Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2024-10-15 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Brian Whitlock Councilman Luke Cavener Councilwoman Liz Strader Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted as amended (Item 4 vacated) PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics RESOLUTIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Resolution No. 24-2484: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Seoyoon Song to Seat 9 of the Meridian Arts Commission, Divya Danesh to Seat 8 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission, Lilly Miller to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Pivot Point Subdivision (H-2024-0029) by KB Homes, generally located south of W. Pine Ave. and east of N. Black Cat Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0029 A. Request: Annexation of 7.98 acres of land with R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and, 10 common lots on 7.98 acres of land currently zoned RUT. Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Taylor, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 3. Public Hearing for Centrepoint Apartments (H-2024-0019) by Nicolette Womack, Kimley-Horn, located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way, near the southwest corner of N. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. Continued to November 19, 2024 Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0019 A. Request Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. # 2022-079000) for the purpose of updating the concept plan, building elevations and certain DA provisions to increase the number of dwelling units from 215 to 295. B. Request: Conditional Use to construct a 295-unit multi-family affordable apartment project consisting of five (5) four-story structures. C. Request: Alternative Compliance(s) to deviate for the parking lot landscaping and multi-family common open space design standards set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C and 11-4-3-27C. Motion to continue to November 19, 2024 made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Taylor, Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Cavener, Councilwoman Strader 4. Appeal of Abatement Order by Tammy Blair Vacated FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 10:53 PM Meridian City Council October 15, 2024. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, October 15, 2024, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, Liz Strader, John Overton, Doug Taylor, Anne Little Roberts and Brian Whitlock. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Linda Ritter, Nick Napoli, Berle Stokes and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE X Liz Strader X Brian Whitlock Anne Little Roberts _X_ John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, I will call the meeting to order. For the record it is October 15th, 2024, at 6:00 p.m. We will begin this regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item up is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Tonight's community invocation will be by Pastor Vinnie Henke. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Henke: Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council, thank you again for the opportunity to be with you this evening. Would you like me to pray? God, we thank you for this day that you have granted to each of us. We thank you for the privilege of being citizens here in Idaho and specifically in Meridian and as the City Council meets this evening I ask that you would grant them wisdom as they listen, as they discern to the voices and concerns of those who reside in this wonderful place. We ask humbly your blessing upon it tonight and that you would be with those who serve so well here in the city, who serve us in our education and in our frontline services, God, in the fire and police services. We ask now that tonight you would be glorified ultimately and I ask this in the name of Christ, amen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 2 of 86 Simison: Thank you, Vinnie. Henke: My pleasure. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item up is adoption of the agenda. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Turn my microphone on. Apologies. I move that we adopt the agenda as presented, with one notation. We are going to vacate Item No. 4. It's my understanding that the appellant has worked with an arborist to get this issue resolved. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as amended by vacating Item 4. Is there any discussion? If not, all favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES . PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes. Garth Gaylord. Simison: Mr. Gaylord, if you would like to come forward. You will be recognized for three minutes. Gaylord: Hi. So, well, real quick one issue I want to bring up is the requirement to -- in the Idaho Public Records Act, which is Title 74 and 119 requires that all public agencies name -- note the name and contact info of the records custodian on their website and so I would encourage you to look into that and update your website with that. City of Nampa just barely did after I informed them of that. Okay. But the main issue I want to talk about -- I'm speaking on behalf -- I guess of the Allen family that lives in Meridian. On June 30th earlier this year there was a bit of a motorcycle accident. One of the boys was doing a wheelie down the street and -- and veered off and -- and wrecked into a yard and there was like an ambulance and stuff responding to the scene and, then, a neighbor had moved the motorbike to his yard like five or six houses down and so the other brothers of this boy who had wrecked went over to retrieve the bike and load it onto a pickup truck and they -- it's a heavy bike. They will get it loaded into the truck and, then, a Meridian police officer Bradley Chambers shows up and parks in the middle Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 3 of 86 of the street, gets out and like starts commanding them to take the bike off of the truck and they are like, well, why do you need it off the truck? We -- we are not going to unload it just to reload it. It's like you can -- he's like it's part of my investigation. They are like can you take pictures of it? We can stand it up while it's on the truck and, then, he just -- I will just ask you to look into the video. It's -- it's on the civil rights lawyer channel. If you want to see for yourself I would encourage you to do that mostly because it's pretty plain this officer acted really quickly and aggressively without any real cause. So, I mean the order to take the bike off the truck I wouldn't consider that a lawful command, but now this boy is being charged with resisting a police officer and he has gone through trial. But this officer grabbed him and almost immediately -- grabbed his arm and almost immediately like tried to sweep his legs out from under him with a leg sweep, trying to drive his face into the asphalt and, then, that didn't work because he was able to catch himself on the truck. Well, thankfully. Otherwise, he might be dead. But the officer, then, again like swept him and slammed his body on top of him. He, then, put his knee on the -- on the boy's neck causing him to pass out and kept his knee on his neck for 58 seconds. This boy suffered. He lost his job as a mechanic because of the injuries and this is just injustice. I would ask you to look into like the police department, their investigations for not bringing charges against Bradley Chambers when they should. Is that my three minute indicator, I guess? Thank you. RESOLUTIONS [Action Item] 1. Resolution No. 24-2484: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Seoyoon Song to Seat 9 of the Meridian Arts Commission, Divya Danesh to Seat 8 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission, Lilly Miller to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. With that we will move on to Item 1, which is a Resolution No. 24-2484 regarding appointments to our youth commission seats on the Meridian Arts Commission, Solid Waste Advisory Commission and the Meridian Transportation Commission. Council, we have got three outstanding young individuals who we are bringing forward for appointment to these commissions. One Seoyoon Song. She is a current MYAC chair and has been a member of MYAC since the spring of '22. Not only is she heavily involved in what's going on, but she was also the winner of the doodle for -- Google Art competition in 2023. We have Divya Danesh, who is a new member of MYAC, just recently joined and wanted to dive right in to help out the community. He is interested in political science and the logistics of local government. So, was interested in SWAC, because it can help her understand connections between different agencies and better appreciate the intricacies of providing services to taxpayers. And, then, the third one is Lilly Miller who used to be a member of MYAC in 2022-23, but has always been interested in politics, particularly the policy side of it. Was interested in climate issues and is a very skilled golfer with a handicap of two. Exactly. So, three very good people that I think will be good contributors to our commissions and represent the -- the voice of Meridian's youth. So, with that be happy to answer any questions or would accept a motion to move them forward. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 4 of 86 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: No questions. It looks like three great recommendations in addition to the youth member of the Parks Commission that we reappointed as part of our consent action earlier today. So, Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution No. 24-2484 appointing our youth members to their various commissions. Strader: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 24-2484. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to. Thank you very much. Look forward to seeing what they do this coming year. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Pivot Point Subdivision (H-2024-0029) by KB Homes, generally located south of W. Pine Ave. and east of N. Black Cat Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 7.98 acres of land with R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and, 10 common lots on 7.98 acres of land currently zoned RUT. Simison: Next item up is Item 2, which is a public hearing for Pivot Point Subdivision, H-2024-0029. We will open this public hearing with staff comments from Nick. Napoli: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Item No. 2 on the agenda is an annexation and preliminary plat for Pivot Point Subdivision. The applicant is requesting annexation, zoning and preliminary plat to construct 41 single family homes with ten common lots with a gross density of 5.51 units per acre. The site consists of 7.98 acres of land, zoned RUT, located south of West Pine Avenue between North Black Cat Road and North Ten Mile Road. As shown on the screen the current zoning is RUT in Ada county and the FLUM designation is R-8 or medium density residential. Pivot Point neighbors three other R-8 developments, Chesterfield Subdivision to the east, Alexander Landing to the southwest, and Horse Meadow Subdivision to the west. Alexander Landing and Horse Meadow Subdivisions are both owned by KB Homes as well and will work as a single HOA under this. Access is proposed via North Biltmore Avenue and West Quarter Horse Lane. That would be right here. Right here. Access off of West Pine via North Biltmore Avenue — it aligns with North Biltmore Avenue on the north side of Pine. ACHD found that the alignment did not meet their policy and this Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 5 of 86 shall be revised with the submission of the final plat. The applicant is proposing 1.24 acres of common open space for the development, with 1.15 acres of this area as qualified open space meeting the minimum requirements. There are two main open space areas proposed within Pivot Point. The linear open space along the Kennedy Lateral and the open space located at Lot 19, Block 1. The large central open space is approximately 45,935 feet in size and the largest usable common area within the project. Staff is recommending the removal of Lot 2, Block 1, to create more integrated open space. The placement of Lot 2, Block 1, creates an isolated parcel that abuts open space, a gravel road and street landscape buffers. Additionally, the lot creates possible conflict points when having to ingress and egress for the property owner. Due to these concerns staff finds that UDC 11-3G -- 3G-3-2B, open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development is not being met. The applicant has proposed an alternative to this by moving that Lot 2 to where Lot 15 is shown right here. Additionally, staff is recommending the applicant provide a five foot micro pathway through Lot 19, Block 1, to provide convenient access to Pine for the residents on that side of the subdivision. The applicant is proposing two amenities worth two points. An outdoor fire ring and there was originally a proposal for a pathway, but that did not meet the requirement to qualify for a point. So, the applicant has revised their plan to incorporate a tot lot, which does qualify it for an amenity point, meeting the requirements. Twelve — twelve conceptual building elevations and floor plans were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in the development would look like. Variations of one and two-story homes with two car garages are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, different color accents, roof profiles and varying home styles. Staff finds that these elevations meet architectural standards and follow the city standards. Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval on this project. The key issues of discussion by the Planning and Zoning Commission was the removal of Lot 2, Block 1 , to incorporate more integrated open space. Commission made no changes to the staff recommendation and the outstanding issues in front of Council tonight is the removal of Lot 2, Block 1, or adopting the -- the alternative that the applicant is proposing for Lot 15. Staff is recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement and conditions in the staff report. That is the condition that would be striked out if you guys choose to adopt Lot 15 in the new location, instead of the previous. So, if you guys do decide to do that tonight we ask that this condition is striked out on the record and, then, these are the DA provisions for you guys to look at for tonight that would be in the development agreement for the application. We did receive written testimony from Carla Ehlers, Kathy Galentine, and Natalie Purcell. They all have concerns about density, traffic and congestion. Fuller Park being overcrowded and schools being over capacity in the area. And I will stand for questions at this time. Simison: Thank you, Nick. Council, any questions for staff? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 6 of 86 Taylor: Could you show the -- the maps of the proposed -- what city staff was recommending and then -- I'm not sure if I saw what the applicant was proposing as an alternative for that. Could you just show me on the map where that is? Napoli: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, so this was the original plan. This is Lot 2, Block 1, that staff was recommending the removal of on -- for the plat and this -- after working with the applicant this is a proposal that they came up with. This is Lot 15. This is the new lot they are showing and this is the removal of Lot 2. So, they just moved it on to the other side. Taylor: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Nick, nice job. Appreciate you presenting the application to us tonight. Just a quick question for us on the -- the student generation. In the staff report it talks about architectural capacity for Chaparral. If I remember we had an application before us a couple weeks ago that talked about program capacity of the school being significantly less than the architectural capacity. I'm not trying to put you on -- like to catch you off guard and so if you want to come back to us later that's fine, but I'm trying to remember what that number was. Not what -- the amount of students that that building can hold, but what -- the amount of students that school can support. So, maybe as we get towards the end of the presentation if you could provide that information to me I would really appreciate it. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff at this time? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward. Durtschi: Ready, Nick? Mayor, Members of the Council, hello and good evening. For the record my name is Sabrina Durtschi and I'm here on behalf of KB Home. My business address is 1299 North Orchard Street, Boise, Idaho. 83706. And this evening I'm so excited to present to you our applications for Pivot Point Subdivision. Sorry, I'm trying to -- is it the arrows; right? Am I missing something? Ah, there we go. Yes. Yes. Thank you. But first I would like to get into the nuts and bolts of our application. I would really like to introduce you to KB Home. We are a national home builder that was founded in 1957. Everything KB Home does is focused around our customers and offering a superior home buying experience. For over 60 years we have operated from the belief that the best homes start with the people who live in them and that commitment to our customers can be seen by being the number one ranked national home builder when it comes to customer satisfaction and we take this ranking very seriously with our pledge to exceed all customers expectations by having each home a hundred percent complete and a hundred -- our customers a hundred percent satisfied before we finalize the purchase of their home. KB Home is also the number one energy efficient national home builder and is committed to sustainability and energy efficiency Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 7 of 86 with each home being Energy Star certified. This provides the homeowners with lower housing costs and promotes water conservation and helps preserve the environment with each home we build. Oh, that mouse got away from me. Sorry about that. So, first, let me welcome you to Pivot Point Subdivision. The subdivision is going to be a welcoming community and will be a special place for future residents to call home in the Treasure Valley. Our site design hosts many creative features that will showcase a thoughtfully designed in-fill development for our proposed residential lots. Here is a picture of our main entrance point into the development. With Pivot Point we are requesting an annexation, zoning of R-8, with a preliminary plat of a total of 41 single family residential lots. Our gross density will be 5.51 units per acre, with our residential lot sizes ranging from 4,000 square feet up to 5,600 square feet. We are situated near the corner of Black Cat and Pine providing future homeowners at Pivot Point quick access and easy commute to all surrounding amenities, conveniences nearby, schools and employment. So, let's talk about the controversial lot as I like to call it. So, as Nick has discussed, we made some adjustments to our site design. Our 41st lot, as I called the controversial lot, was not well received by staff, nor the Planning and Zoning Commission. While we met all the dimensional standards of the R-8 zone and it does fit our floor plans a little bit better, we decided to rework the layout and make adjustments to the lot and this is the new configuration that appears before you this evening and it sounds like we do have staff support on the new lot location and this lot will meet all the R-8 minimum dimensional standards. Pivot Point actually abuts two projects that KB Home already owns, as Nick has mentioned. To the northwest we have Horse Meadows that is zoned R-8. The site is currently under construction and consists of 26 lots. South of the site is Alexander's Landing. This is also zoned R-8 and has a total of 24 lots. We will be beginning construction of Alexander's Landing the spring of 2025. Our plan for Pivot Point, if approved, is to start construction late fall 2025 and have the site ready to build in spring of 2026. Here is a depiction of the three projects together once built out. Our plan is to have the three developments seamlessly transition and blend in perfectly together. We also plan to have the three sites under one HOA and one management and the -- really the goal is to create one community, instead of three separate small developments. As noted in the previous slide we have begun construction of Horse Meadows Subdivision. This will provide all the public infrastructure needed for our sites, such as sewer and water. We are also coordinating with the upgrade for the Nampa- Meridian Irrigation, for the existing irrigation pump house to facilitate all three sites and this is really great, since we are not stretching any services. All the services are right next door to us. Since Pivot Point is an in-fill site, existing public services are nearby. The elementary, middle and Meridian High schools are close by. I was told by Captain Brandon Medica -- I hope I pronounced his name correctly -- that both Fire Station No. 2 located at Ten Mile and Station No. 6, Overland, will be -- service the site. This area in the comp plan is slated for medium density residential. We feel that Pivot Point captures the vision of the comp plan and the direction of the Mayor wanting in-fill development as a priority. Based on this information we are requesting the R-8 zone. So, our largest customer segment is first time home buyers. The homes we build address a significant need in many of our markets, such as the Treasure Valley, to create additional housing that is affordable at median income levels. With each home we offer personalization and choices from the Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 8 of 86 selection of the home site, floor plan and construction options. This allows the homeowners a bill to suit option that works with their budget and most importantly their lifestyle. KB Holmes motto is that we are built on relationships and the most important relationship is with our customers. So, before -- so, before the foundation is poured or the nail is set, we get to know our home buyer on a personal level and together we design a personalized home around how they live day to day. Within Pivot Point Subdivision we will be offering — come on -- a variety of housing options that will range in size from approximately 1,300 to 2,800 square feet and the housing prices is estimated to range from 300,000 up to 580,000. Now, within our community that KB Home builds open usable space is very important for it sets the foundation of our community's amenities, pathway and interconnectivity that really makes our community special. Here in Pivot Point we have designated a total of 1.19 acres -- that equates to 15.5 percent open space and that's a bit of a bump up from our other layout with the new lot arrangement. So, it kind of bumped up our own space. Pathway connectivity and walkability is a priority within this development. Real quick the orange depicts our regional detached sidewalks, blue depicts our community sidewalks and, then, green illustrates our micro pathways. To create the usable open space we provided safety for the future residents. We have -- we decided -- we have coordinated and received approval to tile the Kennedy Lateral from Nampa-Meridian Irrigation. This will just provide safety for the residents not having an open ditch and really creates a more usable open space area. With this tiling we feel like we have captured some great central open space features for Pivot Point Subdivision. We have added a tot lot, which complements our larger playground in Alexander's Landing that I just got coordinated and ordered. It's going to be awesome. That's going to be more geared to older kids, so I thought a taught lot in this site would be great for younger children. Are -- this lot -- this tot lot will be designed to be snuggled in between the two homes that kind of provides a quieter setting, but has great visibility from the road on both sides for safety. Our second amenity -- one more shot of our tot lot. So cute. Our second amenity for the site will be a relaxing fire pit for the older residents in the development to enjoy and we relocated the fire pit to the existing lot that was located in that area. Future residents will also be able to utilize the amenities in our two other developments. Horse Meadows will have a sheltered picnic area and, then, Alexander's Landing that I just coordinated the playground for, will have a nice playground and a sitting area for the parents. I held a neighborhood meeting on June 17th this year. Actually, held it in the City of Meridian's Conference Room A where we had nine people in attendance. The meeting went well. The neighbors were very cordial and respectful. They had questions concerning the construction timing of all the three developments and inquire on a possible four way stop at our new entrance their existing Biltmore Road and so I did reach out to ACHD and based on volume and crash warrants of the section of Pine there was no justification for ACHD to consider a four way stop. So, I checked, but it didn't look like ACHD was willing to even entertain it. So, I have been personally working with the surrounding adjacent neighbors since Horse Meadows has already started construction and so they know it all time -- anytime that they can reach out to me if they have any questions or concerns and I will hopefully be able to take care of it. So, just to summarize, we strongly feel that Pivot Point Subdivision will be an excellent community for the City of Meridian. Every detail has been designed to create a community that Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 9 of 86 residents will love to call home and really complements the city's vision for this area. And with that I would like to thank staff for all their help and coordination and I would like to thank you all for the pleasure of your time, your thoughtful consideration and I respectively request approval this evening of our applications and I will stand for any questions that you may have. Simison: Thank you, Sabrina. Council, questions for the applicant? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Sabrina, thank you for that. Durtschi is an interesting last name and I grew up next to some Durtschies and some Bartchies. Durtschi: Oh-oh. Taylor: So -- Durtschi: Good memories or bad? Taylor: Great family. Durtschi: Okay. Taylor: I'm just looking at the staff report and something I had highlighted and I'm not sure that I heard addressed. If I did I just missed it. A notice that a pathway that was proposed didn't quite meet the requirements to qualify for a point for an outdoor amenity unless it was paved. I'm not sure if this is a question for you maybe or for Nick, but has this issue been addressed since that time? Durtschi: Mayor, Council Member Taylor, yes. So, we are going to pave it. I have -- so that -- so that pathway is actually for Nampa-Meridian to have access to the lateral. They still need to have access to the headgate and whatnot. So, they approved that -- that we can go ahead and pave it. So, it will be paved. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. Sabrina, so am I understanding this correctly instead of doing two you are actually going to do three amenities? That you are doing the tot lot -- Durtschi: Yes. Correct. Little Roberts: -- along with the pathway and the outdoor fire ring. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 10 of 86 Durtschi: Yes. Little Roberts: Thank you. Durtschi: Thank you for clearing that up. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: It's nice to have you back here. It's been a minute. Durtschi: So nice to see you. Cavener: An interesting question. It's -- it's rare for us to see kind of qualified usable open space kind of on a corner like we are seeing off of -- off of Pine and I guess my question is did you and staff have conversations about that? Are there -- are there elevations -- this is probably me putting on more of my parent hat and less of a City Council Member hat, but I -- Pine will continue to be utilized more and more and I just worry about you have got a tot lot and kind of some open space right next to a road that I think is going to see a lot of traffic probably at a higher speed than maybe we are prepared for and I just -- I don't know if that's a conversation that you had with staff and maybe just help me understand why the open space makes the most sense there on the hard corner? Simison: If I could piggyback off of that, because it doesn't appear to be fenced as well. At least what I -- it appears in the visuals. Maybe if there is a rational decision, because it seems like it becomes a public open space, not an amenity to the community in its current design. Durtschi: Mayor, that's a really good point. I think that's something we would totally be willing to consider -- consider to add additional fencing. Council Member Cavener, I -- I kind of gave the guidance to our landscape architects and she thought that that would be a better location for the tot lot to be kind of snuggled in, so it's not up against our main entrance. We thought that that might be a little too busy, but we are open to -- for consideration to move the amenities. I just used their best judgment, since they are -- they are professionals at it. But I think fencing would be totally acceptable, especially around the tot lot to keep it separate and -- Simison: And for me I was looking at more of the perimeter. Most subdivisions you have perimeter fencing along roads. While this is not an arterial, I mean it essentially functions as one in most -- in this situation -- Durtschi: Uh-huh. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 11 of 86 Simison: -- and, again, I understand, you know, when you look at this you understand the challenges you have with that space and how do you -- you know, do you just throw it away or do you do something -- the only thing you really can do and make it open space? But, yeah, to me it just seems like it's community open space and not fenced in as part of the subdivision -- Durtschi: Okay. Simison: -- and so that's why, you know, I don't know if it's normal standard to have been seen along the roads out -- if that's required or not required or purely optional. Just everyone else does it. Durtschi: Right. So, Mayor Simison, I think the issue is is that Nampa-Meridian is requiring us to keep it open. So, they have to have access to the site and that's why we didn't fence it. I would be happy to go and reach out and coordinate with them and see if they would allow some fencing and maybe a gate, so that they can have access, but that's really why due to the easement there that it was left open. Simison: Does staff know? Will Nampa-Meridian allowed gates along paved -- I mean it is a paved over section of east -- so, this is pretty unique in a lot of ways. Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, it really -- I think they would if there is some gates. I don't -- as long as they can get there and get an access I think it's appropriate. But you bring up good points. Just the uniqueness of this canal going through bisecting the property the way it is, it's why you are seeing this open space in its location. It is -- we are starting to see that more and more in the city as you are aware just because of these in-fill pieces coming and they are the last ones to develop with everything around it and it makes it a little bit more challenging to kind of fit them within a box, but the code just does not necessarily require fencing along the street, that's something that is -- but it only requires that if a buildable lot abuts the common lot, then, the developer is to put in fencing to distinguish the common area from the -- the buildable lot. So, in this case it's a big open space. So, that's why the -- the graphics in front of you tonight only show fencing along the back of the rear lots and not adjacent to Pine. But I don't see where Nampa-Meridian would have too much of an issue with that as long as Sabrina can get -- get that approval in front of them and make sure that -- that that gets captured in a license agreement. We have that a lot of times in our canals and our other subdivisions. Simison: Just out of curiosity maybe looking at captain, open -- open vision, closed vision, does it matter in this location? Is this -- is there a view -- particular viewpoint that makes more or less sense if it was to be fenced? Stokes: An open fence or a closed fence? Simison: Yeah. Open vision or a solid fence I guess. Is there a preference for which one? Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 12 of 86 Stokes: Which one? Simison: Yeah. Because it is open space and typically open space you do have them. Stokes: Yeah. I would say generally speaking at an open space you have like -- an open fence is usually more desirable, unless you are trying to block or obstruct something. Hopefully that helps. Simison: I will leave it there. I don't know how to -- Durtschi: Again I'm more than happy, Mayor, to reach out to Greg at Nampa-Meridian Irrigation and make sure -- and coordinate fencing for that location, because I -- yes, I agree that the lateral has made it very challenging to design the -- the site. That's kind of why we had that little odd parcel kind of leftover. It's just -- unfortunately in-fill can be tricky at times, so -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: What's going on with -- I understand it's not part of this application, but what's going on with the property here on the corner that says not a part of this development in kind of the lower left-hand side? Durtschi: Yeah. Strader: I just think it's important to understand that, because, you know, I get really concerned about kind of orphaning off parcels and making sure they are still connected to services and kind of understanding what's going to go there, so -- Durtschi: Sure. Council Member Strader, are you talking -- so, there is two out-parcels. Are you talking about the larger one that -- Strader: Yeah. Right. Durtschi: -- but or just both? Strader: Why not both. Durtschi: Okay. Let's talk about both. So, the larger one that's south of the site, the Cases own that and they are an older couple, very sweet, and they are -- they have no intention of selling or developing at any time. We have -- did provide to the city kind of an overall site plan showing how the connection points the road would work if they did decide to redevelop at one time, but at this time, again, they have no intention, but we are providing services, we have been coordinating with them closely for their irrigation access. So, we are trying to be a good neighbor. But, again, our site has -- layout has Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 13 of 86 put in thought into what it will look like in the future if they do decide to redevelop. The other site -- I have not been able -- unfortunately I have been able to reach out to -- to the owner. I guess it's a -- maybe an historic site, like an original school was there or something, but I -- yeah, I have reached out to them multiple times and have not been able to contact them. I believe we do -- are providing a stub road at Alexander's Landing for him from the future if they do decide to redevelop. So, those are all taken into consideration. I hope that -- does that answer your question, Council Member Strader? Strader: Thank you. Yeah, it does. It might be a good opportunity to discuss schools as well. I was curious along the same lines of thought as Councilman Cavener, if you have had discussions with West Ada. Obviously, they provided their letter, but, yeah, architectural capacity is like how many kids can we physically fit into a school is not the same as programming capacity. So, just wanted to understand kind of if you had some discussions with them, what the trends were, kind of how -- what feedback you have received. Durtschi: Mayor, Council Member Strader, so I have reached out to West Ada. I heard back from them. It took them a while to get back to me and they didn't express any concern. One of the things we did discuss was a school stop bus location. I was wanting to coordinate as far as -- for an area for kids -- seating area and coverage, but she was not able to commit at that time. So, there was -- that was the only conversation that I have had with West Ada. Strader: Okay. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: One just additional question. It's really about transportation. So, I know the -- the staff report from the highway district only really focused on Pine. I think it is listed as better than D. But Black Cat I think is -- at that segment is either better than E or close to being F. Ten Mile certainly is an F. Help me understand kind of your thought process on things that you can do to mitigate traffic on two roads that are already overtaxed. One there is no real way to improve Ten Mile and Black Cat certainly is probably eight or nine years away before we start to see some improvements and I bring this up -- I'm on that Black Cat Road a lot and you have got segments that are without sidewalks and you have got a choke point with a stop sign. Again, those aren't necessarily your problems to solve, but this development does kind of contribute to an already exacerbated problem. Just curious kind of what you and your organization has kind of workshopped around to help try and address some of those concerns. Durtschi: Sure. That's a great question, Mayor, Councilman Cavener. So, first we didn't warrant a traffic study, so we didn't do a full analysis -- a TIS impact due to the size of the development. One of the things -- if you look at Horse Meadows -- so, this -- Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 14 of 86 all these sites used to take access off to Black Cat. That's going to be removed. That's an emergency access. So, we are relocating everything, all the transportation, all the in and out flow will be located off of Pine. So, that does help the situation by limiting direct access off to -- off a Black Cat. Second, of course, ACHD has the requirements as far as right of way, improving sidewalk, curb, gutter, which we will, obviously, meet. But as far as any other considerations, I feel like with the elimination of that access onto Black Cat will help overall safety, so -- thank you. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Mayor and Sabrina, just a -- excuse me -- quick question on -- you said you are going to tile the Kennedy Lateral. Durtschi: Yes. Whitlock: My recollection is that it goes under Pine and, then, comes back out and is not tiled on the north side of Pine and I don't believe it's tiled to the east of Pine. So, basically, we will have a paved pathway to nowhere. Durtschi: Yeah. Mayor, Council Member Whitlock, so that's -- yeah, unfortunately, it -- that's why I kind of didn't add it as an amenity, because it kind of goes nowhere. But, again, we have to have access for Nampa-Meridian, so that's really why it is there, besides the pathways and stuff. I thought about getting -- stopping it -- not at that location, just kind of at the road and they were like, no, we -- the road has to go all the way to the fence line, because that's really where their key access point is at. So, it really is a multi-purpose pathway for -- it will be used as a pathway, but also -- I mean its main goal is for access for Nampa-Meridian. Simison: Which putting the fence there would help solve the fence to know where -- because it was stopped at the fence. Durtschi: Good point, Mayor. You are right. Yeah. Correct. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Durtschi: Thank you so much. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes. We have Toby A. Hall representing an HOA. I can't read the name of it. Simison: Good evening. State your name and address for the record and the HOA you are representing. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 15 of 86 Hall: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council people. My name is Toby Hall. My address is 2648 East Picard and I'm here representing the Village Bungalows. We are an HOA of 55 plus individuals. We have several concerns. First of all, my background is I'm a retired civil engineer. I was a planning commissioner for seven and a half years at -- up in Fairbanks, Alaska. Our first concern -- first of all, one, I was -- I was not at the Planning Commission meeting, so I have really very little information to carry from that meeting. Our first concern is traffic. We are a 55 plus community with one entrance and one outlet. We do not have the pleasure of the little white box being in front of our entrance first of all and during the day there are several times that the traffic backs up to our area to where access to our area becomes impossible, except for an emergency entrance for the fire department at the side of our ingress. We are very concerned about that, because we are a 55 plus community. Second count. We are very concerned about that. Emergency management -- management entrance into our area becomes very clogged at times and we are very concerned about that. I do not know if any studies have been done in these areas and I'm very concerned about that. I'm talking about 74 homes with people that are over 55. The increased number of individuals in our area -- in a low income area is going to dramatically increase the number of people that are going to go through one entrance area at Centrepoint and Ustick. I'm sorry. And that area is just an entry and exit area also. There is no way to get anywhere else. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Mr. -- Mr. Hall, I -- I appreciate your testimony and I'm not trying to interrupt you, but I -- I think you were planning to bring testimony about an application that's before us later in the evening. This -- this proposed project is on the corner of -- of Pine and Black Cat and if I'm not mistaken I think your -- your community is off the corner of Ustick near Eagle Road. Hall: Yes, sir. Cavener: So, I think that you are -- you are planning to testify on Item No. 3, what we would be hearing -- hearing next. I didn't want to interrupt you, but I just -- I wanted to make sure that -- I think Council was trying to track where you were talking about and -- and we weren't able to correlate, because I think where you and your -- your fellow residents live isn't necessarily germane to this project. Now, we are happy to hear your testimony on it, but I think you would probably want to save your testimony -- Hall: I'm sorry. Cavener: That's -- that's okay. Not a problem at all. But you may want to save that testimony for when we are hearing from that application a little bit later on this evening. Hall: I shall sit down now and resume later. Cavener: Look forward to seeing you here in a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 16 of 86 Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody else signed up on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present who would like to provide testimony on this item, either in person and you can come forward at this time or if you are online you can use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one coming forward or using the raise your hand feature, would the applicant like to come up for additional comments to close? Applicant has waived addition final comments. So, Council, leave it for you for additional questions, comments or motions. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you. Nick, I'm coming to you. I'm hoping you got some answers for me. Napoli: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, yes, I do. So, as far as with this -- you guys have not heard this project yet, but it is -- I did go to in front of Planning and Zoning. We did not get comments from West Ada on this application. I did reach out to them and, unfortunately, we didn't get a staff report from them. The -- the data that you are seeing was generated by our long staff, but a project that you guys will be hearing shortly that is off of Ten Mile and Franklin, so the -- the program capacity at Chaparral is 550. So, it is 150 less than the architectural capacity and currently from that -- the staff report from West Ada on the gateway, their enrollment is 543, meaning that there is seven vacancies. Cavener: Thank you. That answered my question. Simison: And just for clarification, is this Nick or Bill -- is it because this -- the size of this development falls under the threshold where West Ada has intended to do -- staff provide that information or do you think they just didn't have time? Napoli: Mr. Mayor, you know, as far as with that I reached out to Miranda Carson at the school district and, you know, as far as with this it was not considered high enough for their threshold to do it. I think that they are very busy and, unfortunately, she did not get us a staff report. So, I had our long range staff do it. But, typically, I think it is more of a case by case for them. I don't know if there is a specific threshold. Simison: I thought the threshold was 50, but I could be mistaken, so -- okay. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 17 of 86 Taylor: I did have one more question for Sabrina I forgot to ask earlier. You had mentioned that this community is -- you are trying to focus on first time home buyers. Do you know what -- what's the price point we are talking about sort of the size of home, just to kind of give me a sense of what the community is going to look like and kind of what the -- that matrix is. Durtschi: Sure. Hello again. Sabrina Durtschi. 1299 South -- North Orchard Street, Boise, Idaho. 83706. And so, yes, Mayor, Council Member Taylor, as I mentioned, so we do custom for first time home buyers, but that's just the beginning. I mean people from all ages who are downsizing to upsizing, we accommodate everyone. Again, it's more kind of built to suit kind of based on your budget and lifestyle. So, the price point was going to be the mid three hundreds and I think the highest -- the largest floor plan was 2,800 square feet and that was going to be at 580,000. Now, that's what my sales team's telling me now. Will that change when we are building in 2000 -- you know, 2026? Of course. But it -- it really opened -- it's for all families, all sizes, all lifestyles. But, again, I think we kind of gear to first time homebuyers as well, which is such an important -- important, you know, market to reach, so -- Taylor: Thank you. Durtschi: Again, thank you again for all your time and if you have any more questions I would be happy to answer it. Simison: We may call you up again. Durtschi: Okay. I will come back up again then. Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Unless there is any other comments for the -- public testimony, I would make -- be willing to make a motion to close the public testimony on this item. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 18 of 86 Taylor: Just my kind of comments as I was reviewing. It seems -- it is kind of a strange plot of land to work with, but I kind of like the -- the concept and I appreciate, Sabrina, you explaining it to me sort of how these different developments look like they are going to kind of be weaved together for a larger community. I think Councilman Cavener hit on a good point where the tot lot is on Pine. It does seem like it's a little bit of a busy spot. I would feel much more comfortable if you could work something out with the irrigation district to put some fencing there, because I have got four little kids and when they are little they don't behave. I have teenagers and they don't behave either, so -- I think that would -- I think if I were buying a home there and I had young children and I saw that tot lot, I would feel much better knowing that there is another -- another obstacle that they have to overcome before they get out in the road. I think this is a good project. I think it makes some sense. You know, I think it's fairly low impact in terms of impact on the schools and impact on traffic in this particular area. I do think we will see a lot more interest out here. So, maybe this conversation is a little bit different a little bit later. I think ACHD would do well to focus on Black Cat and trying to build some capacity out there, because there is a lot of interest in bringing developments out there. But I -- I -- I think considering the -- I think the change of moving the -- that strange lot on the corner and incorporating it into the rest of the property is a -- is a good idea, so I'm glad you are willing to do that. So, I think I'm standing in support of this project as it is listed here tonight. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: This really seems pretty straightforward and I like the fact that it's an R-8 among other R-8s. It's kind of like it's one of those in-fill project pieces that's made to fit right where it is between two other ones they are already doing. I appreciate the applicant being willing to allow us to ask them for an open vision fencing with gates that would be approved at a later date by Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District. That we are going to move the Lot 2 to the new Lot 15 and I really do appreciate the fact that you are tiling the lateral, even if other developments aren't tiling it, just for the safety factor it's going to provide in that open area you have. I think if you do open -- open field fencing all the way around you are going to have a really nice amenity right there and everybody lives there really is going to appreciate it and I will definitely be in support of this tonight. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: I'm inclined to support as well. I -- my only concern is I -- I like the project, I like the layout, I like the -- the density and -- and the fact that it mirrors what's happening around it. My only concern is this is going to be a very attractive subdivision for a nearby school, a charter school, just south of the railroad tracks and so while you don't have that lower left-hand corner as part of this development, I'm concerned that people Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 19 of 86 will want to come here and buy because of the proximity to the charter school just south of it and I'm concerned about the lack of development and sidewalks along Black Cat and across the railroad crossing there. So, it's my only hesitation. I think you have addressed all of the other concerns. When I first saw the application and that one lot all by itself up there in the corner, I -- it just seemed odd to me. So, thanks for working with our -- our staff and moving that and I think with the comments -- other comments that have been made about fencing and safeguarding that area that I can -- I can be supportive. I'm just concerned about the Black Cat issue. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I share Council Member Whitlock's concerns about access to the school and it -- you have got a little bit of a perfect storm here where you have got, you know, the neighborhood public school that's at, near, over capacity depending on how you look at it. That's a challenge. A challenge could be offset if it was easier for students to be able to get to Compass. So, that to me I think is a -- is a wrinkle that I'm -- I'm still wrestling with. While I appreciate the -- the request and, again, that's nice as medium density residential, all the things you have heard from Council and I should offer in 2003, '4 and '5 1 lived in a KB Home. So, I -- I appreciated the product at the time. I appreciate it now. I appreciate you bringing this project. I -- I just -- I need some time to kind of marinate even this as -- in-fill projects are hard. I don't wish those on anybody, but I'm also keenly aware of the -- the current challenges that the -- the traditional neighborhood public schools face in terms of enrollment challenges. There is just a lot of students in there for what the -- the teachers and the programming can handle and it -- while it only maybe results in 12 additional students to the school, if you are a parent with 32 kids in your class and 33 feels a lot more than just one more student. So, I'm going to need a few minutes to marinate before I'm going to be ready to make a decision. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. Kind of in the same boat. I'm feeling like I'm a little bit on the fence on this one. The things I like about it -- I like the product a lot. I love that you are building starter homes. I think that's a really important segment that -- that doesn't get paid enough attention to and I think it's really critical to have a healthy community that we have those. In-fill is very hard. I understand your site constraints, so I understand why your open space is located where it's located. I just hate it. I'm not trying to be rude, but I really don't like it being on the corner. Again, I understand why you had to do that. I appreciate that you have mitigated that to some extent. Tiling the lateral I think was a really good idea. I think -- I totally agree that -- that that weird orphaned out lot over there on Lot 2, Block 1, totally needed to go. But, you know, my concerns are the state of Black Cat right now it's just really bad. We have traffic concerns and huge issues of Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 20 of 86 the pedestrian connectivity and I kind of feel like safe routes to school is a pretty fundamental piece of the picture for me and I'm not -- I'm not hearing a good solution on that, so that concerns me. In addition to that, I do think, you know, some type of fencing around the tot lot is totally critical if it's going to -- you know, if this open space will be located on the corner. I think that's a -- that's a -- one that definitely needs to be open vision fencing on. I'm just kind of struggling. I'm struggling a little bit with adding any traffic to Black Cat and with the pedestrian connectivity off of Black Cat. So, yeah, this doesn't happen to me very much; right? I almost always have an opinion. I can't shut up, but here we are -- I don't know, I'm kind of on the fence on it, so I'm just going to think about it for a couple minutes. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Unless anyone wants to make any more comments, I think I would make a motion that we approve File No. H-2024-0029 with the alternative layout as presented by the applicant. Do we need more clarity on that? Oh. Yes. And to include the requirement to work with the Nampa Irrigation District to fence the open space. I think I got it all. Do I need to restate that? Simison: Are there some other conditions that you need clarification on in a motion? Napoli: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, yeah, I just wanted to clarify. So, we are going to be striking the condition for the removal of Lot 2, Block 1, on the record; correct? Taylor: Correct. That's the intention, yes. Napoli: And did you guys want to make a condition about fencing? Taylor: Yes. Napoli: Okay. Taylor: Do I need to restate the motion? Simison: We have a motion as stated by the Council and staff. Is there a second to that motion? Overton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any clarification needed from anybody on those two items? Okay. Is there a discussion on the motion? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 21 of 86 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I --just maybe to explain, because I will be a no vote tonight. It doesn't mean that I don't see some merit in your project, I just -- I have a very high bar for annexation and if I feel like if I'm on the fence this much I would default to a no until it's the right time and we can get some of the concerns on Black Cat more resolved or at least a better timeline around resolving them. I also can share the concerns around Chaparral specifically. It does feel like a huge pain point. We have a lot of projects that have already been approved that are already annexed into the city that are going to be delivering additional students and I -- I have talked extensively on other applications about our back and forth with the school district, but in this case I feel like it's an acute issue and if there wasn't a better pedestrian -- if there was a better pedestrian connectivity to the other school options in this area, I would feel much better. So, I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm in the same boat. I -- I -- I can't support the project tonight. It's not because I don't think it's good for Meridian. There are some challenges, particularly related to pedestrian access along Black Cat. If we were in a position where we were in charge of our own streets and roads and I knew what Black Cat's future looked like it would be a lot easier for me to come to a supportive conclusion and similar to Council Member Strader, I have talked at length about the challenges at Chaparral. I -- I can't in good conscience talk about those challenges and, then, approve an annexation that would put more kids in that school. So, you know, counting tails on the dais, it looks like you are probably headed towards an approval, so good luck with that. It's just not something that I could be in support of tonight. Simison: Are there any further comments? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, nay; Strader, nay; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: Four ayes. Two nays. All right. Thank you very much. Have a nice evening. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS 3. Public Hearing for Centrepoint Apartments (H-2024-0019) by Nicolette Womack, Kimley-Horn, located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way, near the southwest corner of N. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. A. Request Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. # 2022-079000) for the Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 22 of 86 purpose of updating the concept plan, building elevations and certain DA provisions to increase the number of dwelling units from 215 to 295. B. Request: Conditional Use to construct a 295-unit multi-family affordable apartment project consisting of five (5) four-story structures. C. Request: Alternative Compliance(s) to deviate for the parking lot landscaping and multi-family common open space design standards set forth in UDC 11-313-8C and 11-4-3-27C. Simison: Okay. Next item up is Item 3, which is a public hearing for Centrepoint Apartments, H-2024-0019. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Ritter: Good evening, Mayor and Council. As always it's a pleasure to be here with you this evening. So, tonight we are talking about a development agreement modification, conditional use permit modification and alternative compliance for Centrepoint Apartments. This site consists of 9.9 acres of land. It's zoned C-G. It's located at 3100 North Centrepoint Way and 3030 North Cajun Lane. So, previously this property was approved with a CUP and a development agreement modification for a maximum of 213 units. It limited the building heights to three stories. It met the intent of the open space requirement and it provided the following amenities: A clubhouse with the business lounge, plaza areas, the swimming pool, fitness facility, outdoor kitchen, a dog run, a micropath system, sports court, bicycle repair room and this is -- this is the approved plan from the previous approval. You had a building here that was two stories. The buildings in the internal lot were three stories and you had the two buildings over here that were -- on the other side of Cajun Lane that were three stories. These are the -- were the approved elevations for the three story building and this one is for the two- story building. This was the approved landscape plan on the open space plan. On September 5th Centrepoint Apartments went before the Planning Commission. So, they propose 279 units, which was down from the 295 units they came in with, so they reduced the number of units prior to the Planning Commission. They requested buildings to be four stories with an increased building height to 45 feet. They requested alternative compliance for the landscaping underneath the carports to remove the trees, so that they would not block the solar panels. They requested alternative compliance for the open space as it did not meet the open space requirement. They were deficient by 8,940 square feet and their reason was that this site is irregular. It has a unique targeted demographic of affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. Staff stated that although the project is located less than one mile from several of the parks, the residents would have to cross either Ustick Road, a residential arterial, or Eagle Road, a state highway, to access them and they propose -- the amenities they propose was a clubhouse with the fitness facility, a children's play structure, dog park with the waste station, shaded picnic area with barbecue grills, tables, benches, landscaping, shaded plaza, courtyard, activity lawn, micropath Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 23 of 86 systems, sports court and bicycle repair. So, the sports court and the dog park were located near Cajun Lane. So, they came back in with a proposal this time for 239 units. They decreased their units. So, this is the newly proposed plan. They took out the park -- the parallel parking along Ustick Road as requested by staff and they added in more landscaping. This is the open space exhibit. They added more open space to the west and along the Ustick Road and increased the parking as advised by staff. They removed the sports court because they had the dog park and the sports court here, so they removed the sports court based on it could be too loud for the people living in the apartments. So, they are no longer deficient in their open space. They meet the open space requirement. They actually have surpassed the requirements and as far as parking, previously they were -- they had parking along Cajun Lane. There was concern about people backing out onto Cajun Lane, so they did remove that, but they still need to work with the adjacent property to do some kind of shared parking agreement because of the way the parking is shown in this development. So, they reduced the building height for the building closest to the neighbor -- neighboring residential on the west side. So, that is Building D. So, it's now proposed as a two- story as it was previously approved. Building D and Building C are now three stories. Building B2 and C -- B2 is close to the south. It's a building close to the south and Building C is a building on the other side of Cajun Lane. So, it's three stories as previously approved. The other two buildings, Building A and Building B1 , will remain four story and be allowed at a height -- they want it to be allowed at a height not to exceed 65 feet, because that is the maximum height allowed in the C-G. On their elevation plans they show 55.6 feet for the height of the building, because it now has a pitched roof instead of a flat roof as what was proposed before. Let me see. They are also still requiring alternative compliance for the landscaping underneath the carports, because the trees will interfere with the solar panels. So, the -- the modification that they are seeking for the development agreement is to -- they want it to be consistent with the conceptual development plans that they have and there was a requirement from ITD for them to provide some right of way and do a landscape buffer along Eagle Road. They are asking that that requirement be set aside for the commercial portion when it is developed and, again, for the multi-family they are asking that Building B be made no more than two stories in height, Building B2 and 3 be no more than three stories in height and building Al and B1 be no more than four stories in height, consistent with the applicant's revised concept plan. So, for this application again it was denied by the Planning Commission due to too many units and the height of the buildings. There were -- we had numerous individuals commenting at the hearing. We had about seven written comments before the hearing and most of it was due to -- they were against the proposal due to the increase in the traffic, the number of units, traffic on the private roads and the impact to their neighborhoods and prior to this hearing we received about seven, eight written comments in opposition to the project for the same issues. There were several voicemails, about six, seven voicemails that were left opposing the project for the same issues. But the application did have letters of support from the Department of Veterans Affair, Ada Community Action Partnership, Friends of Children's and Family, Inc., Jesse -- Jesse Tree and Boise Rescue Mission. They were all in support of this application. These are just some pictures of the site. This is Eagle Road and Ustick. There is a lot going on in this area. We have the new Dutch Brothers Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 24 of 86 there. There is Dalton and this is located to the west of these this development. So, at this time I will be happy to take any questions that Council may have regarding this application. Simison: Thank you, Linda. Council, any questions for staff? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Linda, quick question for you. If you can answer. What is the zoning of the residential nearest to this proposed area to the west or to the south? Not the commercial, but the residential. Do we know that? Ritter: It's R-8 and R-15. There is a couple of different subdivisions back there. Overton: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Linda. Question for you. In terms of the surrounding area, are you aware of any other four story buildings nearby? I mean I'm -- I'm just thinking -- I'm pretty familiar with this area. I know we do have some four and five story buildings way further down Eagle Road near the intersection of Cherry Lane and Eagle. I'm not aware of any other comparable structures in terms of height in this area. Am I off base with that? Ritter: Mayor, Council Woman Strader, no. They are on the east side of Eagle Road further down by where -- I think it's at Firehouse Sub. There are several tall apartment buildings in that location. You have some that are four, some maybe five. Strader: Uh-huh. Ritter: Not in this immediate vicinity. Strader: Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: One quick question actually just on Council Woman Strader's comment. We approved a five story self-storage facility -- four story. Is that -- I'm trying to remember on Eagle. Is that close to this facility? Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 25 of 86 Ritter: It's down the road from it. It's off of Cajun Lane in that commercial area. Taylor: So, it's just -- it's actually quite close; right? It's just where Cajun Lane comes out onto Eagle Road it's right there. Ritter: Down at the end. It's by that pathway. Taylor: Okay. Ritter: Yes. Taylor: My question is -- so, this is -- had been previously approved for 213 units. We have gone through different iterations of how many more units we want. It sounds like we are settling most recently on 239. So, we are talking about 26 additional units from what it had already been approved. Am I correct in that? Ritter: Correct. Taylor: Okay. And, then, Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Are -- of those 26 new units are those intended to be all lower income units or what's the breakdown of low income units that are being proposed with this? Do you have that information? Ritter: According to the applicant the whole development will be low income. Taylor: The entire development. Ritter: According to the applicant. Taylor: Okay. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Linda, we have had lots of applications on this piece of dirt and so some of my memory is fuzzy, but some of the -- it was either Cajun or Picard or Bourbon or Centrepoint of public drives. How does a public drive have an impact if this project were to be developed? Does it require an agreement from whoever owns the public drive to allow vehicles to access it? It's weird; right? You have got a public drive right next to a state highway. So, it's -- it is a little wonky. I guess that -- that's the piece that I -- I think every time we have got an application before us I probably asked the same question in a different way, but that's the piece I just want to get some clarification about who ultimately controls access of the private lane, because it inevitably is going to be utilized by residents if this project's approved. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 26 of 86 Ritter: So, Mayor, Councilman Cavener, so this is a public road, but it stops here. This is a private road or access drive that has an access easement that comes down here and goes out here. This is public that goes -- this loop, but this is private. So, this portion is private and so it's really not supposed to be accessed by this development. So, their access is either somewhere through here to come here to go through here to get out. They don't have access to -- or come here, but, then, if they come this way -- because this just loops around, they are going to come out onto the private roads. Cavener: Okay. And -- Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Linda, it may be in there and I -- I missed it. Has the applicant received any they have been granted use of those private lanes from whoever is -- owns that? Ritter: Just this. So, when this subdivision was put in, this access easement was put in. So, this is Cajun Lane and so this takes you back to that circle that takes you out to Eagle Road. Cavener: Okay. Ritter: So, that's their -- that's the access easement that was granted. Cavener: But -- Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: There is no other -- because there is a couple other parts that are private. Those have not been -- Ritter: They have not -- based on our research they have not. Cavener: That may be a question for the applicant and certainly for our law enforcement about how we are going to enforce that. So, thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Linda. It's hard when I can't see you. Am I -- did I hear something wrong or did you mention something about needing to make agreement with nearby parking, that there wasn't -- so that there is apparently not enough parking without a nearby parking lot use? Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 27 of 86 Ritter: What the applicant is showing that a portion of their parking goes on to the commercial property and so if they are utilizing this as part of their parking they -- currently they are -- they exceed by 48 parking spaces, so -- but if they want to use this parking, because it goes through the lot, they could either do a property boundary adjustment or do a parking agreement with the commercial property, because this was all part of a mixed-use development when it came in. So, you had the residential and the commercial. So, we would either want to see a parking agreement or they could do a property -- a property boundary adjustment to correct that, so that all the parking is on their property. Little Roberts: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor. And, Linda, do you happen to know if this is on the bus route? Is this -- does this have access to public transportation? Ritter: There is currently no public transportation that comes along here. I know the applicant had put on their plan that they were going to do a bus stop, but it's not something that has been approved by Valley Transit at this time. I did have a conversation with them. So, they would need to work with Valley Transit, because what we don't want is to see some type of bus shelter there that is not being used and it would be vandalized, because there is no service there at this time. Little Roberts: Thank you. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I have a question for staff on the alternative compliance requirements and I know there has been -- getting a lot of moving parts, so if I have missed something. please let me know. As I am looking through the staff report the street conditions on which you could grant alternative compliance -- or two of the three, if I'm understanding that correctly. Number one, strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible. Two. Provides equal or superior means of meeting requirements. And, three, the alternative means will not be material -- detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. As I'm reading this -- and, again, with the updates maybe I'm -- I'm wrong -- two of the three need to be met in order to grant the alternative compliance. Am I understanding that correct? Ritter: So -- correct. For the landscape planters underneath the parking -- well, for the landscape and underneath the carports it doesn't make sense, because, again, you have -- they want to put solar panels on the carports and so to try and have trees along there it doesn't make sense. So, they added more perimeter landscaping for the parking lot. So, they kind of did more -- Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 28 of 86 Taylor: Put it somewhere else. Ritter: Yes. So, staff doesn't have an issue with that, because we understand that -- the cost and what they are trying to do and they did add more landscaping around the perimeter. Taylor: Okay. And, Mr. Mayor, quick follow up. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Was the landscaping the only one they were seeking alternative compliance fo r? Ritter: Now they are. The others they met. Taylor: Okay. Thank you. Ritter: So, I just want to make a statement. So, they did extend the existing CUP. So, they did ask for an extension of that and as -- I don't -- I didn't see in the narrative that they were changing anything on the building elevations, because they were going to ask for an exception to the design standards for the buildings when they come in, because they -- the masonry -- the masonry that we asked for to go on the buildings they are asking to waive that requirement, but we will review that when it comes in. But staff is not in agreement to do that. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I do want to hear from the applicant, but I have one last question for staff first. If the applicant came through with this project meeting the current DA, would we even be here tonight? Ritter: No. Overton: Thank you. Simison: All right. Would the applicant like to come forward. Nelson: Get the presentation up first. Okay. Great. Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and Members of the City Council. Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street, Boise. Great to be with you. I'm here on behalf of the applicant Devco, LLC, and other members of the applicant team are here with me and available to answer questions. Thank you to Linda and all of her work on this project. The applicant Devco does develop and operate both affordable housing and market rate product throughout the region and they have over 10,000 units under their management. They have two Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 29 of 86 affordable housing projects underway in the Treasure Valley. One in Boise that's constructed and one in progress in Caldwell and Boise is on the left and Caldwell is on the right here. But they are particularly excited about coming to Meridian and that's because of your plans. Meridian strategic plan has identified affordable housing as a strategic priority. The plans -- goals for growth include to establish new affordable housing options. Similarly, Meridian's consolidated plan points out that while there is a monumental amount of new housing units in the community, it does not meet the financial needs of the community's residents that are the most vulnerable to housing instability. The plan states Meridian's commitment to increase access to affordable housing, so that residents spend no more than 30 percent of their monthly income on housing expenses and the applicant's market studies have confirmed that research as well. In a four mile radius of the site there are over 3,000 eligible households for income restricted housing, but in that same four mile radius there are only 96 existing income restricted units with effectively no vacancy and only 76 new planned units. The gap between that affordable income restricted housing and the average market rent is 38 to 40 percent, which is a significant burden for those over 3,000 households. So, the project before you tonight seeks to help to meet some of that demand and the Centrepoint site at Ustick and Eagle provides a great opportunity. The site is already approved for multi-family development and the same factors that the city considered in that approval remain relevant for the proposed development. The site is an in-fill location close to major roads and commercial businesses, all factors that support denser housing in Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. This location is ideal for future tenants who will benefit from close proximity to jobs, parks, good schools and shopping, creating both physical and economic mobility for the residents. This property and the surrounding land along Eagle Road is designated as mixed-use regional. The comp plan expects residential uses to cover ten to 30 percent of this area with densities between six and 40 units per acre. The site as approved -- it falls within that ten to 30 percent range for the MUR area and the proposed 23.9 units per acre density as well within that six to 40 range called for in the comp plan. The zoning is C-G and also supports the project here. Just a couple brief comments on the history. In 2019 the city approved the Villasport project on this site, an 89,000 square foot building with outdoor pool. The building was 65 feet tall and set back less than ten feet from the southern property. In 2022 the city approved multi-family on the site with 213 units in a range of two and three story buildings. The current applications, as Linda described, request DA and CUP modification to add 26 residential units and an additional story on two interior buildings to allow the developer to offer this affordable income restricted community and we seek alternative compliance, as you discussed with Linda and I will cover as well. This is the current updated site plan. At the P&Z hearing the Commissioners expressed appreciation and support for the affordable housing aspect of the project. Their concerns related to density, building heights at the perimeter and the applicant's initial and now withdrawn request to reduce open space. The Commissioners suggested the plan be revised to address these specific concerns. Commissioner Smith voiced his support for density above the original 213 units, but just wanted some reduction. The Commissioners height concerns were focused on the perimeter where they wanted to see better transition to neighbors. So, the applicant addressed each of these concerns in the updated plan that is now presented before you. The updated plan eliminated 40 Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 30 of 86 units. The building heights along the perimeter have been reduced to the same currently approved two and three story levels and the building -- the only two -- four story buildings that remain from the original plan are interior to the site closer to Ustick and the corner commercial use. The qualified open space now exceeds city code requirements. The applicant also made other revisions to the plan modifying the buildings from flat roofs to pitched roofs in response to comments. Removed the parking along Cajun Lane again due to backup concerns and comments. Removed the sport court due to potential for noise. The project still exceeds city parking requirements by 48 stalls and all of the individual apartment areas are self parked. Just like for market rate apartments this community includes quality amenities and they are in excess of code requirements and I know Linda went over those. The community has proposed to meet green building standards, including solar carports, which will help reduce utility bills for residents. To enable this, as has been discussed a bit already, the applicant does request alternative compliance to eliminate parking lot islands only where they fall under those carports. This will reduce maintenance cost and preserve efficiencies by avoiding tree canopy growth over the solar panels. They do still serve to protect against the heat of the environment. They offer an additional amenity of reducing utility bills for residents and in that way we would suggest Council Member Taylor, in response to your questions, that they are superior and not detrimental to other properties. I would also note that the P&Z Commission expressed support for this request, as has staff. So, the income restriction does not change the quality of the project, it just enables low to medium income residents to enjoy the same location, services and amenities as renters in market rate apartments. Devco will deed restrict the property to ensure affordable housing restrictions will be in place for 40 years on all 239 units, providing a stable, long-term supply of affordable housing for the community. The project will serve households with incomes ranging from 30 to 70 percent AMI or about annual incomes of 35,000 to 60,000. This range includes teachers, certified nursing assistants, pharmacy techs, government employees, recent graduates, veterans and other working individuals and families. Devco will own and manage the property with on-site staff to provide maintenance, parking monitoring, enforcement and the leasing. The management will include careful vetting of tenants and annual review to ensure that the tenants meet income qualifications. Keypad access is required for the clubhouse and unit keys cannot be copied. As updated the current proposal has two key differences from the current approved multi-family development. Two hundred and thirteen market rate units are now 239 affordable units and a fourth story is added to two interior buildings. These differences while now minimized with the updated plans remain critical for this project to move forward, given the reduction in rents, to bring affordable housing units to the market requires some density and construction efficiencies, such as building up the additional 26 units and an additional fourth story on the two interior buildings are necessary for the project to be feasible and proceed and, as I mentioned, this proposal does not compromise on quality. The open space, the amenities, the parking all exceed code requirements and are the same as are provided for market rate apartments. The proposed modifications to the site plan are compatible with surrounding properties. The two and three story buildings maintain the significant setbacks from the neighbors as already approved. The new four story buildings are located further from existing residents and are separated from the adjacent neighbors Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 31 of 86 by a public road, a fence, a landscape buffer and an internal drive. The four story buildings are also largely shielded by the three story buildings. The limited visibility that remains of these taller buildings from adjacent residents is mitigated with building orientation, landscape buffers and the large distances to the nearest homes as shown here that range from 164 feet to over 300 feet. The cross-section image at the bottom of the slide illustrates the scale and distances from surrounding properties, including across Ustick to the north and toward the residential area in the south. The proposed building heights are consistent with other nearby apartments approved by the city. In response to your question, Council Member Strader, there are tall three story, four story and five story buildings immediately across Eagle Road that have been approved with project densities that range from 22 to 76 and our proposed density falls at the low end of that range. So, we do feel that we are compatible with the immediate neighborhood. The trips generated by the proposed development are significantly lower than the approved traffic study from the original Villasport development on this site. The -- and the trip generation for this project is consistent with and slightly lower than the traffic study that was provided with the 2022 project, which had assumed 259 units in the study and that same approval from ACHD for the 2022 has been reconfirmed for this project and the same conditions of approval, which are acceptable to the applicant. A primary traffic concern expressed by the neighbors at the P&Z hearing was traffic stacking on Centrepoint Way. The traffic impact study did analyze queue stacking and found there will be adequate queue storage at each of the site accesses with the proposed improvements. The applicant will improve the Centrepoint intersection with Ustick by widening and restriping Centrepoint to add a dedicated left turn lane to accompany the existing left turn lane signal that's already there and to match the intersection that's across Ustick as approved by ACHD. This will improve traffic conditions for the existing -- existing residents and, of course, serve the new residents. This topic came up with private streets. Council Member Cavener, you had asked about this and some neighbors also raised concerns about access through their neighborhood. Cross-access was always contemplated here. A cross-access easement does secure the rights for each property to cross through the other to access surrounding public roads. This also came up in the 2022 approval and there was discussion by the Council. I will spare you the memory lane with Council Member Borton's frustration that developers that put in private lanes need to accept cross-traffic, but it is actually documented in the record as well. The traffic study update in 2022 also specifically analyzed cut through and found that the impacts will be minimal, primarily because the neighborhood to our south does not have connectivity to the south or the west to other neighborhoods or the road network, except out to Eagle Road, the same point that we would share and our access to Eagle Road will go around, not through their internal streets. We are grateful for all the community organizations that have provided support letters for the project. These include area hospitals, Central District Health and housing organizations. Many of these partner agencies worked on the consolidated plan with Meridian and so they are intimately familiar with the need for affordable housing in the community. Several of these organizations point out in their letters that there is a severe shortage of affordable housing options in the city and they identify the pressures that this puts on residents facing evictions and homelessness. The Centrepoint Apartments project is ready to help address this critical community Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 32 of 86 need and fulfill the city's plans to increase affordable housing options. In summary the site is ideally suited for this project. The comp plan supports higher densities here and the site is already approved for multi-family development. The relatively limited changes needed to support 239 new affordable housing units are mitigated by the design with the transition and building heights, building orientation and also the improvements to Centrepoint Way and Ustick access that will greatly improve traffic conditions. The proposed project does not compromise on quality, will provide the same great living spaces, open space and amenities, access to good schools, shopping and employment that similar market rate apartments in the area enjoy and this will be accessible to more Meridian residents, to your teachers, your med techs, any working family that is currently struggling to afford current market rents. So, for all these reasons we do ask for your approval and we would be happy to stand for any questions, myself and the entire team. Simison: Thank you, Deb. Council, any questions for the applicant? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Deborah, thanks for your presentation. A couple of quick questions on the -- if I'm -- just, again, a little history, maybe staff can help me, too. The 2022 change from Villasport to that, those were all market rate rents at that time; is that correct? Nelson: Mayor and Council Member Taylor, that's correct. Taylor: Okay. Mr. Mayor, with the change, do you -- does this project have access to the low income housing tax credits or how are you -- you know, just understanding, you know, the markets and costs and land and all this kind of stuff, how are you able to have all 239 as, you know, income based or deed restricted with, you know, for 40 years, is this just really good at your proposal? Do you have access to these tax credits? Section 8 housing? What do you have that's -- if any that's assisting you with this? Nelson: Yes. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, yes, the -- the tax credits will be utilized, not Section 8 housing, and, you know, as we pointed out really there are no compromises on the amenities and the development is a market rate quality production and so the only way to bridge the gap and those reduced rents is to have that kind of tax credit used here. So, that's how they are doing this. Taylor: Okay. And, Mr. Mayor, just a quick follow up on that question if I may. Did -- did you acquire the tax credits after 2022 or is it something you had prior? Nelson: I'm going to let the applicant address that -- address that if that's all right. Huber: Chase Huber. 37532 Southeast Fury Street, Snoqualmie, Washington. I represent the developer. As Deb was saying, it's a low income housing tax credit Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 33 of 86 project. Even if we were not associated with the prior development we are a LIHTC developer, low income housing tax credits. We plan to take it into Idaho Housing and Finance Association next year with the approval. The tax credits help us bridge equity gaps with our projects. As Deb mentioned we don't take any shortcuts on -- in terms of the quality we are building, because we have a long term view for the constructability of our assets. Every 15 years we are able to take it back through the program and renew the deed restriction. Our intention is to always maintain affordable housing as long as we can. We have done so for over 30 years in Washington. So, the intention for us is to hold this forever, maintain it as affordable housing for as long as we can and we are able to do that because of the Section 42 tax credit program which helps mitigate the hard cost that would be associated with the project. What we do not -- are not able to mitigate is the cost we pay for the land. This location comes with a premium. What makes us excited about this project is the economic mobility that the site brings to our potential tenants. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, quick follow up for Chase. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: So -- so, you don't currently have the tax credits, but you intend to use this in your application to Idaho Housing and Finance Association for next year's tax credit allowance that the state gets? Huber: That is correct. Taylor: And do you -- sorry, Mr. Mayor. Just keep going. What -- what if you don't get it? What if you are not awarded it? Because it's a competitive bid for those tax credits. So, what makes you feel certain that you will get those tax credits? Huber: Nothing is certain. The way we have -- we don't own this land. We are under contract to purchase this land from the previous developer. Once we have the land under contract we will go back in as many times as we have to to secure the competitive tax credits and bond allocation through the state agency. We have self scored this project. We are very close with Idaho Housing Finance. We have two projects underway with them right now. We are very confident it will be competitive in the future because of its proximity to amenities, which is a high scoring matrix for any project in the program. Taylor: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: From what I understand if we were to approve this, then, you know, you would get those changes. I guess my concern would be if we were to move forward and, then, Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 34 of 86 you were to not develop the project for some reason, God forbid something happens it doesn't work out, is it not true that another developer could just build market rate apartments here? Are you willing to deed restrict your development under our development agreement? I mean are you willing to follow through on the deed restriction regardless of whether you are awarded the tax credits? Huber: Yes, we are. Strader: Oh. Okay. Interesting. Thank you. Simison: Council, any -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: A couple of quick questions for -- probably for you to do, but I will direct them to Ms. Nelson. Five buildings, one two story, two three stories, two four story; correct? Nelson: That's correct. Cavener: What are the height of each of those buildings? Nelson: I might need our design team to bring that up -- Cavener: Okay. While they are bringing that up, I guess I will maybe follow up with another question. It appears that you requested a crosswalk from ACHD and they denied that request. Nelson: I will address that while Nicolette finds the best slide to show you these heights. So, Mayor, Council Member Cavener, we will continue to work with ACHD, because we would like to have a crosswalk there. We think it makes sense to not have to come up to the signal to utilize that. So, we will continue to work with them through the building permit process and the site design approval to make sure that we are able to provide some kind of delineation and -- and, hopefully, you know, with their permission a raised table to actually, you know, create a safer pedestrian environment. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up -- Simison- Councilman Cavener. Cavener: This may be a question for our staff at a later point in time. Does a requirement of the city to do that help boost your case with the highway district? Nelson: Mayor, Council Member Cavener, as you know we can't make -- we can't make them approve that kind of improvement. My recollection from the 2022 approval is that Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 35 of 86 it was requested by the Council that we work with ACHD to try to do that and, of course, we desire it as well. So, we will continue to work on that to try to see what improvement they will accept. Cavener: Okay. Let's jump back to the heights then. Walk me through the heights of each of these buildings. I know their stories, but I'm curious as to their heights. Womack: Council Members, the previous approval shown here in the exact adopted language was listed by stories, but if you would like to see height measurements you can see here 31 feet is a three story building and, I'm sorry, I'm guessing here. There we go. Fifty-six is the overall. Sorry. Fifty-five point six. The base of the building is at the 45, which is similar to the previous approval where like the window lines hit. Cavener: Okay. So, if I'm -- Mr. Mayor, Ms. Nelson, or -- or whomever, if I'm seeing this right, your three stories are 31 feet as proposed. Your four stories are proposed at 55 and a half feet and, then, the two-story is at what height? Nelson: It's going to be the same as was approved with the original project and we will try to find that. Cavener: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I think that concludes at least my questions for now. Oh, wait. Mr. Mayor, one additional one. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: if I recall the ITD staff report called for an improvement at Eagle and Ustick. I assume you are in agreement and will make that improvement; is that my understanding? Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, the -- so that affects both properties that are for sale by the seller, the -- the 2022 applicant that has the properties and so they are holding the commercial property that actually connects to Eagle. This property doesn't have that frontage. This project doesn't have that frontage. But between one of them it is required as a condition of approval. So, it will have to be done with the property. So, I don't think this applicant is a -- is objecting to that condition. It's more of a recognition that that is controlled by the seller aligned on Eagle Road. My understanding from the team is that it will not be difficult to get that done. So -- am I speaking that correctly? But I mean we are fine with the condition I guess is the short way of saying it. We just don't control that land. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Yeah. I just want to dig into the tax credit thing a little bit more with some questions. So, every year Idaho -- there is more applications than are able to be Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 36 of 86 funded. Just looking at the allocation list from just this last year, seven projects were funded, total of 268 units spread out across those -- those units. So, I'm a little bit curious how many -- you know, it's such a competitive process and we are looking at 268 that were funded last year. Yours is over 200. Help me square up some of the math and how this would work. Huber: So, there are -- there are two different programs in the Section 42 tax credit law. There is a four percent round, which is financed through tax exempt bonds provided from the state. That is what we will be going for. Those projects received less tax credits than the nine percent tax credit projects which you are referencing that are very competitive. Typically smaller projects. It's a limited resource, because the limited resource is the tax credits. Our project will be a four percent bond project, which competes for a different pool of resources that allows for development of larger projects with less financing support from the tax credits. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Just to clarify, is that the gap financing portion or -- Huber: Oh, finish your thought. Taylor: That was my thought. Huber: It -- it's -- it's -- it's not called a -- it's not considered a gap financing, it's a part of the program. So, there is four percent credits and nine percent credits. They are fundamentally different in the way the state allocates them, with the same requirements typically. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I think it's a -- it's probably a question for staff, but I just kind of want to ask it now, so I can try to get my head around it. From a legal perspective how -- how could we, you know, memorialize the deed restriction when they are offering it, but they haven't received the -- the tax credits? You know, can that become part of a development agreement? I guess my concern -- what I kind of am coming back to is, you know, what if the property changes hands again I guess is my concern and -- and, then, we don't end up getting the kind of workforce housing that we might like to see here. Parsons: So, Mayor, Members of the Council, I can try to answer that question and if Bill wants -- city attorney wants weigh in he can. But I actually had a conversation with the applicant on that and as you know this is before you with a recommendation for denial from the Commission. So, there really are no conditions of approval, but in our conditions and when we prepare the staff report for the Planning and Zoning Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 37 of 86 Commission we did have that restriction in the new DA. That was similar -- it was similar language that we used in the Woodrose Apartment project that's currently under construction. So, we felt pretty comfortable that we did it once, let's see if we can carry that forward. I had a conversation with the applicant and he was fine with the language as well, having that put in the -- in the development agreement. So, I think we are on solid ground to do that in a DA and, like you said, if it does come to fruition, obviously, they are coming back in and modifying the development agreement. The other unique part about Woodrose Apartments was the fact that the Council granted them six for rent apartments -- or market rate apartments as part of their project. So, it wasn't entirely -- and it was smaller, it was -- I think it was 46 units or 48 units if I remember correctly and six of those are at market rate and the rest were deed restrictions for 30 years. But we can certainly pull up that language and let you look at it and continue to go through -- and have it for a -- maybe a later discussion if you want to look at that language in the DA. Strader: That's okay. I kind of just wanted to hear that it's -- I saw it in your conditions, but I didn't know if -- if we felt like that was solid ground to stand on. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, I -- I would agree with Bill, I think that -- mean I can obviously work with Ms. Nelson on that, but we felt comfortable in the Woodrose Apartments in being able to create those restrictions that could survive in a development agreement if it were to change ownership. So, I think we could probably do that again. I don't -- I don't see -- I don't see that being a roadblock. Strader: Thank you. That's helpful. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, may I address that and also I have got a response to Council Member Cavener's question. Yes, we are comfortable with the condition in the development agreement. You wouldn't have the additional units or the modification allowed except as conditioned upon receipt of the -- the tax credits and -- and other performance of the affordable housing income restriction and also the -- the height that you asked for, Council Member Cavener, for two stories. Can you see that 28 seven. Cavener: Thank you. Appreciate that. Simison: So, Deb, in all the hard projects that you work on all the time, have you ever come across an opportunity to turn a private road public if the neighboring HOA would be willing to have an off-site improvement from this project done to help alleviate an obvious challenge in this area? Nelson: Mayor, it does require meeting ACHD's design specs, which I doubt these roads would. I mean -- and that's exactly what came up in the 2022 hearing that Council Member Borton got on his high horse if that's what was proposed by the developer they chose not to develop the roads to ACHD standards and he even remembered the approval for that. So, he said that's -- that's what they brought forward. Now, I know that's not, you know, these residents, you know, really focused Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 38 of 86 when they are buying their home about whether the roads -- how the roads were improved. But my understanding from ACHD and these kinds of projects that unless it is designed and has the width and the right of way to meet their specs, it's difficult to dedicate. If it does meet that and they are -- and they are willing to, then, I think it's -- it's just going to ACHD to ask them if they are willing to take over maintenance. Simison: Yeah. I guess -- you know, really -- because in order -- in order to do it you would have to remove the tree -- you would have to -- there would be a lot of impacts to do it. I just don't know how important it is, even the Council in that context if that's a -- literally a roadblock to do a work on an off-site solution and doesn't need to be a public road or just be wide enough to get adequate traffic along the road -- Nelson: Uh-huh. Simison: -- more so than turn it over in that context. So, just didn't know if you had ever worked on turning a private road into something more than a private road to accommodate traffic through an area and what that process looks and feels like. Nelson: I think it is building it to the specs. Simison: Okay. Nelson: And I feel like I have done it once, but it -- that's what it takes is it has to be built to the specs and ACHD has to be willing to believe it enhances their road network and they are willing to maintain it. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Just two questions. If I'm understanding the allocation on the tax credit, you are capped out at 2.5 million that the state could provide for this sole development; am I understanding that correct? Huber: That is not correct. Taylor: Okay. Could you clarify for me? Huber: There -- with the four percent credits there is no cap to the credits. The credits are not a limited resource per the Section 42 code. The nine percent credits are, which are a more competitive resource. So, the state gets a certain amount of tax credits in the nine percent round. Those are allocated to the nine percent projects directly. We have no association with those direct credits. Our credits are funded through the government -- or through the national level government. Our resource and our requirement is to finance 50 percent of our hard cost of our project with tax exempt bonds provided from IHFA, Idaho Housing and Finance Association. So, that is the Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 39 of 86 resource we compete for and we are also required to record a land use regulatory agreement that will deed restrict the affordable housing for the 40 year period. So, that is why we hit that number we get extra points for doing that with IHFA and we are doing that very willingly. Taylor: Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Well, I'm going to ask one more question and, then, we will stop and take a break before we get to public testimony, but we are one number and at another number, now we are another number. Why can't you stick to the current number? Just out of curiosity. I mean, obviously, you have made modifications along the way. What's magical about the number you are asking for? Huber: We have made modifications. We have taken pretty significant income hits to get to this number. We tried to bring a number to City Council that we felt was approvable, based on the denial at P&Z, 279, we felt that was a reach. We came down to 239 with the two four story structures, which we see a lot more efficiency building those structures with one foundation, one roof with those major cost items being able to get additional units underneath those major cost items really helps our bottom line and helps us justify building at a location like this. The -- the impact of losing additional units and going to the 213 under the existing MDA, it's just not feasible for us. Additionally, there is a large amount of studios in the prior development. Our project is dedicated more towards families, so one, two and three bedroom units cater better towards families and the studios ones and twos I believe under the prior development. So, both of those are really needed for us to justify the project at the current unit count. Simison: Okay. All right. Thank you very much. With that we will go ahead and recess until 8.15. Take a 15 minute recess and we will resume at 8:15. (Recess: 7:59 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.) Simison: All right. 8:15. Mr. Clerk, I assume we have a few fine people signed up this evening. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. First Toby Hall. Simison: And when you come forward state your name, address -- we are positive. Name, address, and, then you are representing the HOA. And I will just ask if you can -- I didn't realize maybe some of you -- this is the first time you have seen these new changes or heard this. While you may have had prepared testimony about one part, if you are able to speak about the proposed changes that are now in front of us I think that Council would really appreciate that as well. Hall- Yes. My name is Toby Hall. I live at 2648 East Picard and I'm representing the Village Bungalows. I'm not going to go through what I have already said. I'm not going to waste your time. One of the Commissioners brought up a very good subject. The Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 40 of 86 number of apartments and things like that is going to raise the number of people that live there and also the number of children that will be there. One of our concerns was also the number of kids that will be in the area and the number of children that will be going to school. The number of school children will be a strain on the schools in the area and also the bus systems will be operating in these areas. That's one of our concerns. Our property values. When we bought the property in the Village Bungalows, which was started four years ago, we -- we are retired people in this area. We invested in our homes and we are worried that having a low income apartment complex will devaluate our homes and that was our investment in our future and we are worried about that and with the lower income people normally you will have a little bit of vandalism. Right now our little community has had zero for four years. We are worried about that. We are not a gated community and we are -- we are a little concerned that vandalism could possibly go up. Other than that I think I pretty well covered everything and thank you for hearing me. Any questions of me? Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Hall. Hall: Yes, ma'am. Strader: Could you, please, chat a little bit about your traffic concerns again? understand kind of the dynamic here, but could you just explain again where the Village Bungalows is located in proximity to this project and kind of what the specific traffic concerns are today? Hall: Yes, ma'am, I sure can. You bet. We have one entrance and exit onto Ustick. We are about a block down from Centrepoint and what -- what happens in the morning when people are going to work at lunchtime and also going home, the traffic light will stop the traffic and it will back up all the way to our entrance, which completely blocks off. We do not have one of the little white block things that says do not block this area. Okay? Which basically blocks us completely -- completely in and that's a big concern of ours, because if we get -- if we need emergency services and things like that, there is no way for them to get through. That's a big concern of ours. And it usually lasts for about 30 minutes and it stays pretty -- pretty congested in that area. That was our -- that was our concern. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 41 of 86 Strader: Yeah. And, then, just to clarify about the property value concerns and -- and -- and those types of concerns, you know, so the proposed project, if it comes to fruition, this is kind of what I would consider a workforce housing in the sense that it's a percentage of the median income, but it's not -- it's not the same as Section 8 housing. It's -- it's a different type of product. It appears like from the renderings I saw that it was a very similar standard to the project that was previously approved here. Is there anything around like the design itself or the quality of the finishes or something that you feel like has deteriorated from the last project or is it just sort of a blanket concern? Hall: It's -- no, I think the design is very nice. I just am looking at the individuals that would actually be moving into the apartments. Their incomes, their backgrounds and things of that nature. That -- that would be my only concern. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would just urge -- just urge people to be open minded. You know, I think everyone starts at a different place in life and this definitely seems like it's the kind of development that's at least geared toward, you know, teachers, families -- I think it's a little bit unfair to sort of characterize all low income housing as kind of having people sort of expecting a certain behavior from people and I don't know if that's totally fair. So, I -- I just wanted to sort of have a dialogue about that. Hall: Understand. Strader: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Hall, nice to see you again. Nice to see you again this evening. A couple of questions -- Hall: Thank you for stopping me. Cavener: Listen, you watch any City Council meeting you are going to see me make six or seven mistakes, so you are just at one. I'm way ahead of you. You are just fine. Don't even worry about it. A couple quick questions for you. This is a unique project in that the schools can actually accommodate the students. You were here I think for our conversation for the last agenda item. I had some real concerns about that project, because it would put kids in a school that's over capacity. This particular project, the elementary, middle and high school can -- can accommodate the students fairly easily. So, I don't see that same concern that you have about -- about students and so I just -- I wanted to give you a chance to respond and then -- and maybe a follow-up question Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 42 of 86 kind of similar in the nature of Council Member Strader. If -- if this project was at the original amount of units that the previous project was approved at and if this wasn't a -- an affordable housing option, would you be here tonight testifying in opposition? Hall: I had no idea what Ada county education -- you know, the school capacities and things like that were. It was only a concern of my community, you know, of can our schools accommodate this many people? It was just a concern of theirs and I was just passing it on. Cavener: Got it. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: One, I think there is no more of a thankless job than serving on a homeowners association board. So, thank you for doing that. And I think that you could at least pass along to your residents that that's an issue the City Council takes very very serious and at least -- again, I don't know how the vote is going to go on this particular project tonight, but you at least feel really comfortable that the schools that this development would support, if approved, has the ability to accommodate those students. Hall: I will pass that on. Cavener: Thank you. Appreciate it, Mr. Hall. Simison: Council, additional questions? All right. Thank you very much. Hall: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Johnson: And, Mr. Mayor, apologies to everybody if I mispronounce your name. I'm trying to read. It looks like Sal Villa Senor. Simison: Good evening. Villa Senor: My name is Sal. I'm here with my wife Kim Villa Senor. We live at 2887 East Bourbon Street. We are right in the corner next to a park. Our main concerns really are traffic. We love it. That -- it's -- you know, we -- Meridian does need this type of housing. We totally agree with that. We have no concerns over that. It's just the area that they are proposing to put it in. It's just one of the highest traffic areas in our community, Eagle and Ustick. If you were to live there you would understand from Records to Eagle, just to get through there, it takes three traffic lights. Like Mr. Hall said, on the other side you can take up to 30 minutes just to cross that light. So, if you are going to add, what, 239 apartments, I don't know what the average is, 1.5 per apartment for every one bedroom, multiply that, how many cars? Typically it's one to two cars per. So, add all that traffic and it's going to be a zoo, you know, for the elderly, for all our community at Jackson Square, it's already -- try to get to Centrepoint. So, we Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 43 of 86 only have Centrepoint to get out through. The improvements they are proposing is nothing. Adding a left lane? That does nothing for us. All we ask you to, please, take consideration that our major concern is the traffic. How are we going to get in and out with all this traffic coming from everywhere. Yes, they are beautiful apartments. I have been in construction since the '90s. I have built apartment complexes, houses, everything. The heights are a concern for our neighbors. Apartments are beautiful. Amenities are great. It has nothing to do with children as far as I'm concerned or my wife. It's basically the traffic. And the values of our homes. Like Mr. Hall said, we all bought it for future. Once his apartment complex is built it's going to be a different story for us. But, please, the major thing is please take consideration the traffic issue. Thank you for all your service and everything you do for us. Simison: Thank you. So, Council, any questions? Oh, you are good. Thank you. Villa Senor: Good? Simison: You're good. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Carrie Gammon. Gammon: Hi. My name is Carrie Gammon. I live at 3055 North Centrepoint Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. While I do actually support projects like this, I think this is the wrong place to do it. I think it is putting too many people, too many cars in not that large of a space. I do want to point out as well this picture actually right here -- this house -- this house is my house. It is 61 feet away from the building. My backyard is 61 feet from the building. The seven windows on that side of my house are 61 feet from that building, two of which are bedrooms, one is a big bathroom window. I don't know what I'm supposed to do about that. Just put blackout curtains in all my windows, so I have nothing to see. I don't like that idea and I don't think that's really fair to put something that close, not only to me, but to my neighbors and also there is neighbors on Leslie Way that it's going to be looking directly into their houses and backyards. Traffic. I know it's going to get brought up a lot, but traffic is a huge problem. Where Centrepoint feeds into Ustick you cannot get out of there at certain points of the day, it backs up all the way, so that you can't go anywhere for several light turns. Sometimes even the traffic on Ustick backs up to the point where you just simply can't get out and you have to sit and wait. There is a left turn lane. Doing a dedicated left turn lane is really not going to help anything. There is the right turn lane is a huge problem and any access -- any overflow of parking for any reason, the very first car that decides to park on Centrepoint will be in front of my house and all the way down the street unless they are allowed to park on the public Centrepoint -- I don't even know if they can, but there is not enough room to let those cars be parked there or even going in and out. There is only room for two people going each direction and I don't see how adding that many people and that many cars is going to be of benefit to anything. I don't know if what's being built is worth the detriment to our neighborhood and I think that's something that really needs to be considered, because with all the plans, projects, this one scares me the most and I really just feel this is not the right place for it. Thank you. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 44 of 86 Simison: Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Was it Ms. Gammon? Gammon: Yes. Strader: Got it. So, just to clarify and looking for feedback. So, currently they are entitled -- not that -- there is a property owner that owns this property that is currently entitled to build a very similar project. So, they are -- there already could be built a two story building in close proximity to your home either way. So, I guess I'm -- I'm kind of just curious about your feedback about these 26 additional units. Is it -- is it your -- your -- your concerns are like blanket concerns that would apply to any multi-family project here? Do you have specific concerns about the changes to what could be developed as proposed or is it just kind of a blanket concern? Any more units is detrimental in your opinion? Gannon: I think the amount of units that is -- already was approved I think it's already too many. It's not just -- if they are going to be, you know, looking in, whoever it is, yes, that is a huge concern of mine. I understand that maybe someone is approved to build that, but you are putting a ton of different people, not just like necessarily a business or a one story or whatever it is, but this Building D here it's -- all those people will be right there and the traffic from this -- I am concerned, because I am the first house and so no matter how many are in there between the new -- the new approvals or between the first ones it's still too many for that area. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just one more question. If -- if Centrepoint Way were to be marked as no parking would that help you with your concerns? Gammon: It would help me with my concerns, but I also feel like there has to be some kind of amendment to them going through the neighborhood, because it's our private drives and Centrepoint is the only way to get in and out. There is one additional over by the roundabout by businesses, but that's totally not a great place to go in and out, because there is no light there. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Thank you. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 45 of 86 Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Elizabeth Gammon. E.Gammon: I'm Elizabeth Gammon -- Simison: If you can just speak into one of the microphones. Choose one of the mics. E.Gammon: This one? Simison: Either one. E.Gammon: 3055 Centrepoint Way. Elizabeth Gammon. And so far -- Simison: Stay -- stay speaking into a microphone. E.Gammon: Everyone who has been up here I agree with them. I want to tell you a little bit more about that house. First of all, that apartment is too close to the house and also it is right up against Centrepoint. Plus it has trees and things there. Pulling out of that driveway you cannot see anyone coming hardly with that right there and our house and the house right next to us has the same problem and they have to go around that thing. There are people that come from Kohl's area. When they go in they can't turn around and go out to Eagle, so they turn -- then they come in here and they turn around there. There have been several times with me trying to pull out that almost got hit. They don't slow down and there is just too many people coming in. Sometimes when I'm pulling out there is four or five cars coming in. Also if there are people coming from North Centrepoint where there is apartments there and the people from Kohl's that are coming through -- so, it's tons and tons of traffic. There have been many apart -- many accidents right there on Ustick and Eagle and right there on Ustick and Centrepoint. More than once. Also the people that come and go out that special way out to Eagle and, then, they will come back in that way when they -- they are not careful when they go and when they come back that way there is a stop sign, four out of cars already do not stop. So, that's another problem for us to cut -- to go through and, then, south of Centrepoint is crooked and they can't see people coming and doing that, so there is tons and tons of traffic and one of my main concerns is exactly where that apartment is right there on the edge and I would also like to know are they building a fence to block things and are they looking and they can see in the yard -- in all the yards, our yard, the next yard, yards behind and so I'm worried about so many people there moving around. They are going to come through, because so many do that already. People that go to the places over there, they come through that way, too. It's just -- so many times when have been pulling out I have seen four or five cars coming in, not necessarily people who live there, so if they will be coming from those apartments to get in and out and also if they are going out to Eagle it's kind of hard to pull out onto Eagle from there. Simison: Thank you, Elizabeth. Your time has expired. E.Gammon: Yeah. And I just agree with everybody else. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 46 of 86 Simison: Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a comment. I believe I read in the application that there will be an eight foot masonry wall, but I don't want to misspeak, so, hopefully, the applicant could address that in their final comments for you so you have some clarity on what could happen there in terms of fencing. E.Gammon: They should build the wall, because we have to take care of that one. Strader: Fair enough. E.Gammon: And they also talked about coming out to that area where we walk and we have to pay for everything there. Why would they have so many other people come in there and we are paying. Simison: Thank you. E.Gammon: Okay. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Janet Bailey. Bailey: Good evening. My name is Janet Bailey. 2925 North Centrepoint Way. My concern with this is I came to the Planning and Zoning. My question to you guys is that why are they here before you? Planning and Zoning denied it, because they -- and I will quote her. She said it's too much for the space. So, why are they pushing the -- I feel like they are pushing the envelope and they are -- they are bound and determined to put this -- these apartments in front of us. I started -- I have lived there 12 and a half years. I started the Neighborhood Watch. We have had graffiti on the back masonry wall and the masonry wall you were talking about is to close off the homes on Leslie -- between Leslie and where they are putting that other one. So, I have watched the traffic. I live right in the middle of Centrepoint and they -- it doesn't matter, they -- all these cars will zoom down the street. I have been instructed from Meridian police that maybe it's not a good idea to yell at them to slow down, because everybody does and I thought, oh, but the traffic is bad. The apartments is going to cause increased foot traffic through our neighborhood, all -- people from whomever wherever. It will cause graffiti. Last year my husband's tires were slashed. The people across the street from me had things stolen from their porch, so it is increasing. No, there wasn't that much when I started the Neighborhood Watch, but now, yes, it is constantly increasing. There is all kinds of strangers will be coming through there. I back up to the path. There is people out there at midnight. What are they doing out there? It's pitch black. I mean people have driven cars on that and we have to maintain the road, the path, we have to maintain the -- all of that. It comes out of our money. So, all this increase that he is going to put on this Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 47 of 86 corner is going to spill over into our subdivision. It's inevitable. They are going to want to walk the paths. They are going to want to walk their dogs. Kids. Whatever. So, I don't think that this is the best idea. There is so much land that they could utilize these apartments and I'm not against the -- the low income, but not there. When I moved in they told me they were going to put in a strip mall right in that space and a doctor's office -- medical office of some sort across. If I had known that they were going to do this -- because I feel like I have been fighting for 12 and a half years for neighborhood and we all have -- then I would never have bought that house. I already know and I have been instructed from a contractor that if, you know, these do go through, then, I should probably sell my house before they are done, because my house value is going to tank. I think we all are. That's our investment. We -- it's a retirement thing for all of us. So, please, please, really think about this. It's really going to change everything for us and not in a good way. Simison: Thank you, Janet. Council, any questions? Thank you. And, Chris, can you turn up the -- Johnson: I did. Simison: -- a little bit. Johnson: Carrie Ann -- I think Bailey. I can't read the last name. Carrie Ann. Britzman: Good evening Mayor and City Council Members. My name is Carrie Ann Britzman. I live at 2947 North Centrepoint Way. Simison: Get closer to the -- that way everyone behind you can also hear. Britzman: My concern is pretty much what everyone else is. It's about the traffic. This kind of project is perfect just not on our tiny little corner. Like everyone else has said, coming and going from there it's hard for us to come and go. It takes a long time. It's a safety thing for emergency crews and that to get into us, to get out. Just kind of mimicking what everyone else has said. It's just a safety thing for the traffic coming in and out. Love this project, just not on our little corner. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Monda Holsinger. Holsinger: Good evening. My name is Monda Holsinger. My address is 2836 North Centrepoint Way. As the Jackson Square HOA president I support the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation for denial of this conditional use permit. I am opposed to this development for the following reasons: A high density development. -- Sorry, am I too loud? I'm an old vice principal of a high school, so used to using my voice. A high density development in this location will cause traffic that will not only impact the surrounding areas, but will ultimately affect the new development livability as Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 48 of 86 as well. Traffic flow. You have heard it a lot tonight. It is a major concern. The addition of 295, 279, 239, 213 dwelling units with access down two narrow entry streets, Centrepoint Way and Cajun Lane, will impact the ability of both emergency vehicles and normal traffic to access -- to access this neighborhood. Negative impact on existing adjacent neighborhood. The existing residential neighborhood will be negatively impacted by this much higher density development. Additional traffic noise, building height, will all have negative effects for neighbors. The additions of approximately -- I don't know, you can do the math about the vehicles, but what about the fact that they will have guests? So, now where are those people parking? Additional vehicles with the only ingress and egress being Centrepoint Way would negatively impact not only the homeowners, renters currently residing in Jackson Square, and the adjacent condominiums, apartments and the existing commercial businesses, but the many commuters who already travel these corridors. The original zoning for this property was for commercial development. A development with this high density would have a negative impact on the neighborhoods adjacent to it in a way that a well-planned commercial development would not. I ask respectfully that the original 2008 zoning commercial general for this parcel be maintained and the conditional use permit for the development be denied to maintain the integrity of the existing residential parcels and not further congest already congested corridors, Ustick and Eagle. Again, please, maintain the commercial general, excuse me, for this parcel. We are all a little panicked, because it -- the traffic is horrific now and so now just picture -- just put yourself there with 239 -- 400 cars, whatever it is -- it's not even conceivable. So, thank you for your time, thank you for listening to us and, again, I ask that you deny this. Thank you. Do you have any questions? Simison: Council, questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Not so much a question, but maybe a comment, because I think it's important for you and your fellow residents to also understand what actions are before the Council tonight. So, there is not a request for an annexation before the Council. There is not a request for zoning; right? There is a request to modify an existing development agreement that had been granted with a previous property that came in for annexation and zoning. So, your request for the Council to move back to a commercial zoning is not an action the Council can take tonight. Holsinger: Okay. Cavener: It's not something that is being requested before us, because the Council -- and Council Member Strader did a great job of walking us through this little bit earlier, but if this is your first time in a Council meeting -- I have been here for ten years and sometimes I don't understand it. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 49 of 86 Holsinger: Sure. Cavener: So, what will be helpful to you and your neighbors -- Holsinger: Okay. Cavener: -- is the Council cannot take an action that you are requesting to move back to a different -- Holsinger: Can you deny the -- these 239 apartments? Cavener: The City Council can deny the development agreement request, but if the Council were to do that the existing development agreement for 200 and -- Holsinger: Thirteen. Cavener: -- 13 units would still remain, the annexation would still remain, the zoning would still remain and this applicant, the previous landowner, could begin construction on that project tomorrow. A previous Council has already made that decision. Holsinger: Thank you. Cavener: So, I just I want to make sure for -- just for your understanding as somebody who is engaged in the process and spending your time, I just want to make sure that you feel like that you understand what actions and what decisions the Council can make before them tonight. Holsinger: So, do you have the power to deny this so that our traffic is not astronomically horrible? Cavener: The Council has an ability to deny the development agreement modification request. Holsinger: Okay. Cavener: But, again, if we were to do that that doesn't deny the existing -- Holsinger: Got it. Cavener: -- development agreement. Holsinger: Right. Cavener: They are asking to make some changes -- Holsinger: Right. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 50 of 86 Cavener: -- to the existing agreement. We as a Council can debate those merits and make that decision. If we ultimately decide not to approve the applicant's request, the existing zoning, the existing annexation and the existing development agreement remains intact. Holsinger: Okay. All right. So, come in and do a little driving on Centrepoint Way. Cavener: Thank you for your testimony. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Barry Holsinger. B.Holsinger: My name is Barry Holsinger. I live at 2836 North Centrepoint Way and I'm also a board member on the Jackson Square HOA. My concerns are a little bit different than anybody's expressed. I have been in charge of landscaping in the Jackson Square HOA for the last eight or ten years -- probably ten years and there is a vat or a Nampa Irrigation District port right there by Eagle. It's right there by Discount Tire and it's the only vat that -- that serves the irrigation water to all the areas, including our development and for about a mile square there and for the last ten years we have been fighting with Nampa School District to give us enough water to water our areas -- our common areas and our lawns and everything in the Jackson Square HOA. If they put this development in there, which they have already approved I understand, if they put that in there it's going to be an area that's going to be brown and it's going to look awful. It's not going to have any water, because we have already fought for all the water that's there and there just isn't anymore. So, I would ask you to consider that. The other thing is the elementary schools -- the elementary school that serves this area is I believe Riverview and it's not very far away, but the problem is that if they put another 20 or 30 or 40 kids from these apartments in there, there is no way to access that -- that elementary. You cannot walk straight through our development and go through Leslie right there and get to that elementary. The only way is to bus those kids all the way around to Riverview or whatever it is -- Rivercraft Elementary. Simison: River Valley. B.Holsinger: River Valley. Sorry. River Valley. I should have known that. I have lived there for ten years. But there is no way to access it except to bus them all the way around. None of those kids are going to walk straight down Eagle. There is no sidewalk on Eagle. There is no way to get down there except, you know, right with the traffic. Kids are going to be in a huge danger if they do that and you know they are not going to want to bus all the way around, they just -- kids just don't like that. As a former educator I know that. So, I ask that you consider not just the water, but the fact that the other elementary that would be accessible is clear down Ustick about two or three miles and that's going to increase traffic again. So, I respectfully ask you to think about other issues. Simison: Thank you, Barry. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 51 of 86 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: It's okay, sir. It's just a comment, so you don't have to come back up. You are good. But just a comment for the applicant. I did notice kind of a particular comment in the school district's letter regarding the children's route to school. If you could just address that in your comments I think that is an important issue. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Vince Skinner. Skinner: Hi. Good evening, everyone. Vince Skinner. 3023 North Centrepoint Way. Native Idahoan. I have seen a lot of positive growth since living here. I remember when Lowe's was the only thing, other than the farm houses and for the most part the growth in the area has been very very positive. When moving to this location all of us were told a very similar story that there would be a strip mall placed there and with this new development I'm significantly -- significantly concerned about the increase in traffic and the significant increase in residential concentration. This is not congruent with the surrounding neighborhood. Traffic in the area, as already testified by others, is already very very high and I'm not going to go into that in too much detail. Regarding the residential concentration -- and this was a significant concern of the Planning and Zoning and even was mentioned tonight in previous statements by the Pivot Point Subdivision, that they stated that their concentration was 5.5 per acre. With the proposed development this would increase the residential saturation in the area by 249 percent. That's with the 239 units -- excuse me -- 292 units. I'm sorry. And, then, with 239 units that would increase it by 242 percent. So, a significant increase. So, there are no other residential developments of similar build and, height four stories, et cetera, within a half mile radius of the proposed development. Look it up on -- on Google Maps. There is no others. There is others farther outside of that, but within that radius there is no other developments of similar size. As Ms. Strader asked earlier regarding similar height, again, there are no other residential buildings that are similar in that area. The last aspect is skin in the game. Most of the representatives of the applicant, you know, the -- we have various people that do not live in this area. They either live up in the foothills. They live in Snoqualmie. They live in downtown Boise. And I -- I would like to ask that -- think about your residence and would you like this similar type of development to be placed in your residence and I -- I have -- I already know the answer to that. So, I'm fine with a lower concentration option as this would minimize the traffic and be more congruent with the area's residential concentration as it is. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 52 of 86 Cavener: Appreciate your testimony tonight and I'm asking this question because we have heard a lot of comments about the traffic impact and I think that's something this City Council has been really sympathetic to. Those of us that have lived here a long time have seen those changes and those wonderful five minute commutes have now turned to 15 and 20 minute commutes are very very frustrating. The -- the staff report from ACHD, though, says that this development would generate fewer trips and fewer trips in the p.m. hour than the previous recreation center that was proposed and so I'm walking through just kind of where I'm at is I'm sympathetic to -- to the transportation challenges and if I have the subject matter expert in the highway district telling me this development would generate less traffic, I'm interested in that, but what -- we have heard a lot from folks testifying tonight is that they are concerned about more traffic. So, I'm -- I'm trying to understand where people are coming from that, you know, one more car messes up my commute. I don't like one more car. But the approved use from the Council before the -- the -- the rezone had a higher trip generation. So, this applicant is essentially saying we are bringing in less cars than what the Council previously approved. So, just help me understand kind of your perspective and kind of how you would rationalize that. Skinner: Just like anything else, I would look at other opinions as well and/or studies. Have a -- maybe a third party of some sort conduct another study that doesn't have maybe a little bit -- or has a little bit more independence just right off. That's probably the -- the first aspect. And, then, those of us who live there, we -- we see it and other -- other tight -- and we live it like on a daily -- and crossing the street to go to the little area across, it's -- it's already busy right now with 239 units, plus the people, plus the cars and two X that, I mean you are -- you are talking 600 vehicles potentially in that area. So, it's, again, not against the -- developing that property, I'm all for that just, it's just the concentration alone is significantly concerning, so -- Simison: Thank you very much. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Bud Compher. Compher: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Bud Compher and I reside at 8825 Victoria Lane in Middleton, Idaho. I'm here tonight, privileged to work with NeighborWorks Boise, which is a non-profit community housing development organization and we have served the Treasure Valley for 42 years. We provide a comprehensive network of housing solutions, including rental apartments similar to what's in front of you tonight, Centrepoint. Housing Trust. Homeshare Hub. Homebuyers Education. Rental Counseling. Pre-purchase counseling. Mortgage lending. Single family development and acquisition rehab. We have been able to partner with the City of Meridian for the last for 20 -- 2010. So, we are almost 20 -- 14 years offering necessary down payment assistance and mortgage assistance and emergency repair through low to moderate income families here in Meridian. Additionally, I'm here to -- this evening to express support of the modified proposal Centrepoint affordable housing community, which provides certainly much needed, as discussed, affordable workforce housing for residents in Meridian and is close to transit centers. Over the past four years Meridian Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 53 of 86 population has grown, not a surprise to any of you, by over 25,000 people and conservative projections from COMPASS project that that growth will be up to 160,000 more people by 2040. According to a Boise State University study presented to the City Council in 2023, Meridian does not have -- I should quote -- Meridian does not have enough housing to meet the need, leaving cost burdened families and children. The study also shows that many people who work in Meridian can't or won't live -- don't live in Meridian. The study -- end quote. The study solution here I wanted to get to, quote, allow more affordable projects to be built along high traffic areas. I think this is exactly what Centrepoint affordable housing complex wants to provide. NeighborWorks understands it first hand, the challenges and oppositions as we create new projects and developments as Centrepoint faces here tonight. We have eight developments throughout the Treasure Valley, 131 lots in varying stages and four affordable multi- family projects in Nampa, Boise and Meridian similar to Centre -- Centrepoint Apartments, our nonprofit pocket neighborhoods are all in-fill, so I understand the constraints with the project. I wanted to share looking back at our projects now that have been complete and the time spent working with communities through the opposition and learning to listen has been valuable for us as we move forward. Our communities have now become a hub for the neighborhood or the space where school projects come, where residents teach cooking classes and have an opportunity to share with other residents and I will close on this. We all started in a home. I expect we will all go home. Homes are where jobs go to sleep at night and Centrepoint Apartments provides more than just a home where all income levels can thrive in this premier community. Urge you to accept and consider the approval tonight for the affordable housing opportunity in front of you. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Landon Johnson. L.Johnson: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members. My name is Landon Johnson. I live at 2940 North Centrepoint Way in Meridian in the Jackson Square HOA. Straight to the point. I would like to see you guys deny this as is. The modification of the CUP, but I understand the basis being the 2022 development agreement. This is only asking for, what, 20 something more units. They have come down a lot since the Planning and Zoning Commission, which is nice. I like a lot of the stuff that they have done. Some two-story buildings. Great. A lot of good progress. I wish I was around for the original plan, but 215 right there -- it's not great and those big buildings are definitely not -- you know, they are not good with the surrounding committee -- community. It's a bit of a stark contrast. Like I said, they are doing better. I understand they are entitled to go and start construction tomorrow with 215 units. Traffic is a big concern. This just is an example of poor planning. There should be a bus route on Ustick. There should be what they were basing their development on is assuming people would use the bus and not add to the traffic congestion problem with just cars. I would like to see this go forward as more of a land effort with the city, the county, state funds, the developer. I don't think they are able to do that. Therefore, if it's a yes or no, I would say stick to the 213 or 215 units. I just don't think it's really compatible as it is proposed to the Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 54 of 86 development of Jackson Square and the townhouses next to us. I would like to see more transition. But, again, I applaud them for trying to at least come down on the units and address some of the community's concerns from the last meeting. No problem with affordable housing. I do like things mixed up a little bit more, but I understand a lot of my neighbors, members of the community, is worried about vandalism and whatnot. I know you guys and I don't envy your position on this development hearing tonight. You are not supposed to really look at that, you know, as kind of proven I guess to be false in a lot of studies with lower income housing more crime. Everybody pretty much still goes by that stereotype and I get that, but that's what a lot of people are concerned about. I hear the beep. Yeah. I -- before I would just like to say better planning and not rush your decision tonight. I don't think that's possible, so I would urge you to deny it. But thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Joseph Lemay. Lemay: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. My name is Joseph Lemay. I reside at 2989 North Centrepoint Way in Meridian. Part of the Jackson Square neighborhood. I have previously presented issues and concerns regarding the Centrepoint Apartments. The first one -- everybody's talked about traffic. I think we have beat that enough. My biggest concern is the building height. It is my understanding that the city requires three story buildings at a maximum height in that area. Asking for a four story building is -- why -- why would you have rules and laws to just say can you just waive this. Let's do something that nobody wants. That is -- that whole thought process has gone through multiple iterations of the development agreement. Can we change the landscaping? Can we not do this? Can we not do this? Can we go away from all the city standards? That in itself should be enough to deny the application. I'm not against development and I will say that. I'm not even totally against the apartment complex there. I don't like it. I don't like the fact that it's lower income. Case in point. There -- there is a walkway behind all of our homes that are single family larger homes. Two weeks ago somebody went down that walkway, jumped over an eight foot brick wall and broke into an occupied house on Leslie. They used that as a nice convenient hiding place. I don't want to down talk people that are lower income. We were probably all there at one point. But it does invite the more nefarious people that are going to be doing that. Thankfully I have a security system around my house. The Ada County Sheriff came and said can I see all your video? They were trying to find this person. Turns out it was a gang coming from Columbia or something. This is the kind of things that we as homeowners are concerned about. Again we talked about traffic. I have mentioned the building height. The -- the community supports it even if I disagree with what they said. We talked about the schools being -- they can accept that. But how do those kids get to school? Meridian -- West Ada School District -- my wife is an educator. If you can walk to the school, which in theory from Centrepoint Apartments, you can walk to River Valley School. But it has you walk straight down Eagle Road. That's not a good idea. This is not a place you would want to put kids. Centennial High School is the -- is the high school that serves Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 55 of 86 us. I can tell you from personal -- that school is full. My son went there. It is overcrowded. I don't see how they can say -- and, then, I don't know their numbers, but how can they say it will work? There is just so much wrong with this and as other people have said it's completely against what Bienville Square was originally designed to do, which was commercial, office buildings, medical type things. Now, with that I understand that the City Council approved the 200 some unit apartment complex in 2020. 1 would -- I'm not against that particular thing, but that's more where this should be. Upper scale, lower -- lower people, less traffic. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, real quick. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Lemay, thanks for testifying here tonight. I think you also submitted a letter, which I had a chance to read as part of preparing for tonight's meeting. You -- you talked a little bit about building height and that's covered a lot in your letter, which is something the Council is up for deliberation tonight. It was a question I asked the applicant about. They provided heights for each of the buildings. Can you help me understand, based on the information they provided, is -- what is an acceptable level of height that you would be supportive of? Lemay: I don't know that there will be a height. I'm -- three stories versus a four story building -- you can add ten to 15 feet depending on how you build the building. I wouldn't be able to stand here and say that's a 12 foot ceiling or a 20 foot ceiling; right? But when you start adding the additional -- and, again, more and more apartments is where -- where they are -- where they are trying to make their numbers work. Cavener: Well -- and -- and for -- for your benefit, Mr. Lemay -- sorry, Mr. Mayor. The - - the Council conditions to height, you know, so that is something that is important. To your point, you could have a -- well, the -- the Villasport I think was 65 feet in height and it wasn't a -- you know, a four story facility. Lemay: Right. Cavener: And so that's -- that's where my question is if -- if -- shoot, if they can make four stories work in 30 feet -- I don't think they can -- do we have a reasonable place to object to that? But when the height -- and we heard some testimony earlier about some concern about people maybe peering out of their windows into people's backyards, those are things I think Council is very sympathetic to, which is why my line of questioning was to help me understand what you think is the acceptable height, because I -- I -- I do feel that the heights they proposed are -- are reasonable, but I definitely want to hear from those that are on the ground as to why those heights maybe a re n't. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 56 of 86 Lemay: I think, again, if you consider standing at a third story -- at the third floor of a building -- going -- any three story building and look down and what you can see versus go to the fourth floor -- I work in a four story building. What I can see from my third floor window versus what I can see from the fourth floor of the building is completely different and that's where it becomes not necessarily a feet and inches height, but where you are -- where you can see visibly into other people's homes, other people's backyards and and -- and -- and that type of thing. So, putting a number to it I couldn't do that, but -- thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Jared Schofield. Schofield: Good evening. My name is Jared Schofield. 1566 North Leslie Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. 1 did have the meeting minutes from the 2022 meeting when the -- the prior development was approved. Unfortunately, we can't go back to that and we can't go back to 14 years ago when I bought my property when it was, like other people stated commercial zone for medical, nonretail, strip mall, whatever it was going to be at that time. I would love if we could go back to that time. Unfortunately prior city council's have not allowed for that to happen at this time. Most of the things I had outlined in the -- the previous minutes I'm not going to address, because other people have -- already covered those items. I would love to chat at the end -- or at the end of my minutes -- or time about the Villasport and traffic flows there. But one of the things I did want to address -- I do back up -- or I am on the west side of this property off of Centrepoint. I do back up directly to this facility. I do think it's a great improvement over their past proposal -- the last proposal on the buildings that they are looking at doing. I do disagree with going to the four story on the two units. I hate seeing all the units because of traffic flow like they have said, but my biggest concern is actually within the school system. I do have -- my wife did actually work at River Valley, so I have first- hand knowledge. They did actually increase an additional kindergarten class three weeks ago due to the inflow of students. They are already overstaffed, they are overtaxed, they cannot get the teachers and -- and yet teachers to stay as we know. So, there is already a big burden on all of our schools in the surrounding area that in and of itself should minimize what we have and we have already approved all the apartments that are being built to the east of Copper Canary. That's going to bring a whole bunch of additional students in as it is. The additional students they are going to be in -- that are going to -- north on Centrepoint. There is a lot of students that are already coming -- going to be coming into this community because of the projects that have already been approved. So, this will only exacerbate the problem and then -- but coming back to my place on the west boundary, prior proposals starting with Villasport and the predecessors to that, always proposed that eight foot masonry wall, five foot setback off of the property line to match the existing alignment of the wall, same configuration everything else. This most recent proposal -- or, actually, the 2022 proposal actually put that actually recessing in towards the property line, creating at the time what they were saying was a dark space on the property. It actually creates a dark space on my property and on the back of -- there is a map showing the back line of my Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 57 of 86 property and the dark -- dark space that is created by moving that wall back onto there. Just like was discussed, the -- the safety and security of that zone, it creates it where people can jump back in there and be completely concealed, so -- and that's kind of what I have for now. Do you guys have any questions? Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor, real quick. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sir, in your -- in your testimony you touched on -- it sounds like your -- your wife works at River Valley and that you said that school's over capacity or -- so, the school reports to us there is 468 students. You say that number is not correct? Schofield: That is correct. But based on the number of available teachers is over capacity. Cavener: Got it. Schofield: So -- and that -- and that is the issue that River Valley has had -- not only River Valley, but all the community schools around here, we -- and, I'm sorry, just -- we cannot pay our teachers enough. Due to that we cannot retain our teachers in these schools, especially when we get into areas that they start getting too many students in their class, the stress gets too high, they can go elsewhere, they can go to Caldwell, they can go to Nampa, they can go elsewhere where the numbers are not as high, that pay is going to be better. You know, it's just a better environment for them. So, we get the short end of the stick and, unfortunately, we -- that is going to continue to be a problem unless -- I mean that's a whole other topic to figure out how to help our teachers on that side of it. Cavener: Yeah. Schofield: But -- but because we put in another development that does actually play -- have a direct impact and a direct consequence when it's all said and done. Cavener: Thank you. Schofield: You're welcome. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Steve Grant. Grant: My name is Steve Grant. I live at 1534 North Leslie Way in Meridian. My property is just west of that -- of the proposed project. I'm sure the applicant's proposed density is driven by economics, like most everything else in life. However, their ability to be profitable shouldn't be the catalyst approving this project. It's nice that they have Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 58 of 86 agreed to put a left-hand turn lane on Centrepoint, but I think the -- the density that -- with the traffic coming in and out of the project is going to be -- that will help, but it won't eliminate the problem. I'm not in the habit of reading traffic studies, but I wonder if they are geared more towards trips versus the access and the density access in the -- in the -- in the locations that they are -- they are talking about, because I think even though there may be fewer trips, I think there is still a huge issue with -- with congestion as has been talked about abundantly tonight. Another issue involves parking. It's not unusual for a renter to sublease. That's against the rules I'm sure, but -- but it's done all the time and if somebody who comes to live with -- in one of those apartments, there is no parking spot, where they going to go? Adjacent streets would be my guess. That will create conflict and safety issues with -- with neighbors. If this -- if this project is approved I hope that -- and I understand that -- that they are asking for a waiver, but I think if -- if they didn't -- if the economics were right they would have already been started -- they would have already started this project. They -- they need this -- this additional capacity to make this project profitable I'm sure. Just another comment about the masonry wall on the western boundary. It's -- it's important that -- that for aesthetics, as well as everything else, to have that beyond the same sight line, at the same height, with the same materials. When this wall was originally built a number of years ago the developer didn't follow the specs that were given. I could go into a number of details there, but it's irrelevant really. Just -- I hope that that would be a consideration. Parking and traffic congestion was a concern a few years ago during City Council meetings, which, Mr. Cavener, you were probably part of when the Dance -- the -- the -- I guess the dance hall was being proposed. Villasport had -- had approval, but the dance hall and the nightclub was denied because they didn't have a cross-parking agreement and so, again, parking and traffic is a -- has been an issue and will continue to be an issue for this area. Thank you for your time. Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you. Johnson: And, Mr. Mayor, there are other names, but that's everyone who put a checkmark that they wanted to speak. Simison: If you would like to testify, please, come up to the microphone. And we have nobody online, so just people in the room. Stern: I think I was on the back. But Doug Stern, 2793 North Centrepoint. I guess I'm not a good owner, because I had no idea of all the stuff that was approved before. mean until I found out about this -- this density and, then, what Councilman Cavener said about how you don't -- you can't stop this, I mean you are putting oil where water is. This should never have been this type of density and if any of you lived where we live we wouldn't be here tonight, because -- I mean I guess we should have fought it more or harder. I don't know if any of you guys were here four years ago or whatever when it got approved, where the -- was the neighborhood not adamant about stopping this? I mean I don't understand how we even got here. These are half million dollar custom homes and you are putting a ton of apartments right next to them. I don't also know if you know of the current traffic issues that are -- been generated just by Dutch Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 59 of 86 Brothers. When you are trying to get in Dutch Brothers the only way you can get in is to make a right-in off of Ustick; right? So, everybody who wants to go to Dutch Brothers, if they are coming down Eagle Road, they have to go Ustick and, then, they have to come into our neighborhood and make a U-turn where the other folks are -- have issue or -- and I have seen this every single day going to and from work -- they make an illegal U- turn in front of Kohl's. You haven't had an accident yet, but you will. I mean that's a horrible -- they don't have a right-in and right-out in order to access Dutch Brothers and I mean, like I said, I see it every single day. It was -- you are forcing people to -- in our neighborhood make a U-turn and come back out and that's without 300 more cars and, then, that roundabout that you see off Cajun, half the people do not go around the roundabout. Their left eye is looking at the cars coming into the roundabout and if they can time it they speed up through the roundabout and don't go around it. Let's add 300 more cars that don't know how to use roundabouts into an area that can't absorb it now. So, there is so many red flags -- and the argument about walking to the parks, you are seriously going to walk over -- walk to Eagle Road, walk across Eagle Road, hoping that -- and praying that the people who are going 55 miles an hour are actually going to stop and get off their phones long enough to stop and you are going to walk across Eagle Road and go there. I also saw the bike repair thing, which didn't make sense to me before, but it does now for all the bike-car accidents they got to have a place to fix the bikes. I own two bikes and I have to drive to a safer part of town in order to ride them. Nobody's going to ride a bike around there. Anyway, thank you for your time. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody -- come on up, sir. If there is anybody else who wants to testify if you just want to come and sit in the front row, you can just come up when they are done. Vrba: My name is Jeff Vrba. I live at 3005 North LeBlanc Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. You guys have heard from me as the vice-president of the homeowners association for every single one of those meetings -- the Villasport. When we went ahead and put the other one in. Our homeowners are against it. I was told before when I was in a meeting that you guys must not really be too concerned unless you have the homeowners here. You can see what the homeowners actually thought. Two big things I'm concerned with with this going in. They say they have 523 parking spots for their facility. That's if they get their conditional use permit. If they don't get that conditional use permit will they have enough to offset the homes that are going in there. Right around 486 cars if they have the 230 plus that they are trying to. The other thing I'm concerned with is you -- they brought up about Cajun Way being a private road and it was in the original development agreement. That original developer's agreement was for small businesses going in there, not for the kind of traffic that's going to be generated for all the extra cars that could possibly go in that way to get off on Eagle Road. That is being maintained currently right now by the homeowners associations in that area. If something were to happen on that road and the road gets damaged, our HOA will have to come up with the money to repair it right now, because it is private. If you elect to go forward with this establishment we would like to see some kind of changes to that, too, where they will have to pay for maintaining that road there, too. I know we can't say anything about the 213 homes, but the extra rooms that are being put on here, please, go no to those. If Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 60 of 86 they were that concerned with nickel and diming everything why aren't they looking for a cheaper property to put their -- their facility on? I'm sure there is much cheaper areas of land that's close to resources and everything else that they need to put their property on, instead of this higher priced lot of land there. I have been living in that home -- my home there for -- since 2015. 1 was told doctor's offices and strip malls when I moved in. It was changed to Villasport, which I fought against, part of the HOA. It was, then, brought up about this again, too. I came for that meeting, too. Both with Planning and Zoning and with the City Council. Got voted down for that one again. When is this going to stop? Why do we even have development agreements if we could change those at the drop of a hat? Thank you for your time. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you. Webb: Thank you for listening to me, even though I didn't sign up to speak. My name is Becky Webb and I live at 2880 North Centrepoint Way, Meridian. 83646. And I have a unique perspective that I didn't realize I had, so I thought I would come up and speak, because I have lived in my neighborhood since 2012. My kids were in kindergarten, second grade and a high schooler when I moved in. We had all these great ideas about look at Kleiner Park is getting built. The Village wasn't there yet. There wasn't a light at River Valley. I almost killed myself trying to leave River Valley after I signed my kids up for school crossing Eagle Road. So, I was really -- really thankful that a light got put in there. But we thought we are going to be able to ride our bikes to the park. We moved to this area from Middleton that had no parks to speak of and no shopping. A pretty miserable place to live if you ask me unless you have property. So, we were excited to be close to amenities and parks with little kids. After living there for 12 years our kids are in -- my last one is getting ready to graduate from high school. We slowly stopped going for walks and we immediately stopped going for bike rides in that area, thinking that we could get to Kleiner Park from our house, because we have had so many close calls. We have almost been ran over -- I can't tell you how many times, because we would take our dog for a walk out on Ustick, try to cross Eagle Road, walk over behind to Kleiner Park. We don't walk to Kohl's. We won't cross the street. We have almost been ran over I'm telling you multiple times. Our kids have had to wait for the school bus for Centennial out on Ustick. We asked them to move the school bus stop to within the neighborhood and they said, no, because it's too hard for the bus to get through the neighborhood with all the cars that are parked in there. They absolutely would not move the school bus stop to within the neighborhood. They expected our kids to stand out on Centrepoint and Ustick with cars whizzing by and those people do not obey the speed limit. It is crazy how fast people are driving down Ustick past Centrepoint when there is not stop and go traffic and that needs to be addressed with the West Ada School District about where the school bus stops are going when this apartment complex that has been approved goes in. But with that being said I wanted to discuss also the Villasport. I was in support of the Villasport going in, because we were going to have somewhere to go exercise and it was going to be good for the health of the people that live in the neighborhood and the type of traffic that Villasport was going to generate is not the same kind of traffic that an apartment complex generates, because they don't stay parked and stay at home, that they will workout for an hour and leave and it's not -- Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 61 of 86 it wasn't going to be a 24 hour thing where people need to spend the night. So, those are the things that really concern me about this project. Simison: Thank you. Counsel, any questions? Thank you. Lund: Hi. Gina Lund. 2818 North Centrepoint Way, Meridian. A couple of things. I'm not exactly sure whether the left-hand turn lane will come on both proposals. Is the left- hand turn lane only for the currently approved proposal or is it only if the additional units will be approved? But speaking for Centrepoint Way, it is such a narrow road. I don't know if any of you have actually traveled the road. Picard Lane. I mean it -- it's a little bit bigger, but like if you come down Centrepoint you only have two cars. If there is a car coming and you are going -- I mean if there is spillover from the -- the apartments that want to park there or on Picard or like the last person said on Centrepoint, it's going to -- just like she said about the bus, no one can come in and come out. If the people from this proposed addition need to go out Cajun, you can't get out to Ustick to make the right. No one will let you like they have talked about. If you are coming down Centrepoint or Leslie or anything like that, these people have waited for so long, they don't want someone coming out Cajun and Ustick to -- they -- they just won't let you come out. So, that's going to put all the pressure on Centrepoint, which will -- I was curious about the left-hand turn lane, but the backup on Centrepoint Lane will never be able to get out of there, once again, until -- until, you know, all those cars if -- if there is one car sitting there it blocks anybody from making a left. So, my point -- my question is will there be a left-hand turn lane on both proposed and my -- my vote would be that don't add any more to what we already have. If we have to deal with however many units will be there, we will have to deal with it, but let's not add more compressed to this little -- our little -- our little streets. Our streets are very narrow. That's about it. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? I'm sure the applicant will reply to the question on the left-hand turn. Is there anybody else present who would like to provide testimony on this item? Seeing no one come forward, would the applicant like to come forward to close. Nelson: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Bring up a comparison slide here. Appreciate all the comments from the neighbors and I know that they -- many of them have weighed in on prior applications and also some of them, you know, as you heard, are new to the neighborhood or didn't participate then, but -- but we are still focused on the changes that are happening here as we also try to address their concerns that are coming up. Maybe let's start with the traffic and there was comments about this left turn lane. Yes, it would happen with either development. That is a mitigation that is required and will help serve this development as proposed, as approved, and it will help the existing residential neighborhood to the south. There was an individual who testified that said that, you know, they didn't think it added much. It will double the capacity of the stacking and it will allow people to be able to be in a dedicated left turn lane without holding up people that can turn right. So, I think it will improve the flow quite a bit and that's why it was part of the original mitigation package. The additional traffic concerns I think that, you know, we addressed a lot of that in our primary presentation. It is Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 62 of 86 significantly less traffic than the Villasport and significantly less traffic than any other commercial use that would be here. There was some testimony about saying that somehow the Villasport traffic would be better or the commercial traffic would be better. It would be significantly more intense, not just on daily trips, but also for a.m. and p.m. trips that would impact people in a residential neighborhood. We are -- I will turn next to building height. We are pleased that we were able to make the adjustments to bring down the building transition. It sounds like there is still some concerns with the -- with the buildings. With Building D there were specific testimony about that that's the closest building to the south, that 61 feet. Just want to point out that that is still an increase above the required setback. That will be a 45 foot setback on our side. It will include a 25 foot landscape buffer and a fence. There was a question about whether or not we would have a fence and, then, there is also distance to their side and we are talking about the narrow end of a building, two stories next to a two story home. So, a significant distance nonetheless, even though it's very -- it's smaller than our other just distances, which are significant. It is still a significant distance and above the required setbacks under your code. Because it's the end of the building it will also have limited windows and there is not a height differential there to create some of the concerns that I think that we were hearing about looking down on that closest residence. There was also testimony about building heights, that the code does not allow four story buildings. It is -- this is C-G zoning, which allows 65 foot buildings in four stories or five stories if you can fit within 65 feet. So, it is consistent with the code and, you know, as the exchange occurred, you know, with Council Member Cavener, you know, the height of the building will be dictated, of course, by the design. By us switching to the pitch roof, the very peak of the pitch roof, you know, the exact height will be determined in the discussions with staff as we go through that architectural design approval. But all we are asking for is four stories, that the peak of the roof and the exact slope will determine the exact height. But our expectation is that that will be 55 feet six inches as we displayed for that tallest building. Because the residential stories they are not as big as office stories as maybe was represented by others that had experienced it from office. Schools -- I know Council Member Strader you asked us to address connectivity. It is unfortunate the way development happened to the south of us. We will improve all of our sidewalks, of course, along our frontage. There is not great connectivity down Eagle Road or through the neighborhood there to the school and so, you know, it -- it definitely would benefit us and benefit the neighborhood to our south and other -- and other neighborhoods around us to the west to have better connectivity to the elementary school. We don't have options or control of that right of way to create that. I guess our request of the city and suggestion and we would be happy to be a part of these conversations if it's -- if it's helpful, is to work with, you know, safe routes to schools programs, to work on grants to try to connect some of these gaps that the school district has identified either along the Finch Lateral or that gap along Eagle Road or maybe both. We are certainly interested in that and happy to be a part of those conversations to the extent that that would help. The concern about school teachers being available, that that's creating a capacity problem and the teachers need to be paid more to live in this neighborhood. Couldn't agree more. And also we are trying to be the other end of that financial spectrum solution by providing housing that those teachers can afford to be able to move into the neighborhood. So, you can -- you can change that dynamic on Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 63 of 86 both ends by paying them more and/or providing them housing that they can afford on the current salaries that are set. So, we would welcome teachers in this community and hope that that does help to provide some of that deficiency that the elementary school is facing in that. We really appreciate the comments that were -- came from Mr. Compher about -- from NeighborhoodWorks, Boise, about that these are homes for real people and I also appreciate the Council's comments that just because you are in a different economic strategy does not mean that you are going to create more crime. Instead, you know, what we would ask the Council to do is this -- is this is currently an undeveloped site that is -- does not have any homes or community on, it is -- it's, you know, frankly, a bit of an eyesore from this developed area around it and bringing in new homes, construction neighbors -- the residents that call this home, you know, we think will add to the community and the presence with the neighborhood and look forward to having it existing residential neighbors and there will be amenities within this neighborhood, so they will not need to use the -- the pathways that are on the adjacent properties. They will have their own opportunities within the development. So, for all these reasons we do ask your support of the project. It is a minimal increase in the number of units and height on interior buildings and for that we will be able to help provide needed affordable housing for the community. I stand for any further questions you have. Simison: Thank you, Deb. Council, questions? Taylor: Mr. Mayor, just one question. This was kind of mentioned in some of the testimony earlier that I have been thinking about. This is -- I don't know what you paid for the property. It would seem that it's a premium. But why would you want to put this project on this property, as opposed to maybe somewhere else? What's -- are there some financial considerations, just the -- the -- the proximity to amenities, for the competitive scoring, for the tax credits? I mean is there a -- can you give me a sense why you thought this was the place for this project? Nelson: Yeah. I will answer and, then, if Chase wants to come up and add to that he certainly can. Mayor, Council Member, that -- there is a number of reasons that this property is attractive. Partly because it is already entitled for multi-family and so it is far along the process to be ready for this kind of development. The City Council has already wrestled through a lot of the problems and issues and considerations to think about it. It's planned for the -- for this kind of density. So, looking at the Comprehensive Plan, looking at the zoning, looking at the surrounding uses, it's a great site for the level of density that we have requested and so those were certainly factors. Being able to provide affordable housing in a neighborhood that currently is serving only market rate housing is also a great opportunity. Yeah. As I mentioned within this entire, you know, mixed-use regional designated area we are not aware of any other affordable housing units. So the limited number that are in the city are not in this immediate area of this MUR designated area and so it creates an opportunity to provide something that doesn't currently exist where residents can take advantage of that same shopping, employment, access to the same amenities that market rate apartment residents are able to enjoy now and I think as you heard Chase say before, some of those factors also do overlap Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 64 of 86 with good scoring opportunities and some of them are investment choices of this is a great place for this project. I think we are good. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm just curious about there -- there is a concern about -- I mean there is a ton of concern about the roadway network to the south of this project and part of the challenge is like we -- you know, the -- the neighborhoods that have the private streets that was approved long before our time and clearly that, you know, is extremely problematic and we are seeing now how that plays out before us. What are you thinking with regard to parking along Centrepoint? Is that part of your -- your plan? Can you address that specifically? It is even -- if you are adding a left-turn lane pretty narrow, so just want to understand that. Nelson: Mayor, Council Member Strader, so I guess a few points to address that, you know, because you asked about the concerns from the neighborhood and the impact on their roads and private roads. I just would quickly highlight this, because it did come up with concern about cost. I mentioned this before. We do have a cross-access agreement that was contemplated from the outset. It does also say directly in the easement -- you can see it at the -- at the bottom of the clip that I included here -- that they are responsible for the maintenance of their roads, even -- even after allowing the properties to the north to have that access through to Eagle Road and so it was contemplated from the beginning and it is recorded right on the -- on the property. So, it's -- it doesn't mean I know that there are still concerns about it, but it is -- it is a legal right. There will not be parking on Centrepoint Way. I'm just looking to our engineer to confirm that and that's correct. So, we will not have parking on -- on Centrepoint Way within our development and was that the extent of your kind of concern with the ability to use Centrepoint? I mean they are currently using it and we will widen it further to enable those additional turn lanes. Strader: No, it doesn't alleviate all of my concerns generally about the -- the traffic issues. But it does address my specific question about parking on Centrepoint, which is what I was looking for. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Sticking with the subject of parking, we have had a lot of multi-family that's come through Meridian and typically those projects exceed our parking standards and yet if I drive through a complex I see significant parking on the street, which I think is a -- is a frustration for residents, for commuters, anyone that feels like that they are more compressed with their -- their travel lane. I think that helps to slow things down, but that's neither here nor there. So, I get that you exceed parking -- the parking Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 65 of 86 requirements. I also -- you are saying, hey, we are not going to -- we are not going to park on Centrepoint, but inevitably people are going to park there and people are going to park on these private lanes and that's the part, Ms. Nelson, that I'm concerned about is, because when Luke Cavener, who lives in your complex, and either it's more convenient for me to park on the private lane or I don't know if you are charging to park, if you have to pay for a spot, people find a way to do what is most convenient for them and, then, one of these residents -- existing residents calls the police department to say, hey, we have got somebody who is parking illegally and our law enforcement is going to tell them we can't enforce that, because it's on a private lane. So, to me that -- that is my big crux of this issue is how we resolve that and you are incredibly way smarter than I am, so help me understand how we are going to solve that particular problem. Nelson: Mayor, Council Member Cavener, well, we -- we have a few things that we are trying to do to make sure that we are addressing parking concerns. One is to over park the property and so we exceed parking requirements under the city code and that means even under your new city code, which, you know, increased parking requirements to address the concerns that you are raising, so that is also a benefit of this update is the prior development came under your prior code for parking. So, the number of parking spaces required per unit will be higher for this development than previously. The number of parking spaces actually provided per unit is higher under this development with this update. So, the ratio is improved. We also have on site staff and management that will be enforcing parking and available and attentive to this. There are careful restraints on the number of people that are actually living and residing and participating in these apartments and that's -- part of just regular management of any apartment. But it's also especially enhanced here, because of the income restricted nature that they have to carefully vet their tenants to make sure that there is not a violation of the income restriction and so having, you know, six people in a family changes the numbers versus five people in a family and the residents that are living there. So, that's why it's extra careful -- they are extra careful here and have additional on-site protection. They will have cameras to help monitor this as well, so -- and, then, finally, I would point out that the number of parking spaces is -- is important, but also the distribution of the parking spaces, because I think your point is, you know, people will go where it's more convenient and that's why -- and this was an issue for the Council in the last approval and it was taken care of here. The project is self-parked. Meaning that the convenient parking spaces that are needed for the numbers serve each building in their locations. When you have parking that's distributed further across the site, then, you have more of a concern for that. So, all of those things help us to, you know, try to address your concerns that come up with any apartment living and I think you have got a little extra protection here. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Huber: One more interesting aspect about our project is we do not charge our tenants for parking. So, typically you see people parking on the street. I have done so myself Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 66 of 86 when I lived in an apartment building, because I didn't want to pay additional money for parking. We do not charge for parking at our projects. It's a tax credit mechanic. We can't charge for something and, then, claim tax credits on it if it's not a housing unit. So, it -- we are not burdening the tenants unnecessarily. Therefore, they are more willing to park on our site, because they are not being charged for their cars to park within the community. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: So, I feel that you have addressed parking within your complex. My question still remains, though, about the challenges that will exist that your residents, whether by choice or obligation, whatever, will not park within your complex and will rely on these private drives for parking. I just think it's inevitable and -- and so how -- how do we -- how do we resolve that? Because if I -- if I'm a resident and I live over there, like in my neighborhood if somebody parks on the street for four days, I call code enforcement, code enforcement leaves a warning, work with the neighbor to get it resolved. The residents that live over here that are adjacent to these private drives are not afforded that same opportunity. Nelson: Mayor, Council Member Cavener, the -- there is -- to the extent -- I mean, again, this was developed this way. So, this is the way that was done. There is a parking restriction as a matter of the recorded easement as well and so -- now, to enforce that is a burden on, again, the development that has been set up this way. So, it is not allowed and so ultimately there would be a remedy and enforcing that. Practically understand your concern, but it is also the nature of this in-fill development. This property was developed this way. There are private streets there. We have done a lot on this in-fill property to address those concerns and we are confident that this is over parked enough and convenient enough in parking that it isn't convenient for them to go down to the private streets and so, you know, we can't -- I -- I don't know that I have got a better answer for your -- your what ifs, but I -- you know, I -- Cavener: Ms. Nelson, with all due respect, it's -- it's not a what if. It's something that we see in apartment complexes throughout the valley. So, this isn't a hypothetical. This is something that I'm -- I'm very sympathetic to that these residents are concerned about that I quite frankly believe will happen. So, it's not a hypothetical. It is -- we are trying to mitigate what is going to be a future problem. Nelson: Mayor, Council Member Cavener, I appreciate that and I -- I do think that was a lot of the discussion when you guys increased your parking numbers, so -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor, maybe a quick follow up or a secondary question. Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 67 of 86 Cavener: So, the only other question is about the testimony that we heard about the proximity -- I think of one of your buildings being within 60 feet of a residential unit and in your rebuttal you provided some commentary about that. Would you as the applicant support a condition that would prohibit windows looking out to any property that's within 65 feet of your development? Nelson: They will have to consider that. I -- I -- I will look to the develop -- the developer to see if they want to say something different, but I think the answer I'm seeing on their face is that, no, they don't want to limit the livability of this -- of these residential apartments. We are not two-story to two-story -- anything different you want to say about that? Womack: I just wanted to add that the fire code requirements for the International Building Code will likely require a window of some kind on the southern property line to have a habitable space. Cavener: Sure. I guess, then, in that case a frosted glass, a vision opaque window. Huber: We could look into something like that. It would impact the livability. I mean these are people who want to live in these units. They are paying for these units. I will say it's -- it's arguably better than the prior development, which was closer to property lines, had more units at two stories looking into backyards. So, I think our proposal, compared to what is already approved, is better. Certainly, it's not perfect. We will do what we can to make it better, but, you know, without impacting the livability of our own units we can do our best. It's not a perfect answer, but I think it is better than what is already approved. Simison: Mr. Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I just -- I sometimes maybe hear things differently than people intend, so my -- my question was would you support a condition that would prevent vision-based windows -- essentially to prevent people looking out of your units into the backyards and homes of the residence within 65 feet and I -- I recognize it's late and so I'm not trying to put you in a corner. Is it something you would support or not? Yes or no? If the answer is no that's okay. I just -- I -- I'm trying to understand for a potential motion that would be made later. Huber: I can promise we could do our best. I don't know what that means, but, you know, we don't want a two-story to two-story -- it goes both ways. I mean people will be looking into -- Cavener: But they were there first. Huber: They are there first. We will do our best to not have windows aligned and -- and units match up. That is allowable by building code. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 68 of 86 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I just -- just like thinking out loud and brainstorming. I mean I -- I start to get concerned actually about -- I -- I think there is a precedent for it when we have limited like the second story of a single family residence, like we -- we -- there is a -- there is a precedent for that, but where I would get concerned is also just the -- if this moves forward I want this to be a high quality development, you know, I want it to be successful and I want people to live, you know, with dignity in -- in their apartments and if they don't have a window, you know, like that's obviously unacceptable. You know, there -- there is a balance there. So, I -- I don't know -- I just -- not that that's what you were saying at all, Councilman Cavener. I think it was a good exploration of -- of just understanding kind of what's possible. I just think we kind of need to tread carefully on it. Yeah, so, I -- I -- I -- I know I'm not trying to throw you under the bus for that. I think it's a legitimate question. I just have concerns about -- about where that might go. So, I wanted to voice those. Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, just a little bit more on that topic, too. We appreciate having windows overlooking open space, which is adjacent to this building. So, it's kind of self-policing yourselves, so not creating these corridors without visibility on things. So, it is important and there is a requirement in our multi-family standards as well that we have buildings oriented that way and windows on those -- facing those open spaces. So, they do have a 20 foot -- 25 foot buffer along that boundary if I remember right, as well with a pathway. So, it would be nice to have some visibility on that. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Bill, in the past we have prevented no clear vision windows on both single family residential and multi-family within close proximity, regardless of a -- of a buffer. The Council has supported that in the past. So, regardless of if there is -- there is open space or not, I -- I can think of a handful of single family residential and -- or at least two multi-families in my time where the Council said, hey, we don't want a clear view window, we want, you know, a masked glass. So, we have done that, though, in the past. Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't remember the multi-family, but I certainly remember the single family where we were like do your bonus rooms so the windows are facing towards your street and not, but it's rear yard to rear yard or in -- I think there was another development where -- but it's been mostly single family homes. I don't recall us doing on -- on multi-family that I can recall. The other thing going back to the no parking, certainly that's a condition of approval you can put on the applicant to put no parking signs on those roadways and that would give the police department the Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 69 of 86 authority to do something then. With the Centrepoint -- North Centrepoint Way across behind Kohl's, a portion of that is marked for no parking in part of the newer residential multi-family to the north. So, again, I -- because there is such short stacking there, I'm with -- I'm with Council that it makes sense to put no parking on that section, because that's where a lot of the people are going to be coming and going within the development. So, I think that's certainly within your purview. Not necessarily a DA, but you certainly could put it in there to have the applicant work with ACHD on the appropriate signage, but at least make it a condition of approval in the conditional use permit and, then, that way when we go out there we can verify those requirements. And same thing with the other driveway, which is -- it's interesting, because typically we don't allow parking on private streets, unless they are widened and that section is only 25 feet, so it's not going to be part time, it's going to be a fire code issue if they are parked blocking with vehicles and everything, so I -- but as a precaution you can require them to do that and per -- and I think Deb has testified this is -- it's a cross-access easement and that easement is defined either 20 or 25 feet. I would imagine it's 25 feet. So, they -- it's not approved for parking, it needs to be open for vehicle access and so any cars parking on it they are violating that and realize it's not a city issue, it's a private property issue, but they have to maintain that easement remaining open so vehicles can use the access points as well, so just at least wanted to give you a little more commentary on that. And with -- with Deb's slide, I'm -- I'm not sure -- it's a little convoluted and I -- I don't know all the context of it, because she's probably looked at the CC&Rs or however the private street agreement was written up or however the cross-access agreement was written up, but Sadie Creek is actually the property that they are developing, not Bienville Square, so there is -- there is a lot of different moving pieces and a lot of history on this site and so I just wanted to be -- clarify on the record that that cross- access language that is being displayed tonight it's actually what's on this particular property, not what's governed in -- in Bienville Square. So, I don't know what that says. All we did was show you the plat that granted the cross-access and where they could access and utilize that private road. So, just want to make that point of clarification for the record. Nelson: Can I address that briefly if you wouldn't mind? Simison: Yeah. Nelson: So, based on what's recorded in the title, the entire property to the south is what's described as -- as Parcel B that is giving cross-access easement to Parcel A, which is, again, in the title records our property and so that is how it's shown. Simison: Deb, could you pull up the site -- the current site map, compared to the proposed site and -- that one. Yeah. Just a curiosity question and so I don't have any idea where this is going tonight, but if Council says no more than 213 units, would your -- would you prefer the right side alignment compared to the left side alignment? Does it make any difference? We talked about the cost difference between having a Building B and a Building E, compared to going to a Building C only, as well as, you know, the size of the outline of the one F and D. Is there a preference or don't even bother going Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 70 of 86 there if the number isn't elevated. Just call it good and don't worry about making any additional modifications. Nelson: Mayor, I will -- I will answer that and the applicant can weigh in if they feel something different, that it doesn't make any difference. There is no need to modify the site plan if the numbers are kept at 213. That these are accommodations and adjustments in the plan to address concerns from the neighbors, but the original development will stand and it will be developed if-- you know, market rate housing as is. These are changes -- you know, the four stories as you heard from the applicant before creates that cost efficiency to have one roof, one -- one, you know, podium base where -- one platform base, one set of the heating and cooling, everything about it creates such cost efficiency that -- that four stories is really important. The number of units is the other piece of that equation. So, they have dropped it to the point that that's what they need to proceed, so -- Simison: Okay. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Cavener: Just looking through the list of concerns I did not hear you address. I don't know if this is an issue, but there was a comment made about Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and a concern that this development will not get enough water, because they had some challenges. Can -- can you speak to that? Nelson: Yes. Mayor, Council Member Strader, we will use city water as needed for landscaping. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor and Deb, can you just talk to me about the -- the parking? I'm intrigued by the renewable energy and reducing the energy costs for the -- the residents. I'm just looking at the site plan on the right here and just wondering -- those solar panels, can you just talk me through the engineering of those, how they are faced and -- Nelson: I'm going to ask the applicant -- if we are talking about engineering of the solar panels. Whitlock: Aesthetically I'm -- I'm just wondering what impact they may -- they may have, both -- well, to the neighbors to the west, to the neighbors to the south, and even the residents in the complex. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 71 of 86 Huber: In terms of energy if -- Whitlock: How are they sloped? Are they reflections? Huber: There is no reflection. They will sit on structured carports, so they will look identical to a traditional carport, just the rooftop structure will be solar panels. There will also be rooftop arrays on the buildings where allowable, depending on -- you know, we try to get between 90 and a hundred percent energy offset. So, our tenants are -- our system is able to generate enough electricity to support the project, the common areas and the clubhouse. That is our goal and I can confidently say we can achieve that goal with the amount of carports at this site. We have maximized all of the required covered parking to be energy efficient, so that it not only is an impact to our tenants, but it's green and works well with our all electric appliance package that we plan to provide at the project. It will not be noticeable. There won't be glare. They will -- just like any other solar roof top array or carport array, you won't notice the difference from the street. Whitlock: Thanks. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Nelson: I really appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: At least pose a question for the Council and for the public's benefit as well. A number of years ago the City Council learned that we made some bad decisions after 10.00 o'clock. We get rummy. It's been a long day. We recognize there is a desire from folks that are here to get a resolution. I think more than anything everyone is looking for a correct resolution, whatever that is, and so we are at -- we are at 10:00 o'clock. We have taken all public testimony. The applicant has provided their narrative, their rebuttal. Is Council ready to deliberate and make a decision or would you rather take a course of a continuance to give you some time to ponder on this before making a decision? And if the body is ready to -- to make a decision I think that we can do that. But if we feel it would -- we would benefit from some deliberation or some time I think a continuance could also be in order. I'm supportive of either one, but I just -- I wanted to at least communicate to the public who has sat with us all night long, to some of our historical decision making, but to leave it up to decide how you would all like to move forward. Overton: Mr. Mayor, I'm ready to deliberate. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 72 of 86 Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would prefer to do a continuance, but if everybody feels really strongly I'm okay with deliberating. I think a continuance -- the -- the one I guess to do item if we did a continuance that is very important to me would be for the applicant and city staff to work more closely with West Ada on just idea generation for safe routes to school in this area. I didn't like -- and it's not the applicant's fault. I don't like the answer. It's not your fault. It's just a bad -- it's a bad situation here and I -- I -- I think understanding that issue in a deeper way would matter to me. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I'm not sure a continuance is going to be any more beneficial to me personally. I can't speak for my colleagues. I'm probably ready to deliberate and make a decision tonight. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: And I would actually prefer a continuance. I think it would be great to see what they could come up with on safer routes to schools and that might make a difference for me. Simison: I will put my foot in my mouth. I don't think safe routes to school in this situation -- I think there is two different things. What Council may want to see on the roadway, but West Ada will never have this be a walk zone. They will never have kids walk along Eagle Road to the school. So, if -- just so we understand we are talking about the same component, but I don't -- I don't see how you could ever make -- unless you wait for other parcels to develop that you do a pathway through the back, there will never be a walk zone for this location to River Valley Elementary under West Ada's current guidelines to my knowledge, but it doesn't mean you can't ask for more sidewalks along Eagle Road over time, so -- Whitlock: Mr. Mayor, I'm ready to deliberate. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, it's always hard. I -- I kind of support if one or two of us feel like a continuance to sort of try to -- tend to support that, but the majority is ready to -- to make a decision. I think let's go ahead and move forward with an acknowledgement. If we -- if I start to feel we are going off the rails and go down some rabbit holes, I'm going to just interject and move for a continuance. Okay? Fair enough? Okay. Let's proceed then, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 73 of 86 Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: I make a motion that we end public testimony. Cavener: Second. Simison: Have a motion and second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Get the ball rolling. I will probably make a couple of comments after I get some comments from Council Members, too. I will just make a couple points just as we consider this. You know, Council Member Cavener brought this up in terms of the history, where we have been, what we are actually contemplating tonight; right? And if I could have staff -- could you put up the screen that shows what was actually before us tonight? I think while staff is pulling it up I just think it's good that we are able to focus on what the decision is before us. I feel like the testimony that I heard tonight would have been very impactful a few years ago on me, although I wasn't on Council in consideration for what we heard traffic concentration of, you know, the type of development. In some regards I'm not sure that's -- well, I'm sympathetic to all those concerns. I'm not sure that's really what is before us tonight, though, there is some concerns about parking I think we can address -- and in terms of my own personal history, I'm pretty sympathetic to what I heard tonight, because the same thing happened to me. I had some county land that wasn't annexed. A stone's throw from my house that I bought that was annexed into the city and 279 units were put there and the same access to Ustick Road. I'm just down the road. To Ustick Road was a big concern. So, everything you are saying tonight was -- I was reliving it and so maybe one of you will be sitting on City Council here in a few years, because that kind of started my path of being engaged in the city and having a voice and -- and airing those concerns. So, I'm certainly sympathetic to that. But I want to focus on -- and -- and this isn't the slide I'm thinking of, not that this is a test, I just -- when it comes to the -- the modifications that we are actually asking for. But I think what's really before us is are we as a city going to look at an opportunity to bring on a type of housing that doesn't come before us that often; right? We can do nothing and have a market rate 213 unit proposal built or we can approve a few of the modifications being requested and have a 239 units of affordable housing. Now, when you look at -- when we talk about affordable housing and you look at the price points, we are talking about like my sister; right. I just helped her move. She would have -- she would have been a candidate for this. She's a Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 74 of 86 single mom of three. Makes 50 something thousand a year, not bad, but certainly with three kids living in Meridian is a big challenge. So, we are talking about our friends and neighbors, family members, when we are talking about the kind of housing that we are looking to provide here. So, I think we need to be really sensitive to that, because as I consider this I'm not really looking at this as I would a normal application. I'm not looking at it in terms of the amount of housing here, because it's already kind of 213 at a minimum is going to be built here. I'm not really looking at the amount of car trips, even though certainly sympathetic to that, because that has already been decided in -- in many regards. The future land use map, what is it contemplating that we would have here? I think that decision has kind of been made. So, to me I'm -- I'm actually just wrestling with the idea what is really before us? Is it an opportunity for the city to put a nice development in place that provides some housing that we -- that we need. So, I'm trying not to be insensitive to any of the concerns brought up tonight, but I don't see how that's valid on the decisions that we are making tonight. So, that's just kind of some of my thinking. But I think we as Council should -- I wanted to speak early to frame that discussion about what are we really just considering here. So, I may have some more comments a little bit later. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Having the opportunity to hear everybody speak is very eye opening and I have to tell you that I don't just appreciate that you came and spoke, but I remember my time sitting where you are coming up and speaking as well and I appreciate every one of you that came and spoke, because it's something that's very important to you. I also want to thank the applicant team. You have got a heck of a business model, but I don't see it the same way. If we really want to have this as a pinnacle project for the city of Meridian, then, we got to make sure it's in the right location and I am not convinced this is the right location. We do not have safe routes to school. In fact, we don't have safe routes from here just about anywhere. Everything is going to have to be done by car and we want to see projects -- we see this all the time. We have dealt with it in the past few weeks where we want to see how many -- how many projects we can build that we reduce traffic. But we are talking about Eagle Road. We are talking about a road as much as we fight with Idaho Transportation Department is still 55 miles an hour. It's one of the busiest roads in the entire state of Idaho and we are buffered right up against it and whether this gets approved or the 213 development comes right in and does it, we are still going to be responsible for that. So, I had to ask myself am I really doing this because of 26 units. I'm not doing it because of 26 units. If I would have been sitting on this Council originally I never would approve the 213, because I don't think that was safe to go in in that location. I really believe when I look at this -- the deal that you have got one public road that ACHD has control over that runs out to Ustick Road and behind that all we are dealing with is private streets. This to me is a recipe for disaster. Several of you have mentioned the problems we are going to have with this -- with the private streets. It's predictable and it's preventable. But it's only preventable by not allowing it to go in and I don't mean that to say anything negative about the Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 75 of 86 development team. Again, I think they do a great job. I think they have got a great product. But one of the things when I sat on this Council is it's got to be the right project in the right place and I just don't see this as being the right place and I just won't support it and I wish I could go back in time and change what's already approved there. That's where I stand. Whitlock: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Whitlock. Whitlock: Mayor and fellow Council Members, earlier tonight we approved an application that allowed starter homes at 300,000 dollars to 580,000. Starter homes. I'm not sure I can even qualify for a starter home in that range, but I mean that's -- that's where we are in terms of affordable housing. So, I'm -- I'm struggling on one end of the spectrum saying what are we doing to make sure that we can accommodate the very people that Council Member Taylor talked about with his sister to have affordable housing and be able to live and work in our community. On the other hand, person after person stepped up to the microphone tonight and testified about the negative impacts that this project would have on them and their lives and their safety and so I'm -- I'm struggling between those two polar opposites trying to do the right thing to get people into affordable housing, but doing it in a place that provides safety and security for residents who are currently here and those residents that would be coming. So, I'm -- I'm still weighing my options, but wanted you to know the struggles I'm having internally with this. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Struggling I think is the apropos word really for me for this evening. I appreciate that, Council Member Whitlock. Couple quick comments, then, I will share kind of where I'm at. First everybody here that participated in testimony, I appreciate you keeping it neighborly. I can tell there is some passionate feelings about this. I want to commend my good Council Member Strader for reminding us like these are -- these are our neighbors. These are real people and you really heard all of that and kept that in your testimony. So, I appreciate that. And I also appreciate Ms. Nelson taking my arrows and tremendous respect for you and I appreciate your -- your candidness. Where I'm sitting at is I think a lot of the testimony we heard tonight was not necessarily about what is being requested before us, but really about what the project could be and, again, some of those decisions are already made. I'm -- I'm sympathetic to the feelings about that, especially if you weren't aware of it or you have moved here since then, that -- that's always really frustrating and we have all heard at Council public who have came and provided testimony and said when I -- when I bought my lot, you know, the realtor or somebody said it was to be X and, man, that makes me so angry, because we have been here long enough we know lots of times things can change and we -- we hate it when somebody who you trust believes what is true at the time, but something Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 76 of 86 inevitably changes. They don't do that, you know, good enough due diligence to say, hey, this could potentially change. It could be this, but it could be that. So, where I'm focused on tonight is what the requests are for us and where the applicant can take action to mitigate, essentially, a higher use. To Council Member Taylor's point we need - - and, again, let's use the word affordable loosely. It is workforce housing and we want to allow people to actually work in Meridian to live in Meridian. I want my kids to be able to afford to live in Meridian. So, I appreciate what the applicant's trying to achieve. said you are asking for more units than what's previously approved. You are asking for additional stories that what's been previously approved. Those to me are the two things that I hang -- I have hung on which is okay. I think I could be supportive of additional units as long as you are working to mitigate some of the parking challenges. Okay. can support additional stories, as long as you are making the effort to -- to mitigate some of the challenges to the existing residents, the existing neighbors. I haven't drawn a conclusion that we can get around those two and so I am right now gravitating towards not supporting the -- the DA modification for those two reasons. Recognizing, again, to Council Member Overton's point, I think I said this a couple times, if -- if the development agreement isn't -- modification isn't agreed to, there is still going to be apartments there. The challenges that you are worried about on the streets and roads will -- will exist. The challenges of getting kids to schools will continue to exist. My hope was to try and make things better for the residents, to make things better for our kids, make things better for traffic, I just don't know if I'm going to be able to draw a conclusion that by approving this that we get better. That's where I'm at this evening. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Struggle seems to be the word of the night, because this feels like a teeter totter with the previous DA versus the new DA with modification changes. I love the thought of workforce housing. It has been something that's been on my mind and my heart through my years of economic development and something we desperately need. My newly college graduate son lives in another town because he couldn't find anything in Meridian that was within his new college graduate salary budget. So, it's definitely -- some workforce housing is definitely something that we need, but trying to weigh that, even at, what, 26 more apartments with the impact that it can have on the roads and things like that, that just -- our road situation just does not seem to be good with this mix of public-private roads that can create their own issues. So, yeah, it's just kind of a dilemma at this point. I'm probably leaning more toward saying yes, because I do like that the parking numbers come under the new rules of the city and so that the parking is -- does have more parking, but I don't feel like either way we are going to come out with a win-win because of what we are either keeping or approving -- that they are just -- I think we would all agree if this -- something was before us now that is already in place we wouldn't be having it. So, yeah, struggle. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 77 of 86 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I mean -- so, we are kind of all over the place a little -- a little bit. We are working through it where we have different opinions. I -- I -- yeah. I'm still on the fence about it. I -- I can kind of talk through what my concerns are either direction. I -- I agree with Councilman Taylor's comments in terms of framing the request. I -- I do agree that that is what's before us is the 26 additional units. Where -- where I'm struggling with the height specifically is the nearest residential buildings that are a comparable height are across Eagle Road and they are in very close proximity to Kleiner Park, which is a fantastic amenity for those residents. We don't have a comparable situation here. It's -- I think the height to me is one of the bigger issues just in terms of transition and compatibility. I do appreciate what the applicant has done so far. Like I think that the applicant has -- has done a really good job of reducing the density in this development very significantly. It sounds like kind of to what makes it work or doesn't work for them, which isn't here or there, but I appreciate that effort. I appreciate the attempts to kind of graduate the density and have the four story buildings closer to the road and, you know, they are not directly facing at least the -- the residential component of the neighbors to the south or not going to be looking at just a huge wall of four stories, because of those efforts. But, you know, yeah, I don't know. This is a challenge. The -- the private street issue is never going to be resolved here in my opinion. You know, cautionary tale to future councils, absolutely, about being very careful about approving private streets, especially in an area where some of those private streets may become what needs to become a public street. So, I don't know, yeah, it's a -- it's a huge concern. I am still concerned about, you know, how -- how kids could get to school, understanding they are going to be bussed, but -- I don't know. I'm -- regardless of how this outcome kind of plays out I do think we need to work on a longer term plan for that area and get some feedback I think and work with the school district and try to -- try to figure this out. Yeah. I don't know. I -- I don't think we should make a decision tonight. That's my opinion. I think we should sleep on it. I would rather get it right, but, yeah, I don't -- I could go either way at this point. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: As promised round two for me. Just some more thoughts. You know, a lot of the things that we want to address and fix that have been raised tonight by saying -- by rejecting this we didn't fix anything. We didn't address anything at all. By saying no we didn't fix any of the concerns that have been brought up as I see it. I guess the fix could be that we could make it so difficult that nothing is built in this spot and that would have fixed the concerns that are brought up, but I live just two miles down the road. Go to Lowe's about three times a week it feels like. My son makes me go to the PGA superstore. So, I got to cross Eagle Road, so I know it takes two or three or sometimes more, you know, lights cycles to go through it. I understand it. Certainly sympathetic to it. But saying no doesn't fix any of these problems that have been brought up tonight. That's why I don't think that's really the issue we are debating. You know, the issue of -- Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 78 of 86 of height I think -- I think I'm sympathetic, but I feel like where it's located it's not going to be an issue as if it was abutting a single family home. That doesn't concern me quite as much. I also -- partly because I consider Eagle Road such a heavy transportation user corridor that I'm much more open to -- to height there, as opposed to maybe further off in a more residential strictly only area. So, to me it's acceptable to have a higher height right along these corridors. So I'm not bothered by that. One thing I think we should keep in mind, this isn't affordable housing, it's workforce housing. It really truly is. The cost of keeping someone in a home versus the cost of addressing homelessness is significant, too. You can go from a couple thousand dollars a month to keep someone in a home to 15 to 18 thousand dollars a month to get someone back into a home. It's all part of the bigger conversation here. I think as we try to address affording -- housing affordability in the city I would never support the city paying or subsidizing any kind of activity. To me it should be done through our zoning codes and by incentivizing developers to bring projects to bear that could address the issue. These are incredibly complex deals to put together. I mean these are really complex. That's why I was asking a lot of questions about the tax credits, where you are with understanding, how competitive are you. These are -- there is limited funds. I really appreciate the distinction of the nine percent and the four percent, because I had not appreciated that until tonight. So, these are really complex deals to put together, so I might have preferred another spot, but, then, I asked myself if not here then where? Where would we put it in the city? So, I would -- again, I'm sympathetic to the -- the concerns, but just look at it we are not fixing any of the problems that have been highlighted tonight. We are just really not. With the decision we have before us. Unless our goal is that nothing is ever built here, but that's -- that's not realistic. The land's been entitled. You know, you mentioned -- I asked the question why this property? Well, it's entitled for multi-family. So, you can go build it tomorrow if you want. What you are asking for is in order to make these complex deals come together to bring affordable housing, there has got to be some accommodations that the city is allowing to make it work. I would have supported more units just to be frank, because I know that you are probably cutting it -- that 40 units or something like that, I can only imagine what that does with your margins on making this project work. So, again, I don't love that we are having this conversation about what's here, but I'm trying to be clear about what we are deciding and I think that's kind of where I land. I'm open if we want to take this and sleep on it, you know, I wanted to deliberate it, but I'm open to -- if we all want to sleep on it a little bit more, but, anyway, just share my round two thoughts. Round three might be coming. Simison: I will just say all types of motions are in order. Parsons: Mayor -- Mayor and Council, if staff can weigh in on -- on some of the topics and discussion tonight as well. Obviously, it is getting late we are getting tired, this is an incredibly complex project. I think everyone is aware this property was annexed in 2005. 1 have touched every -- touched the project every time it came through. So, I'm very aware of the history. I did all the projects in Bienville Square, so I get all the issues with the private streets, all the long meetings we had. I remember the block wall that went in five feet off the property line and we are sitting there, the bank was here the bank paid all those property owners money. It just got very complex throughout the Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 79 of 86 years. But that's why I wanted to chime in tonight. I -- I hear what you are saying. It's what's complicated for Linda and I is that we have a recommendation for denial from the Planning and Zoning Commission. We have revisions from the applicant to try to address that. But, again, if Council wants -- if you deny it it's easy for us, we don't come back with conditions. But if you are leaning towards it we want to at least look at something to consider and we would -- I would -- I would recommend a continuance, so that we can meet with the applicant and work on these things and come back to you and get it right. Because, again, Linda brought up the issue about doing a property boundary adjustment and cross-access with the -- the other property. That's one issue we have to solve. We know this property is currently under one ownership, but it's in the process of selling to two different owners that want their own different agreements. So, this property is going to have to enter into its own development agreement and this other property owner is going to have to come forward and modify the other DA and create their own DA. So, there is a lot of moving parts here and, then, same thing with the frontage improvements. The reason why we required the Eagle Road frontage in conjunction with the first phase is because we have a gap in the sidewalk and we didn't want that to continue on Eagle Road. That is a -- we want lighting along there and we want that ten foot multi-use pathway and we want those ITD improvements. So, there is a lot of moving parts here that, yes, these are simple things, it's easy to throw a concept plan up here and say, you know what, we are just adding 26 units. But in our world we haven't had a chance to make sure that all the conditions or anything to line it up properly for you to even consider whether it's good or bad. We haven't given you all the information to say yes or no to it to be honest with you. And I want to be sympathetic to the applicant's time frame. I know they are on a very tight timeline, because I -- and they are great to work with. I -- I commend them. I mean when we started -- like they said 295 units, we are down to 239, so -- and a lot of that I have to commend them for working with staff, because we were of the same opinion you were, why not 213? You have an entitlement. And we shared all of the same information that we are talking about tonight with them. It's like Meridian is not set up for this type of development in our code. Just as you mentioned, Councilman Taylor. We -- we don't have those incentives and that's why they came in with three alternative compliance requests and we are like, whoa, can we -- can we meet somewhere in the middle? Because all of a sudden you get in front of the public has the perception of three alternative compliance requests and all of a sudden they are like we are giving them waivers or we are making concessions. We are not thinking about the community when we really are. That was just -- those were just the tools that we had to use to help them get to -- to the means that they needed to get to. It wasn't that we were trying to bait and switch or pull the wool over the public's eyes, it's just those are the things that we have in our code that allows us to work through these types of challenges when we have this particular property, because as we all know this side of Eagle Road is not equal to the other side of Eagle Road just because of the connectivity. We have that county sub that has basically closed this property off. So, no matter whether this is multi-family, commercial, you are always going to have the transportation issues on this particular property. It's -- it's not a use thing, it's really just the fact that it's walled off and it's pretty hard to integrate it now. So, anyways, my recommendation -- at least staff's recommendation would be to continue it and allow us to meet with the applicant. I'm happy to bring it Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 80 of 86 back to you as quickly as we can, but I think having -- having it right, allowing you to think about it, allowing us to kind of finesse and work with the applicant a little bit more and share that for you to understand and look at before you make your decision, we have done that in the past and that may be a wise decision tonight. I will get off my soapbox now. Sorry. A lot of history here. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: That was compelling from my perspective, of course, since I would like a continuance, but, yeah, I think that makes good sense. I guess my only question would be when do we -- when -- when would we continue it to? That would give you adequate time, that would, you know, not derail things too bad for the applicant. Parsons: Mayors, Members of the Council, I would maybe ask you to open up the public hearing and ask the applicant what works for them. I mean we are -- these things take time. We have some full agendas coming up. You have some -- some dicey issues coming up, too. So, I think -- I know we have -- on the 12th we have Timber Creek coming back that night and, then, on the 6th we have some other appeals coming before you. Yeah. So, it's -- the agendas are getting full and I see that continuing throughout the rest of the year, to be honest with you. But, again, I don't know what the applicant's timeline is other than we want something tonight and I don't -- I don't think -- I don't know if that's in the best interest for the applicant -- or the city at this time. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would move that we open the public hearing again. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to reopen 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 opened. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor, if we could hear from the applicant about their timing and what they would like to achieve. Huber: Chase Huber. 37532 Southeast Fury Street, Snoqualmie, Washington. Thank you, Bill, for chiming in there. I mentioned earlier we don't own this land. We are under contract to purchase this land. We are on tight time frames. We are stretching it out pretty far as it is tonight. Any length of time puts more stresses on that and the reality is Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 81 of 86 it goes back to the previous owner and moves forward as the original proposal. So, we are already taking pretty significant risks. It doesn't -- it's not free to design a project like this. We already tied up this land for an extensive period of time. It puts a lot of stress on us as the developer to keep this land under contract without spending additional dollars without a decision. That being said we can work as quickly as possible, but any extensive continuance puts a lot of stress on us and likely ends in the reality that it goes back to a market rate development. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I will just be honest, like I would not -- I would not be able to vote in favor of this without receiving further advice from city staff as they just explained it. I don't think -- if you were in my position I don't think that you would want to do that either, just given those comments. So, I don't -- I'm just going to -- let's see. We have got a fifth Tuesday in October. That's always a challenge for us. Simison: I think Councilman Cavener has a -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Appreciate the exceptional work of my good colleague, but in -- in talking with staff for the amount of time that they would need and given some of our existing Council obligations, probably be looking at November 19th. Is that doable? Unachievable? Huber: I really -- I can't answer that tonight. We are -- we have contractual obligations for significant earnest money to go out on November 1st. At this point it would not make sense for us to extend deep into November, knowing the risks that are still outstanding. It just -- it puts me in a really difficult spot. I understand the need for additional time and -- another option here. Cavener: I guess, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I think your -- your -- your options are -- is likely a continuance, so that staff can file conditions of approval or denial this evening. I mean those are really your two options at this point. Council won't be in a position to grant you an approval tonight without additional findings. That's why our staff has asked for that particular time. So, if -- if the -- if the 19th is not sufficient for you, then, our next course of action, then, would just be -- since you wouldn't be here on the 19th is that we would -- I would make a motion for denial. Huber: Understood. We will take the 19th then and work with the land seller to try to make this work. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 82 of 86 Nelson: Mayor, may I also chime in? We agreed that we do want findings in the recommended conditions. I guess I would just ask Bill -- they were prepared for P&Z, so they are in the packet. So, we do have all the conditions that staff already put together for the project and so I think there would be, if anything, minor adjustments, but that would be at Council's discretion of -- of conditions you want to add. So, I suspect they are there, given -- given that and maybe a minimal amount of adjustment is it possible to get on in October to review that? Just a question if we -- if that's at all an option to avoid the strain of going into November, given that they have been drafted. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I don't want to -- I don't want to speak for staff, but I -- I asked staff kind of what the minimum amount of time that they would need and that was the 19th. So, I -- I want to be respectful. So, I don't want to speak for them, but I don't want to take away their opportunity to speak. I just wanted to convey that that's what staff had shared with me is the 19th would be the earliest. Parsons: Correct. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean the next -- the last hearing in the month is next week, isn't it, the 22nd, and, then, we -- then we are into November. So, we are -- I don't know how we get to -- get you turned around and get it back to you. It's just a difficult time of year for us to -- to be able to pivot that quickly. The applicant isn't wrong, we do have some general conditions, but, again, things have changed. We want to bifurcate this out of the existing DA, we want to require cross-parking, so, again, I want some time to at least have a conversation with the applicant to make sure those things work. I don't want to sit here and try to work from the dais and come up with conditions of approval on certain things that have kind of transpired based on the sale of this property and the other owner. I'm working with both of them, to be honest with you. So, one calls me and, then, I know the -- the current owner of the property and, then, he asked me what if we do this? Can I do this? So, it's just very very complex and I just want to be sympathetic to everyone involved, so we don't inadvertently miss something getting this one to the finish line. And, then, we talked about other things as well, like no parking signs and those things. So, I mean there -- there is a lot -- Nelson: Those are already in the conditions. I guess if it's possible at all can we have five minutes with staff? I actually -- reading through this I think everything that's been proposed is in the list. Cavener: Mr. Mayor, you run the meeting. I will defer to you. Simison: I'm -- I'm happy to take five minutes. I'm also happy for a one week continuance. I mean it -- either staff will get it done or -- either you got the conditions ready or you don't and you come back next week with -- you get your one week to figure it out and get stuff in. But we do have two council members who won't be here who are Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 83 of 86 here tonight and that -- that is a -- that is a challenge that you don't like that people have gone through this to not be present. Yeah. So, that's -- that's the dilemma. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: And this is where, again, this is -- you can see this is why we don't do a lot of meetings after 10:00 o'clock. We start to tend to get off the rails. Mr. Mayor, I'm going to ask you to grant a five minute recess to give the applicant a quick conversation with staff and, then, we will come back for likely motions in five minutes. Simison: Okay. Five minute recess. (Recess: 10:41 p.m. to 10:48 p.m.) Simison: Five minutes is coming to an end. So, I don't know who to turn to. Linda. Bill. Deb. Okay. Bill is -- Parsons: I'm out. No. Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, I think we have reached an agreement. We can make it happen next week. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Sorry, what -- what do you mean by that? Like anything happened? Parsons: You can have things situated where you can have a clear picture of what conditions may look like. Strader: Before next week. Parson: Yes. Strader: Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I wasn't understanding what you were saying. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Walk me through the timing on this, right, because we publish an agenda soon. Within that is our packet where we would have the information that Council and the public would be able to review. Help me understand how you are going to be able to achieve that given what I think is an incredibly short runway. So, help me understand how we are going to get there? Because I get that we can get there by next Tuesday, Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 84 of 86 but I am focused about making sure that we are publishing to the public accurate information in a timely manner. Parsons: Yeah. Mayor and Council, that -- that's not going to happen. Cavener: Okay. Parsons: That's the reality of it. Correct. Right now we are talking about it. It's -- it's -- it's on the record and just know that if we have something to you to take under consider next week, then, you may get it Friday, you may get it Monday, you may get it Tuesday. I can't -- I don't know when that's going to be. But that's something that Council has to take into consideration tonight. Cavener: Council, a motion is always in order. I'm not going to support a motion for continuance for one week and -- and we are not going to be able to have all the materials that we are going to be able to provide to the public and to us in appropriate timeline. So, I understand that we are trying to support a request with a very very short runway, but I think that our obligation to -- we work for the public to be able to communicate to them appropriately trumps our desire to provide great customer service to an applicant. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I'm in agreement with Councilman Cavener. I won't be here next week, I will be out of the country, so -- and I feel very passionate about this subject matter. So, either we make a decision tonight or we find a date in the future that we can continue it to. That would be my call. Cavener: So, Council, to -- to maybe move things along, I'm going to make a motion that we close the public hearing on this item. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The eyes have it and the public hearing is closed. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Move that we continue Item H-2024-0019 to November the 19th. Little Roberts: Second. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 85 of 86 Simison: Have a motion and a second to continue this item to November 19th. Is their discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. To speak to the motion, this was the timing that staff said we could -- it was appropriate. I think that, obviously, gives staff enough time to evaluate and, then, certainly more than enough time for us to notice this appropriately, so that the public who has taken a great interest in this application has ample time to review and be able to provide any follow-up testimony on the 19th. Simison: Mr. Nary? Cavener: I realize I may need to get a clarification. Mr. Nary. I closed the public hearing. I want to continue the public hearing, don't I? All right. So, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to revise my previous motion, which is that we continue the public hearing on Item 3, H-2024-0019 to November the 19th. Little Roberts: Second concurs. Simison: Have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing to November 19th. It will be the intention of Council at that time to take testimony from the public on whatever information is shared, assuming that any new -- on that. So, public will be invited to testify if it moves forward. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. Taylor: Nay. Simison: The ayes have it and the item is continued to November 19th. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE NAY. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Don't see anybody jumping up for future meeting topics, so I would move we adjourn the meeting. Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Meridian City Council October 15,2024 Page 86 of 86 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:53 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 11-6-2024 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 11-6-2024 E IDIAN;--- /hl R 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 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. i j i i CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: October 15, 2024 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 inappropriate for this forum) Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic w IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 24-2484: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Meridian Appointing Seoyoon Song to Seat 9 of the Meridian Arts Commission, Divya Danesh to Seat 8 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission, Lilly Miller to Seat 4 of the Meridian Transportation Commission; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 24-2484 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER,TAYLOR,WHITLOCK A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPOINTING SEOYOON SONG TO SEAT 9 OF THE MERIDIAN ARTS COMMISSION; DIVYA DANESH TO SEAT 8 OF THE MERIDIAN SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMISSION; LILLY MILLER TO SEAT 4 OF THE MERIDIAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS,Meridian City Code Title 2, Chapter 2 establishes the Meridian Arts Commission; WHEREAS,Meridian City Code Title 2, Chapter 6 establishes the Meridian Solid Waste Commission; WHEREAS,Meridian City Code Title 2, Chapter 7 establishes the Meridian Transportation Commission; WHEREAS, Meridian City Code Section 2-1-1 establishes roles, responsibilities, membership and terms of appointment for all Meridian City Commissions; WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian recognizes and values the unique perspective and input of the youth of the Meridian community as it pertains to arts within the City and, to that end, Meridian City Code § 2-1-1(c)(2) states that a youth member may be appointed to Commissions; WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of Seoyoon Song as a Youth Member to the Meridian Arts Commission, Divya Danesh as a Youth Member to the Solid Waste Advisory Commission, and Lilly Miller as a Youth Member to the Meridian Transportation Commission to be in the best interest of the City of Meridian; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That,pursuant to Meridian City Code §2-1-1, Seoyoon Song be appointed to Seat 9 as a Youth Member to the Meridian Arts Commission and Divya Danesh be appointed to Seat 8 as a Youth Member to the Solid Waste Advisory Commission and Lilly Miller be appointed to Seat 4 as a Youth Member to the Meridian Transportation Commission, for terms to expire September 30, 2025. Section 2.That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this 15th day of October, 2024. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian,Idaho, this 15t''day of October, 2024. APPROVED: Mayor Robert E. Simison ATTEST: By: Chris Johnson, City Clerk YOUTH COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS-SONG(MAC),DANESH(SWAC),MILLER(MTC) Page 1 of 1 C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #2: Pivot Point Subdivision (H-2024-0029) Application(s): Annexation and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 7.98 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County, located at near the corner of W. Pine Avenue and N. Black Cat Road History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR) Summary of Request: The applicant proposes annexation of 7.98 acres of land with R-8 zoning district; and a preliminary plat consisting of 41 building lots and 10 common lots currently zoned RUT. The subject site abuts an R-8 development to the east, west, and southwest, Chesterfield Subdivision No. 1, Horse Meadows Subdivision, and Alexanders Landing Subdivision; to the southeast is county residential not yet annexed into the City of Meridian; and to the north is W Pine Avenue. The proposed gross density is 5.51 units per acre, which is within the desired density range of the MDR designation. Access: Access is proposed via N. Biltmore Avenue and W. Quarterhorse Lane. The subject property is dependent upon the development of Horse Meadows Subdivision directly to the west to reconstruct a portion of W. Quarterhorse Lane (existing private road) as a public street, to provide a secondary access to this site. Access off of W. Pine Avenue via N. Biltmore Avenue shall align with N. Biltmore Avenue on the north side of Pine. ACHD found the alignment to not meet their policy and this shall be revised with the submission of the final plat. Horse Meadows Subdivision has submitted their final plat but it has not been recorded with the county; therefore, there is only one access to the site. Landscape Buffers: A 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to Pine, a collector street. This buffer should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and placed into a common lot that is at least as wide as the required buffer width; this common lot should also contain the detached sidewalk required along both roadways. The original landscape plans appear to show compliance with these requirements. Common Open Space and Amenities: An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts 1.24 acres of common open space for the development with 1.15 acres of this area as qualified open space meeting the minimum requirements. There are two (2) main open space areas proposed within Pivot Pointe, the linear open space along the Kennedy Lateral, and the open space located on Lot 19, Block 1. The large central open space area is approximately 45,935 feet in size and is the largest usable common area within the project. The applicant proposes to use the irrigation districts gravel access road and pave a micro-pathway that runs through the open space for pedestrian connectivity and the irrigation districts access. This linear open space connects with the Chesterfields Subdivisions open space. It is depicted with trees and a community fire pit. Staff recommends the removal of lot 2 Block 1 to create a more integrated open space and avoid conflict points at the intersection of N. Biltmore and Pine. The applicant has proposed an alternative location for this lot for your consideration. Staff recommends the applicant provides a 5-foot micro pathway in Lot 19, Block 1 to provide convenient access and pedestrian connectivity. UDC 11-3G-4 dictates the minimum amenity points required for projects over 5 acres in size. The project size of 7.98 acres requires a minimum of one (1) amenity point (1 point for every 5 acres). According to the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing the following amenities worth 2 amenity points: Outdoor fire ring (1), and A pathway (1) which does not meet the requirements to qualify for a point. In order for the pathway to count towards the amenity requirements it shall be paved and landscape in accord with UDC 11- 3A-8 and 11-3B-12.C to connect to N. Biltmore Avenue and W. Pine Avenue. If the irrigation district does not allow for these improvements within the easements the applicant shall provide an additional qualifying amenity equaling one point or more with the final plat application. However, the applicant has provided an additional amenity in the form of a tot lot since the Planning and Zoning Commission to meet this requirement. Building Elevations: Twelve (12) conceptual building elevations and floor plans were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. Variations of one and two-story homes with a two-car garage are proposed. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding, differing color accents, roof profiles, and varying home styles. Staff finds these elevations to meet our architectural standards and follows the city’s standards. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Sabrina Durtschi, KB Homes ii. In opposition: Karla Ehlers, Kathy Gallentine, Natalie Purcell iii. Commenting: N/A iv. Written testimony: Karla Ehlers, Kathy Gallentine, Natalie Purcell v. Key Issue(s): Concerns about density, traffic/congestion on the roads, Fuller park being overcrowded, and schools being over capacity. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The removal of Lot 2, Block 1 to incorporate more integrated open space. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. N/A Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The removal of Lot 2, Block 1 to incorporate more integrated open space. The applicant is proposing an alternative to this that they will include in their presentation. Staff Recommendation: Approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement and preliminary plat per the conditions and according to the Findings in the Staff Report. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0029, as presented in the staff th report for the hearing date of October 15, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0029, as presented during the th hearing on October 15, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0029 to the hearing date of _____ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #3: Centrepoint Apartments (H-2024-0019) Application(s): Development Agreement Modification, Conditional Use Permit Modification and Alternative Compliance Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.9 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at 3100 N Centrepoint Way and 3030 N. Cajun Lane. History: H-2018-0121 (Villasport CUP, MDA); H-2022-0035 (MDA, DA Inst. #2022-079000); A-2023-0064 (CZC, DES) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Regional (MU-RG) Summary of Request: Modifications to the existing Development Agreement (DA) H-2022-0035 DA Inst# 2022-079000 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) H-2022-0072 to facilitate the construction of a 239-unit multifamily affordable apartment project. This proposal strictly pertains to the residential component of the approved development plan. The applicant is also requesting alternative compliance to the parking lot landscaping. The current CUP and DA were approved in 2022 to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space as follows: Maximum of two hundred thirteen (213) units Limited building height limited to three (3) stories Met the intent of the open space requirements Provided the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a business lounge, plaza areas, a swimming pool, a fitness facility, an outdoor kitchen, a dog run, a micro-path system, sports courts, and a bicycle repair room. All of the proposed amenities except the proposed dog run are located within the central open space area or part of the three (3) central buildings. On September 5, 2024, Centrepoint Apartments was presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the project based on the height and density of the project. The proposed amendment to the CUP and MDA (Denied by Planning and Zoning Commission): Applied for two hundred ninety-five (295) units but reduced it to two hundred seventy-nine (279) units prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Requested building to be four (4) stories and increase the building height to forty-five (45) feet. Requested alternative compliance for the qualified open space as it did not meet the open space requirement (deficient by 8,940 sf). The applicant asked for alternative compliance stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. Although the project is located less than one-mile from the Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex, Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park and Champion Park; the residents would have to cross either Ustick Road, a residential arterial or Eagle Road, a State highway to access them. Proposed the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a fitness facility; children’s play structure; dog park with a waste station; shaded picnic area with BBQ grills, tables, benches and landscaping; shaded plaza/courtyard with activity lawn; a micro- path system, sports courts and a bicycle repair area. The sports courts and dog park are located near N. Cajun Lane. After the Commission action, the applicant approached staff and proposed to make modifications to the plan based on feedback received during the hearing. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and offers the following summary: The proposed amendment to the CUP and MDA (for City Council): The applicant is proposing to further decrease the residential units from two hundred seventy-nine (279) to two hundred thirty- nine (239) units. Reduced the building heights for the buildings closest to the neighboring residential homes to the west and south. Building D on the west side of the site is now proposed as a 2‐story building (as approved currently), Building B2 and Building C are now also proposed as 3‐story buildings (as approved currently). The other building two buildings (Building A and B1) will remain 4-story and be allowed a height limit not to exceed sixty-five (65) feet. The maximum height limit allowed in the C-G zoning district. Proposed new building concepts with pitched roof lines instead of flat roofs. Increased qualifying open space to 104,154 sf exceeding city requirements which no longer requires alternative compliance for being deficient. Removed the parallel parking stalls along the north portion of the project along Ustick Road on the west side of Centrepoint Way. Removed parking along Cajun Lane due to back up concerns. Removed the proposed sports court (pickle ball court) due to its potential for noise. Shifted open space on the west side of the site away from Ustick Road as much as possible and adjacent to the pedestrian walkway and added a dog park with 4’ high barrier along Ustick Road. The site plan exceeds city parking requirements by forty-eight (48) parking stalls. Development Agreement Modification Addition to Consider The Applicant is requesting and addition to the Development Agreement modification that was not part of the original review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The new and revised language is as follows: b. Development of the multi‐family residential portion of the site (tax parcel no. S1105110111) shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan included in Exhibit A dated September 26, 2024. d. The required landscape street buffers and multi‐use pathway segment shall be constructed and vegetated with the residential phase of development along E. Ustick Road; the proposed 25‐ foot landscape buffer along the west and south boundaries shall be constructed with the residential phase of development. The required landscape street buffers along N. Eagle Road shall be constructed and vegetated with the commercial phase of development including any additional right of way deed or dedication required by Idaho Transportation Department. f. For the multi‐family development, Building D will be no more than two stories in height, Buildings B2 and C will be no more than three stories in height, and Buildings A and B1 will be no more than four stories in height, consistent with the Applicant’s revised concept plan and presentation to Council. In addition, the Applicant requests the notice provisions and exhibits to the Development Agreement be amended to add the Applicant’s name and the new proposed conceptual plans for the site. Commission Recommendation: Denial of the project based on building height and density Summary of Commission Public Hearing: vi. In favor: Nicolette Womack, Chase Huber, Brandon McDougald, Nock Stoppello, Brenda Jones, vii. In opposition: Steve Grant, Kristy Hein, Landon Johnson, Janet Bailey, Jeffrey Miller, Barry Holsinger, Doug Stern, Jared Schofield, Abisay Uretta, Ruth Dickinson, Carrie Gammon, Jeff Vrba, Elizabeth Gammon viii. Commenting: Steve Grant, Kristy Hein, Landon Johnson, Janet Bailey, Jeffrey Miller, Barry Holsinger, Doug Stern, Jared Schofield, Abisay Uretta, Ruth Dickinson, Carrie Gammon, Jeff Vrba, Elizabeth Gammon ix. Written testimony: Bruce and Kathy Dickinson, Callie Meye, Jackson Square HOA, Joseph Lemay, Kathleen Medley, Michelle Hodges, and Randall Adams were all against the proposed development x. Key Issue(s): Density, height of the proposed building and increase in traffic on the private roads. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: ii. Density of the project, height of the proposed buildings and increased traffic in the area Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: ii. Denial Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Russell Duke, Bruce and Kathy Dickinson, David Park, Kathleen Medley, Elaine Roccio, Abisay Herrera all opposing the project due to the number of proposed units, increased traffic in the area and negative impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Department of Veteran’s Affairs, EL-ADA Community Action Partnership, Friends of Children and Families Inc., Jesse Tree and Boise Rescue Mission all in support of the project. Voicemail Testimony: DoEtta and Jo Ray B., Kathleen Medley, Bruce Dickinson, David Park, Kathy Dickinson, Abisay Herrera, Peter Wolf and Leanna D all opposing the project due to the number of proposed units, increased traffic and impact to the adjacent neighborhoods. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2024-0019, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of October 15, 2024: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2024-0019, as presented during the hearing on October 15, 2024, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2024-0019 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) h2 City Council Meeting<10/15/2024 > Slide 1 h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order: hoodc, 12/19/2006 Zoning MapAerial MapmapFuture Land Use Remove Lot 2, Block 1, and incorporate this area into the common open space for the development. story structures are exempt from this requirement.Singleplanes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall outs), bays, banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other backs, popfollowing: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, stepincorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the lots (i.e. Lots 2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 2) should highly visible; therefore, the rear and/or side of structures on these Homes on lots that abut W. Pine Avenue, a collector street, will be Section VIII and the provisions contained herein.amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in the preliminary plat, landscape plan, common open space/site Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with Zoning MapAerial MapFuture Land Use Map three (3) central buildings. located within the central open space area or part of the proposed amenities except the proposed dog run are system, sports courts, and a bicycle repair room. All of the path fitness facility, an outdoor kitchen, a dog run, a microwith a business lounge, plaza areas, a swimming pool, a Provided the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse Met the intent of the open space requirementsLimited building height limited to three (3) storiesMaximum of two hundred thirteen (213) units Current Approved Elevation Height:Story and maximum building height of 28’-2•Current Approved Elevation Height:Story and maximum building height of 41’-3• LandscapeOpen Space Exhibit Newly Proposed Landscape Plan:Road on the west side of Centrepoint Way. UstickParallel parking stalls along the north portion of the project along •Previously Proposed Landscape Plan:Road on the west side of Centrepoint Way. Ustickproject along Removed the parallel parking stalls along the north portion of the • Newly Proposed Open Space Exhibit:space requirement. sf). The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for qualified open Does not meet the qualified open space requirement (deficient by 8,940 •Previously Proposed Open Space Exhibit:Road.Ustickmuch as possible and adjacent to the pedestrian walkway and added a Road as UstickShifted open space on the west side of the site away from •deficient. requirements which no longer requires for alternative compliance for being Increased proposed qualifying open space to 104,154 sf exceeding city • Newly Proposed Parking:parking agreementNeed to work with commercial property to develop shared •Parking along N. Cajun Lane•Previously Proposed Parking:parking agreementStill need to work with commercial property to develop shared •Removed parking along N. Cajun Lane• Current Approved Elevation Height:on the east side of N. Cajun Lane.on the south side of the property and story buildings -property and two (2) 3story building on the west side of the -•G zone).-in the Cheight not to exceed 65’ (the maximum pitched roofs with a maximum building building height of 55’.6” and requesting story buildings showing a -Two (2) 4•Newly Proposed Elevation Height:height of 45’feet and requesting a maximum building Story buildings showing a height of 41 -4•Previously Proposed Height:Story and maximum building height of 41’-3• a.the Applicant’s revised concept plan and presentation to Council.Buildings A and B1 will be no more than four stories in height, consistent with in height, Buildings B2 and C will be no more than three stories in height, and family development, Building D will be no more than two stories ‐For the multi c.by Idaho Transportation Department. development including any additional right of way deed or dedication required shall be constructed and vegetated with the commercial phase of The required landscape street buffers along N. Eagle Road development. and south boundaries shall be constructed with the residential phase of foot landscape buffer along the west ‐Road; the proposed 25Ustickalong E. be constructed and vegetated with the residential phase of development use pathway segment shall ‐The required landscape street buffers and multi b.plan included in Exhibit A dated September 26, 2024.S1105110111) shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development family residential portion of the site (tax parcel no. ‐Development of the multi W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pivot Point Subdivision (H-2024-0029) by KB Homes, generally located south of W. Pine Ave. and east of N. Black Cat Rd. Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2024-0029 A. Request: Annexation of 7.98 acres of land with R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and, 10 common lots on 7.98 acres of land currently zoned RUT. i� PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE: October 15, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 2 i PROJECT NAME: Pivot Point Subdivision (H-2024-0029) 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 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,,--, DEPARTMENT REPORT ©a H o HEARING 10/15/2024 ' Legend No,DATE: Project Location � TO: Mayor&City Council Area of Impact }= City Limits f FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner O Analysis _ 208-884-5533 nnapoli@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Sabrina Durtschi SUBJECT: H-2024-0029 Pivot Pointe Subdivision LOCATION: Generally located south of W. Pine Avenue and east of N. Black Cat Road in the north half of the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10,T.3N.,R.1 W. (Parcels: S1210325555; S1210325410) I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Annexation of 7.98 acres of land with R-8 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of 41 building lots, and 10 common lots on 7.98 acres of land currently zoned RUT. B. Issues/Waivers Staff is recommending the removal of Lot 2,Block 1 to create more integrated open space within the development. The applicant would like the lot to remain as shown. C. Recommendation Staff. Approval with development agreement and conditions Commission: Recommend approval D. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Rural Residential/Agriculture - Proposed Land Use(s) Single family detached dwellings - Existing/Proposed Zoning Rural Urban Transition Area(RUT)in Ada County/R-8 VII.A.2 (Medium Density Residential) Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR) VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Pre-application Meeting date Thursday,June 27,2024 Neighborhood Meeting 7/17/2024;9 people attended the meeting Site posting date 9/30/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway District IV.E • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access Pine is classified as a collector roadway. Other than the - access specifically approved with this application off of N. Biltmore Avenue,direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway and should be noted on the final plat. • Traffic Level of Service Better than"D" - ITD Comments Received No Meridian Fire No comments received Meridian Police No comments received Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: Sewer in Pine Avenue;Impacts or Concerns:No Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: Water available at site;Impacts or IV.B Concerns:No School District(s) West Ada School District IV.D • Capacity of Schools Elementary: 700;Middle: 1250;High:2075 - • Number of Students Enrolled Elementary: 533;Middle: 957;High: 1833 - See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency comments received or see public record: (https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=353455&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City) . City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics 2.00 1,500 Single-family Residential 1.50 a � 1,000 , Parcel Diversity N 1.00 u *Parcel Count in 0.50 500 L M •Average Acres 0.00 1 .3 14W-0 10 0 a R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 L Residential Net Density Q 10.00 10.25 '.14 5.51 � 5.00 4:32 C 0.00 Dwelling Units / Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 Figure 2: Service Impact Summary -rwi oe I m pact Tool Ready Marginal Caution City of Meridian Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The Applicant proposes to annex 7.98 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district.A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 41 single-family residential detached dwelling units at a gross density of 5.51 units per acre. The proposed use and density of the development is consistent with the Medium Density Residential(MDR)FLUM designation of 3-8 units per acre. Single-family detached homes are in the development process to the west and south while to the south of the railroad,the planned Medium High-Density Residential development consists of attached,townhouses, and, and multifamily dwellings. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The property is contiguous to City annexed land to the north and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area for the R-8 zoning districts are included in Section VII. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IV. Table 4: Pro*ect Overview Description Details History N/A Phasing Plan 1 phase Residential Units 41 single family detached units Open Space 1.15 acres/ 15.06% Amenities 2 amenities—Fire Pit and Pathway Physical Features Kennedy Lateral Acreage 7.98 acres Lots 51 total lots;41 buildable and 10 common Density 5.51 du/acre/7.15 du/acre R-8 Dimensional Standards 4,000 square feet;4,307 square feet (Required and Proposed) B. Site Development and Use Analysis 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): The subject site contains four existing structures: four homes and accessory structures. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat,these structures shall be removed. 2. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The proposed plat complies with the dimensional standards of the district. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis C. Design Standards Analysis 1. Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Goals 2.01.02D,2.01.01 G,and 2.02.02C emphasize a diversity of housing types throughout the city to meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. Additionally,these goals promote infill development that does not negatively impact existing developments. The subject site is adjacent to the established R-8 developments (Chesterfield Subdivision No. 1 and Horse Meadows Subdivision)to the east and west. To the south is county residential land not yet annexed into Meridian, and to the north is W. Pine Avenue. The preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 41 single-family residential detached dwelling units at a gross density of 5.51 units per acre(see Sections VII.G). The proposed use and density of the development are consistent with the MDR FLUM designation. Additionally,the proposed single-family detached dwellings with a mix of lot sizes will contribute to the variety of housing options in this area and within the City as desired. Single-family detached homes are in the development process to the west and south while to the south of the railroad,the planned Medium High-Density Residential development consists of attached,townhouses, and, and multifamily dwellings. Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The property is contiguous to City annexed land to the north and is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area for the R-8 zoning districts are included in Section VII. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IV. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): Goals 2.02.00 and 2.02.0113 of the Comprehensive Plan focus on creating safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods with ample open space, diverse amenities, and alignment with community needs and values. Open Space Requirements (UDC 11-3G-3): a. Baseline Requirement: For developments zoned R-8 (Medium Density Residential)a minimum of 15%of the subdivisions area(7.98 acres) shall be qualified open space. The applicant is proposing 1.15 acres of qualified open space exceeding the 1.12 acres required to meet the minimum standard. However, Staff recommends Lot 2, Block I is removed to create more integrated open space. The placement of Lot 2, Block I creates an isolated parcel that abuts open space, a gravel access road, and street landscape buffers. Additionally, the lot creates possible conflict points when having to ingress and egress for the property owner. Due to these concerns, staff finds that UDC 11-3G-3-2b "Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development"is not being met. The subdivision features two main open space areas: a linear space along the Kennedy Lateral and another linear space on Lot 19, Block 1. The common lots 6, 12, 22, and 33 do not count as qualified open space but are provided throughout the development. The Applicant illustrates the lateral as piped underground. The large central open space area is approximately 45,935 feet in size and is the largest usable City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis common area within the project. The applicant proposes a gravel access road and micro pathway that runs through the open space for pedestrian connectivity and irrigation district access. The linear open space along the Kennedy Lateral is approximately 50 feet in width and over 500 feet in length. This linear open space connects with the Chesterfield No. I Subdivision's open space. This is discussed more in the amenity section below. Amenity Requirements(UDC 11-3G-4): For single family subdivisions 1 amenity point is required for each 5 acres of gross land area. The subject project size of 7.98 acres requires a minimum of two(2)amenity points. The applicant is proposing the following amenity. a. An outdoor fire pit worth 1 point. b. A pathway(does not meet the requirements to qualify for a point) In order for the pathway to count towards the amenity requirements it shall be paved and landscape in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-313-11C to connect to N.Biltmore Avenue and W.Pine Avenue.If the irrigation district does not allow for these improvements within the easements the applicant shall provide an additional qualifying amenity equaling one point or more with the final plat application. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets A 20-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to Pine, a collector street. This buffer should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C and placed into a common lot that is at least as wide as the required buffer width;this common lot should also contain the detached sidewalk required along W. Pine Avenue. Due to the neighboring subdivision to the east(Chesterfield Subdivision No. 1)having an attached sidewalk along W. Pine Avenue,the sidewalk on the east of N. Biltmore Avenue with Pivot Pointe will become attached. The landscape plans appear to show compliance with these requirements. ii. Tree preservation A Tree Mitigation Plan should be submitted with the final plat detailing all existing trees and methods of mitigation outlined by the City Arborist before any trees are to be removed as set forth in UDC 11-313-1OC.5. iii. Storm integration Storm drainage is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-18. Drainage swales should not be within the landscape setbacks along W. Pine Avenue. iv. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways with a minimum of 5-feet wide shall be provided on each side of the pathway with a mix of trees, shrubs,lawn,and/or other vegetative ground covers per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the landscape plan should be revised accordingly. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): i. Residential parking analysis 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. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Goal 5.01.02D of the Comprehensive Plan highlights the need for effective building design and landscaping to buffer, screen,beautify, and integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking areas with existing neighborhoods. In response,the developer has submitted twelve (12)conceptual building elevations and floor plans that illustrate the appearance of future homes in the development(see Section VII.H). The proposed designs include variations of both one-and two-story homes, each featuring a two-car garage. The elevations showcase a range of architectural styles and design elements, including lap siding, diverse color accents,varied roof profiles, and different home styles. Staff review confirms that these elevations adhere to the city's architectural standards and comply with the required design criteria. Homes on lots that abut W.Pine Avenue, a collector street,-will be highly visible;therefore, the rear and/or side of structures on these lots (i.e. Lots 2, 16, 17, 18, 19,20,Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 2) should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g. projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches, balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. 6. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plans,the applicant is proposing two types of fencing throughout the site,vinyl solid fencing and wrought iron semi-privacy fencing. D. Transportation Analysis 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Goals 6.01.01H and 6.01.0213 of the Comprehensive Plan stress the need to minimize the number of direct access points onto arterial streets. This can be achieved through cross-access agreements, access management, frontage and backage roads, and enhancing connectivity through local and collector streets. Additionally,these goals highlight the importance of incorporating pedestrian access connectors in new developments to link subdivisions and support neighborhood connectivity within a community pathway system. The proposed access for the development includes W. Pine Avenue from N. Biltmore Avenue and W. Quarterhorse Lane from the west. The project relies on the Horse Meadows Subdivision,which is directly to the west,to reconstruct a portion of W. Quarterhorse Lane (currently a private road)into a public street. This will provide a secondary public street access. The existing curb cut on W. Pine Avenue will be removed, and curbing will be extended across the driveway. Access from W. Pine Avenue via N. Biltmore Avenue must align with N. Biltmore Avenue on the north side of Pine. However,ACHD has indicated that this alignment does not meet their policy requirements and will need to be revised before the final plat submission. Since the final plat for Horse Meadows Subdivision has been submitted but not yet recorded, there is currently only one access point to the site. Given that this property and the surrounding areas are designated as R-8 (Medium Density Residential)on the Future Land Use Map, staff recommends including a stub street to the City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis south to facilitate future connectivity, in line with UDC 11-3A-3A.2. The proposed preliminary plat appears to comply with these standards. 2. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): Goals 4.04.01 and 4.04.02 of the Comp Plan emphasize connecting local pathways from neighborhoods with regional pathways in commercial/community serving areas.No multi-use pathways are proposed or required with this development because the master pathways plan does not show any multi-use pathways adjacent to the subject site. The applicant is proposing attached sidewalks along all local streets that will connect to the detached sidewalks proposed along W. Pine Avenue. Additionally,the applicant is proposing a gravel micro-pathway along the Kennedy Lateral for better connectivity and pedestrian connection to the open spaces. Staff recommends adding a 5-foot micro-pathway on Lot 19,Block 1 to improve access and pedestrian connectivity to W. Pine Avenue for the western part of the subdivision. Additionally, staff recommends the gravel path leading to the Kennedy Lateral is paved and pathway to count towards the amenity requirements it shall be paved, landscaped, and extended in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-3B-12.0 to connect to N. Biltmore Avenue and W. Pine Avenue. If the irrigation district does not allow for these improvements within the easements the applicant shall provide an additional qualifying amenity equaling one point or more with the final plat application license agreement is entered with NMID for use of the gravel access road. With these additions, staff supports the proposed pathways and their design. 3. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): A detached side walk is proposed along W. Pine Avenue until the development crosses onto the east side of Biltmore where it becomes attached to connect with Chesterfield Subdivision No. 1. Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed within the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-17 standards. 4. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6): i. Dead end streets Dead end streets and Cul de sacs (N. Axis Avenue and W. Pivot Place) do not extend further than 500 feet and have less than 30 dwelling units. The applicant has met the dead-end streets regulations as listed in UDC 11-6C-3. ii. Common driveways The common drive shall meet the standards set forth in UDC 11-6C-3. The applicant is proposing a single common drive which has 4 lots taking access from it. Three(3) lots are taking access on the south side and one (1) from the north side. Additionally,the common drive is 31.50 feet wide and does not exceed 150 feet in length. The common drive meets these standards. iii. Block face Block faces are proposed in the development in accord with UDC 11-6C-3. The applicant is in compliance with this standard E. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): Goal 4.05.01 D of the Comprehensive Plan discusses the importance of improving waterways throughout the city and residential areas. The Kennedy Lateral runs through the center of the site. The Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID)requires an easement for the Kennedy Lateral. The easement for the Kennedy Lateral at this location is a minimum of one hundred City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis feet(100')total, fifty feet(50') each side. The applicant is proposing to keep the Lateral but will be tiling it underground to provide larger linear open space. 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required and are available to be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21 and Goals 3.03.03G& 3.03.03F. Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb,gutter, and sidewalks are required to be provided with development of the subdivision. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. A final plat shall not be submitted until the DA and Ordinance is approved by City Council. Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat, landscape plan, common open space/site amenity exhibit, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Homes on lots that abut W. Pine Avenue,a collector street,-will be highly visible; therefore,the rear and/or side of structures on these lots(i.e. Lots 2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 2) should incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays, banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exemptfrom this requirement. 2. The final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Replace the street name for"N.Axis Avenue"with"N. Stronghold Avenue"in accordance with the Ada County Street Name Review. b. Replace the street name for"W. Pivot Place"with"W.Meadowpine Court"in accordance with the Ada County Street Name Review. c. Graphically depict the ACHD stormwater drainage easements referenced in Note#6. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions d. Depict a paved 5-foot micro pathway through Lot 19,Block 1. e. Remove Lot 2, Block 1, and incorporate this area into the common open space for the development. f. Direct lot access to W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. g. The applicant shall comply with the common drive exhibit and provide a note on the final plat that addresses maintenance and access on the specified lots as shown in exhibit VI.J. 3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions: a. Include mitigation calculations on the plan for existing trees that are proposed to be removed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-IOC.S. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City Arborist(Kyle Yorita kyoritakmeridianci0.or0 to determine mitigation requirements prior to removal of existing trees from the site. b. Depict landscaping on each side of the 5-foot micro pathway running along the Kennedy Lateral. c. The 5-foot pathway proposed in Lot 3,Blockl shall be paved, landscaped,and extended in accord with UDC 11-3A-8 and 11-3B-12.0 to connect with N. Biltmore Avenue and W. Pine Avenue. If the irrigation district does not allow for these improvements within the easements the applicant shall provide an additional qualifying amenity equaling one point or more with the final plat application. d. Depict a paved 5-foot micro pathway through Lot 19,Block 1. e. Pave the gravel path leading to the Kennedy Lateral and enter into a license agreement with NMID for use of the gravel access road. f. Remove Lot 2,Block 1, and incorporate this area into the common open space for the development. 4. The proposed plat and subsequent development are required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2a-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat, all existing structures that do not conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed. 6. Comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to cul-de-sacs, alleys, driveways, common driveways, easements, blocks, street buffers, and mailbox placement. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. The applicant and/or assigns shall have the continuing obligation to provide irrigation that meets the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-6 and to install and maintain all landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5,UDC 11-3B-13 and UDC 11-3B-14. 11. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1) obtain the City Engineer's signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved findings; or obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions B. Meridian Public Works P12F--PLAT CON131T1OW w.a5;�+.aL4 oii"wr to Srwer 5ewm Is in H Iltack Cat Rd- SWAM SrwerShtd • utlmald Praled S6r apples-d�uon 5vmv ERU's s WARf OLLO wrij 6Yantr • PMJM COFWAerg Was troth Ww mwof PLwjFbrjutvKM Impattw�aDrhmm% BeeruDIK Work5 Site Speak Colldsorts INA" • brs#anoe to Watef Water dtvilabltafSit# Sern,tes • PrMwe2om 1 Esllemnedhtar SeeaPPlKatlan water!RU'f 4YatefUW1i1Df None • Projell convilenc VEL wfth W aer 4laiter' PLw • Cwdberm Sae Site Spew Cond dom Sill:sp"Irk Cordiliorl of-JLPpraral I E:ucb phaw LiNhe doclaprern3 silL rwtW la be t Wckd in sltrifti rnirrrGWm fvC!gum prrtaufs is buia" l". 2. Fiblow.T in v6TT?y if L4vq u a v ell U Aq IF 11%cll iLLX M+r%1 oe LhT Lt;,hautt beahorl*wcd pff rgkUwlr wquil4`n"u BM p100f n:aburelann"L sue[bt pr(w idcd w die Cite.Nac Lhm it coal bC tft-d Ent pr45durucd inwptun ps 4rtIW a y%!m,FcxerL KKmN C or rjrarW%s#od.=NKk,Lbp 3. Wald mat frTmcct tralre WMEt TILT■LT1$flier AVL d. Erkmv that than is a X ascmml and ihn all xt bad nNWratnenls from the mfrItrmion traoeh at4 wd f25'uefas TmtiL[almn o"i*m arc wcd I GvKnl Coriitkm of AppmA I. APRLL="I cUWAr kle w51af end seem hdim Biw Wd tal*wih rha Nbk Wmig dcpa mKw.wd c%ccuw stuldmd ferns of as- menu for my asiar An we rotainal ar pwOdt un¢e uraside d a puhlrc nahfl C-%3y. Maim) i mr4r m Lr ae w maw u Ihl -feel,Jf c05 er %Km trJlF rrf prpr lu sub-ptadc T}lm;d kin Ilrre47 h N Am allLvLtlr rtulrnalt Shall hr uwed m ..mfnru�e 44 Cits J hlendm ANu lA ork%UL-p rtme As Mi dnrd S j r ifi"Lmo City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions 2 P,l k o�il an l ra4 fndv 1 w1LY k Ihv applrcwl[rfmll It nNwlaibdv io InmialI U—ar atd waarr mains Lu aed L6ri7uLdLrJlisdUvcWproLm1. Appli=Irh&y be digi!W fd a h=bL.9xroeML 41lh,r61,';ii 6 w re1611,I"19LINc vh&AHCvM 11e mr rJKY 4f'!t # Iheappbm L Owl l pvWideepWmcmww< f'P*all pnhliV ways:$qrav miviS QUtg;1*Ql'PLbIK F%LI n4 WHY 1I1Ykok air WOOF tier}PeL7 and IndsnnhI 11Y:ri c71.M1 xL,dIIIL rlu111 Ic�1a.F'c[1 wrLLJr fur o xmgle Vbtdy-rr.Ul.feet aide for dxv, 'Ihe CirvrLnXntS aFyill nr,i l>C drdecnted vo Llr4 aL4i.but r rlhrr drdtiea[rd duL,Ldv ahs pf11t prdcL,o.lamµ ira C aY df X1Crl din'a Ls lrtidard i xlnv the rascmenl shofl be graphically dkpicled on ik plal for n:fareacc purpDKx 5ub,ns an escnncd cJxrhM tdd aht frdm a+aLWble.fieAm PuNke 94'ddmll-d Icpal dctertpwn llrcpdNd b5 S31 ldah,s LicLfacd Professional LuxdSwnvx r-Which nwo irKludr,hr arcs nfihv cash cni imarksd P.YrJltll7 x]aed ao w1"_'a I I"tl7a�x'IL1FhL'Ulnl�s uY'I dLSWrLL3[itru3.u1�111rB11•HF�Lr n.K Lev:.fllaih cxha�iks mull lac sssLlsd-siiErtcd Wad dried by s ProS�Liadul LarLd�rlrvryar.f]G N01 Rl_t ". Adds lahfc w Lhc pit rdcrenctll�c dbl dkk uiiL !.. All c2L Mdl,l 1tkaL be Fulms iwd.nLvkwed.uld Wpm6Ld prior ioilrsoroprwiki Jrhn1 approsil d. TheCLIV CIf MOK61M rcgmhl{tlOL plhmkLrLhd LMLOLMM 13sL mOlc uppind 65 ep ar-romd sLoisrLtirnf,LasLx kl'DC k ILIF"I Tlw-splL ,ii, 1 L►nwhd be nquu:J iuvw may"kiitlnhiiflriac4{r wL'11 woos fhr lbu TmixUry muri e. if a MUfa3LC or WL'LI MnUL:L Is n0l a4allabk,a Sn1j&-yet emL4 w curt Lai dw c0oury Nmet aylurrn,#all br M11PI vd.If h"gIV-ps,tna Mincel itrl i.LLIFIi rxd. Lhe din-L:lgrer aill be nwpmgibk Fix the pz mrml nl axx -nis Fix the aamrma aas prxw LD prior w nncwti rhf drtdoPffF nL pinn opplrnal 5 All exisllel Vrwures Mal arc acquired IQ be rq Hw%:ed sban bo Frior io s mtuae on Ok lieal P1ar by LbC Cil Y I ntt.hL'xa Any 311LdsLrrr�ilral sru JW%cd w ranha,d 3lrtrll be YIdE m ad i4alimwir,and PDSAIC rra99sRxmt'n of 5rn;C1 AwrslsinR 10 IN m[t'm P'l—Inc s'rih%I"- h. ACI rmWauaul Liu lio..Cahals-LalerslL CC Lkrauts.cx4lLLjLS c irf 11.111112,11 w d[cYMayS.tnsLYlrc Litre. c*osvFng ar Lwing adixvrr and mn[iplous w llnc nrca beirgr sub,fisidod kliall fix iddrcxsed 1M UDC I I-;A4. In perr'urniNikg sLrth Phorl,IN ap 13CA r 3hill vwmplwv-„113Lllal vmCO&42-1207 andaati'odlur llppLiuhle I7sr oT FaVuLidim 7. Au,welds dial will ounl r c0 L au 6c usul O LJSI Lk pnspQLy abmnd aotd;kOOtd,ee 1n ILln6o VFep Siwlcnt l-n g1.1%lo4d,A Wes admini%crsti lr}Ac 1dah+l Tkpnrw ry of u'awr Flw 17Lttlup:: • I . .-. • 1:,:1 prenoik a SLLkicimim iddr;auLe whLIUL LhL1t:are my L~xxfiag We%Lit IIM'div5',. -k .... .... hide W16 v will-gwil 1til4 I-,be L!KLI,(K mr"14I4 JC6,md L+F Owir ahWLh nTncML, a A1�1�y C6%W rQr acpliv"Arrx widum ihr•prilwa stall be rffw cd Pmmutr%kcv ps*f iL}C"mrLce (� rPown 94.S rW 94 K. CaTuad Costmi 6;L,xt Health lkw abn4ma 4nd pn,ctidvrLz and ,rdpwiorn 4.rizl,7*12 r I 4 Sirco silm arr to be iin pbcv.smituir sen+rr Arid w*r s47fem shatll lac npprmsCd and aGL wwdl. rand bak apprar ad by ilia AdY GILInt4 1111hwjk.%Nkilnel Jatd Lk F'IrMal PLra ILir sltu mbdtt ream srtali is rworde+d.prior Lv Wpl%inF W h,nld+rrg pcnnLys. I o A 1mv of Oredn or cash wmy 11%tlk alnL ulil of I rsr.wi l be mcluLred lim all Lrrcoropleud frmiN.lardscapinIL;immitim cic-pri r so Figaawn on drc fival TAM Ill.All Lmpuncinciab rdaLed Ld public ek-WeRy awl hdlLfi shziJi hC cerllpl Aed prtdr ie two LpmCq of lbcarr[tum IiPiv v applv%cd b}ahe filY E%inver.Luo1hrb,�r nLa4 pw a livfi mn anizi:wroly for mmr i iuproL Owrorw is order to ad Liu C ay Ehgiaeer sicdmb di:ON Lk i;rLd ptaa Llk�,S[L fault in VDC I WW-tiB J 2.ApphLdmL shall he rvuierd W pvy J%&Lc�1'uLip dL-Lempcoug pmn m Lv A.;rd LvruWtrutLm inapu[1km far►-in dewrroilued during[h4 plau rS4i%6L%prnreila.PfiGFs4 Lhv imubw4 4fa pLm xrl zjl61Las. IA. 14 shall br-dnv tr i;mmwlrlhrx Slfah.,apolea t Lo-anLrLrrthal all LfrYLILTIa,rnt kamus oo Mmyrw,lh ILIL*.4JIL'4Tk:3n!�YLLLh LksLLlx il"-%Ct wd the Pax Htmang Alt. 14 Ar M1EdnL,hn11 t�ECIPW able fur apprLCLaou and LL,LnpIIATIe[eMh my Sociioti.-PU4 Fartngdny shAL rruiy ba wgalrcd by LMs Arlex Crops of En jwvm. City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions C. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District Chart ene Way From-- Erika Olvera cE0Fv2rd nrnid.org} Sent= Monday.August 19,M4 1111 AM 7w Cky Clerk Subject RE=Development Applicatim Transmittals-Rvat Pointe Sub-H-20M-0029 External Sender-PIIeaSe ase tautian+with WS pr dtWhWef t5, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NWD) currently has a Land Use Change Application on file, for the project mentioned above. NMID will withhold further comment until our review is complete- All private laterals and waste ways must be protected. All municipal surface drainage must be retained onsite. If any surface drainage leaves the site,NMID must review drainage plans.Developer must ramply with)Idaho Code 31-3805- From:clerk@meridiarncity.or8<slerk rneridianrity-orp Sent:Thursday,August 1,2024 8:53 AM Tu:NMID<NM I DO nmid,orp Subject;Development Applicatiorw Transmittals-Pivot Pointe Sub. H-2024-W29 Development Application Transmittal Link to Pro`cet A pplical ion, Pivol P in .Su bdiv igio u A T PP F 1-2024-0029 Hearin Date: September 19,2024 Assigned Pbauuer: Nick Na li J i, riew-11n 0tv 1'xbfrc Rfxrjezk-Re xuyrrfjp3-, (-ick Here The above"Link to Project Application"will provide you with any further information on the project. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions D. West Ada School District(WASD) Exhibit A West Ada Schaal District STUDENT GENERATION RATES West Ada School District�WASD)uses a Student Generation Rate(SGR)to determine what Impact future development will have on enrollments. Based on the submitted application materia'Sr the proposed project will contain 41 single famlly units and 0 multl-family units resulting in approximately 24 school-aged children.The proposed project is wlthin the following school dlstfIct boundarlesr currentlyr and approval of the project may affect enrollments at the following schools, Z3-24'EJrwaltment Architectural Capacity Chaparral Elementary Schaal 533 700 Meridian Midd le School 957 1250 Meridian High Schaal 1833 2075 tudedt Generetila Rater ISGR Tstal Unite Egherkated Aecliitettueal DevedoprykenLMeaZone Single Family Mulli RUMV 15ingk-FaMi Multi RMi ly Students Ce alit Chapareal E lementary School 0.53 0-01 all D 2&001 Ma `This information it intended as a reference,rather than a decisive tool. HISTORICAL ENROLLMENTS The followi ng table Includes hl5torlcaI student enrollment data for schools in close proxlmitytp the proposed development that may he affected by+future s€hooI boundary€hanges: Attendartice Development Area Zane 2023-2024 2022-202B 2021-202-2 2020-2021 Chaparral Elementary School 533 535 537 361 Reregrine Elementary School 454 426 469 390 Ponderosa Elementary School 434 429 464 405 MerldkanlMlddleSchool 957 1076 1195 _rt Merlydlan High School 1833 179S 1761 Owhyee Hlgh School 1815 1781 14SB Notes_ + Attenda nce-data per Idaho Department of Education'-WASD also provides historita I enroll ment data:Mt[3s://www.west;jda.UFR/Wkefditkritt-Ma % PFOjects ran he-built in phases and full imparts not immediate.. + Architectural Capacity-the-rapacity established at the time a school is designed based on the number of general education tlassroornr in the building-r https}}www.s&.tda ha4Wv flYm n[e} 3 httpsV/waww.we�=da.oF"ageffarYtty-pWffV City of Meridian Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions E. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) ,Yn qr*-rarer-- Loam MWW Ua C.W.vhn Pref,7rm ACHD �I�M9r"1+R'mw.o�w� F"d[s�rrPk C&UMd= V_I &W— , OftW4*N1rvWv drrmrwO"- Dare,July 24.".2024 To:Sahri na Durtsv*KB Home Staff Cantwt:Wtt Pal,Planrrea PraJecr Descrlprlorti Pawl POINL@ Up Genera[Ion This deveknYrrent is estLmijted wgerwVe 387 Ic*#lips per mil, 39vvhK1*1r[p Per hour in the PU pock tour-broad on the rniadueo of Trarlip"WID-n ErgirwersV11Dcerurawn fAanual,m^edbon u w ■ ves connecting you 1W mcm *912 QkWLEyAWb MV ri IV VT-T.-?S Adarrs Sum.Ga&wnOV.IP-SM4.PFk 7M 3W-bM Fx 34r i%56 � City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments & Conditions F. Ada County Development Services ADA COUNTY DFNT1.0PN1EttiT SERVICES i�r LrL�n?'ir2.'Lu1L Id4rrNLt2+rNk h7-7vi.a1 ' ✓iyas: .� .-���asw.�'xzwpmrnbcrnxes Fh]€{2fH42R-?-7" HUTLDM • CONIMUNrfY P[ANWNG s ET{CUNEERENG&SURVEYING a PERMTf TING Nick T RXAi MmdmCAy Plumi"Ueparmmcn[ ?3 F.PAwdw„y A ycnuc H 1-02 Mtd&^TU M3642 RE;H-202440429 r Pal-elr 1+S 12 P0525 555 urd S 12103525414+NVOL Poinic Subdivimn Nick. Tlac Crtp uF%Tawwn hap;minL'Itecl fralh-µk rcB"np ft lmrds"'M rnncsx lni with gaming of R4 Modtum " F7ensiL}% ResLa9enu fo all and a p"liminar% plan r [he Pico[ Paiwc SWKI[ .101L,w'ILKh Will wvr.,isl 4r41 iA47ili4NL sii[gICdanuh Im7111vs mL ?A4-a-mm ycn4,allly Isx-alM oo 1he cbu of Black Cat ROW Wd 564h of Pint Av-m.e, gw6fkeally on PalSCLls S 12102Si55 and S 12113325410.K41hin the Cgy'v AR0 of 011y hnpul. Ada CmnLy is mipponim o'f 1he appllcatL m die la the p w imuy of doe 3iie to er islirtg publ is �i'r�'i4'ex f:naf ..yj/of�Y4 Ad-i t lxin[}('�btg5r }is€Plan L�iUta�VB ftpiiji;M1iu1 i$ 4IrLlphWnL to imxuT al urban densities ssithm Areas of City Imrwl ahcm public kCL111LEG ire nk'aJdhlr.Aa 1hp Fdi,dc LAred L.ac klap of the MLt lian t'ung}ft4wi;hmktc Plan.as adoptdd by A&County.designator tk site as Mirdiura Drmih-Resid-L-rWal.witch rs prime ily mtcwded for sirl�le+ftmiiy houue�l r[Lknsniex oi'lhrce d>'cL�r dwcl ling uu�rr per aLve,rle pwpclecJ�LSeutig ofll-4{Medium Law lknmty Rcsaden4mb is congmtibls wish the c0r1lplChm5iva plan The la}mrt of the &-ird went also complKs with many of the goal€ of the I&Feridian {'amnprchens.re Plan.with SILO propaaal 0 dmKarc over 96A.dfLhzC%km a LIPM xl%&LC the pi,F,,,;11 lis ini Pb* fire pit nls a palher place_is sygnirtrd h}{'raw!.i.0�+�:.#of the�Fcridiail t tri70[tilL 3L-"'e Plank ati 3i&r d h' Ads C.mmiy. whkh ewi.A"jgK Lmhle L"k space he i 1ka)1 psHaLLLI iniih new rrsidrnLial wb6ys+ imr, TI%Ank you for 11Lr sTroxturrly to pro►ide eanmWm L and p1L•a!-c Furl fw la rmtntl me wilh say gLrss[i[ica, Sincerch. SWcsyy yo""Vft" 51W'Cy YartmgLim C-ommunily& RepsmLalPlannrr ALL['.w3 lies#lopinrnL!krr1Ce! V. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E) 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; The Commission finds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with R-8 zoning and develop single-family detached dwellings on the site at a gross density of 5.37units per acre is consistent with the density desired in the MDR designation for this property; the City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family residential homes/uses in the area. 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 The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the school district. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if revisions are made to the development plan as recommended. B. Preliminary Plat and Short Plat(UDC-6B-6) The Commission finds there are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that are in the IFYWP or the CIP. 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. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to be preserved with this development. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development Agreement, and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IV in accord with the Findings in Section V. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on September 19', 2024. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Preliminary Plat requests. City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 1. Summary of Commission public hearing a. In favor: Sabrina Durtschi,KB Homes (Applicant) b. In opposition:None C. Commenting. None d. Written testimony: Karla Ehlers, Citizen; Kathy Gallentine, Citizen;Natalie Purcell, Citizen e. Staff presenting application:Nick Napoli f Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Citizens expressed concerns about the density of the subdivision,traffic,and congestion on the roads, and schools being over capacity. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Lot 2,Block 1 being removed to provide additional open space. However,the applicant would like this lot to remain. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandingissue(s)for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Action Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action ' 1 1 F .r Or - • • • • �.� -=' ' �_!' �r y/ aM+-P tv it .Ir OF71Ar R. Ail 1 ��. +•� ��.���Jr: r Air 41 -- w lip 1 Tr � . FRANKLIN to, Emu a _I " 1 • - • • • 1 1 it irir11•1�►�� �� +r a rU♦ ERRY. �T �i;: ■■tea �. ,■..Il.. •uA r■ .1111 . 1 i d •..11/� • u■n ury �= �r ■V \�sw .11111 r1a■■i � i•lr 1 r = � ��I•r f 1•1/ ■IIllO111■ i /� r� t I ,��i�■rr i AID�� i•••- =1i 1111111 �I�a - I. : 011 :a 4r�■�.:runnnn o11nn■■ai.13 ■,�j �i n fnaunla n7.mnrlu • umjmxr - - ' 11r 11 In_3_Mas UU _e p1 ;CHI 111111== ---dH111 IAII■��IIppI11 11n1111111A11 Mill i•';� Amp F�RANKL-IN _ _ IIfl111111M1�111x111iHill 1+11 •iiiieii ■111111 1111--- 3. Future Land Use Legend ice Nin, CIVIC 0 Project Location � r., .d1D ,.. Area of Impact }= city Limits m �BMediun`12 s O Analysis ® ffR sidential' .. ® W Low Density Residential - Med-H.ig� � Hi9 h 1 Density teeny Industrial Residential Residential Mixed Low Employment .'D.en��ity Employment Mu-Com 4. Planned Development Map Legend M Project Location i - City Limits Planned Parcels H Mtn ;:. Area of Impact = City Limits oAnalysis - 4 e rr " M City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits B. Subject Site Photos ja .r. F 4,�7 ._ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits C. Service Accessibility Report Overall Scare: 25 17th Percentile Description Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains < 500 ft. from parcel 0I E'N Floodplain Either not within the 140 yrfloodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time > 9 min. RED Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing ( of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park WaIkability Park within 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within OLREEK 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Concept Plan (date: 6/25/2024) Horse Meadows } Pivot Pointe k b i."Wpj) LH Fdi ' °�' -tea � --•----— �u �__�-_._-�_.__k�—_. o G Alexander s Landing o ' NQTA V----•.— -..-FJ PART NMA 0.rr r m a PART , i p / i PIVOT PQINTE DEVELOPMENT OVERALL SITJUNI E City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 0 0� l e �► o ■ ,,� I m o� o ��� ■ � o NEW .. ... ........... y ' mm � mo � Qoo .. .. i ------------------ --- ------------------------------- Mg RD. City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 4/10/2024) z ® m g .� ALEXOMR WiCING SUBOM5YMN(FUPM) �SS •Ng%&M P1-1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits G. Preliminary Plat(date: 6/6/2024) PIVOT POINTE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN ME NM/4 ff WE SW 1/4 OF SECnCN IQ T.SN k1w.ku. ADA OWNTY.MMDIA#4,IDAHO A IL MAN ENV p IRV" mr- im K& 11 XN—F li,-,i j .1D my" (D-<:1 MW z .SulgDrWIS*N ALEXWD6 SUSDMSION hin o P1-0 City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits ElevationsH. Building d. 6/10/2024) 14 1R ism- City W` r "C r of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits �A I t - - li i L �• L � DepartmentCity of Meridian 10 I. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map LonaL criotiorr Proposed Pivot Pointe Subdivision -Annexation A parcel tieing located in the SW Y. of:he SVV'A and the SW Y. of the NN'/.of Section 10, TownsNp 3 Narlh, Rarga 1 Y&W, Boise Merldi3n, Ada County, Idaho, and mo(e panieuk* dlescrlbacl 34 follows: Camnwang at■Braes Cap rnorkl mart nsarklng the nolthwost comer of sad 1%M'/.of the SW Y.,from which a Rrms flap monirnant marking the nonhaast comer of sad N4V'/,of the SW 14 bears S 89'11 f19' Ea distance of 1�18.59 foot: Thence ak�rV Ihi? raortllerly bourndwy of said NW V.01 the 4V'/.S SWIVOW E a distvn0& of 524 92 feet tote POINT OF BE0IHNING; Thence teaving said norlherly hourdp+y N Q'38733' E a disIareae of 18 50 feet to a paint on the centerline of W Pine Awertue Thence along said centerline S W 11 i0S' E a dstance of 793.65 feet Io a point on the easterly boundary cif said SW Ya of t"NW Ya Thence S 0436'33'Y1f abrig Ead eaglerly boundary and Ihi3 easterly bauridaryr of said NW%of the SVV V. also 4etrrg the wasrerly borndwy of Ghesterfietld Suhdiviumn W. 1 ar.shown iro gook W 4fFLgU an Pnee 119241hragh 1t628. reoartfe of Ado Gaunty. Idaho a distance of 436.56 feet t4 a 901nt. Thenve ieaving said bounmry N 86-21'28' VV a 415tance of 793.90 feet ac a 99ml Thermw N 0'381S'E a 6starica of 420 45 fe9fi to t+1e POINT OF BEGIN KING, Sold parcel contmrte 7 9E acres and is aubjecl to wiy easements etiBti rg or in uee Clinton tN_Hansen_PLS Lurid Soiwtiorlt., PC Ahti{'4 va 0 pp O,V w City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits PROPOSED PIVOT P INTE SUBDIVISION ANNEMTION LOCATED IN THE NVV 114 OF THE SVV 114 AND THE SUV 114 OF THE NW 1/4 OF BECTI0N 10, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 VVEBT, BOI E MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO W 589710& 31�5B' 114 'SIC PINE AVE CN'1A0— C 1 f4 - - Z-36 33"E 58s ii'fls f - T93 65' s2�92' IY7 25' T PAiOEL 51210325410 POINT OFNING D N. SLACK CAT RD. 6 BEGIN w ANNEXATION AREA = 7-M ACRES PAFJCEL 5121432555E 4900 W OU RTEMRSE LN. 3r chi 41-WARTERHOR$E LAW (PRiYATE) L-LAkph' Ill 8 IL a' ao goo aka o �°, Land Sumvirg ur d ConsultiN 0,�1 yy,1i�' woo o SMEQ w.wi.mno,.ne City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits J. Common Drive Exhibit: ------------- �---�--- q |§ . | ` ® � , . � �■ § » i _ � � � | ! � , | -- ƒ % ` -- -,�\----- -----f/�_�\--- � �� � ------ -- �_- - �p �ƒ o ' q i � _ , � | | � �|■ 2 --�r, 7 _ \ § ) - N| ----- - \�----� ' k §q --- K, h9 & ,m _ - --- -------� � k m i Q � ■�§§ ■e City of Meridian Department Rep o4 V t Exhibits C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation October 15, 2024City Council October 15, 2024 PIVOT POINTE SUBDIVISION City Council •WHO WE ARE Star.Certified Energy Designed and Every Home is •Priority. Satisfaction is #1 Customer •Homebuilder.Ranked National No. 1 Customer •Founded in 1957 Overall Project Data Maximum Lot Size5,595 S.F.Average Residential Lot Size 4,307 S.F.Minimum Residential Lots Size 4,000 S.F.Common/Open Space Area 15%Total Acreage 7.64 acres Common Lots 10 Lots Single Family Residential Lots 41 Lots Old Site PlanProposed Site Plan Horse Meadows Pivot Pointe LandingAlexander’s ConnectivityDesign & Overall Site Utility Plan Chaparral Elementary Meridian Fire Station No. 2Meridian Middle SchoolMeridian High SchoolSiteSubject COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PITCH DECK DIVERSITYHOUSING DEVELOPMENTINFILLENCOURAGEFACILITIES PUBLIC EXISTING BUILD TO SUIT100% CUSTOMER SATISFACTION OPTIONSPERSONALIZATION DESIGNENERGY CONSCIOUS AFFORDABILITY LUXURY DETAILS Qualified Open Space Summary15.5% of Total Gross Area1.19 acre of Open Space SITE AMENITIES SITE AMENITIES SITE AMENITIES SITE AMENITIES SITE AMENITIES OVERALL SITE AMENITIES Neighborhood Meeting SUMMARY V IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Centrepoint Apartments (H-2024-0019) by Nicolette Womack, Kimley-Horn, located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way, near the southwest corner of N. Eagle Rd. and E. Ustick Rd. Application Materials: https:Hbit.ly/H-2024-0019 A. Request Modified Development Agreement to amend the existing Development Agreement (DA) (Inst. # 2022-079000) for the purpose of updating the concept plan, building elevations and certain DA provisions to increase the number of dwelling units from 215 to 295. B. Request: Conditional Use to construct a 295-unit multi-family affordable apartment project consisting of five (5) four-story structures. C. Request: Alternative Compliance(s) to deviate for the parking lot landscaping and multi-family common open space design standards set forth in UDC 11-313-8C and 11-4-3-27C. 6r jo e. ,J, e-5 e- Ij PUBLIC HEARING N IN SHEET DATE: October 15, 2024 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3 PROJECT NAME: Centrepoint Apartments (H-2024-0019) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify (Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes) If yes, please provide HOA name \G cic\oo-c 2 �� 3 h�(��RA a � " Zb 4 3 0 3 et r/- cam✓'���ni,w e� 5 � , / � es ,k ti 8 � 3 e —,qoAbA nZE-2 U 9 f / dzzi �;7. �k) i/ 10 z 3 16j,-7 11 �-a �U,, cpokP-" 00-Lu ri m� 12 13 kP141-1 /1/1 7 Rk 14 ko YKP-V)()t'W l ALFEX 60 N ZALI__ 291� 7 N L.PFtAN C- WM Brian Whitlock N"N Doug Taylor John Overton Anne Little Roberts October 8, 2024 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council CC: City Clerk, City Attorney FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner RE: Centrepoint Apartments(H-2024-0019) On September 5,2024, Centrepoint Apartments was presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the project based on the height and density of the project. After the Commission action,the applicant approached staff and proposed to make modifications to the plan based on feedback received during the hearing. Staff has reviewed the revised plans and offers the following summary: • The applicant is proposing to further decrease the residential units from two hundred seventy-nine (279) to two hundred thirty-nine (239) units. • Reduced the building heights for the buildings closest to the neighboring residential homes to the west and south. Building D on the west side of the site is now proposed as a 2-story building(as approved currently), Building B2 and Building D are now also proposed as 3-story buildings (as approved currently). The other building will remain 4-story and the applicant is proposing the two 4-story building be allowed to a height limit not to exceed sixty-five (65)feet. The maximum height limit allowed in the C-G zoning district. • Proposed building concepts with pitched roof lines instead offlat roofs. • Increased proposed qualifying open space to 104,154 sf exceeding city requirements which no longer requires for alternative compliance for being deficient. • Removed the parallel parking stalls along the north portion of the project along Ustick Road on the west side of Centrepoint Way. • Removed parking along Cajun Lane due to back up concerns. • Removed the proposed pickle ball court due to potential for noise. • Shifted open space on the west side of the site away from Ustick Road as much as possible and adjacent to the pedestrian walkway and added a dog park with 4'high barrier along Ustick Road. • The site plan exceeds city parking requirements by forty-eight(48)parking stalls. • Proposing the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a fitness facility; children's play structure; dog park with a waste station;shaded picnic area with BBQ grills, tables, benches and landscaping;shaded plaza/courtyard with activity lawn; a micro path system and a bicycle repair area. The proposed amendment to the CUP and MDA (Denied by Planning and Zoning Commission): • Applied for two hundred ninety-five(295) units but reduced it to two hundred seventy-nine (279) units prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. • Requested building to be four(4)stories and increase the building height to forty-five (45)feet. • Requested alternative compliance for the qualified open space as it did not meet the open space requirement(deficient by 8,940 sf). The applicant asked for alternative compliance stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. Although the project is located less than one-mile from the Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex,Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park and Champion Park; the residents would have to cross either Ustick Road, a residential arterial or Eagle Road, a State highway to access them. • Proposed the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a fitness facility; children's play structure; dog park with a waste station;shaded picnic area with BBQ grills, tables, benches and landscaping;shaded plaza/courtyard with activity lawn; a micro path system, sports courts and a bicycle repair area. The sports courts and dog park are located near N. Cajun Lane. Development Agreement Modification Addition to Consider The Applicant is requesting and addition to the Development Agreement modification that was not part of the original review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The new and revised language is as follows: b. Development of the multi family residential portion of the site (tax parcel no. S1105110111)shall be generally consistent with the conceptual development plan included in Exhibit A dated September 26, 2024. d. The required landscape street buffers and multi-use pathway segment shall be constructed and vegetated with the residential phase of development along E. Ustick Road; the proposed 25-foot landscape buffer along the west and south boundaries shall be constructed with the residential phase of development. The required landscape street buffers along N. Eagle Road shall be constructed and vegetated with the commercial phase of development including any additional right of way deed or dedication required by Idaho Transportation Department. f For the multi family development, Building D will be no more than two stories in height, Buildings B2 and C will be no more than three stories in height, and Buildings A and BI will be no more than four stories in height, consistent with the Applicant's revised concept plan and presentation to Council. In addition,the Applicant requests the notice provisions and exhibits to the Development Agreement be amended to add the Applicant's name and the new proposed conceptual plans for the site. Attachments: i� _Z- Revised Site Plan 4. -^ I m � r Z ' F r � �I L� I Z01K 0 Em I Revised Landscape Plan Rendering w ❑ In m C -- rA n Co 3n a Z r - -j i o m 0 0 c z c� m ! �_ C Ca n - Y rr! • iflft° � ;fill cif g��fi F}'� r fill 17 I r~_ - rIY#MI f fi§f fit , J. , � 1111111{9 lilt r ' ��i f3_([°soy�•�f{fi ttt��df�;i s f �E rf? ii� gji Ft f Revised Open Space Exhibit I� m 0 m J -- ,., Cn � a .L� Hu � _'. i i � P + lb 3 m O oI e C c r _ I I I 1T, rii Y____ � I rrr.{ 1 In m - ~ III .I �" m Li n m Z L J I ' _ I W- c gHM 3 4 9IjLK I I I I r� ITTI III III � �' I I I _ Revised Building Elevation — _ ..... ......A __ ff ------------- - - . L --- ....... 0 - ---------... _ ... ---- . 61 with Pitched Roaf /'/R1il OIILT■RbY'1��fk2YJITB/1 ITtq Xf *0�8M MIIIIIIIq fLt YJiTgN NlgM1 With the initial application before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant proposed four four-story buildings(Building A, 131,B2 and C)at under 45-feet in height with flat roofs. This height matched the previously approved three-story building heights that included pitched roofs. In order to better meet Meridian's Arch itecturaI Design Standards and to provide uniformity in design throughout the Project, the Applicant now proposes two four-story buildings and, rather than being height limited with flat roofs, proposes pitched roofs with a height not-to-exceed 65' (the maximum height in the C-G zoning district}. As discussed above, the Applicant has modified the site plan to include one 2-story building on the west portion of the site, two 3-story buildings along the south property line and two 4-story buildings in the center of the site farthest from neighboring properties.The Applicant is asking for a maxirnum building height so that pitched roof building heights for each building can be part of the design review process and there is flexibility in design and for making changes. Proposed Building Heights a- RK # r CL 3 Previously Building Heights ML r 4 +r •r �- l1 �■ pe -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C��fEPIDIAN*,, DEPARTMENT REPORT HEARING 10/15/2024 Legend DATE: • Project Location I�.. TO: Mayor&City Council :--Area of Impact += City Limits , FROM: Linda Ritter,Associate Planner 0 Analysis 208-884-5533 lritter@meridiancity.org ; ,- APPLICANT: Nicolette Womack,Kimley-Horn - y}( ' .. I '^S� SUBJECT: H-2024-0019 - - Centrepoint Apartments -ALT, CUP, `- MDA r . LOCATION: Project is located at 3030 N. Cajun Lane and 3100 N. Centrepoint Way,near the southwest corner of N. Eagle Road and E.Ustick Road,in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 5,Township 3N,Range 1 E. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary Modifications to the existing Development Agreement(DA)H-2022-0035 and Conditional Use Permit(CUP)H-2022-0072 to facilitate the construction of a 279-unit multifamily affordable apartment project. This proposal strictly pertains to the residential component of the approved development plan. The applicant is also requesting alternative compliance to the open space and parking lot landscaping. B. Issues/Waivers The applicant is requesting alternative compliance for the following: • Reduction in qualified open space as the applicant is deficient by 8,940 square feet. • Removal of the parking lot islands under the covered parking internal to the parking lots. The applicant is requesting the following modification to the Development Agreement and CUP: • Modify the CUP to increase the building height to forty-five(45)feet instead of three(3) stories. • Increase the number of units from two hundred thirteen(213)to two hundred seventy- nine(279), an increase of sixty-four(64)additional units. C. Recommendation Staff. Approval of the proposed development. Planning and Zoning Commission: Denial City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview D. Decision Select: Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report I. Project Overview IL COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Vacant - Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family - Existing/Proposed Zoning C-G VII.A.2 Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Regional VII.A.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Preapplication Meeting date Wednesday,May 8,2024 Neighborhood Meeting 4/22/2024;6 attendees Site posting date 8/23/2024 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/issue Reference Ada County Highway District III.H • Comments Received Yes - • Commission Action Required No - • Access E.Ustick Road/Centerpointe Way - • Traffic Level of Service E.Ustick Road-Better than"E"/Centrepointe Way—N/A — ITD Comments Received (Yes/No, Staff Report or Other IILI Meridian Fire Distance to Station:1.4 miles;Response Time: 3 minutes F 0 Meridian Police Distance to Station: 5 miles;Response Time:4:30 minutes Meridian Public Works Wastewater Distance to Mainline: (Input Distance);Impacts or III.B Concerns: (yes/no) Meridian Public Works Water Distance to Mainline: (Input Distance);Impacts or III.B Concerns: (yes/no) School District(s) West Ada School District upw III.G • Capacity of Schools River Valley Elementary-600;Lewis and Clark Middle - School- 1,000;Centennial High School- 1,900 • Number of Students Enrolled River Valley Elementary-457;Lewis and Clark Middle - School-901;Centennial High School- 1,793 See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section and public record for all department/agency comments received. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:51105110111 Date Retrieved:2024/6/21 Parcel Count Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: 1,078 Surrounding Area r 231 v 'l G to Not City 0 4& ® City Limits 2,701 1,223. ■ Not City Household Household& Population Growth Households 02020 Population Change:9.5°I° Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 10,000 20,000 30,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 3196 29% 7% Multi-family 6 ® Commercial Preliminary Plats (last 5-years) Conditional Use Permit(last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 200 400 600 0 500 1000 150C 2000 ■ Single-family Multi-family Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics E. Ustick Road Existing Lanes © Planned Lanes NotableExisting Level of Service a (Primary roadway impact) Programmed IFYP m Programmed CIP m City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Figure 3: Service Impact Summary Ready Q O O O O O O O O Marginal Caution O O e c \ooa ¢ o\z �y any \�\o� o\ o\ o�6 0 o h`ro Qa 0 2.00 1,500 Single-family H 01 1.50 41 Residential b 1,000 Parcel Diversity y 1.00 0.9F U 0Parcel Count 0.50 500 L + m `� Ave rage Acres 0.00 a a 0 a R-2 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 ResidentialDensity 11.30 Q 10.00 p 5.00 �4.15 �5.26 ���� 0.00 ' 1°2 Dwelling Units I Acre R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) A. General Overview The subject site is designated Mixed-Use Regional(MU-R) on the future land use map and is part of a much larger area of MU-R along the Eagle Road corridor that includes The Village, Regency at River Valley apartments, as well as multiple other commercial users and a large undeveloped area. Specifically, within the MU-R area in this southwest corner of Eagle and Ustick, there is the Jackson Square development and commercial buildings to the south and on the hard corner to the northeast. The Comprehensive Plan discusses that projects should not contemplate uses across arterials even if they share the same future land use designation as it is not anticipated for users or residents to readily walk or bike across these transportation facilities. However, Staff finds it prudent to analyze all projects in this area with at least the four corners of development around the Ustick and Eagle intersection because, in reality, the transportation impacts and expected users will come from and go beyond just the southwest corner of this intersection. To the north are a number of big box stores (Kohl's, Dick's, and Hobby Lobby) and the new Brickyard vertically integrated development; to the north east is Lowe's and various other commercial and restaurant buildings; to the east is Trader Joe's, multiple restaurants, and the Verraso townhomes; and to the southeast are traditional garden style apartments, restaurant users, and the Village. In terms of the ratio of commercial to residential within this area, there is currently a healthy mix of commercial and residential uses within walking distance of each other. Staff finds the addition of the proposed multi family development limited to the number of units in the existing development agreement near the existing and proposed commercial development would offer residential to support the mix of commercial uses in this area. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed project as currently approved through the existing CUP is generally consistent with the MU-R designation because the subject MU-R area currently consists of a number of retail, restaurant, office, and residential uses available to the region and the addition of these units should not over saturate this area with residential. Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History H-2018-0121 (Villasport CUP,MDA);H-2022-0035 (MDA,DA Inst. #2022-079000);A-2023-0064(CZC,DES) Phasing Plan 1 Residential Units 279 Multi-family units Open Space 2.60 acres(113,266 s.f.)required/2.40 acres(104,345 s.f)of qualified open space proposed Amenities A total of 8 amenities has been proposed-See amenity exhibit in Section VII below. Physical Features None Acreage N/A Lots 1 Density 27.9 units per acre City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis Figure 4:Mixed Use Analysis by Land Use Area Mixed Use Analysis forReport Designation Area: Mixed use Regional Date Retrieved: 20244 26 Lana use Area Dy coning Address Type Split - - - Districts 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% 100% O C-C O C-G Zoning Variety Acres Annexed 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% Residential ■ R-15 Address-Zoning Mix ❑ Non-residential 0.0% 50.0% 100.0% Address Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family ® Multi-family 303 216 11 303 119 ® Commercial City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis B. History and Process The subject application encompasses one (1)parcel located south of E. Ustick Road. The parcel was part of a Development Agreement Modification and Conditional Use Permit(CUP) application in 2019 that removed the subject parcel from an existing Development Agreement (DA)for the purpose of entering into a new DA with a new conceptual plan and building elevations (H-2018-0121, DA Inst. #2019-060877) and a request for a new athletic club and spa (indoor recreation facility), Villasport. The CUP approval for the indoor recreation facility has since expired and the property was sold. The current CUP and DA (H-2022-0035 DA Inst#2022- 079000) was approved to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space and a 215-unit multi family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial building. The proposed CUP and DA modification proposes a deed restricted affordable multi family development with 279 units. C. Site Development and Use Analysis The submitted conceptual site plan (Exhibit VII.D)depicts five (5) multi family buildings with internal access. The multi family is split into three(3) 4-story buildings on the larger area of the site east of Centrepoint Way, one (1) 4-story building west of Centrepoint Way and one(1) 4- story building on the east side of Cajun Lane. The submitted landscape plan shows a 25 foot landscape buffer along the west and southern perimeter of the property. According to the specific use standards for multi family development(UDC 11-4-3-27), common open space may not be counted towards the required minimum when it is adjacent to arterials unless approved through the CUP process. Therefore, the proposed open space shown may not all be qualified open space if Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council do not approve it in its current location. This is concerning because if the Commission does not approve it, the proposed site plan and open space will be further diminished from complying with the minimum open space standards and revisions would likely be needed. The previously approved CUP and MDA: • Maximum of two hundred fifty-one(215) units • Limited building height limited to three (3)stories • Met the intent of the open space requirements • Provided the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a business lounge,plaza areas, a swimming pool, a fitness facility, an outdoor kitchen, a dog run, a micro path system, sports courts, and a bicycle repair room.All of the proposed amenities except the proposed dog run are located within the central open space area or part of the three(3) central buildings. The proposed amendment to the CUP and MDA: • Two hundred seventy-nine (279) units • Requesting four(4)stories and an increase in building height to 45 feet. • Does not meet the open space requirement(deficient by 8,940 sJ). The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for qualified open space requirement stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance.Although the project is located less than one-mile from the Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex, Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park and Champion Park; the residents would have to cross either Ustick Road, a residential arterial or Eagle Road, a State highway to access them. • Proposing the following qualifying amenities: a clubhouse with a fitness facility; children's play structure; dog park with a waste station; shaded picnic area with BBQ City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis grills, tables, benches and landscaping;shaded plaza/courtyard with activity lawn; a micro path system, sports courts and a bicycle repair area. The sports courts and dog park are located near N. Cajun Lane. Based on the analysis, staff feels the applicant is proposing too many units for development to be compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC requirements. Staff feels if the proposal loses the parallel parking stalls along the north property line and relocate the open space away from Ustick Road, an arterial, it would be a nice addition to the community. 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): There are no existing structures on the site. The applicant will need to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DES) application for review and approval prior to building submittal. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): Stafffinds the proposed use of multi family to be generally consistent with the MU-R designation because the subject MU-R area currently consists of several retail, restaurant, office, and residential uses available to the region and the addition of these units would not over-saturate this area with residential. City Council approved the existing modification to the current development agreement(MDA DA Inst. #2022-079000) in July 2022 (H-2022- 0035) with a reduction in units from what was originally submitted. The applicant is proposing and additional sixty-four(64) units above the approved 215 units. The main points of discussion through the MDA process were regarding traffic,parking, and the proposed building heights. City Council required each "area"of the project to be self- parked so that residents would not have to cross any drive aisle or Centrepoint Way to get to their assigned parking space. Although buildings A, Bl and B2 within the proposed development are not self-parked within their respective areas of the site, as shown in the table below, the proposal meets the parking requirement as outlined in UDC 11-3C. The applicant is requesting a modification to the existing DA to increase the number of units and increase the building height from three (3)stories to forty-five (45)feet in height instead of stories. Staff feels in order to maintain cohesiveness with the surrounding area, the building height should remain as shown on the proposed concept plan below. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): The proposed development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and those within the specific use standards for Multi-family Development discussed above(UDC 11-4-3-27). The submitted plans show compliance with all dimensional and specific use standards, including but not limited to, building height, setbacks, accesses, and required parking spaces. 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): The applicant shall meet the requirements for Multi-Family (UDC 11-4-3-27). See section V. D. Design Standards Analysis 1. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan 3.07.01A, UDC 11-3A-19): There are no existing structures on the site. The Comprehensive Plan require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices. The proposed multi- family residential development provides an appropriate transition between the retail/commercial/employment uses to the north and west and the single-family residences to the south and west. There will be a twenty-five (25)foot buffers between this project and the City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis surrounding developments to the west and south. The sidewalk improvements to Ustick Road, Centrepoint Way and N. Cajun Lane provide much needed access improvements for the single-family residences to walk to the retail and commercial developments in the vicinity to the east. The buildings are set back over 100 feet from the boundaries with single family residential property,providing an even greater buffer between the proposed multi family use and the single-family residences. UDC requires the applicant to submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Design Review(DR) applications for review and approval prior to building submittal. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan 2.02.00, Comp Plan 2.02.01B, UDC 11-3G): Per UDC 11-3G-3, qualified open space is defined as active or passive open spaces. Any open space that is active or passive in its intended use,and accessible by all residents of the development, including,but not limited to: Open grassy area of at least five thousand(5,000) square feet in area; Community garden(s); natural waterways, open ditches, and laterals, protective buffers a minimum of ten(10) feet in width dedicated for active access along these natural open spaces count toward meeting the open space minimum requirements; plaza with a minimum dimension of twenty(20)feet in all directions and including hardscape, seating, lighting in conformance with the standards set forth in section 11-3A-I I and landscaping in conformance with the requirements set forth in Article 11-3B, Landscaping Requirements; or linear open space area that is at least twenty(20)feet and up to fifty(50)feet in width,has an access at each end, and is improved and landscaped as set forth in Article 11-3B, Landscaping Requirements. The proposed project will include 104,345 square feet of qualified open space which is 8,940 square feet less than required. The applicant is asking for alternative compliance for qualified open space requirement stating the site is irregular, has a unique targeted demographic of an affordable housing community, has significant indoor and outdoor passive and active amenities and excellent connectivity to public parks within walking distance. The project also includes an extensive network of pedestrian oriented pathways including an outer loop around the entire project with internal connections to the various amenities for the project allowing for free movement of pedestrians throughout the site. The Comprehensive Plan goal is for developments to plan for safe, attractive, and well- maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. The Comprehensive Plan's goal emphasizes the importance of safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods with ample open space and amenities. Reducing these elements, regardless of the parcel's shape or target demographic, contradicts the Plan's standards. Furthermore, the applicant is increasing the density of the site beyond what was previously approved, understanding they are also reducing open space.Adequate open space and amenities are fundamental to maintaining the vibrancy and functionality of a neighborhood. Adhering to the Comprehensive Plan ensures that developments contribute positively to the community and uphold the quality of life for its residents. It's important to recognize that proximity to parks and sports complexes doesn't fully address the need for accessible and usable open space within a neighborhood. Even though the project is less than a mile from Charles F. McDevitt Youth Sports Complex, Julius M. Kleiner Memorial Park, and Champion Park, residents would still face the challenge of crossing major arterial roads to reach these amenities. Pedestrian and bicycle crossing of these major roadways adversely affect signal performance and signal timing, and is one of the stated reasons for mixed use area analysis to not include areas bisected by major roadways. This can be a significant barrier,particularly for families with young children, elderly residents, or those without convenient transportation options. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis For the development to truly align with the Comprehensive Plan's goals, it should include sufficient open space and amenities within the project itself. This ensures that all residents have easy, safe access to recreational areas without the need to navigate busy roads, thereby enhancing the overall quality of life and community cohesion. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets The applicant is required to construct street buffers along Ustick Road, an arterial street, and along Centrepoint Way, a local street. In addition,per UDC 11-3B-8, at least 5 feet of landscaping is required along the perimeter of vehicle use areas(i.e. drive aisles) and landscaping is also required along the base of the multi-family building elevations facing any public street. The applicant is proposing a reduction of the 35'wide landscape buffer along Ustick Road—up to a 50%reduction (17.5), as allowed with the implementation of Water Conserving Design principles (UDC 11-3B-5.0). Staff has no objection to the applicant's request to provide a water conserving design for the street buffer along Ustick Road. ii. Parking lot landscaping Per UDC 11-3B-8,the applicant shall provide perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping to soften and mitigate the visual and heat island effect of a large expanse of asphalt in parking lots, and to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians. A five-foot wide minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking, loading, or other paved vehicular use areas. The applicant is proposing Alternative Compliance under UDC 11-3B-7.C.Lc to remove the parking lot islands beneath the covered parking areas within the development. Instead, the applicant plans to install solar carports, which will serve as a green infrastructure amenity by providing an alternative power source for the development and its residents. The solar carports will also fulfill the requirement for covered parking and help reduce the heat impact of the surface parking lot. According to the applicant, the removal ofparking islands under the solar carports will enhance solar panel efficiency by improving daylight capture and reducing maintenance tasks such as clearing leaf debris and replacing plants or trees.Additionally, the solar carports are expected to offset utility costs for residents. The applicant also notes that despite the removal of these islands, the overall landscape buffer percentage will not decrease, as the buffer areas along the east side of Centrepoint Way exceed the city's code requirements. All uncovered parking areas will continue to comply with the requirements for parking lot islands. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses Per UDC 11-3B-9, a landscape buffer is required in the C-N, C-C, C-G,L-O,M-E,H-E, and I-L districts on any parcel sharing a contiguous lot line with a residential land use. The landscape buffer is required in the I-H district on any property sharing a contiguous lot line with a nonindustrial use. The single-family residential neighborhood to the south is screened with a twenty-five (25)foot landscape buffer. The single-family residential neighborhood to the west is likewise screened with a twenty-five (25)foot landscape buffer and further will be screened by an eight(8)foot masonry wall. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis Staff finds the proposed landscape buffer adjacent to the residential neighborhoods meets the requirements of the UDC and requires a detail of the masonry wall to be submitted for review with the CZC application. iv. Tree preservation N/A—There are no existing trees on the property. v. Storm integration Per UDC 11-3B-11,the applicant shall meet the intent to improve water quality and provide a natural, effective form of flood and water pollution control through the integration of vegetated,well designed stormwater filtration swales and other green stormwater facilities into required landscape areas, where topography and hydrologic features allow if part of the development. Development will be required to meet UDC 11-3B-11 for stormwater integration. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping for pathways shall meet the requirements outlined in UDC 11-3B-12. Staff finds the landscape plan shows the applicant meets the requirements of UDC 11-3B- 12 for pathway landscaping. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking for multi family developments is required to be provided per the table in UDC 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit. The Applicant is proposing 279 units consisting of 1391-bedroom units, 105 2-bedroom units and 35 3-bedroom units. In addition, one(1)guest space for every 10 units is required. i. Residential parking analysis Based on the total number of units proposed and their bedroom count distribution, a minimum of 552 parking spaces, with a minimum of 279 of these spaces to be covered in a garage or by a carport.In addition to meeting the minimum off-street parking amount, the current Development Agreement City Council was not comfortable with the parking area west of Centrepoint Way and expressed a desire for all buildings to be self-parked within their respective areas of the site. The previous applicant provided documentation showing the buildings to be self-parked within their respective areas of the site. Although the buildings within the proposed development are not self-parked within their respective areas of the site, as shown in the table below, the proposal meets the parking requirement as outlined in UDC 11-3C. Area of Site Building Bedroom Count Required Parking Provided(including Parking Per Unit (including guests) guests) (including guests) West of Cajun Ln&East of A-64 units 1 Bed—17 units 423.5(211 covered) 405(249 covered) 1.92(1.18 covered) Centrepoint Way 2 Bed—27 units 3 Bed—20 units B1-79 units 1 Bed—53 units 2 Bed—19 units 3 Bed—7 units B2—68 units 1 Bed—41 units 2 Bed—19 units 3 Bed—8 un its East of Cajun Lane C-44 units 1 Bed—2D units 83(44 covered) 92(17 covered) 2.11(1 covered) 2 Bed—24 units 3 Bed—0 units West of Centrepoint Way ❑—24 units 1 Bed—8 units 46(24 covered) 54(25 covered) 2.25(1.04 covered) 2 Bed—16 units City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis ii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space is required for every twenty-five(25) vehicle parking spaces per UDC 11-3C-6G. Based on the five hundred seventy-eight(552) vehicle parking spaces, a minimum of twenty-two (22) bicycle parking spaces is required. The location of the bicycle racks has been depicted on the site and landscape plans. Staff finds the applicant meets the requirement for bicycle parking. An example of the bicycle rack will be required to be submitted with the CZC for review and approval. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan,Architectural Standards Manual): Administrative Design Review(DES)approval is required before building permit submittal for multi-family residential dwellings. The Applicant did not submit for DES approval concurrent with the subject CUP application so the submitted elevations will be fully analyzed with that future application. Further, an application for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC)will also be required to be submitted for this entire development before the building permit submission. Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed multi family buildings as shown in Section VII.G. The applicant is requesting a design exception for the reduced articulation of the building fagade and the omission of the masonry along the base of the building. This an administrative decision to be determined by the director. Final design will be required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual (ASM)and the recorded agreement unless otherwise waived by the Community Development Director through a design exception request. 6. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11- 3A-7. No fencing is shown on the submitted plans except for the eight(8)foot privacy wall along the west boundary, as required by the Development Agreement. The applicant shall include an exhibit of the privacy wall for staff review with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application.In addition, the applicant shall include any fencing proposed for the noted dog park and sports court area along the existing shared north-south private road N. Cajun Lane. E. Transportation Analysis The Ada County Highway District(ACHD)reviewed the submitted application and has determined they support the applicant's proposal to construct 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site meets District policy and should be approved, as proposed. However, the sidewalk should be parallel to the roadway, as meandering sidewalks are discouraged under ACHD policy. The detached sidewalk should be located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of Ustick Road abutting the site. ACHD also supports the applicant's proposal to widen/reconstruct Centrepoint Way meets District policy and should be approved as proposed with the exception of the 23-foot street section which requires the construction of a 33-foot street section south of the driveways to the site's south property line. The lane configuration and striping at the intersection with Ustick Road should be consistent with Centrepoint Way on the north side of Ustick Road across from the site. The applicant will be responsible for the design and construction of any modifications to the existing signal at the Centrepoint Way/Ustick Road intersection. The applicant should be required to dedicate right-of-way to 2-feet behind back of sidewalk, or for detached sidewalk,the applicant can reduce the right-of-way to 2-feet behind back of curb and provide a permanent a permanent right-of-way easement that extends from the right-of-way line to 2-feet behind back City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis of sidewalk. Sidewalk shall be located wholly within right-of-way or wholly within an easement. See diagram below. 40-FOOT STREET SECTION I ° EEEHIZEHM LJ I I 1 _ - �� BUIpHGA GUIlG1°GF �' ` �� � ,w erxis RronAry I I 1 �v f I I �I 33-FOOT STREET SECTION 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Per UDC 11-3A-3, the intent of these standards is to improve safety by combining and/or limiting access points to collector and arterial streets and ensuring that motorists can safely enter all streets unless waived by City Council. Access for this development is from Centrepoint Way via Ustick Road and N. Cajun Lane via Ustic Road. Both the shared drive aisle and public street are existing. The shared drive aisle connects from N. Cajun Lane (a private street) to the south up to Ustick Road. This drive aisle was required with the previous Villasport approvals and the Wadsworth site on the hard corner for cross-access and interconnectivity to and from Ustick Road.In addition, the Bienville Square plat depicts cross-access over Cajun Lane and out to Eagle Road furthering the previous anticipation that some traffic would flow through this area. N. Centrepoint Way is an existing local street that connects the Bienville Square Subdivision (Jackson Square) and this site to Ustick Road via a public road and is signalized at the intersection of Ustick Road and Centrepoint Way. Ustick Road is improved with 5-travel lanes, vertical curb and gutter abutting the site. A five (5)foot wide detached concrete sidewalk exists abutting the site on the west side of Centrepoint Way and no sidewalk abutting the site on the east side of Centrepoint Way. There is eighty-six(86) to one hundred twenty-two (122)feet of right-of-way for Ustick Road(fifty (50) to eighty(80)feet from centerline). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): Multiuse pathways shall be constructed in accord with the city's comprehensive plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan, the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8. The Applicant is proposing to construct the missing segment of sidewalk along Ustick Road with a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk, consistent with the UDC requirements. Further, the Applicant is proposing to continue the existing sidewalk along the east side of the shared drive aisle and install a new sidewalk along its west side. The Applicant is proposing 5-foot wide micro paths throughout the development including within linear open space along the western and southern boundaries. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): All sidewalks constructed as part of this proposal are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are existing along both sides off. Centrepoint Way and one segment of the attached sidewalk is located along Ustick Road, west of Centrepoint Way; the remaining Ustick Road frontage does not have any existing sidewalk. The applicant is proposing a 5- foot wide detached sidewalk along Ustick Road and the shared drive aisle and is also proposing 5-foot wide micro pathways throughout the development. As noted above, the Applicant is proposing to construct the missing segment of sidewalk along Ustick Road with a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk, consistent with code requirements. Further, the Applicant is proposing to continue the existing sidewalk along the east side of the shared drive aisle and install a new sidewalk along its west side. The Applicant is proposing 5-foot wide micro paths throughout the development including within linear open space along the south boundary. Staff supports the proposed sidewalk and micro path network. In addition, Staff finds that safer pedestrian crossings can be installed consistent with UDC 11-3A-19B across many internal drive aisles that connect internal sidewalks to the perimeter sidewalks. Specifically,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4, the crossings should be constructed with a different material than the driving surface (i.e. brick,pavers, colored or stamped concrete, etc)and be located at any crossing from the main drive aisle connections to Centrepoint or the shared drive aisle on the east side of the site. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): There is an existing private street, N. Cajun Lane, that abuts the east side of the property. Improvements to the private road are required as part of this development. No new private streets are being proposed for this development. F. Services Analysis 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): Per UDC 11-3A-6,requires limiting the tiling and piping of natural waterways, including,but not limited to, ditches, canals, laterals, sloughs and drains where public safety is not a concern as well as improve,protect and incorporate creek corridors(Five Mile,Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough and Jackson and Evan Drains)as an amenity in all City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis residential, commercial and industrial designs. When piping and fencing is proposed,the standards outlined in UDC 11-3A-6B shall apply. The Milk Lateral has previously been piped and there is a thirty (30)foot irrigation easement that goes through the property. 2. Pressurized Irrigation (UDC 11-3A-15): The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(UDC 11-3B-6). 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. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments by the City's adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best management practices as adopted by the City as outlined in UDC 11-3A-18. Storm drainage will be proposed with a future Certificate of Zoning Compliance application and shall be constructed to City and ACHD design criteria. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC I1-3A-21): 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.All utilities are available to the site. Water main,fire hydrant and water service require a twenty foot(20) wide easement that extends ten (10)feet past the end of main, hydrant, or water meter. No permanent structures, including trees are allowed inside the easement. G. Development Agreement The Applicant is requesting a modification to the existing Development Agreement [Inst. #2022- 079000 to include the following changes: B. OWNER/DEVELOPER has s4mitted an applie A4enonlied for a Modification of the egg Development Agreement(Instrument#2019-060877) for the purpose of updating the concept and a plan and provisions to construct a mixed-use development consisting of commercial space aand a multi-family development in lieu of an athletic club/spa and commercial building on 11.17 acres in the C-G zoning district. The Meridian City Council approved said the Modification and the Addendum to Development Agreement was recorded as Instrument#2022-079000 in Ada County Records. C. CITY, and OWNER/DEVELOPER now desire to amend said Development Agreement and Addendum to Development Agreement,which terms have been approved by the Meridian City Council in accordance with UDC section 11-513-4. 1. OWNER/DEVELOPER shall be bound by the terms of the Development Agreement recorded as Instrument#2019-060877, except as specifically amended as follows: a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the submitted concept plan and color renderings inel aea in Seel o V! e attached to this Second Addendum as Exhibit A l9 and the provisions contained herein. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis b. Future development shall comply with the standards outline in the multi-family development specific use standards, UDC 11-04-3-27, except for any requests for Alternative Compliance approved by the City. c. All future pedestrian crossings that traverse shared drive aisles within the development shall be constructed with brick, pavers, stamped concrete, or colored concrete to clearly delineate the driving surface from the pedestrian facilities,per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b. d. The required landscape street buffers and multi-use pathway segment shall be constructed and vegetated with the first phase of development along E.Ustick Road and N.Eagle Road; the proposed 25-foot landscape buffer along the west and south boundaries shall be constructed with the first phase of development. e. Applicant shall work with ACHD to construct a safe pedestrian crossing from the multi- family site area to the parking lot along the west boundary across N. Centrepoint Way. f. With the future Conditional Use Permit for the multi-family development, the building heights shall.,long the west L.,,,,n,aary shall not be more than not exceed two stories 45-feet in height consistent with the Applicant's revised concept plan and presentation to Council. g. Applicant shall continue the masonry wall along the west property boundary consistent with adjacent development and to help buffer the proposed project. h. Staff and Applicant shall work with ACHD to mark Centrepoint Way as no-parking on both sides, should ACHD allow it. III. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division 4-. Development Ag-eemeat TAT d f;e tioai Fifteen(15) days prior-to the City Couneil hearing,the applieant shall pFovide the revised eoneept plan for-the elevations,landseaping plan and open spaee exhibit subjeet to the new it A shall,1.1 The modified PA shall be signed by the pr-epet4y owner-and r-etufned to the Plaffi4ing Division within six(6)months of the City Getmeil approval of the Findings. The DA plan, landseape plans a-ad eeaeepWal building elevations ineluded in Seetion V P b. Before the multi family units are eeeupied, ONN%ef and/of Developer-shall feeOfd within the en4ir-e no more than si*ty per-een4 a. Futufe development of this site shall be generally eensistent with the proposed site 0 City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions r;ty shall be deemed t e b ., tb i fd patty beliee fif i=y of sa i .,re+y a�o a0 „l e. All ftitur-e pedest+ia-a efessings that t+aver-se shal:ed dr-ive aisles within the development shall be eonstfueted with br-iek,paver-s,stamped eoner-ete,or-colored coner-ete to elear4y delineate the 'lFiying s„-f 6e ftomr the—pedestrian fiieilicicspe,-UDC T 3 A 1�-r—r9v-Tb-. d. The Fequifed landscape street buffer-s and nwlti use pathway segment shall be eofist+tteted and vegeta+ed with the first phase of development along E. Ustiek and N. Eagle Road; the pFoposed 25 foot landseape b4fer- along the west a-ad 1.,,,,n,1afies shall be , nstf+tete .with the f:-st phase of development, e. Applicant shall wor-k with AGHD to constfuct a safe pedestfian or-ossing ftom the multi family y site area to the par-par-king lot along the west 1.,,,,n,1.,ry aer-oss TAT cefitfepoifit Way f-. The height of the buildings shall not exeeed the height shown on the elevations i 2. Conditional Use Per-mi-�.L 2.1 The Applioant shall eomply with all specific use standards for the proposed use o r idit�y Residential Development (UPC 11-4 3 2.2 The Applicant t shall obtain., Gei4 fie to of Zoning Compliance (r7r) .,n Administr-ative Design Review (DES) appFevals before submitting for-any btt4d4*g within this development. 2.3 At the time of Ge4if4eate of Zoning Complianee submittal,the Applieant shall sibmit a-. r-eeor-ded and legally binding doeument(s)that state the maintenance and Owflefship strttettl-res, ark-ing,ee reas, a-ad other development feud r T m� 1 4 3 2.4 Futur-e development shall be eonsistent with the minimttm dimensional standar-ds listed 2.5 09 street paFking is r-e"ir-ed to be pr-avided by the standards listed in UPC Table 11 2r 6 for-.,.,,lt; family dwellings based o the, mbe-of L.o,l,-.,ems P 2.6 The Appheant shall wor-kwith Vailey Regional Transit to eastife the tFansit stop sheltef being pfoposed is appr-apr-ia4e for-tha4 loea4ion and if they afewillifig to maintain oa z The Appheant shall eamply with all AGHD eenditions of approval. 2.8 2.9 The A,-.,-.1;,..,nt shall .ledie.,te Ayelye (12) foot of'right .,F....,..on Eagle Road to area.rwanstf:btet the right turn lane to Seville Lane. shall be stofed an the site unless pr-evided for-in a separate, designated and sefe 2.11 A total of eight (8) amenities shall be installed as proposed by the appheant. UDG 11 iA 5,,r�1- 6,and UDG 9 148, City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions be submitted to the Planning T iyisio v i f .i gal !a .moo : ents are in 2.14 Fifteen(15) days prior-to the City Couneil hearing,the applieapA shall provide the r-&vised eoneept plan for-the el&vatioas, landseaping plan and open spaee exhib show the r-em&ved pafk4fig stalls a ions. Provide details for-the amenities.amenities.:tie •cs 2.15 The Conditional Use Permit approval shall beeome null andvoid tmiess other-wise approved the City if the fails to 1) eonynenee the use, satisfy the outlined i UDC vDC 11 5B ti�r71 obtain approval f^ time extension UPC; sly-6F� �7 2.16 The Director-has approved the Alter-native Complianee Request to r-emove the landseape island undemeath the eovered earperts per UDC B-9-. Usti ek Road. B. Meridian Public Works See public record(copy the link into a separate window) https://weblink.meridianciN.oLgzl ebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X C. Meridian Fire Department A full fire plan review shall be completed prior to construction of the project. D. Meridian Park's Department See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X E. Irrigation Districts 1. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=Meridia n ci F. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridiancit .00rg/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X G. West Ada School District(WASD) or Other District/School See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit X City of Meridian I Department Report III. City/Agency Comments &Conditions H. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) https:llweblink.meridiancity.orz/WebLinkIBrowse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit Y I. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) See public record(copy the link into a separate browser) hggs://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=356286&dbid=0&repo=Meridian Cit Y IV. FINDINGS A. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-513-5E) In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following: l. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or As noted in Section III.D.3, the applicant is requesting alternative compliance due to a deficiency in the required amount of qualified open space, as detailed in the previous section. Commission finds that the applicant's request to increase the site density beyond the previously approved level has significantly reduced the amount of qualified open space. Adequate open space and amenities are essential for maintaining the vibrancy and functionality of a neighborhood.Adhering to the Comprehensive Plan is crucial to ensuring that developments contribute positively to the community and uphold the quality of life for residents. The applicant also requested alternative compliance for the removal of the parking lot islands under the covered parking for internal parking. The applicant states that despite the removal of these islands, the overall landscape buffer percentage will not decrease, as the buffer areas along the east side of Centrepoint Way exceed the city's code requirements.All uncovered parking areas will continue to comply with the requirements for parking lot islands. Commission finds the request feasible as the installation of solar carports, will serve as a green infrastructure amenity by providing an alternative power source for the development and its residents. 2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and Based on the statement above for the qualified open space, staff finds the applicant did not meet this requirement. Based on the statement above for the removal of the landscape islands underneath the solar carports, staff finds the applicant met this requirement. 3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. Commission finds that the proposed alternative means will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding properties. However, reducing the proposed density to the previously approved number of units would increase the available open space, thereby contributing positively to the community and enhancing the quality of life for residents within the development. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Findings Staff finds the alternative compliance request for the removal of the landscape islands underneath the solar carports will not be materially detrimental to public welfare or impair the intended uses and character ofsurrounding properties. B. Conditional Use (UDC 11-513-6E) The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the following: 1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Commission finds that as proposed, the design cannot meet the dimensional standards and development regulations without the approval of several alternative compliance request. However, stafffeels if the proposal adheres to the conditions of the staff report it would be a nice addition to the community. 2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord with the requirements of this title. Commission finds that if the site is built as recommended by staff and all conditions of approval are met, the proposed site design and use of multi family residential would be harmonious with the comprehensive plan designation of Mixed-Use Regional and the requirements of this title when included in the overall MU-R designated area. 3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Commission finds that despite the proposed use being different from the residential uses to the west and south, the site design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character of the same area. 4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Commission finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval for CUP H- 2022-0072 and MDA H-2022-0035, it will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. 5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal,water,and sewer. Commission finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services because all services are readily available and both ACHD and ITD have reviewed and approved the proposed layout and traffic generation with conditions. 6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Commission finds all public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so stafffinds that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services. Utilities have already been approved for this development with the previous application. 7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Commission finds that although traffic is sure to increase in the vicinity with the addition of more residential units, the addition of the multifamily as designed will be detrimental to any City of Meridian I Department Report IV. Findings persons,property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke,fumes, glare or odors. 8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features within the development area, therefore, staff finds the proposed use should not result in damage to any such features. V. Multi-Family Development Analysis A. Multi-family Development(UDC11-4-3-2n Specific Use Standards: VI. ACTION A. Staff: aeeer-danee with Findings in Seetion Al. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on September 5,2024. At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject Conditional Use Permit and Development Agreement modification requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearin&. a. In favor: Nicolette Womack, Chase Huber, Brandon McDougall,Nock Stoppello, Brenda Jones b. In opposition: Steve Grant,Kristy Hein,Landon Johnson,Janet Bailey,Jeffrey Miller, Barry Holsinger,Doug Stern,Jared Schofield,Abisay Uretta,Ruth Dickinson, Carrie Gammon,Jeff Vrba,Elizabeth Gammon c. Commenting: Steve Grant,Kristy Hein,Landon Johnson,Janet Bailey,Jeffrey Miller, Barry Holsinger, Doug Stern,Jared Schofield,Abisay Uretta,Ruth Dickinson, Carrie Gammon,Jeff Vrba,Elizabeth Gammon d. Written testimony: Bruce and Kathy Dickinson, Callie Meye,Jackson Square HOA, Joseph Lemay,Kathleen Medley,Michelle Hodges, and Randall Adams were all against the proposed development e. Staff presenting application: Linda Ritter f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s) public testimony A. Density of the proposed project,height requested for the proposed buildings,traffic from the proposed project, cut through traffic on the private roads from the proposed development 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Density of the project,height of the proposed buildings and increased traffic in the area 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Denial of the project based on building height and density_ 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: Action Pending. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Multi-Family Development Analysis � 1 t rti ct Location of Impact A 0 Analysis 7,' � J ' � �� 1• r 1 ,1' -� USTICKLU 7 r 41a III IIII II I Ilf 11fr Legend ■�rain C►iia Project Location AnalysisArea of Impact Ins ■atr urn wm- := _ as / af'-�`•■■■ 1111-r-A - ponmy � - _ rn :■111111 I�_ I;i efiiia■ � � `-i � m lunmu n uunm pan" 1111111 � uvl 'I'. I■ i �= ia�nuun �� I lil 111111111 J lui' I: - -:1:; Ir f11fu111nn II,u111 � � + :�:- Ip If■yY=■ IIIIIA111 Ili � 1 -�. I ■■ _. Illu�i = 'uuull ■ I���n ���` Innnm � ■��� a1a1n 1111 ��Cp f.�►a 1� iini:::^ • = IIInn11.■W-- nnl 11 . ! ' -will ulllpl:. i � a1. 11 Illfli■a■ti � 1 Ifaa rA11R ■ flffar�Illflll►��r r aalrlr Illi.0^s"^'1I11111i• �irlllll ■ry111111 ^ate/Nllu!■ yy 44I10F■I��auaquaR ■r\r i pia���,■a:611111 11 �III/1 (fayi. � � � - �a+dap r^^ noon r�unun■f a If■fA■nf■�■■�7fN � ������� o IIn1�rA1■JI,AAud�ina u Q �1��,` r ' 1 - LocationIII Legend LIII Project Are• • Impact An • a a''►,IyIR rr' .uiiniuuiiul _ �-tl..: ME MINIM SENSE W - ul+alb •••••■•••e - r.9:�ui'■�!- 1 a...f.■ r�:' Bill �■■r iiuiii � ■. .� . �}AiIlIlI.. US-T-ICIIIH ](III]!ra -.. ISHII- , �■nu.� � nnu unn_■ wun._ n unr olll■.e • * IIIIII�� n i, llli 1111111111.A�� 1:..n1■�::► � n niRrfnnlnuEi I� � .n�u1u411u., Af■..If � ..un■ �- rl IIIIII ri r°iail'�� UIIIIII 1._�-Ill � !I !i! � � h�ulu■�i�; j IIUI■nlul �, l.nlnn111:=_� �.� re +„, :__ Er �-rw �. ■ya If1111f11E11u11111.U111 1111 rlllll�111111'is ■iimiuuA l ; I u� u.J �„7 .anfn.aur� ► � i��=IP=-�Q'-.. •_ .r�me ■ ^ • MIN I Q .11■111' I9E1111, 1.1• ♦�i C■rEl■►� - raii/i�QI. 11111P1. • •■11 F - - -- '.1lllrl • - • • �■n (Fill :a:�� mull• ■■a�An■1ia171in - ="�lIIJ11 s. - `Ii■Au■■.uu■■■ gm■■lll#ll ' loll •�■w R... ,. _� IIIIIIIfI�';��. �tri;'w...:::::fir:::pIr••� liunur oho■ u..un.n pia ■,mill :r �` �b..� .rrrlrlr.rYp rr�...■.•-•! rr-►•��� -^�var" �1� ����� r�'G !►�''�' 1:::--.a::�i�� l�yy�0•%: !.■ III uu uuunAla'1►�uy m �a slur GI►/it � .� �n a rlpn■I Iil � (looms 1I Project L. . . III!III►.f� Ci.�.�jliunie•� .mom Area • City Limits Planned Parcels = -• • IIIIIU�Illgllll w•�f1,::-ter :, .....:.•' - ` iii•.� low 1►may �-.�r ...n■ iF��1=r i r�� a� nwl .ii� 11a"iy- C p' .mi .►�a-. � � loll +' (IIIIII e lRii 'Ilrri .11. (III IIIIII e� �nrlr.� ' IIIII IIIIII Sa ■ • "� Ilflll ri Inrl .■■� IIIIII z 1 j 1 1.r.nlu^r► � u mrr�r11111 i ,��� 1 nuulu iw■r■F Il11Nl{ � .nnu 1.��_Ill rl nll _� I:Illllllpll■1 iC7, lalnunr:= �, , IIIAA-__ Iri111�111n111111^ ee!!!!�l■nlu�nuielq; I • :�� ::� �`�11i■gy■o.-�•�J'��nro�Illri " �� '.,ru1h'S .�- nil•.+ .....ME m .r _f� h ' �•7n ■ �f V nA.ilvr- *�� `• O•� . Q .unr�:- _ �- 'agar ull 111 • :noon:� 111411 ::ai.a••.•i. J -R.Aw +:... ���: � ,:"IUFt w'.::::a.'Iiiiiiii[� mlh..ula�i.n uulu .!�R l� �`axu uir.-r-I�f�eaplw'l'i p.■nui■ iiiifllll.yq .11 �, "" .Il.,►�IIIIIIIIIIII ...� .■.:-�11► ,♦ � Q '�I��.IIII,� u al::rar.:r n.: Lm umuli■allow u. ►>1r�lruri/�I►/>� �� page nu,�, '�� 1L �u■nn#pnq�11.�.IIIIIIIIAIIIIIIIIII 1 l".`• ■ .G ...Noll w.. B. Subject Site Photos !1T. v O. 1h 7a p t�tay t o a a + 1► Y MR �Pftl r7- , '.� •'i ♦�'����- Ilrrr!-s lrrn.E. �izr�z �q.�,�.y M �- Ar WM I - 15, wow aft �... {yL i'- City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits b nor �} ...... .... . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits C. Service Accessibility Report PARCEL S"1'1D577077'"1 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 37 82nd Percentile Description Location In City Limits Epp Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains r 500 ft.from parcel GREEN Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or > 2 acres GREEN Emergency Services Fire Response time < 5 min. GREEN Emergency Services Police Meets response time goals most of the time GREEN Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways GREEN Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route RED Arterial Road Buildout Status Ultimate configuration (#of lanes in master streets GREEN plan) matches existing (# of lanes) School Walking Proximity Within 1/2 mile walking GREEN Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving GREEN (existing or future) Either a Regional Park within 1 mile OR a Community Park Walkabifty Parkwithin 1/2 mile OR a Neighborhood Park within PREEN 1/4 mile walking City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Proposed Site Plan(date: 8/29/2024) 511E INFOPM4TION .® •-��LL UGEND FFFTM r ' I SITE PLAN-CENTREPOINT Eagle&Uadek Meridian,ID A g,ft 29,20299 9 1 9 Kimi NHarn H-2022-0072 Centrepoint Apartments CUP Approved Site Plan(date: 8/30/2022) g,E IrraaunaN �R-m -� ie yt _ _______ - L ' ..sa I¢p IFGENG Akk CONCEPT SITE PLAN-CENTREPOINT Eagle 6 Usti&Meridian,ID ague[ Mmky Mom City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Landscape Plan(date: 7/18/2024) di gE o A,)— IT �T -MME. - + _._.. - I -DEVCO -CENTREPOINT HOUSING-PCONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Eagle&Uatick Meridian,ID July I8,2D29 Kimley»Horn TTT WI�INIINIINIINI�INII IIIIIf I _.� -- • _ I DEVCO-CENTREPOINT HOUSING-CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN RENDERING Eagle&Uu:kk Meridian,ID July 18,2824 Kimley,»Horn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit(date: 8/29/2024) OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS Arum �� a .muwrturw .r�cluuwN . Wnreueuvcr.e e..;. uieen.r._ne -- s ' 1 � ,..,.a -- \ I arw�cwvaEuaircn.awow. e�s ---'-----'- i _ i � REquiaERE Ts fswti— moI '= �� M7I �— La „ DEVCO-CENTREPOINT HOUSING-SCHEMATIC OPEN SPACE PLAN Eagle&Uad.k Meridian,ID ANgua<29,2024 Kimley»Horn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 0 � GI � I:1 ■ : : ■ it ■ .: = .#� ■ � I:I ■ r : n � ■ a ■ M. 0 ■ j � ■ ■ 11 : : ■ ■ : ■ 11 IU a ■ 1 : 1 ■ i •.1 11 1m nm ■ a a =_: Nil 11 r. a F11 ■ 11 ■ �I fll EVC9 TE ILE ■ L■J __ i; �', _ F : F H a II li 1 r IN ■ al ■ i :, . , ■ Ill �W Ill. I � a ■ L a - m a i �I ; ■ :1 — - are ■ C © ■ 7 I i1 t ■ n ■ ul !,6 I ■ - ■BUILDINGS 1311132 ELEVATIONS Devco-CentFepoint Housing — Fir D ■ ® Li �j ■ -- ® -- ■ ■ I1 ■ I� ■ 1� 111 ® 1 ■ : ■ El Ill ^-I 1 01 I ■ [1 ■ - INN IS ❑■ ■ �11 :I 01 ■ ■ CI ■ a 1n GI 1■■■■ I■■■■ I ■I ■ e ■ i n 1n i ❑■ IYY 1��I� 1 ■ ! ■ -�1 IN I A m �BUILDINGS B11132 ELEVATIONS WITH COMMUNITY - DEVCO n n n _ ----- Fro _ IT, - - n1 _ n e li 1 s ® ® ■ BUILDING C ELEVATIONS Devro-Centrepoint Housing rvco B1 A 1�1 Rllll --------—----- — —_— _--_--- L[Fl. ----- - EASTNl FlEVATION ----�• FgRTIP�OIfTFi ELEVATION ----� AM BUILDING D ELEVATIONS Devao-Centrepoint Housing • • M Mlnn WIIDIMG X�GMT GGMPARNIOM —---—----—---—----—---- --- —___—____ - -- — LlD ` H Ll El — — PNEVIGU-APPNDVEG ELEV►TION XEIGXT r. PRGP03EG ELEVATI ON XEIGXT B1 1 1 we 62 a� (E"P3N S2-CENIREPOIlf�WAY Z➢E LESLIE DR -- - -- -- - -- -- -- 51-PI�RI W W LENTREPgIJr WAY Lf]Mn A.05 I BUILDING SECTIONS Devoo-Centrepoint Housing • • City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation Centrepoint Apartments Eagle and Ustick Meridian City Council Hearing October 15, 2024 DEVCO Q Kimley))) Horn if-1 1 D E V E L O P M E N T Moody Nolan Who We Are Devco, LLC develops and operates multi-family communities. Founded in 1994, and headquartered in Washington, Devco and affiliates own and manage over 10,000 affordable and market rate apartment units throughout the United States. Strategic Goals RESPONSIBLE GROWTH • Prioritize investment of city infrastructure and encourage road and school facilities in identified areas to grow responsibly and Meridian will responsibly promote growth that maximize the delivery of city services. enhances its long term comprehensive vision and CITY OF M E RI D IAN'S 2021-2025 prioritizes infill development. We will encourage Implement the goals in the community's affordable,ordable,diverse housing options and high Comprehensive Plan to ensure orderly STRATEGIC PLAN development. quality communities. • Uti I ize i mpact f ees,cooperative agreements, urban renewal districts and i � other tools to ensure that development pays its proportionate share of services -- -- impacts. Establish enhanced housing affordability options in new subdivisions to create additional opportunities for all. • Apply design standards and ordinances to commercial and residential development to ensure quality communities with a diversity of amenities. i I y Strategic Plan, p. 12 _F MHOPPT 0 D E V C 0 U S C 0 �r �• Meridian needs affordable housing units that ensures that low-to moderate-income residents are spending 1 no more than 30%of their monthly income on housing expenses. While there is a monumental amount of s ' new housing units in the community, it does not meet the financial needs of the community's residents that are most vulnerable to housing instability. Consolidated Plan, pp. 110-111 E IDIAN* Consolidated Plan The City prioritized goals and objectives for using CDBG funding to strategically and effectively benefit low- and moderate-income residents by increasing access to decent housing and creating a suitable living environment while expanding economic opportunities for LMI persons. Meridian is committed to 2022-2026 improving and increasing access to safe and affordable housing for low- and moderate-income (LMI) residents. Affordable and safe housing helps to provide financial stability, reduces the chances of a person becoming homeless, and promotes housing sustainability. Consolidated Plan, p. 205 Affordable Housing Demand • In a 4-mile radius of the site there are: Course El, gle, IV walmart r`enlely rr� Meyer Fth I Cath.oliApostles c Church SpringHlll Suites • 3,343 Income Eligible Households o�EGp lNFO[L ale _ arTl°n anise Wes, • 96 existing income restricted units with 1.1% 4•o m,,es Hpatl lii den Expo ahoP Alhensnn Lakes Re erve •'Ian Sqt WMtMllen fW MM.IllknfM v Fred Mey vacancy W naddmd qtl 7 WEST WEST VALLEY • / 6 planned Income restricted units C L O V E fl OA LE WEST 9ENG JI kAl U—kRtl Sfttlerb i'brk{�y�flGAOVE fdah°CarOq Erader �' wllstick Wl WEST 6015E wusucy Rd Ayian Markel The VEilage al Mail an 4 Hargor FFwghl ToolsQ V+'inCo uods9 z • The gap between affordable income restricted WC L. vF.1—Are v Falnnew- Faniew A. Idaho Raa Coinp.,,y Walmart Supmcenter rents and the average market rent is 38 — 40 . I""e`Pe`` 1. 0 Urban Air ramp°line L rr Ave McNdian Same Ave and Adv nture Park � sr Tnwne.:Guare Jump Tme 7 IV LI"O A� p ',e Self Storageq kiln Rd ntlin Rd Fsr"Np Rd IranWln Rd WFraNdl.Rd Rt![BUY Meridian Speedway 1 SeltzerMlIe HealUrge2V7 n 6 Louts s MARLS GROVE Anticipated Village Regency at River Ten Mile Urge L' g T Valley Chlftlren's � ACA;r. dl •LRAEI><uN Centre pint Rents A artments Valle Museum of IdahoTppY hooc Family ma5 per[en[er R� $1,495 Fred Myer4 Bedroom $918 , [One wo W aaRtl � 1- Bedroom $1,088 $1,745 $1,647 Three Bedroom $1,234 $2,115 $1,970 *Data provided by Third Party Market Study conducted by Novogradac in March of 2024. Vicinity , .. C!1 4B 4z * _ ;419 ' * } 411 ug "' ■ _ � . , + OL { - SITE - :� _ : �,.W.' - x . ' - - - a •+ ems. 10 rip Vol y . C i i # f i .4+ � s r r r ` 46 y # _ _ i ■ ~ ♦ + F .may ' Y R -I E • E V C 0 D E V C 0 U S C 0 Future Land Map ■■ 11 III► - _ �_ T � � .. ter r lllll� " - -- it ,• �-a n ■ ; expected to comprise between IIII :� ��■ � ._. '��. i ,. �,� ,v.....c. .,ls,•. 10% and 30% of the development 111 lllll R;-` IIII T s = - area with gross densities ranging I■■■1■ to - h• 1■ 40 fromr' Jag mmn- 1 • • • • residential area). I _•' =�����_ Ill IIII III_� 1�1 * ■1■ IIII :��?=¢] ���__ ■■l ■Illlll I i.jam_-._ lllll rFFTTFT7Fn■Illlll I IIII Eililllll �`�llllfll■ 11 9 n F ,�.. flfl I 1 ■■• Ill III II f11111 111■ I. . 0 Residential: e _ 1 II r E'• +a : I Total • � ITotal Units Built/Approved: —1,873 units sResidential 11 11�1 _ irrr IIII 111 ' Overall Density: _ LU '� IIII l■llll�ldl _ - - III III Illllr ■ :� llllllll � -. - 111 11 ■ ■ ■ ■l■l■l■ �l■l■■■■■■■ �� ■�■■ i {* C111c }• ,.T1,':���.. a�� i ■ ` I f■l■■■■■ ■■■■� ■ C a..'` `�:.=_'Rln■■■mm � face 1 nnnlmml n n�f' + +.. __- •llllllllLll � ■l■n ■■■ 11 ..-.... # *.a. .� r.-. � �. ii1.Si=L=''PllSlh- _ � ■ + + •W ^ � • ;�z�ic.el>:tial -• - - = •� .7II�..,led'I�i.�il . . K. s;:,_." �� . _ �__ p■■Ili�zrS��it}' D E V C 0 D E V C 0 U S C 0 M •5 1 t T Zoning Map MX*1 It-3 i VR-IA C_G Meridian: 0- - R iC a Il ❑ Meridian: 0-0 ❑ 1 f Meridian: -N r C-G + ❑ Meridian: I-L A-1 ❑ Meridian: L-0 _ R R-15 �f RUT ❑ Meridian: WE 1 + ❑ Meridian: 0-T - ❑ Meridian: R-15 1 t ❑ Meridian: R- C-C s r ❑ Meridian: R-4 , J ❑ Meridian: R-40 ❑ Meridian: R-8 R, A-1 ❑ Meridian: TN- ❑ Meridian: TN-R History : ( 2019 ) .......... 0 ........ ........... o-. s g �X r A i F €•�. V x _ w ; a U7 MW!1 AftS " `rfdF r � 1 ! -Wd w 6c yy�Ill o-� .. i -�;. � -• .:s,�r: _..� .. 'may .Rf� 1a � 1. 1 4 E} r 3 F j Illl9a ? � xi f i v_ s� x V Nil, HAR i LIP 71 • E V C 0 D E V C 0 U S C 0 History : M22 Approval " • W r I :gym 4a- J j -mot �� �, .� -5 �,-�• ' � f• 1Qfe Ti - i q. CUP and DA Modification to allow a 239-unit affordable apartment site plan with 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units. Increase in open space, parking, and two 4 story buildings to accommodate increase in density from 213 to 239 making affordable project feasible. Alternative Compliance for removal of landscaping islands located under 0 covered parking (solar carports). D E V C 0 1 D E V C 0 U S C 0 M Property Size: 9.99 acres F ISSTICK RDA Total Units: 239 units Unit Breakdown: 120 1-bed (50%) 86 2-bed (38%) 33 3-bed (12%) Proposed Density: 23.9 du/acre Parking Provided: 523 spaces (2.18 per unit) r ; � ' 279 covered e.__,ut c •4 r 5 JIr � 1 T �I_ 1 CentrepointApartments Site Plan 0 0 41111p- PI On Site Amenities �! QUALITY OF LIFE ' Clubhouse with community space and - leasing office Fitness Facilities in Clubhouse `� \ Dog Park with Waste Station , OPEN SPACE Shaded Plaza / Courtyard with Activity Lawn Shaded Picnic areas with BBQ grills tables, benches, and landscaping RECREATION . r Perimeter Walking Trail } Children s Play Structure MULTI-MODAL AMENITIESOF Bicycle Parking with Bicycle Repair Station kN r � { I Will provide equal or superior benefit by: Ustick Road E rFSTICrt ROAD Providing • • • relief fromand heat islandeffectof C asphalt in parking lots M mill Contributing to traffic calming in parking lots, improving —18 degrees cooler) r I pedestrian . ..: CL I Ir 122%, Reducing • for • - I1 C� 1 -J, i r . - Ir1 III - I 1 Alternative Compliance Removal of landscape islands under covered parking (solar carports) "Affordable" = Income- Restricted Market Rate Housing Both Affordable Housing & Market Rate Residents desire: Safety Affordable Housing is no cheaper to .nt construct than Market Rate. The critical factors to control project affordability and feasibility are financing and density. EmploymentProximity To Family And Grocery Retail 0 . E V C 0 Affordable Housing Mechanics • Deed Restricted — Affordable housing restrictions will be in place for 40 years on all units providing stable supply for community. • Income Restricted — Serving residents whose income is 30-70% of Area Median Income for Ada County ($35,000 - $60,000). This includes teachers, pharmacy technician, government employees, retirees, recent college grads, and veterans. Owner Leasing & Management Practices Devco will own and maintain : Q• • • �� • • Onsite leasing & Income restricted with Buildings are protected by Key pad access required Onsite staff monitors maintenance staff, annual review of income sprinkler systems for clubhouse. Unit keys parking for inoperable 24-hr emergency contact and lease cannot be copied and the vehicles and cars not correct number of keys are associated with tenants issued at the time of Parking tags can be leasing/occupancy provided to tenants to differentiate resident and guest vehicles. Side byComparisonSide '" -- �.T aA+ a II Building A .� .Q� f� 3 Stories Building B1 j *' I � Fw 'oo ° 4 Storiesild, oQ ' 84i/ can di — _ , _� ildin D h ,...3 � _. { St r — g Dries ° �a - `r es 3 Ste ? Q' +� Building _�. r�eS y �l _ 2 Stories '! D Build ing C AI Building E i 3 Stories ! I 3 Stories i 2022 Approved Project -"�'" ' -� --_ DevCo Proposal Project Information 2022 Approved Project (2023 CZC) Devco Proposal Unit Count 213 Units 239 Units Building Heights 2- Story, 3-Story 2-Story, 3-Story, 4-Story Parking (Required/Provided) 386 / 442 475 / 523 Self-parked by pod Yes (2.07 per unit) Yes (2.18 per unit) Open Space + Amenities Exceeds Requirements Exceeds Requirements Vicinity r r fie:; •'" -�_..�a. -J�-- i 10 �e �2 r 316' 164' 196' =11 - � .&° 213' SW -- ---- I i LJ S7 KEY PLAN Building B1 PRIVA3vFENCE Building B2 LE ---------- --------.--..--.----..--..-------------------- ------------------------ -. RETAIL 4 .................... . .. 2 STORY RETAIL DR E UPTICK RC ��-... .,....... E'ICARD ST HOME 165-0 MULTI-FAMILY APT MULTI-FAMILY APT 335' Vicinity #3. Village Apartments (30 du/ac, 236' from SFD) &The Regency at River SITE Valley (22 du/ac, 85' from SFD) — a r 4 Stories, zoned C-G & R-40 Rol 0 c # � 5r ' C6 .., r #1. Old Town Lofts— 76 du/ac, 4 Stories, zoned O-T, 86' from SFD CL E Fairview Ave O 25 ` •�, ru #4. Bri at the Village —Senior Housing, EL 5 Stories, zoned C-G ry ,. E PFne Ave E Pine Ave ;Q e u an 0 E Franklin Rd I g #2. The Lofts— 24 du/ac, Tall 3 Stories, zoned C-G #5. Records Apartments—47 du/ac, 5 Stories Planned, zoned C-G Traffic Generation Table 1.Trip Generation Comparison Significant reduction in FrF bEWIVTflp Weekday traffic from Villasport Appr,wtd Land Use: approval . u 1I85RQrt' 2NO 31213 % 2OG 157 146 303 TI$ POSs fr-ps a Y ON) (;4 (12) rAl 0-9) 117) (36) Under the 259 units Met r8k21 TfipL 2,EZ7 84 42 1 176 138 IN 25F studied in 2022 T I S Multi-Famllw 221 1,249 22 74 96 K 39 101 Midi%' 1 ,152 89 update. artnU In Trips i.f� i C2 ]R RD 72 90 1€6 4 NNIIII TrafficGeneration = - �RpPCISEU-LRT VAULT T-- 6UIUDW SETBACK; dd FEET— �p�b— IAHASLLPLEOMM SCi FFETb; �S_i. 777 \ f C Y r r 1- `IRR. VAULT ^ R T } - J Ir WASMRY' PRIVACY Nvu_L d e 6C-60LT ' Applicant will improve Centrepoint I AMENITY IRR,Yi ¢ intersection . . AREA Pb[i IRR.VAULT T P Wayintersection with Ustick. ' TyP 1 � m F a w a 19.0' G 49 STALLS PROVIDED U F PROPOSED CONCRETE CLUE (19 COVERED) w I PEDESTRIAN SPEED I TABLE 75.0' 19.0' � MAL EDDIES ' J c� r 1` I BUILDING U ti I5-0' 33.0' I ¢' 2-STORY I 6C-13C I 9 YCLf PA KING— EtrBC 19.0' 26.0' 19.0' I � Ir AiA50NRY 1 fiC VACY WALL � rA W o 7>p I • E V C 0 • E V C 0 J S C 0 Cross -Access C. Cross-Access Easements. Sadie Creel, as grantor, hereby grants to Sadie Creck Commons and Corner Pocket , its respective tenants, contractors, employees, agents, cuss rners, licensees and invitees, and the subtenants, contractors, employees, agents, customers, licensees and invitees of such tenants, for the benefit of Parcel A and C, as grantee, a perpetual non-exclusive clusive easement for cross access by vehicular and pedestrian traffic, but net parking, upon or over roadways that may exist from time to time on Parcel B. Sadie Creep shall design and build roadways on its parcel in such a fashion so as to permit reasonable access through and across Parcel B and provide Pawel A and C access to Fagle Road from Sadie Creek Avenue. Sadie Creek is under no obligation to construct such roadways; however when constructed, such roadways must provide reasonable access across and through Parcel B and provide for Parcel A and C future access to Eagle Rd. Once constructed, Sadie Creep has the right to relocate the Improvements so long as the relocated improvement continue to provide reasonable access as required herein. Sadie Creep shall be responsible for performiD and paying for any maintenance, repairs, resurfacing or replacements related to this Cross Access Easement. Cross -Access dw IE Iv q:Lk IK L—i :-3j7i CUT-THROUGH EXHIBIT - CENTREPOINT to bar 15,10246iJ� Kim Morn D E V C 0 1 D E V C 0 U S C 0 M Letters of Support St. Luke's Health System Saint Alphonsus Health System Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center Central District Health El-Ada Community Action Partnership Friends of Children and Families, Inc. Jesse Tree NeighborWorks Boise Conclusion Request Approval for: DA Modification & CUP Modification — 239 affordable residential units — Change from 2 and 3 story buildings to 2, 3, and 4 story buildings Alternative Compliance — Remove parking lot landscaping under solar carports Supplemental Materials t Z INII���III�VIIIIr�111ri�llllr�111 � w t Y i w• � � t TP T I 1K `49 wNAr J• r. , 1 w � ■JF 4 D E V C 0 D E V C 0 U S . C 0 M Neighborhood Cross Sections 61 Fo S2 A 62 L i C S3 KEY PLAN Building B1 Building B2 PRIVACY FENCE ------------------------------------------------ ........... ----- - ----- --------- E PICAR ...... ............... RETAIL RETAIL DR E USTICK RD ..........................= RE,':I D T-3 EEN fn ...........................=.... ... ...... 1651-01, 1 MULTI-FAMILY APT MULTI-FAMILY AFT 188'-G"APART S1 - PARALLEL TO CENTREPOINT WAY Building D Sections PRIVACY Building D B1 FENCE -------------------------------------- ----------------------------- - S2 A '-STORY .:..........:..... .. B2 ko ... E CP{ RANCH HOM=C'v %1ER YA.RC CENTREPOINT WAY _j S3 185' APART S1 KEY PLAN S2 — CENTREPOINT WAY TO E LESLIE DR Building D 61'-0"APA RT 2-STORY PRIVACY FENCE HOME S3 — PARALLEL TO CENTREPOINT WAY 0 a..r.�.*•s�.. '!� ,ram"�'� 4. rr�. - ' ON Mill 147 , — 0 c ,• -mow "'—'r— D E V C 0 D E V C 0 U S C 0 M 31 Building Comparison -------------------------------------------- ____________________-___________-------_-_ ___________ ---- ------------------ _______ � {T��� 11^JI ------ ------------- --------------�* ----- J E] H J U7 -_- -_-_ -_-_-_ _-_-_---_ _-_-_-_ -. - ----r-.-_- _ -._._-_._-_ F r � e 0 ------- ------ 4�;*------------------- B 1:52 ELEVATION 4 B1 with Pitched Roof PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ELEVATION HEIGHT PROPOSE[) MAXIMUM ELEVATION HEIGHT All proposed buildings are below the city code maximum height with pitched roofs. Building D on the west side of the site is proposed as a 2-story building, Buildings B2 and C are proposed as 3 story buildings, and Buildings A and B1 are proposed as 4-story buildings. The previous proposal was for flat-roofed 4-story buildings within the same height range as typical 3-story buildings previously approved for the center of the project. E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Appeal of Abatement Order by Tammy Blair Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: C� E IDIAN.1Z_-- Luke Cavener, President Liz Strader, Vice President Brian Whitlock Doug Taylor John Overton Anne Little Roberts DATE: October 8, 2024 TO: Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members FROM: Todd Koehler, Code Enforcement Officer Kyle Yorita, City Arborist RE: Appeal of Notice of Violation and Order to Abate Nuisance Tree 1932 E. Three Bars Drive, Meridian, Idaho PLEASE NOTE: Code Enforcement Officer Todd Koehler has located and has been working with an arborist who told Todd that he is willing to perform the necessary work on the nuisance tree at no charge, due to Ms. Blair's statement of financial hardship. As of the date of this memorandum, that arborist and Ms. Blair have an appointment to trim the hazardous branches from the river birch tree at issue on Thursday, October 10, 2024. It is possible that the nuisance tree will be abated at that time and that it will not be necessary for City Council to hear this appeal. This memorandum is provided to explain the activities of the City Arborist and the Code Enforcement Division of the Meridian Police Department leading up to the appeal filed by Tammy Blair, the owner of 1932 E. Three Bars Drive, in Meridian ("Property"). OVERVIEW OF NUISANCE CONDITION AND INVESTIGATION In June 2024, Code Enforcement received a complaint that some dead branches were dangling in the upper portion of a river birch tree located on the south side of the Property. The reporting party ("RP") was concerned that the tree's branches would fall and damage the RP's house or property. On June 5, 2024, Code Enforcement Officer Todd Koehler went to the Property. A relative of Ms. Blair was in the driveway and explained that the tree had previously been partially trimmed, but due to cost, the job had not been completed. Todd again attempted to contact the homeowner by phone, leaving a message on June 6, 2024. Todd requested assistance from City Arborist Kyle Yorita, who responded to the Property on June 6, 2024. Kyle knocked on the door and it was answered by Ms. Blair's son-in-law. The son-in-law invited Kyle to enter the back yard with him, where Kyle observed the dead limbs near the top of the tree. Kyle determined the upper canopy of the tree was in significant decline, with several dead branches that were no longer structurally attached to the rest of the tree. Kyle further determined that these branches posed a safety risk, as they PAGE 1 may fall during windy conditions or other environmental stresses. Kyle advised Ms. Blair's son-in-law, and Todd, of his findings. On June 11, 2024, Todd again attempted to contact Ms. Blair by knocking on the door, leaving a door hanger with a message, leaving a voice mail message, and sending a text message requesting a return call. Later that day, Ms. Blair called Todd and described the financial hardship of maintaining the tree. She said that she would ask her son-in-law to help her, and would contact Todd with a plan. On June 12, 2024, Todd asked Kyle for a written assessment of the tree, which Kyle provided (see Exhibit A). The same day, Todd mailed to Ms. Blair a notice of abatable nuisance and order to abate. Todd's notice and order required Ms. Blair to abate the nuisance tree by June 30, 2024, and included a copy of Kyle's assessment, Todd's business card, and a list of arborists (see Exhibit B). On June 25, 2024, Ms. Blair called Todd and stated that she had obtained an estimate from a tree company, but was still trying to schedule the work, and needed time beyond the June 30 deadline stated in the notice. Todd advised her that he could extend the deadline when the work was scheduled. The next day, Ms. Blair told Todd that the work was scheduled for July 8, 2024. On July 8, 2024, Todd sent a text message to Ms. Blair requesting confirmation that the tree would be maintained that day. On July 9, Ms. Blair responded, stating that that the tree company told her they would have to rent a lift and would get back in touch with her. Todd asked Ms. Blair for the name of the company she was using so he could contact them and confirm the date of the work. On July 10, Todd again asked for that information, and Ms. Blair told him that when she had an appointment, she would tell him. On July 17, 2024, Todd again followed up with Ms. Blair, leaving a voice mail message and then a text message, requesting an update via call or text. Ms. Blair responded to say that she did not have an appointment yet, but provided Todd with the name of the tree company, Eden Tree Works. Todd called Eden Tree Works on July 25, 2024, and an employee of Eden Tree Works confirmed that the company had not yet procured a lift, and had not provided Ms. Blair with a date to complete the work. On July 26, 2024, Eden Tree Works contacted Todd to say that they could do the work on July 30. Todd asked them to confirm this with Ms. Blair. Todd also sent a text message and left a voice mail with Ms. Blair with this information. On August 2, 2024, Ms. Blair texted Todd and told him that the nuisance branches had been cut. Todd called Eden Tree Works, who stated that there were a number of river birch trees on the Property that were dead or partially dead, and they had completed the work that Ms. Blair would allow them to do. On August 6, 2024, Todd called Kyle to request that he inspect the nuisance tree to confirm that the branches had been abated. Kyle was out of the office until August 19, 2024. PAGE 2 On August 22, 2024, Kyle was able to survey the tree from the public street, but it was unclear from that vantage point whether the nuisance condition had been abated, so Todd advised Kyle that Todd would speak to the RP to confirm that the concerning branches were removed and obtain permission to enter his property to closely inspect the tree. On August 29, 2024, Todd reached the RP, who stated that the branches of concern had not been abated. The RP said that there were still branches dangling above and in danger of falling on his property. The RP provided photos and invited Kyle to come to RP's property to see the tree from there. On September 10, 2024, Kyle and Todd met the RP at his property. From there, Kyle again observed at least two remaining unhealthy or dead branches that were not attached to the tree, and still in danger of falling due to wind or other weather conditions. Kyle prepared another tree assessment letter describing the nuisance conditions (see Exhibit Q and provided it to Todd. Todd called Eden Tree Works to inquire why the branches presenting the nuisance had not been trimmed. They advised that they would have cut those branches as well, but Ms. Blair did not want them to do that work, due to the cost. On September 11, 2024, Todd mailed another violation letter to Ms. Blair, requesting again that the river birch tree cluster be trimmed to remove the dead and dangling branches (see Exhibit D). He included his business card and Kyle's September 10 assessment. At no time did Todd enter Ms. Blair's back yard. All of Todd's observations of the nuisance tree were made from the public right-of-way or from the RP's yard, by RP's invitation. On September 20, 2024, Todd sent Ms. Blair a text message advising her that he had sent her a second violation letter and requesting that she contact him to make sure that she understood which tree was continuing to present the nuisance condition. Ms. Blair filed an appeal on September 20, 2024. She also provided photographs and a video depicting two other river birch tree clusters on the Property that are not the subject of the notice of violation. Since September 20, 2024, Todd has located and has been working with an arborist who has stated that he is willing to perform the necessary work on the nuisance tree at no charge, due to the financial hardship presented. On October 3, 2024, Kyle met with this arborist and Ms. Blair at the Property. At this meeting, Kyle clarified which tree has the nuisance conditions and explained the work that will be necessary to abate the nuisance. As of the date of this memorandum, that arborist and Ms. Blair have an appointment to trim the hazardous branches from the river birch at issue on Thursday, October 10, 2024. If the nuisance tree is not abated as anticipated on October 10, 2024, and the appeal does proceed on Tuesday, October 15, 2024, Todd and Kyle will be present to answer questions that City Council may have about the matters set forth in this memorandum. PAGE 3 Exhibit A Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: E IDIAN.11Z_ �- Luke Cavener, President Liz Strader,Vice President Brian Whitlock Doug Taylor John Overton Anne Little Roberts 6/12/2024 Subject: Tree Assessment and Recommendation for Removal of Declining River Birch Clusters Following a recent inspection of the River Birch(Betula nigra)clusters at 1932 E. Three Bars Dr. I have determined that these trees are in significant decline and pose potential safety risks. Assessment Findings: • Visual Inspection: Significant dieback, dead branches,and sparse foliage observed. • Structural Integrity: Cracked and split branches,trunk decay indicating high risk of limb or tree failure. • Health Condition: Pests, diseases,nutrient deficiencies, and poor soil drainage contributing to decline. • Safety Concerns: Risk of falling branches or tree failure,posing hazards to pedestrians and structures. Recommendation: Due to the extent of decline and safety risks, I recommend the immediate removal of the River Birch clusters. Proposed Action Plan: 1. Tree Removal: Safely remove the identified trees. 2. Stump Grinding: Grind stumps to below ground level to prevent regrowth and reduce hazards. 3. Site Restoration: Restore the site post-removal,with possible soil improvement and replacement tree planting. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Kyle Yorita I City Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#PN-9097A City of Meridian I Parks and Recreation 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 206, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.409.1601 1 Fax: 208.898.5501 x Exhibit B c Y MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1401 E. Watertower e Meridian, ID 83642 Phone (208) 888-6678 ® Fax (208) 846-7366 - www.meridianpolice.org Tracy Basterrechea,Chief DATE: June 12, 2024 TO: Tammy Blair 1932 E Three Bars Drive Meridian, ID 83642 FROM: T. Koehler, City of Meridian Code Enforcement Officer Meridian Police Department—Code Enforcement Division RE: Real Property at: 1932 E Three Bars Dr, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Parcel no. R5330150160/LOT 3 BLK 4, LOS ALAMITOS PARK SUB #2 NOTICE OF ABATABLE NUISANCE AND ORDER TO ABATE: WEEDS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED the Code Enforcement Officer has determined that a nuisance tree is present on the north side of the parcel near the property line in the rear yard, of the above-described real property. This is a nuisance condition prohibited by Meridian City Code section 4-2-3(B). YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to abate this nuisance condition by removing the tree which constitutes a safety, health, and/or fire hazard to persons and/or property, from the parcel at the above-described real property by 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2024. Should you fail to comply with any provision of this Order, any and all available penalties may attach without further notice. PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE with this order include a criminal misdemeanor charge for each day the nuisance persists. Additionally, pursuant to Meridian City Code section 4-2-3(H), the City of Meridian may abate the nuisance and then collect the costs of such abatement costs from you. If the City of Meridian abates the nuisance, and you do not timely pay the cost of such abatement following issuance of invoice,the costs of such abatement will be attached to your utility bill. Nonpayment may result in discontinuance of utility services provided by the City of Meridian, including water and sewer services. YOU MAY APPEAL this Order by filing a written appeal, stating the grounds for such appeal, with the City Clerk, 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642, by 5:00 p.m. on June 30, 2024. Upon receipt, the City Clerk will schedule such appeal for public hearing before City Council. — 'f Signed: = . ,l= ' ° % Date: T. Koehler(208) 846-7340. Code Enforcement Officer—Meridian Police Department . ..... �E IDI� IAN; Exhibit C Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: E IDIAN.11Z_ - Luke Cavener, President Liz Strader,Vice President Brian Whitlock Doug Taylor John Overton Anne Little Roberts 9/10/2024 Subject: Tree Assessment and Recommendation for Removal of Declining River Birch Clusters Following a recent inspection of the River Birch(Betula nigra)clusters at 1932 E. Three Bars Dr. I have determined that these trees are in significant decline and pose potential safety risks. Assessment Findings: • Visual Inspection: Significant dieback, dead branches, and sparse foliage observed. • Structural Integrity: Cracked and split branches,trunk decay indicating high risk of limb or tree failure. • Health Condition: Pests, diseases,nutrient deficiencies, and poor soil drainage contributing to decline. • Safety Concerns: Risk of falling branches or tree failure,posing hazards to pedestrians and structures. Recommendation: Due to the extent of decline and safety risks, I recommend the immediate removal of the River Birch clusters. Proposed Action Plan: 1. Tree Removal: Safely remove the identified trees. 2. Stump Grinding: Grind stumps to below ground level to prevent regrowth and reduce hazards. 3. Site Restoration: Restore the site post-removal,with possible soil improvement and replacement tree planting. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, )��fl/;I K�_ Kyle Yorita I City Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#PN-9097A City of Meridian I Parks and Recreation 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 206, Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.409.1601 1 Fax: 208.898.5501 Exhibit D ? M MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1401 E. Watertower • Meridian, ID 83642 - ; Phone (208) 888-6678 • Fax (208) 846-7366 EP' r www.meridianpolice.org Tracy Basterrechea,Chief DATE: September 11, 2024 TO: Tammy Blair 1932 E Three Bars Drive Meridian, ID 83642 FROM: T. Koehler, City of Meridian Code Enforcement Officer Meridian Police Department.— Code Enforcement Division RE: Real Property at: 1932 E Three Bars Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642 LOT 3 BLK 4 Los Alamitos Park Sub#2 Parcel no. R5330150160 NOTICE OF ABATABLE NUISANCE AND ORDER TO ABATE: Trees YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED the Code Enforcement Officer has determined that a cluster of nuisance trees are present on the north side of the parcel, near the rear fence, of the above- described real property. This is a nuisance condition prohibited by Meridian City Code section 4-2-303). On 6/12/24, you were notified of this nuisance cluster of trees with a previous violation letter. A small portion of the tree was removed leaving several dead or dying branches, which are in danger of falling. YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to abate this nuisance condition by removing the tree which constitutes a safety, health' and/or fire hazard to persons and/or property, from the parcel at the above-described real property by 5:00 p.m. on September 21, 2024. Should you fail to comply with any provision of this Order, any and all available penalties may attach without further notice. PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE with this order include a criminal misdemeanor charge for each day the nuisance persists. Additionally, pursuant to Meridian City Code section 4-2-3(H), the City of Meridian may abate the nuisance and then collect the costs of such abatement costs from you. If the City of Meridian abates the nuisance, and you do not timely pay the cost of such abatement following issuance of invoice, the costs of such abatement will be attached to your utility bill. Nonpayment may result in discontinuance of utility services provided by the City of Meridian, including water and sewer services. ......... CVE IDI� IAN, 33,,af� YOU MAY APPEAL this Order by filing a written appeal, stating the grounds for such appeal, with the City Clerk, 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642,by 5:00 p.m. on September 21, 2024. Upon receipt,the City Clerk will schedule such appeal for public hearing before City Council. Signed: Date: 9/11/24 T. Koehler(208) 846-7340 Code Enforcement Officer—Meridian Police Department Mayor Robert E . Simison City Council Members : E IDIAN . Luke Cavener, President Liz Strader, Vice President D A H O Brian Whitlock Doug Taylor John Overton Anne Little Roberts October 4, 2024 Tammy Blair 1932 E . Three Bars Dr . Meridian , ID 83642 From : Chris Johnson , City Clerk Re : Notice of Public Hearing for Appeal of Abatement Order Ms . Blair, At your request, a public hearing for your appeal of the Notice of Abatable Nuisance and Order to Abate : Trees has been scheduled before City Council . Your hearing will take place at the Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council at 6 : 00 PM on Tuesday, October 15, 2024 at the Meridian City Council Chamber within Meridian City Hall, 33 . E . Broadway Ave . Meridian Idaho 83642 . The full meeting agenda will be posted at https :Hmeridiancity . org/agendas six days prior to the hearing . Please contact my office should you have any questions . Thank you . 6L c4.f=" UXAN SEN. Chris Johnson City Clerk MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1401 E. Watertower • Meridian, ID 83642 ,3 Phone (208) 888-6678 • Fax (208) 846-7366 e EP.wp :al`I www.meridianpolice.org Tracy Basterrechea,Chief DATE: September 11, 2024 TO: Tammy Blair 1932 E Three Bars Drive Meridian, ID 83642 FROM: T. Koehler, City of Meridian Code Enforcement Officer Meridian Police Department—Code Enforcement Division RE: Real Property at: 1932 E Three Bars Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642 LOT 3 BLK 4 . Los Alamitos Park Sub #2 Parcel no. R5330150160 NOTICE OF ABATABLE NUISANCE AND ORDER TO ABATE: Trees YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED the Code Enforcement Officer has determined that a cluster of nuisance trees are present on the north side of the parcel,near the rear fence, of the above- described real property. This is a nuisance condition prohibited by Meridian City Code section 4-2-3(B). On 6/12/24, you were notified of this nuisance cluster of trees with a previous violation letter. A small portion of the tree was removed leaving several dead or dying branches, which are in danger of falling. YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to abate this nuisance condition by removing the tree which constitutes q safety,health; and/or fire hazard to pexsvi•--,and!or property, from the parcel at tho above-described real property by S:k p.m. on September 21,2024. Should you fail to comply with any provision of this Order, any and all available penalties may attach without further notice. i PENALTIES FOR NONCOMPLIANCE with this order include a criminal misdemeanor charge for each day the nuisance persists. Additionally,pursuant to Meridian City Code section . 4-2-3(H),the City of Meridian may abate the nuisance and then collect the costs of such abatement costs from you. If the City of Meridian abates the nuisance, and you do not timely pay the cost of such abatement following issuance of invoice, the costs of such abatement will be attached to your utility bill. Nonpayment may result in discontinuance of utility services provided by the City of Meridian, including water and sewer services. i I i C�Vl E IDI� IAN�- iDAHO J YOU MAY APPEAL this Order by filing a written appeal, stating the grounds for such appeal, with the City Clerk, 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642, by 5:00 p.m. on September 21, 2024. Upon receipt, the City Clerk will schedule such appeal for public hearing before City Council. Signed: Date: 9/11/24 T. Koehler(208) 846-7340 Code Enforcement Officer—Meridian Police Department RECEIVE D SEP 2 0 2024 Hello Mr City Clerk, CITY Sept 20, 2024 C1r �rn o►�t",N, CITY CLERKS OFFICE My name is Tammy Blair I own my home at 1932 E Three Bars Drive , Meridian Idaho 83642 1 received a letter in the mail from this Todd Koehler that I am in a violation, I have never heard of this kind of thing, He asked that I cut down my trees and I did . I thought it was over and now I receive another letter saying I am still in violation ? I am a single woman I have to work to pay my bills and come here today losing money is not fun . He came over and I was not home , He still went in my back yard which I am NO HAPPY about . I hope these pictures and the bill tells you I did what was asked of me , the 2 trees were going into neighbors backyard . Now they are not . Thank you so Much , Tammy Blair Tblair2416@gmail . com Invoice :[)ate Aug 09, 2024 Due Date Aug09, 2024 VOW� Eden Tree Works Invois;e # 01177-I Contact Information Client: Tammy Blair Client Address: 1932 East Three Bars Drive, Meridian ID 83642 Client Phone: Client Email: Job Site Contact: Tammy Blair/Amm Invoice Details DESCRIPTION PRICE Tree Removal $ 850.00 2 dead river birch along N. fence line (back yard) - Remove both trees and cut as low/flat to ground as possible. Chip brush and leave wood in manageable sections near base of tree(s). All work will be done by a crew of professional arborists, safely, insured and in accordance with municipal and arborist standards. Sum: $ 850.00 010. Subtotal: $ 850.00 Deposit: - $ 850.00 Total Payable: $ 0.00 PAID IN FULL Thank you for your business! Eden Tree Works 10722 W. Excallbur St. Boise, ID 83713 10722 west Excalibur Street, Boise, ID 83713 PHONE:(208)272-0002 EMAIL:edentreeworks@gmail.com WEB:www.edentreeworks.coni r its iP t • � �ter i r t 1 r A JL Oil i I O L •� 4 d I 1 + 4rotv of + r k 14 . r k 1 , it 1 iiooll � � i Jt� i - vtw l ¢ LL Orr tow 3 ZIF ip x° `a ���' .�.: �� ' y � � •. Qy . . ice.- ' ^ ��- .