodson: Councilman Bernt, my understanding is that it is just to add diversity to the housing. They didn't have to do that. They don't need it for the zoning, no. It's just another option. Bernt: Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Councilman Bernt. Mr. Clerk, I assume we have a few people signed up for this item. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. First is James Phillips. And, Mr. Phillips, Joe is bringing up your presentation. Simison: And just state your name and address for the record, please. And are you representing an HOA? Phillips: Yes. I will be representing Hillsdale Creek Subdivision. Name is James Phillips. 4140 East Rockhampton Street. Today I feel a lot of weight on my shoulders as I represent a number of voices that I have talked to over the past months from the public about real concerns, specifically in the southeast Meridian area where this is proposed. The analogy I like to use is that of a -- of a passenger plane. You can develop and make the -- the most perfect, accommodating, affordable passenger plane there is, going to allow people to go from point A to point B, but unless that is -- unless it goes to a landing strip that can accommodate that passenger -- passenger plane it will not work. There is real concern still -- macro concerns -- and I appreciate the diligence that the City Council has made in double clicking on some of these concerns -- of having that meeting -- joint meeting with West Ada and it helps us come to terms as to the data as to what we are looking at. What is that landing strip looking like for a project like this? So, I will talk to that a little bit. The first one I want to bring up is the school. This -- I took screenshots and this is in the -- the Web links on -- in the City of Meridian's folder here. The timeline that Becky mentioned you can just add one year. It doesn't make the difference. The math still is the same and you will see even on the timeline as well. So, let me -- so, the short -- I will just kind of hop through the numbers real quick. So, if you were to just take the four phases, add up -- you can see where the numbers land in terms of number of students. But instead of end in 2027, add that year that Becky mentioned, it's 2028. So, 64 students for elementary, 32 students from middle school, 42 students for high school. Using the updated metrics from West Ada, you can see the Hillsdale area -- again that's southeast Meridian. We are projected to be over capacity by 390 students, of which this sub -- this Centerville plan will make up over 15 percent if you just take the numbers. On Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 15 of 71 the middle school side, again Lake Hazel, again, the comment on the southeast Meridian schools area is projected to be over capacity by 153. We are already at capacity on middle school and that over capacity, again, Centerville's proposal is 20 -- 20 percent. Finally, on the high school side as well. Same story; right? We are projected to be over by 409 students and -- and over ten percent of that comes from Centerville's proposal. In other words, if you just take it -- look at it, not -- not taking account timing and building of new schools, there is a real strong argument for city -- the City Council to deny or postpone this -- this based on the fact that we just don't have schools there in southeast Meridian to accommodate this growth. Now, West Ada did do some math and figured out what needs to be built there in south Meridian; right? You have that one elementary school, one middle school and one high school. They also put together a tentative timeline of when those schools could possibly be built. Again, tentative; right? If you look at -- and compare that to the phases of this plan, you can see where it lines up. Again this is based off of that paper with the updated information. You can add one more year. The story is still the same. The phases for this plan is -- tend to -- in the worst case, obviously, would be built out before we would even be considered to have a middle school in south Meridian or high school where there is great need. And, then, finally, obviously, also in addition to timing -- so you have those three components; right? The overall math in the end, the land, the timeline of things and, then, obviously, the -- the -- the -- where the -- where is the money going to come from and I do know that there was some conversations in the joint discussion with West Ada to -- to have the city CFO talk with the impact fee committee to figure out if there is a way to -- to offset some of this cost. But even, then, they acknowledge that a bond will still be required -- expected to have a bond to help pay for these build outs. And that kind of concludes the main points I want to make regarding the school. There is a few other things around traffic. There is real concern -- there is no faith whatsoever by public on the traffic impact study that was in there. I don't think I need to bring too much attention, but even Becky called out the situation that -- at which it was done. It wasn't very -- very -- there was not a whole lot of wiggle around in it from like estimating percentages of where traffic would flow out of the -- the -- the plan, 70 percent north compared to ten percent west and I don't think so given where everything is developed in that plan. The percent -- because it was during COVID they used 2018 to 2019 numbers projected a two percent growth. We know that there has been a lot more than that. Again, kind of bad assumptions create bad conclusions. And, finally, even in the -- in the TIS itself it does call out the traffic count should be recollected in the future to verify background traffic and it just goes to show like -- and these have real consequences. If you look at the -- there is an option -- there is -- there is solutions or conclusions drawn from these, including, for example, putting in that light at that intersection, That's one of the options, that came out of this study. Now, what would be the options that ACHD would like to see if they actually do an up-to-date study of what the traffic is going to be on that Hillsdale Avenue and on Amity? And, finally, if you take a look at the integrated five year work plan that ACHD did and most recently adopted this year, it -- they have -- the budget for the first two years -- and if you take a look at what's happening in Amity, there is a lot of question marks of when things are going to happen. Like there is not even a date for acquiring right -- the right of way to build out Amity. That's not even a date on that yet, let alone a date for construction. And, then, last point from a public-- public concern point of view is safety. Talked about already Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 16 of 71 a little bit about that sidewalk gap. I really would like to see an update on where that -- that is. If we have a timeline of when that would ultimately be built out or is that still a big question mark because of the living trust there? The blind spot that happens at the corner there and also the additional traffic that the plan will bring to Hillsdale Avenue and that -- this collector -- and Becky mentioned like if -- if she had done this she would have done this differently, because it's a big concern about making sure it's safe -- they are safe -- safe walking areas to the schools. And adding this -- this plan will add additional traffic to Hillsdale Avenue that -- that this collector turns, in essence, into a drop-off, pick-up line of parked cars all the way up to Amity during school drop off times and that will be competing with the traffic of people going in and out of -- from work that are going to be ultimately living in that area. And, then, lastly, I -- I think that's the main point. There is one other slide about the plan itself that I really wish we had an opportunity to talk about this plan in P&Z. We hyper focused on the original plan and -- and it was revised, but there were things that were brought up, even in discussion with Becky on the land about what we can do for transitional density down in the southwest corner that never made it to the final revision that I really would like to have an opportunity to talk to -- to the developer and P&Z around. But given the macro condition it's not -- it doesn't make much sense to -- to really talk about it here. That's kind of it. I think there is a real responsibility that the -- I -- I do believe that this -- the Mayor and the Members of the Council really do take their -- this job serious and they want to make sure that the -- the plan does land properly in the area, but there is real still public concern around what's happening in southeast Meridian that just doesn't accommodate the current plan for Centerville. Thanks. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next signed up is Chris and Amy Johnson. I will let you decide who is first. Simison: If you can state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. A.Johnson: Amy Johnson. 4069 East Tenant Drive in Meridian. I'm part of the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision. Been here quite a few times for all these meetings. Quite honestly, will just kind of start with my feelings as a community member and seeing especially Council Perreault -- I'm sorry if I mispronounced your name -- but praise Centerville in that article that Becky brought up. It was kind of disheartening, because it hasn't been approved. You don't have a lot of community support. You have seen a ton of us come out every single meeting, provide support. We are just not satisfied with the way this is, for a lot of pretty fundamental reasons. Our kind of focus more on parking and traffic. Those are the big problems in here. So, James just spoke about having Hillsdale Lane. It's going to become a parking lot. With that light you cue in people. It's going to become so hard to move and maneuver in and out. I don't see how that's going to be an addition. It's only going to be a really big problem for the community. This is the time right now to correct that. I think the developer and Becky -- they need to widen Hillsdale Lane. They need to add a designated turn lane if it's to go forward, because, otherwise, there is just Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 17 of 71 no places for those cars to go. Additionally, I have never seen a CBH development -- and I have driven quite a few of them -- provide enough parking at all. If we are talking about higher density, we are talking about people who are bunking together, renting together. That's more cars than are being produced for the two -- or the tandem garages or the parking garages and things like that. There is just going to be more cars and the way the driveway sits in those developments you can't park between them. They are too close. Or maybe you got a small car. But you walk--you drive through some CBH developments specifically and they are tight and they are really hard to navigate and I think that's only a setback to our community, because we have a really great community, we have great developers come in and produce a really nice neighborhood and this just is not in keeping with the area I don't think. It's not a walkable area. There is no public transportation. It's not going to be in the future anytime soon. So, I think it's really paramount -- now is the time to -- if you are going to go forward with the apartments, there needs to be so much more parking that's already -- that's not been addressed properly and the new revised one it's really hard to know how many parking spots are designated. But I sat on the traffic commission for the city of Beaverton for eight years. We have never seen a development that had enough parking and so those are the two biggest things. And, finally, it kind of sounds like a NIMBY thing, but I don't find CBH houses to be that much more affordable than any others in the community. But you see that they don't landscape the backyards. They have just sheer boxes. So, there is a quality issue. I quickly went to the Better Business Bureau. There are 34 complaints against CBH in the last three years. Ten in the last 12 months compared to Biltmore, which had one and Presidio, which had zero. And those are neighborhood builders in the communities that we live in. So, that's all I have to say. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, I just want to clarify. It sounds like we have some confusion about this article that was published in March. That article was published highly incorrectly. I was not quoted correctly. The article -- the nature and the topic of the article is not anywhere near the discussion I had with the reporter and I brought it to the attention of the owner of Boise Dev at the time that the article was published and he offered to not rescind the article, which would have been my preference. He offered to publish corrections to that article and to talk to him about it and I thought about it and I decided, you know, the news cycles every -- people will forget it. It's a news cycle. And clearly they haven't. So, 1, obviously, need to contact the owner of Boise Dev and get him to publish a correction to that. There -- I wasn't praising Centerville. I'm not going to go on all the specifics on that article, but that's not for this conversation, but I just want to be clear about that. The conversation I had with the reporter regarding Centerville was whether she had watched the public hearing about Centerville as an example of how housing is being developed in the area. Had nothing to do with the merits of Centerville. We don't discuss those while there is still a public hearing. It was whether or not she is paying attention to what's Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 18 of 71 happening in the city of Meridian. That's the extent of the conversation with that reporter regarding Centerville. So, I just want to put that out there for the applicant's sake, for the public's sake, on the record that -- that -- that the article is very incorrect. The reporter has zero experience reporting on housing in the entire valley. Excuse me. So, just want to put that out there. In regard to this particular application, am I hearing you correct that your two main concerns are traffic movement through the neighborhood, parking within the actual neighborhood itself, and, then, was there a third one? A.Johnson: It's traffic and parking are my two primaries. Hillsdale Lane being the collector street that it is, is just -- it's -- it's too -- it's an F right now and even if you put a light in from my experience being on the traffic commission, you are going to queue in a bunch of traffic at one time; right? Light turns green, you are going to get five, eight, ten cars turning left at that time. If it's the same time that school pick up is at, where are they going to go? I mean that -- I assume you guys have all driven the area. You understand how it's going to queue up. There is just no safe places. And, then, again, to go back to school safety, there is no place safe for the kids to cross when you have cars constantly doing that and with the commercial aspect of it where it is, that's where people are going to be typically coming in or off of Amity. But it's just going to be too congested. It's too congested now. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: There are other areas of the city that have the same concern and we hear these types of objections in other areas of the city as well and what I have been wanting to hear, hopefully, from our public testimony this evening is what is it specific about your location that makes it unique that this development shouldn't be there versus other areas where we work through traffic and parking issues and so anything really specific that you give -- or that the -- you know, that we can hear about that's not just this is congested, because we have congested -- we have conversations about congestion all over the city; right? A.Johnson: Yes. Perreault: Which is not so much in our control, but -- so, if there is something that's specific to that other than just general congestion and parking challenges, please, feel free to share that as well. A.Johnson: Well, it is also the graduation of the actual hill that goes down into Hillsdale Elementary. It is very specific and unique to this community. It's just not going to be safe. There is no sight lines going down. Even if they cross over at the YMCA at this point, like Becky was testifying, there is no sidewalk over there to continue the kids down. At this time, unique to our space, there is just not a safe way to have that kind of congestion add to the --to the traffic and now is the time to address Hillsdale Lane not being wide enough. I mean once it's developed there is nothing we can do about it and I'm not saying no Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 19 of 71 development, don't -- don't develop it at all, but, you know, I think the onus is on you guys especially and us as a community to say not right now. We need to really get these -- our priorities straight. We need to have the infrastructure. We need to have the fire stations. And we need to have the schools pretty much ready to go, then, move people in, not the other way around and I think we have reached kind of that crux and so that's kind of my point with the traffic. But I have never seen -- I go back to the parking thing. I have never ever seen an apartment complex have enough parking and why can't we say, you know what, that's fine, but create a lot more parking, especially when we are talking about possibly another recession and more density. There is just going to be more people, families, multi-families living together, things like that. It's just a reality. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Johnson. C.Johnson: Thank you. Chris Johnson. 4069 East Tenant Drive, Meridian. I reaffirm everything that my wife said, like a smart married man. You know, I -- I really -- I'm not part of this NIMBY crowd. I don't have the NIMBY mindset. Of course we moved here to Meridian a few years ago knowing that it's one of the fastest growing cities. There is going to be tons and tons of development and that's great. I especially like the fact that we are trying to build affordable housing. I think that's -- that's wonderful. My concern is really just the same things that she said. Just the congestion, traffic, and the school overcrowding and I realize that you guys don't have any influence over what's going on with the school. That's a state thing. And a lot of the roads and things like that are state issues, too. So, I -- I would just encourage you to -- first, let's make sure that we have a good plan in place for another school or two to handle the density, the --the overflow from the current schools. So, Hillsdale Creek, of course, is completely full. Anybody thinking they are going to move into this community now and send their kids there are sorely mistaken. So, those -- those are the -- the main issues that I would like to get across. My thought is -- I just -- I don't see any harm -- what -- what is the harm in just delaying this a little bit further,just allowing things to catch up a little bit, some more studies to be done, that kind of thing. So, that's all I have to say. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Johnson: And, Mr. Mayor, those were the only people that marked they wanted to speak. Simison: Okay. Well, if there is anybody else present that would like to provide testimony on this item just, please, come up one at a time. You don't need me to call on you. You all -- you all police yourselves to figure out. But come on up and state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. And if you are online and would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand feature at the bottom of the Zoom call. Prestwich: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, I had no intention of speaking today, but it seems that as I listen to testimonies -- Simison- If you can state your name and address for the record. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 20 of 71 Prestwich: Oh, I apologize. I'm Rebecca Prestwich. I live on Bleachfield Avenue, which is connecting to the Centerville Subdivision in the Hillsdale Creek Subdivision currently. I wanted to share with you what happened at the last meeting at the end of the meeting. I sat down, along with one other individual, to talk with Becky and just ask her a few questions and we were in the middle of a conversation when one of the Council Members walked up to her, interrupted our conversation, shook her hand and said we will get this done and winked at her. Now, that didn't leave a really good feeling with me, because it felt like this was a done deal no matter what anybody said or we are going to do and I would hope that as a Council you don't allow outside influences to buy your vote, so to speak, because that's what it really seemed to me was happening. I think that we do need development and we need responsible development in our community. I'm not against development -- development, but I am against this project, because I don't think it fits seamlessly into our community. I would have no objection to having single family homes on that property with no mixed-use, but I know you are -- you want that and so that's probably going to happen, but it seems to me that the -- the Council's been very polite in listening to all of us, but you have already had a preconceived notion of what you are going to do and you, yourself, Mayor said in one of our meetings that, you know, as long as you have lived here schools have always been a problem and you have always overcome it and so when we bring up schools all the time that doesn't seem like it's really something that you have power or control over, but you have to politely listen to all of the testimony. I do think it's deeper than just the schools, it's the whole community having a really feeling of not being listened to, a feeling of things not going as the plan said, the Comprehensive Plan. A feeling approving projects one after the other not knowing what the consequences of all the growth is and that's a concern to all of us. We -- we talk about it all the time, every time we meet each other, run into each other and I think you need to listen to that, because it will affect you as elected members of our community and that's all I have to say. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Prestwich: Thank you. Simison: Come on up. Like I say, if you -- if you want to testify maybe come up and sit in the front row and, then, you can each take turns for those that want to speak, so -- Baker: Hi. My name is Dallas Baker from -- I live in Meridian, Hillsdale. 5313 South McCurry Way. And I live directly behind the school and the YMCA. My qualifications -- I am a -- a water purveyor from the University of Florida and Florida State and I'm a master plumber from the state of Washington. So, as a plumber my job is to keep the -- the state and the citizens safe. That's my job. I am the safety officer of society, basically. The house right there -- Ms. Hillsdale that lives on the corner has a septic tank and I don't know if anybody here has any experience with that -- septic tanks put out what they call brown water or gray water. That water will be at this site forever -- ever and a day and so what happens is those little children go out there and they will stomp around and they will get their feet wet with contaminated water. Excuse me. Had to pull this thing up. Contaminated water. So, we don't want our children to get contaminated water and so, Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 21 of 71 therefore, I think as long as that house is there and the septic tank will be there until somebody decides one day to pull it up. But even that -- so, that water from that drain field is contaminated and so, therefore, there is waterborne diseases and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyway, I'm sorry if -- I'm not used to getting in front of people and talk, but I think it's very, very important that people know that the little guys and girls will end up running through that drain field, going home to mom and daddy and spread -- could be potential spreading waterborne diseases and that's very, very, very important. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Harris: I will make it short and sweet. My name is Kathy Harris and I live at 4066 East Tenant Drive in Hillsdale Creek and I think my only complaint about this is when we bought our house four years ago we were told that that land had been purchased by CBH, but it was going to be strictly single family homes and we bought under that pretense and I think if they were to stick to that original plan that would eliminate a lot of the parking and traffic issues and even the school issues. So, why -- they have changed the plan since then. I don't quite understand and I understand you guys want more density and stuff, but that land originally was planned for single dwelling homes. So, thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Okay. Then the applicant -- would the applicant like to come forward to close? McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay. Engineering Solutions. Representing Challenger Development. There was discussions about macro concerns, that the joint meeting with West Ada School District didn't accomplish anything. At least that's what was inferred. That there is still school capacity issues, timeline issues, and when bonds will be ran and these schools can be built. We did receive -- oops. Excuse me. We did receive a new letter from West Ada today. It did analyze the project again. This is my third letter. And it did indicate that the school district has a plan for transporting students to alternative schools with available classrooms. Attendance areas may be adjusted based on availability in nearby schools. Passage of bonds for new schools to fit enrollment needs and possibility of portable classrooms placed on properties. And West Ada thanked us for trying to improve the safe route to schools and creating bike paths and micro paths that will, obviously, make things safer in this area. When you look at this map you have got Skybreak, you have got The Keep, you have Pinnacle Subdivision. They have all got to be bussed, because they are too far away. They can't walk to this school. Whereas this project can. And what Dr. Bub and Jonathan and Marci indicated to me when I met with them was that, you know, one of the things that we look at is adjustment of these boundaries and our goal is, obviously, to have as many children as we can walk to the schools and what do we have here? We have a project that's kitty-corner to an elementary school. That school is Hill Century Farm School. That Hillsdale collector is a mid mile collector, intended to be signalized, intended to take traffic out of this section to Amity Road, which is a minor arterial, which is going to be expanded to three lanes. They indicated that the traffic study was bogus, which is not Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 22 of 71 correct. The traffic study followed all ACHD guidelines and every mitigation measure available to my client was placed as a condition upon us. Turn lanes, decel lanes, signals, rapid flashing lights. I'm doing everything I can, other than build a new freeway to Boise. I mean -- I mean we are -- we are limited in what we can do and -- and I guess one frustration that I have is their traffic does not impact our roadway network. Their kids don't impact our schools. There were no special assessments paid by them for that school. That school was built with a bond. Owyhee was built with a bond. There -- the rules need to be the same for everyone. You asked us to pause. You said we are going to take a pause. I watched every Council agenda after that. Every single one. And not one project was paused due to schools. Amy Johnson, who was on the school board at the time, testified the situation is worse in north -- in Star and north Meridian as far as school capacity and the number of potential students coming into the system than it is in south Meridian. Yet Quartet was annexed, zoned, and the preliminary plat approved. I have seen other projects just zoom by me. Zoom by me. What is different about this project? Nothing. In fact, this project has more facilities -- public facilities and is in a priority area than any other project I have ever had and -- and -- and I -- I am puzzled. They talk about transitional densities. I have -- I have done the transitional densities. I have got three -- a little over three dwelling units per acre all along my perimeter. I have a total of 6.01 gross density. They talk about the Comprehensive Plan land use map. That map, as Joseph indicated in his previous reports, supports exactly what we are proposing and that level of service -- oh, you can't build anything until the level of service improves. We are going to improve the level of service. It's F. It's going to go to B. I mean -- and they are saying that we are -- we are skewing the numbers? ACHD analyzed what I need to do to mitigate. The school district has analyzed what we need to do to plan to serve this particular piece of property that is across the street from this school and they are going to do that. If not right now, then, let's just shut down all of the cities. Shut them down until everybody passes a bond and the legislature comes up with a magic wand to fix all of our problems. That's never going to happen. It's just never going to happen. And they kept talking about apartments. I have no apartments in this project. I only have single family dwellings, townhouses, which are three and four and, then, we have four four- plexes that back up to an arterial. So, we have a little bit of a rental component next to our neighborhood commercial. I have no tandem parking. No tandem parking is -- is suggested in this. They are all two car garages. No tandem. I have incorporated on- street parking, off-street parking. I mean we -- we have gone way out of our way to make sure that this is well parked, because I know what the parking situation is. I see it and I always try to have more parking. This project is a good project and just because it is different than what is in Hill Century Farm does not make it incompatible. Your comp plan states that in this area is mixed-use and medium density residential and that's what we have provided and we have provided a darn good project and they talk about it -- oh, it's -- it's going to be so dense and tight. We have so much open space and linear open space and wrought iron fencing -- I mean it's going to look very very open. We are not going to put solid fences on those townhomes, because that compartmentalizes them. It doesn't create for an open atmosphere and we want people on that open space and feel like even though they have a townhome lot, it's smaller, they are on an open space. They have pathways. They have amenities. They have things to do. This is not a hindrance to this neighborhood and this neighborhood is not the all knowing, all seeing. We have Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 23 of 71 gone and jumped through every -- every hoop there is and this project's been scrutinized and scrutinized and re-scrutinized and we have adjusted and, like I said, I have never had a project where I dropped 108 dwelling units and the staff wanted my density to be higher. I -- I did multiple pre-apps and so I -- I listened to them and -- and, then, when they saw the --the backlash, they said, hey, you know, you -- you better take another look at it and I think where we are at the staff is happy. We have a good -- darn good project and if this project can't be approved here, then, I don't think the city of Meridian should approve any project anywhere in the city, whether it's in a priority or non-priority, because this one meets all your goals and we have -- we have -- I don't know what else I can do. I just don't. And deferring this -- what -- what does that accomplish? I -- I don't -- I don't understand it. I -- I just don't. I am frustrated and -- and speechless and for someone to say that there is ex-parte communication -- I say that's wrong. That is wrong. The only statement made to me was to be patient and let these workshops take place, so that the Council could get more information. That is it. That is all. No one promised me anything and I have never asked for any special favors. I just want to be treated fairly, like any other project that's in this area and all the projects that have previously been approved. Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Becky. Council, questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for Becky regarding the exit. I know in our subdivision where we have got a collector going out onto an arterial and we don't even have a light, but we will get one someday, but there is enough room for cars and they queue up and so cars that are going right stay to the right and cars going left stay to the left. Is that the situation here or is there room for lanes? What's -- what's that situation exiting out on -- I think that's Hillsdale Lane that goes out. McKay: Mayor Simison, Councilman Hoaglun, that's a good question. When we did Bridge Tower -- typically most engineers go with an expanded throat, so that, then, you can -- when it becomes signalized and it's warranted, which this is, then, you can stripe those lanes, so -- so, they will go in and ACHD will -- when we submit a signal design, which we have to do as a condition, then, they will evaluate restriping and creating turn lanes, so you have left turns and right turns and if it requires some additional widening, then, they have us do that. Locust Grove and Overland is a prime example. When the Fast--when I did the Fast Eddy's and that commercial project there and, then, we did the backage road into Mountain View High School, because they were overloading Millennium, which I did that collector and signal, then, ACHD said, hey, you know, while you are at it let's widen and lengthen that intersection there and create longer turn lanes. We did the same thing at Linder and State Highway 44 with a project called The Preserve for Coleman Homes. We went in and we lengthened the turn lanes and we stripped it. So, you know, that -- that's up to ACHD. It's their traffic engineers that make the determination. Our traffic engineer analyzes it, makes their recommendations on how to Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 24 of 71 mitigate and how to solve the problems that are out there. This is an existing problem. This is not a problem created by me. But the burden falls upon my client to fix it and we are willing to do that and I think that's what's important and I think that's what the Mayor has been saying, you know, if we have some deficiencies in our transportation system, our sewer or water system, and you want to bring a project in, then, you need to mitigate and fix the problem and that's what we are doing here. And I ask the Council to support this. I have -- I have -- I have never -- like I said, I am speechless and that's -- that's -- you know that's uncommon for me. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you. Don't go far, but thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: While probably Council is taking some time to digest a lot of the testimony and commentary from the applicant, but I'm happy to at least start a couple things up for conversation. First, I want to thank Council, Mayor, staff, applicant and the public. I know this has felt a lot like a marathon and I think a lot of the reason why we are here tonight I'm -- I'm to blame for that. I wasn't supportive of -- of this project in January for -- for some of the reasons that we have talked about tonight. It's really the impact on our schools. And I was -- in a rare moment of optimism I was very hopeful that our legislature would work to try and provide us as cities, us as a community more solutions to provide better access to education for our kids. They failed, which makes it really hard, because, Becky, you -- you touched on this. You said -- you have checked all the boxes and I agree, I think you have checked every box that has been presented for you you have worked to find a solution. That is your brand. That is your MO. And I commend you for it. But you also said what's different about this project and -- and I will tell you just for me where I'm coming from what makes this project different is when you look around our community there is much more easy access in areas of growth to divert students to other schools. We don't have that in south Meridian. We have students who live in south Meridian who are bused to Franklin and Linder Road. For an elementary kid that is not fair to them. We have high school students that are being crowded into portables with no plan. These aren't necessarily some things that you have the ability to solve. I know if you could you would. But the fact of the matter is these are impacts on our community and I can't in good conscience continue to exacerbate a problem that already exists and so for me that's -- that's what makes this different. In north Meridian, in central Meridian, in Eagle and Star and Boise we can put those students in other places and we don't have the mechanism to do that in south Meridian. We continue to see growth and without a plan -- and that's where my questions came about your phasing is that if we could come to a mechanism about when this would be built and how that would coincide with some of these schools being built, I think I could get there. I just can't get there tonight. And so I appreciate everything that you have done and it's the reason why I wanted to continue this project and I know I probably frustrated you by doing that and I have taken a lot of heat from many of your colleagues for pushing for this, but I thought it was to at least give Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 25 of 71 you a fair opportunity to allow the state and our community to find solutions to some of the problems that you haven't helped to create, but that your project will continue to exacerbate. So, I'm not going to be in favor of the project tonight, not because I don't love it and because I don't hope to see -- that we see more of this in Meridian, I just can't in good conscience be in favor of it tonight in this particular location. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I appreciate the patience shown by everyone. This is a long process to be at this for over a year is -- is a long time. It's unusual. We had a lot of meetings over that course of time. Three -- three different meetings with the school district and school board involved and it is difficult and having grown up in this community -- moved here in 1970, seen a lot of changes, and that change includes my kids going to schools in portables. That includes my kids going to be bused to Eagle to go to school when you live in Meridian and -- and there are options to that and for my oldest son it was a private school, because we weren't going to have that happen, because that was not our community. Nothing wrong with Eagle, but just wasn't -- wasn't workable. So, anybody who comes here and if they are going to be bused that is part of their decision and that -- that process it -- it's up to them to decide. Do we want to move and live here if our kids aren't going to go to Hillsdale. That -- that's the market at -- at -- at work. But what was clear from the meeting that -- my take away with -- with the school district and the board and the administrators is the fact that they say it's on us. It's our responsibility to make sure kids where ever they come from get a good education -- quality education and we have -- we have to trust them with that. They are elected. They are appointed. They have that responsibility. Yes, we pay attention to it, but it was very clear to me that they said that is our responsibility. You guys take care of what you think is important for -- for you and for some of us it's -- it's different things. There are different -- different priorities, which we don't always agree on that and that -- that's fine. That's -- that's why we are up here. You know, I would love for Meridian to be single family homes everywhere, but it's just not possible anymore. I live in a development that is single family homes. Used to be a farm. I know all about septic tanks and wells and everything else. I'm not concerned about that particular place having contaminated water. If you got surface water coming up you have got a serious issue and -- and if it's not present, then, they are not going to be walking in water. So, anyway, the -- the issue we are having is over that time Meridian has greatly changed. It's because people are coming from out of state, we have been discovered, lots of money coming in, they are able to purchase homes driving the price up and I have -- we have young people, married couples, just like my son and daughter- in-law looking to purchase a home a few years ago, they can't afford a single family home with a big yard and it's -- it's out of reach. It's out of reach. I want them to live in Meridian. I don't want them to live in Kuna or Caldwell or anyplace else. I want my little grandkids being close to home and so we are doing things a little bit differently. We have to. Land prices have gone up. Housing prices have soared. You know it. You get your property tax assessments. You have seen what's been going on. So, how do we -- how do we have people, young people, are getting started in life be able to afford Meridian? Well, Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 26 of 71 you have to increase densities a little bit. You have to squeeze things a little bit. The yards aren't as big and I know if you are in a single family home you go, well, I want everything to look like ours, but in this case, in this particular area, it was zoned a medium density residential. So, that means different lot size -- sizes and -- and different densities and the good thing is -- because we -- we get this all the time. We are always trying to match these things that we look at it as in fill to some degree, although this is 40 acres, it's been there quite a while. The ability to try and match what is surrounding on the outside, so there is not a lot of variation and -- and you guys are fortunate, because we have seen a lot of plans come in a lot worse where those -- those lot lines don't line up and you are having two, three homes -- so, my home that was a farm at one time, we have got three houses behind us, not one, and here you have got matching, matching, matching, matching and a little variation on the east side, but pretty darn close. So, there has been a lot -- to me a lot of thought that went into that to make that work a little better, because a lot of times it doesn't work and that's -- that's the hard part and I get it, it's hard for change, because we went through that ourselves personally, going from a farm to the middle of a subdivision, and it's hard, because you have lost your views, you lose this, you lose that, there is more traffic, there is more noise and -- just don't talk to my wife, because she will really go off. But it's just one of those things that -- that -- how can we do the best that we can within the law that our -- our zoning laws require and we have a state land use law. There are a lot of things and it gets complicated, but property rights is very paramount in Idaho. So, people who own the property and want to do something with it, we have to be very careful that we follow certain structures and laws, because they have a right to sue and take us to court and say they are -- they are taking a property right. So, we -- we pay very close -- close attention to what we say can be zoned and, then, we really have to find very specific areas that it's not meeting our criteria and that's -- that's what makes it difficult. You just can't say, nope, we don't want it. Oh, we don't like that developer, they don't build quality homes. We cannot go there. We cannot go there at all. We can't say, oh, we like this developer better than that developer. We -- we just -- we just can't. So, that's -- that's difficult. Traffic. Certainly we look at that. That was my question on that. Is there going to be a backup on that? Yes, that's a concern. How far will that go down? Will there be turn lanes or putting in a light, that's -- that's big. I -- I know what it's like not to have a light on a very busy arterial and to make that work. So, there is a lot I -- I guess to unpack here. The testimony is good. The testimony has impacted this development in many ways. There has been a lot of changes and I think a lot of good changes that have come about. It's never a perfect plan, but it's one that -- it's one that I can see has -- has come a long ways and we will just let people decide if if that's the development that's right for him if they are -- for them if their kids aren't going to be going to school nearby, so -- and in due time another school will be built and you -- for my kids it was Chaparral and got to go to a brand new school and -- but they had to put up with portables for several years. So, it's a -- it's -- it's one of those decisions that -- that you have to make and that they will have to make if this development moves forward in -- in the future. So, just my perspective on that, Mr. Mayor. I -- I think I can -- I can go there. It has changed immensely. Losing 33 percent of the density is -- is massive. I think that's the largest I have ever seen in -- in a project that's come -- come before us. We have had changes before, but I think that's -- that's been the largest, so -- and -- and the variety is -- is what we call for in our plan to allow people to have the Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 27 of 71 ability to -- to stay living in Meridian if they are just starting out or maybe winding down in a career. So, there is -- there is both aspects of that, so -- anyway, my thoughts. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: First off, before I give my thoughts about this project, I just wanted to thank the citizens who have been super passionate about this development, who have spent a lot of time and a lot of energy expressing concern and -- and have been really involved and if there is one thing that I appreciate as a City Council Member is the involvement and the engagement of the citizens of our great city. There was a comment earlier about that we don't listen and sitting in my seat and doing what I do, I can reassure you one thousand percent that I take not only what's said in testimony on the evening on the Tuesday night of -- of City Council meetings, but also the public testimony that's in the packet that we receive during the application process. It's a big deal and -- and so I --just a comment to -- to -- to -- to just let the community know my thought process when it comes to these issues. Just ask my wife, we -- I -- I -- we talk all the time. I -- we bounce ideas off each other and -- and this is some -- sometimes we don't get night sleeps knowing that we have to make tough decisions and this is the difference between the state legislature or -- and -- or -- or -- or our federal representation, right, because they make decisions in buildings where normal citizens aren't at. We make decisions looking in the eyes right here at City Hall and this is what makes local government so special, because citizens have access to your local elected officials on a much more intimate level than you do elected officials at the state and federal level and, frankly, it's the reason why -- frankly, it's the reason why I -- I -- I have loved what I have done and this -- the service I have provided this -- this city for the past four years. But these type of decisions are difficult. They are -- they are not easy and when -- when these -- when -- when the decision has been made and the votes been cast, it's quite common, at least for me, to be thinking about the decision, the vote that I made, weeks after the fact. I have to say that I -- I have to say that during tonight's testimony and tonight's presentation and along with the -- the presentation that was made back in January and testimony, there is one word that comes to mind and it just keeps on repeating itself in -- in my thought process and that's consistency and there was a thought -- there was a comment earlier by someone that says that we don't follow our Comprehensive Plan. I couldn't disagree with whoever that person was more than anything. You know, for the past three years we have been following very true to our Comprehensive Plan. We have been following very true to our future land use map and that's not just for the developers and for the builders who -- another comment was made that we are in -- you know, we -- we -- you know, wink, wink deals or whatever. That's just not true. It isn't true. And I take huge offense to that when people say that I'm on the hook to development. When a person comes to this -- to this -- to this dais and accuses us of impropriety it's just not right. It's just not right. And it's not fair. It's not -- it's not fair on any level. But we have these comprehensive plans and these future land use maps not just for development, but we have them for our citizens as well, so that they know what is going to be built and what is going to be developed in certain areas of our -- of our -- of our city. It's crucial that we -- we stick to these plans. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 28 of 71 It's important that we stick to these plans. It's important that we are consistent. It's incredibly important, not only for development, but for the citizens who live near the development as well. I -- I don't have any control over what realtors say to you when you buy your house, unfortunately. You know, all I know is that when we -- when I -- and we rely heavily on staff and their recommendation of what that looks like with our -- with our future land use maps and our comprehensive plans. I -- I echo a lot of the testimony that was stated by -- or the thoughts that were stated by Council Member Hoaglun and -- and I won't rehash what he said, but what he said was -- was very true and very poignant and -- and for the reasons that I discussed tonight and for a lot of the reasons Mr. Hoaglun discussed, I -- I will be in support of this application this evening. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you very much to my fellow Council Members for sharing their -- their thoughts on -- on the testimony. I -- I agree with a lot of what has been shared in regard to our commitment to our community. We live here. We are -- we are your neighbors, too. We see the same challenges you see every day. We drive in the same traffic that you drive in every day. All of us live in very different areas of the city. We all are in the corners and we -- we feel your frustrations and we also feel that same frustration when so much of those decisions are -- are not influenced by us and not made by us, but I do want to reassure the members of -- of our community here that we are listening as -- as Councilman Bernt mentioned in that our comprehensive plan took well over a year to put together and there were multiple public hearings and there were multiple meetings about it and there were many many members of our community that were involved in designing that Comprehensive Plan. So, we do take it really seriously that we follow that, because we didn't design that, the community designed that and as -- as elected officials because that is designed by our public and by the community, we have got to follow that, so, you know, the -- the transportation --ACHD has hearings on many of these applications. You can contact ACHD and let them know what you think about these projects. Every year they go through and they set their priorities for what -- what roads and intersections they are going to work on for the city of Meridian. That's a public hearing that you are welcome to attend. So, there is many many opportunities for the community to be involved in these decisions and not just when it comes to this hearing that we are having -- this third hearing that we are having for this community and we pay close attention to what our partners are doing, so that we can collaborate with them in a way that's beneficial to our public. So, -- I agree with Councilman Bernt in that it -- it is a little kind of surprising to hear comments made about we don't listen, because that's what we do every single week that we are here. All of us -- I'm not going to get on a soapbox, but all of us make incredible sacrifices with our families and with our businesses and with our jobs and our schedules and our vacation -- everything to -- to be here and we love doing it. We really do. It is -- it's true public service and we -- we wouldn't trade it for the world. So, please -- please know that this isn't an us against you kind of thing, this is really wanting to get this right for the community. So, this is -- I also lose sleep over these things, think about them for weeks later, wonder if I have made the right decision when there is a variety of different factors Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 29 of 71 involved in an application like this and there isn't always a perfect outcome, so what I have to fall back on when there isn't a clear answer is did the applicant abide by our code? Did the applicant abide by what we have asked them to do as far as modifications. Are they make -- are they making efforts to listen to the community over the course of the different hearings? You know, if we weren't taking this seriously we wouldn't have asked the applicant to continue this project this long so that we could get more information to make a better decision. So, this is -- this is a tough one for me. You know, the reason we -- that we postponed this from January was to get more information from the school district and even though we did get more information, we are pleased that they are finally putting together a plan that has some teeth to it as far as the next ten years and what their estimates are, that's an improvement from where we were before, which was really not anything specific. It doesn't help to solve this specific concern regarding Hillsdale and my main concern in all of these hearings has been the safety of the students, that's been my main concern, because this is a unique situation. As Councilman Cavener mentioned, it is unique in that, you know, there is -- the students have locations they can and cannot go. There is some geographic issues. There is -- there is a variety of things and while I don't have huge concerns about the -- the density of the project, the -- they are fitting within the Comprehensive Plan, there isn't anything in that regard that is -- that the applicant has not addressed. I still have concerns about the safety in this area. So, my -- sometimes this is a gut decision in regard to how -- how will we know that this city should develop based on what we hear from the community every week and based on what our Comprehensive Plan says and so I just -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm really leaning in the direction of Councilman Cavener, which is this just isn't quite sitting well with me yet and I want to be able to give the applicant some clarity on why and the only thing I can say is that I just really still have concerns about -- about safety -- of pedestrian safety in this community. So, that being said, I would ask the Mayor, since the public hearing has not closed, if the -- if the applicant could come forward and allow me to ask some additional questions. Simison: Yes. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you very much. So, I had asked earlier about the location of the -- of the current--the current flashing -- or the current crossing on -- is it Stockhampton? What is the name of that street that heads south from Hillsdale? McKay: Joe, do you have a vicinity map? No? Perreault: So, there are three entrances into the school. Is there any possible way that we could get the district to allow all crossing to happen at the entrance that is the farthest to the south, so that the crossing is consistent, there is not crossings going into all three entrances? I don't know exactly when crossings are happening as far as locations go. I want to get more information about that, because I would rather have all pedestrian activity stay on the east side of-- of your development and the development of the south, not cross across and go in front of the -- the Hill property. Stay all on the east side and Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 30 of 71 have one consistent crossing along the farthest south entrance into the neighborhood and maybe that is something that we can get the district to help us on, so that the students are staying consistently on one side of the road. I think there is a fairly wide sidewalk that exists there right now and, then, all of that crossing will happen kind of to the -- to the south of the school. That -- that's just my number one concern about this is pedestrian safety in this area, even more so than the vehicles. As you mentioned, there is a lot of students that can walk and not need to drive, but that's just really the thing that has me so hung up on this. McKay: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Perreault, so they have the -- the flashing light is right here on -- is it Stockenham Way and I -- I think -- I think it's right here. You can see the ped ramps right here. I believe that's -- that's where the rapid flashing is and what -- what Marci -- yeah. Here you can see it. You can see it's striped pedestrian crossing. They have got the flashing lights that they can activate and what the -- Marci spoke with the principal of Hillsdale and she said that they have a crossing guard there that makes sure that the kids get across in a safe manner and, then, come into the school in this direction. Now, what I was told from some of the Hillsdale residents is their kids come across here and not necessarily do they come all the way down. The response I received when I brought that to the attention of-- of the school district was, well, the crossing guard and the flashing light is down further south -- further west and so they should be coming down the sidewalk and crossing where it's safe. So, the option that I gave the school district and ACHD is we could put the rapid flashing right here or we could put it at our collector roadway. We will be building a detached walk with landscaping all along the Hillsdale Avenue and, then, as you can see there is a gap here and they have plantings. So, ACHD is going to have us -- why there is a gap I don't know, but they are going to have us extend the sidewalk here, because these plantings are in the right of way and make a connection. Now, what the school district said was if we put it here we feel it's too close to this one. So, that was their reasoning of wanting it further north. Now, obviously, from our perspective we want to make sure that the kids get across safely. So, if the Council's recommendation is that it's better that the kids stay, as you indicated, Councilman Perreault, on the east side and that we put the flashing light and another crossing here, then, I'm open to that. I just went off the recommendation of the school district. You know, obviously, there is that gap. Now the kids can safely go across to the Y, but to traverse here, you know, the crossing guard would either have to walk the kids down along the roadway or, like you said, we put it here. So, maybe that is the solution to make sure, regardless of the fact that they are closer together and -- I mean we are talking about a pretty short distance. So, our collector roadway comes in in alignment with this. Is it further north? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not -- it's right here at Hill Park. Right, Joe? Yeah. So, our entrance is here at Hill Park. So, the kids could come across here, but, then, you have the issue of the outparcel. So, then, if that is a concern of yours would recommend that we put it here. Bring our kids down, do a widened ten foot walk along Hillsdale, so we accommodate pedestrians and bicycles, because one of the comments I heard from the parents -- the reasons the kids go across here is because of the heavy traffic from the peds and the bikes and the little skateboards and stuff. So, maybe what we do is we do a ten foot walk all along the east boundary and we make that Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 31 of 71 connection here and, then, bring those kids across there. Does that kind of help you with the safer route to schools? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you for answering that. I realize that some of this is out of your control. I know -- I know -- I realized that and I'm glad that you clarified, because I was under the impression that ACHD was requiring that -- that ACHD was requiring it to be on the -- on that more northern section and so I didn't realize you had the option to change it if you could or wanted to. So, that is helpful information for me. McKay: Yes. It was -- it was not a requirement of them that we install the rapid flashing. We -- we did that on our own prerogative. Helps with the safe route to schools. I just relied on the school district for their input, so -- so we do have latitude. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I assume that because this is a collector roadway that there aren't other traffic calming measures that can be implemented in this area or are there -- are there exceptions that can be made in front of a school -- in a school zone for additional traffic calming? Obviously there is probably a speed limit decrease, but are there speed bumps that can go in? Is there anything like that that we can discuss? The main concern for me is really that element. McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Perreault, that came up in the Sky Mesa development and with that long collector that goes downhill and the speeds in which people drive it. We did end up coming up with a design on the collector that was pedestrian friendly and slowed the traffic down. We -- our first initial design was we did a raised pedestrian crossing, so it was -- it was striped. It was elevated. It was visual and the cars would have to slow down. ACHD said, no, maintenance doesn't like that, because of snow removal. So, then, they had us come up with some chicanes that we put in that slow -- had to slow the traffic. I -- we -- I -- we used them in Eagle on some private parking lots over there at Winco and -- and Home Depot in Eagle at 44 and 55. 1 mean if you go through there and it's stamped concrete, so it's very -- it has a sign, stop pedestrian crossing, and you have to physically go up over it and that's what I would prefer, because I think it slows that traffic down and when they were rerouting traffic due to the roundabout improvements through this neighborhood, the speeds were excessive. I saw it myself. So, I am all on board for traffic calming and I think if you guys in your motion would send that strong recommendation to ACHD that will help me convince them to let us install Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 32 of 71 something that will slow that traffic down and make that a safe -- safer collector. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm sure all of us took notice as the applicant was testifying, there were some members of the public with their hands raised and I don't know if you want to grant additional public testimony, public testimony from people who haven't testified. If you want to take a break. Simison: I will leave that up to Council and we -- the applicant can come back up afterwards, so I'm not worried about that. Why don't we do this. Why don't we -- it's 8:00 o'clock. So, if we would like to take a break to do phone calls to families and other things. Go ahead and take a ten minute break and we will -- we will try to come back at five after 8:00 and determine a path forward, so -- Cavener: Sounds great. Thanks, Mayor. (Recess: 7:55 p.m. to 8:06 p.m.) Simison: All right. We will go ahead and come back to order from that stand -- standpoint. We had a few people that have raised their hands that wish that they wanted to speak. Is the applicant back in the room? I don't want to go without the applicant. Okay. So, we will go ahead and wait. Okay. Well, we will go ahead and keep moving forward. We had a few people that raised their hands that they wish to come back -- or they wish to provide comment. Let's start with anybody that did not testify can come forward and we will ask you to keep your comments to what was being discussed during that time frame. We don't want to try to introduce new material if we can. So, assuming you are speaking to one of the items that was recently discussed between the Council and the applicant. If you would state your name and address for the record. P.Prestwich: My name is Paul Prestwich. 5249 South Bleachfield and I was just going to address the new item of moving the light and the problem with where they suggested it get moved to -- it's even -- it's probably the worst area, because it's coming down off of a blind hill down at the bottom where everybody turns into the school. So, that's definitely not the place to put a crossing light. Of all the areas on that street -- the original place is better, even though you have problems with the kids, if you are going to try to put it down where she suggested it it's really the worst place. You are better off keeping the kids all on the east side, have them cross the street and go down to the light and, you know, go with the crossing guard. Just have the one, if -- if that's what you are going to do. If you want the flashing light back up to where it was that's a better solution. But right where it is and -- where there is no sidewalks. All the cars are turning, everybody's trying to get there from two ways and if you try to throw kids into the mix it's a disaster. So, that's the Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 33 of 71 -- that's all we had to say is -- because we know the area and the topography -- you don't see that on the map, but it's a pretty steep blind hill coming down to that area. Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you. Okay. M.Phillips: Is there any chance we could pull up that map one more time that we were looking at before? Simison: If you could state your name and address for the record, please. M.Phillips: Melissa Phillips at 4140 East Rockhampton Street in Meridian. Okay. So, as a mom with kids that actually go to the school, I have never seen a single student walk across this area, because this lineup right here is where the cars are and so they are instructed to walk all the way down this east side. So, we don't have a concern with having a light here because that encourages students to walk across, which we don't want, because the cars will be right there. So, we are fine not having a light here. The light up here would assist with the residents in this community and the ones that walk up on the east side to go to the YMCA. But we would probably ask the school and district to provide a crossing guard to keep all students from Centerville on that east side just walking straight down all the way. My other concern with having that light, which is a positive thing, but the negative would be students would try to cross there and take the path of least walking distance and try to get over here. But it's just going to take a lot of communicating with students and teaching them the best route to go. And, then, as far as Hillsdale Avenue -- oops. Anyway. It is not slated to be widened and it is not on ACHD's radar, but that would need to have three lanes for the cars turning left onto Amity and the cars turning into the community. Otherwise, all those concerns with the traffic backing up exist. And, then, lastly, there has been a resident change with the woman that was living in that home, so that should be explored. I don't have the ability to explain the situation, but there has been a change. So, that should be looked at as well. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. A.Johnson: Hi. Amy Johnson again. Just real quick from a traffic commission perspective. Those blinking lights don't do diddly squat, honestly, to slow traffic down and what's specific to this community is that gradation down to the bottom. So, just like Melissa just spoke, that is the worst place a light could actually possibly be and the only thing I could see from the experience I have seen from trying to mitigate traffic would be a HAWK and I know I just spoke with Becky briefly and she was saying that ACHD prefers the blinking lights. But I strongly discourage that. I think that's -- safety perspective that is the worst thing you could possibly do and -- and having kids cross over to the YMCA and the lot that -- that thing -- or that house that's there, they can create that sidewalk on that side. There is no safe place to cross kids over to that west side and get them down to the school. It's just not -- but the only kind of a signal that might actually have an effect is a HAWK, but that only works, too, if there is three lanes across on Hillsdale Lane, because you are going to queue traffic -- just logistically, specific to this location. I get traffic calming. I get it all. I mean we did that for a long time and it's just a really bad drop. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 34 of 71 It's blind. And people fly down that hill and I do think now is the time to address that. So, if you can approve with conditions that would be something, so -- Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, question. So, you say they fly going down the hill toward Amity. A.Johnson: No. They fly down the hill going into Stockenham. So, Hillsdale becomes Stockenham as it makes that turn and if-- if there is a --that a beacon, even at the bottom of that -- where that -- where Hillsdale, Rockhampton Boulevard and Hillsdale Lane intersect -- I don't know. I don't have the map. But that's at the bottom of the hill and that's -- and you know. And where Melissa is pointing out where the cars queue up, there is just a no -- I don't see a single safe option and that -- that is coming from years of experience on a traffic commission where we just mitigated traffic over and over and over again and I will just -- since I have the mic for just one last minute, reiterate parking. It is a big deal. It will overflow and it will congest and it will -- within the community itself. So, if you guys are leaning towards approving this, can you approve it with the conditions that parking and traffic get addressed and mitigated before it gets built? That's -- now is the time to kind of address those issues, so -- Simison: So, do we think that there is agreement on the concept, the long term -- at long term build out we want a sidewalk there where Mrs. Hill's house is and a crossing up at the Hill Way -- long term. You know, is that what's best when this is fully developed as a -- as an area or would the community say no sidewalk and no crossing -- neither one of those is in the best interest. Because to your point, some of this may not be able to come now, but it may come in the future. Whatever is developed. Does the community think that that's in agreement, crossing up there where they currently have it proposed and a sidewalk on that property? Was that -- Phillips: Just like it -- it was just mentioned, if you make that a three lane, so you can put a HAWK up top for calming, that makes a lot of sense. There is the rub; right? Is making that three lane, because it's not on ACHD's radar. It's not part of the plan. There is a whole thing that needs to happen to get that prioritized, but that's the rub. That -- that would be the ideal is you have that additional lane for traffic going into the community. Also additional lane to allow them off of Hillsdale onto Amity as well. Simison: I understand that. I'm trying to go with what we are focused on right here, because of the -- whatever Council decides to do or don't do can make a -- they could make a recommendation that in -- when the Hill house goes away at that point in time we put in a -- flashing lights up there. That -- that may be what they can do or is it, no, we never want that in that location and don't worry about it. But that's -- some of it's going to be timing. If we don't want to -- if we want to influence children's walking decisions, maybe there is some things that we don't do for five years, because it -- it doesn't create that attractive nuisance or that -- that idea. So, I think it's just like long term. So, we want a sidewalk on the other side where the house is. I think the city would like that. Is there a crossing that we want up at the other location? Because my -- my recollection was more Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 35 of 71 about getting people into the YMCA as much as anything else at that time. But that's kind of where I was going, so the Council could consider that. Phillips: Yeah. I don't have an opinion on that, but -- Simison: Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Phillips, could you make note, you -- you spoke on the record so the record is clear? Simison: Thank you, Bill. Phillips: James Phillips. 4140 East Rockhampton Street. Simison: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Just to make sure. It sounds like everyone is in agreement that sidewalk on the east side is -- is definitely coming in. Where Mardia crosses Hillsdale slash South Stockton -- Stockenham Way, it is at the bottom of the hill. It is very difficult for a light and they do come fast. It's best that the kids keep using that where the crossing guard is. So, it sounds like neighbors do not want that option whatsoever at the bottom of the hill. So, I think -- I think there is agreement on that. And, Mr. Mayor, up there at East Highpack Street. I don't know what -- oh, Hill Park. Okay. East -- okay. Hill Park. That -- I guess the timing of when that light there to cross would come into play. I mean I can see people from that development wanting to go over to the Y and use that, but at the same time is that encouraging the kids, then, to cross there and, then, come down and there is no sidewalk? I think definitely Ms. Phillips, who is a mom, kids will take the path of least resistance and they will -- they will find a way down. So, I guess that -- you are looking at the timing of that particular light of when that should go in. Is it phase one or phase five and -- Simison: Or after the -- that property redevelops that the developer could put the -- give the money to somebody else to make those improvements in the future. Hoaglun: Right. Simison: As an example. Hoaglun: Right. And as we know on -- on that one house, the Hill house, you know, whenever that -- and interesting to find out, I think Mr. Nary, if -- if we could kind of follow up to -- to see about Ms. Hill and -- Mrs. Hill and what that status is there, because that is a -- definitely a spot that needs a sidewalk connection and -- well, we can -- we can get Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 36 of 71 that -- that taken care of, so -- when the time comes. But, yeah, I guess timing for that upper light, but I can see it in use right away, but how do you keep the kids from, then, going down except for -- but I think for quite a while the kids are going to be bused somewhere else. It's not going to be at Hillsdale. So, it's not an issue from that perspective in the -- in the near term, so -- Simison: Was there anybody else that had their hand raised on the issues that were resolved? Becky, would you like to come back to make your final comments again. McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Becky McKay. Joe, can you go back to that screen you had? Dodson: Sorry. McKay: So, one thing that we could do with the rapid flashing light is the Council could provide a condition of approval that we trust fund with Ada County Highway District for that light and that it would be installed when the sidewalk along Mrs. Hill's property was constructed. The other thing that -- that we looked at, too, is -- as the Mayor indicated, the hill -- what is it? Hill Park Street does get the kids across to the Y. The kids do have the ability to come down through the park and come the long way. So, there is that option. I do agree with the neighbors, this is -- this is the --where it starts elevation wise dropping off here. So, it does make more sense that there be some type of safe crossing here. But I would trust fund for it until such time as this sidewalk is installed. In the meantime, we could do a ten foot sidewalk along Hillsdale Avenue, so that we could accommodate both pedestrians and bicycles and, then, they would come down and use the crossing here that's in place and none of those rapid flashings are left unattended, according to the school district. They have to have a crossing guard there when they are utilized during school times. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, it's hard to see from these aerials, but when pedestrians walking south on -- on Hillsdale and they crossover Mardia Street, what is that -- I -- I have seen cars line up there to make a right and they are just taking a right and taking a right and taking a right and I -- I'm concerned that they won't, you know, be really paying attention if somebody's crossing. So, what is the crossing like right at that section if there is going to be an encouragement that all pedestrians stay on the east side? Are there any safety concerns in that location? Is it just white stripes? McKay: Yeah. Typically what we would do is right now, as I indicated, the sidewalk stops short of our boundary, so we would continue this sidewalk and wrap it around up in here and, then, what you can do is we can come in and do pedestrian striping with permission from ACHD. Is there -- it doesn't show up. It's been added recently? Okay. So, it's already there according to the neighbors. It wasn't there when I was out there. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 37 of 71 Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, real quick, Becky. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: That ten foot sidewalk on the east side, is that already conditioned? Is that already part of staff conditions? McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I believe we had to install ten foot sidewalk along Amity based on the Meridian Pathways Committee, but they did not condition ten feet along Hillsdale. They only conditioned five. So, that would be an additional condition of approval. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Thank you, Becky. Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I will close the public hearing on H-2021-0046, Centerville Subdivision. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I appreciate the excellent dialogue by everyone up here and -- and by the residents and applicant trying to find ways to work things out. That's what we really try to do whenever we can. We try to find a way to make it work, if we can get parties to agree and fix things and even if not still try to mitigate some things that -- that we see and I have no idea of the outcome, so I will make a motion and -- and, then, see where that lands and that's one good thing about this Council, we often disagree and -- and -- but we don't -- we aren't disagreeable. So, there is still good people. We all -- all have a vision for a great Meridian and sometimes you all just see it a little differently and how to approach that, but we do it in a way that makes me very pleased to be up here and colleagues -- Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 38 of 71 everyone colleagues and friends and -- and just try to do the best we can for our community. So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve -- approve H-2021-0046 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2022, and with the additional condition that a ten foot sidewalk be installed on the east side of Hillsdale from the development down to Mardia and that also we -- staff asked ACHD to review any -- the need for traffic calming and expansion options on South Stockenham Way and Hillsdale and I -- I -- and accept all the revisions and conditions that were also included in the staff report for this -- for this hearing date. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second for discussion. Discussion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: The applicant proposed a condition which would -- would basically time the flashing crossing with the sidewalk being implemented on the property of the south. I -- I -- I don't know how that get -- I mean that just could be years out and I don't know how that gets enforced, but just curious if the motion maker had left that out intentionally or if the Council could comment on that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Council Woman Perreault, no, that's a good point. I just had missed that inadvertently. So, I'm happy to include that in the -- in the motion that a light at East Hill Parkway be installed upon the completion of the sidewalk on the Lila Hill property. Does that work for your purposes? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I don't -- I don't know if the applicant actually stated when they intended on installing it originally. It's not a requirement, so it's something they are doing voluntarily. I just -- my question was more about whether that was the timing that if -- if the motion maker intended that to be the timing or if we could state clearly when the timing would be for that light to go in. Not necessarily that I was suggesting that that--that be the process. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 39 of 71 Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, yeah, it was my understanding that the timing that -- of that light would be installed with the -- with -- following the installation of the sidewalk on -- on the out parcel, so -- Simison: And the applicant mentioned putting that into a trust and we would know that we could -- I don't know how we could tie it, but the YMCA is going to have to come in for an application for their long-term vision to make that a parking lot. I think it's probably a staff level of application to my guess, if there is not something else. But I know that's the long term plan is to -- to make that a parking lot for the YMCA. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I'm -- I'm pleased -- happy to include that in the motion for this application. Simison: Does the second agree for purposes? Bernt: Second agrees. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, just wanted you to know -- mostly for the record, I have reached out to the residents. The Mayor is correct, the -- the resident had a life estate there. If she no longer lives there the Y does own that property, so the next conversation would then be with the Y on the timing, as the Mayor stated, when they want to do that. You know, can they assist in creating a safer path now based on whatever their future, you know, growth is. So, we will -- we will work on that and we -- we can see if we can expedite that, so -- and I have reached out to the residents to verify whether or not she's still there. Simison: Okay. Is there discussion on the motion? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I did want to point out the -- I already have a condition -- or I would say a DA provision requiring the RFB with the first phase, so you don't have to be I guess specific in the motion, but just to clarify there is a condition requiring with the first phase, but now we are modifying that provision with the motion. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 40 of 71 Hoaglun: Yes. I would include that in the motion, that that -- that is -- that revision is being made with -- with the timing as we indicated. Dodson: Thank you. Bernt: Second agrees. Simison: Second agrees on that? Is there further discussion? Okay. Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, nay; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent. Simison: Three ayes. One no. Motion passes. Thank you all for being here and for your involvement in this process. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT. 7. Public Hearing continued from June 14, 2022 for Bountiful Commons East (H-2022-0015) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 5960 and 5984 N. Linder Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Linder Mixed Use - Inst. #2018-052340) to update the conceptual development plan and building elevations. B. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Simison: All right. Next item up is a public hearing continued from June 14th, 2022, for Bountiful Commons East, H-2022-0015. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'm covering for Sonya on this project, so be nice with your questions. The applications before for you tonight are a development agreement modification and a combined preliminary and final plat. The site consists of just over two acres. Currently zoned C-C and it's located at 5960 North Linder, directly south of the Linder Village, but I guess now it's called Orchard Park or something like that. The future land use on the site is mixed-use community. The property was annexed in 2017 with a DA. A preliminary and final plat was approved in 2018. A property boundary adjustment was recently approved, which established the current configuration of the property. This is the existing development agreement with the conceptual elevations, which depicted -- as you can see one of a -- one larger building with ancillary parking around it. The modification before you tonight is proposed to update the conceptual plan and remove the conceptual building elevations for Chili's and the event center from the agreement and replace them with concept elevations for the proposed single story commercial office Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 41 of 71 buildings. Changes to the concept plan consists of replacing the seven and ten thousand square foot buildings, which include the shared outdoor plaza and between the two buildings with four multi-tenant--sorry--four multi-tenant commercial office buildings with individual outdoor plaza areas at the rear of each building. Staff recommends changes to the concept plan consisting of removal of the parking spaces on the west side of the site that back into the backage road and removal of the parking in between each set of buildings for the provision of a common usable area plaza as required in the DA and the comp plan for mixed-use designations. Since the Commission hearing an updated concept plan was submitted that depicts the removal of the parking spaces along the west boundary, an additional plaza space here. A combined preliminary/final plat is proposed to resub divide a portion of Lot 1 and all of Lot 4, Block 1, of the Bountiful Commons Subdivision. The proposed -- the proposed plat consists of three building lots on the two acres. Access to the subdivision exists via private driveway backage road that runs along the west boundary parallel to Linder Road. The Commission did recommend approval with conditions. The key discussion by the Commission was pertaining to the MDA and the proposed design of the site in relation to staff's recommendation for a more centralized open space plaza area. So, to be clear, that recommendation would be to remove these parking spaces -- or at least some of them on both ends here to have that shared plaza in between the buildings. Commission was generally supportive of the parking spaces being removed along the drive aisle on the west, but didn't -- was not in support of removing parking. As you can tell by what was submitted with the updated site plan, the applicant agrees with that assessment. And I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Hopkins: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Stephanie Hopkins with KM Engineering. 5725 North Discovery Way in Boise. 83713. Thank you to Joe for giving that great summary. It's like he was Sonya. He's just channeling exactly what we talked about the last time and what happened during Commission. So, I'm here representing our client, the developer, for Bountiful Commons East. We are requesting a development agreement modification to renew the existing development agreement and the concept plan that's attached and a combined preliminary and final plat for the project. He covered the location well. I'm just going to skip past this. That's the original concept plan. This is the original proposed concept plan that we showed at the Commission and based on our discussion with them and staff's recommendation we removed the parking that was on the -- the west side adjacent to that drive aisle. So, we have replaced that with a couple of open space and plaza areas that could be used for the entire development and did leave parking where it was recommended that we replace with plaza space. So, that's the -- those are the open space areas that we added. And, then, we also added a sidewalk along that drive aisle to allow for access up to the north. There is a pretty neat park that's being developed with the Orchard -- Orchard Park development that will be in close proximity to this development, so it will be a nice amenity for the area. So, this is our -- our third site plan, too, I might mention. Our client actually had a neighborhood meeting with adjacent neighbors and based on their feedback he actually moved -- initially -- I don't know if you can see my pointer or not, but initially there was a -- a couple of plazas proposed adjacent to the existing residential subdivision to the east Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 42 of 71 and based on the comments that he received during that neighborhood meeting he understood that they were concerned about folks being close to their homes and so he -- he asked that we move those to the rear of the buildings on the north and south of each of these buildings. So, these are the conceptual elevations and proposed floor plan that's attached to the -- the buildings that are attached to this development plan for this concept development plan. We would like to request a little bit of flexibility with this concept plan, which we think would work really well with the provision in the DA to allow for reconfiguration of the buildings if a different tenant came in. So, right now our client has, I believe, one tenant procured for professional services at the northwest part of the site, but the -- the remainder of the property is -- they don't have anyone in mind as far as users, so he would really like to maintain some flexibility as far as the way that the buildings are oriented and how they -- they would be accessed. So, right now we are showing multi-tenant buildings, but we would like to have a provision considered in the development agreement to allow us to have some minor modifications to this concept plan as long as it's in substantial conformance with the concept plan. So, this is our combined preliminary and final plat. We are proposing three lots. As Joe mentioned we recently did a property boundary adjustment for -- to get that northwest property out of this property, so that a user could develop there. This is a landscape plan that was -- was part of the original approval for Bountiful Commons. A 25 foot landscape buffer was required adjacent to the residential lots to the east and so this incorporates that 25 foot landscape buffer, as well as a berm, and as you can see it's pretty heavily vegetated to make sure that any nuisance or sound or light would be mitigated as much as possible. You know, it's always tricky when commercial properties abut residential. In this case the developer has done his best to generally integrate the commercial uses that will eventually be here, but provide a little bit of mitigation to those -- to those residents. So, as I mentioned, we are requesting to modify one of staff's conditions initially before -- when we met before Commission we were wanting to also modify this condition to remove ten parking spaces in the west boundary of the site, but we have since revised our site plan to go along with staff recommendation based on our discussion with Commission that night. We, however, would like to request to omit the requirement -- or the recommendation to replace parking areas between buildings A and B and C and D with plazas. We --we think that the replacement of the parking along the drive aisle has added open space that complies with the comprehensive plan's intent for those plaza areas and think that it's going to really be more of an asset than a central open space would be for this development. We are really trying to consider who is going to be using these open spaces and our intent is for this property to be -- or this project to be developed with professional offices for the most part and we don't believe that the users of those spaces are going to be wanting to locate or hang out in the middle of the parking lot in a plaza. We think that they will probably -- more likely to go north to the -- the park that will be in the adjacent development, so -- as I mentioned we are -- we are showing these open space areas. We have added that sidewalk to add the connection to the north and -- let's see. And we -- an important part of this request is we really want to include as much parking as possible for future users. As I mentioned, the developer doesn't know who is going to locate here. He wants to maintain flexibility for future users and make sure that the site plan is adaptable and that it can be easily -- easily modified and includes as much parking as possible. We really don't want to create an issue with less than adequate Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 43 of 71 parking in this area. And just so you have a visual, here is the Linder Village or the Orchard Park -- Orchard Sands I think is what they changed their name to. The park that's going to be located there. There is going to be a parking lot, as well as other walking amenities. So, our--our sidewalk will connect well with that development. So, we believe that flexibility can be afforded to this project and we are excited to work with you on a DA provision to allow for that by not only allowing us to include the plazas and open space on the west side of the site, rather than in the center, and to include a DA provision to allow a little bit of flexibility on the concept plan. We appreciate staff's support and help on this project, too. Sonya and Joe have both been great. So, I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Hi, Stephanie. Good to see you. So, a couple of questions. If I read correctly, the square footage of the original buildings -- there was supposed to be approximately ten thousand square foot building, seven thousand square foot building, but this new proposal almost doubles that in terms of building square footage. So, I assume there is -- parking analysis has been done and -- and that's all compliant. But that's quite a bit more -- that's several more users -- tenants than would have been in the prior buildings, which would have essentially been two, if I understand right. So, I see this as being a fairly big change to use, not -- maybe -- maybe bigger than the Commission really had discussed. So, if you could share more about that in terms of, you know, you -- I assume there is going to be like a business HOAthat's going to keep these buildings in shape and keep the parking lots, you know, in great condition and that kind of thing. So, if you want to -- if you would talk about the additional square footage of the buildings and how that will be -- how the parking will be affected, how that will affect traffic that's going to be brought in versus what was there before. So, that's -- that's that. And then -- well, go ahead and address that. I have one more question about the open space when you are done. Hopkins: Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Perreault. Yes. So, that the user before that had been contemplated was an event center and a dance studio, as well as restaurant users, such as Chili's, and so those users, although smaller in square footage, tend to have a little bit more foot traffic and vehicular traffic and I believe that the users that are now proposed, although the square footage is higher, will be -- will include less vehicles and less parking. I know the -- the user to the northwest -- I believe the dentist office, which is probably going to be one of the more heavily parked and needs more parking than maybe some of the other users. They are going to be more like professional offices. I don't know exactly what is planned there and it's hard to predict the parking that will be required, but that kind of -- that solidifies our request to make sure that we keep as much parking in the center as we can without losing the flexibility there. Staff actually did a really great job of summarizing how much parking we are currently providing and so Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 44 of 71 for commercial and office use in a commercial district a minimum of 63 off-street parking spaces are required for the square footage that we are proposing, which is about 31,500 square feet. So, we are actually -- I think with the loss of the ten parking spaces adjacent to the drive aisle we are proposing 144 spaces, so we are double that, and that's really -- I don't know -- it's hard to predict exactly who is going to come in, but we wanted to make sure it was overparked, so that it's not an issue for fire and police and all the folks that take care of the area. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Yes. I caught that with -- with the parking spaces, but my thought was -- it looks at least from this concept plan that there could be up to 16 different tenants in here. Am I seeing that correctly? And so I thought, you know, what if -- yes, I realize these spaces are probably, you know, 1,000, 1,500 square feet, but what if you have a boutique shop and, you know, a smoothie shop -- and I mean the uses will really have an effect on the parking. So, that's why I wanted to just ask that question and -- because the Commission's conversation was that this might primarily be office specific and that doesn't necessarily mean there is less parking -- parking than retail, but since we don't know that, you know, I just wanted to make sure that there is -- there is a plan for all contingencies. Hopkins: Yes. Perreault: My second question about the open space is the Commission had not made the recommendation to alter these center areas between the buildings, the spots in there to become open space, because they -- they expected that these would be more office like uses. But you are saying that you don't know that that's actually what it's -- what's going to happen. Hopkins: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, I could have our client come up and speak to that in a little bit more detail, but my belief, based on our last discussion, is that these are going to be professional users. It's just hard to predict. I don't want to say on the record that for sure it's going to be, you know, professional offices, without specific people in place, you know. But -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor, one more. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, just really quickly, the -- the areas around the building that are dotted, are those sidewalks or is that like landscaping? Around each building. Hopkins: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, are you talking about--so, I believe there is the -- no, that just indicates the 25 foot landscape buffer. The dashed lines. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 45 of 71 Perreault: Okay. Hopkins: And, then, there are sidewalks along the rear of each building, as well as the sides and that's to really provide pedestrian connectivity to all the plaza areas behind the building. We are trying to comply with the mixed-use community future land use map designation with that one. So, I don't know if that answered -- the little speckled spots there, that's sidewalk. Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Stephanie, to the east you talked about a berm and heavy landscaping. Is there a fence on top of the berm? I -- I would assume that subdivision to the east they already have probably vinyl fencing, six foot. So, is that changing? What -- what -- tell me a little bit about that, how that interaction occurs there. Hopkins: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, so the plan right now -- there is a 25 foot landscape buffer with a three foot berm. It's at a three to one grade, so it actually takes up that whole 25 foot of landscaping. I believe that the trees and everything will be placed within that berm, so they could be placed up or above and kind of interspersed throughout there. There is an existing fence -- I think it's wood that's on the -- the property boundary, so that's along the rear of the homes that are to the east of us. Hoaglun: Follow up, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: On the buildings I know you want some flexibility and -- and you don't know all the tenants that you will have, but are there -- is the potential -- I mean would you entertain for building B and C, which are buildings to the east up against that, would there be a possibility of any restaurants going in those areas? Hopkins: Mr. Chair, Councilman Hoaglun, I don't believe that our client has that planned. I know that there has been talk about potentially changing the orientation of buildings, so building B and C could potentially shift, you know, with more of an east-west kind of orientation, but I don't know that they have a user in mind, so -- yeah, he's shaking his head no. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 46 of 71 Hoaglun: Stephanie, yeah, I mean it's been our experience that sometimes we imply -- you know, commercial and offices are great and, you know, they are limited hours and whatnot and, then, a restaurant moves in and, boy, it changes and the hours are longer, the noise is elevated, it's just a whole different ball game. So, that is something that I would be concerned about if there was going to be restaurant, delivery trucks, all those things that occur in the restaurant business. So, I -- I'm -- I don't know if that would be a condition or not to say any easterly buildings not have the restaurants. You could do on the -- on the western ones, but up against homes, that's just a -- that's -- that's asking a lot. They are going to be impacted anyway, but that's -- that's something that just goes a little far in my experience that I have found and -- and, Mr. Mayor, if I might ask Joe a question. Simison: Go for it. Hoaglun: All right. Because I'm -- I'm out to stump Joseph tonight, because, you know, he's filling in and -- I can't stump him. I have tried. Joe, Stephanie's asked about, you know, having some flexibility in the DAfor minor modification. What is minor modification? How -- what does that -- what does that look like in your -- in your opinion? Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, that's a great question. Usually -- I guess it depends on the planner, but usually Bill and 1, when we look at these, if the -- if it shows four buildings we typically want to keep four buildings. However, sometimes it -- depending on the conversation within that hearing and Bill's elephant brain, he's like, no, the discussion was really more focused about the square footage total, that type of thing, and so at times we have said -- like as long as you keep the square footage approximate you can reduce the number of buildings kind of thing. To keep it on the record, I would prefer that flexibility to be in the DA and, then, to add a provision that says -- or I could modify the existing provision that says it should be substantial compliance with the submitted concept plan with the modification -- or with the exception of the number of buildings can be reduced from four to three and not have to come back for a DA, which I -- is my understanding is that's more of what would be the potential option of just instead of having four, maybe having one larger building in a certain area and, then, having the other two and just that kind of flexibility. I don't believe that we would require a DA mod if they changed the orientation of the building. Not really concerned with that typically. I -- I think that that's kind of the flexibility that we inherently have in that. But I would prefer a specific DA provision, just to make sure that the record is clear and for people like -- not Bill with his brain. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: So, to that point, then, so if they combined buildings B and C, oriented them going north-south and made it -- and it was a 16,000 square foot building, just to -- as a for instanced, so you got the two going this way and one big one going this way, that's a modification -- being flexible and minor modification, it didn't increase square footage. It Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 47 of 71 didn't increase number of buildings, because you combine two to one, but -- I'm just trying to wrap my brain around, okay, what is a minor modification here and how do we -- you know, if this goes forward what -- what does that look like, so -- Dodson: Right. That's great -- this is -- every time a DA modification comes through -- or our applications comes through I have to make that call. You know, does it require a DA mod or not, because of something like that. And based on the conversation of the hearing, I -- I -- it's your call if you want to make a specific provision saying that they are allowed to reduce the number of buildings without coming back or based on the conversation we can understand that Council is okay with it. Or if you are not okay and you guys want to be very strict that's also a possibility. Hoaglun: Okay. Dodson: But there is inherent flexibility. But, again, typically it's showing four buildings we would want four, but that's not always set in stone, unless Council specifically states that. Hoaglun: Thank you. Simison: Counsel, any additional questions for the applicant? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Sorry. Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: I did want to note, Councilman Hoaglun made the comment about the -- limiting the location of a restaurant. C-C district does allow restaurant use. I was going to recommend if that's a concern for Council and the applicant is okay with it, to limit that to the west side of the site or something like that I think would be a good middle ground there. But that would be a new DA provision. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Joe, is restaurant-- does it have a broad definition, like are we talking like wine shops, tobacco shops, is it going to include all of that or are we talking about dining in service? Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, it's pretty broad. If they sell food -- I mean Jamba Juice to, you know, Chili's or whatever, that's all restaurant and our code is not specific enough to limit that. Wine shops and things like that get a little more complicated, but, typically, yeah, it's -- it's -- it's -- so, if they sell food and that's their primary use we are going to say it's a restaurant and, then, their parking ratio doubles. So, based on their parking counts they -- theoretically every single suite could be a restaurant and it would Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 48 of 71 meet code. I don't think that would functionally work, but I think that that-- mathematically it would meet code still. So, I think even if half the site was restaurant use, depending on the user and the hours, it would probably be okay, but it doesn't sound like that's what the applicant wants to do anyways. So, I think we should be safe with the parking ratio and restaurant uses. Simison: All right. Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes. Kelly Carpenter. Carpenter: Hello. Good evening. My name is Kelly Carpenter. I am a neighbor that backs up to this. My address is 5991 North Arliss Avenue in Meridian. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you, City Council, for hearing this tonight. First off, I would like to state that the developer, Mr. Gasser, has been very flexible and very accommodating to the neighbors. So, I do appreciate that and I do appreciate your time, like I stated. We just have a couple of concerns as neighbors. First concern is the fencing. The fencing is wood. It is slatted. Currently our bedrooms are on the back of our home and that can't change. So, unfortunately, the headlights shining through the slatted wooden fence does cause a problem. I have spoken to Mr. Gasser about potentially doing a solid wood fence of some sort. I don't know what that would look like. Paramount does have a very specific wooden fence. I think potentially if we could stain it the same color, it could look similar, just more of a solid fence that might work, just to keep the headlights out of our windows in the evening. Another point with the east side of the property, Mr. Gasser's property, there is currently a dumpster on the plan right up against the 25 foot berm. We can actually hear the dumpster being emptied across Linder Road at the Homestead Restaurant at 4:00 a.m. every Wednesday morning. So, I can guarantee you that I will be able to hear a dumpster 50 feet away from the back of my home. So, I am a little concerned about that. Mr. Gasser has stated that the waste department is very specific about where they will allow their dumpsters. I'm just hoping that we can come to some sort of resolution potentially on the northwest corner. I have seen on his plan that there is currently one on the southwest corner and on a previous plan he did have a dumpster on the northwest corner, so I don't know if we -- if that is possible we would appreciate that. Additionally, with the minor modification we really do not -- would -- would not like the Building B and Building C to be turned north-south, because it would go from looking at just a smaller section of a side of a building to, then, a full strip of a side of a building. So, that's just something, again, that we are not super happy about with the -- the northwest potential modification. Another thing that we were speaking with Mr. Gasser about was the berm, the 25 foot berm. As of right now -- and there has been debate as to who did this, if this was Brighton or if it was an easement, but outside of our fence is three feet of our land and, initially, the farmer that owned the property used that three feet as an irrigation canal and so now that that is no longer irrigation land, we are in the discussion of do we move the fence the three feet and gain our land? Is that part of the 25 feet that is the berm? Does Mr. Gasser -- so, there is a whole bunch of the conversation about what to do with that. But if we can come to an accord as to the berm, what type of berm. Are we going to do a sloping berm? Are we going to do maybe a 90 Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 49 of 71 degree berm? We are not really sure. Also what are we going to do with the fencing? So, I think there is a lot of questions right now as to what we want to do. The problem -- two problems I see with the sloping berm and, I'm sorry, I know I have gone past my three minutes -- is we are concerned about if it does slope, that potentially irrigation water from the line of trees could come down into our backyards and potentially create some sort of swampy situation. That's concern number one. Concern number two, safety. I don't want somebody standing on that berm and looking over into my yard. I have three small girls. Also recently I know -- Meridian, it's a great town, we love it, it's so safe, but there was an active shooter that was loose in our neighborhood about two months back. Police tried to pull somebody over in the Winco parking lot and they took off into the Paramount neighborhood and we were all put on Iockdown. So, just seeing that there is a berm that somebody could potentially use that to leap over into my yard to take refuge, again, it's just a concern. But we are willing to work with Mr. Gasser. Again, I'm not an architect, but, you know, I was thinking something of the extent of if we did more of an angular berm with a fence at the top, potentially an eight foot wooden fence. Again, I'm not really sure -- that would give us more privacy, a bit more safety and, then, again, the headlight issue. So, those are our main concerns as neighbors. Simison: Thank you. Carpenter: Thank you. Simison: Council, questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Kelly, real quick. Do you have to have wood fence to -- to match the rest of the neighborhood? I mean if it was vinyl is that an option? Carpenter: I -- we would have to -- Hoaglun: Or not an option? Carpenter: Yeah. We would definitely have to talk to the Paramount HOA. I know that they are very particular about the fencing, because it is really the look of the HOA. If you drive around either the Chinden or Meridian Road or Linder Road you really see that dark wood. So, I would think that they would be pretty upset by that. Hoaglun: Okay. Carpenter: But not a hundred percent. Hoaglun: Got it. Thanks. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 50 of 71 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, it's your property and one of your neighbors that -- essentially two houses that back up. Carpenter: Yes. There is only two of the neighbors that are here this evening, but there are I believe five houses that are affected by this. Perreault: Are all of you on the same page as far as working together with the developer to get fencing and the berm and everything worked out or is there -- I mean if -- if the neighbors don't agree how that -- you know, if the developer is going to say, yes, I will work on this with you, we will get together and we will do a design, I mean is this going to become like a major issue for the developer, who is trying to help do things that maybe he wouldn't -- wasn't otherwise planning because the neighbors aren't in agreement or something along those lines? Carpenter: As of right now Mr. Gasser does not want to provide a fence. He wants to utilize the fence that is already there. So, he has told me that he feels that that is not his responsibility as a developer. So, that is where we are in disagreement. One neighbor, when this whole property started coming in, he wanted a large cinder block wall to the tune of 30,000 dollars and we all thought that that was a bit overkill and, obviously, not -- not the look of Meridian. But since then we really haven't heard from him. The lady next door to him has personal issues and really doesn't come out of her house much. Next family it's a -- a family with three boys and a girl and he has been on some of the Zoom calls with Mr. Gasser. I don't know why they are not here tonight. But I do believe that we would all be on the same page. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, one more question. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: So, with the fence -- I like the idea of the fence sitting on top of the berm. The challenge is landscaping, what, then, becomes the slope between your fence and that fence. It becomes -- kind of becomes this black hole of problems, because you have got this dead area that's, you know, maybe -- maybe it's landscaped, but they have got to get in there with mowers and get in their trimmers and that fence along the berm creates an issue. So, has there been any thought put into that in terms of -- like what -- you know, there is -- has there been any discussion about what that dead space would be -- would look like? Carpenter: Right. And that's exactly the concern. Myself and my neighbors have been flexible in talks of do we move the fence out three feet and reclaim that land? So, then, the berm starts and there is not that dead space as you are speaking about and I have even had a neighbor say what if Mr. Gasser wants to purchase the three feet from us. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 51 of 71 So, I don't -- I mean we personally would like to gain that three feet, but I think we are flexible. If we can come to an accord with Mr. Gasser in terms of do you want to purchase that three feet or are we going to move the fence out the three feet. But I agree with you, right now it's just a big weedy mess and it would just continue to think -- I think to be a big weedy mess. So, I don't think that any of the neighbors would be willing to go back there and trim and mow and take care of it and especially, again, if it's our property, that's not Mr. Gasser's responsibility, so I know I personally would like to move the fence and claim the three feet on our property. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you. Carpenter: Thank you so much for your time. Simison: Is there any -- that's everyone who has signed up. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Good evening. If you can state your name and address for the record. Badigian: I'm Leonard Badigian and I live at 5965 North Arliss. All I have to say is at -- at a future -- at a past meeting they offered us a berm or fence. Okay? They -- they didn't offer it, they said you could have -- it's berm or fence. That--that's the way it was worded. We got up and tried to explain that our land is higher than their land and we wanted that dirt filled in -- or I did. Only me and my wife were there. That we could do it. They asked what the other neighbors thought. I said I couldn't talk for them. Because we had a -- we had a representative for us. We didn't have to be even at the meeting. But he didn't show up. So, we didn't know what had been proposed. All we heard was fence or berm. So, the Council -- I will -- I will tell you the truth -- made a joke of me. What do you mean two fences -- double fences? I said I would have to put up another fence on my property and let them put a fence on their property if they want a six foot fence they were offering. They didn't say -- they weren't offering anything, to tell you the truth, berm or a fence. After the meeting was closed and, you know, we couldn't talk anymore -- of course, the developer could say what he wanted to say. He said what he wanted to say and, then, Councilman Carven -- Cavener: Cavener. Badigian: -- Cavender. Yeah. You got up and said, you know, we spent enough time on this and the -- the man has offered a fence -- now, the meetings closed. We can't talk anymore. Has offered to put up a fence -- haul your old fence away, build a fence and you said he -- he could put a -- he could still do it, but he can't do it on my land. I had already said that. Well, I didn't know what the proposal was, because we never heard from the guy who took control of us and, then, you decided, okay, give them the berm. Oh. Then, Councilman Bernt -- yeah. He said -- he thanked -- he thanked Trevor for his cooperation and everything he had done after they -- after they had okayed a berm. So, anyway, we walked, we couldn't say anything. Not one word. We had -- the other mayor was here. They -- it's like there were different rules and if you look at -- if you could find the transcript of that thing you would know what was said and that was it. I didn't think Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 52 of 71 the decision was fair, but I mean you couldn't talk and that was the end. Now, if they -- if he was willing, then, to put up a fence, okay, bring our property to level, well, I would have went for it and I would have talked for the other three. But I never had the chance. Anyway, that's it. If there is any other questions -- if I said it wrong, ask me. Simison: Thank you. And -- and this was back during the 2018 application, the original -- Badigian: Two years -- and two years. And then -- then we had okayed a dance studio there and everything and it was -- it fell through for him and naturally everything changed and now we are back here again. I figured maybe it was time to correct the error. Simison: Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Leonard? Badigian: Yeah. Leonard. Cavener: Thank you for being here tonight. I -- I tried to follow your testimony and it -- and it sounds like that -- and it wouldn't be the first time that I -- I said something where I put my foot in my mouth and so if I -- if I -- if I said something during my testimony that -- that upset you or offended you, I just -- I want you to know that I apologize. That's never my intentions and if I did say something, whether it was taken as I intended or not, I just want you to know that I'm sorry about that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Leonard, a question. You had talked about your land is higher than what this development -- Badigian: When we moved in -- Hoaglun: Keep the microphone in front of your mouth, because we have to record it. Badigian: When I bought the place I bought an empty lot. When I got there the perimeter fence was up. Okay. I didn't even -- I didn't know it was my property on the other side of it. But there was a -- an irrigation ditch. Okay. Later -- I didn't find this out for eight years or right before -- right before the land sold --the farmer sold the land to Trevor. They said, you know, two feet of that's yours. That's when all this came up. I figured, well, hell, what happened. So, Brighton had -- had sued or wanted to -- wanted that -- no. The farmer Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 53 of 71 wanted to cover the canal or pipe it. Brighton said no. He fought it and Brighton won. Okay? So, now the farmer left his canal there. I don't know if there was an easement for it -- I don't know anything about it, so I'm not going to lie and say I did. But the canal rotted -- rotted our fence posts. We have had to repair them -- we had to fight Brighton the first time to repair it. The second time we just -- we repaired it and that was it. So, there we are, we are stuck. Now, it's -- as soon as he was ready to sell it the farmer filled the canal up and moved the canal in -- or the ditch. Yeah. He moved it in. Sold the property. I don't know what he disclosed to the buyer. Anyhow, then, it came -- and you guys came up with this other decision. Well, I wanted -- okay. Take -- that's why I -- wanted the fence taken away, but my property is higher -- or was -- the grade was higher, water comes right into my backyard, okay, then it drops -- it drops about, oh, that much. And it-- it's a trench. That's why I wondered if it was evened off-- evenly graded properly down to -- down the other way -- mine stays at where it was, even though I'm not happy with it, but it does and, then, it-- like I said, they made --the Council --and you apologized. I'm sorry. It was -- I was made a joke of. Burton -- I don't know where he's at. He says what -- what's this double fence? You know, it was a joke. And the only one that really knew what was going on was the gal next to you -- was her name Geneva? Yeah. And she knew what was going on and tried to explain it, but, hey, you had a lame duck Mayor, you had two lame duck councilmen and a newbie on the Council. Okay? And that was it. But the vote was unanimous. That's all I have got to say. I mean -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. Leonard, I -- Badigian: Go ahead. Hoaglun: I need to understand, because Kelly had mentioned they didn't want a berm and people looking in and, then, you say your property is higher and -- and Kelly can -- will probably ask her the same question later. So, your property is up here. Is the ditch that was filled in -- is that where the property starts a little bit -- that's just a little bit lower? And then -- and so it was level all the way to his property? Badigian: Because of the ditch. It -- it is all on the ditch. Okay? It's like that. Hoaglun: Yeah. Badigian: Okay. When they level that off my fence is higher. Hoaglun: Okay. Your fence right here. Badigian: Yeah. Up there. Then everything is descent. Then they are putting a --just a berm. Hoaglun: Right. You fence the property, but, then, they are going to put a berm. Badigian: A berm. So, now my fence isn't six feet high anymore. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 54 of 71 Hoaglun: Yeah. Because this is up here, so maybe it's only three feet high. Badigian: Yeah. Hoaglun: A three foot berm. Badigian: I said, well, I will -- I will build a fence -- eight foot fence. Then we don't know if the HO would go for-- HOA would go for that. The Council said I don't know that there is any rule against that. You could do anything you want. And -- and he said -- he said, you know, you could do whatever you want with the property. Give it to him if you want. Hoaglun: I'm sure the newbie said that. Badigian: And that's -- you could -- you could bring that up and you will see it all. Hoaglun: Good. Well, thank you, Leonard. I appreciate it. Badigian: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, if-- Simison: Yes. Hoaglun: Kelly, could you come and enlighten us a little bit on this property thing? I mean it sounds like you guys are very close. It's just some details that need to be hammered out on -- on this. Carpenter: Yes. So, what Leonard was trying to explain is -- I'm sorry, but forgive me that I just didn't come more prepared with photos. So, our fence is in the land and so here is our houses. Sorry. Hoaglun: Uh-huh. Carpenter: And it does, it slopes down. But it comes up first and, then, it goes down into our backyards. So-- I mean technically you could scrape the land and level our backyards and, then, Mr. Gasser's property is still slightly on a decline from our backyards. So, that's where I was talking about if -- instead of doing like a hump of a berm, doing more of a decline or even my husband brought up the point of even doing like a -- a u-shape, like an undercut and, then, planting trees -- almost like a dry creek. So, again, we are not architects or landscape architects, we are just trying to come up with some sort of like, you know, what's going to work for, you know, our homes, keep them safe, our privacy, all of that, so -- but, yes, what Leonard is saying is that our land is high -- is it's higher and, then, it slopes down and that was also another concern for the flooding of-- potential -- potential flooding -- potential irrigation runoff and turning our backyards into swamps, so -- yeah. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 55 of 71 Hoaglun: That helps. Thank you. Appreciate that. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Then would the applicant like to come forward to close? Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Just really quickly. I did want to confirm that the parcel lines that I am showing do show that their fence is off of their property line, which, again, I guess Trevor will confirm this, but their landscape buffer is not measured from the fence line, as was asked. It's going to be measured from the property line. So, their technically is a 28 foot buffer, depending on where that fence line is. So, I just want to make that clear for Council. Simison: Okay. Thank you. State your name and address for the record, please. Gasser: Trevor Gasser. 74 East 500 South, Suite 200, Bountiful, Utah. I appreciate the comments from the neighbors. I have -- I have tried really hard to work with them. You know, when I first brought this forward I was asking to do multi-family on this back piece. I brought a plan in with a hundred units and, you know, I got a lot of pushback and so went back, changed the plan, tried to see what I could do. I found a tenant that wanted to do a dance studio and an event center, which would have brought in, actually, a lot of traffic on the weekends at nights for recitals and two weeks before we closed the property they came to me and said that they are no longer going forward. I had to scramble really hard. I -- I was able to get it together and -- and purchase the property and now I'm just coming back with a new plan and, like I have said, I have got a dentist that's taken that northeast portion, but I would like to just comment on some of the comments that were made by -- by the neighbors. So, when I brought it forward there -- there was another gentleman that wanted me to do a CMU fence and I -- I felt like that was over and beyond what I should be doing. I went and took pictures of my developments that had just -- Bernt: Hey, Trevor? Gasser: Yes. Bernt: What's a CMU? Is that a -- Gasser: A cinder block. Bernt: Yeah. Gasser: Yeah. I went and took pictures of all the developments around being -- surrounding this development. They were all wood fenced and they were the original fences from the residential development and -- and so I approached -- my approach was, well, that -- that's -- you know, what -- what's been done, I don't know why I would need Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 56 of 71 to come in and build a new fence. There was talk about -- I don't want to build a fence on their side of the property. I would want to just build it on my property if I was going to do that. Some people didn't want to take down their fence and so we were going to have a gap in between that's two to three feet and so, you know, there was discussion there. -- I -- I would prefer to have you guys say what we need to do, rather than me go back and try to communicate with everybody and get on the exact same page, because I just think that could cause some issues. I would be willing to put a fence on the property -- on my property line and, then, they can do what they want on their side. But I -- I just think that there could be a lot of issues trying to work on their side of the property and -- and so there was talk about headlights coming in. That's why we were building a berm, so that would stop headlights from coming into their backyard and so that was -- Bernt: But you are lower than they are. Gasser: We are. Yeah. It was a gravity ditch, so water would come in and, then, it would grade down to -- to the rest of the property. So, we are lower. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Substantially, like three or four feet lower? Gasser: Three to -- yeah. And so -- and that berm, too, you know, if -- if we are 28 feet from the fence line, the berm at the crest is in the middle of that 28 feet where it's 25 feet. So, it's even further back. So, you know, it's still quite a ways away from anyone getting up and trying to look into their backyards and we are going to have trees and -- and, you know, Joe, we could pull up the -- the landscape plan, too, and just show the vegetation that we -- we have proposed to plant there. I feel like there is going to be plenty of screening. But, again, I would be willing to put a fence on that -- on that back property line and get rid of the berm if -- if that's what they would like me to do. Simison: So, Council, questions? And I guess in your estimation is the gravity irrigation -- is it on the neighbors' property or is it on your property? Is there another three feet that we are just going to assume is behind their fence? Gasser: Yeah. When -- when I bought the property it was --just Brighton was -- was the developer of that site and they put the fence line on their side, so two -- two feet -- two to three feet on their side. Simison: Where is -- where is the irrigation -- the former irrigation -- Gasser: I think it's just right at the back of their fence line. Simison: So, you -- you would think it's on their property, not your property if you were -- Gasser: Would you guys say that the canal -- is it two feet off the back? I mean there is a lot of weeds back there. I -- I haven't really gone back and inspected exactly what -- where it is, so -- Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 57 of 71 Simison: Yeah. I think -- because at least where I'm going to -- I mean -- I mean you -- if you -- I'm not going to say these aren't great people, but if you are just saying tell them to tell you what to do, I guess are you agreeing to do whatever they say you are going to -- Gasser: I would just propose -- I would just say let's either do a six -- a new six foot fence on my property line and -- you know. And get rid of the berm, because I -- I think that's what they are requesting. I -- I would do that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor -- I will yield my time to -- Gasser: But I would ask if you guys have any questions. Hoaglun: -- Council Woman Perreault. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Mayor. I'm a real estate broker. I have dealt with this before. Gasser: Sure. Perreault: It's not fun. It ends up being a three foot gap full of weeds and nothing. I -- I agree that -- that we can't -- if it's truly on their property, which it sounds like it probably is. I pulled up the original plat and it's not showing on there in the Paramount side, but there is no plat notes that say that there is a ditch or an easement or anything on that -- on Paramount's original map. But if you --would you consider doing a taller fence, maybe an eight foot fence and just, then, allowing them to deal with that three feet however they do and -- I don't think we are placing their own subdivision fence -- first of all, you can't, it's not your property, but even if they agree to let you do it it just doesn't make sense. So, the berm issue -- I don't know. The berm just -- in this situation I don't feel like is the best -- you know, you are asking us to make a decision. We can't technically, but just talking out loud the -- I don't -- the berm doesn't make sense in my opinion and so would you be willing to do a taller fence or a fence that's more substantial, that's not just, you know, maybe has -- maybe it's more like a -- a block wall or something that -- along those lines. Gasser: Yeah. You know, honestly, I would prefer to keep the plan as is. I would do a six foot wood fence, just like every other developer has done in that area. I -- I don't know why I would be held to -- to go in and do an eight foot fence. That's substantially more substance. You know, it was approved that way last time I came in. I'm willing to work with the residents and put -- you know, right now it's approved without a fence, so I can go and put in a six foot fence, you know, I -- I would be willing to do that. Their -- their land is already higher, so I mean it's not like I'm on an even playing field compared to some of the other developments that just have a six foot fence and, you know, their land is flat right behind their property. So, they are there -- it's already, you know, elevated for them. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 58 of 71 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And, Trevor, though, if-- if you move the fence --a six foot fence to your property line, such as -- you can build it on your property right there, then, there is -- they -- they will have a little bit of fall in their -- in their ground. There -- it sounds like it starts where their fence is, it drops off from their fence? Gasser: Well, it goes up, so there would be actually something that goes up if I build it off of theirs. Right now there is -- there -- there is their fence line; right? And, then, it drops down. So, if I bring it back to mine that's going to be down lower than their -- what their property is, so it shouldn't like -- water shouldn't be coming up and over. Hoaglun: Right. That's what I was -- that's what I was trying to get at to understand that water -- water flow and whatnot. Gasser: And there shouldn't be a lot of water back there and -- you know, I mean I'm not planting grass or anything. It would be probably like a drip system with -- you know, to those trees. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor -- Simison: Well, if I could just--on this--you know, I -- I -- I know as part of the development process you are required to keep all the -- all the water on your property. That is what is in theory required. That's why I'm trying to figure out where the water-- the irrigation ditch is -- whose property is it on, because that -- because that really was -- Gasser: I told them that I would fill in that ditch, you know. Simison: Well, that's -- you know, that would be part of the question, is like why would we not level this -- is there a reason why we would not want to level your property to the back of their property through this process? Is there a reason why we -- that ditch doesn't -- should not be filled in or --just curious, because that seems to be a -- Gasser: I'm fine to fill in the ditch. That's not a big deal to me. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. My -- my same thought process is similar, because if you go to their property line, make sure they are kept level to -- right to the edge of yours and, then, that fence is built and you got a six foot wood fence, it sounds like you have to match what the HOA requires, but that would be new and, then, where ever your property goes from there is up -- up to you, if it -- you keep that grade or you drop down, that -- that's fine. But they are -- they are kept level with a new fence and, then, if you do substantial landscaping for headlights and different things, I think that takes care of headlights and Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 59 of 71 -- and those types of things. You don't have to build a berm. Moving dirt is expensive. I mean just leveling up that short strip -- but that -- that would take care of the berm issue in my mind, but -- Gasser: Be happy to do that. Hoaglun: Dumpster, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I'm not talking about you, I was talking about the property. It's late. You got to throw something out there to keep people awake. No. I -- I noticed you had it here. I noticed on the original plans you actually had it where that outdoor -- open space outdoor plaza was up when you had parking up in there and it got moved, so -- Gasser: So, Councilman, I have -- have more land next to this building right here. So, for Republic Services to get in there -- they -- they can kind of get out of the private drive here. That's why that one's a little easier. I -- I did have it up here before, but my engineer just said they have had a lot of issues with Republic Service backing out into a private drive here and so that's why we moved -- we moved it down here. Originally I had the dumpsters in the middle at the back right here and they felt like Republic Services would not drive all the way in and pick that up and drive all the way back, because that's exactly where I would love to put it and, then, get it out from there and get it away from the neighbors. I could add more, you know, stalls. I mean it -- it would be better for me if could do that. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. That was my thought as well. I mean they are having to go clear in there, so why not have it at the end of the north side, because that's all going to be commercial, so you are backing up to commercial and -- and -- and move that dumpster there. Gasser: So, I will put them right there and we will see what they say. Hoaglun: Yeah. I think that -- that makes it work much better for the neighbors. Although Kelly sounds like she has hearing like my wife, she hears everything. Gasser: I -- I agree. I think that would be a great spot for it. Hoaglun: Okay. Simison: And I'm just -- how much say does Republic have in this process, out of curiosity? Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 60 of 71 Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, obviously, we take it very seriously from them, because, again, they have to pick it up. So, I don't -- we do -- we do really respect their comments, but -- so, don't know if it's undoable for what you are proposing. My assumption is it's not undoable. It's -- it's more difficult -- it can be more difficult, but it doesn't mean they can't do it. Gasser: And we have put -- Nary: It's your call. Ultimately it's the Council's call. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Typically when we have certificate of zoning compliance come in -- so, when commercial development comes in that's the next step. Part of our sub -- our submittal process is they need to provide proof from Republic Services that their trash dumpster locations have been approved and that's approved through their standards. So, I haven't -- I want to say maybe once or twice they have not approved it and the applicant has told me, hey, I can't submit, because they are saying I can't put my dumpsters where I want them, et cetera, and so I have had to communicate with them and we have had to move dumpsters sometimes from where the applicant wanted it in order to accommodate Republic Services. So, I don't know if we can just say, hey, put it here and Republic Services will pick it up, because they have their certain requirements about how far they want and can back up with their dumpsters similar to fire. I don't think it's as serious, but that is the -- the communication I have received from Republic Services. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Joe -- but we have -- they have to know we don't want dumpsters backing up to residential homes if at all possible. I mean that's just a nuisance and no one's happy. Simison: And the new plastic lids, so that they are not metal lids -- Dodson: Yeah. I will say, Mr. Mayor, that -- I mean I have seen this in other developments -- they could put it here in one of these and take up a couple of spaces and have it angled in a way that Republic Services can pick it up. I know it's not great to have a dumpster in front of the building, but -- I mean that's a potential option. Simison: That's the way it is at Gramercy. They have -- they have got -- I mean it's -- it's horribly unattractive and awkward in this location, but -- Dodson: But it functions. Simison: It functions. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 61 of 71 Dodson: Yes, sir. Gasser: I would like to move it where we have proposed and, hopefully, I can get support from staff on that at least, you know, and they will say okay. Dodson: On the record I would love to have it at the back of those little parking areas. Gasser: Yeah. Dodson: For sure. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: All they got to do is just back up. So, I -- I just -- I think it would be pretty easy just to back up. I just think that's really simple. Simison: If you were able to hear, that's what he just said. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, one last question -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: -- on Kelly's list here. Don't turn building. You know, I can understand from their perspective, but in -- you know, Stephanie asked about flexibility and minor modifications. What type of possibilities do you envision -- and I know it depends on clients and you don't know who you have yet. So, where are we in that thought process? Gasser: You know, I mean that -- that would be one of my -- the possibilities we would like to have is if on Lot B -- Building B and Building C, you know, if you had a tenant that wanted to take one building in the back there, you know, I would probably get a little smaller than the two combined, but, you know, I would like that option. You know, we are 28 feet right now, but it's still 25 feet off the back of the property. It happens all over the city, you know, where houses back up to single story, where before I could have gone three story with the event center. So, I would like that flexibility -- or combining Lot 9 and Lot 8 with one building there, too, you know, it -- it -- I'm not going to grow the square footage, but I would like that flexibility if one tenant came to me and -- and needed both buildings. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: We are trying to kind of work through a couple things. I -- I wouldn't mind if -- if Kelly came back up and kind of commented on some of the things we talked about, where they are in that thought process and, then, have Trevor come back up, because we are getting there. We are getting there. Mr. Mayor -- Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 62 of 71 Simison: Kelly, if you can state your name and address for the record again. Carpenter: Kelly Carpenter. 5991 North Arliss Avenue in Meridian. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Kelly, let's talk -- start with the berm and the fencing. Your thoughts on if we had the developer put a new fence, six foot wood, whatever the HOA requires, at the -- it would be on his property, but your property would be right there and that would be leveled off. So, yours and Leonard's and the other two properties would be made level and, then, he maintains the fencing, because it is on his property and, then, it's just -- if he leaves it a couple feet down and goes out and does substantial landscaping, what are your thoughts on doing something like that? Carpenter: I actually think that that would be fine. Absolutely. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor and Kelly, on that our -- our ordinances call for maximum height is six foot. Carpenter: Oh. Okay. Hoaglun: So, yeah, six foot is -- yeah, we can't go eight foot, so -- Carpenter: That's totally fine. But, no, I think that would be a good solution. Hoaglun: Okay. Dumpster. I think if we can get that moved that would -- that would be helpful. And with the fencing and -- and substantial landscaping I think the headlight issue, hopefully, is resolved. That's one thing about turning the building, though, would help with noise and lights. That's -- your thoughts on -- on something like -- Carpenter: My only thoughts is if -- again, we don't know what it could be; right? It could be an office building, which would be great, but it could be some sort of a food eatery and my thought is just people going out the back door, having a cigarette break, obviously, again, three small girls, don't want them smelling cigarette smoke or hanging out after work, so it's just hard -- it's hard to look into the crystal ball and see who the tenant is going to be. And, again, if it is -- if it is a lease situation the tenant could change, if I'm -- I don't know if I'm correct on that or not. I'm assuming if it's a lease option. So, it's just -- it's just hard to know. I guess my suggestion would be that if the building was to change direction can we come back for another meeting at that time? Is that -- is that an option? I don't know. Hoaglun: Okay. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 63 of 71 Hoaglun: And, Joe, the -- the elevations on these, they -- they aren't two story office buildings, but they do have some height to them, just because of the facade and different things. They look taller than they typically are, if that's -- memory serves right. Simison: Yeah. The applicant said they were one story. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Yes, they -- they are one story. It looks like the top of the parapet is a little over 20 feet. So, shorter than a house elevation that's for sure. Carpenter: And -- and you are absolutely correct. It -- it -- double edged sword; right? If the building was turned, absolutely, it would block a lot of the sound and the light. So, I guess my biggest hesitation is who is -- who is the tenant and, again, crystal ball, none of us know. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Kelly, you are right. And that's why I -- I know -- I have done it in the past when I was on Council previously, there was a location on one and the condition was that a particular section of the building could not be any restaurant or food establishment that operated past -- you know, I can't remember if we did a time limit or not, because they tend to be open later and there is music, there is noise, there are the -- all those things that -- that occur that -- so, I -- I'm thinking that would be something I would be interested in pursuing as well, just for those -- that section. If he has restaurants up the other side, that -- that's fine. Especially if that building is turned that helps -- that's even better, so -- Carpenter: Absolutely. I agree with you. I will tell you as of right now we can hear Homestead, again, across Linder going until midnight and 1.00 in the morning. Guitar music. Luckily it's all nice guitar music, but -- but, yeah, it can be -- you know, obviously, if you need an early night on a Friday or Saturday it's not ideal. So, if it was not going to be a restaurant, if it was going to be a business, I think that that would be something that we can agree to. I do have a question in return for you and maybe this is more of Mr. Gasser, but would we, then, lose the berm -- not the berm, but the strip with trees if the building was to turn orientation or would that still remain? Hoaglun: Landscaping is still required. Carpenter: Okay. Thank you. Hoaglun: Correct? Simison: Correct. Carpenter: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 64 of 71 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I just want to say thanks, like I -- we do this a lot and I always appreciate when neighbors come up and it's a collaborative and -- not only have you brought, hey, here is our concerns, but here is the proposed solutions that you are looking at. I just -- you just ran a really good master class on being an advocate for yourself and your neighbors and your HOA. So, I just want to say thank you. Carpenter: Well, thank you. And, truthfully, appreciate all of you and your job and your time and, yeah, thank you. We just want to make Meridian great. Keep it great and keep on pushing and all those good things. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I know it's an informal rule, but there is a rule that if -- if, you know, you are in a City Council meeting after 9:30 with little kids there is some type of ice cream that's made -- you know, you pick up ice cream on the way home or at a later point in time. I don't know if that's enforced at your house -- Carpenter: They just had a bag of Skittles and M&Ms, so I think we are pretty sugared up right now. Cavener: Perhaps -- perhaps -- perhaps another time. But thank you for bringing your kids and appreciate them sticking with us, too. Carpenter: Thank you again. I appreciate you. Simison: I -- I think we were just going to go with City of Meridian pins, you know. Carpenter: Yes. And thank you for those. Simison: Thank you. Mr. Gasser, would you like to come back up? Gasser: So, if I turn the building, her concern was people going out back. I would make sure that there was a condition, too, that at least the plaza areas were still on the side of the building and not directly behind it. That could be a way to mitigate that from ever happening. As far as the restaurant use, you know, I -- 1, honestly, don't foresee restaurant use coming to this space. But if there is a small thousand square foot tenant that wants to do some type of food use -- you know, I -- I -- I would hate to restrict my property and -- and miss out on that. I'm okay to restrict how late it goes, because I don't -- I'm not going to have a big sit-down restaurant here. I don't have enough parking for it. It just wouldn't work. It would kill my -- my development and all my other tenants and so I'm -- Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 65 of 71 I'm very conscious with how much parking I have and what my parking ratios are. I don't think that a food use would like this location anyways. They want to be close to the street and be visible. This is -- this would be buried in the back of the property. So, I'm not too concerned on that. But I would still like some flexibility there if there was a -- you know, if there was a little food use in there. But, you know, I'm not looking for a sit-down restaurant or anything that goes late and I -- I just don't know if there will be any type of tenant like that. Like I said, I am going for more of that. Yeah. Yeah. Professional use. Your dentist. Your attorney office. Engineer office. You know, those type of tenants. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I don't see any use like that. I mean you have two commercial properties that are in front of this property. Gasser: Yeah. Bernt: So, that's -- that's abutting Linder Road and so these properties are behind -- so, there is two -- there is going to be two big commercial properties in front of this and so I mean there is not going to be any, you know, big restaurant that would ever spend that type of money to be -- like have a back seat -- you know, I -- I don't -- I just don't ever see it. I would never spend money doing that. My business would go out of business. Gasser: Yeah. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Just trying to get this in my mind's eye. I'm such a visual person, so -- you have the edge of the parking lot. Twenty-five feet of landscaping; correct? Your six foot fence. Gasser: Correct. Perreault: Drainage ditch. And, then, Paramount's six foot fence. Is that what I'm understanding? Gasser: Well, that wouldn't happen unless they took down their fence. Perreault: Okay. Gasser: I think the drainage ditch is right on the property line. I -- I would fill that in. I can fill it in up to their fence line. But, then, I will put my fence on the property line. Simison: Which gives them the opportunity to reclaim their three feet if they so -- Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 66 of 71 Gasser: If they wanted to tear it down and -- yeah. Perreault: Okay. Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: What I'm hearing is that the applicant would build a new six foot fence on the applicant's boundary and level the ditch area to match the neighbors' current property. Gasser: Councilman, could I ask -- do you guys want it to go a little lower on -- on my side of the fence? Okay. But do you want it to be even or to go -- on my side? Okay. Yeah. It will be -- Hoaglun: So, you will level the neighbors' ditch area to their satisfaction -- to their specifications, how about that? Gasser: How about I just level it to where it is right now at the bottom of their fence? Hoaglun: Yeah. Yeah. To their fence. That's what I'm thinking. Level it to their property -- to match their property line. Then you build your fence to match what -- to HOA specifications. We don't -- we don't know what that is. And there will be no berming, but there will be good landscaping as required by -- by -- by city code. Dumpster going to -- between the two buildings in the middle section somewhere. That back dumpster. Or trying to -- to -- to talk -- you know, on questions earlier to Joe about the flexibility and what that looks like, I mean it sounds like we are talking about either having the two buildings or possibly one building of one story and that it's professional office functions in -- in that -- in that building and I think -- and so that gives you that flexibility, two buildings, or you can turn -- and it sounds like they would be a little bit -- might be smaller, instead of combining 16 square -- thousand. Might be less than that. Gasser: And it's -- it could still be the same, but -- Hoaglun: Could be. Gasser: --just because it's -- I'm not losing land when I do that; right? So, it-- it still could be that, but, you know, the tenants that have approached me -- because I have had some approach me. It would get a little smaller than that. Hoaglun: Okay. Gasser: But -- I have people call me all the time, you know. You -- you just never know what's going to happen. Hoaglun: Was -- was there anything else we are -- we are missing? Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 67 of 71 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: And I -- I don't want to stop this process. We heard from one resident. There was another one that was here. I just wanted to make sure that as neighbors we are all kind of in -- in agreement. Okay. Thank you. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Joe. Dodson: I just wanted to clarify. Was part of what Councilman Hoaglun stated limiting the use, as well as I said -- no restaurant uses on the east side or -- I can't remember. Hoaglun: For -- for the -- yeah. If he turns it -- it's -- it's limited to professional office functions only. Dodson: Okay. Thank you. Gasser: Or non-food use? Hoaglun: Or non-food use. Well -- yeah. Non-food use. I mean -- yeah. Gasser: Okay. Hoaglun: If it's an office and they want to have a birthday party, I mean, you know, they can have cake. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Again, I don't want to belabor this, but down the road we have these conversations. Non-food use does allow, then, a tap room. Is that okay? Because that -- tap rooms don't have food. Gasser: I would like to have -- Nary: Okay. Hoaglun: Okay. Simison: The other thing that you mentioned that you could do is you -- you could limit the hours that would traditionally prohibit the restaurant or other things from that standpoint. Gasser: Thank you. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 68 of 71 Simison: All right. Thank you. So, with that, Council, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we close the public hearing. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2022-0015 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19th, 2022, with the following conditions: That the applicant will place a six foot fence on his boundary line to HOA specifications, as well as level the ditch to match the neighbors' property. And, of course, there will not be a berm and -- and will meet landscaping requirements for the city in that 25 foot area. That the dumpster -- one of the dumpsters be placed in -- in -- between the buildings in the middle area and that the back offices would be no food use or tap room in those back buildings. Simison: Do I have a second? Cavener: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Discussion? Seeing no discussion, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. ORDINANCES [Action Item] Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 69 of 71 8. Ordinance No. 22-1983: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-3- 3(C), Regarding Limitation on Release Fees; Repealing any Conflicting Ordinance; and Providing an Effective Simison: Thank you. Mr. Clerk, do we have pins for the -- we already did? Awesome. With that we will move on to our final items of the evening. Next up is Item 8, Ordinance No. 22-1983. We ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance amending Meridian City Code Section 3-3-3(c), regarding limitation on release fees; repealing any conflicting ordinance and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. You all heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Seeing none, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Since I have so kindly let my fellow Council Members make all the motions this evening, I will make one. I move that we approve Ordinance No. 22-1983, amending Meridian City Code Section 3-3-3(c) regarding limitation on release fees, repealing any conflicting ordinance and providing an effective date. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-1983. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the ordinance is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. 9. Ordinance No. 22-1985: An Ordinance (Alamar Subdivision — H-2022- 0004) for Annexation of a Tract of Land Located Within the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest '/4, Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 8.23 Acres of Land from RUT to the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 70 of 71 Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next item up is Ordinance No. 22-1985. We will ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to Alamar Subdivision, H-2022- 00004 for annexation of a tract of land located within the Southeast '/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho; and being more particularly described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 8.23 acres of land from RUT to the TN-R, zoning district in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Hearing none, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Chris, if you need a side gig as an auctioneer I have a friend that owns a company. Johnson: Sold. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 22-1985 with the suspension of rules. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-1985 under suspension of rules. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, absent. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. Meridian City Council July 19,2022 Page 71 of 71 EXECUTIVE SESSION Simison: Item 10 was not added to our agenda, so it does not exist. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Is there anything under future meeting topics? Or a motion to adjourn? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn. Simison: Have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:53 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) By Brad Hoaglun, Council President 8_9_2022 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. B. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 8. Ordinance No. 22-1983: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-3- 3(C), Regarding Limitation on Release Fees; Repealing any Conflicting Ordinance; and Providing an Effective Date 9. Ordinance No. 22-1985: An Ordinance (Alamar Subdivision - H-2022-0004) for Annexation of a Tract of Land Located Within the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment"A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 8.23 Acres of Land from RUT to the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date EXECUTIVE SESSION 10. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(d) To consider records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date . Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic . Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum . • DO NOT : o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3 - minute time limit ( you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Finance Department: Approval of the Fiscal Year 2022 Amended Revenues and Expenditures in the Amount of$194,907,732.00 (I IDIAN Interoffice Memo 07/12/2022 To: Mayor & City Council From: Budget Manager, Brad Purser Ref: FY2023 Tentative Budget and FY2022 Amended Budget Action Needed: 1. Council to approve the amended revenues and expenditures for Fiscal Year 2022. $194,907,732 One Hundred Ninety-Four Million, Nine Hundred Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred Thirty-Two Dollars. 2. Council to tentatively approve the proposed revenues and expenditures for Fiscal Year 2023. $21%724,039 Two Hundred Nineteen Million Seven Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Thirty-Nine Dollars. E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Finance Department: Tentative Approval of Fiscal Year 2023 Proposed Revenues and Expenditures in the Amount of$219,724,309.00 (I IDIAN Interoffice Memo 07/12/2022 To: Mayor & City Council From: Budget Manager, Brad Purser Ref: FY2023 Tentative Budget and FY2022 Amended Budget Action Needed: 1. Council to approve the amended revenues and expenditures for Fiscal Year 2022. $194,907,732 One Hundred Ninety-Four Million, Nine Hundred Seven Thousand, Seven Hundred Thirty-Two Dollars. 2. Council to tentatively approve the proposed revenues and expenditures for Fiscal Year 2023. $21%724,039 Two Hundred Nineteen Million Seven Hundred Twenty-Four Thousand Thirty-Nine Dollars. E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Proposed New and Amended Fees of the Parks and Recreation Department Fall 2022 Activities and Classes PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 19 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Proposed New and Amended Fees of the Parks and Recreation Department Fall 2022 Activities and Classes Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT,BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN,PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES 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 in the Meridian Press on July 10, 2022 and July 17, 2022, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-131 IA, on July 19, 2022 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That the 2022 FALL Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the fees adopted for the 2022 Fall Activity Guide shall remain in effect as to those classes until such classes are concluded, at which point the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto shall supersede any and all fees for the enumerated services previously adopted. Section 3. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 4. 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 day of Jul. 2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Jul. 2022. APPROVED: Robert Simison, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 4 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, July 19, 2022, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding proposed new and amended fees as set forth below. Further information is available at the Parks &Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 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. 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. Proposed new or amended fees: EXHIBIT A 2022 FALL Activity Guide Class Fees: Touch the Sky-Public Tree Climb $20.00 - $30.00 Dazzle and Dance Classes $15.00 - $30.00 Amazing Athletes $75.00 Little Pallet Art Classes $22.50 - $140.00 Introduction to Rock Climbing $200.00 Martial Arts for All Ages, Beginning& Intermed. /Advanc. $40.00 Kendo: Japanese Fencing $70.00 Introduction to the sport of Fencing $120.00 Belly Dance $50.00 Bigfoots Cartooning, Anime and Comics $15.00 - $20.00 Skyhawks Sports Camps $94.00 - $129.00 CPR/First Aid/AED $50.00 Yoga-All Levels $50.00 Yoga-Gentle Yoga $50.00 Yoga-Unlimited Yoga $70.00 Somatic Yoga& Gentle Stretch $50.00 Intro to Yoga Workshop $12.00 Jazzercise $69.00 Pickleball 101 $80.00 Line Dancing-Beginner $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Intermediate $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing- Improver $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Choose your dates option $85.00 Intermediate 2-step $40.00 - $50.00 Intro to Dance $40.00 - $50.00 West Coast Swing $40.00 - $50.00 Couples Social Dance- Optional Days $135.00 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 Digital Photography $75.00 The Photographers Eye $75.00 Senior Excursions $15.00 - $50.00 Adult Flag Football $516.43 DATED this day of , 2022. Chris Johnson, CITY CLERK PUBLISH on July 10 and July 17. ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution 22-2337: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO.22-2337 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT,BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN,PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES 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 in the Meridian Press on July 10, 2022 and July 17, 2022, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-131 IA, on July 19, 2022 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That the 2022 FALL Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the fees adopted for the 2022 Fall Activity Guide shall remain in effect as to those classes until such classes are concluded, at which point the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto shall supersede any and all fees for the enumerated services previously adopted. Section 3. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 4. 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 19th day of July, 2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 19th day of July, 2022. APPROVED: Robert E. Simison, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 4 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, July 19, 2022, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding proposed new and amended fees as set forth below. Further information is available at the Parks &Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 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. 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. Proposed new or amended fees: EXHIBIT A 2022 FALL Activily Guide Class Fees: Touch the Sky Public Tree Climb $20.00 - $30.00 Dazzle and Dance Classes $15.00 - $30.00 Amazing Athletes $75.00 Little Pallet Art Classes $22.50 - $140.00 Introduction to Rock Climbing $200.00 Martial Arts for All Ages, Beginning& Intermed. /Advanc. $40.00 Kendo: Japanese Fencing $70.00 Introduction to the sport of Fencing $120.00 Belly Dance $50.00 Bigfoots Cartooning, Anime and Comics $15.00 - $20.00 Skyhawks Sports Camps $94.00 - $129.00 CPR/First Aid/AED $50.00 Yoga-All Levels $50.00 Yoga-Gentle Yoga $50.00 Yoga-Unlimited Yoga $70.00 Somatic Yoga& Gentle Stretch $50.00 Intro to Yoga Workshop $12.00 Jazzercise $69.00 Pickleball 101 $80.00 Line Dancing-Beginner $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Intermediate $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing- Improver $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Choose your dates option $85.00 Intermediate 2-step $40.00 - $50.00 Intro to Dance $40.00 - $50.00 West Coast Swing $40.00 - $50.00 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 Couples Social Dance- Optional Days $135.00 Digital Photography $75.00 The Photographers Eye $75.00 Senior Excursions $15.00 - $50.00 Adult Flag Football $516.43 PUBLISH on July 10 and July 17. ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 City Council Meeting July 19, 2022 Item #5: 0041)-2022-Subdivision No. 3 (HFairbourne Item #4: Bountiful Commons Aerial MapZoning Map Conceptual Site Plan & ElevationsIncluded in Existing Development Agreement Proposed (Original & Updated) Conceptual Development Plan to be Included in Amended Development Agreement Proposed Conceptual Elevations to be Included in Amended Development Agreement Proposed Preliminary PlatProposed Final Plat Proposed Landscape Plan Changes to Agenda: \[if applicable\] Item #5: Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3 (H-2022-0041) Application(s):  Vacation of Utility Easement Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2 lots, zoned R-8, located northwest of the N. Black Cat Rd / W. Chinden Blvd intersection. Summary of Request: The City Council approved the Fairbourne Subdivision for 176 single family lots and 1 commercial lot in 2018. The Fairbourne Subdivision has built out in 3 phases, with the most recent, Fairbourne No 3, being approved for 65 buildable lots in December of 2020. A potential buyer intends to construct a single-family home that would straddle the platted internal lot line between Lots 11 and 12 Block 3. As part of this construction, the applicant would merge the two lots together. However, there is a standard note on the plat that requires 5-foot drainage, utility construction and maintenance easements on either side of internal lot lines. A property boundary adjustment will be required as a condition of approval of the easement vacation. The applicant has submitted letters from all potential easement holders who have all provided written consent agreeing to vacate the easements. Staff recommends approval of the vacation of easement request as proposed by the Applicant with the condition that the applicant complete a property boundary adjustment prior to issuance of building permit. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0041, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0041, as presented during the hearing on July 19, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0041 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6: Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) Continued from 11/16 Council hearing and then continued again from January 4, 2022. NOTE – NO CHANGES TO PLAN/PROJECT SINCE JANUARY 4, 2022 COUNCIL HEARING. Application(s):  Annexation and Zoning; Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 40.49 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at 4111 E. Amity Road (including the outparcel to the south) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue, at the southeast corner of S. Hillsdale and E. Amity. History: No history with City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Neighborhood (approx. 8 acres); Medium Density Residential (approx. 31 acres) Summary of Request: Annexation & Zoning of 40.49 acres of land (3 existing parcels) from RUT to the R-8 (13.38 acres), R-15 (24.17 acres), and C-C (2.95 acres) zoning districts with a concept plan showing 219 single-family units and 16 multi-family units and a preliminary plat consisting of 249 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 79 townhome lots, 4 multi-family lots, 4 commercial lots, 34 common lots, and 4 other lots) on 38.95 acres of land. No CUP for multi-family was submitted with this application—one will be required in the future to construct four-plex dwellings. REVISIONS:  All apartments were removed; 219 units now (down from 327). Only remaining portion of the site that is MF is the addition of 4 new four-plex lots along Amity Road near the northwest corner of the site.  MF replaced by more townhome units and drive aisles are replaced by 28-foot wide private streets since the units front on green space. Applicant has received Private Street approval for private streets (administrative level approval).  Added 3 additional commercial lots and included a proposal for a portion of C-C zoning, similar to what is to the west. This reduced the overall area of the residential portion of the project down to 36.45 acres, a reduction of 2.5 acres.  Gross density is now 6.01 du/acre (219 units/36.45 acres), down from 8.4 du/ac. – Staff finds with a loss of over 100 residential units, the Applicant has made a significant adjustment to mitigate the Commission’s concerns over density and its impact to nearby schools and the transportation network.  Four additional commercial properties, Applicant has proposed a new right-in/right-out access to Hillsdale Avenue for additional access to the commercial lots. Its location is in alignment with an existing commercial access on the west side of Hillsdale so ACHD has approved this additional street connection.  Applicant moved the proposed pool amenity to the large central open space lot consistent with the Commission discussion.  Initial review of revised landscape plan shows continued compliance with required open space. General: stnd  Proposed in 4 phases – all of the detached single-family proposed in the 1 and 2 phases as well as open space and st amenities; 9 townhome lots and accesses to Hillsdale and Amity proposed in the 1 phase. Existing stubs proposed to be nd extended in 2 phase with remaining R-8 single family lots. Commercial lots, second access to Hillsdale, first area of townhome lots, and four 4-plex buildings proposed in phase 3 at SEC of Hillsdale and Amity; SWC of project proposed in phase 4 and includes remaining townhome lots.  The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers, the large centralized open space lot, large linear open spaces, and other smaller open space areas throughout the site that include additional pedestrian connectivity through the site. Correct number of amenities are proposed – future CUP will confirm required minimum number of amenities for MF portion.  Access - S. Hillsdale Avenue (collector street) and E. Amity Road (arterial street). Applicant is extending two local stub streets into the site – one from the east (W. Macumbo Street) and one from the south (S. Bleachfield Avenue).  TIS required due to proposal of more than 100 units – TIS estimates project will generate 2,599 additional vehicle trips per day and 266 additional trips per hour in the PM peak hour. TIS & ACHD recommend/require the following improvements:  Safe access to Hillsdale Elementary – ACHD recommends and Applicant has agreed to install a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crossing at the Hillsdale/Hill Park intersection for an additional safe crossing for current and future residents.  Project area has different future land use designations than the existing Meridian development to the south and southwest. Majority of site contains the MDR designation (3-8 du/ac). Relatively small area of MU-N (6-12 du/ac) on this site is part of a larger mixed-use area further to the west that encompasses approximately 70 acres. Approximately half of this mixed-use area is approved for residential development (Hills Century Farms North) with the remaining area being comprised of commercial zoning that includes self-storage, an urgent care, medical/dental offices, assisted living facility and some vacant commercial lots.  The Applicant has proposed transitional lot sizes and density within this project along the perimeter to match the lot sizes of existing development to the east and south. Smaller lot sizes are proposed towards the interior of the project culminating in the multi-family lots (highest density) along the west boundary and at the very northwest corner of the development. Staff finds the proposed project is compatible with surrounding residential development because of the transitional densities proposed.  After analysis of all residential projects south of the interstate and within City limits approved since March 2018, here is what was found. There have been approximately 4,176 single family units and approximately 1,224 multi-family units approved. Of the approved projects, there have been approximately 1,265 single family building permits issued and multifamily permits issued included approximately 112 units. Commission Recommendation: Commission recommended approval of project following Applicant revisions to the overall plan. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Becky McKay, Applicant Representative. b. In opposition: Please see public record here. c. Commenting: Becky McKay; d. Written testimony: A number of written testimonies were submitted, a vast majority of which were against the project. Please see the public record for these records – testimony. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. Allocation of density and lot sizes throughout the site relative to existing residential in the area; b. Desire to have more commercial and less high-density apartments within the project; c. Overall concerns with additional residents in this area and the impact to the roadways and neighborhood elementary school, Hillsdale Elementary; d. Discussions on how Staff measures and analyzes density of projects when multiple future land uses are present within a project site; e. Desire to reduce density further than Applicant proposed with the revised layout and removal of garden-style apartments; 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Density of project and inclusion of apartment units in this area of the City; b. Amount of commercial originally proposed and analyzed by Staff and how it meets the Mixed-use c. Neighborhood future land use designation; d. Ingress and egress for the project site relative to required road improvements to Hillsdale and Amit and subsequent timeline of required road improvements; e. Desire to have more commercial and less multi-family consistent with public testimony at both hearings; f. Support of revised layout that includes more attached single-family, commercial, and a new multi- family use (three 4-plex buildings); g. Amount and availability of parking for the areas surrounding the townhomes and increased commercial lots; 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Commission did not make any additional changes to the Staff report beyond those noted within the Staff Memo dated October 15, 2021 – subsequently, Section VII and Section VIII of this document have been revised to include the revised plans and recommended revisions to the conditions of approval noted in the memo. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Multiple pieces of testimony – School capacity, traffic impacts, different type of housing than existing subdivisions, conflict with future land use map, and overall too much density. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0046, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0046, as presented during the hearing on July 19, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0046 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #7: Bountiful Commons East (H-2022-0015) Application(s):  Development Agreement Modification  Combined preliminary & final plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 2.20 acres of land, zoned C-C, located at 5960 N. Linder Rd. History: This property was annexed in 2017 with the requirement of a DA. A preliminary plat & final plat was approved in 2018. A property boundary adjustment was recently approved which established the current configuration of the property. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) Summary of Request: A modification to the existing Development Agreement is proposed to update the conceptual development plan and remove the conceptual building elevations for Chili’s & the event center from the agreement & replace them with concept elevations for the proposed single-story commercial/office buildings. Changes to the concept plan consist of replacing the 7,000 & 10,000 s.f. buildings which includes a shared outdoor plaza area in between the two buildings with (4) multi-tenant commercial/office buildings with individual outdoor plaza areas at the rear of each building. Staff recommends changes to the concept plan consisting of removal of the parking spaces on the west side of the site that back out into the backage road & removal of the parking in between each set of buildings for the provision of a common usable area/plaza area as required in the DA & the Comp Plan for mixed use designated areas. Since the Commission hearing, an updated concept plan was submitted that depicts removal of the parking spaces along the west boundary but no other changes. A combined preliminary and final plat is proposed to re-subdivide a portion of Lot 1 and all of Lot 4, Block 1, Bountiful Commons Sub. The proposed plat consists of (3) building lots on 2.20 acres of land. Access to the subdivision exists via a private driveway/backage road that runs along the west boundary of the site parallel to N. Linder Rd. Commission Recommendation: Approval w/conditions Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Stephanie Hopkins, KM Engineering; Trevor Gasser, Applicant ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: Stephanie Hopkins, KM Engineering, Applicant – Not in favor of amending the concept plan as recommended by Staff. v. Key Issue(s):None Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: Discussion pertaining to the MDA application and the proposed design of the site in relation to Staff’s recommendation for a more centralized common open space/plaza area to be provided and certain parking spaces to be removed. Commission was generally supportive of removal of the parking spaces along the west boundary of the site as recommended by Staff for safety reasons; but was in favor of the parking between the buildings remaining. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0015, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 19, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0015, as presented during the hearing on July 19, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0015 to the hearing date of _____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3 (Lots 11 and 12, Block 3) (H- 2022-0041) by Sam Johnson, Located between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 of the Fairbourne Subdivision No. 3, North of W. Chinden Blvd. and West of N. Black Cat Rd. Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0041 A. Request: Vacation of a Public Utilities Easement between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 19, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : Fairbourne Subdivision No . 3 ( Lots 11 and 12 , Block 3 ) ( 11=12O22 - 0041 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7 8 � g 10 � 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING 7/19/2022 Legend DATE: Project Lacai�or. TO: Mayor&City Council : FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-489-0573 SUBJECT: H-2022-0041 Fairbourne No. 3 (Lots 11 and 12, Block 3)Vacation - LOCATION: The site is located between Lots 11 and 12,Block 3 of the Fairbourne -----------� . Subdivision No 3 (5118 and 5102 W. Oakford Ct),generally north of W. _ --- Chinden Blvd and west of N. Black Cat Rd. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to vacate public utilities easement between Lots 11 and 12, Block 3 of the Fairbourne Subdivision No 3,by Sam Johnson II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: James Money, Civil Survey Consultants—2893 S.Meridian Rd,Meridian, ID 83642 B. Owner: Fairbourne Development—2701 E. Pine Ave,Meridian, ID 83642 III. STAFF ANALYSIS The City Council approved the Fairbourne Subdivision for 176 single family lots and 1 commercial lot in 2018 (H-2018-0052). The Fairbourne Subdivision has built out in 3 phases,with the most recent,Fairbourne No 3 being approved for 65 buildable lots in December of 2020 (H-2020-0008). A potential buyer intends to construct a single-family home that would straddle the platted internal lot line between Lots 11 and 12 Block 3 (5118 and 5102 W. Oakford Ct). As part of this construction,the applicant would merge the two lots together. However,there is a standard note on the plat that requires 5-foot drainage,utility construction and maintenance easements on either side of internal lot lines. A property boundary adjustment will be required as a condition of approval of the easement vacation. Page 1 The applicant has submitted letters from all potential easement holders (i.e. Sparklight,Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas, Century Link)who have all provided written consent agreeing to vacate the easements(see Exhibit V.E.). IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the vacation of easement request as proposed by the Applicant with the condition that the applicant complete a property boundary adjustment prior to issuance of building permit. Page 2 V. EXHIBITS A. Recorded Plat(date: November 10,2021) FAIRBOURNE SUBDIVISION N4_ 3 @EA VA FORT70N OF TNEE Ill OF THESE W OFSECTXW 24 c 70&WVSHP4 NOR TH,I ANGE7 WEST.6015Eh R7WQA!CrfyOFM1dERA71AN.AAACIXdV7Y.IDAHO FAA490URNE DEVEL C4 A4ENK I L C tiro N 2021 ur.a• nrw..•r ewr �a ° JY'xim'n". t ,. 'k � wic vLen -e� -ice'• wna�.m � R � =AIL A NDT 70 SCALE UVW it �•,� �- r am ��� �� � � .s ,�o xass�vr•r �� r r o-p yf! � rs hl n e0's E SHEET 1 N frr.W N x W W,f , 4 H 2 w+� EASEMENT AREA R SEE SHEET 3 FOR SHEET 1 CLWVEDATALINE124U n®„ AND FLATA407ES '4�`• L - a ;e,41L rr7 # DETAlL wrc nn.wv s-r ogw+o�r�7 cp�� t♦, ,'Noo'rb x �r n � s Page 3 B. Pertinent Plat Note PLAT NOTES 1. @L9UXW S M<KS AW AWAMOW 5TAA4Li1RD$ N 7MIS ,SUWMSOV 9-PU 9E #V CaAoUM fc WffH rAC APPLCAaLF MWNC Rf9i"nCOVS Or rW C77Y O�- A1lWRJ0M 2. AW ;?E$MMGWW-0V OF TANS PUT VwL GGYIBFnw ro rw APPLA.ABt£z71mw ft-PWArovs #i ErMmr Ar 77 9E MF Or 171C A MMM"OV. J TNs XVfYOAWWr ftVo wzrs SEG'Mw ?$-cw DF mr a1hv Gqm mL,*ff m ;Am Acr Mf#cH STA7ES ►V Ar.Wtx n AW OPERA rOv AG7mYX nAft FAuflY ow EJl4°.4A1's%w n4wCor_%%4 l BE AP fiFCVb9E A AX45AAIC'E, PRhS1rf GW PMIC, 9Y ANY Ct1"= COA&WNS W aq A&OUT 7W St+9 .liW Aw.W GRWI,AL nAM ACW7X5 A7FR Ir l MS fiffn+ 4V OPER1 rjav FOR MORE" r iNW OW (1) yVW,, WEN rW CAPMrA& FAMITY OR EMSi+MSAW MIS AgOr A AUSWr A AYE YW Ir St"Y O4 MS COAfS?ftC'TEO. 7W PROWWAIS AF nWS SECTIaY -%4LL MOT APPir WWW A MUS4WE RE37alf.TS fPMW 7W AIAp� OR A+ECLK,IEM OiPFRATVV OF AN AMXIA77AW OPEMrA%V AGRILLX MWL FACXI]Y OR EXPAAWN ThfW4OIF' 4. FCR 7W CJ1Y Of' b9E►PAN W, rW d17TT W RXW rOV Or rAf SMUCTURAL FG10TJiM1IG'S SY CL BE SET A AA9M1EE" OF U AMW 7W HIgIFST E5TA6ICMWD ACWAW GROL +OWER ELEiA nM 5. Au CDT L►WS commrw no AM' Smar OI pCA7W M rMf PL&IC AAf SCOXCr TO A A*W (0) fWr li'W PERA AWENT PMStC U7XflWS, 04 M4H AW PRESSLW MWCAR W F.ASEWW UAd[.ESS OThdFRMtW SHMW 7W EA.SEAA W7Y -POU AW PRECLLW 7W COA6" CFX W OF HAAD -%AWACED lJY4MEMFlT'S To CACH LOT, a ALL NURAW .Si6pIE LOT Lft-5 AqF S68AFCT TO A FW (5) FOOT f11W PE-IP"*Wr PI'J&C UTAiPa 6BYAMGE A&V Pft-55UR£ ARl4G 4TR'AAI EASEMW GW EACN SgpE 1►94 XSS 0714LEAMISE Shl *N ALL REAR LOr LM5 ARE SIIWECr M A TEN (10) FWr J1 W PDP"4WVr P[A9 r uTatrAm DIB mGr-AAo PRESSURE AW411P A IX W FKEAI 7' MLLW OTNEIPN W 5MMW. ALL OWN E4SOMVrS ARE-AS ,5PA WW T. DW4ECT LOT AR PAJ41:'EL AGCF55' ry N. &Acw GAT AICi4D IS PIRcm*7m B. LOT 29 Of B= T IS A PlArW LOT W*ICH $HALL W OWED AOVD Ai4AMrMVW Or TJYE PA4R wRNE SlASIpYi+MOV OII 4W A,SSOLx+ITIIrYV AW NE BENMr OF rW +RESCEWS Ar FAA4VUR1'WE S7�r hl. SAD Lbr Is scaxCr rU A PE7PAiA*WT PC/Bf.1C UfI MES D1R9mi4aF Aw PIwmAw +E ffvA nav EA&q&-AT AClRC►SS 7W EN7MY7Y 9 LOU f $ 16 AAV M OF &OCK .1 LOrS r 1 AAV 20 OF SOCK A AND LOT 1 OF 6Y." 12 ARE L4MDSC PC L:CIMMV LOTS Mlo0y 944u BF omvED Amo AmwrmcD 9Y 7w FArJPI9OfA4MAE .Susmosim 04%TRS ASWC`d1 MV, SW 107T ARE S1AI Arr TO A AF MIAWNT PfSCC UIKIYd-1 DI RGE AW PIRE35LW AWWAn&V E4SE4194fT ACROSS 774E fAf7NM-- 10. 7A65 DEWZGP WENT IS S(4WC7 rU " E 1FJPW OF A DE ROAMENr ANT it N FW CITY OF AAERA740IW REM IMP AS INSTRLAHENT AA2 20149-J61, REC^O,RDS Ar Aa4 C04A'VTY, IL 4AV Page 4 C. Legal Description of Easement Vacation(date: March 17, 2022) EASEMENT VACATION DESCRIPTION FOR FAIRSOURNE DEVELOPMENT,LLC An existing easement located in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 21,Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, and being a part of Lots 11 and 12 of Block 3 of FAIRBOORNE SUBDIVISION NO. 3 as shown in Book 122 of plats at Pages 19189— 19193 in the office of the Recorder,Ada County, Idaho, more particu larly described as follows: Commencing at a 1/2 inch diameter iron pin marking the northwesterly corner of said Lot 12, from which a 1/2 inch diameter iron pin marking the southwesterly corner of said Lot 12 bears 5 9'16'20" E a distance of 154.13 feet; Thence 5 9°16'20" E along the westerly boundary of said Lot 12 a distance of 35.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence leaving said westerly boundary IN 80°43'40" E a distance of 5,00 feet to a point; Thence 5 9°16'20" E a distance of 106.55 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 10.52 feet along the arc of a 72,00 foot radius non-tangent curve left, said curve having a radius point bearing S 22°58'59" E, a central angle of 8°22'11" and a long chord bearing S 62'49'55" 1N a distance of 10.51 feet to a point; Thence N 9'16'20" W a distance of 109.78 feet t❑ a point; Thence N 80°43`40" E a distance of 5.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, This parcel contains 1,080 square feet (0,025 acres) and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Prepared by: Kyle A. Koomler, PLS e31 S CiviI Survey Consultants, Incorporated 0March 17, 2022 B0?. 1 Page 5 FaNT OF BEGINNING 500' .500, l FAJ,ROWRAIF ,SU80f 5i6W NO. 3 ` ra DOCK i I I F'ORD cx �o 18790 7- 4� tj- o % X � ee A , K 013 CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS,INC. 213M 3IXJTH MERIDIAN ROA13 CURVE DATA MERIDUM,F AHQ83&U 4E DELTA RADIUS qK TANGENT CHORD CHORD -ORNC. 120MM4312 Page 6 E. Relinquishment Letters from Easement Holders (service providers) r � 511612022 CenturyLink Sam Johnson Fairbourne Development 2701 E Pine Ave Meridian, Idaho, 83642 VAC-Lot 11 & 12 Block 3 Fairboume Subdivision Na. 3 No Objection SUBJECT: Common Lot Line Lot 11 & 12 Block 3, City of Meridian,Ada County Idaho. UN R1W 521, NE114-SEIK Boise Meridian, Fairbourne Subdivision NO 3 book of Plats- Pages 198189 - 19193 Office Gf the Recorder Ada County Idaho. APN: R2734180200- Ft2734180220 To Whom It May Concern: OW EST CORP0RATI0N d!b}a C ENTURYLlN K QC has reviewed the request for the subject vocation and has determined that it has no objections with respect to the areas proposed for vacation. As documented in E HIBT A It is the intent and understanding of Centuryl-ink that this Vacation shall not reduce our rights to any other existing easement or rights we have on this site or in the area. This vacation response is submitted VVrrH TH E STIPULATION that if CenturyLink QC facilities are found within the vacated area as described, the Applicant will relocate the facilities of Applicant's expense and within guidelines set by enturyLink QC cind all regulating entities. All relocations will be done under the supervision of a Centuryl-ink Inspector. Sincerely yours, Keith Sivils Network Infrastructure Services Qvuest Corporation dlbla Centuryl-ink QC P841407 Page 7 FA oukNE April 22, 2022 To whom it may concern, The Fairboume Subdivision Owners Association has no objection to the vacation of the utility easement centered on the lot line between lots 11 and 12 of black 3 of the Fairbourne #3 Subdivision as depicted in the attached vacation description by Civil survey Consultants dated March 17,2022. There are no pressure irrigation factilides within said easentient nor is there a future need for facilities in said esentt. Sincerely, tamamuel M. ohnson President-Fairboume Subdivision Ovniers Association Page 8 ORMO 1PA�w-covsftr April 12-202' Sent via email to JPetrief�-civilsun met Fa irbourme Development:LLC C O Sam Johnson 101 E. Pine Ave. Meridian,Idaho 23642 Re: Relinquishment of Public Ublity Easement between Lots 11 & 12, Block 3 of the Faarbourne Subdivision No.3.Ada Counts. ID Dear Sam. This is in response to the K-E relinquishment request submitted to Idaho Power Company and received in our office April 5. 202?, regarding the relinquisbmaent of a public atilih, easement iTUE) located a3 noted above. The attached Elibit A more specifically-identifies the requested area far relinquishment. Idaho Power's re%iew of your request indicated that use do not have facilities located within the requested area_A3 such, Idaho Power agrees to relinquish our interest in the PLC.that is located behye-en Lots11 & 12.Block 3 of the Fairbourne Subdivi3ionNo. 3. Thank -you once again for pto%iding Idaho Power Company the oppornmity to rei.ze>h and con,mpnt upon the subject petition for relinquishment. Sincerely_ Laura Lacs Associate Real Estate Sgecialisc Idaho Power Company;`Corporate Real Estate Land NLnagement and Permitting Department 208-388-5070 llacy:a�daho p a w er.c oma Page 9 INTERMOUNTAIN- CAS COMPANY AKWIUMmm�nbr. WESTERN REGION CfFFICE 535 SOUTH C�LE ROB.: •BOISE. ID.837DD (218).33"F - Fax (2Da)3T7-6867 www.Inhgas."COm March 18, 2022 To whom it may concern, Intermountain Gas Company has no obj ertion to the vacation of the utility easement centered on the lot hjube between lots 11 and 12 of block 3 of the Fairbourne#3 Subdivision. The vacation description by Civil survey Consultants dated March 17,2022 We do not any gas pipe in the easement. Please send me a copy of the final dccumenf vacation the easenmut for our records. Let me know if you have any questions_ GIS Field Technician Intermountain Gas Company Page 10 /Sparklight- To Wham It May Ganoem: We,Cable0ne, Inc. dba Spmldi*, vacale the easterly 5 k�et side lot easement of Lot 11 and Ywcate the 5 feetcide lot easamentfor Lot 12 al8ladc 3 d Fairboume Subdivision No 3. Adtmhed is the Fairboume Subdivision No 3 remnded plat with the easement highighted in yellaw that is being Yacated. Fairbaume Subc!Msioe Na 3 is located in Meridian,Idaho. C, . Ap p rover CO"W Title U5;0#12022 Date Page 11 E IDIAN:-- 7) U AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from January 4, 2022 for Centerville Subdivision (H-2021-0046) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 4111 E. Amity Rd. (including the outparcel to the south) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Ave., at the Southeast Corner of S. Hillsdale Ave. and E. Amity Rd. Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2021-0046 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.38 acres), R-15 (24.17 acres), and C-C (2.95 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 249 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 79 townhome lots, 4 multifamily lots, 4 commercial lots, 34 common lots, and 4 other lots) on 38.95 acres of land. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 19 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 PROJECT NAME : Centerville Subdivision ( H2O21 - 0046 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name x lee � � �. o� Ll 2 s 3 f 3 s DhcCor vjy _ f s x 6MVr � i l e �Tev&4 W h y S < J 1nnS can zw� N ofilti 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING 11/16/2021 DATE: Legend Project Location k TO: Mayor&City Council - FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner Hr 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2021-0046 - i-—.2 ' Centerville Subdivision LOCATION: The site is located at 4111 E. Amity Road (including the outparcel to the south) and 5200 S. Hillsdale Avenue,at the southeast corner of S. Hillsdale and E. ® ; Amity, in the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of ® Section 33, Township 3N.,Range lE. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation&Zoning of 40.49 acres of land from RUT to the R-8 (13.35 acres) and R-15 (27.14) zoning districts with a concept plan showing 159 single-family units and 168 multi-family units and a preliminary plat consisting of 190 total lots (124 single-family residential lots, 35 townhome lots, 2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house, and 27 common lots) on 38.95 acres of land. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 40.49 acres(R-8— 13.35 acres;R-15—27.14 acres) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential&Mixed Use Neighborhood Existing Land Use(s) County residential and vacant land Proposed Land Use(s) Detached single-family residential;townhome residential; future multi-family residential;and a Daycare. Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 190 total lots—124 single-family residential lots,35 townhome lots,2 multi-family lots, 1 commercial lot, 1 clubhouse house,and 27 common lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as four(4)phases Number of Residential Units(type 327 total units— 159 single family; 168 apartment units of units) (not technically a part of this application;future CUP application is needed) Density(gross&net) Gross(overall)—8.39 du/ac.(327 units/38.95 acre plat); Net—12.54 du/ac.(per submitted plans,excludes: ROW,shared drives,daycare lot,and common area) Page 1 Description Details Page Open Space(acres,total 5.64 acres of qualified open space OVERALL [%]/buffer/qualified) (approximately 14.48%).Further analysis below in Section V.J. Amenities At least€eu(4)five 5 qualifying amenities(does not inelude f-UtffFe multi family amenities)—Open space in excess of the requirements,picnic area with benches and shade structure,children's play structure,clubhouse and pool,and public art. Physical Features(waterways, Cunningham Lateral bisects the southwest corner of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) property—no floodplain on property. Neighborhood meeting date;#of June 3,2020;June 16,2021—23 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) No application history with City of Meridian B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no • Traffic Impact Study Yes(review ACHD Staff Report for specifics; Staff analysis is below in es/no Section V.C) Access Two new accesses are proposed via new local street connections—One to E. (Arterial/Collectors/State Amity along the north boundary and one to S.Hillsdale along the west Hwy/Local)(Existing and boundary. Other access is proposed via two stub street extensions. Proposed) Stub Applicant is proposing to extend two stub street connections—W.Macumbo St. Street/Interconnectivity/Cross from the east(Rockhampton Subdivision of Boise)and, S.Bleachfield Ave. Access from the south boundary(Howry Lane Subdivision). Traffic Level of Service Amity Road(between site and Eagle)—Better than"B"(1.474/1,540 VPH) Amity Road(between site and Cloverdale)—Better than"B"(182/425 VPH) - Both segments of road are shown as level"F"when proposed project is added into existing traffic counts. Existing Road Network Amity Road and S.Hillsdale are existing.All internal roads proposed would be new development. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No sidewalks or buffers along Amity Road frontage nor Hillsdale Avenue Buffers frontage(collector street) Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)l Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP): Improvements 0 Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road in 2021-2022. • Cloverdale Road is schedule in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Amity Road to Victory Road in 2025. The intersection of Eagle Road and Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 4-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south, 4-lanes east,and 4-lanes on the west leg and is currently under construction. The intersection of Cloverdale Road and Amity Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be reconstructed as a multi-lane roundabout with 4-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south leg,4-lanes on the north leg,2-laneson the east leg and 2-laneson the west leg in 2025. • Amity Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Eagle Road to Cloverdale Road between 2036 and 2040. Page 2 Description Details Page Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station Approx. 2.9 mile from Fire Station#4(Boise Station 14 is 2.7 miles away) • Fire Response Time This project does not fall within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes.If Station 7 is approved,response times will improve. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 78%(below goal of 80%). • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—residential with hazards(multi-family and waterway) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds. Proposed phasing plan shall be adhered to;any changes in the phasing shall be approved by the Fire Department. Applicant shall have strict adherence to proposed phasing plan. Police Service • Distance to Station Approximately 5.6 miles from Meridian Police Department • Response Time Approximately 4.5-minute response time to an emergency. • Call Data Between 7/1/2019-6/30/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 900 calls for service within a mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the calls for service was 71. See attached documents for details. Between 7/1/2019-6/30/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 25 crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details. • Additional Concerns None West Ada School District Estimated Additional School 123 estimated children at full build out(.7 per SF dwelling, .1 per MF dwelling) Aged Children • Distance(elem,ms,hs) 0.2 miles to Hillsdale Elementary 1.7 miles to Lake Hazel Middle School 5.miles to Mountain View High School • Capacity of Schools Hillsdale Elementary—700 students Lake Hazel Middle School— 1,000 students Mountain View High School—2,175 students • #of Students Enrolled Hillsdale Elementary—626 students Lake Hazel Middle School— 1,029 students Mountain View High School—2,457 students School of Choice Options • Christine Donnell Elementary(Arts)—2.8 miles away(505 enrolled w/capacity of 500) • Spalding Elementary(STEM)—4.3 miles away(677 enrolled w/capacity of 750 Wastewater F • Distance to Sewer NA Services • Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See application ERU's • WRRF Declining 14.17 Balance • Project Consistent with Yes W W Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Additional 15,709 gpd committed to model. •Ensure no permanent structures(including but not limited to trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light oles,etc. are built within the utility easements. Page 3 Description Details Page Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 4 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality Concerns None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns •Ensure no permanent structures(including but not limited to trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. COMPASS—Communities in Motion 2040 2.0 Review Housing w/in 1 mile 3,190 Jobs w/in 1 mile 670 • Ratio 0.2—Indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio) Farmland Consumed? Yes Nearest Bus Stop 2.6 miles Nearest Public School 0.1 miles Nearest Public Park 0.1 miles Nearest Grocery Store 2.4 miles(an Albertson's grocery store is under construction within 0.75 miles) Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file. Distance to nearest City Park '/4 mile to Hillsdale Park and YMCA(9.54 acres in size)directly west of the (+size) project. Page 4 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map ti- Legend 0 Legend 0 Project Location Project Location M_ ediumrDenty� Residential t a MU-N Low D Residensity &_ ;4■ ,tl Reside Rential, Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R'4 RUT R8 0 Legend 0 E 1proiect Location ElI Project Location "LIM S _y R-8 y City Limits R-8 R-2 R RSW Planned Parcels �� ®L C-C RUT RUT R-8 N8 ® fl RUTS R-8 RS'W R-8 CTN R-8-RUT R-15 C-N - Q C-N� RCR=BfFFFMT a �® ® � R4 o MUM 9 rarm III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Shari Stiles,Engineering Solutions- 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Corey Barton,Endurance Holdings,LLC- 1977 E. Overland Road,Meridian, ID 83642 C. Representative: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions- 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100,Meridian, ID 83642 Page 5 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 7/23/2021 10/31/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 7/20/2021 10/28/2021 Site Posting 8/1/2021 11/5/2021 Nextdoor posting 7/20/2021 10/28/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /�comQplan) The subject project area contains two future land use designations,Mixed-use Neighborhood (MU-N) and Medium Density Residential(MDR),with the MDR designation taking up a larger area of the project, approximately 80%of the project area. Mixed-Use Neighborhood(MU-N)—The purpose of this designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-use developments by incorporating a variety of uses. Land uses in these areas should be primarily residential with supporting non-residential services.Non- residential uses in these areas tend to be smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for(approximately one mile)and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is particularly critical in MU-N areas. Tree- lined,narrow streets are encouraged. Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject property has two future land use designations on the property, as noted directly above. The majority of the site is designated Medium Density Residential(approximately 31 acres to 8 acres of MU-N) which calls for a different type of lot size and density than the Howry Lane Subdivision directly to the south which is designated as low density residential(LDR). The subject project is comprised of three county parcels located at the southeast corner of E. Amity and S. Hillsdale, directly east of Hillsdale Elementary and the South Meridian YMCA. The relatively small area of MU-N on this site is part of a larger mixed-use area further to the west that encompasses approximately 70 acres. Approximately half of this mixed-use area is approved for residential development(Hills Century Farms North)with the remaining area being comprised of commercial zoning that includes self-storage, an urgent care, medical/dental offices, assisted living facility and some vacant commercial lots. Therefore, the applicant has not proposed to incorporate additional neighborhood serving uses and meet all of the comprehensive plan policies for this designation. Instead, the Applicant is proposing a mixed-use residential project more in line with the MDR designation. However, the proposed and approved commercial uses in this mixed-use area to the west have not been neighborhood serving uses and instead more community serving uses have been constructed; uses intended to be utilized by the nearby neighborhoods AND areas further away. The Applicant is including a lot along S. Hillsdale Ave. within the requested R-1 S zoning district Page 6 to be a future daycare facility that is consistent with neighborhood serving uses envisioned by the comprehensive plan for this area. Staff is unaware of future uses in the undeveloped commercial lots along Amity that are part of the adjacent project however, additional neighborhood and community serving uses may develop in the area. In addition, Staff does not find it feasible to anticipate future residents of this development to walk to the new Albertson's grocery store being constructed at the northwest corner of the Eagle/Amity intersection which is approximately% of a mile to the west because it will require three arterial street crossings with the new roundabout design. However, a grocery store within a mile of the proposed development is still a benefit to this development and this area of the community.Additional school capacity is anticipated by the school district who owns the 40 acres directly northwest of the proposed development. Staff does have concerns with the lack of neighborhood serving uses in this area. Staff believes replacing two of the multi family buildings at the southeast corner of Hillsdale and Hill Park with a multi-tenant commercial building may include neighborhood commercial users like a restaurant, salon, convenience store, or other retail businesses. Therefore, Commission and Council should determine if more commercial is desired for the development. In addition to the preferred uses and some site design elements of the project, the future land use designations also determine the allowed gross density. The existence of two designations within the project determine how the calculation of density can occur for this project. Overall, the Applicant is proposing an overall gross density of 8.4 du/ac which, when rounded down per the comprehensive plan allowances, is at the maximum allowed density of the MDR designation (3-8 du/ac).In addition, it should be noted that this density includes 168 multi family units that are not apart of the current application requests and will require future Conditional Use Permit(CUP) approval from the City. Staff has analyzed the density of this project with the inclusion of the multi family units as that is the intended use and intensity of the site. The MU-N designation allows residential uses at a gross density range of 6-12 du/ac and each designation's "boundary"can be used throughout the project because future land use designations are not parcel specific. The Applicant has proposed transitional lot sizes and density within this project along the perimeter to match the lot sizes of existing development to the east and south. Smaller lot sizes are proposed towards the interior of the project culminating in the multi family lots (highest density) along the west boundary and at the very northwest corner of the development. On the submitted preliminary plat, the Applicant has provided three (3)gross density calculations for the project based on overall area and the two requested zoning designations and their areas, the R-8&R-1 S zoning districts—all three calculations fall within the allowable ranges for the MDR and the MU-N designation. If you were to take only the multi family area, the gross density is approximately 20 units to the acre. Because of the transitional density proposed in the project, Staff is taking the overall gross density calculation and analyzing it against the MDR density range(3-8 du/ac), the more restrictive density range of the two applicable future land use designations. As noted above, the overall gross density proposed lies near the absolute maximum allowed(8.4 du/ac can be rounded down to 8 du/ac per the comprehensive plan)for the future land use designation of MDR. For this simple fact, Staff recommends a reduction in the maximum number of multi family units allowed with a future CUP to bring the overall density below the 8 du/ac without needing to utilize the allowable rounding. Staff has calculated that this would require a loss of 16 multi family units throughout the site. However, in addition to the general density discussion for the proposed development, Staff finds it pertinent to discuss the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS)data provided to the City for this development. In that document COMPASS has noted an approximate job to housing ratio within Page 7 one(1) mile of the project site of 0.2 which indicates a need for more employment in this area (a healthy ratio, according to COMPASS, is in the 1.0—1.5 ratio). Two factors play heavily into this calculation—the number of housing units and the amount and type of commercial uses in the area. Staff has already discussed concern with the amount of neighborhood serving commercial in the immediate area of the project site but neighborhood character, traffic, and overall density also play roles in the amount and design of the future multi family component of this project. Mixed-use designations call for multi family residential to be nearby commercial development and arterial streets but with the proposed gross density, existing character of the surrounding areas, and E.Amity operating at a LOS E(worsening with the proposed development with no plan to expand until 2036),Staff finds that limiting a majority of the multi family units to two- story structures instead of three-stories is prudent planning and would bring the overall density of the project down to a level that is more serviceable by existing transportation facilities, emergency services, and schools.Please see comments from applicable agencies and departments in regards to these points. Staff has included a DA provision in Section VIII.AI to limit the heights of all of the apartment units to two-stories except for the two 24 plex buildings in the second row of the multi family area,per these discussion points. If Commission and Council determine additional neighborhood serving uses should be incorporated into this development, this will also impact the number of multi family units that can be constructed on the site.At a minimum, this would be a reduction of 40 multi family units bringing the overall gross density of the Centerville Subdivision to 7.37 du/ac. It will reduce the number of cars on the road, the number of children in our overcrowded schools, and more appropriately match the heights of homes proposed in this development, detached or otherwise.If it is found by Commission and Council that additional neighborhood serving uses should be added and a further reduction in residential units is warranted, it would provide better transition from Hillsdale Avenue and help the project be more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section HII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): As discussed above,the proposed project includes an area that is designated as Mixed-Use Neighborhood.Because this project has a relatively small area of this larger mixed-use area Staff does not find it necessary to discuss the project in accord with each mixed-use policy. However, some policies are still applicable and have been included below. The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics: "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01G). Centerville Subdivision proposes different housing types and lot sizes within the project to include single-family detached, alley-loaded townhomes,front-loaded townhomes, and multi family units (future Conditional Use Permit submittal). The Applicant is proposing the detached single-family with varying lot sizes that get smaller towards the interior of the site. Staff finds the proposed housing diversity would offer new housing types in the immediate area as a majority of the area is comprised of standard detached single-family lots. "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A). The Page 8 proposed site design incorporates transitional densities and lot sizes from the existing residential development to the south and east(Rockhampton Subdivision of Boise). The Applicant has matched the property lines of the properties directly abutting the east and south boundaries to ensure compatible lot and home sizes to those existing homes. The lot sizes decrease and the density increases towards the interior of the site culminating in an area of multi family residential along S. Hillsdale Avenue and a commercial lot for a future daycare facility. Staff finds the proposed project is compatible with surrounding residential development because of the transitional densities proposed. S. Hillsdale Avenue, a collector street, abuts the site along the west boundary with E. Amity Road, an arterial street, abutting the northern boundary. The Applicant's choice to place the highest density residential and the commercial lot along these corridors is a best design practice. Furthermore, as discussed above, other commercial uses are constructed or planned on the west side of Hillsdale in addition to a community park, a YMCA, and the Hillsdale Elementary School. Stafffinds the inclusion of multi family residential nearest to the commercial uses but separated by the required landscape buffer and a collector street creates a compatible project with all surrounding uses. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing network abutting the site to the east and north,per Public Works comments. Subsequently, all public utilities will be extended at the Applicant's expense in order to connect to the existing services within the right-of-way. Currently, this project is not within the Fire Department's response time goal offive (5) minutes. Per Meridian Fire comments, construction of Station 7 next to Discovery Park would help in response times for this area. Currently, a majority of the residential development to the south and southwest are also outside of the response time goal. West Ada School District has offered comments on this project and estimates 123 additional school aged children from this development. Hillsdale Elementary abuts the subject site directly to the west. In addition, there are schools of choice in this area and are noted in the community metrics section in Section II above. The Applicant has discussed with ACHD and the school district to incorporate a new dedicated crossing at E.Hill Park Street and S. Hillsdale to help elementary aged children and parents walk to the school and the YMCA. The adjacent roadways will be impacted by this development, as discussed above and in the Access section in this report. Therefore, Staff has recommended lesser density and more commercial to improve the walkability of this area of the City. See Section VII.F for access and transportation analysis, including Traffic Impact Study summary and analysis. "Preserve,protect, and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.01F). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the unified development code (UDC) and includes a large centralized open space area that is slightly under 2 acres in size and is easily accessible via pedestrian connections from anywhere in the project. In addition, the entire development will share the open space and amenities which add to the walkability and usability of the open space within this development. The proposed centralized open space and pedestrian connectivity to it is an example of what the comprehensive plan and our development code currently aims to deliver to Meridian residents. "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together and to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system." (6.01.01H). The Applicant is proposing to extend the two streets stubbed to this property which includes extending Page 9 the attached sidewalks into this development.Around the perimeter and throughout this development,pedestrian facilities are proposed that would be needed additions to the sidewalk network in this area of development for both Meridian and Boise. In addition, the Applicant is proposing to work with ACHD to construct a dedicated crossing at Hill Park Street and Hillsdale so there is an additional safe route to Hillsdale Elementary on the west side of the adjacent collector street. "Support the inclusion of small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments as part of the development plan,where appropriate." (3.06.02A). With the inclusion of the Mixed-Use Neighborhood future land use designation on this property, the Applicant has decided to propose one commercial lot with this project; the subject lot is shown as a future daycare facility. No other commercial uses are proposed for the development. Further analysis is above in the previous section including a recommendation that the development lose units and include more neighborhood serving uses. Mixed Use Policies: "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,clinics, churches, schools,parks,daycares,civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments." The Applicant is proposing one commercial building lot that is to be reserved for a future daycare facility. Staff appreciates its inclusion into the project. "Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 40%of the development area at gross densities ranging from 6 to 12 units/acre." The MU-N designation on this site is part of a larger mixed use area further the west and includes approximately 70 acres overall. Based on rough calculations and including the proposed future multi family component of this project, this MU-N area will be comprised of approximately 58%residential development, exceeding the minimum amount of 40%noted in this policy. "Three specific design elements should be incorporated into a mixed use development: a)street connectivity,b)open space, and c)pathways."Although no multi-use pathways are required with this development due to one already in existence on the west side of S. Hillsdale Avenue and none being shown on the Master Pathways Plan adjacent to the development area, the Applicant is proposing to construct a multi-use pathway segment along the Amity frontage. Furthermore, the subject development is proposed with sidewalks and micro pathways throughout the project that connect open space, amenities, the commercial lot, and the perimeter pedestrian facilities.All of these facts make the open space and pedestrian connectivity component of the project compliant with this policy. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Main access to the project is proposed via two new local street connections—one to S. Hillsdale Avenue(collector street)and one to E. Amity Road(arterial street). In addition,the Applicant is extending two local stub streets into the site—one from the east(W. Macumbo Street) and one from the south(S. Bleachfield Avenue). The two local street connections are both located near the southeast corner of the project but do not directly connect. Originally,they did connect more directly but at the first neighborhood meeting concerns were raised about cut-through traffic. So,the Applicant revised the road layout to replace that street connection with a pedestrian connection. The Access from Amity Road aligns with an approved access to the Shelbourne South Subdivision located on the north side of Amity and has been approved by ACHD(further analysis is below in the Traffic Impact Study section). The Hillsdale Avenue access aligns with E. Hill Park Street on the west side of the Page 10 collector street and is proposed to provide the main accesses to the future multi-family residential and the daycare facility. Upon review by ACHD,the successive driveways proposed on the Hill Park Street extension did not meet district offset policies for full accesses. So,the Applicant added a 10-foot wide landscaped median 75 feet into the site to restrict the first two driveways to right-in/right-out only accesses. ACHD approved this revision, as seen on the revised preliminary plat. Staff supports this change in the traffic patterns to help assist with ingress and egress for the multi-family area of the site. This does not affect the overall traffic patterns for the site. Per the submitted plat and concept plan, the multi family area of the site is separated by one of the main entrances to the site, E. Hill Park Street. This segregation of areas includes the Clubhouse and Pool being on the opposite side of Hill Park Street from the highest number of multi family units.Although the Applicant is showing striping across this public road to help delineate the pedestrian walkway, Staff does not find this offers enough traffic calming for this anticipated high-trafficked pedestrian crossing. Therefore, Staff is recommending a condition of approval to add an approved traffic calming measure at the pedestrian crossing shown on the east side of the clubhouse lot traversing E. Hill Park Street. Traffic Impact Study Analysis: The proposed project proposes more than 100 units and therefore requires a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The Applicant's traffic impact study has been analyzed by ACHD and specific conditions of approval are outlined in their staff report(see exhibit VIII.1). Despite ACHD analyzing and discussing the TIS in their own report, Staff finds it necessary to highlight the main points of discussion and road improvement requirements, specifically those related to the main access points for the project. According to the TIS, the proposed development is estimated to generate 2,599 additional vehicle trips per day and 266 additional trips per hour in the PMpeak hour. Both the TIS and ACHD recommend multiple improvements to the adjacent public roadways with the first phase of development for Centerville Subdivision due to the level of service on Amity Road reaching level "F"once 60 additional PMpeak hour vehicle trips are generated, which equates to the first phase of development. Below are the required improvements that Staff is also including as DA provisions: Summant of Improvements Re uired by ACHD Intersection Improvement Threshold Hillsdale Avenue(Amity Road Interim Signal 60 PICA peak hour trlps A rnity RoadlAmorita Avenue Dedicated eastbound right-turn With first phase of lane and westbound left-turn development lane Amity Road is scheduled to be widened to a 3-lane arterial between 2036 and 2040 and the TIS recommends placing this corridor as a high priority corridor to move the road widening project up in the ACHD CIP. In the interim, the turn lane improvements will be required with the first phase of development to help mitigate traffic concerns and provide safer traffic movement at the Amity Road project entrance. The Hillsdale Avenue/Amity Road intersection is shown on the Master Street Map to be reconstructed with a single-lane roundabout in the future but there is currently not enough right- of-way to require its construction at this time. Instead, the TIS and ACHD require an interim signal be installed at this intersection. Staff anticipates the improvements required by ACHD should help traffic flow and provide safer access to and from the proposed development. Page 11 In addition to vehicular improvements to the adjacent public roadways, safe pedestrian access to Hillsdale Elementary to the west is discussed within the TIS and was of great concern by adjacent residents. In response, ACHD recommends installing a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crossing at either the Rockhampton/Hillsdale intersection south of this project or at the Hill Park/Hillsdale intersection. The Applicant and West Ada staff have discussed this and the Applicant has proposed to construct this dedicated crossing at the Hill Park/Hillsdale intersection because there is an existing crossing just south of the Rockhampton/Hillsdale intersection. This would offer an additional safe crossing for current and future residents to access the public facilities on the west side of S. Hillsdale Avenue. As additional residential density is added to this area, the mitigation methods utilized by the Applicant becomes increasingly important.In addition, expected road improvements and right- of-way requirements are important analysis factors in determining if a project should be annexed and approved for development. Therefore,Staff does have concern over the estimated increase of traffic from this development to this area with Amity Road in its current two-lane configuration.However, the required mitigation improvements may help disperse the added traffic from this development, according to the TIS and ACHD.As noted above, this factors into staffs recommendation to limit the future multi family residential to 128 units(a loss of 40 units) and reduce the overall density by one(1) unit per acre to 7.34 du/acre. D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The subject development consists of 3 parcels and originally contained two homes with associated accessory buildings. The home located along Amity Road is still on the property and the property is currently being used for agricultural production—it will be removed prior to development of the property. The manufactured home in the southwest corner of the site was removed in 2021.No other site improvements are currently known. E. Proposed Use Analysis: The Applicant is proposing multiple uses and different types of residential uses within this development—daycare facility, detached single-family, front-loaded townhomes,alley-loaded townhomes, and multi-family residential. In addition,a clubhouse with a pool is shown on the preliminary plat and is intended to be used by entire development,not just the future multi- family. Multi-family residential is a conditional use in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and is not a part of the application requests at this time—the Applicant will be required to submit a future CUP application if the Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests are approved and conceptually include the multi-family residential use as proposed. All other proposed residential uses are principally permitted uses in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. Townhome single-family residential requires Design Review so Staff will analyze the proposed elevations in more detail with that future application. The Applicant has provided a phasing plan notating the project is to be constructed in four(4) phases and shows a majority of the single-family portion of the site to be developed in the first two phases and includes the accesses to Amity and Hillsdale Ave. and the large central open space in the first phase of development. The phasing plan shows the extension of the existing stub streets into the site and the remaining detached single-family occurring with the second phase of development. A majority of the multi-family is proposed with phase 3 and would also include the daycare facility. Lastly,the proposed clubhouse and pool,the remaining multi-family, and the only front-loaded townhomes (at the very southwest corner of the site)is proposed with the fourth and final phase of development and is located in the southwest quadrant of the project. As discussed in the comprehensive plan analysis sections above, Staff finds the proposed uses and the proposed transitional densities/lot sizes offer appropriate and adequate transition from the Page 12 existing neighborhoods. With Staffs recommended revisions to the multi family building heights, Staff finds the proposed development would not only be compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods but also enhance the existing character of this area. Specifically, all of the detached single-family lots proposed along the south and east boundaries are nearly identical in size and almost align with the existing lot lines of the adjacent residential developments. The Applicant has proposed these homes and those directly across the new local street to be within the R-8 zoning district which matches the zoning to the south (Boise zoning is different than Meridian's but the R-8 zoning is comparable to that zoning of the Boise subdivision to the east). The remaining area of the site is proposed with the R-15 zoning district and the next band of building lots proposed are smaller in lot size as they move closer to the centralized open space and are still detached single-family building lots. West of the centralized open space and acting as a transitional housing type between the detached component of the project and the multi family component is a block of alley-loaded townhomes that are multiple three Alex buildings. These homes have their front doors facing to the east towards a new local street and utilize the easternmost drive aisle of the multi family development for vehicular access to a tuck under garage. This allows a parkway with street trees to be incorporated into the streetscape of this street(shown as S. Stockport Way)and offers both a more attractive streetscape and a different housing type for this development. In addition, Stafffinds it is a practical and appropriate transitional housing type between traditional detached single-family and the proposed multi family along Hillsdale Ave. The Applicant is also reserving a building lot for a future daycare facility at the northeast corner of the Hill Park Street and Hillsdale Avenue intersection. This use is permitted by right in the requested R-15 zoning district so there is no need to propose any commercial zoning to include this use. To help ensure this use is constructed, Staff is including a DA provision that Lot 30, Block 1,per the submitted pre plat, is reserved for a future daycare facility only. Staff notes that the inclusion of this commercial use is precisely what this area calls for and needs as more residential homes are constructed and because it is located so close to an elementary school. Because of these facts, Staff is recommending that this lot be platted with Phase I development instead of with Phase 3 as currently shown on the proposed phasing plan. Staff understands the daycare use is currently in high demand throughout the City so including its platting with Phase 1 is logical. This does not require that it is constructed with Phase 1 but it gives the Applicant more opportunity to construct it earlier in the process than with Phase 3 (likely years after Phase 1) as currently proposed. With Staffs recommended revisions noted throughout the staff report, Stafffinds the proposed uses within this development match and enhance the existing neighborhood and commercial character of the immediate area. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed building lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested R-8 and R-15 zoning districts in lot size, lot frontage, and proposed uses. All subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The Applicant has proposed two common driveways as part of the detached single-family portion of the site(Lot 28, Block 3 &Lot 11, Block 5). Code has recently been revised to limit the number of units taking access from a common drive to four(4) total units, with no more than three (3) being allowed on one side of the drive. The submitted preliminary plat shows three (3) units taking access from each common drive. Staff ,finds the proposed project complies with the subdivision design and improvement standards. Page 13 G. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 3C-6 for single-family and multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The single-family portion of the site(townhomes and detached) must comply with these standards and will be confirmed at the time of building permit submittal. Note: all local streets are proposed as 33 foot wide street sections which allow for on-street parking where no driveways or mailboxes exist. On-street parking cannot count for the number of off-street parking spaces required for detached single-family residential. The Applicant has provided data regarding the future multi family portion of the site on the submitted preliminary plat and shows 28 parking spaces in excess of code requirements based on the original request of 168 units (358 total spaces proposed; 330 minimum required). It is not clear if this parking includes the spaces required for the clubhouse which has been required to include parking at the standard nonresidential ratio of one space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. The Applicant is showing dedicated parking for the daycare facility but the size of the building is not yet known so Staff will ensure adequate parking is included for that use with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. A future CUP application will verify the minimum number ofparking spaces required for the multi family development based on the number of bedrooms per unit and the required guest parking(1 space for every 10 units) that should be in effect at the time of CUP submittal. Furthermore, with Staffs recommended reduction in multi family units,parking should not be an issue for the multi family area. The Applicant did not submit a separate parking plan for review. H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along all of the proposed local streets serving the detached single-family homes. 5-foot wide detached sidewalks with parkways are proposed adjacent to S. Stockport Way(the dividing street between the detached and townhome products), along E. Hill Park Street(the entrance to the site from Hillsdale Ave.),throughout the future multi-family development, and along both Hillsdale Ave. and Amity Road. The proposed sidewalks meet the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the project including to and from the multi-use pathway segment along Amity Road to the large open space area in the center of the development. All open space areas also appear to be directly adjacent to sidewalks and include micro paths which add to the pedestrian accessibility of the development and surrounding neighborhoods. Specifically, this development would add additional and safe routes to Hillsdale Elementary by extending existing pedestrian facilities from the adjacent subdivisions. In addition, the Applicant has worked with ACHD and West Ada School District to include construction of a dedicated Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) crossing from this development to the west. This crossing is proposed at the intersection of E. Hill Park and S.Hillsdale and would provide an additional safe crossing for children from all areas east of Hillsdale Ave./Stockenham Way to get to and from school, the YMCA, and the public park safely. Therefore,Staff supports the sidewalk and overall pedestrian facilities for this development. I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E.Amity Road,an arterial street and entryway corridor, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. At least a 35-foot wide common Page 14 lot is depicted along Amity Road on the revised preliminary plat and the submitted landscape plans appear to show landscaping in excess of code requirements. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required adjacent to S. Hillsdale Avenue,a collector street— the revised plat and landscape plans also show compliance with this requirement. The submitted landscape plans appear to show the correct amount of landscaping per the UDC standards for the landscape buffers. Landscaping is required along all pathways (including micro-pathways) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of all pathways with the required and proposed number of trees are not included in the Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans. This should be corrected prior to Final Plat submittal. However,the correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted plans. The Applicant has proposed a micro- path in the southeast corner of the site to connect two blocks and the correct number of trees is shown on the landscape plans but there are no trees shown adjacent to the pathway to offer any shade. The pathway segment is slight over 100'which requires only one tree adjacent so the Applicant should move one tree from a portion of this common lot and place it next to the pathway to comply with UDC 11-3B-12C. The Cunningham Lateral currently bisects the very southwest corner of the project site so the Applicant is proposing to pipe and reroute this lateral placing it along the southern and eastern property boundaries in this area of the site. To help this area be more than simply a wide swath of grass, the Applicant is proposing a gravel path over the lateral that circumvents the front- loaded townhomes and connects from S. Hillsdale to one of the internal streets. Because of the irrigation easement associated with the lateral, no trees are allowed within its easement which presents an issue since the Applicant's open space exhibit shows this area as qualifying open space.In order to qualify as open space, the Applicant is required to landscape this area per code. With the encumbrance of the irrigation easement, the Applicant should submit for Alternative Compliance with the first Final Plat application to propose how the existing landscape plan meets or exceeds code requirements or propose an alternative that meets these standards. Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is included in the Landscape Calculations table and meets UDC requirements. J. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): Despite multi-family residential being the focus of a future CUP application the open space exhibit submitted by the Applicant is intending to show compliance with the standards for both the standard 11-3G-3 and the multi-family specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-27. A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the overall development,including the multi-family portion of the project. Based on the proposed plat of 38.95 acres, a minimum of 3.9 acres of qualified common open space should be provided to satisfy the requirements of 11-3G-3. In addition,because there is a multi-family development within a residential zoning district,the common open space standards listed within the specific use standards,UDC 11-4-3-27, also apply. Based on the requested number of multi-family units of 168,the minimum amount of open space required to satisfy the specific use standards is 0.96 acres of common open space. However,with Staff s recommended cap of 128 multi-family units, the minimum amount required would be 32,000 square feet, or approximately 0.74 acres. Combined,the required amount of minimum qualifying open space that should be provided is 4.86 acres,without Staffs revisions in place. This is reduced to 4.64 acres if Staffs Page 15 recommendations are approved.The Applicant's open space exhibit shows a total of 5.64 acres(approximately 14.5%) of qualifying open space but it is unclear exactly how much of this area is for each code section.Regardless,the total amount exceeds the minimum required and it is clear per the open space exhibit and the landscape plans that the minimum 10% open space is met with this preliminary plat(see Exhibit VII.C). The future CUP application for the multi-family development will be required to show that the open space requirements in the specific use standards are met.The qualified open space consists of the required street buffers,the large centralized open space lot, and other smaller open space areas throughout the site that include additional pedestrian connectivity through the site. These areas exceed the minimum UDC requirements. K. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(38.95 acres), a minimum of two (2) qualified site amenities are required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The future CUP application and Commission meeting will determine the number of amenities required per UDC 11-4-3-27 for the multi-family portion of the site because it is proposed with over 100 units. The applicant proposes at least four(4) qualifying amenities to satisfy 11-3G-3 requirements; open space in excess of the requirements,picnic area with benches and shade structure, children's play structure, and public art. The Applicant is showing a clubhouse with a pool and tot-lot in the southwest area of the site and another tot-lot area in the northwest area of the site. These are located within the multi-family area of the development but all open space and amenities would be shared by everyone in the development. With the future CUP application,the Applicant will be required to show the amenities proposed throughout the entire site are enough to satisfy the specific use standards for multi-family development; additional amenities above what are being shown on the concept plan may be required. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed as shown on the submitted landscape plans and appears to meet UDC requirements. M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual renderings of the housing types proposed with this project.Attached single-family homes(townhomes) and multi-family structures require Administrative Design Review(DES)approval prior to building permit submittal and will be handled with those future application submittals. The conceptual renderings submitted for all building types show multiple finish materials, roof profiles, home sizes, and color concepts. Based on the submitted renderings, Staff does not anticipate major issues or changes with future design review applications. Staff will ensure compliance with the ASMfor both the townhome and multi family residential when those applications are submitted. N. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): A segment of the Cunningham Lateral crosses the southwest corner of the subject project site. The Applicant is proposing to pipe and reroute this relatively small segment of the lateral and place it along the south and west boundaries of the site to provide more usable area for the development. Fencing and landscaping have been analyzed in other sections of the report that include analysis on the open space proposed over the new lateral easement area. Page 16 The Applicant's proposal has been analyzed against UDC 11-3A-6 and Stafffinds the proposal to pipe this segment of the Cunningham Lateral is compliant with code. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat application per the conditions of approval in Section VIII and the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on August 12,2021 and October 21, 2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Becky McKay,Applicant Representative. b. In opposition: Please see public record here. C. Commenting: Becky McKay; d. Written testimony: A number of written testimonies were submitted, a vast majority of which were against the project. Please see the public record for these records— testimoU. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony_ a. Allocation of density and lot sizes throughout the site relative to existing residential in the area; b. Desire to have more commercial and less high-density apartments within the project; C. Overall concerns with additional residents in this area and the impact to the roadways and neighborhood elementary school,Hillsdale Elementary; d. Discussions on how Staff measures and analyzes density of projects when multiple future land uses are present within a project site; e. Desire to reduce density further than Applicant proposed with the revised layout and removal of garden-style gpartments, 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Density of project and inclusion of apartment units in this area of the City; b. Amount of commercial originally proposed and analyzed by Staff and how it meets the C. Mixed-use Neighborhood future land use designation; d. Ingress and egress for the project site relative to required road improvements to Hillsdale and Amit and subsequent timeline of required road improvements; e. Desire to have more commercial and less multi-family consistent with public testimony at both hearings; £ Support of revised layout that includes more attached single-family, commercial, and a new multi-family use(three 4-plex buildings), g_ Amount and availability of parking for the areas surrounding the townhomes and increased commercial lots; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission did not make any additional changes to the Staff report beyond those noted within the Staff Memo dated October 15,2021 —subsequently, Section VII and Section VIII of this document have been revised to include the revised plans and recommended revisions to the conditions of approval noted in the memo. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None Page 17 C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 18 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps Legal Description Centerville Subdivision —Annexation A parcel being the NW%of the NE'Y4 of Section 33,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'Y4 of the NE%, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the of said Section 33 bears N 89*15'18"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; Thence along the northerly boundary of said NW%of the NE'Y4 S 89014'44"E a distance of 1330.22 feet to a point marking the northeast corner of said NW'%of the NE%; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NW'/4 of the NE'/4 S 0*22'10"W a distance of 1324.15 feet to a point marking the southeast corner of said NW%4 of the NE%; Thence along the southerly boundary of said NW%4 of the NE%N 89°27'31"W a distance of 1329.05 feet to a point marking the southwest corner of said NW'%of the NE%; Thence along the westerly boundary of said NW'%of the NE'%N 0°19'12"E a distance of 1329.10 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 40.49 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. Clinton W.Hansen,PLS o\kt LA/VD Land s June24,12021s PC �<1 rER G4'� �°�l y�sP 0 F TON La-n-d blu'tions Centerville Subdivision `''l2ntl 16 Surveying an4 Consulting Paagege 1 Job f I 1 o of 1 Page 19 CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION - ANNEXATION EXHIBIT THE NW%OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 33,T3N, R1 E, BM,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO BASIS OF BEARING POINT OF E. AMITY ROAD W 29 28 N89'1518' 28 BEGINNING E 1 1s _ S89'14'44"E 1330.22' / 1330.22' 28 27 32 33 2660.59' 331/4 S8914'44"E 33 34 CD W o 0 ay zm z s J _2 U N �N N � M N TOTAL ANNEXATION AREA =E. HILL PARK S 40.49 ACRES -- ILI i _ a o 0 xs O N N S Z O so �z ?US Qo US 5 S �o �N N CN 1/16 -- N89'27'31"W 1329.05' NE 1/16 B IMSI LANE SUBDINSION N0.1 HONRY LANE SUBDI SIGN N0.2 JCRs o _ m N ol'� —c1/4 I ONpL LA/y�S 5� S T R LPL 0 ions 11118 �1 u'rob(l zi Z�= ���9"1 OF �pQ �<v Land Surveying and Consulting 0' 150' 300' 600' ti 231 E.5TH ST.,STE.A TO/y W.NP MERIDIAN,ID 83642 (208)288-2040 (208)288-2557 fax _1andsolutionstiz JOB N0.20-16 Page 20 CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION - REZONE EXHIBIT THE NW% THE NE'/4 OF SECTION 33,T3N, R1 E, BM,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO POINT OF BEGINNING E. AMITY ROAD 29 28 BASIS OF BEARING 28 C-C ZONE N89'1518 W S89'14'44"E 1330.22' E 1/16 1330.22' 28 27 32 33 2660.59' 1/4 33 L10 681.60' 459.90' S89'14'44"E _ _ 33 34 IJ POINT OF POINT OF IJ o a l BEGINNING BEGINNING N ,� 1a Q l R15 ZONE R8 ZONE I� ao vi 8i o� IN J L4 N L._.� �o �5 0 - �� —vi c>LU Ion" g I a I vi � o `n N J R-15 ZONE AREA=24.17 ACRES Q' E. HILL PARK ST. M L _ A -� ^IN o =� w _ N I N— o N � S� I o �� I N— g O =o Z CD w� �L5 _ _459.40'_ _ J l ' N89'14'44"W r8 J R-8 ZONE _ 5� AREA=13.38 ACRESA >S J I S �o 444.00' 885.05' ti CN 1/16 -- N89'27'31"W 1329.05' NE 1/16 ,gyp HO-Y LANE C" SUBDIVISION NO.1 HOWRY LANE SUBDIVISION NO,2 — N ol� /�— LINE TABLE CURVE TABLE LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD Li 174,00' SO'47'14"W Ct 7.71' 347.00' 116'25" S7'38'12"E 7.71' L2 47.37' S6'25'57"E C2 31.42' 20.00' 90'00'00" S45'45'16"W 28.28' C 1/4 L3 95.00' SO'45'16"W LINE TABLE (CONT.) \oNpLLA/V,,DsG L4 179.00' 58914'44"E 1ST LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION LINE # LENGTH DIRECTION 5 F '!I- L5 16.72' S81'43'35"W L10 188 72' S8914'44"E L13 146.91' S9'00'00"W O L6 79.75' SO'08'44"W L11 175.85' S019'12"W L14 50.72' S019'12"W a 118 M L7 47.00' N8914'44"W N�(V L'2\'0 L12 29.40' S17'25'38"E L15 175.50' N89'40'48"W c) y ` OQ" �= L8 60.13' N8914'44"W ��,•ON W NP L9 170.12' SO'45'i6"W "n Lan ?IT11u i0' 150' 300' 600' Land eying and Consulting 231 E. IT,STE.A MERIDIAN,ID 83642 (208)288-2040 (208)288-2557 faz www.land5olulions,b,z JOB N0.20-16 Page 21 Legal Description Centerville Subdivision —C-C, R15 and R8 Rezone Parcels being portions of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 of Garoutte Acres Subdivision as shown in Book 60 of Plats on Pages 5900 through 5901, records of Ada County, Idaho, and the NW%of the NE %of Section 33,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and more particularly described as follows: C-C REZONE BEGINNING at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'/4 of the NE'/4, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the NW % of said Section 33 bears N 89'15'18"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; Thence along the northerly boundary of said NW% of the NE '% S 89d14'44" E a distance of 188.72 feet to a point; Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 0019'12"W a distance of 175.85 feet to a point; Thence S 17°25'38" E a distance of 29.40 feet to a point; Thence S 0d19'12"W a distance of 271.47 feet to a point; Thence S 9°00'00"W a distance of 146.91 feet to a point; Thence S 0°19'12"W a distance of 50.72 feet to a point; Thence N 89040'48"W a distance of 175.50 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said NW %of the NE%; Thence along said westerly boundary N 0°19'12" E a distance of 672.70 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 2.95 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. R-15 REZONE Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'/4 of the NE %, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the NW'%of said Section 33 bears N 89015'18"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; Thence along the northerly boundary of said NW '% of the NE '% S 89°14'44" E a distance of 188.72 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said northerly boundary S 89d14'44" E a distance of 681.60 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary S 0°47'14"W a distance of 174.00 feet to a point; Thence S 6°25'57" E a distance of 47.37 feet to a point; LZ�plutions CentervilleJSubdivision Surveying and Consulting Ob No.2 Page 1 of of f 3 Page 22 Thence S 0d45'16"W a distance of 95.00 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44"E a distance of 179.00 feet to a point; Thence S 0'45'16"W a distance of 731.29 feet to a point; Thence N 89'14'44"W a distance of 459.40 feet to a point; Thence S 81°43'35"W a distance of 16.72 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 7.71 feet along the arc of a 347.00 foot radius non-tangent curve right, said curve having a central angle of 1*16'25"and a long chord bearing S 7°38'12"E a distance of 7.71 feet to a point; Thence S 0°08'44"W a distance of 79.75 feet to a point; Thence N 89°14'44"W a distance of 47.00 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 31.42 feet along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius non-tangent curve right,said curve having a central angle of 90°00'00"and a long chord bearing S 45°45'16"W a distance of 28.28 feet to a point of tangency; Thence N 89°14'44"W a distance of 60.13 feet to a point; Thence S 0°45'16"W a distance of 170.12 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of said NW %of the NE''/4; Thence along said southerly boundary N 89°27'31"W a distance of 444.00 feet to a point marking the southwest corner of said NW'%of the NE'/4; Thence along the westerly boundary of said NW'/4 of the NE'/4 N 0019'12"E a distance of 656.40 feet to a point; Thence leaving said boundary S 89°40'48"E a distance of 175.50 feet to a point; Thence N 0°19'12" E a distance of 50.72 feet to a point; Thence N 9°00'00" E a distance of 146.91 feet to a point; Thence N 0°19'12" E a distance of 271.47 feet to a point; Thence N 17°25'38"W a distance of 29.40 feet to a point; Thence N 0d19'12" E a distance of 175.85 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 24.17 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use. R-8 REZONE Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said NW'%of the NE %, from which an Aluminum Cap monument marking the northwest corner of the NW'/4 of said Section 33 bears N 89'1518"W a distance of 2660.59 feet; �. iIlt�011u tjons Centerville Subdivision Li—'Lane surveying and consulting Job No.2 Page 2 of of 3 3 Page 23 Thence along the northerly boundary of said NW% of the NE '% S 89°14'44" E a distance of 870.32 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence continuing along said northerly boundary S 89°14'44" E a distance of 459.90 feet to a point marking the northeast corner of said NW'%of the NE'/4; Thence along the easterly boundary of said NW'/4 of the NE'/4 S 0'22'10"W a distance of 1324.15 feet to a point marking the southeast corner of said NW'/4 of the NE%; Thence along the southerly boundary of said NW'/4 of the NE '/4 N 89027'31" W a distance of 885.05 feet to a point; Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 0'45'16" E a distance of 170.12 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44"E a distance of 60.13 feet to a point of curvature; Thence a distance of 31.42 feet along the arc of a 20.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 90000'00"and a long chord bearing N 45045'16"E a distance of 28.28 feet to a point; Thence S 89°14'44"E a distance of 47.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0°08'44" E a distance of 79.75 feet to a point; Thence a distance of 7.71 feet along the arc of a 347.00 foot radius curve left, said curve having a central angle of 1°16'25" and a long chord bearing N 7038'12"W a distance of 7.71 feet to a point; Thence N 81°43'35" E a distance of 16.72 feet to a point; Thence S 89014'44" E a distance of 459.40 feet to a point; Thence N 0'45'16"E a distance of 731.29 feet to a point; Thence N 89°14'44"W a distance of 179.00 feet to a point; Thence N 0'45'16" E a distance of 95.00 feet to a point; Thence N 6°25'57"W a distance of 47.37 feet to a point,- Thence N 0047'14" E a distance of 174.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. This parcel contains 13.38 acres and is subject to any easements \oNPL LA/v s existing or in use. 5 T E L Clinton W. Hansen, PLS Land Solutions, PC a 11118 - Revised October 12, 2021 (v�122�� _ OF SOP 5b W. N P- tifi7�1 L9;�`1.ytion3 Centerville Subdivision -16 Li w„a S,w ymg and C—M Page 3 of uting Job geo.3 of 3 3 Page 24 B. Revised Preliminary Plat(dated: 7/3W2021.Revision date of 10/8/2021) LU 'SNOUMO S Cc NOTSURFIns OL AWFAMMLK20 CU003b�Q HINMO HMOITGG DN19304N 7 T j 1 ---------- 4' #i� MUS i i An ---------- ------------ ----- --- 17-7--771 �_ _---77---T-1 V L L 51 T. 5 if-- �r F4F —A t IT_ TTiT ji d J1 it --- ------- - lk ----- ------- Page 25 C\j 'SNO11filos iVldA!AVNlR]TT OHCY,)]HJOH]NMO d3dCl3A3U -U.INNfld ioviN VNIURN6N 00 10 d A Num p n 1-h w Oil 2 RA RIN i o -i, Ar �-j c l,f I All�!1xl1., L h q A� J- -------- ----- N Lb ———————————--— Page 26 an'sm3nxaw m�ev.� iwmmwo moxmro '°SNOI1Q70 1b'ld AdtlNl WlldlJd 8 M w kf3dOl3h3❑ ram INAOo 9NIfI�3N19N� NOTSL s OH003HHOHINM0 x d3NN71d 3777A2I'.'I.LAI3� a s -na.I Em s s; ?4 w 3 - I? I « a w. I s �S r fPP t ----- ---- S 1 T� > 1 it a 1 _ I. � Y I 1 �l Page 27 ----- 589.14'44 E '8[i.{; -O'19'11"H' 7. 0'_ S89-I444-E 1130-19' — [te r y' — _I n r L 18� 15 .sd. �'y I � •- I '. BLOCK 2 �4 [ ...-. 11 1M 9 9 7 d 6 5 3 2 2 3 d s 6 I —E woca laa 27 13 14 I — ` .-" � f _ ..... � — L4C 3 3 I = q y61 III- 9 .5 afi — 7'I,J1 q 90 ]9 38 37 36 26 7d 33 s1' 11 31 30 29 -6 25� � i2 __-_.... �PR>�PC15E[35 � �1 9tl " 28 � t7 II �1 ZONEC� aS' ' --------- 3 "3 16 2e 'E 10 4 5 I 1 m 12 24 'M 13 23 IN 20 ----------- -D�' s 71 4� err 15 " c ti �BLOCK 9 N -- r� ti Ic ElL1' 15 1 3& '3 - �� -- ' — 32 PROPOSED __j b I _ l s+ ,I: � � ZONE R-15 3 ` 70 l�CK 6 .7 IA 1 i d I ,4 2g 27 7A 25No 15 ..'..F 411504::4T 7 iG 1 :F ,y_ .�� 71— d_.[. _ - �,lil '±C p 19 lei I: 1- IS 14 e15„,12' Y Is y {R ,51 fffl sa Iv r PRO D" _- � I ONM inns -0 27. } y'S]1], -IYI'5 „4�.. .21`P' t yrF- 27F1 tlf; 5 [2 tli ..,5. 27 73 2i 25 26 27 116� PROPOSED iA -iFAT LM N.FI4EOV IAE. d¢ .. --•.. "• `..•. - Sl ;... .::.-. ..... E.R Y } y 4a 50 l r l ^. k4 A" A6 5 Y :y,9J E1 5.; ---�C71 I6� 2�4E {16 ... raaxc ada.� NSB-27'31'k 1309.05' Page 28 C. Open Space Exhibit(NOT APPROVED—needs to be revised to match layout revisions) N. E. AMITY ROAD _ E. AMITY ROAD d _ . I r1 -- - II E. HILL PARK ST. I �I , y I , I - it SITE AREA = 38.95 ACRES TOTAL QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE = 5.64f ACRES (14.48%) PRELIMINARY QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION 1" = 200' LOCATED IN THE NE a OF SECTION 33. T.31N., RA E., B.M. ADA COUNTY, IDAHO Page 29 D. Landscape Plans(date: �107vry 1 10/15/2021) NO 6'NT�LI , I, ) VINYL F 55 MN uV[(E I' u s I 1' _ ) 1 i`OLT 91TTING I e n � S ypi I i (rr 6 " w' s SION � `• � ,� lu Irr I^ r ) ss n sr�ls ,e; 1II,II ExIsnNS y'.. '2 a I, 5 REMAIN 5' N VI51 N ' X 1- I N F LE fYP) 99 s 55 15 I s �5 � I ,g ,• • .. R V �� -�acxr I. f .. .. . ..- .. '•AREA wi •' w �' L _ sEv(rm) _�I si R 6'HF IDS as 66 W VINYL FENCE V EXISTING`L — — _— LTREES TO BE - REMOVEV R1PJ E Rmvevvovq LANDSOAIDE OALOUL)47ION5 D,47A LOCATION BUFFER WIDTH JB4ST4 RMUIRE) PROS DM TOTAL AREA .................... -.95 ALRES OOI„T1pN AREA ....................._........5z0 AORES(r4.B9%/ E-AMITY RD- 42' 121&/35'= 35 TREES 43 TREES rzF51 D>-NTIAL Lois".._..___.._........___ 124 -TM ZONING ......_.................RIJT TOV4tlHOF�LOTS______...______._.___ l9 PROPOSED ZONING _...................R-8,R-15,6 G-G 5,HILL—ALE AVE, 21, I245'/35'= 36 TREES 34 TREES FIXIR�LEx LOT5 4 ccwlMON AREA 221SI5/bp- 26 TREE5 25T TRREE5 OAYGARE LOT........................_.............. I FOOL FACILITY/AMENITY LOT............. I RE5IDEMIAL/STREET TREES 132 TREES wMMVR IALIFLEX 5PALE LOT........, 3 TOTAL NLr®ER OF TREES 99 TREES •4"ll TREE5 FRI VATE ALLEY/DRI VE/LANE LOT.... 4 OOMMON LOTS 33 • EXTRA TREES PROVIDED ABOVE T+1OSE REOI11Rm FOR MITIGATION(IF REOLLIRED)� 312 TREE5(2'CAL)=74i GAL INLNE5 TOTAL LOTS.................................................. 344 Page 30 nun u sm 9 PON W "NOMMU, A 0 pf go R an NN to -2 ALI ii 'oil Hill"Is 1 A's NA! MAI nn i. l 115 "RINI 1 1 0"! 5a O � ' ,� � �j e�� yet ws (Sol 7 -� p-, T < O CID Tj LU 1 IIIKIN n WU LU its F LU E Page 31 S HiLAI(f AH.YME t!91(SaW£AIfMk -n £` nm rn RANG WIEf a , 111 rn L "11 {II a> II ?fir �U m �� III I'I� e III�II � �I � ® I�IIlit I�I� � a m - CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION ass a ° z r � r MERIDIAN, ID - 3 z a m u PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN c� 7 Page 32 rnIII/� 5 w g I ICI r 9 1 ti = �a III -gym 10 r t I� — yr' -K bf =ter s aracxnuo� - 11 — — _ in a CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION r 3 >y = 3 MERIDIAN, ID m # PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLANLd �� I Page 33 All ¢¢\\ Cl HI - a D as 0 D D1 t IH Mqu,gm IF RAP 37 s � Sam r8ibb a i - Ne ar a CENTERVILLE SUBDIVISION is MERIDIANC,o ,ID s Vt a >p m u PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN = Ld Page 34 E. Proposed Phasing Plan —� �1R18E_ L-L T �q SM I I i r 1 -_ - 33 S89'14'44"E 18001' SO19'12"W 7.00'� —589'14'44"E EP1130.19—eP -- o - EnuArD�-�- --__— y � P 1, Loc I --------1 '3y I 111 10 9 6 7 8 6 k 3 2 4 f y (D .. O 96 ! F1[71 2 I I E YNOOMIINRP S1. y 14 2 3 4 O 6 ] 8 9 10 I} 14 [5 T 11 ` 1h, 16 LCC 3 c 1 1 17 40 39 38 6] 36 35 34 33 32 11 i 31 16 9 1LI LJ� j� �eLoce Is ,� f� 19 17 9 E WdRYMPLE ST �® 27 - F' m 22 2 3 4 5 6 ] e l 0 26 18 V 24 12 2 '9 I — ---I 26 BLOCK 4 3 23 14 W� 12 ¢ E N E HI STREET +$TR[[! Q r11 PAW SIFEEf J © 15 _ 2 1T 7Y 37 0 J y f � 4 -- 10 EHWSgtC ST. ----- _____ �rt IL_ - 2 20 i9 18 I7 t6 15 14 I3 I2 I',9 tjIBA 14 Re M v sr. w uptunl6o w-- ---- r — 15 28 E HILLS@JROIICJI$T, 31 1 21 22 23 24 26 27 29 29 �� �I I 25 �O 31 32 1' � tlLd(JC b � 33 34 15 36 3-I 38 32 d J -- w.fY_l;'X�NMNIJN ST \ 2� — _I ____- E 1/16 _ -_—---I \ \ C{i l+, \ i i n 1\ I o I I I I _-----i------------ 1�-- _�, S so —Pro,SI - CENTERVILLE PROPOSED PHASE -- �I b — ----- Page 35 F. Common Drive Exhibits 10 12 13 14 BLOCK 3 N 15'REAR 15'REAR 15'REAR FENCE (SEE li i li ! LANDSCAPE PLAN) ! J( 16 �lI I I I I I 32 11 31 ! 30 li 29 I I I I I I HOME COMMON o! HOME HOME HOME I� ORIENTATION LOT '"I ORIENTATION ORIENTATION ORIENTATION I I I I I I I I I I I !20'(GARAGE)FRONT: k(GARAGE)FRONIi !20'(GARAGE)FRONT! -- ---I I--------'I r---------I I I I I I 'L10'(OV1NG)FRONTS 110'(UVING)FRONT L' 10'(EMNG)FRONT Y =El 17FENCE (WILL NOT EXTEND PAST FENCE (SEE FRONT PLANE OF DWELLING), (TYP.) 19 LANDSCAPE E. DALRYMPLE ST. PLAN) -------------------- 27 9 ¢ = z rn ACCESS NOTE ----------------------- LOT 27: ACCESS FROM PENNVILLE AVE. w PER CITY OF MERIDIAN 10 a 26 UDC lIl-5C-3D.5 N CENTERVILLE PRELIMINARY PLAT (COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT) 1" = 30' EXHIBIT-A w >w z� zw s w> aQ Vi 35 5. -- ---------------------I I I o FENCE (WILL NOT EXTEND PAST FRONT PLANE OF DWELLING), (TYP.) 7 E. HILLSONG ST. i i i JII� ° ---- ----------5'SIDE ------------- ram-Rio________ . •. 5'_SIDE _________- to I� I I5 I rm IN -"- i.m f a 6 j A ---------� � !o !� 34 � I I t I= la z 1 0 5'SmE-____- I I ! } 5' 20' MIN. -- -------5_SIDE ------- SHARED I I� I^ ORIENTATION ! I HOME DRNEWAY lil I z 9 iA I I I to la I 13 ! 12 ! I= 1= 11 —--------------------J I I W 5'SIDE ��-�o-------5'_SIDE-_-------� 33 I o j �= Az--- i ' 4 a10 -'5'SIDEFENCE (SEE ACCESS NOTE LANDSCAPE • LOT 7: ACCESS FROM 2526 PLAN) 27 PENNVILLE AVENUE. • LOT 12: ACCESS FROM BLOCK 5 HILLSONG STREET. • PER CITY OF MERIDIAN UDC 11-6C-3D.5 CENTEWILLE PRELIMINARY PLAT (COMMON DRIVE EXHIBIT) T" = 30, EXHIBIT-B — Page 36 — G. Conceptual Building Elevations CBH HOMES CENTERVILLE SINGLE FAMILY ON 50'WIDE LOTS a 7�� — o Jam,. ... �I CBH HOMES CENTERVILLE SINGLE FAMILY ON 36'WIDE LOTS ®® ®® ° 9�� Page 37 r � CBH HOMES CENTERVILLE FRONT LOAD TOWN HOME EE Page 39 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the approved plat,phasing plan,concept plan, landscape plan,open space exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Future development shall be generally consistent with the proposed phasing plan, specifically that no more than 30 homes shall be constructed prior to both the Hillsdale Avenue and the Amity Road accesses being constructed. c. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct a dedicated westbound and eastbound turn lane on E. Amity Road at the S.Amorita Avenue entrance(as labeled on the preliminary plat)and construct an interim signal at the E.Amity Road and S. Hillsdale Avenue intersection,per the ACHD staff report and the Traffic Impact Study. d. With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall construct a Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon(RRFB) crossing at the S. Hillsdale Avenue and E. Hill Park Street intersection. e. Per the submitted and revised preliminary plat,Lot 3058,Block 1 shall be reserved for a future daycare facility and Lots 17, 59, &60, Block 1 shall be reserved for future commercial uses. £ All future pedestrian crossings within the subdivision that traverse a driving surface ftttafe multi family residential afea of the site shall be constructed with brick,pavers, stamped concrete,colored concrete or similar to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian facilities,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. g. No building permits shall be submitted until the final plat for the associated phase is recorded. h. The required landscape street buffers and detached pedestrian facilities shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development along E. Amity Road and S. Hillsdale Avenue. i. The Applicant shall pipe and reroute the Cunningham Lateral segment present on this property and comply with the standards in UDC 11-3A-6,per the submitted preliminary plat and concept plan. j. The fiAwe multi fiffiily development shall be constructed with no more tha.n. 128 units with all 12 ple buildings being n more than two st.,..;o� Page 40 k. Multi-family residential is not approved with these applications and a future Conditional Use Permit is required per the use table in UDC 11-2A-2 for the R- 15 zoning district. 1. All open space and amenities throughout the development shall be shared by the single fi milt'and ff,,,lt: f m l.,all portions of the development;the future Conditional Use Permit application shall show continued compliance with all open space and amenity requirements for the development as a whole. m. The elevations/facades of 2-story structures that face E.Amity Road, an entryway corridor, and S. Hillsdale Avenue Street, a collector street, shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following_ modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding, porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. n. Prior to the City Council hearing,the he Applicant shall submit a Private Street application and pay the applicable fee for the proposed private streets in the west half of the site for access to the townhome units and commercial building lots. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated Rily 30,2021 October 8, 2021,is approved as submitted. shall be revised s f hews. .;tt, the first Final Plat sttb itt,.l. between the s „tl, and noFtb, multi family building leis(Let 13,1?leek 1 R.T t 1 4 e 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated T„�21 October 15,2021, is approved as submitted. shall be revisedas follows,t least to (1 m daysprior-t the Gi a. Revise the!andseape plans to ma4eh the revised preliminary plat; b. Per TTPC-11 3B 12G .-,lace .,t least eas one ee along e.� ..a4 1.,ea4a e o r e t t 340, Bleek 5, as labeled en the revised preliminary plat. 4. The Applicant shall apply for Alternative Compliance with the first Final Plat submittal to propose an adequate alternative for the required pathway landscape requirements for the proposed gravel path over the Cunningham Lateral in the southwest corner of the site,in accord with UDC 11-5B-5. 5. An exhibit shall be submitted with the applicable final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope,and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common driveways(shown as Lot 28, Block 3 &Lot 11,Block 5); if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3D. 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6,UDC Table 11-2A-7,UDC Table 11-2B-3 and those listed in the specific use standards for the future multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit and for the proposed nonresidential uses at the applicable ratio. Page 41 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the townhomes with submittal of the first final plat phase which contains this use. 10. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review and Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval for each commercial building consistent with UDC requirements prior to building permit submittal for each building_. 11. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along Fivemile Creek to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 12. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 13. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 14. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14. 15. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 16. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 17. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit public access easements for any multi-use pathway proposed with the development to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. B. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1.1 All water and sewer mains, fire hydrants, and water meters must either be located in public right of way or be covered by a minimum 20-foot-wide utility easement, or 30-foot-wide minimum combined water and sewer easement. Easements shall be centered on the main, with a minimum of 10 foot on each side of the main. Easements shall have no encroachments of permanent structures including but not limited to buildings, carports,trash enclosures, trees, shrubs, fences, etc. 1.2 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A future installation agreement is required for the streetlights on Pine Avenue and Ten Mile Road. Contact the Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator for additional information. 2. General Conditions of Approval 2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall Page 42 be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a Page 43 performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. These standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272. 2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) Page 44 https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234511&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC i &cr=1 D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=232736&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234049&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lu F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=233030&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=233224&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC iv H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234295&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC ia I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancioZ.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234509&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC dy J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE ht0s:11weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=234532&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC dy IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-8, R-15, and C-C zoning districts and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for different types of residential dwelling types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available Page 45 within the City and within this area. Commission finds the proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Because of the proposed addition of differing dwelling types, neighborhood serving commercial uses, and the general site design, Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations and the Applicant's revisions, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Page 46 Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the proposed internal road layout and has required road improvements adjacent to the site. So, Commission finds, if all recommended conditions of approval are met, the proposed development meets this finding. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic, or historic features on the subject sites and therefore finds the development meets this finding. Page 47 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll Hillsdale Creek Subdivision transitional densities, walkable community–Plan. Ensuring plan meets Meridian’s Vision outlined by the Meridian’s Comprehensive 2.schools, traffic, safety-Demonstrating public concerns are addressed 1.by…public trustA call for Meridian City Council to demonstrate good stewardship of Public Concern: Schools in Projections, timing, funding Southeast Meridian Centerville proposal 42 High School•32 Middle School•64 Elementary•by the end of 2027:number of students the following is projected to add Projected to be over (Elementary)proposal)due to Centerville’s capacity by 390 (15.4% Already at capacity! proposal)(20% due to Centerville’s capacity by 153Projected to be over Projected to be over would be due to Phase I (+60)Phase II (+30) Phase III (+55) Phase IV (+33) Public Concern: Traffic on E. Timing & funding of road development•Outdated Traffic Impact Study (TIS)•Amity Rd & S. Hillsdale Ave. AssumptionReality Public Concern: Safety Hillsdale Ave is a drop off/pick up zone•Blind spots •Sidewalk gaps•school traffic on collector to elementary heavy – •collector to a drop off/pick up line)Hillsdale Ave (transitions from a •Blind spots (still a concern)•Sidewalk gaps (updates here?) Ensure plan meet’s Meridian the time and energy was spent on the original plan)Limited time spent in P&Z addressing public concerns of current plan (much of •Vision •Ensure plan adheres to Meridian’s Vision townhomes)4 dwelling units or 3.2% reduction in site and street designbikeable community through good and Foster a walkable 5.01.01A Comp Plan’s Policy Direction action •SFH) 3 dwelling units or 3.8% reduction in site design practices. , and other best transitional densities, buffering, screeningthroughcompatible with surrounding uses development to create a site design Require all new Comp Plan 3.07.01A E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing continued from June 14, 2022 for Bountiful Commons East (H-2022-0015) by KM Engineering, LLP, Located at 5960 and 5984 N. Linder Rd. Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0015 A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Linder Mixed Use - Inst. #2018-052340) to update the conceptual development plan and building elevations. B. Request: Combined Preliminary and Final Plat consisting of three (3) building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 19 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 7 PROJECT NAME : Bountiful Commons East ( H2O2M015 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name � KWc3 Le. , ► K V3 ' 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING July 19, 2022 Legend DATE: Continued from:June 21, 2022 � pra t Lnoa for 0 a TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0015 Bountiful Commons—MDA,PFP LOCATION: 5960 N. Linder Rd., in the NW 1/4 of � Section 25,TAN., R.1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreement(Linder Mixed Use -Inst. #2018-052340) to update the conceptual development plan&building elevations; and combined preliminary and final plat consisting of three(3)building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C(Community Business) zoning district. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 2.20 Existing/Proposed Zoning C-C(Community Business District) Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant/undeveloped land Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial(mixed use) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 3 building/0 common Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 Number of Residential Units(type NA of units) Physical Features(waterways, None hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of 2/l/22 attendees: History(previous approvals) H-2017-0095(AZ,Development Agreement Inst.#2018- 052340);H-2018-0067(PP);H-2018-0084(FP);PBA- 2022-0004 ROS#1333 Page 1 B. Community Metrics Description Details P Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via a private backage road/driveway along the (Arterial/Collectors/State west boundary of the site. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Traffic Level of Service NA Stub There are no stub streets that exist to this site and none are Street/Interconnectivity/Gros required to be provided to adjacent properties. s Access Existing Road Network� A backage road/driveway exists along the west boundary of this site parallel to N.Linder Rd. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There are no existing arterial streets abutting this site. Buffers Proposed Road NA Improvements West Ada School District NA Police Service No Comment C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend Legend � Project Lnoa tor. 0Prajeat Laos-ion M Nmu-C h iu LEM ® IhF�•4 � 51�@f1T141�-+ r�W �, Page 2 Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 Legend 0 Prated Lava ton MH L 0Protect Lava ton L City Ling# % need Parceis d - dM ki WEE r L r RUT rrrrrrm upla Effffl9=%' OEM RUT 611ES11110 --� arrhmnmn E arm ME A. Applicant: Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering,LLP—5725 N.Discovery Way,Boise, ID 83713 B. Owners: TMEG Properties, LLC—74 E 500 S, Ste. 200,Bountiful,UT 84010-0000 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Posting Date Notification published in 5/3/2022 5/29/2022 newspaper Notification mailed to property owners within 300 feet 4/27/2022 5/23/2022 Applicant posted public hearing 5/7/2022 7/5/2022 notice on site Nextdoor posting 4/27/2022 5/25/2022 IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan) Land Use: The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Mixed Use—Community(MU-C). The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,including residential,and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to 3 or 4 miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Page 3 Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3C. (See pgs. 3-11 through 3-16 for more information.) The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property with four(4)multi-tenant commercial/office buildings with associated outdoor plazas and surface parking. The existing development plan was reviewed and deemed to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with H-2017-0095. Staff has reviewed the proposed conceptual development plan for consistency with the development guidelines in the Plan and recommends changes to the plan as noted below in Section V.A consistent with the following general guidelines for Mixed-Use and specifically MU-C developments: • "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space."(Pg. 3-13) • "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area are required. Outdoor seating at restaurants do not count toward this requirement."(Pg. 3-16) The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are also applicable to this development: (Staff's analysis in italics) • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services." (3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Urban services are available to be provided upon development. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed commercial/office uses should be compatible with existing residential and church uses to the east and south; and with future commercial uses to the west. • "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability and sustainability."(3.06.02B) The proposed mix of commercial/office uses should provide needed services for nearby residents and employees. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." (3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS UD A. Development Agreement Modification(MDA): The Applicant proposes a modification to the existing Development Agreement(DA) for Linder Mixed Use(Inst. 42018-052340)to update the conceptual development plan&building Page 4 elevations for this site to accommodate the proposed development; and remove the Chili's restaurant conceptual building elevations from the agreement.No changes are proposed to the text of the agreement.Note: The overall DA is for a larger 5-acre area; the portion subject to the proposed modification is the northeastern 2.93 acres. The existing plan depicts a 7,000 square foot(s.f.)and 10,000 s.f. buildings with a shared outdoor plaza area in between the two buildings with surface parking around the perimeter of the buildings. A dance studio and event center for dance recitals and performances were originally anticipated to develop on this site but is no longer planned(see Section VII.A below). Conceptual elevations are included in the existing DA for a Chile's restaurant, a couple of multi-tenant buildings and an event center. The proposed development plan includes four(4)multi-tenant commercial/office buildings with individual outdoor plazas at the rear of each building, a pedestrian walkway around each building with a connection in between the two northern buildings and two southern buildings, and surface parking internal to the site. Conceptual elevations for the proposed structures are also included (see Section V11.13 below). As part of the modification,the Applicant proposes to remove the conceptual elevations for the Chili's restaurant and the event center. A north/south backage road exists along the west boundary of this site that provides an access from the collector street(W. Cayuse Creek Dr.)to the north to Linder Rd. at the south boundary of Bountiful Commons Subdivision. Staff is concerned the ten (10)parking spaces depicted on the site plan along the west boundary of the site will create a safety hazard by vehicles backing out into traffic; therefore, Staff recommends these spaces are removed from the plan. An existing provision of the DA(#5.1b) requires a minimum of 5% of the development area to be developed with supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places.Based on 2.93 acres, a minimum area of 0.15-acre (or 6,382 square feet)would be required.In mixed use designated areas where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the Comprehensive Plan also desires buildings to be arranged to create some form of common,usable area,such as a plaza or green space.To create more of a shared common usable area as desired, Staff recommends instead of individual outdoor plaza areas for each building,the parking areas in between Buildings A&B and C &D are removed and a plaza/green space is provided in these areas with seating,landscaping and shade structures. Note: The conceptual development plan depicts a total building square footage of 31,488+/-s.f. between four(4)buildings.For a commercial/office use in a commercial district, a minimum of 63 off-street parking spaces would be required; a total of 154 spaces are proposed. Even with removal of 34 spaces as recommended, a total of 120 spaces will still be provided,which Staff believes will meet the needs of the development. Staff has reviewed the provisions of the existing DA and finds the proposed conceptual development plan to be in compliance with these provisions if the Applicant complies with the recommended changes to the plan. Staff is generally supportive of the proposed modification to the DA with the recommended changes to the conceptual development plan noted above. Staff recommends the Applicant revise the plans to incorporate these changes and submit a copy of the revised plan to the Planning Division at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing. Page 5 B. Preliminary/Final Plat(PFP): A combined preliminary and final plat is proposed to re-subdivide a portion of Lot 1 and all of Lot 4, Block 1,Bountiful Commons Subdivision. The current configuration of the property was created through Record of Survey#13333 associated with PBA-2022-0004. The proposed plat consists of three(3)building lots on 2.20 acres of land in the C-C zoning district. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There are no existing structures on this site; the previous structures have been removed. Dimensional Standards: Development of the proposed lots is required to comply with the dimensional standards of the C- C zoning district in UDC Table 11-2B-3. Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3): Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. Access(UDC 11-3A-3) Access to the site exists via a private driveway/backage road that runs parallel to N. Linder Rd. depicted in an easement on the plat. No stub streets exist to the site and none are proposed or required to be provided to adjacent properties. A cross-access easement agreement(Inst. #2018- 108834) exists between all lots in the subdivision that grants access over drive aisles and parking areas per plat note#12. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There are no pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. The existing DA (provision#5.1i)requires a pedestrian pathway connection to be provided to the church property(Parcel#R6905150070) at the south boundary of the site; the site/landscape plan shall be revised accordingly. The existing DA also requires a walkway to be provided along one side of the north/south backage driveway for safe pedestrian access and connectivity. Because a sidewalk was constructed on the Beehive Credit Union(A-2020-0032) site to the west of the proposed development along the west side of the driveway, Staff is not including a requirement for a walkway to be constructed on the east side of the driveway on the subject property. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-1 : There are no public streets proposed within this site or that exist adjacent to the site;therefore, sidewalks are not required. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): No streets are proposed with this application and none exist adjacent to this site;therefore,no street buffer landscaping is required.No pathways are proposed;therefore,no pathway landscaping is required. A 25-foot wide buffer is required along the east boundary of Lots 7 and 8,Block 1 adjacent to existing residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-2;the buffer should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C and may be installed at the time of lot development. The landscape plan depicts the 25-foot wide buffer planted with a mix of deciduous and evergreen trees with a 3-foot tall berm in accord with UDC standards. Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Geotechnical Page 6 Engineering RMort for the proposed subdivision that was prepared in 2018 with the original subdivision. Stormwater integration is required in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B- 11 C. Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1�: Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15. This property lies within the boundary of Settler's Irrigation District. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The North Slough runs along the project's north boundary and has been piped in accord with UDC 11-3A-613.A portion of the easement(i.e. 10') lies on this property as depicted on the plat. This project is not within the flood plain. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)• All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing exists along the north, east and west property boundaries;no new fencing is proposed with this application. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-story commercial/office buildings as shown in Section VII.B; these elevations may change with future applications but provide a general idea of the type of architecture planned. Final design must comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested development agreement modification with recommended changes to the conceptual development plan as noted above in Section V.A; and combined preliminary and final plat with the provisions noted in Section VIII,per the Findings in Section IX. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard the PP on May 19, 2022. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject PP request. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering; Trevor Gasser,Applicant b. In opposition:None c. Commenting None d. Written testimony: Stephanie Hopkins,KM Engineering(response to the staff report not in favor of amending the concept plan as recommended b StafD e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. None 3. Ke, ids)of discussion by Commission: a. Discussion pertaining to the MDA application and the proposed design of the site in relation to Staff s recommendation for a more centralized common open space/plaza area to be provided and certain parking spaces to be removed. Commission was generally supportive of removal of the parking spaces along the west boundary of the site as recommended by Staff for safety reasons;but was in favor of the parking between the buildings remaining. Page 7 4. Commission change, (s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstanding issues for City Council: a. The applicant submitted a revised site/landscape plan after the Commission hearing that depicts the removal of 10 parking spaces along the west boundary of the site as recommended by Staff and the Commission. Other changes as recommended by Staff were not included in accord with the Commission's discussion (i.e. removal of individual outdoor plaza areas for each building and the Barking areas in between Buildings A &B and C&D in favor of provision of plaza/ rg een spaces in these areas with seating, landscaping and shade structures). Page 8 VIL EXHIBITS A. Existing Development Agreement Provisions, Conceptual Development Plan and Elevations 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELO PMEENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owners and/or Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions. a. l uture development of the subjet,-t propertyshall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan, building elevations, and provisions contained in the Staff Report that is attached to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law attached hereto as Exhibit"B". b. Provide supportive and proportional public and/orquasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area within the site dcvelopincat area. c_ Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential buildings. d. The existing homes and assaciatcd outbuildings shall be removed from the site prior to issuance of any building permits. e. If access isn't available to this site at the time of development, a temporary access will be allowed viaN.Linder Road with approval from the Ada Couttty Highway District.At such tinxe as access from the north and/or south is available,the temporary access shall be removed and the use discontinued. f. The developer shall grant a cross-accessJingress-egress casement to the properties to the north (parcel US0425223010)and south(parcel PS0425233910)in accondwith UDC 1 1-3A-3 and the Comprehensive Plan(action itern 43.03.02N).A recorded copy of the casement agreemenr shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the first Certificate of Toning Compliance application for the development, g. Future development shall comply with the structure and design standards listed in UDC 11-3A- 14 and in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM), h. A If)-foot wide segment of the City's multi-use pathway is required along N. Under Road in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. Landscaping shall be installed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1 1-313-12C on either side of the pathway_ i. Provide a pedestrian pathway connection to the church propcny at the south boundary of the site. j. Provide a walkway along one side of the north/south backage driveway for safe pedesrriati access and connectivity. k. Prior to removing any of the existing trees from the site,the developerlowner shall contact the City Arborist to determine mitigation requirements for any healthy trees 4"caliper and greater that arc removed fram the site in accord with UDC I 1-313-1OC.5. 1. The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit applications. m. Prior to the application for any development on the subject site, sanitary sewer and water serviceability will need to be reviewed. This is due to the potential timing of development of adjacent properties and the ability or inability to create loops in the water system and to deter nine the routing of sanitary sewer, n. Provide a pcdcstri an walkway from the sidewalk along the northlsouth backage driveway to the entrance of the building proposed on the east side of the site(i.e.the dance studio/eventcenter), Page 9 LINDER MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT LINDER ROAD MERIDIAN,IDAHO OVERALL GENERAL SITE NOTES TA- SCALE:... .........-.........1-=*'-D-iHEA�[NRE{150FA�H ZONING{EXISTING):................RUT ���...00...o..o. ZONING{PROPOSED):..............C-C TOTAL AREA:.................5.0 ACRES I COMMON OPEN SPACE REQUIRED:............10X i O.D83 acros DEVELOPER: TGI C-C 74 EAASTSTCOR 500 SOUTH,STE.200 BOUNTIFUL,UT B4010 801-292-5000 e ®y F LANDSCAPE: TBD - � CIVIL: TBD LINDER II I 0.848— — `� MIXED-USE c-c ' I ' _ DEVELOPMENT 1 - 5960 N.LINDER ROAD MERIDIAN,IDAHO I I f 1 L_0 1.4ft1 awes - r 3.i I 0.720a— f 1 SITE PLAN AYICINITY MAP PLANNER: ,`` L PIAIINER: F aso� Al.0 TX'N N ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT VCIkmcHmGi kzp' SET PLAN Page 10 7s Commercial Buildings Fronting on Linder Road Event Center low Yam. I Page 11 B. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan(NOT APPROVED) &Elevations to be Included in Amended Development Agreement - -------- = ---------T - ----- ----- --- 22 krn i — � gip,. ,.v —sl:,-�.• .. fef�g � D ry I e s . w, �.. 0 0 no Updated(dated: 7/7/22): =F , --------- ------ Ion c1.o Page 12 g i m o� k mJ FIRST FLOOR PLAN T\ E 2 e � m EAST ELEVATION U zQ NORTH ELEVATION t Q � O WEST ELEVATION SOCTE ELEVATION ELEVATIONS A-1.0 Page 13 C. Existing Recorded Plat&Record of Survey PLAT OF — „ „ BOUNTIFUL COMMONS SUBDIVISION V+�_nLIAr[YuuILWLd SITUATED IN A POKKIN OF TH E WM W EST 1/4 OF THE WWT"M VA i1 rawtl xcwrAtl cw OF SECOON 15.TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH•FLANGE 1 WEST, mIIISIIlr_ .,A� SOISE MERIOIAN,CT]YOF mfmm N,ADr COUNTY,IOAHO. Ia Zola N `1JII- x[%� I y�� uNPu7TED 4rr.m• rtr- 44nuuYo,aPL ---- i x ------.vo-Y------ 9t'I['4.. a,"Tmy q= SHEET MOEA i.:Yc JII I .Lr.0 prA.lxa,H F,Y'(Tq m34'mn � I ,�}tls,c'rstr xl E � f� �, rtwmx•wru,wwT.ao E.wrM O _ II \ %� s1Ccr�-Pui rlorcs 1IW.41 4src 4LaDl L �� SNE[T a-C{4nr"r 0, W. TIC 1 r�iiw6lw M'[�>kwrEtlY�„A wm, ..I h g *.tv 4-CEATFK SIG MrraxV6 Ilf I ~0 r 1 11 WIWI I IIII 53RZ{']3t zse.sr IEsn sLrxa vT n4 or n T LEGEND W III I I IH I ra,00a FRR ny�tlls-0LLm.� 3 Le_n'r"� aao'�IOILs I � ',^^ 0 o,�ne�mnsE�LOIebLL[mVwv 9s ru rL2it"�NfY4 / I �a � sf1�/A-nb[x[A.w wR•iIAS[C W tl,Ds[D k4L V 0 !I 0 1 Q -2 II : SET x -:MLII V KW wRk PLASIC GW rV1wLm {11 / B[OCxI I kY ,6641' pi IY�'�µFIR 0.A V[rliVi�Ii / / �� I sn eR.ss ru[c t+1IN Wf+In tl+ssn)wMl�k!rc Rs -- / �/ at n1.0 g11 I 1uu' I !dpp -___________ T____ __________L___ 8 C:4CWAIFO,[M{xT,RL ml,rO[A 34,1 .� NWZA'N11'EO,.,R' r I HLY'xi 3r-w]i1o0' f �1 lm—.Ur L".�--5 4LOOt rni6ER 8€ I. 4R 1 [4Lx'I9N sIAAY.aow L[YAgVII uwC .5 ZRI vRRWAOl1NT5uFOIYi51INi N 5 r•+ LAl1CFM riRCEl LNC (If xeRdw[I 5E,'AP+xC w.,ue Lr5FY[M,n5 MRO VNPUVIEU I� LWYF IALLr -.--. - SI-El RE/4nsu IIIE W I' SEYxF'a,T ,AIA' I n xrq.s ur� IAv,A ewutlLtl MLp Y,e T o�r [mm u aSAr xlf'ril,t R.ra gEFf RENCFS MME55 CPUU, ,.Aa4x m ram ra+LA-INIn,r<mxw v ww 1 I�qN p[pxoLclwrul I g c, [p,qy xx.4y sr,f]Y xs rwt Ny AY amnr�'i0wi wP�r+gcx r.t Lau e6.ragas,a1E[-[q,aS.4.mn v an I-� Ar a Ya awdw,' a,adrzw r,.mwr a5.MOES 1 t.01—M AIprp4 I I CaiMR,Ia1xP 1 1 �:J .- r�.sMrTuer wu�i cv.,vi x.mar ss oI ruK w[s,t.pb-„I� IE I dd , �mphF ft.p FYI..Alyd I qy I $ xo Lo,e•owi I r xrcF I �1 , �: xmlm n v:ner r..[,y 4rmrms a.0 m..m.Lwa. I xLPN'iL'rl I�..T $ I NDP33'146•f - -� 2kJ7It4}-� I NLad,7Y1v e I 750' S4PY3�,E[ ,4.1 I� 19AL'ITiF] I ti r� AIL � l __- _ _NaP93'33•W 3LZ.SD' , � r�\I '� LAw� wnr rwwa.aLwx aa>a1 `` roavw,e'1si fit op r[Lr [N, 1 PARWOUNTVUAGE CENTER + SUWVISIRY ea.�ru w,Ka,t I �xvY�omGL�,E[n I� . a sAw oLm:" x rcA oxLr wa.=a[s-L,Laa+ DEVELOPER u TMEG PROPERTIES,LLC BGVMIfUI,UT xa yy scot VT Page 14 RECORD OF SURVEY ROS No. t%43 PROPERTY BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT TMELC Properties LAC LOTS 1 AND 6.&IXX 1 OF 8011NTINLCOMNSONS SVRONISION,SR WTFO IN THE SOVEHWEST If{ OF THE NORTHWEST 114 O4 SECTION 25.TOWNSNIP 4 NORM.RMGE 1 WEST. W5E MFNW V{91n 9f MFRIOIAN,WA CAVN[Y.IVA40, ]022 ° LEGEND ' ,�'a rraxt eouAoufr IaYE /3 r/! apuLP1+�1lrNrr[laC `' � f� ____ ezaEtfvrtcuraf u mtm rrFnaO au zzr wltss"olm '-- �"awvwaR l.xax+w" 'T Ntrw�n� w]-urvss mlmaet xorm • �4-razr Irtax rM�ur ]- mom t nr[r[pgnE9 ppwr rgf[x aaF 0.faEaRr]PLp C-G a20.5 r' l a TM la[CJrNMAY 1N ttnxr�"n a Pa Waan/KMRtl zlte zw.ss• �1 - a lxrral.n*�.uia�n`ca`r.v+ro*c wm»eye.n�rarrr° .,war- .oaea �� Im r aMia56 lupelii N.�GW Po65r �y,• .� `� } ,1��'r!ti 1!4 aMVQr fx�lbrf r frwa a na i.afin Slool u,Pr a1y�S d8 I ` L. m �'�'• 9, 1 / a RPiral[I T6 40.rRFu.SOn41F swpnpfM t0ai i MO 4 alafl,rFE �S 4.�' nn.61 W]G�a��aNt r ; � \� /�• �R F+�re00i:rr�ar�.�wr sn[f Fwlpnprr to! �$ L"� ru.wao�rn � �• I __�r`_ iamort msi'an.i ic[sixo.mrrc'i°'4iu'u.i caanlrcvp rxp°��" 1 4e warlep�,na wvr[,.d rsr.w z°wr�lr r• Par[e1A `�' - I REfEA[NCES 31.11015q.Pt W.apuFnfu mrN]ns smrmx. 1n wars rnx-Izs�of I "y run ap°>!ns d ap.mMr.OirE. � CpnFICATEW COUNTY f1ECCtROER � a ar we Wm. caLiLx�fa�AOYMw>r.°rr.>`°a",resr""�a. I 8 "L,cnwrc " z,a-aryzupl.1/ S L._ nw=iNF A 11 1 I e I 95 "sR21432. ;• wFrfnrw I w. L SURVEY NARRATIVE ma palFrw anp f1LL Er[!K[[p°r yRAY([rl[r>M r'�' Cp1 Ii mm0w0'' 1wp4ur' i>f1wrl''1sR1'.r1pUfa1RT'rea4tS]pa!NT' 4�L Ree 1II •b� l0p1aR 9aNV[rs a�49a rGm.l I U*OnI luEn aFf.,aFMIMUx>TK+r ea9['rdlrrK MSbRm4 4N h15 a oE Ewrin cK MCn G rrE qai� _Y I UFFD ix+nc Nlzuorcrs..caw wp•re]a snwLt a znsnxL -------___—_ I t x1[wxArorar xr°xuCaunpr r[.Ma[p.as roues rc of r T _ —_— sws*MnvL Larpawr"[[.n.rlrt axon° I!!!'2{•Al"R 151.32' xr49']['1}"w 3]5.°p' �- —_ ..",WAT.OF SVRIhYOR / I � `� I rLLr xorrlr.w rfat¢arn w Y a amxwwn rrvmvrn km �i / !�] �, 1 � I%1C 41r["R 149rim P w[Trn[Cf ipa[r ar9 naf M[war wK d/rT / 1 e�1 I I v... �1 .am I Y.ax�u1 sn�wr'r"r%ru�c mw icc�x.¢°xums�o�iv.�"sn L �� i I I �r 'ff�f INf rner.xwnanf II I 1 ra.w1®ar.. rxaFA No..1.-:l-[->-n9-ITn4 1.crt ra 1 Page 15 D. Proposed Preliminary Plat(date: 2/l/2022) PRELIMINARY PLAT SHOWING BOUNTIFUL COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO.2 A RE-SUBDIVISION OF BOUNTIFUL COMMONS SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHWEST 114 OF SECTION 25,TOWNSHIP NORTH,RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO FEBRUARY,2022 C-C . - sa 7�1- ------------- C-C b.....,, magma «.,.ate..i T �.»..�.. ---------------- C-C All I a L-0 Lt -0 0 BOUNPFUL CAMMDNS SUB ND.2 BOUNTIFUL COMMONS SUBDIVISION NO.2-PRELIMINARY PLAT r(y�x MERIDIAN,IDAHO . � PFEUMINAIIY— km5 818g C1.0 Page 16 E. Proposed Final Plat(dated: 2/4/2022) PLAT OF Bountiful Commons Subdivision No.2 A RE5UBOIYISION OF LDT4 AND R PORTION OF LOT 1,BLOCK 10F BOUNTIFUL COMMONS SURDIV151ON,SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4OFTHENORTHWE-1,14 OF SECTION 25,T M OWNSHIP 4 NOR , o a 4R 120 RANGE 1 WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN,CITY OF MERIDIAN, 23 24 A,COUNTY,IDAHO SUE 1'=40 W.Chinden RoulevaM 1012 26 L s� SHEETINDEX L INST Na.zlalJRaiz41]o 91EET 1 c1-NW PNI L11NDS Mlo PLAT Nnl6 SNFE 2- I '/ sNfn 3 cfxnFluTEs uap aPFR6YpL5 Pln Shops Drive ` . .. LEGEND fff/// LDT 4.BLOCK 2 f� � FOVNp 4UMINVIA CIP,AS NOim 9 POVNp 5/e"ED—-I S3 PIS t4221 N Ocnun 25 caaxEx UM I�eLubWviaen UNLESS OM1R 1 NOTEO SE REP n,ro'ER,1/2'R_ANO PIAlIIC CW I PLS 12aE] S MWKm"ttSt 16862'WRH P B/!'RfEM AND PLl4TIC CPP xURKm ksN texei 339'!4'!]2 SSff24.3)'E S(18.35' ae3G'ITIf) � 5eg24'!]'E 469.N5' �__ Fpuxp 1/z REBOA,NwKEp Ps NmEp INT-OF------- ------ +-+ � O _ND ewss PLUG,xNRKm As Norm PO BEGINNING f / I 13m I ' SEE t/2'REBU.9 WIMP STC GP WRKEO { o I �G'SS'151V W rcsrc Iae62 Mamx POMr(NOMInc muNH NN SET) N I � ,��, 5 I I ��A• BIDCK BLOCK 11N11 PPSIhaaPms O -- - sueDry vax EnuNnx LIB �i3 I 1 LGN LINE dl ao�_9 S I I v0. x __ PpIAEEM BOUNbKY IJHf ._- E,vttNENT u1E,Ps IpTFA 0 ___ I I x+ I — SBY24'3]"E 211,4B' -- ___ _ SURhT TiE ONE I uo _________________ 1 ^ r REFERENCES MOf CRY Dr NERIBUN +` I N 8 x 1z,xmK Its,wvs I]iu-IT.ve, € Ta InsTµ.rvwPmixPaseuElvr _ u.Ga•(sEE p res I 0 4 N,RxK Izo,wem lama-1m,L REealms OF ea r_� PER / e P I I P I.s 1.xmx�.P.¢s 10.1a,-tG,,eA imams of i l p x 'i wNllo ,R m R mRm aF I / / I m,Puevxau / _ I SURVEYNARRATN'£ f / / avo w�4lE FAI�sETUEPER R w m v6,�' s ENi $ LOt mN x.eILCK 1 OF MUNIINt CpINGNL mB�INBYkI. TG BUK+aET 5 MSED / , INBr_xo,zot6-osB3s]. Z I NNE xEmxEUENr OF PUTS PNR suRrtn usrEG IN ME PE.ERs]GEs HERmN ua]a FlEtn 5Vm2Y of EVIBNIC xb1u1F1rt4Mxu.NUxIxlwNngx __�G __/ I $� PTceemfR W,vs FOUND m BE N suMrwnu rvxeoxwx¢wmm N wENLmmm —_ _____ ___ UsrEB xEnEOx. , % NBB'34.41"W 151.32' NBB'24'3]"W 325.00• E� «�� I] // �5� Panmeum Bubd'vlBen2}1 $ yx / I I Hal I 4 jti zs EPNPaNlcaxxNNe I W s ` 3 1 z5 II swats:wx I \�`� a ST ER r,iINENODNENT +4` 6fi2 HE I/4 CORN i y _20PaFsNST 5-01 G62] PIPYETABIa �vg' "LY.K1EW n 12r ENGINEERING G0.Iar ! of,C Na!'m'Im44]0 SApWea�x�v�Wev ,aa.ar ao.Ev 5 �'m1f at DEVELOPER ° "ml TMEG PROPERTIES,LLC RouwwuI,UT Page 17 PLAT OF Bountiful Commons Subdivision No.2 CERTIFICATE Of OWNERS NOTES ER �, /w. BY nESE PA[sens_Txn THE ypEXgyryEU S THE GYHER GF THE—PRI—NE—R I GF A DDINING PERMIT. �f-,B RECwATIONS OF T1E MT sHFx DESS,li IS FPNT SXRLL COMPLY WITH ME NPPLfft6.E ZONING REGUTAngL9 OF THE CITY RM.,VEST,806E u e)snuATm Ixu m ED�ETT�+1T/4.El ME HERSHBic lit,1wimcu�LIS1FSCxBFD 0.5 FCLLOwS, G�OF uE�DWE M�EFFELT TAT ME TIME OF XE5yWM5Ipi. B NJIDMsmx Ix ODNPENai—IDAND w II:I�'IX� IaN�F a°n�°rw"sn'o'Fw o" 1"oxE�'D,�,E:��E" OD. WILL'ei oai.Il�°T�O P'Y'mE TWEarsB�o°Imsc°mrns IARCA NTnEN1"`aFsrTOMcrlrswAnGN wATeR eTI�a°`a:Dwas,Ra A DHSF.twc aF t,m omm EGunR nie-Ixcx RYaR THIsIRv.E wExF REmwlus sEcmx°z- uRUEF cE m o°a .�n RWHE 1O F.IaM.Cr.w,.Icx ME /.of,�rlcRmT�Es,vE l /;y" sHo«MEREOE sHAu eE DR r.aw FEEµ F.°.`FOOND eaiss°F"uoi:L�1.11 N.—s` 'NEEa°F tlso N�XRwFET va, OEM!A NUIM"saiic�TlPmeL GPEruTb a'ue�e;EUANY eHAxeeo eaxFmGNs w OR A ME TmOfS AR IF NAS B FN IX OPEAAT'ON FOR MORE TOR ONE����)EYFP�B y� oP�aigr%L riOI OR[xPANSIDN WAS noT A NU15NEE AT THE nME rt BEGAN OR Wes Nee to ftFr,°TnE POImm°F DEclNxxc. ONE OF SX0 BOuxnfvL cpIMOXS YVBOMEION,Sm'S43TE A CISiIxOE GF T PR sD TONT"OF AN%GR CDHLIHPAL OPE�RAlIOx C A Nu2wcE REsuLTs FROM nE HEM,—CR - I IBarLTURx FA.cILIrr aX ExPNrslDn THERBar uDxs sue m E0 BV A fO1 D 1 0,-RZ° MIS ME 5 R BE REDUCED IN WE WIMULT PRIOR APPNO—F>aMl THE HEALM—MITT Mr ME A ONO _ L ES SHELL BE msYaIPD.—D ME wA,EA sseM wPRwm Ix OF END MS THE SANRAR�I RESRKTIM RULE SEP� O e/R-IAH^ Rxcaw,wIE.H 6FPRSNXFARC' �A�PSTAKE OF 1.CO�FEET:M NO EADPXEYESLY�OMv Sox RwxDYH INE AYD F"NO Ri SOMIEMT—I—ENE OF—EOT. N:rtER dl FlE F—DING ApOTOwI RfSTRICTgNS FOLLwo cw DR D /e-I REwA N r M m Ru Faon—SHALL ET A MINIMDM of 12-IN11ES MKIr THE xNHLST a DD 5/eB�a LOT kSNEim ESIPBus D NM-OROWID VMTEA FLEVATEH. s 66 ERxISI DI1!—NE0,NL L—WA.. E 1 Emu ENE OF R rx0 FcuOWMY ME wFsrtTE OO EaT O¢TA Axcic OF R DF BouDUN ccMMDNs s'OSO F06%1Tp(PuD SU"i�a_u NPnoP_DRMTwE. R;UR 3NI—ONUMO LND9L�FPES MDI95s[A LRFAIBE TIM L of.LN FEET TOE ME A MMOM DEETMCE OF�A0MII OF rc SM 1DT A, f00..FEET p¢TA NiGI.E OF NOMI1�7.qN OYu�os S AsmOE A O WO NOT WOE RIGTq GSEMEM INRFAVOR GF TxE No.20 1 6 SIAJEET TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREETYENT PER INST. 1E-052D40,RECORDS OF .,VW EADFIF LY BODN MI M NG ME NORTHERLYEOIMOMH LINE OF ENO LM.,s S,—A RADA IDAIq. THENCE LEVNG 540 E,EiIHERLv SOUNOXry LIE N003S0]E A OESTNIOE OF SO 11 FEET m ME HEART OF DEGINNES. 1 Ox,LOTS 2 axp A ELCOK T A 55,DO N05cAPExauNFipR EASE�Ex�T01Bf M41NTAINM BE ME MDrvIDyALRiAi OWNERS A ENO NACEL CONFUNE M,201—ES,MORE OR LESS. 12.PER ME PLOT OF BOUNTIFUL EDIMONS SH®INSIM.ALL LOTS EHOWN HEREON ARE SUBJECT TO A CRO55 111,1 AND As MAT!T'—O r IN ITNE FUN,uRE,�ING ARCS AS OOXSTRUOTEO PR MST.Xe. tS.ENE sU®AR . FCT INST-Ne-aD1e-I TEI REGARDS DE,wA iroumv.Iww0.AND AS MAY eE MENDED IN ME IF�uRaE PE T. WOEG ASNER,WE ARTHE ACKNOWLEDGMENT END EI CERTIFICATE OF 51JRVEYOkm CLAMOR `(!Y KESfEA4 �u E N GI N EE RI NO TRaxEp®IRaare MEypmn Page 18 F. Landscape Plan(date: February 2022) C Cmu« Tom! L er°rm.0 C-C .M.,.o,��..o ��� o,r�rLLrz K.o„x�.wr<��m�xm,.ow I �I' .u.mx,o rrarmoon wm.arwuvim .v.�.m.m ,.. I u in�,wn�c snr,n xvos munw wm w vma wx rm � .[aa�n[ewrirr nn w[am[ " -__ _- _ uma mmers.m..maran Xa169uLEmlmmm.wi au9rxr^wm __ -_ - --_ - irwmrs vmce xx u mmc au�°rs v°m.c r-- {7Tk ;9c_ C-C dl aega. I / 0 PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN CONTACT INFORMATION ��i.'r'�' >m BDUN FULL MMONSSUBND.l MERIDIAwN,,IDAHO gw w wow w°,e,.er.mmne m. i�.LL,�r m fiy'w,�u oosc� a-e$ � 2 31-- �PPL1.0 Page 19 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION Staff recommends the Applicant revise the conceptual development plan depicted in Section VILB to incorporate the changes noted in Section V.A and submit a copy of the revised plan to the Planning Division at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing.A revised plan was submitted after the Commission hearing that incorporated some but not all of Staffs recommended changes(see Sections VI.B.S and VII.B for more info). 1. The existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #2018-052340,H-2017-0095) for Linder Mixed Use shall be amended as proposed by the Applicant with the changes to the conceptual development plan recommended by Staff. The amended DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting approval of the amendment. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include the recorded instrument of the City of Meridian sewer and water easement graphically depicted on Sheet 1. 3. The landscape plan depicted in Section VII.F is approved as submitted. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-C zoning district. 5. With development of Lots 7 and 8,Block 1, a 25-foot wide buffer shall be provided along the eastern boundary of those lots adjacent to residential uses as set forth in UDC Table 11-213-2, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.Note: This buffer is not required to be constructed with the subdivision improvements. 6. As approved with Bountiful Commons Subdivision No. 1 tree mitigation plan, each lot shall provide an additional 12.5 caliper inches of trees, above the minimum standards,when developed. These trees shall be depicted on the landscape plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for development of each lot. 7. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise waived by City Council. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Sewer mains must meet minimum separation requirements from other mains;which is 10 feet for parallel lines. 2. Sewer mains require a minimum 20-foot-wide easement whenever they're located outside of right-of-way. 3. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 4. Ensure no permanent structures including,but not limited to trees, shrubs,buildings, carports, trash enclosures, fences, infiltration trenches, light poles, etc. are built within any City utility easement. 5. The applicant must ensure that fire requirements are met and no fire hydrants or fire services lines are required for the eastern parcels. If any hydrants are fire lines are required,then an fl- inch diameter water main must be run to the eastern properties instead of service lines;the services,hydrants,and fire lines will then be stubbed from that 8-inch main extension. If main is added, a 20-foot-wide easement will be required over the main. Page 20 6. A streetlight plan will be required, and must conform with the Meridian City Standards and Specifications. 7. Three(3)new streetlights will be required within the right-of-way of North Linder Road. General Conditions of Approval 8. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 9. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 10. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 11. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 12. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 13. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 14. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 15. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 16. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. Page 21 17. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 18. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 19. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 20. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 21. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 22. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 23. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 24. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-foot above. 25. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 26. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 27. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianciny.oMIgublic works.aspx?id=272. 28. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 29. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=259544&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Page 22 D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridianciN.ofglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=259179&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=260310&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS A. Preliminary Plat: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: l. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use and transportation. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section IV of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, the Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, The Commission is not aware of any health,safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 23 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll Bountiful Commons East July 19, 2022Meridian CityCombined Preliminary and Final PlatDevelopment Agreement Modification & Proposed Development Plan Bountiful Commons EastBountiful Commons Project Location & Information Proposed Development Plan Existing Concept Plan in DA Original Concept Plan Lot 6Lot 5Lot 4Lot 1Lot 3Lot 2 Development Agreement Modification Proposed Development Plan Originally Proposed Concept Plan Development Agreement Modification Proposed Development Plan Revised Proposed Concept Plan Development Agreement Modification Proposed Development Plan Concept FloorplanConcept Elevations Development Agreement Modification Proposed Development PlanCombined Preliminary and Final Plat Proposed Development Plan by sidewalk provided with project.& park to north will provide easily accessible communal open space connected Have replaced parking areas for additional open space / plaza areas Site plan updated per staff’s recommendation. plan to the Planning Division at least 10 days prior to the City Council hearing.in Section VII.B to incorporate changes noted in Section V.A and submit a copy of the revised VIII.A. Staff recommends the Applicant revise the conceptual development plan depicted public open space)-plazas (public/quasiReplace parking areas between Buildings A & B and C & D with 2.south drive aisle-adjacent to the private northRemove 10 parking spaces on the west boundary of the site 1.Request to Modify Staff Condition Revised Proposed Concept Plan Plaza AreasProposed Development Plan Proposed Development Planpublic Open Space-Public / Quasi Proposed Development PlanThank You E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1983: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 3-3-3(C), Regarding Limitation on Release Fees; Repealing any Conflicting Ordinance; and Providing an Effective Date C� fIEN DLAN HO MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Meeting Date: July 12, 2022 Presenter: Bill Nary, City Attorney Estimated Time: 2 minutes Topic: Ordinance no. 22- : Update to Meridian City Code section 3-3-3(C), regarding limitation on the fee charged by a vehicle immobilization company to release an immobilized vehicle Recommended Council Action: Adopt the ordinance per Council discussion on June 22, 2022. Background: As presented to City Council at its June 22, 2022 workshop, Meridian's vehicle immobilization ordinance specifies a limit on the fee that a vehicle immobilization company can charge for the removal of an immobilization device. Since the ordinance was adopted in 2019, this fee has been limited to $100.00. As discussed at the June 22 workshop, a local business that provides vehicle immobilization services has requested an increase of this fee limitation to $150.00, in order to account for increased costs related to operating the business. This amendment of Meridian City Code section 3-3-3(C) will incorporate this change. PROPOSED VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION CODE UPDATE PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1983 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 3-3-3(C), REGARDING LIMITATION ON RELEASE FEES; REPEALING ANY CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Meridian has received a request for an increase in the maximum amount that may be charged to release a vehicle immobilization device because of an increase in business operating costs; and WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian finds that the following ordinance will serve the purposes of the City of Meridian, and allow vendors to continue to operate vehicle immobilization services with the rise in business operation costs. NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: Section 1. That Meridian City Code 3-3-3(C) shall be amended as follows: Limitation on fees. No person or entity may charge more than eneWndfea ae"ars ($100 00 one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) for the release of an immobilized vehicle and/or the removal of a device used to immobilize a vehicle. Section 2. That all City of Meridian ordinances, or resolutions, or parts thereof, which are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed. Section 3. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 19th day of July , 2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 19th day of July , 2022. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 1 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. William L. M.Nary, City Attorney 7-19-2022 SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22 -1983 An ordinance amending Meridian Code Section 3-3-3(C), regarding limit on release fees; repealing any conflicting ordinances, and providing an effective date. VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 2 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY . William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the publi . William L. M. Nary, City Attorney 7- 19-2022 SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 22 4983 An ordinance amending Meridian Code Section 3 -3 -3 (Q, regarding limit on release fees ; repealing any conflicting ordinances, and providing an effective date . ,I VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 2 E IDIAN:--- .�E►ri u AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1985: An Ordinance (Alamar Subdivision — H-2022-0004) for Annexation of a Tract of Land Located Within the Southeast % of the Southwest %, Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 8.23 Acres of Land from RUT to the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-065180 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 VICTORIA BAILEY 07/20/2022 10:48 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ORDINANCE NO. 22-1985 CITY OF MERIDIAN E NT, BORTON, CAVENE , BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE(ALAMAR SUBDIVISION—H-2022-0004) FOR ANNEXATION OF A TRACT OF LAND LOCATED WITHIN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4, SECTION 10,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1. WEST,BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A"AN ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY,IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS T THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 8.23 ACRES OF LAND FROM UT TO THE TN- (TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITHTHE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY F THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READINGRULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit"A"are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Marala Investments, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and rezone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. Page I ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—ALAMAR SUBDIVISION(II-2022-0004) SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be,and the same is hereby,dispensed with, and accordingly,this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 19tn day of July, 2022. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 19" day of July, 2022. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 19th day of July,2022,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,respectively, of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian,Idaho MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2628 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—ALAMAR SUBDIVISION(H-2022-0004) Page 2 EXHIBIT A EL►J ENGEBRITSONLAND SURVEYS,PLLC. 2251 S. Sumac Street,Boise,Idaho 83706 (208)859-6032—mike@elsurveys.com 10 March 2022 Amended Land Description Project No.201204 Marala Investments,LLC. Contains 358,362 square feet or 8.227 acres+I- EMBIT A Property Annexation Parcel A tract of land located within the SE'/4 of the SW%,Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, Ada County,Idaho described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap monumenting the SW corner of said Section 10,from which a found aluminum cap monumenting the S%4 corner of said Section bears S 89°15'34"E a distance of 2640.54 feet;thence easterly along the southerly line of said SW%S 89°15'34"E a distance of 1320.31 feet to a found aluminum cap monumenting the W 1116t"comer,the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence northerly along the west line of said SE'/4 of the SW 1/4 N 00°36'35"E a distance of 1087.89 feet to a point; Thence leaving said line S 59`29'07"E a distance of 74.36 feet to a point; Thence N 59°04'26 E a distance of 103.00 feet to a point on the center line of the Purdam Drain; Thence along said center line S 60°56'14"E a distance of 160.88 feet to a point from which a witness corner bears S 00°34'27"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said Drain S 00°34'27"W a distance of 250.26 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 89'15'34"E a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin on the westerly rights-of-way line of a private road easement known as North Zimmerman Lane; Thence southerly along said rights-of-way S 00°34'27"W a distance of 187.11 feet to a point from which a found witness corner bears N 89'15'34"W a distance of 2.00 feet; Thence leaving said line N 89°15'34"W a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 00°34'27"W a distance of 557.46 feet to a found steel pin on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road; Thence leaving said rights-of-way and continuing S 00°34'27"W a distance of 33.88 feet to a point on the southerly line of said SE'/4 of the SW'/4 of Section 10; Thence westerly along said southerly line N 89°15'34"W a distance of 294.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described tract of land contains 8.227 acres more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way. (See Exhibit B attached hereto and made part oi) 1►� /► ' 8793 9 F:IELSIPROJECTS1202M2012D41ADMINILEGALS1201204 Updated Anne0ce 031022,dor /o nI►fAWN Z"Z EXHIBIT B R05 NO. 12250 �iOR Q. g ti S 58Z8'07" E co bi 74.36 �26.8 00 i I N C7 d o \�O 5 P4�4 i I I !€I 11 0 d I Ico i^I p w p ' S 89'15'34" E W`a Z w Q I I 232.80' , o no m ao N R �Z \I rn olK E5� 0� r< p�O N OI c,z� I� 0- C. 15yt�S a ld I o z le4p C3 /''yam W ti �, viw Ia i� oMON� m N 89'15'34" W �a \LO 4V}'� I� 9NO m'i ff�L1Li� Z'et 47 � I �zaw Iio zoQo W �z2O W C]W W z 3y44M u a 3z �N ti 0 W Qim� woN I x $�� an d i O~Z boo �wa nn IW—z� i 2m W�ti�� I �� �vvpa c I- O O • 4 Ifs LU U I O I 1 a. 41 3 z Z I I O w cwi o i O N 4d4 1 I I� Y II a iK � �O1o00 00 1189'4 4..331' 9 wnn ` . 3'_Sa' 7025 9 ,10 t6�T5 294.33 I I II S 69.1534'E 2640.54' P$ $ATS OF BEARING W. FRANKUN ROAD I KOS NO. 12258 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . William L. M . Nary City Attorney m I 9=kO22 SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 224985 An Ordinance (Alamar Subdivision — H-2022- 0004) for Annexation of a Tract of Land Located Within the Southeast V4 of the Southwest 1/4, Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and being more particularly described in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 8 .23 acres of land from RUT to the TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B . ] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — ALAMAR SUBDIVISION (11-2022-0004) Page 4