Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2026-06-16 Regular
Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: John Overton, President Anne Little Roberts, Vice President Brian Whitlock Liz Strader Doug Taylor Luke Cavener CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 16, 2026 at 6:00 PM The City of Meridian is committed to providing equal access to all public meetings. If you need accommodation, an alternative format, or language assistance to fully participate, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at cityclerk@meridiancity.org 72 hours prior the scheduled meeting. Materials presented at public meetings are subject to disclosure pursuant to the Idaho Public Records Act. Public Meetings of the Meridian City Council are streamed live at https://meridiancity.org/live and can be joined virtually at https://bit.ly/meridianzoommeeting Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilman John Overton Councilwoman Anne Little Roberts Councilman Brian Whitlock Councilman Doug Taylor Councilman Luke Cavener Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Liz Strader PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECOGNITION PUBLIC FORUM PUBLIC HEARINGS \[Action Item\] 1. Public Hearing (Continued from April 14, 2026) for VanTrust (ZOA-2025-0002) by VanTrust Real Estate, generally located at the southwest corner of Black Cat Rd. and Franklin Rd. Approved A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to adjust the flex space standards to lower the office requirement from 30% to 10% in the I-L zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilman Taylor. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener 2. Public Hearing (Continued from April 14, 2026) for VanTrust (H-2025-0052) by VanTrust Real Estate, generally located at the southwest corner of Black Cat Rd. and Franklin Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 23.13 acres of land consisting of six (6) buildings that span a total of 340,000 sq.ft. in the I-L zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilman Taylor. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Taylor Voting Nay: Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing (Continued from May 19, 2026) for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development (H-2025-0007) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./US69 and Amity Rd. Remanded to Planning and Zoning Commission A. Request: Annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres), C-N (2.07 acres), C-C (9.12 acres), and C-G (23.47 acres) zoning districts. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. Motion to remand application to Planning and Zoning Commission made by Councilwoman Little Roberts, Seconded by Councilman Overton. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener 4. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance and the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees Ordinance Authorizing the Imposition of New County-Related Development Impact Fees Continued to June 23, 2026 5. Ordinance No. 26-2126: An Ordinance Adding a New Title 12 Called "Countywide Development Impact Fees" to the Meridian City Code and Adding Thereto a New Chapter 1 Called "Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees" That Provides for Short Chapter Title; Authority, Findings, Applicability, and Purpose; Definitions; Capital Improvements Plan; Periodic Review of the Capital Improvements Plan; Intergovernmental Agreement with Ada County; Imposition of County Impact Fees and Payment; Enforcement and Collection; County Impact Fee Administrator and City Powers to Require Payment of County Impact Fees; County Impact Fee(s) Exemptions; Process for Individual Assessment; Extraordinary Impacts; Developer Credits and Reimbursements; County Impact Fee Payment Mistake or Misrepresentation; Fee Payer Refunds; County Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund, Expenditures, Budget, Audit, and Surcharge; Appeals and Mediation; Miscellaneous Provisions; Punishment for Violations; Construction of Ordinance Intent; and Providing an Effective Date 6. Ordinance No. 26-2127: An Ordinance Amending the Meridian City Code by the Addition Thereto of a New Chapter 2 to Title 12 Called "Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees" Providing for Short Chapter Title; Authority, Findings, Applicability, and Purpose; Definitions; Capital Improvements Plan; Periodic Review of the Capital Improvements Plan; Intergovernmental Agreement with EMS District; Imposition of EMS Impact Fees and Payment; Enforcement and Collection; EMS District Impact Fee Administrator and City Powers to Require Payment of EMS Impact Fees; EMS Impact Fee(s) Exemptions; Process for Individual Assessment; Extraordinary Impacts; Developer Credits and Reimbursements; EMS Impact Fee Payment Mistake or Misrepresentation; Fee Payer Refunds; EMS Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund, Expenditures, Budget, Audit, and Surcharge; Appeals and Mediation; Miscellaneous Provisions; Punishment for Violations; Construction of Ordinance Intent; and Providing an Effective Date 7. Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for Ada County Sheriff's Jail on Development Within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener 8. Ada County Emergency Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District on Development Within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Overton, Seconded by Councilwoman Little Roberts. Voting Yea: Councilman Overton, Councilwoman Little Roberts, Councilman Whitlock, Councilman Taylor, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 8:12 PM Meridian City Council June 16, 2026. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, June 16, 2026, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Luke Cavener, John Overton, Doug Taylor, Anne Little Roberts and Brian Whitlock. Members Absent: Liz Strader. Other Present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen, Nick Napoli, Kurt Starman, Tracy Basterrechea and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader X Brian Whitlock Anne Little Roberts X John Overton _X_ Doug Taylor _X_Luke Cavener X Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call this meeting to order. For the record is June 16th, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Next up will be our community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by Kerry Laframboise. Kerry, good to see you again. Thanks for being here. If you would all, please, join us in the invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Laframboise: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. It is a privilege and an honor to -- it's a privilege and an honor to be able to open these proceedings with prayer and I don't take that lightly. So, tonight I would like to read briefly from Proverbs 2, 1 through 9. It says: My son if you receive my words and treasure my commands within you so that you incline your ear to wisdom and apply your heart to understanding, yes, if you cry out for discernment and lift up your voice for understanding, if you seek her as silver and search for her as hidden treasures, then, you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God. For the Lord gives wisdom. From his mouth comes knowledge and understanding. He stores up sound wisdom for the upright. He is a shield to those who walk uprightly. He guards the path of justice and preserves the Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 2 of 44 way of his saints, then, you will understand righteousness and justice, equity and every good path. Thank you, Lord, that you have given us access to your wisdom, to your understanding and your discernment and to your knowledge. Through these gifts you guide us to understanding justice and equity. Please grant to these men and women the guidance they need as they deal with the issues facing them this evening and throughout the coming months. Give them integrity and discernment to guide this great city. We ask these things in your name, Jesus, amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Next up is adoption of the agenda. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: There are no changes to tonight's agenda. I move that we approve the agenda as published. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND RECOGNITION Simison: Next up is announcements and recognition. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: If I can take just a couple of minutes to have an announcement. Coming up this next week is the 97th annual Dairy Days Week, culminating with the parade on Saturday, June 27th at 11:00 a.m. I don't take it lightly that I'm sitting in the chair that was once held by Councilman Keith Bird and he was a longtime member of the Dairy Board and I get to sit on that dairy board now as well, but the first thing we do is Monday is the Keith Bird Annual golf tournament named after him. The Dairy princess is Wednesday night. One of the highlights is Thursday evening in the park is the ice cream social and if you have never had an ice cream social from Reed's Dairy it's some of the best in the valley. Friday we will start the morning off with a pancake feed and they will have dairy shows all day long. There is music throughout the park with bands playing all three days, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. You can come back to see Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 3 of 44 where the roots of this city came from as we were one of the largest dairy consortiums in the United States in its heyday. It's hard to find a dairy around here now, but the history is still here and Old MacDonald's Farm will still be going next to the Speedway. There is a demolition derby. Trust me, there is something for everybody at this event. There are some flyers, some big ones on the back table and it is all over Instagram and Facebook, too, if you just search for it. But I would love to see everybody show up. The parade will usually have 75 to 100 floats. Usually by the time the first one finishes the last one hasn't even got out on the street and we will all be out there. The weather is supposed to be really good. I would love to see if everyone would get out and join us. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Thank you. Council, anything else under announcements and recognition? PUBLIC FORUM Simison: Okay. Then with that, Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up. PUBLIC HEARINGS [Action Item] 1. Public Hearing (Continued from April 14, 2026) for VanTrust (ZOA- 2025-0002) by VanTrust Real Estate, generally located at the southwest corner of Black Cat Rd. and Franklin Rd. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to adjust the flex space standards to lower the office requirement from 30% to 10% in the I-L zoning district. Simison: Okay. Then we will move right into our -- you have to sign up in advance. Yeah. Next up will be our public hearing, which is continued from April 14th, 2026, for VanTrust, ZOA-2025-0002. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments. Napoli: Good evening, Mayor, Members of the Council. So, yes, this application was continued on April 14th and the City Council continued the subject applications and directed staff to prepare development agreement provisions, coordinate with ACHD and the developer to the adjacent property to the south regarding improvements to Black Cat Road and provide updated language for the proposed flex space standards. So, on May 15th, 2026, city staff provided the draft development agreement provisions and flex space code amendment to the applicant for their review. In addition, staff met with ACHD on April 23rd, 2026, to discuss potential improvements to Black Cat Road. Following that meeting ACHD indicated that it would not pursue a cooperative development agreement for Black Cat Road improvements, citing higher priority projects, including improvements at the Venable intersection regarding the new community center and the extension of West Corporate Drive to West Waltman Lane and those are highlighted right here. So, additionally, staff also met or talked with the Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 4 of 44 developer of the Black Cat industrial project, which is directly to the south across the canal and he indicated -- his intent was to pursue a development agreement modification to their existing development agreement in the future and this amendment would propose revising the square footage thresholds that would trigger required improvements to Black Cat Road. Additionally, staff is preparing an application to amend the future land use designations within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. This proposed amendment is limited to the future land use map. Concurrently -- concurrently staff is evaluating potential additional amendments to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and related modifications to the Comprehensive Plan to better align with the direction provided by City Council. The initial FLUM amendment application is anticipated to be presented to City Council later this year and this is just a little highlight of the area that you guys will see some changes to later this year. And I will stand for any questions you guys -- here is the proposed flex space code change. It's also in your packet and the development agreement provisions are on the next slide, which I can change to in a little bit. And I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Nick, thank you. Just a quick question. With some of the changes that are actually shown on the screen here, did you pull these together based on feedback from Council, your own kind of research? Just kind of want to know how you ended up with what we see in front of us tonight exactly. Napoli: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, it's a great question. So, yes, some of us from your guys' feedback wanting to provide some more flexibility for the development community. It was also taking some feedback from the development community on really what percentages -- for one, it was to clean up the percentages, which we actually just went to more of a standard ratio across all zones that flex space is permitted in, which is that ten to 30 percent of office and retail showroom. So, any zone -- any zoning district that allows where flex space is permitted will allow for ten to 30 percent retail showroom across all districts. So, it could be 90 percent warehousing and ten percent office and that's allowed in the C-G zone, as it would be in the I-L zone and that was based off of a lot of feedback we did get. Obviously, it's still a work in progress. I wouldn't say this is -- solves all of the issues that flex space has and we actually are evaluating that and having a workshop with you guys next week and meeting with more of the focus group to have a -- maybe a more comprehensive change, but I think this is a -- in the near term solution to some of the challenges that we were facing, as well as to what the applicant was asking for in their code change. Taylor: I appreciate it. Just a follow up, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 5 of 44 Taylor: Yeah. Thanks, Nick. Some of the feedback you got from the development community was this some feedback that you had had previously kind of on file? Did you go out and sort of have some more informal discussions? I know we didn't have any kind of formal outreach, at least I'm not aware of, but how did you collect some of this additional information from the time we had this last meeting until today to kind of inform that? Napoli: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, it's a great question. Yes, we -- so, we did definitely pass feedback. This has been an ongoing thing. I wouldn't say this is new. Flex space has been a -- I wouldn't say a challenge, but it's been trying to find the balance between where the office retail showroom should land in regards to the warehousing and what zones. So, it was definitely based off of previous feedback. also did -- I talked with a couple people that I deal with on a regular basis, including the VanTrust team on what their thoughts were on it and all of them were supportive of it generally. I did let them know that, you know, we are going to have a larger change probably coming in the future that will maybe address more of their concerns, because a lot of feedback we got was actually wanting less retail showroom and office, because most people aren't going to have 30 percent office, especially in the I-L zoning, but today we actually got a request from another developer that wants maybe more flexibility to have 50 percent office, which was the first time I had heard that. So, it is a little bit of a -- a moving target that we are trying to find where that happy medium is and we hope to accomplish that really in that workshop, but I think that this is a -- a code change that satisfies kind of what the applicant was looking for while also cleaning up the code in the near term, which knowing that there will be a bigger change in the future. Correct. Simison: Any further questions for staff on this item? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? McCluskey: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council. Chris McCluskey. Address is 205 North 400 West, Suite 100, Salt Lake City. 84117. 1 want to start by saying thank you for the time this evening and echoing Nick's comments a little bit on the UDC. That was one of the conversations we had quite a bit of discussion on last time when we were here for a council meeting. As Nick said, VanTrust is supportive of the code changes in that order and so that alleviates that problem from our -- our concern. So, I wanted to spend a few minutes to actually discuss a little more I think what was the bigger concern, which was Black Cat, specifically from an access and traffic standpoint. So, think in my humble opinion or the interpretation I got the -- the project from a -- a aesthetics and location and type of use was -- was not the question as much -- as much as the traffic impact and being the smaller development within a larger development area -- we are obviously 20 acres out of a much larger area that has industrial zoning. Still generating traffic, obviously, but at an impact rate that's lower than a lot of our development partners who are in the area, specifically south and east and west, some of the other development areas that Nick and Bill highlighted last time. So, working through that, obviously, our impact isn't the one that's going to necessarily change the level of service from say a C to D, but we do understand that there is an obvious impact Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 6 of 44 once we do complete the development. So, we have tried at both Council and staff's recommendation to try to discuss with the adjacent developers opportunities for us to help in some way to alleviate the problem. Obviously, ACHD coming forward with no development cooperative agreements was kind of a little bit of a hiccup, not giving us an opportunity to provide additional infrastructure improvements, which was tough, as we were trying to find solutions to move forward. So, in that vein, though, we did reach out. Obviously had some great conversations with our development partners to the south, Black Cat and Sawtooth. There are opportunities for us to partner with them in the long run. If the improvements that they are required versus their development agreement come forward we are willing to offer some contributions of capital to be able to facilitate that. Obviously being a smaller development that's not a large amount, but we are willing to contribute up to 200,000 dollars to help for infrastructure improvements. Kind of a back of the napkin analysis that we did, but kind of somewhat prices out to -- for example, a turn lane or a suicide turn lane. It's a bad term for a center turn lane. shouldn't use that. But the center turn lane is to help facilitate some of those turning movements at -- at Franklin Road off of Black Cat to help alleviate some of the traffic. So, that was one of the things that we were trying to do to help alleviate some of those concerns. Obviously, the right timing is kind of the question on this and, you know, from a land seller's perspective, obviously, the families -- you probably are going to hear from later. I believe they are going to speak on the open forum. But this is an opportunity from exit generational assets that they have held for a long time in the families. Franklin is forcing, obviously, the Troys to make the decision a little sooner. So, we are trying to help facilitate, A, some families to exit the area, plus put a development and at the same time already contributing quite a bit of infrastructure improvements with the collector street that you see kind of between the northern buildings and the southern buildings, which, again, for a small site building a road on site is -- is obviously a capital cost that we are willing to contribute there, but, then, also trying to contribute to the Black Cat improvements as well. So, we just hope that, you know, if there was any questions maybe we could help. Obviously, this is -- is a much larger concern that was voiced last time that we -- we only have a small portion that we can help with, but we would love to either field any questions or if we needed to go over for -- I believe all the council members were here last time, so they heard the project, saw the -- saw the level of quality and what VanTrust's vision is and, hopefully, that's a win-win for the city as well. At least we feel it is. So, maybe I will stop there and see if there is anything that we could answer questions or specifically with the transportation, we have tried and -- and I don't know if that's adequate, but we would love to answer questions. Simison: Thank you. And, Mr. Nary, I'm going to turn to -- technically I only called up the very first item. Both of these items being considered simultaneously in this conversation or are we doing them separately just from the conversation? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean you can -- you can certainly hear them together. We need to vote on them separately, but you could hear them together if you wish. Simison: Okay. All right. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 7 of 44 McCluskey: And I don't know if it's appropriate. I should ask Council. But the UDC text amendment we are not pursuing at this time as the code changes alleviate those concerns, so I would say the -- and Item One I believe of that is -- if I'm correct is the -- is the UDC amendment changes that we requested. VanTrust is -- I don't know if we can withdraw now on that or if you just vote to deny. The UDC changes or the code changes would facilitate that. Those are adequate for us. It might be best to withdraw -- withdraw that. Council can accept the withdrawal if that's your desire. Napoli: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, if I can chime in real quick. So, just so I'm understanding correctly, Chris. We -- the code change that we presented tonight would be essentially in lieu of what you guys proposed. So, you don't want to withdraw it, because you -- Council would be acting on this language tonight, so it would be essentially piggybacking off of the UDC text amendment that you guys did propose. So, I -- before we withdraw the application -- I don't know how -- we might be a little bit further down the line with our code -- further code change, so I think we do want to keep this open if you guys would like it. Correct. McCluskey: Thank you. Yes. Sorry. Nelson: Mr. Mayor, Deborah Nelson. 601 West Bannock Street. Just to clarify, with that understanding that's great. Yes. Thank you. We will keep the application active. If the Council is amenable to accept the staff's proposed language to what the code change would be, then, yes, we are in agreement with that remaining. Simison: Okay. McCluskey: Sorry. Mayor, Council, any other questions or -- Simison: Council, any additional questions? And I guess, Nick, did you have plans to do further on the application overall or not necessarily? Item two. Are you going to do any more of a staff update on item two? Napoli: Mr. Mayor, no, I was not planning on it. It was just the annexation of the property with I-L zoning. If you guys would like I can -- I can go into some more detail. Simison: Okay. Council, do you feel like you need anymore on the overall project? Okay. Just want to make sure everyone's on the same page that we are -- items one and two are open before us for consideration, conversation, questions to the staff and the applicant at this time. Is there any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank you. McCluskey: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody marked they wanted to speak. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 8 of 44 Simison: I'm sorry? Johnson: Nobody marked that they wanted to speak. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the room -- if you -- go ahead and come on up. If you would like to provide testimony and if you are online and you would like to provide any comments or questions, testimony, please use the raise your hand feature. If you would state your name and address for the record. You will be recognized for three minutes. Thruston: Hello. My name is Gina Thruston and my address is 496 East Amalie Court in Meridian and we own the property at issue in this application at 5201 West Franklin Road and we are here to speak again in support of this project. Since the April meeting we believe VTRE has actively worked to address your concerns. We kindly request your approval, so they can move forward with this project without further delay. I will mention again that the growth in this area over the past number of years has made farming more difficult. Meanwhile, road widening to accommodate that growth has taken more and more of our land. They took some in 2017 from my father-in-law and they just now are taking some in 2026. The proposed light industrial project by VTRE is the right choice for this site. It creates a true win-win for our community. By bringing jobs closer to residents this project helps fulfill the city's goal of allowing people to live where they work. Although coordinated -- coordination among competitors with adjoining properties is atypical, I believe VTRE and Sawtooth have initiated discussions concerning the Black Cat Road widening, which is a very positive sign. Furthermore, VTRE's proposed acquisition of both properties creates a clear path for the development of the collector road. Without VTRE's site consolidation acquiring both parcels is highly unlikely for another developer. This would severely delay the road project and it would, then, ultimately limit future access to our property. We respectfully request your approval this evening, which will allow our families to successfully move forward -- move forward to our next chapter. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Appreciate it. Thruston: Thank you. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Good evening. Neddo: Good evening. I'm Trina Neddo. My address is 2434 West King Road in Kuna. I have a power of attorney for Mark Choi, the other property that's involved in this property. I won't take much of your time. I just wanted to say that we definitely support this project due to that road -- actually that's what made me think about getting up -- is with the road expansion happening with --ACHD will be taking Mark Choi's home. It will be removed from the property in the next 90 days. So, not only is he without a home or rental property, he is also now struggling with the farming, the same as the Thruston family. So, we definitely want to support this project, because he is going to be without Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 9 of 44 a property that is of any use to anybody at this point without development coming in the future. So, you know, thank you for that. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item -- these items? Okay. Would the applicant like to make any final comments or does the applicant waive? Okay. Council, applicant waives any final comments. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: If there is no more comments, I move that we close the public hearing on ZOA-2025-0002. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 1 , ZOA-2025- 0002. Is there any discussion? Overton: Mr. Mayor, I will kick off the discussion. Simison: Wait. We are going to -- if there is -- oh, sorry. Go ahead. Yes, you want -- you want discussion on the motion or do you want me to close it? For discussion on the motion to close. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Do you also want to close the other public hearing as well? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: We are hearing these both together. Move we close the public hearing on H- 2025-0052. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on Item 2, which is H- 2025-0052. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 10 of 44 Simison: Councilman Overton for discussion. Overton: Open up discussion on these two. On the first one I was in support of the changes to flex space just because I think we need to be more reactive to what is needed out there and when we set any type of parameters up there and it's not what people are looking for, I don't know that we are doing our due diligence sitting up here. So, I -- I'm fully supportive of the text amendment change on the office requirement down to -- down to 30 percent. That's the first time you have done that to me. Simison: It's a new program. You will get used to it. Overton: There you go. When it comes to the approval of the application I initially was pretty concerned about the traffic concerns that we were going to have in that area and I'm still concerned about them. But I think we get into a position where there is so much other property that's already been approved and this will provide one of those roadway segments within it that will help with traffic getting in and out of this project, as well as other projects. You know normally we hear from the public that can't believe that we are developing all this farmland -- that used to be farms when I was a kid, but to hear the testimony in this case we are hearing from landowners who can no longer farm that land, that know that the best move forward with that land is to sell it and have it developed into what its next stage of life is and it's important -- I don't think that message gets out enough to any media people that are sitting in the room. I don't think that message gets out enough to folks about exactly how some of these decisions come about to develop some of the land that we all grew up watching as farms when we were kids. So, I appreciate your comments. It means a lot to hear you say that. I don't think that this one project is going to be that big of an impact on traffic in this area. It's going to have an impact. Absolutely. But I don't think this one is the one that's the straw that broke the camel's back. I think we are going to have to work with ACHD in the future, as we always do, and continue to push for improvements in this area, so we can move traffic as quickly as we can. The city is full of roadway projects that have really high priorities and we continually try to work in this area, especially on the north side of the intersection of Franklin and Black Cat. But I will be in support of both of these projects -- or both of these items tonight. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I always appreciate good feedback and insight from our Council President. I think this is one where I look at it a little bit differently. I'm certainly in full support of the UDC text amendment, but the comment about this one not being the -- the fly that breaks -- that breaks the camel's back is well heard. I actually think that we are headed down to kind of a death by a thousand cuts. We have -- we have got development in this area that we have said no more growth because of the roads and I'm -- I'm disappointed and, quite frankly, very frustrated that our roadway authority, who looks at a road that was rated better than E two years ago, isn't worthy of investment for best Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 11 of 44 case ten years from now. I think Black Cat is an important part of our community. There are planned changes, but we are incentivizing a lot of growth with a lot of industrial traffic on a road that I just don't think can simply handle it right now. We didn't think it could handle it when we limited the growth of the other large scale industrial project and while I -- I recognize that this has less than an impact than that large scale project, it is impact on a road that we have said -- past council has said we want to really limit growth in this area until the roads are improved. I'm disappointed and very frustrated. I will be voting no towards this annexation tonight and -- and wish that -- I wish that our agency partner understood the -- the value and the impact of not acting on Black Cat means for Meridian moving forward. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Initially I was -- the thing that bothered me the most was making changes to our code on flex space kind of in light of an application, but really like where we have ended up. We have, obviously, had a few discussions about flex space since then on some other applications and I like where we are going and I think -- appreciate the fact that we are very soon going to be having a broader discussion about how to handle this, but the ten to 30 percent that sort of -- I think that's the right -- the right spot. So, that all -- my -- my concerns with that have been satisfied. I like where we are going with that and it seems like that's the direction we are going to go -- probably broadly speaking as we try to put a finer point on things. When it comes to the annexation request and some of the traffic concerns, I never viewed this project as dumping a lot of traffic on Black Cat, just kind of where it was situated with Highway 16 and the access point from Franklin Road it -- I didn't feel it was fair to hold this application sort of subject to some of those requirements that were put onto some of the -- or the properties on Black Cat from previous council decisions in years past. So, I think this is a really good project. I think the way we kind of pulled together some -- a few different parcels for kind of a nice coordinated development I think works well. So, I think -- I see it as a nice transition from the properties to the east and, then, to what will likely be more of an industrial park to the west. I think this is a -- kind of a nice transition into that and I think it's a good area. This is kind of where we want this stuff right along a freeway. You know, we are not going to put a bunch of single family homes right next to the freeway. These are the types of things that we want and I think this is attractive from some of the -- the -- the drawings that we have had. So, I'm going to support both of these tonight. I think where we started to where we have ended up I -- I'm happy. The last thing I will say is I do really appreciate the applicant's willingness to enter into discussions with people in the area and being willing to put up money to fix the problem. It goes a long way towards helping us out. I -- I don't like it when applicants just view their little universe and their application as sort of a -- an island in and of itself. I like how there is an understanding that it's all interconnected and not being required, but being willing to put up some -- some capital to kind of fix those problems I think helps us when we have conversations with ACHD and with others to say, look, we are -- you know, bring some Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 12 of 44 money to the table, we are going to try to fix this and we need to fix this. So, I will be supporting both of these tonight. Overton: Mr. Mayor, if there is no more comments -- Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I would move ahead with a motion. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to approve File No. H-2025-0052 and ZOA-2025-0002, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 16th, 2026. Simison: Okay. Could -- Taylor: I will second that, but is that how you wanted it? Simison: No. Little Roberts: Question? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, it's perfectly fine to either -- do either way. You can -- you need to vote on them separately. You can -- you can move to approve them both if you want, but you do need to vote separately. Simison: It probably would be quicker if we just voted separately on the two -- the two separate motions. So, the second withdraw? Taylor: I will withdraw. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Had it drawn up in front of me with both of them for one vote. We will separate them. One more time. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2025-0052 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 16th, 2026. Taylor: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second. Clarification. Does it matter what order we do them in, Mr. Nary. Okay. So, withdraw? Overton: Withdraw. Simison: The third time is the charm. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 13 of 44 Overton: Chris, if you would like to buzz me that would be -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Third time. It's going to be a charm. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony I move to -- I really do -- I move to approve File No. ZOA-2025-0002 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 16th, 2026. Taylor: Second. Simison: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Do I have discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File No. H-2025-0052 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 16th, 2026. Taylor: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 2, H-2025-0052. Is there discussion? If not, Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, nay; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: Four ayes. One nay and the item is agreed to. Thank you. Good luck and thank you. Look forward to working with your partners to make sure we get just as many improvements there as we can for that road network, so -- MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing (Continued from May 19, 2026) for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development (H-2025-0007) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd.1US69 and Amity Rd. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 14 of 44 A. Request: Annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres), C-N (2.07 acres), C-C (9.12 acres), and C-G (23.47 acres) zoning districts. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. Simison: With that we will move on to Item 3, which is a public hearing continued from May 19th for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development, H-2025-0007. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments. Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you is Syringa Crossing. They have a request in for an annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. The annexation portion of this site consists of approximately 62 acres of land, including right of way to the section line of adjacent roadways. It's currently zoned RUT and L-O in Ada county and it's generally located at the northwest corner and southwest corners of West Amity Road and South Meridian Road, State Highway 69. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation is mixed use community. The applicant submitted revised plans after the Commission hearing as outlined in the memo from staff to the Mayor and Council dated June 9th to address items discussed during the Commission hearing that contributed to the Commission's recommendation -- recommendation of denial. Staff's presentation will include the amended application information and the presentation slides will show the original versus revised development plans. The applicant will cover the proposed changes in more detail in their presentation. The applicant is requesting annexation of 62.44 acres of land with R-15 zoning, which is 9.73 acres, R-40, zoning which is 16.58 acres and L-O zoning, which is 5.33 acres, C-N zoning, which is 2.07 acres and C-C zoning, which is 28.73 acres. A conceptual development plan was submitted with the annexation application as shown that depicts how the site is proposed to develop. The northwest corner is shown there on the left and the southwest corner shown there on the right. At the northwest corner of the annexation area a multi-family development is proposed consisting of 98 garden style apartment units, three units fewer than before, at a gross density of approximately ten units per acre, 37,000 square feet of office uses, which is 16,000 square feet more than before. A 63,000 square foot grocery store, which is 2,000 smaller than originally proposed, with retail shops, restaurants and a bank, totaling 117,600 square feet of commercial space overall. And that is 10,000 square feet more than the previous plan. Public, quasi-public and plaza areas are also proposed in the commercial portion of the development. The open space has been reconfigured with the revised plans and has increased overall between the residential and commercial areas. All commercial development is proposed to be a single story in height, while the residential is proposed to be three and four story apartment buildings. A mix of at least three different land use types is proposed as desired. The applicant is proposing changes to provide better functional integration of uses as discussed during the Commission hearing in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density conforms to that desired in the plan. Community serving facilities, such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings or public safety facilities are not provided, Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 15 of 44 which does increase service and transportation network impacts. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places connected by pathways are proposed consisting of plazas, outdoor gathering areas and linear open space areas that the applicant states consists of 23 percent of the northwest development area, which exceeds the five percent required in the comp plan. The original plan there that was reviewed and acted on by the Commission is on the left, the revised plan is on the right. At the southwest corner of the annexation area -- area 30,000 square feet of commercial space is proposed, which is 5,000 less than before, anticipated to include restaurants, retail shops, a coffee shop and gas station convenience store and 78,000 square feet office space has been added. Across the street on the southern portion of the development a 302 unit multi-family residential development is proposed, which is 20 fewer than before, with a gross density of 18.2 units per acre. Commercial structures are anticipated to be a single story in height. Residential structures are anticipated to be three to four stories in height. With the proposed changes the development plan is now consistent with the following mixed use provisions in the Comprehensive Plan. A mix of three different land use types are now provided as required, whereas only two were provided before and outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places consisting of plazas, outdoor gathering areas and linear open space appear to meet the minimum standards. The development -- again this is just for the southwest corner that I'm speaking about now. The development is still inconsistent with the following policies in the Comprehensive Plan. The residential area is 68 percent of the site, which is down from 72 percent, which is 18 percent more than the maximum allowed of 50 percent in the MUC designation and 3.2 units per acre -- per acre over the maximum density allowed of 15 units per acre. Commensurate levels of employment and other nonresidential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips are not provided due to the excess of residential area and density provided. Community serving facilities, such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings or public safety facilities are not provided, which increases service and transportation network impacts as I noted. The applicant has requested the overall project be considered for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, rather than two individual projects. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states contiguous mixed use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use in design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other. Some of the reasons for such include safety and efficiency of the transportation network, pedestrians and motorists alike. An overall pedestrian plan was submitted for the annexation area as shown that shows ten foot wide pedestrian walkways in blue. So, the original plan, again, is on the left. The revised plan is on the right. And five foot to seven foot wide sidewalk shown in pink providing connectivity along streets, through parking areas, public, quasi-public, commercial and residential areas. Conceptual building elevations and perspectives were also submitted showing what future commercial, retail buildings and plaza areas will look like, as well as the residential buildings at the northwest corner of the annexation area. The primary transportation considerations for this development involve the timing and coordination of required off-site improvements, access management along Amity Road and State Highway 69 and completion of internal street and pathway connections needed to support a functional mixed use neighborhood pattern. The project would add Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 16 of 44 measurable traffic to a network that already experiences operational strain during peak hours, underscoring the need to align development phasing with programmed intersection and signal improvements. Because of its proximity to two major transportation corridors, the design must emphasize efficient site access, safe circulation and continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections consistent with the city's adopted street and pathway standards. ACHD's recommended conditions and findings addressing intersection mitigation, access spacing and collector completion reflect these shared objectives and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code standards for coordinated land use and transportation planning. A preliminary plat is proposed to subdivide the southwest corner of the annexation area, but not the northwest corner. The northwest corner is only conceptual at this point and is just part of the annexation. The plat consists of ten building lots, six commercial, two office and two residential on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40, L-O and C-C zoning districts. One access drive is proposed via West Amity Road and one is proposed via South Meridian Road and State Highway 69. A portion of a future collector Street, Hermatite via West Amity Road is depicted along the southern portion of the west boundary of the site and stubs to the property to the south. The portion that connects to Amity Road is off site on the adjacent property to the west and is not proposed to be constructed with this development. We do have a application that will be coming before you soon, Story Rock Subdivision, that is the property directly to the west, which would complete this road section if both projects are approved. A waiver from City Council is requested to UDC-11-3H-4B-2A, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. ITD has approved this access. A backage road generally paralleling Amity Road and Meridian Road. State Highway 69, is proposed for access to the properties fronting these roads in accord with the UDC. There is a 40 foot wide gravity irrigation easement. Let me find my slide on that here. There you go. On the southwest corner in the commercial area as shown. It's that kind of brown area. Trees and large shrubs are not allowed in that easement area. A conditional use permit is also requested for a multi-family development on the southwest corner of the annexation area -- in the plat area, consisting of 302 apartment units on 15.23 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district, at a gross density of 19.8 units per acre, which has slightly increased from before with the decrease of the residential area after addition of the office area. Three and four story multi-family buildings are proposed with parking on the ground floor on some units. Let me find those elevations for you real quick here. Those were the original elevations and, then, these are the proposed changes. Building materials consist of fiber cement siding, variegated board and batten in a variety of colors and styles, stucco and brick. The final design, if approved, is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. The collector street access along the west boundary, Hematite, is needed for emergency access and should be extended from West Amity Road to the site prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the multi-family development if approved. Based on 302 units, a minimum of 3.24 acres of common open space is required. Go back to that slide. Too many slides here. Just a moment. A total of 3.8 acres is provided exceeding the minimum standard. Proposed amenities consist of a clubhouse, swimming pool and spa, a community garden, shade structure, walking trails, children's play structure and three sports courts. Additional amenities are recommended by staff if approved based Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 17 of 44 on the area inside the development. The applicant is requesting the following waivers from City Council. To UDC 11-4-3-27-C8, which states common open space areas in multi-family developments shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four feet in height with breaks on the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The applicant is requesting approval through the conditional use permit for common open space areas in the multi-family development to be located adjacent to a collector street buffer without a berm or barrier separating it from the street. The reason for such is an enhanced interaction is desired between the street and the ten foot wide multi-use pathway along the collector street, with a narrower street section and wider pathway adjacent to common areas. The second waiver is to UDC-11-3H-4B-2A, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. City Council may consider and approve a modification to the standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Department or if strict adherence is not feasible as determined by City Council. The applicant is requesting Council approval of the proposed access south of Amity Road. A recommendation has been received from ITD on the access. They will allow a right-in, right-out access. No written testimony has been received on this application. The Commission recommended denial of the annexation application and, consequently, the preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications. Therefore, conditions of approval are not included in the staff report. If the Council determines the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city with the proposed development plan, the project should be continued to a later hearing date in order for staff to prepare recommended conditions of approval. The possible motions on your hearing outline are incorrect. Please be aware of that. There are two motions before you tonight that you should consider. The first is for denial. The second is for continuance to a later hearing date to allow staff to prepare conditions and, again, Council is the decision making body on that. Possible motions do not reflect that. Thank you. Staff -- the applicant is here to present. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: Sonya -- or maybe Bill. Is one of our options to send it back to P&Z, because it seems like there are so many changes. Is that within our purview? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, you can always remand it. Little Roberts: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 18 of 44 Cavener: Sonya, kind of along Council Woman Little Roberts question. Could the applicant have, after the Planning and Zoning denial, after they provided updates and changes, request to be sent back to Planning and Zoning? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, they could request that tonight -- Cavener: Okay. Allen: -- but they would have to go before you to request that. They can't just automatically go back to Commission after they have made a recommendation. Thank you. Cavener: Thank you. Simison: Council, additional questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant -- applicant like to come forward. Mansfield: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. My name is Ethan Mansfield with Hawkins Companies. 855 West Broad Street, Boise, Idaho. 83702. Sonya, would you mind firing up my PowerPoint presentation, please? Thanks. I would love to present our new project this evening for your consideration. Obviously, I would love a recommendation of approval. If you feel that -- after you ask questions of me you still need more information I think that's appropriate to send it back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, I'm -- I would love an opportunity to answer any of your questions about this proposal prior to that time, because I think -- I think I have the answers. Thanks, Sonya. Is there any way we could pull up the PowerPoint presentation or -- I'm just -- I don't really love working in the PDF. It makes a little difficult, but -- if that's the -- if that's all we got -- okay. No worries. While she's pulling that up, just a brief outline of kind of what I will be talking about this evening. I had quite a few project overview slides. I think Sonya did a really nice job of kind of summarizing the project, so I will blow through those -- through those pretty quickly. It will be on the record if you want to review or if you have specific questions about different uses. I do want to make it clear kind of while I'm giving the overview there is nothing that is precluding any sort of civic use from occupying an office space. If there is a library needed by the city we could absolutely entertain something like that. I just know that there is one down the street. We are happy to, you know, offer this space to churches. There is one adjacent to the property and, then, we are actually extending sewer in partnership with another about a half a mile to the west. So, all that said is we are absolutely not precluding any sort of civic use within this development. I know Sonya mentioned that there were no kind of community-oriented uses provided and I just wanted to kind of put that on the record tonight before we got the PowerPoint fired up. This is fine, Sonya. We can use it. That's okay. No worries. And with that -- yeah. As Sonya mentioned, it's an annexation zoning and development agreement on the northwest and southwest corners. The CUP and preliminary plat is on the southwest corner only. The genesis of that is a pre-app with the City of Meridian. We went in with only the northwest corner. We went in with 284 residential units, 130,000 square feet of Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 19 of 44 commercial. We were asked by the city to come back with both the northwest and the southwest corners as a single kind of more cohesive development under a development agreement and this is from the Comprehensive Plan in the orange here. Mixed use projects are to be developed with an overall master or conceptual plan for the larger mixed use area. This is, you know, a 56 acre area. This is the larger mixed use area and a development agreement will typically be required for the area with the future land use designation of community. So, with that, you know, I will kind of skip the overview for the -- the big -- both sides and I just want to kind of talk a little bit -- here is kind of the overview in one slide. So, we have got 400 -- up to 400 multi-family units. That's 23 fewer than the last plan. We have more than doubled -- well, nearly doubled -- almost a hundred percent more office space -- dedicated office space. That's 450,000 square feet of office, almost 150,000 square feet of food retail, personal services, other commercial services, shops, bank, gas station. That's an increase of 10,000 square feet. Overall we have 9.9 acres. That's 18 percent of the site is quasi-public open space. That's a civic use per the Comprehensive Plan this excludes multi-family common open space. So, just as you are thinking about that, right, none of that 18 percent includes anything within our CUP. Staff explicitly asked us and Planning and Zoning specifically asked us to separate those out, so they weren't getting double counted or confused. So, that 18 percent covers the whole site, including the multi- family area. But none of the -- none of the multi-family amenity space, common open space, is included in that 18 percent calculation. So, in sum I will go over kind of what that looks like in sum. So, here is the northwest corner quickly. About 31 acres. We added 10,000 square feet of shop space. No extra drive-throughs proposed. You know, additional office space. So, 37,000 total on this corner. You can see the new layout kind of opens it up more between the multi-family and the commercial areas. We have about nine -- we have 98 multi-family units. We created kind of additional open space and linkages between the commercial and the residential. At our neighborhood meeting -- one of our early neighborhood meetings we actually had a household from Grace the subdivision to the northwest Graystone, Gray Lock, I cannot recall, and they said they are brand new to the neighborhood, as most residents were, because they are just new -- new homes. We talked to them about our commercial development and they say we are excited to walk and ride our bikes down the pathway to this development. So, in my mind that's exactly what this sort of development should be doing and I think, you know, given those comments that's a win. The plan for the southwest corner calls for 25 acres -- is 25 acres. Calls for 30,000 square feet of commercial space. We have added 8,000 square feet of office uses, notably your net density over the residential area doesn't change when you reduce the size of the residential area; right? It's like -- with math like you can reduce the units of the residential area, but if you reduce the size of the residential area, too, your net density stays the same. So, we could keep chipping away at the size of this residential area and never change the net density. So, that's just something to consider when you are thinking through the math equations in your head. We made room for more office at the expense of residential units and that's kind of the thing that should be remembered here. On this side, 2.8 acres of quasi-public open space is provided. That's 11.4 of total acreage and that's only the area that is not included in the CUP -- CUP space. So, in other words, an additional 3.3 acres of common open space is provided. That's 21 percent of the acreage in orange. So, Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 20 of 44 within this orange area 21 percent is common open space per the CUP. So, overall -- well, I guess I didn't add that in. Overall 6.1 acres of open space -- quasi open space, clubhouse area, park area, 6.1 acres, that's one in every four square feet is a common open space amenity. So, I think it's safe to say it has adequate open space. That's, you know, a quarter of all the space is open space. Here is how we propose to integrate the uses. I think it's a relatively robust network of pathways. Something I will talk about in a moment is the connection of that future roadway. That is planned to be constructed with a STARS agreement that we are working through with ITD right now and I will talk about the STARS agreement in a second. I think it's very unique and it's important to understand why the site is laid out the way it is in relation to the STARS agreement. I will say a little bit more about connectivity. There is a central, you know, spine on the southwest corner that connects every use from the central location. It connects the residential areas to the residential park area. It connects the residential areas to the commercial uses and office uses. We have talked about the northwest corner already. It connects houses from adjacent neighborhoods to our center. I think that's a huge thing that cannot be overstated is the connectivity, not just within this neighborhood, between other neighborhoods and this neighborhood. That's the reason for a waiver between the multi-family area and a collector roadway, because we want it to feel more open to the street, open to the -- the -- the ten foot pathway, so there is not a giant berm between the house and the pathway; right? We want this to integrate. That's the whole point. Here is some renderings. I will go through these really quickly. A couple on the northwest corner. A couple more on the northwest -- just a small office plaza to kind of give office workers a space to kind of relax, eat, drink, you know, bring your lunch, run across the street to the grocery store, grab lunch, come back, eat. You could go to any of these plazas as an office worker or as a resident. Here is some from the southwest corner. We worked really hard to tie the multi-family area to the corner that's wrapped in commercial uses. It needs to be wrapped in commercial uses, that's the only place that commercial uses will truly thrive. It's -- this area is car dependent, so most of the traffic will be arriving via vehicle. So, we are facing that reality and trying to blend that with the reality of bringing residents from adjacent areas able to walk and bike to the site. It's a real challenge in places that develop as an auto dominant -- you know, auto oriented site. And I think we have solved it here. Here is a few additional amenity renderings. Now, let's talk about transportation improvements. So, this project is proposing to use a STARS agreement. That is sales tax -- a portion of sales tax generated from the commercial uses on the site will pay for the improvements to the transportation network, not only adjacent to the site, but around the site as well. So, we are proposing to complete the entire cross-section of State Highway 69 from our south end to the north end of the site. We are working through details with ITD, but we will likely be including additional area farther south of the site to complete the cross-section essentially from where the Costco development stops, pick that up and run it past our development. That is economic activity on the site paying for the transportation improvements that were planned by ITD. I think that's a huge win. The reason we need to put a grocery store user on the northwest corner -- the reason we can't have, you know, equal parts residential, commercial and office is because to generate that sort of sales tax revenue requires an anchored shopping center. An anchored shopping center is required to do the STARS agreement. So, we -- and to do an anchored center you need a certain Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 21 of 44 amount of land. That land is only made possible by a big chunk of that northwestern corner. So, what we are doing is we are trying to use that center and we are synergizing with some of the commercial on the southwest corner, but we can't do two grocery anchored shopping centers, that's too much, but we can do a bunch of pads out front of -- or a bunch of pads on the corner of that Amity and State Highway 69 corner that kind of feed off of the energy from that grocery anchored center. So, that I hope kind of gives you a little bit of context for why it's planned the way it is. We are not trying to ignore any of the Comprehensive Plan mandates or requests or guidance. What we are trying to do is we are trying to use those to put guardrails on it so we can, then, start there and, then, see how we can make this project economically feasible. That's what we are trying to do. ITD is really supportive of this project. I have had multiple phone calls with Kendra over at ITD. We really appreciate their support and we are really working together well to make this STARS agreement a reality. But it doesn't happen without this site layout. It just doesn't. I should also mention that ITD did approve the access to the site on State Highway 69. There is a deeded access on Lyra -- or, sorry, excuse me, a deeded right-in, right-out where it's shown on the northwest corner and we are requesting a right-in, right-out on the southwest corner. It's circled there in orange. That's approved by ITD. We only have two entrances to the site. One on State Highway 69. One on Amity. That's how you get to the southwest corner. So, without that access to State Highway 69 we are -- it's really tough. It's going to be confusing for residents. It's going to be confusing for everyone who visits the site. So, we respectfully request that approval. ITD thinks it's a good idea. We are going to build it out. We are going to, you know, build the whole cross section. So, we are excited about that. And here is -- here is kind of the summary. You know, you can see in orange that's Comprehensive Plan language. Any mixed use project must work towards the purpose and intent statements, including availability of goods and services to the community. Offset impacts. By providing quality of life opportunities not typically achievable through other single use areas. We are building out the whole roadway network in front of the site and a little bit south. The baseline coverages are a starting point. The health and well-being of the community and the market potential build out over time for the service area of each mixed use designation. We have done commercial development in the valley for 50 years. We think we understand pretty well kind of the potential build out, you know, what's going to happen over time in this area and this particular corner can use a grocery-anchored shopping center. It reduces travel times for those around it and it reduces travel times and potentially keeps people out of their car from the residents adjacent to the site. The higher the residential density the greater the share of non-motorized trips to and from development. So, just keep that in mind. Like -- like as you increase the number of people who are within walking distance, the greater the share of people who walk and bike to the development. It's kind of math -- it's just math. And in sum, our STARS agreement, we need this layout to be successful to do a STARS, to build this transportation networks. So, really appreciate your consideration this evening. Respectfully request approval -- or I guess defer on continuance to define conditions. Thanks so much. Simison: Thank you. Council, questions? Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 22 of 44 Taylor: Mr. Mayor. Ethan, can you find the slide -- or at least the picture where it shows that collector street on the far west side? I have a couple questions. That will probably work. So, describe to me at Amity Road -- what does that intersection look like? Is it -- is it going to be kind of built out? It's sort of five lanes on Amity Road and -- I'm trying to get a sense of what that intersection is going to be like and how it's going to function. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, that is a great question. I'm assuming you are talking about the plan north -- Taylor: Correct. Mansfield: -- intersection. Taylor: Yes. Mansfield: Okay. That is proposed to be -- at full build out a lighted intersection. It will have two lanes, one in either direction on Hermatite south two lanes. One on either direction on Hematite north. It may -- I believe their truly may be some turn lanes in there, like maybe single turn lane -- left turn lanes. But it's a two lane kind of cross- section and, then, yes, Amity will be two lanes in either direction and a center turn lane. Taylor: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: Is it your -- as you sort of lay out the property with that collector is -- are you hoping that you will drive some of the -- kind of interconnectivity of that -- of this proposal on that road instead of being on Highway 69? And, if so, when is that road actually built in the process? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, another good question. So, this road that -- on the south side that road would be completed with phase one of the improvement and Sonya mentioned one of the conditions was to actually complete that road prior to occupancy of the first multi-family buildings. So, the intent of that south side done with the south side and, again, this is all part of the STARS as well. It gets kind of paid for with that -- those dollars. And, then, we are proposing a second phase. This is actually phased out so you can see it. Green would be the second phase. That would be what's included with phase two of the STARS agreement as proposed. We have got some stuff to work through with ITD still, but, you know, that's the idea is that when that -- when that north phase comes in, the grocery anchored center, then, that gets constructed -- that -- a backage road gets constructed with that. So, they kind of come in with the development. Taylor: One final question, Mr. Mayor. Simison: Councilman Taylor. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 23 of 44 Taylor: On the STARS agreement and sort of that anchor grocery store, how much other retail is kind of in this development? Because -- because it seems like what I am recalling real quick a lot of office space, not a lot of retail. So, it seems like your sales tax revenue is primarily generated by one entity, the grocery anchor, but not a lot of other sales tax generating kind of properties there. But I want to make sure I'm understanding that correctly. Mansfield: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Council Member Taylor, another good question. So, we have got 150,000 square feet of retail, of which 63,000 -- again, these are kind of rough -- you know, it's not -- it may not be exactly this, but generally 63,000 out of 153,000 will be the grocery anchor. Taylor: Okay. Mansfield: We didn't want to program too much retail into this, because we -- we wanted it to be the right amount and the right amount meaning it meets market demand or market demand when the surrounding area is built out. You know, our project including some of the subdivisions -- quarries to the west, that kind of stuff. So, that's why we chose that amount. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Ethan, always appreciate your enthusiasm for your projects. I got a lot of questions about this project, but I -- I'm not quite sure if tonight's the right time for that. I just -- I don't think this application is ready for prime time. But you -- you wanted to take some questions and so I -- there is at least one that I -- I would like your insight on and, you know, a denial from staff, denial from Planning and Zoning, we take those serious and I think you took it serious, too, because what appears to be is some attempt to address the concerns that you heard from Planning and Zoning. How do we know that those concerns from the Planning and Zoning Commission were resolved without giving them the opportunity to weigh in? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener, a great question. I think it's a -- it's a very fair question. I don't know that the Planning and Zoning Commission could say right now like, oh, yeah, this is great. I -- what we are hoping for is for City Council, who is the body who actually makes the decision to look at this standing on its own two feet and saying does this comply with the Comprehensive Plan? Does this comply with the goals of the city? Does it comply with the development ordinance? And I think between staff and City Council and me answering questions about the development, I -- we can provide the tools for you to do that this evening. Cavener: Okay. Mr. Mayor, I don't have any additional questions tonight. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 24 of 44 Simison: Okay. I will have some questions, comments for consideration. My first is saying on the -- the road. Since the road is planned to be done with a STARS agreement, but it's on property which you don't own, how much of that road is contingent upon this Council taking action on an application or irregardless of whether or not Council approves that, do you have the rights to build that road? Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, we -- that road is within our development application as something that is, you know, at some point required of us. We have worked pretty closely with Corey Barton, the landowner and Trilogy Development, the development group to the west, to coordinate the construction of that road. That is essentially planned exactly where their proposed collector is planned. I mean it is their proposed collector in their plan. Your question is what if either that or this don't get approved? I believe that's your question. Simison: I think it's -- what if it doesn't get approved? What if he says, yeah, I don't want to develop. I don't want to annex. I don't want to bring this forward. Can you still build the road? Do you have the rights to build the road or -- Mansfield: It's a great question, Mr. Mayor. We have spoken with him and we have gotten to a point where there is kind of a mutual agreement that this road will happen. We don't have a formal agreement, but if that is something that is requested by this Council I am sure we could get that next time if there -- if this doesn't get approved tonight and that's what's stopping it, we can absolutely get that agreement, because we do have a good relationship working together and we have had, you know, handfuls of meetings about this, so -- about this very road. So, I think we could absolutely provide that surety for you. Simison: Yeah. Because I will at least give you my two cents on some of this. It was interesting to hear that staff basically said bring these all back together as one, which I think is great, but, then, we also have the component that says an arterial bifurcates them to not be considered as one in some regards. I have said this to staff. They know where I am on this issue. I prefer the look of the picture -- the full picture and not be tied to one individual parcel. So, for me personally I can look at this holistically and say do I -- do I think this meets the intent on both -- as one unit despite the fact that there is an arterial separating it. But without that connector road being in, to me it doesn't, because I think that that's what provides the safest connectivity between the two parcels. So, without it, then, I -- it almost does -- how does each one stand alone or not in relation to the comp plan from my perspective, you know, and so I think that's -- to me that -- that road connection is important without putting that affirmative obligation that Council has to approve that project in the future for that road to be built, because I don't think that's fair to you and I don't think that's fair to Council, I don't think that's fair to the expectations of the project that thou shalt annex and approve so said road can be built to allow this to occur. So, that's just on the macro level from -- from my standpoint. I do love the fact that once again we are seeing someone talk about a STARS project to get long-term transportation solutions along this corridor and the service that it provides to this area, which is growing and the relationships that you have with others to the south Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 25 of 44 that are trying to build their buildings and get access to utilities, which I don't know how much of this project is contingent upon that, that's not relevant in this context, but to me those are all I think an important part of it and I'm not asking for a response to any of these questions, I'm just -- they are just -- they are just out there -- well, one more and, then, I will let you go. The one question I did -- I kind of threw in there. You talked about, you know, reducing the land mass and the residential just equates to not being able to -- I know you reduced some, but you can continue to reduce to meet the thresholds -- what I have heard you say is you are not going to do that. That's how I interpreted your statement that we can -- we can put in more other uses down here, because I actually like -- personally I like the layout that you had of the previous version better from a holistic layout. Here I feel like we are shoehorning in a couple of office buildings just to meet -- again meet the intent of the three compared to anything else, but I'm not sure I agree with your statement that says, no, you tell us less space and we are just going to leave our density at the same level no matter how small you get us to, because that's the density that we think we are going to do, even though we are over the number. So, I will let you unpack everything I said as you see if there is a question or comment or otherwise, but just unpacking my comments, the positives, the challenges and the perceptions. I will leave it at that. Mansfield: Mr. Mayor, thank you for those comments. They are actually very helpful in helping us understand your position. It's like really instructive, frankly. So, thank you for -- thank you for that. Just to touch very quickly on -- on each. First was about the importance of the collector roadway to the project. I understand those concerns. I also want to mention, you know, we are proposing a utility connection underneath that collector roadway. We have spoken again with the developer to the west and it's all been kind of discussed, right, and like we feel comfortable enough with those connections, both the roadway and the utilities, to put this before you this evening as something that we can do. We can do with STARS. We can, you know, provide those connections and an understanding that if we can't do that that's on us and this project doesn't happen. We are fully aware of that possibility. The next thing I wanted to talk about a little bit was the utility connection with neighbors to the west. The neighbor to our south has been in the past unwilling to extend sewer through their property. We worked with ITD to extend sewer around their property. Again, that's already been done, so, you know, take it -- it's happened. There is no going back. I mean that's one of the reasons we would like your approval here, there is a public sewer main that runs -- you know, there is an easement that runs through the southern end of our property to serve the property to the west and Stone Hill Church. So, you know, for what it's worth that's -- that's happened. That's there. So, there is no more kind of blockage of the development of that area by a single landowner. Just, you know, wanted to just outline that so everyone's clear. It also allows us to service our development with sewer. So, kind of multiple benefits there. Finally, wanted to address the multi-family component on the southwest corner. You mentioned that, you know, as the multi-family area gets smaller, you know, it -- it -- it sounds like we are not going to do anything different than what we are doing. You know, we would have to take another look to see if the project would go -- would work if we lost residential units. What I'm -- I guess the point that I'm trying to make with this statement about the math, though, is that if we reduce the size Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 26 of 44 of the residential area, even if we kind of correspondingly lose units, the density remains the same. So, we would have to not only lose units in proportion to the amount of land we are losing, but also above and beyond the amount of land we are using kind of double loss -- double lose units to, then, make the density on the southwest corner under 15. If -- I was kind of merely trying to explain a math equation, not really kind of trying to, you know, say we are unwilling to do that. Although if we were conditioned to do that we are unsure if the project would actually work. We would need to go back and look at the pro forma and see what we could absorb. Simison: Okay. Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: This might be a question for staff. Am I correct -- and just -- just kind of repeating myself to make sure I'm correct. If we didn't have Amity Road and the project is laid out as it is, it would qualify holistically as a mixed use area. It would -- it would meet all the standards? I guess I'm -- because we -- the problem is Amity Road cuts it; right? So, they are trying to be -- trying to find a way to satisfy the demands of a mixed use development. But we are kind of being cute here and trying to -- they are asking us to look at both areas collectively and ignore that, you know, Amity Road -- say if Amity Road wasn't there, it -- it works with our comp plan or does it? Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Taylor, Council, yes, if the arterial road wasn't there it would qualify as an overall joined mixed development. However, the Comprehensive Plan specifically states that they have to be considered two separate projects because of that arterial street. So, it's a very big detail. Parsons: Mayor and Council, just to give you a little bit more context behind Ethan's statement of come in together. At the time that we started discussions with the applicant the mixed use standards were different. They were -- they weren't the current ones that we have. So, it was really just a timing of when the application was submitted. So, the applicant got caught up submitting after the comp plan -- the mixed use changes had -- had changed and so the application was submitted, so we had to evaluate it under the new mixed use standards, not the previous ones that didn't really have that specific requirement. So, that's why when -- when you see a slide saying staff said bring it in, because you are right, at the time the comp plan we want to see that. The other piece of the Comprehensive Plan, though, even though you have the arterial, the Comprehensive Plan says still look at the larger mixed use -- use area. So, again, it's -- it's a guide -- the Comprehensive Plan is a guide, but the intent is -- to Mayor's point is without the collector it's -- we don't want people crossing arterial roadways to get to the services. They need to be stand alone, so that way -- mixed use is to be integrated, so everyone can stay there and have services provided in that general area and not force people onto arterial roadways or state highways to -- when they are in close proximity to those services. So, that's really the -- the premise behind why we put Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 27 of 44 that -- that requirement in the Comprehensive Plan or that guide -- guideline in the Comprehensive Plan, because we wanted to make sure that they could function separately. So, again, it's really a situation where there was a lot of moving parts with this development, the applicant has been working with the property owner to the west, to the south, everyone around them trying to get utilities figured out, annexation path, all of these things. The church I think you are aware of, Stonehill Church, and it's even farther to the west waiting on utilities. So, again, a lot of moving parts, which took a lot of time and it just -- unfortunately, the applicant did get caught up in doing all of that extra work trying to make sure that they could address a lot of our concerns and still work with the adjacent property owners. Simison: Okay. Well, we will see if anybody -- I assume we want to take testimony, if anyone else out there has some, so -- okay. Thank you, Ethan. Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, yes. Cooper Sharp. Simison: Okay. Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Sharp: Cooper Sharp. 3578 South Falconers Place, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. I'm in support of this project and voicing my opinion as such. I live approximately two miles to the east on Eagle Road and off of Amity. We had a very similar project that developed there on the corner with Albertsons with some retail pads and some -- some townhouse -- multi-family behind it. Since that has gone in that's very much impacted me and my family's life in that area. Living on the south side of the freeway there is not a lot of restaurants, shopping, anything. We got to go to the north side and crossing the freeway is horrendous, especially on Eagle Road. So, bringing this type of development to the south side of the freeway within proximity for us -- we see it as a very beneficial add to our community and the offering of our lifestyle and -- and well-being in that area. A lot of times having kind of the -- the experience of seeing some developments in the area, a lot of times it's a chicken and an egg thing; right: Of, you know, which one goes first. From what we have heard and seen the applicant has done a tremendous job of working with all parties involved, including, you know, future projects and we see it as a well-being or a movement from the applicant to try and make it work for everybody's well-being. We feel like it's -- you know, my family feel like it's a great add and asset and as such should be approved. So, I just want to voice my -- my support of the project and recommendation of approval. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 28 of 44 Little Roberts: Cooper. Thank you so much. I appreciate you coming to share your experience with us. Would you mind sharing what other amenities or businesses that have grown up around that Albertson's that you and your family take advantage of? Sharp: I would be remiss to say that we don't go to Jersey Mike's about every week. Don't want to admit that, but Jersey Mike's -- the restaurant that just went in on the corner, the steakhouse. My wife occasionally goes to the Pilates studio that's right there. There is a bank right there that we frequently attend to withdraw cash. So, very -- very impactful for our family of, you know, minimizing -- again, we live, you know, not very far -- less than half a mile from Albertson's, but we drive, right? Very rarely do we walk. But we drive there and those amenities have greatly changed our time that we spend in a car from having to go to the other side of the freeway or up anywhere on Eagle Road. Little Roberts: All right. Thank you so much. Sharp: Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was everyone. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? If you are online you can use the raise your hand feature. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward for any final comments? Mansfield: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. I would just like to say if the collector road is a sticking point and that is something you would like to see built, obviously, with the first phase, first, you know, commercial -- whatever condition you feel is appropriate, we are willing to agree to that sort of condition. We have a great relationship with the adjacent landowner and I just wanted to put that on the record to just say, you know, we -- we can agree to that sort of condition, if that makes the -- makes it happen. Simison: Okay. Council, any additional questions, comments? Okay. Thank you. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: It's my understanding that our choices are denial, continuance or send it back to Planning and Zoning and I know we have gotten a lot of questions answered tonight, but I think I would feel better if we sent it back to Planning and Zoning. I don't know that we did get all of their questions answered and I just think there has been enough changes that it needs to go through the process again and I'm throwing that out there for discussion, not making a motion until I can hear from some of my colleagues. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 29 of 44 Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Question for -- for Bill or Sonya. When a -- when a remand occurs and we send -- if the Council were to send this back to Planning and Zoning, what level of staff analysis, either continues or begins again in light of that remand? Is a new staff report generated? Is it a continuation of the existing staff report? Maybe give Council a little flavor about what that process is from a staff standpoint. Allen: Yeah. Mayor and Council, Councilman Cavener, I would update the staff report fully for -- so, that the Commission and Council could see where they are consistent and where they are not with the UDC and the comp plan. Cavener: Okay. Allen: The reason it wasn't updated this time was because the Commission didn't see those revised plans, so I didn't mess with that document. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: So, I -- I completely understood kind of the reason why. I just -- I wanted to make sure from my standpoint that if that occurs that they get kind of a fresh document that outlines kind of here is where -- here is what's changed. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, just for commentary. I agree with Council Member Little Roberts. I -- to me I think short -- short of a denial I think a remand is the only other option that I would feel comfortable with supporting this evening. I do -- I appreciate where the applicant's coming from, but the fact of the matter is we have -- we have a process and I have too much respect for the Planning and Zoning Commission to say, sorry, we are going to handle it here. You know, if -- it's staff have approval, Planning and Zoning Commission denial, maybe there is an opportunity -- it's only a couple of issues that we are working through I think there is a narrow path. But there is a lot that's changed and I think there is a lot of questions out there that still need to be answered. Simison: Okay. Maybe a question for staff from their perspective. I'm going to ask you to go into the head of the Planning and Zoning Commission. From the changes that were done do you feel like they were getting to the heart of the Planning and Zoning Commissioners' issues? And I say that in the context of like when you -- when you look at this project and you have an arterial road separating it, is Planning and Zoning Commission ever going to say, yes, we have an arterial road separating the project area, even if they like it are they going to still recommend denial? We are going to be back here with another reconsideration conversation. I'm just intellectually curious. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 30 of 44 Allen: Yeah. I can offer my two cents and Bill can follow up. You know, the Commission and Council has adopted our Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states it can't be considered one project for that reason. So, I -- I personally don't know if they would or should change their recommendation on that. They had recommended denial for inadequate integration between residential and non- residential uses. It's changed some. I'm not sure it's enough. Lack of prioritization of pedestrian mobility within the project. They have submitted an updated plan that does show additional pedestrian mobility and existing open space as proposed fails to serve residential and non-residential users adequately under the Comprehensive Plan. So, those are the main things just to refresh you on why they recommend denial. Again some of those things have changed from staff's perspective. I'm not sure it's enough to meet the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. Parsons: Mayor and Council, happy to kind of give you piggyback, too. I think you guys are aware that Commission -- the waiver to State Highway 69 or Meridian Road is your purview. So, again, on -- on occasion Planning and Zoning Commissions have supported that or recommended that you support that request, so that's -- that's one thing that -- it's your body -- your purview to -- to review that and approve that. I think Sonya did a great job of kind of capturing what the Commission stated. But, again, to your point, Mayor, they -- they could say we think you should look at this. They can't say do it. They could just say our recommendation is it is a single project if the applicant does X, Y and Z. Extend the collector road. Like Sonya was mentioning is the -- has the pedestrian network increased enough to get them to say that it is better integrated? Keep in mind mixed use is not just about vehicular traffic, it's about getting peds and bicyclists through the site, too, and so when we see a large -- large asphalt -- sea of asphalt through a parking lot we have to make sure that pedestrians can walk through that as well and bike through that and not get hit. So, there is a lot of policies in the comp plan under the mixed use standards that speaks to minimizing conflicts when these things integrate and I think to the applicant's point I think they have done better, but I don't know if they have done better to satisfy the Commission and whether or not that would sway the Commission's decision. I don't -- I don't believe the Commission spent a lot of time discussing the segregation between the arterial, it was really those things that Sonya was mentioning, is making sure that it does function and integrate better, so it is more cohesive, understanding that not each site is going to have more than the other. I think -- I think one thing that I brought up during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing was the fact that we are lessening density on one side in order to pick it up on the other and to me that's -- that didn't seem right to do that. It didn't say we are going to do 20 units to the acre on one half and, then, do ten on the other and say we are 15 across the board, because, again, that has different impacts. One -- one side of the street has to deal with a higher density than the other side, which -- which, again, I understand the applicant's perspective knowing -- knowing that they were pursuing that STARS agreement, we don't know those things. We don't know what all goes into drafting a STARS agreement, we just get that information. So, at least hearing that information and maybe even sharing that with the Planning and Zoning Commission, I think that's some benefit to that, because, again, we have to weigh that, the common good for the community and if that's something that's Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 31 of 44 necessary to get these things moving forward and I think to the -- the Mayor's and the Council's point I think it's -- it's worthy of getting input from our Commissioners. Simison: And just for the record I didn't say we should get input for the Commissioners, but some of the Council did, so -- yeah. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: So, I first looked at this and saw the changes and the first thing that came to me is that the changes to me looked to be significant enough that this was worthy of being remanded to Planning and Zoning. But I think another important thing has to happen when it goes back to Planning and Zoning is whether -- what the applicant takes is exactly what we have seen tonight or whether it's another iteration when it goes back in front of Planning and Zoning is in this application I don't know how I would be able to say I'm okay with anything if we don't have ITD at the table to bring forth the roadway issues that have been discussed here tonight. We always have and usually have ACHD on the phone ready to help us as we work through a project, but in this case, considering we are talking Meridian Road and the level of service that that road attempts to provide today, I think it's important, both at the P&Z and at a future Council meeting that ITD is in the house and able to answer questions specifically addressed to them on how this process would work. Little Roberts: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Little Roberts. Little Roberts: If we are ready for a motion I will make a motion that we remand it back to Planning and Zoning. Overton: Second. Simison: Okay. I'm sorry, do we close the public hearing? Did we already do that? Okay. Sorry. Okay. So, I have a motion and a second to remand this back to Planning and Zoning. Is there discussion on the motion? Taylor: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Taylor. Taylor: To share some thoughts, maybe as much for the benefit of the applicants, I think that what Councilman Overton said about looking at it, there is a -- I think there is a lot of issues that still need to be worked out with this. For me that connector road is important in being there early in this process. We don't want to be pushing people out on Highway 69 and down and across and so I think that interconnectivity is pretty Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 32 of 44 important to -- to looking at this. I -- I understand what the comp plan says and I think that's important that we follow that, because that's what provides some consistency here, but -- so, I don't know what P&Z may come down even yet with a revised plan or some updates, but I think that connectivity on that -- was it Hermite? I'm not sure what the road was. I think that's really important that that's earlier in the process, so I will be supporting the motions tonight, but I just wanted to share that, so that the applicant has some additional feedback. Simison: Any additional comments? Staff need anything else? Okay. If not Clerk call the roll. Roll Call: Cavener, yea; Strader, absent; Overton, yea; Little Roberts, yea; Taylor, yea; Whitlock, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item will be remanded back to Planning and Zoning and I imagine we will see you back here at some point in time one way or the other. So, hopefully it's with a positive from everyone involved. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 4. Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance and the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees Ordinance Authorizing the Imposition of New County-Related Development Impact Fees Simison: Okay. Council, do we need a break before we take on the next thing or are we good to go? Okay. Well, with that, then, we will move forward with Item 4, which is public hearing to consider adoption of the Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance and the Ada County Emergency Medical Service District Development Impact Fees ordinance authorizing the imposition of new county related development impact fees and we will open this public hearing with staff comments from Mr. Starman. Starman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. I will pause just a moment. Chris, are you able to bring up the PowerPoint? Thank you, sir. I will go ahead and start without the PowerPoint. We will catch up later. So, you -- just as a refresher, Council Members, Mr. Mayor, we did a fairly in-depth update for you about two months ago on April 14th and spent a pretty good chunk of time talking about this topic. I'm going to try to keep my remarks a little more brief. Since you just had a recent presentation on this I will keep my -- try to keep my comments relatively brief. When we concluded our discussion in April I think I can -- just in a very brief way -- summarize the Council was supportive. We want to partner with the county. We do view the county as our partner and we do -- I think the Council has articulated that a philosophy of growth should pay for growth. Your direction to staff at that time was to proceed with drafting ordinances, as well as drafting the agreements -- interagency agreements necessary. But you also said at that time that you probably were not yet ready to schedule a public Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 33 of 44 hearing for this purpose and I think the main concern -- perhaps the only concern at that time was the issue of timing vis-a-vis other cities in terms of adopting ordinances and some potential risks there. We have had discussions in the past about, you know, uneven playing fields, but I think in particular the concern in our April discussion was there is a hypothetical where, you know, maybe four of the cities, five of the cities participate, one or two do not and what does that -- what might that mean? And we had a conversation about that likely means that at some point the county would need to update its capital improvements plan, its -- their plans plural. Would also need to update its fee studies and the fee may change. So, we don't know if that's a linear relationship. If you reduce the service area and reduce development that's happening, it's not clear whether the fee would be the same. Would it be more? Would it be less? And there was concern, rightfully so, on the part of the Council is do we get into this, start collecting fees and, then, have a -- an issue like that. So, I think we have a resolution to that issue tonight and that's why we did schedule the public hearing to give you an opportunity to advance this topic and so I think it's a solution that works for everybody. You know, we work collaboratively with the -- with our county partners. Their legal counsel has reviewed the language. The county's chief operating officer has done the same and is here tonight to speak -- to answer questions you might have relative to the county. So, I'm going to go through the PowerPoint very quickly. It is a public hearing. So, it's important, it's an opportunity to hear from the public as well and to get input from your constituents as well. As a reminder the original proposal that was -- the original studies and fee proposal included three different county wide impact fees, coroner, EMS and jail. You know from previous discussions that the coroner topic has been placed to the side. The county I think still would like to pursue that idea at some point, but after it makes more progress with the legislature to provide some clarity around that topic. So, tonight we are talking, as we have in the past, last couple discussions, we are talking about EMS and the jail. You also recall from -- we have been discussing this topic for some time now and actually took some concrete steps in 2025 to help advance the topic and in particular sort of outlined an implementation plan and have essentially completed the first three. One was to approve some initial limited intergovernmental agreements that would kind of get us to the point where we are now and that's been successful, that's why we are here chatting this evening. We also at that time -- or in that time frame of 2025 approved the capital improvements plans for EMS and the jail and you also amended the city's Comprehensive Plan to include those CIPs as well and that was accomplished last year and, then, we paused until other cities were able to make more progress and I'm happy to report tonight that I think that has happened. We are not a hundred percent to the finish line, but others have made more progress and I will give you a fresh update on that in just a moment or two. So, really our last step in this process and the purpose of the public hearing tonight is to -- really if we want to continue to help our partner with that -- you know, with these fees -- impact fees and the philosophy of growth should pay for growth is to conduct a public hearing and decide whether you all, after hearing from your constituents, whether you wish to proceed with the necessary ordinances and agreements that would enable that to happen and authorize that to happen. A quick update from last time. I will just recap for the public as well. But at this point in time Star and Eagle and Kuna have finished their processes. I believe Eagle and Star in particular have been collecting the fees for a few Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 34 of 44 months now, perhaps a bit longer. Kuna just recently adopted this ordinance. There is a 30 day wait and so either they are right at -- at that point or maybe they have just started to collect fees. I didn't get the exact date. But Kuna, if they haven't collected fees yet, they are about ready to do so and they may have been doing it for a week or so. Garden City has introduced ordinances for first reading, but I believe -- I don't believe they -- they paused their process as well and -- but I have been chatting with their attorney -- the city attorney for Garden City and I believe they do intend to move forward particularly if Meridian does the same. So, I think Garden City has started the process. They paused and will likely proceed soon. With respect to Boise City, perhaps Mr. Rutherford can give us an update on what he knows. I will say I spoke with one of the lead attorneys from Boise City last Friday and indicated that they are still an interest in working with the county, that there is a desire to do so. Not a lot of tangible results quite yet, so I didn't -- I didn't get the sense it's going to happen tomorrow or next week, but I also didn't get the sense that it's -- it's not going to move forward either and perhaps Mr. Rutherford has some -- some intelligence -- some insights on that that might be helpful to us if that's of interest to the City Council tonight. But we are -- I guess to go back. I think we are close to probably having five of six cities and they are getting very close to the finish line and Boise City at least still indicating a desire to work with the county on this topic. In order to address that concern, however, from our last discussion about the potential risk that surrounds the topic of if all cities do not participate is there a possibility of fees being too high or too low, refunds, et cetera, collaborated with the county on some language that would I think address that topic for the City Council to your satisfaction and really something kind of consistent with what we have talked about previously is to be as helpful as we can to advance the ball, but also wait until all the cities are ready to implement and so we can all kind of do it together in a sort of a cohesive way near in time and that makes I think sense for the development community and for all of the cities as well. So, the solution -- or a potential solution is you have the ordinances you have before you today have -- this is an excerpt from the Jail Impact Fee ordinance. There is similar language for the EMS ordinance as well, but, essentially, by ordinance ties the timing to -- we would adopt the ordinances, they would go into effect -- the two ordinances would go into effect 30 days after adoption and publication, but, then, the actual fee implementation would be contingent upon all the other incorporated cities in Ada county adopting the necessary ordinances and agreements to implement and collect those impact fees as well. So, essentially, we would do all we need to do and the ordinances would be approved and to use that expression on the books, but the last step would pause until we have everybody on the same page. That's also helpful, just parenthetically. We haven't talked about this previously, but I know for -- for your staff that's helpful as well, because, you know, we collect impact fees now for ACHD and we collect impact fees for the City of Meridian and so we have, you know, a basic framework in place to do that, but this type of stuff the devil's in the detail and so the programming that's required for different computer applications, changes to processes, discussions with our counterparts at the county of how this is going to work on a day to day and logistical basis, a little bit of time to work through those issues would also be helpful, quite frankly. So, this is primarily to deal with the issue we talked about back in April, but there is a side benefit that it provides some additional time for -- to kind of do the logistical type work behind the scenes that Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 35 of 44 make that all work. As the Mayor indicated we open the public hearing tonight. This is a public hearing. It's been advertised as such. There are basically three topics that are subjects of the public hearing. The proposed Ada County Jail Development Impact Fee Ordinance, the proposed Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fee Ordinance and, then, related to both is the actual fees themselves, which are covered by a different section of state law and so all three of those topics are covered by this public hearing. We would love to hear from -- from the public and from our constituents on, you know, their thoughts about this concept. As a refresher, this is -- we talked about this previously. I will just -- maybe just use the first number for both, but the cost in terms of the proposed fees that are before you and the subject of this public hearing depends on -- just as we -- for the City of Meridian for our impact fees, we have different categories of residential or multi -- you know, single family, multi-family, retail and so forth. The county when it did its analysis and fee study did something similar. They have some different categories, some categories we don't use today, but a similar methodology. The proposed fee -- I will just talk about sort of the equivalent residential unit or single family unit is proposed at 516 dollars per single family home. There are other figures as you see on the screen for other categories of use, including non-residential uses as well and, then, for EMS the comparable fee is 175 dollars per single family home and, again, other fees for different categories that kind of stem from that base calculation. To the extent -- so, I'm just going to sort of lay out the framework here. This is the public hearing piece. We are not ready to act on any of these things quite yet, but I just wanted to tell the complete story while I had the opportunity to do so and, then, I will step away, we will have our public hearing. I can come back and talk about these more if you would like, but to the extent after hearing testimony tonight and having your questions answered and deliberation if you choose to move forward next steps would look like what's on the screen before you now, would be to introduce the -- I'm just going to truncate this description for -- to save a few words. We will do -- we will introduce the Jail Impact Fee Ordinance by first reading by title only, dispense with the full reading and approve the summary for publication. Do the same for the EMS ordinance. Our recommendation, just to -- out of an abundance of caution we recommend that we do all three readings. So, first reading this evening if that's your desire. Second reading next week and, then, third reading your first meeting in July. So, quite frankly, the state statute that deals with this aspect within the Development Impact Fee Act is not as clearly written as it should be. So, just to make it out of an abundance of caution our recommendation is to do all three readings just to make sure that it's, you know, there is no questions. Next we have two interagency agreements for -- these, essentially, would be successor agreements to the -- the ones you approved in 2025. These are the agreements that between the county, agreement one and the EMS district, agreement number two, that basically lay out the contractual relationship that the city will collect fees on behalf of the county and/or EMS district. This is how that's going to work and so forth. I will say parenthetically -- this might be a question or a topic of discussion for you -- after working with the city's Finance Department and talking with our CFO, the agreements do not contemplate charging a fee to the county for collections, although I think the county would be willing to entertain that and they have an agreement that sort of allows for that. The rationale for that was twofold I think -- or at least twofold. One is that with respect to ACHD we collect fees on Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 36 of 44 ACHD's behalf and we do not charge a fee. That's part of a larger arrangement, however, where both agencies work together, so the concept was, you know, we don't charge ACHD fees and they don't charge us fees. So we are trying to be consistent. Secondly, you know, our chief financial officer thought particularly for ongoing costs that are -- once it's -- once the program is in place and the process -- processes are in place that really the ongoing cost is not a great substance and so for those reasons the recommendation was not to include a fee, but you may have some different thoughts about that. I do want to say, however, just for full -- full information to make good decisions, there are some upfront costs to the city that -- and we don't have a good grasp of what those look like yet, but there is going to -- as I mentioned there will be programming costs to amend -- or to modify our existing programs. Some of that will be done in-house with city staff, so it may not be a hard expense, but there is certainly a soft cost there for city staff to do that. We don't have great numbers there. Just to give you maybe a sense of order of magnitude in a discussion as recently as this morning, maybe your thought was we are talking about maybe tens of hours, like maybe up to 50 hours of staff time to -- programming time to do that and, then, with one particular application, which I -- that's not my field of expertise and I couldn't -- I don't even recall which it was now, but for one program in particular it may require some assistance from that particular vendor, but the thought from our IT director was that would not be a substantial cost, but less than 10,000 dollars, maybe substantially less, but probably no more than that. But I do want you to be aware there are some implementation expenses that to step into this and make some changes to our systems, particularly on the IT side, there is going to be some upfront expenses. Right now that's not contemplated in the agreement. Again, the county may be amenable to that if that's important to the Council, but I just want to kind of flag that for you as well. To the extent you did those things tonight or in the near future, the idea on the intergovernmental agreements in particular is that we would be first to say, yes, we, then, transmit the -- after the Mayor's signature would transmit those to the county and to the EMS district for their approval and signature and, then, the implementation date for those agreements is inter-tied to the implementation date of the ordinance, so the agreements don't become effective until the ordinances become effective. They go into effect at the same time. As I mentioned, we recommend doing all -- all three readings by title only, to waive the full reading, and just the way the calendar falls this month, we have a fifth Tuesday that you all likely will not be meeting, so we will do the second -- if you proceed the second reading next week and, then, a third reading on July 7th, would be the likely time frame. We, then, publish as we do -- we would recommend a summary, because ordinances are quite lengthy. I think 23 to 24 pages per ordinance, so summaries would be helpful in this instance. That's something you can do by majority vote. The ordinances, then, under state law, once the ordinances have been adopted by this body and been -- and they have been published they would go into effect 30 days thereafter and as I mentioned we have that timing issue at that point where we would not -- the ordinances would be adopted and on the books, but we would not be collecting the fee until that timing issue is resolved I spoke about earlier. So, that's a quick run through. mentioned that Steve Rutherford, the chief operating officer for Ada county is here, I'm sure he would be happy to come to the podium and answer questions you have and I would invite Steve to come up. If I missed anything important he can come supplement Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 37 of 44 anything I missed as well. But at that point I will pause. This is a public hearing, so I'm happy to answer questions you have now, but you may want to hear from the public first. I'm at your pleasure. Whatever you would like to do. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Kurt. Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present who would like to come forward and provide testimony on this item? A fine resident and county employee, we would love to hear from them. Rutherford: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Steve Rutherford, chief operating officer for Ada county. That's 200 West Front in Boise. 83702. Although I'm a Meridian resident. So, thank you very much for having us back to continue this discussion. We are very appreciative. In terms of an update Eagle and Star are collecting at this point. Kuna is -- is finished with the process and we are currently in the process of adopting the intergovernmental agreement. We have -- we got in a little kerfuffle and so they sent the wrong one over, so we have to get our board to approve that and, then, they will be collecting. Garden City let me know tonight that he is trying to get this on -- this subject on. They have got a second and third reading to finish of the ordinances for next week. We will see. But he -- he was pretty interested in following Meridian as soon as possible and, then, some good news on Boise, the remaining city. I got an e- mail from mayor's chief of staff -- one of the mayor's chiefs of staff last week and we have a meeting next Thursday with their planning staff, a couple of their lawyers, their finance people, similar to the conversation we had with Kurt and Lavoie not too long ago -- actually it was a while ago now. So, I think it's progress. I have talked to the development services director and -- and she said, you know, it shouldn't be too painful. I do think they are going to want some concessions. They have -- as I have mentioned before they have been interested in an exemption for affordable housing and so we have contemplated that for some time and there seems to be some interest in ADUs as well and an exemption and the commission's willing to work through that with them, because, you know, ultimately I think the goal is just to get this adopted county wide and we are encouraged by the recent communication from the city. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you have about these impact fees. But we are, again, really appreciative for the invitation to come out. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Steve, are you okay with the language in our agreement that we will hold ours until all the cities are ready to go? Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 38 of 44 Rutherford: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Overton, I guess a couple of things. Yes. To start out, yes, that's absolutely fine. You know, ultimately we are interested in all getting to the finish line together and everybody's at a different pace. The idea that we are all going to cross the finish line at the same time -- it became really impractical and unworkable dealing with, you know, mayors and city councils all over the valley. So, that is absolutely fine. Like the Mayor told me about a year ago, maybe 18 months ago when I was standing at this, why are we -- why are we still talking about this. Development's happening and we are losing funds and so there is some sense of urgency. I think if the chair was here tonight you would hear that. But we completely understand, because it gets weird if one of the cities either delays or -- or decides not to do it. So, just --just, again, grateful for the action at least that's proposed tonight. Simison: Yeah. And I will just weigh in on that topic just from a practical standpoint. would be in favor of doing this without it to move it forward and start collecting immediately, because, frankly, if five of the other six cities -- we are a majority of the development in the county under that scenario with our partners at Kuna and Star and ourselves far outpacing our neighbor to the west of us. So, while there may be some concerns over what happens if someone doesn't, all of us put together to me alleviates those concerns at a higher rate than waiting for the other to maybe happen or maybe not happen. My personal opinion. Any additional questions for Steve? Okay. Thank you. Rutherford: Thank you. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item, either in the room or online? Kurt, any final comments from staff on this item? Starman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. No additional comments. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. If not I will let you take care of the public hearing and I'm happy to stay at the podium to talk about your next items on your agenda, the ordinances and agreements, but I will -- we will take care of the public hearing first. Simison: Okay. Appreciate that. I will just say this. I did hear today for the first time from Director Miles about the potential costs for implementation. Right. I am under the impression that these are soft costs and I frankly think that even if they weren't they are a small price to pay for our residents and taxpayers compared to the hard costs of paying for these out of other property tax if we didn't have impact fees overall generally. So -- you know. So, I -- we are prepared to move forward as we see fit to achieve this. I said even if we got to just take a check -- we can figure out a way to take a check from somebody to pay these if we -- it takes so long to get our -- our system moving forward cost effectively. Okay. With that do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 39 of 44 Cavener: Before a motion, I -- I recognize that the public hearing can be closed, but where we have multiple readings on this and I recognize that our friends in the media just left, but a change in a shift like this I would be more supportive of keeping the public hearing open through the various readings in case someone in our community wanted to weigh in and provide a perspective. So, just for consideration I guess. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: I'm in -- I'm in agreement with that line of thought that we leave the public hearing open through the third reading. Simison: So, do I have a different motion? Cavener: I think that was a motion. At least I heard it as a motion. Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Make a motion that we keep the public hearing open -- Simison: Continue the public hearing. Overton: Continue the public hearing. Simison: To next week. Overton: Next week. Cavener: Second. Simison: Okay. I have a motion and second to continue the public hearing to next week. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is continued. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: And, Kurt, we know you won't be here, so we don't expect you to come back and be present for the next two -- Starman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, this will be my -- my last -- likely my last City Council meeting. Actually my last day with the city is next Tuesday, but I told Bill I have a hard stop at 5:00 p.m., so I won't be here at 6:00 p.m. But it's been a pleasure to work with you all for the past several years. So, thank you. I was going to mention two Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 40 of 44 things and, then, I will -- or at least one thing and, then, we will -- if you would like we can transition to first reading of the ordinances. My recollection -- I will take a -- I'm very comfortable with continuing the public hearing. My recollection is the -- the state statute specifically allows you to do your first two readings before you complete your public hearing process, so I think perfectly fine to continue the hearing until next week and keep it open. That's fine, too. That does not -- does not preclude you from offering the ordinances for first reading this evening if that is your desire to do, so -- so, Chris, I don't -- I don't think we need to pull it back up. I -- part of the PowerPoint was some action items, but if that's your desire your next item on the agenda would be the potential offering the two ordinances listed consecutive. I think the jail is listed first and I believe the EMS ordinance was listed second. I would recommend two different -- you know, two different actions on that. But if you are so inclined you can offer those ordinances by first reading and we can proceed accordingly. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 5. Ordinance No. 26-2126: An Ordinance Adding a New Title 12 Called "Countywide Development Impact Fees" to the Meridian City Code and Adding Thereto a New Chapter 1 Called "Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees" That Provides for Short Chapter Title; Authority, Findings, Applicability, and Purpose; Definitions; Capital Improvements Plan; Periodic Review of the Capital Improvements Plan; Intergovernmental Agreement with Ada County; Imposition of County Impact Fees and Payment; Enforcement and Collection; County Impact Fee Administrator and City Powers to Require Payment of County Impact Fees; County Impact Fee(s) Exemptions; Process for Individual Assessment; Extraordinary Impacts; Developer Credits and Reimbursements; County Impact Fee Payment Mistake or Misrepresentation; Fee Payer Refunds; County Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund, Expenditures, Budget, Audit, and Surcharge; Appeals and Mediation; Miscellaneous Provisions; Punishment for Violations; Construction of Ordinance Intent; and Providing an Effective Simison: Okay. And with that we will move on to Item 5. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance. First reading. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance adding a new Title 12 called "Countywide Development Impact Fees" to the Meridian City Code and adding thereto a new Chapter 1 called "Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees" that provides for short chapter title; authority, findings, applicability, and purpose; definitions; capital improvements plan; periodic review of the capital improvements plan; intergovernmental agreement with Ada county; imposition of county impact fees and payment; enforcement and collection; county impact fee administrator and city powers to require payment of county impact fees; county impact fee(s) exemptions; process for individual assessment; extraordinary impacts; developer credits and reimbursements; county Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 41 of 44 impact fee payment mistake or misrepresentation; fee payer refunds; county impact fee capital projects trust fund, expenditures, budget, audit, and surcharge; appeals and mediation; miscellaneous provisions; punishment for violations; construction of ordinance intent; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Okay. Seeing none. 6. Ordinance No. 26-2127: An Ordinance Amending the Meridian City Code by the Addition Thereto of a New Chapter 2 to Title 12 Called "Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees" Providing for Short Chapter Title; Authority, Findings, Applicability, and Purpose; Definitions; Capital Improvements Plan; Periodic Review of the Capital Improvements Plan; Intergovernmental Agreement with EMS District; Imposition of EMS Impact Fees and Payment; Enforcement and Collection; EMS District Impact Fee Administrator and City Powers to Require Payment of EMS Impact Fees; EMS Impact Fee(s) Exemptions; Process for Individual Assessment; Extraordinary Impacts; Developer Credits and Reimbursements; EMS Impact Fee Payment Mistake or Misrepresentation; Fee Payer Refunds; EMS Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund, Expenditures, Budget, Audit, and Surcharge; Appeals and Mediation; Miscellaneous Provisions; Punishment for Violations; Construction of Ordinance Intent; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: We will move on to Item 6, which is Ordinance No. 26-2127. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance amending the Meridian City Code by the addition thereto of a new Chapter 2 to Title 12 called "Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees" providing for short chapter title; authority, findings, applicability, and purpose; definitions; capital improvements plan; periodic review of the capital improvements plan; intergovernmental agreement with EMS district; imposition of EMS impact fees and payment; enforcement and collection; EMS district impact fee administrator and city powers to require payment of EMS impact fees; EMS impact fee(s) exemptions; process for individual assessment; extraordinary impacts; developer credits and reimbursements; EMS impact fee payment mistake or misrepresentation; fee payer refunds; EMS impact fee capital projects trust fund, expenditures, budget, audit, and surcharge; appeals and mediation; miscellaneous provisions; punishment for violations; construction of ordinance intent; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Okay. Seeing none. Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 42 of 44 7. Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for Ada County Sheriff's Jail on Development Within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian Simison: We will move on to Item 7, which is the Ada County-City Meridian Intergovernment agreement for collection and expenditure of development impact fees for County Sheriff's Jail and development within the municipal boundaries of the City of Meridian. Do I have a motion on this item? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. Overton: Move that we approve the Ada County and City Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the collection and expenditure of developmental impact fees for Ada County Sheriff's Jail on development within the municipality municipal boundaries of the City of Meridian. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Item 7. Is there discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 8. Ada County Emergency Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District on Development Within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian Simison: Next up is Item 8, which is Ada County Emergency Medical Service District. The City of Meridian Intergovernment agreement for the collection expenditure of development impact fees for Ada County Emergency Medical Services District on development within the municipal boundaries of the City of Meridian. Do I have a motion? Overton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Overton. See if you can say it that fast. Overton: I move that we approve the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the collection and expenditure of Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 43 of 44 development impact fees for Ada County Emergency Medical Services District on development within the municipal boundaries of the City of Meridian. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: I have a motion that was faster and seconded. Is there any discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I wish he had made a mistake so he would have to withdraw it and do it again, but -- well done, Mr. President. Simison: If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Not a future meeting topic, but just a quick moment of privilege. Kurt, thank you for your service to the City of Meridian. I know we have got this to the -- to the two yard line on this big project that you and Steve have been working on. Thank you. I -- as one who goes back and watches and reads the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission I just appreciate the guidance and support you have given our Planning and Zoning Commission over the years. They are better because of your involvement and you will certainly be missed here at the city. So, best of luck in your retirement. Starman: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, I don't get this opportunity very often, so I do want to echo what Councilman Cavener said. I want to thank Kurt for his time with our office. I have had a long career and a privilege to work with lots of attorneys over the years, two of them in this room and Kurt is one of the few and Mr. Rutherford is another one, that I have had the privilege of working with and having worked for me that I treasure and value all the Meridian City Council June 16,2026 Page 44 of 44 advice and work and the value they brought to me and to our team and to our city and I just want to thank him and I don't get a chance, because he doesn't come usually when I'm here, so I appreciate it and I want to make sure to note that and thank Mr. Rutherford for being here for the county, too. Simison: Yeah. And I think -- what you don't see is everything Kurt does is not in this room and in other facets and he has been a great -- in this -- bringing his former profession to light as well for our city as a city manager. They will bring that into the conversation is combined with his newer legal expertise has been a great benefit and value in some of the other areas where he served with the city. So, we really appreciate it and -- and I will just say this, Steve, if you are looking for a different opportunity the City of Meridian will be hiring. Cavener: Shots fired. Simison: Well, you got to take an opportunity when you see it. So, with that do I have a motion? Overton: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. Little Roberts: Second. Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 7-7-2026 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 7-7-2026 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET Date: June 16, 2026 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 C� E IDIAN Planning and Zoning Department Presentation and Outline Changes to Agenda: None Item #1 & 2: VanTrust (H-2025-0052 & ZOA-2025-0002) Application(s): Annexation UDC Text Amendment (Code Change) Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 23.13 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, generally located at the southwest corner of Black Cat Road and Franklin Road. History: On April 14, 2026, the City Council continued the subject applications and directed staff to prepare Development Agreement provisions, coordinate with ACHD and the developer of the adjacent property to the south regarding improvements to Black Cat Road and provide updated language for the proposed Flex Space standards. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Employment and Low Density Employment Summary of Request: The applicant requests annexation of 23.13 acres of land with a concept plan consisting of six (6) buildings that span a total of approximately 340,000 square feet in the I-L zoning district. In addition, the applicant requests a UDC Text Amendment to adjust the Flex Space standards to lower the office requirement from 20% to 10% in the I-L zoning district. On May 15, 2026, City staff provided the draft Development Agreement provisions and proposed Flex Space code amendments to the applicant for review. In addition, staff met with ACHD on April 23, 2026, to discuss potential improvements to Black Cat Road. Following that meeting, ACHD indicated that it would not pursue a cooperative development agreement for Black Cat Road improvements, citing higher-priority projects, including improvements at the Venable intersection associated with the new community center and the extension of W. Corporate Drive to W. Waltman Lane. Staff also met with the developer of the Black Cat Industrial project, who indicated an intent to pursue a modification to their existing development agreement in the future. The future amendment would propose revising the square footage thresholds that trigger required improvements to Black Cat Road. Additionally, staff is preparing an application to amend the future land use designations within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. This proposed amendment is limited to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Concurrently, staff is evaluating potential additional amendments to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and related modifications to the Comprehensive Plan to better align with the direction provided by the City Council. The initial FLUM amendment application is anticipated to be presented to the City Council later this year. See below for the revised Flex Space code changes and proposed Development Agreement provisions. Code Change: UDC 11-4-3-18: Flex Space a. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise between ten percent (10%) and thirty percent (30%) of the tenant space in all permitted districts. b. Light industry and warehousing may comprise up to ninety percent (90%) of the tenant space in all permitted districts. c. In the C-C, C-G, and M-E Districts, roll-up doors and loading docks shall not be visible from a public street. In the I- L and I-H districts, roll-up doors and loading docks shall not directly face any public street. d. Retail use shall be included within the ten (10) to thirty (30) percent requirement established in subsection A and shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of leasable area in any tenant space. e. At a minimum, one (1) parking space shall be provided for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross-floor area. Development Agreement Provisions: 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of $611.47 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 substantially consistent with the conceptual plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. c. The property shall be subdivided, and the proposed collector road shall be constructed in accordance with ACHD standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. d. All existing structures shall be removed and all well and sceptic system shall be abandoned prior to issuance of the first building permit. e. The proposed development is allowed to develop with all the uses listed in UDC 11-2C-2 except for the following: Contractors Yard, Outside Storage Facility, Self-Service Storage Facility, Vehicle Impound Yard, Commented \[NN1\]: Maybe add warehousing Vehicle Sales or Rental and Service, and Indoor Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Facilities. f. Record a cross-access agreement with the parcel to the west (Parcel # S1216120620) and parcel to the east (Parcel # S1216110125) prior to the City Engineers signature on the plat. g. Development in the I-L Zone shall be generally consistent with the development guidelines contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) for Mixed Employment (ME) and Low Density Employment (LDE) designated areas or as amended. h. Development in the I-L Zone shall be consistent with the Meridian Industrial Architectural Standards Manual, and subject to the administrative design review process. i. The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application to the Planning Division for approval of all future uses on the site to ensure compliance with the Unified Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, Architectural Standards Manual, prior to issuance of building permits for any structure(s) within this site. Road Infrastructure and Developments Along the Black Cat/Franklin Corridor Category Details Existing and Planned Road Infrastructure W. Franklin Road Existing: 2 lanes, no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Planned: Widen to 5 lanes between W. McDermott Rd and S. Black Cat Rd after 2028. S. Black Cat Road Existing: 2 lanes, no curb, gutter, or sidewalk. Planned: Widen to 5 lanes between W. Overland Rd and W. Franklin Rd, 2036–2040. Planned: Multi-lane roundabout, construction Franklin & McDermott Intersection scheduled after 2027. Planned: Future connection to SH-16 via a W. Franklin Road Connection signalized intersection. Approved Developments Impacting the Full Impacts of these projects are yet to be Corridor realized. 2.2 million sq ft of industrial space to the south. Black Cat Industrial (H-2021-0064) Farmstone (H-2023-0045) 378,360 sq ft of commercial and industrial uses across Black Cat Road. Avani Subdivision (H-2023-0049) 256 residential lots to the northeast. Vanguard Village (H-2021-0081) 552 dwelling units and a mix of commercial and industrial uses (approximately 740,000 square feet). Braya Subdivision (AZ-06-061 and PP-06-062) 330 single-family lots and 240 apartment units. District at Ten Mile (H-2023-0071) Large mixed-use development with approximately a total of 1,000,000 square feet contemplated. Outer Banks (H-2021-0025, H-2021-0061, and 516 residential units and approximately 147,650 H-2024-0026) square feet of commercial. The Gateway at Ten Mile (H-2020-0046 and H-390 residential units and 26.54 acres of 2024-0010) commercial. Residential: 2,284 units (Most of which have not Totals: been built) Commercial/Industrial: 4,318,360 square feet (Most of which have not been built) Commission Recommendation: Denial of both applications Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Deb Nelson, Chris McClusky, and Tyler Martin ii. In opposition: Keith Whiting iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Key Issue(s): Tyler Martin was in favor of both applications. He claims the product being presented is in high demand across the valley and more specifically in Meridian. Most users looking for industrial space would like to be in Meridian due to its central location. In addition, he believes due to the non-noxious uses that would be in this development that it would support the intended transition from the residential to the east and industrial to the west. vi. Kieth Whiting was in opposition of the project. His main concerns were extra noise and traffic in close proximity to his family living directly to the east. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The Commission discussed issues with a case specific UDC Text Amendment change, the lack of a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment, and the lack of a traditional neighborhood design. The Commission was unanimously against the UDC Text Amendment as they felt it only addressed a need for a single project without looking at the impact to the larger city. The Commission agreed with staff that a CPAM application would be required in order to support the project. They also agreed with staff that the site was lacking key design elements to meet a traditional neighborhood design that is called for in the Low Density Employment designation. Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. None Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: - Whether a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment should be required. - Whether the annexation is in the best interest of the city with the current plan and FLUM designation. - Whether the UDC Text Amendment is appropriate. - Whether the applicants design meets the design standard requirements for a Traditional Neighborhood Design. - Whether the proposed uses are consistent with the TMISAP for the Low Density -Employment designation. Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Thruston Family: In support of the proposal as their property is included in the concept plan and they would like to move forward with the sale of the property. In addition, they said the existing home will likely be wiped out with future expansion of Franklin Road. Overall, they are in support of the project. Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2025-0052 and ZOA-2025-0002, as th presented in the staff report for the hearing date of June 16, 2026: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2025-0052 and ZOA-2025-0002, as th presented during the hearing on June 16, 2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0052 and ZOA-2025-0002 to the hearing date of _____________ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #3: Syringa Crossing (H-2025-0007) Application(s): Annexation & Zoning Preliminary Plat Conditional Use Permit Size of property, existing zoning, and location: The annexation portion of this site consists of approximately 62 acres of land including ROW to the Section line of adjacent roadways, currently zoned RUT & LO in Ada County, generally located at the NWC & SWC of W. Amity Rd & S. Meridian Rd./SH-69. History: See History in staff report (Section III.A) Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) The Applicant submitted revised plans after the Commission hearing, as outlined in the memo from Staff to the Mayor & th Council dated June 9,to address items discussed during the Commission hearing that contributed to the Commission’s recommendation of denial. Staff’s presentation will include the amended application information and the presentation slides will show the original vs. revised development plans. The Applicant will cover the proposed changes in more detail. Summary of Request: The Applicant requests annexation of 62.44-acres of land with R-15 (9.73 acres), R-40 (16.58 acres), L-O (5.33 acres), C-N (2.07 acres) and C-C (28.73 acres) zoning districts. A conceptual development plan was submitted with the annexation application that depicts how the site is proposed to develop. NWC: At the NWC of the annexation area, a multi-family development is proposed consisting of 98 garden-style apartment units (3 units fewer than before) at a gross density of 10 units per acre; 37K s.f. of office uses (16K more than before); a 63K s.f. grocery store with retail shops, restaurants and a bank totaling 117,600 s.f. of commercial space overall (which is 10K s.f. more than before). Public/quasi-public and plaza areas are also proposed in the commercial portion of the development – the open space has been reconfigured with the revised plans and has increased overall between the residential & commercial areas. All commercial development is proposed to be a single story in height, while the residential is proposed to be 3- and 4-story apartment buildings. A mix of at least (3) different land use types is proposed as desired; the Applicant is proposing changes to provide better functional integration of uses as discussed during the Commission hearing in accord with the Comp Plan. The proposed density conforms to that desired in the Plan. Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are not provided, which increases service and transportation network impacts. Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places connected by pathways are proposed consisting of plazas, outdoor gathering areas and linear open space areas that the Applicant states consists of 23% of the NW development area, which exceeds the 5% required in the Comp Plan. SWC: At the SWC of the annexation area, 30K s.f. of commercial space is proposed which is 5K less than before, anticipated to include restaurants, retail shops, a coffee shop & gas station/convenience store; and 7,800 s.f. of office space has been added. Across the street on the southern portion of the development, a 302-unit MFR development is proposed, which is 20 fewer than before, with a gross density of 18.2 units/acre. Commercial structures are anticipated to be a single-story in height; residential structures are anticipated to be 3 to 4-stories in height. With the proposed changes, the development plan is now consistent with the following Mixed-Use provisions in the Comp Plan: A mix of at (3) different land use types are now provided as required, whereas only 2 were provided before; and Outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places consisting of plazas, outdoor gathering areas, and linear open space appear to meet the minimum requirements. The development is still inconsistent with the following policies in the Comp Plan: The residential area is 68% of the site (down from 72%), which is 18% more the maximum allowed of 50% in the MU-C designation & 3.2 units/acre over the maximum density allowed of 15 units/acre. Commensurate levels of employment and other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips are not provided due to the excess of residential area and density provided. Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are not provided, which increases service and transportation network impacts. The Applicant has requested the overall project be considered for consistency with the Comp Plan, rather than (2) individual projects. The Comp Plan specifically states, “contiguous mixed use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate & independent areas for use & design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other. Some of the reasons for such include safety & efficiency of the transportation network (pedestrians & motorists alike). An overall pedestrian plan was submitted for the annexation area as shown that shows 10’ pedestrian walkways (blue) and 5’-7’ wide sidewalks (pink) providing connectivity along streets, through parking areas, public/quasi-public, commercial and residential areas. Conceptual building elevations & perspectives were also submitted showing what future commercial retail buildings and plaza areas will look like as well as the residential buildings at the NWC of the annexation area. The primary transportation considerations for this development involve the timing and coordination of required off-site improvements, access management along Amity Rd & SH-69, and completion of internal street and pathway connections needed to support a functional mixed-use neighborhood pattern. The project would add measurable traffic to a network that already experiences operational strain during peak hours, underscoring the need to align development phasing with programmed intersection and signal improvements. Because of its proximity to two major transportation corridors, the design must emphasize efficient site access, safe circulation, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections consistent with the City’s adopted street and pathway standards. ACHD’s recommended conditions and findings addressing intersection mitigation, access spacing, and collector completion reflect these shared objectives and are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan & UDC standards for coordinated land use & transportation planning. A Preliminary Plat is proposed to subdivide the SWC of the annexation area but not the NWC. The plat consists of 10 building lots (6 commercial, 2 office & 2 residential) on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40, L-O & C-C zoning districts. One (1) access drive is proposed via W. Amity Rd. and (1) is proposed via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69. A portion of a future collector street (Hermatite) via W. Amity Rd. is depicted along the southern portion of the west boundary of the site and stubs to the property to the south – the portion that connects to Amity Rd. is off-site on the adjacent property to the west and is not proposed to be constructed with this development. A waiver from Council is requested to UDC 11-3H-4B.2a, which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. ITD has approved the access. A backage road generally paralleling Amity Rd. & Meridian/SH-69 is proposed for access to the properties fronting those roads in accord with the UDC. There is a 40’ wide gravity irrigation easement on the SWC in the commercial area as shown – trees & large shrubs are not allowed in the easement area. A CUP is also requested for a multi-family development on the SWC of the annexation area consisting of 302 apartment units on 15.23-acres of land in the R-40 zoning district at a gross density of 19.8 units/acre, which has slightly increased from before with the decrease of the residential area after addition the office uses. Three (3) and 4-story multi-family buildings are proposed with parking on the ground floor on some units. Building materials consist of fiber cement siding variegated board & batten in a variety of colors & styles, stucco & brick. The final design, if approved, is required to comply with the design standards in the ASM. The collector street access (Hermatite) is needed for emergency access & should be extended from W. Amity Rd. to the site prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the MFR development. Based on 302 units, a minimum of 3.24 acres of outdoor common open space is required – a total of 3.8 acres is provided, exceeding the minimum standard. Proposed amenities consist of a clubhouse, swimming pool & spa; a community garden; shade structure; walking trails, children’s play structure & (3) sports courts. Additional amenities are recommended by Staff if approved. The Applicant requests the following waivers from Council: 1) The UDC 11-4-3-27C.8 states common open space areas in multi-family developments shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four (4) feet in height, with breaks on the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The Applicant requests approval through the CUP for common open space areas in the multi- family development to be located adjacent to a collector street buffer without a berm or barrier separating it from the street. The reason for such is an enhanced interaction is desired between the street and 10’ multi-use pathway along the collector street with a narrower street section and wider pathway adjacent to common areas. 2) The UDC (11-3H-4B.2a) prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. City Council may consider and approve a modification to the standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council. The Applicant is requesting Council approval of the proposed access south of Amity Rd.; a recommendation has been received from ITD on the access – they will allow a right-in/right-out access. Written Testimony: None Commission Recommendation: The Commission recommended denial of the annexation application and consequently the preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications; therefore, conditions of approval are not included in the staff report. If the City Council determines the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City with the proposed development plan, the project should be continued to a later hearing date in order for Staff to prepare recommended conditions of approval. Possible Motions: Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2025-0007, as presented during the hearing on June 16, 2026, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2025-0007 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) h2 City Council MeetingJune 16th, 2026 Zoning MapAerialFLUM 1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexatioto issuance of building permits for any structure(s) within this site.ual, prior anfuture uses on the site to ensure compliance with the Unified Development Code, Comprehensive Plan, Architectural Standards Mval of all pro. The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application to the Planning Division for apiadministrative design review process.the L Zone shall be consistent with the Meridian Industrial Architectural Standards Manual, and subject to -h. Development in the IArea Plan (TMISAP) for Mixed Employment (ME) and Low Density Employment (LDE) designated areas or as amended. nge Specific L Zone shall be generally consistent with the development guidelines contained in the Ten Mile Intercha-g. Development in the Ito the City Engineers signature on the plat. 125) prior access agreement with the parcel to the west (Parcel # S1216120620) and parcel to the east (Parcel # S1216110-f. Record a crossRecreation Facilities.tertainment, and Service Storage Facility, Vehicle Impound Yard, Vehicle Sales or Rental and Service, and Indoor Arts, En-Storage Facility, SelfYard, Outside 2 except for the following: Contractors-2C-e. The proposed development is allowed to develop with all the uses listed in UDC 11uilding permit.bd. All existing structures shall be removed and all well and sceptic system shall be abandoned prior to issuance of the firstissuance of a building permit.or to the ric. The property shall be subdivided, and the proposed collector road shall be constructed in accordance with ACHD standards p.ntb. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the developmeSection VIII and the provisions contained herein.s included in ona. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the conceptual plan and conceptual building elevatiincorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the best interest of the City: hall, at minimum, A sproperty owner and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting the annexation. The Dl be signed by the halCurrently, a fee of $611.47 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to commencement of the DA. The DA s. perentered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the develordinance, a DA shall be n o a. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise between ten percent (10%) and floor area.-square feet of grosse. At a minimum, one (1) parking space shall be provided for every one thousand (1,000) any tenant space.established in subsection A and shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of leasable area in d. Retail use shall be included within the ten (10) to thirty (30) percent requirement directly face any public street. up doors and loading docks shall not -H districts, roll-L and I-from a public street. In the Iup doors and loading docks shall not be visible -E Districts, roll-G, and M-C, C-c. In the Cspace in all permitted districts.b. Light industry and warehousing may comprise up to ninety percent (90%) of the tenant thirty percent (30%) of the tenant space in all permitted districts. Venable & UstickCorporate and Waltman Purpose/Allowed Uses: Offices, medical centers, research and development facilities, and light industrial uses with ancillary support services. Zoning MapAerialFLUM ORIGINALREVISED ORIGINALREVISED REVISEDORIGINAL ORIGINALREVISED ORIGINALREVISED ORIGINAL REVISED E IDIAN*-- -)AHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing (Continued from April 14, 2026) for VanTrust (ZOA-2025- 0002) by VanTrust Real Estate, generally located at the southwest corner of Black Cat Rd. and Franklin Rd. A. Request: UDC Text Amendment to adjust the flex space standards to lower the office requirement from 30% to 10%in the 1-L zoning district. C l0 00 V G1 ul 4h W i m 0) g N 7L N 01 r 0 (D `D z w rt cr n' w 0 r+ _ v fD �I a N Q o n. �C°.) Q > OQ O — N � fi O O O N Ln .I (D h v � X 0 0 rD w 0 rDD LA 0 N Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: E I�IAN ��� John Overton, President Anne Little Roberts,Vice President Brian Whitlock Liz Strader Doug Taylor Luke Cavener June 16th, 2026 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council CC: City Clerk, City Attorney FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner RE: VanTrust AZ,ZOA(H-2025-0052 and ZOA-2025-0002) On April 14,2026,the City Council continued the subject applications and directed staff to prepare Development Agreement provisions,coordinate with ACHD and the developer of the adjacent property to the south regarding improvements to Black Cat Road and provide updated language for the proposed Flex Space standards. On May 15,2026, City staff provided the draft Development Agreement provisions and proposed Flex Space code amendments to the applicant for review. In addition, staff met with ACHD on April 23, 2026,to discuss potential improvements to Black Cat Road. Following that meeting,ACHD indicated that it would not pursue a cooperative development agreement for Black Cat Road improvements,citing higher-priority projects, including improvements at the Venable intersection associated with the new community center and the extension of W. Corporate Drive to W. Waltman Lane. Staff also met with the developer of the Black Cat Industrial project,who indicated an intent to pursue a modification to their existing development agreement in the future. The future amendment would propose revising the square footage thresholds that trigger required improvements to Black Cat Road. Additionally, staff is preparing an application to amend the future land use designations within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. This proposed amendment is limited to the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). Concurrently, staff is evaluating potential additional amendments to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and related modifications to the Comprehensive Plan to better align with the direction provided by the City Council. The initial FLUM amendment application is anticipated to be presented to the City Council later this year. See page 2 for the revised Flex Space code changes and proposed Development Agreement provisions. Page 12 Code Change: UDC 11-4-3-18: a. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise between ten percent(10%) and thirty percent (30%)of the tenant space in all permitted districts. b. Light industry and warehousing may comprise up to ninety percent(90%)of the tenant space in all permitted districts. c. In the C-C, C-G, and M-E Districts,roll-up doors and loading docks shall not be visible from a public street. In the I-L and I-H districts,roll-up doors and loading docks shall not directly face any public street. d. Retail use shall be included within the ten(10)to thirty(30)percent requirement established in subsection A and shall not exceed thirty(30)percent of leasable area in any tenant space. e. At a minimum,one(1)parking space shall be provided for every one thousand(1,000) square feet of gross-floor area. Development Agreement Provisions: 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$611.47 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 substantially consistent with the conceptual plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. c. The property shall be subdivided,and the proposed collector road shall be constructed in accordance with ACHD standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. d. All existing structures shall be removed and all well and sceptic system shall be abandoned prior to issuance of the first building permit. e. The proposed development is allowed to develop with all the uses listed in UDC 11-2C-2 except for the following: Contractors Yard, Outside Storage Facility, Self-Service Storage Facility,Vehicle Impound Yard,Vehicle Sales or Rental and Service, and Indoor Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Facilities. f. Record a cross-access agreement with the parcel to the west(Parcel# S 1216120620) and parcel to the east(Parcel# 51216110125)prior to the City Engineers signature on the plat. g. Development in the I-L Zone shall be generally consistent with the development guidelines contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) for Mixed Employment (ME)and Low Density Employment(LDE) designated areas or as amended. h. Development in the I-L Zone shall be consistent with the Meridian Industrial Architectural Standards Manual, and subject to the administrative design review process. i. The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application to the Planning Division for approval of all future uses on the site to ensure compliance with the Unified Development Code, Comprehensive Plan,Architectural Standards Manual,prior to issuance of building permits for any structure(s)within this site. Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: VanTrust AZ H-2025-0052 Link to Project Application: VanTrust ZOA-2025-0002 Hearin Date: March 5, 2025 Assigned Planner: Nick Napoli To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment(a)_meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331 Email: cityclerk meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. E IDIAN*-- -)AHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing (Continued from April 14, 2026) for VanTrust (H-2025-0052) by VanTrust Real Estate, generally located at the southwest corner of Black Cat Rd. and Franklin Rd. A. Request:Annexation of 23.13 acres of land consisting of six(6) buildings that span a total of 340,000 sq.ft. in the 1-L zoning district. 00 V C1 Ul m I-A Co cr 0 (D -n r+ OEM% > CL OIQ CL Ln 0 Oa � �J p cn m Ul N oj W =3 x 0 0 ET Co (D (D =o (-Dl ;-117 m > (n ::;; " rD 0 o =3 m a -a 3 Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: E I�IAN ��� John Overton, President Anne Little Roberts,Vice President Brian Whitlock Liz Strader Doug Taylor Luke Cavener June 16th, 2026 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council CC: City Clerk, City Attorney FROM: Nick Napoli,Associate Planner RE: VanTrust AZ,ZOA(H-2025-0052 and ZOA-2025-0002) On April 14,2026,the City Council continued the subject applications and directed staff to prepare Development Agreement provisions,coordinate with ACHD and the developer of the adjacent property to the south regarding improvements to Black Cat Road and provide updated language for the proposed Flex Space standards. On May 15,2026, City staff provided the draft Development Agreement provisions and proposed Flex Space code amendments to the applicant for review. In addition, staff met with ACHD on April 23, 2026,to discuss potential improvements to Black Cat Road. Following that meeting,ACHD indicated that it would not pursue a cooperative development agreement for Black Cat Road improvements,citing higher-priority projects, including improvements at the Venable intersection associated with the new community center and the extension of W. Corporate Drive to W. Waltman Lane. Staff also met with the developer of the Black Cat Industrial project,who indicated an intent to pursue a modification to their existing development agreement in the future. The future amendment would propose revising the square footage thresholds that trigger required improvements to Black Cat Road. Additionally, staff is preparing an application to amend the future land use designations within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. This proposed amendment is limited to the Future Land Use Map(FLUM). Concurrently, staff is evaluating potential additional amendments to the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and related modifications to the Comprehensive Plan to better align with the direction provided by the City Council. The initial FLUM amendment application is anticipated to be presented to the City Council later this year. See page 2 for the revised Flex Space code changes and proposed Development Agreement provisions. Page 12 Code Change: UDC 11-4-3-18: a. Office and/or retail showroom areas shall comprise between ten percent(10%) and thirty percent (30%)of the tenant space in all permitted districts. b. Light industry and warehousing may comprise up to ninety percent(90%)of the tenant space in all permitted districts. c. In the C-C, C-G, and M-E Districts,roll-up doors and loading docks shall not be visible from a public street. In the I-L and I-H districts,roll-up doors and loading docks shall not directly face any public street. d. Retail use shall be included within the ten(10)to thirty(30)percent requirement established in subsection A and shall not exceed thirty(30)percent of leasable area in any tenant space. e. At a minimum,one(1)parking space shall be provided for every one thousand(1,000) square feet of gross-floor area. Development Agreement Provisions: 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer. Currently, a fee of$611.47 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 substantially consistent with the conceptual plan and conceptual building elevations included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein. b. Any future development of the site must comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. c. The property shall be subdivided,and the proposed collector road shall be constructed in accordance with ACHD standards prior to the issuance of a building permit. d. All existing structures shall be removed and all well and sceptic system shall be abandoned prior to issuance of the first building permit. e. The proposed development is allowed to develop with all the uses listed in UDC 11-2C-2 except for the following: Contractors Yard, Outside Storage Facility, Self-Service Storage Facility,Vehicle Impound Yard,Vehicle Sales or Rental and Service, and Indoor Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Facilities. f. Record a cross-access agreement with the parcel to the west(Parcel# S 1216120620) and parcel to the east(Parcel# 51216110125)prior to the City Engineers signature on the plat. g. Development in the I-L Zone shall be generally consistent with the development guidelines contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) for Mixed Employment (ME)and Low Density Employment(LDE) designated areas or as amended. h. Development in the I-L Zone shall be consistent with the Meridian Industrial Architectural Standards Manual, and subject to the administrative design review process. i. The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application to the Planning Division for approval of all future uses on the site to ensure compliance with the Unified Development Code, Comprehensive Plan,Architectural Standards Manual,prior to issuance of building permits for any structure(s)within this site. Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: VanTrust AZ H-2025-0052 Link to Project Application: VanTrust ZOA-2025-0002 Hearin Date: March 5, 2025 Assigned Planner: Nick Napoli To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment(a)_meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331 Email: cityclerk meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. E IDIAN*-- -)AHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing (Continued from May 19, 2026) for Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development (H-2025-0007) by Hawkins Companies, generally located at the northwest and southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./US69 and Amity Rd. A. Request:Annexation of 62.43 acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres), R-40 (18.01 acres), C-N (2.07 acres), C-C(9.12 acres), and C-G (23.47 acres)zoning districts. A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts. C lG 00 V 01 U7 .p W N m � c �• N UN Q 0 fu -0 O r v (D � z O - 3 fD • VQ ^ cr m CA C C D m a+a N m C) O m 0 0=0% fm+ O 0 Ul 0 O ET O � o � � O V W Mayor Robert E. Simison City Council Members: V I�IAl�T John Overton, President �"� Anne Little Roberts,Vice President Brian Whitlock Liz Strader Doug Taylor Luke Cavener June 9,2026 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner CC: City Clerk RE: Syringa Crossing(H-2025-0007)—Application Revisions Since the Commission hearing,the Applicant made some changes to the site plan to address comments from the Planning&Zoning Commission, as follows: • Revamped the NW multi-family area slightly to achieve a more efficient layout with safer access onto the collector backage road; • Increased connectivity and integration of NW corner office uses; • Created a more predictable,usable parking area and drive aisle network on NW corner; • Added additional plaza/amenity space on NW corner throughout the site; • Added additional shops space on NW corner with larger patio areas; • Strengthened pedestrian connectivity and quasi-public space between the SW commercial and multi- family areas; • Revamped multi-family area on SW corner to accommodate additional quasi-public transition space and quasi-public amenity space throughout; • Added—8,000 SF of office space on SW corner in place of 20 residential units The Commission Recommendation staff report has not been updated with the revised application information/plans since the Commission did not review this information as part of their recommendation. Here is a link to the updated application information/plans: https://weblink.meridiancity.ora/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=446600&dbid=0&repo=MeridianClt COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT C` fE IDIAN -- DEPARTMENT REPORT A"o HEARING June 16,2026 legend DATE: Continued from:May 19, 2026 Project Location. Area of Impact @ s TO: Mayor& City Council -4.= City Limits FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner Analysis - 208-884-5533 m @� sallen@meridiancity.org APPLICANT: Hawkins Companies 1 •` ram- SUBJECT: H-2025-0007 1 1 Syringa Crossing Mixed-Use - Development(aka Hawkins Syringa ; Crossing Subdivision)—AZ, CUP,PP 1 \ LOCATION: Generally located at the northwest and I 1 southwest corners of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 &W. Amity Rd., in the SE 1/4 of Section 25,T.3N.,R.1 W and the NE 1/4 of Section 36, T.3N.,R.IW. I. PROJECT OVERVIEW A. Summary The Applicant has submitted the following application requests: • Annexation of 62.43-acres of land with R-15 (9.76 acres),R-40(18.01 acres), L-O 3.05 acres C-N(2.07 acres), and C-C(942 29.54 acres), and r r(23.47 .,e fes)zoning districts; • Preliminary Plat consisting of 8 building lots on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts for Hawkins Syringa Crossing Subdivision; and • Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 322 residential apartment units on 16.35-acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. B. Issues/Waivers Issues: The proposed conceptual development plan and C G zoning is not consistent with the general mixed use and MU-C principles in the Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: • The proposed development is not functionally integrated in holistic design and integration of uses per the design principles in the Plan(i.e.the uses function as individual components,not together, as desired). • The southwest corner(SWC) of the development is 72%residential with a gross density of 18.23 units per acre,which is 22%more residential than the maximum allowed of 50%and 3.23 units per acre over the maximum allowed density of 15 units per acre. Commensurate City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview levels of employment and other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips are not provided due to the excess of residential area and density provided. doesn'tdesignated area for-the following reasons: e The C G dist+iet is not listed as a sample zoning distriet in the MU G designation as it's a Paor-e intense dist-Fiet typieally rvsef�ved for-the largest seale a-ad broadest fni*of retail, offiee, serviee, and light industfial uses in Commer-eial and Mixed Use Regional(Mu- R) designated areas. e The G G zoning distr-iet for-the planned offiee and eommer-eial areas transitio ' . - id uses between the proposed eommer-eial and multi ftani4y residential development on the noithern portion of the development area and fi+ttife residential uses to the west. e The C G zoning district allows a variety of more intense non offlee uses,which may not be appropriate adjaeeat to residential uses and eould limit the mix of uses i • A mix of three (3)different land use types(i.e. commercial, office,residential, civic and industrial)are required to be provided in each development area. The neft -west eome� r-esidefttial),whieh if developed, opts the -e f 1m,1 use types u,,we ,o, Staff is eeneemed if other-non offiee eew.-Aer-eiai uses develop in the G G distr-iet,the mix of uses will be-ade"ate.The SWC of the development only includes a mix of two(2)different land use types (residential and commercial). • Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are not provided in either development,which increases service and transportation network impacts. • Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places such as parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, linear open space and schools, do not comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area on the SWC. These areas are not located in spaces between residential and non-residential uses to provide integration and transition between uses in either development area. • The updated conceptual engineering plans for sewer and water service for the proposed development, submitted on FebFu 17t1i,have not yet been reviewed by the Public Works Dept. as of the date of transmittal of this report;therefore,it's unknown if this development can be serviced as proposed.LDIR-2026-0006 for the sewer portion has received° anal approval; water has not yet been approved. Waivers: 1) The UDC 11-4-3-27C.8 states common open space areas in multi-family developments shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks on the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The Applicant requests approval through the CUP for common open space areas in the multi-family development to be located adjacent to a collector street buffer without a berm or barrier separating it from the street. The reason for such is an enhanced interaction is desired between the street and 10' multi-use pathway along the collector street with a narrower street section and wider pathway adjacent to common areas. 2) The UDC(11-3H-4B.2a)prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. City Council may consider and approve a modification to the standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council. The Applicant is requesting Council approval of the proposed access south of City of Meridian I Department Report 1. Project Overview Amity Rd.; comments have been received from ITD on the that they will approve a right-in/right-out access. C. Recommendation Staff. Denial Commission: Pending D. Decision Council: Pending 11. COMMUNITY METRICS Table 1: Land Use Description Details Map Ref. Existing Land Use(s) Northwest corner(NWC): Single-family residential, - vacant/undeveloped agricultural land. (There is an existing multi-tenant building with a church and office space and a transfer station for Northwest Pipeline Corp. along Meridian Rd.,which will remain and are included in the annexation but not the development area.) Southwest corner(SWC): Wholesale nursery(Victory Greens) _ Proposed Land Use(s) NWC: Commercial(grocery store,retail shops,restaurants and a bank,some with drive-throughs),office(i.e.medical office,gym,daycare,personal service,professional service),and multi-family residential(townhome-style& apartments). SWC: Commercial(restaurants,retail shops,drive-through establishments,fuel sales facility/convenience store)and multi-family residential. Existing Zoning RUT&LO in Ada County VILA.2 Proposed Zoning R-15 (9.76 acres),R-40(18.01 acres),L-O(3.05 acres),C- N(2.07 acres),C-C(94-2 20.42 acres),and G G(23.47 Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) VILA.3 Table 2: Process Facts Description Details Prcapplication Meeting date 1/21/2025 Neighborhood Meeting 1/21/2025 Table 3: Community Metrics Agency/Element Description/Issue Reference Ada County Highway IV.J District � • Comments Yes—The proposed development requires revisions to meet ACHD - Received policies. • Commission No - Action Required • Access Access is proposed via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69,W.Amity Rd.,W.Lyra - St., S. Solaris Ave.and S.Hermatite Ave.as shown on the concept plan and preliminary plat. • Traffic Level of Meets ACHD's LOS planning thresholds - Service(LOS) • TIS Required? Yes,mitigation is required City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics ITD Comments ITD is reviewing the TIS and working on a staff report. Received Meridian Public Distance to Mainline: See Public Works site specific conditions;Impacts Works Wastewater or Concerns: See Public Works site specific conditions Meridian Public Distance to Mainline: available at site;Impacts or Concerns:none Works Water = School District(s) (Enter school district providing service) • Capacity of See Communi Development School Impact Data IILI Schools Enrollment Capacity • Number of Mary McPherson Elementary School 526 550* Program Capacity Victory Middle School 1094 1000 Students Meridian High School 1739 2075 Enrolled • Estimated#of This development could have 67 school aged children students See City/Agency Comments and Conditions Section for all department/agency comments received. Figure 1: One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Metrics Reference Parcel:S122544965D Date Retrieved:2026 12 113 Parcel Court Parcel Acreage Infill Indicator: _ S69 Surrounding Area 1,535 1 % Prot city ® City Limits 1,179 ■ Notcty Household Change Household&Population GrovAh Households 02020 Population Change: 37.696 Population ■Growth (Household and Population Change since 2010 Decennial) 5,000 10,000 15,000 Use Types Residential Addresses All Addresses ■ Single-family 9 0% 69b ® Multi-family 5 ® Commercial Preliminary Plats(last 5- rs) Conditional Use Permit (last 5-years) Proposed Proposed Pending Pending Approved Approved 0 1000000 2001)DD0 30ODDd0 4000000 0 200 400 fX ■ Single-family ® Multi-family City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics 2.00 1,500 Single-family N Residential 1.50 � 1,000 Parcel Diversity w 1.00 ip.27 13ParcelCount i 0.50 500 a 0 Average Acres 0.00 0 0 R-2 R-4 R-15 Average Single-family Density by Zoning Average 15.00 DensityResidential Net a 10.00 10.35 590 3.75 ./s.as 5.41 a-ooa.aa Dwelling Units i Acre R-2 R-4 R,g R-15 Notes: See VIII.Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables,and Charts. Figure 2:ACHD Summary Metrics ACHD Planned Improvements 1. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP} Firm Year Plan (FYP): Amity Road Is scheduled in the FYP as the Amily Corridor A project to be widened to 5-1anes from SH-69 (Meridian Read) to Locust Grove Road with a construction year yet to be determined. * Victory Road is scheduled in the FYP as the Victory Corridor project to be widened 10 erthee 3-lanes or 5-lanes from SH-69(Meridian Road)to Locust Grove road with a construction year yet to be determined- . The intersection of Amity load and Margaret Avenue is scheduled in the FYP as part of the Amity Carridcr A project to be improved with a pedestrian crossing with a construction year yet to be determined- . The intersection of Amity Road and Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the FYP to he reconstructed as a rnulli-lane roundabout with 1-lane on the north leg, 1-lane on the south.2- lanes east, and 2-lanes on the west leg with a construction year yet to be determined, * Victory Road is listed in the CIP to he widened to 3•lanes from Linder Road to Meridian Road between 2031 and 2035. ■ Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CLP to be widened to 3-lanes from Linder Road to SH-69 (Meridian Road)between 2036 and 2040. * Linder Road is I isted in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to Amity Road between 2036 and 2040. Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 34alnes from Amity Road to Victory Road bel"en 2036 and 2040. * The intersection of Amity Road and 811-1-65(Meridian Road)is listed in the CIP to be widened to 6-lanes on the north leg, 6-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and Nanes on the west ley, and re-signalized between 2031 and 2035. ■ The intersection of Amity Road and Linder Road Is Bled in the CIP to be reconstructed as a single lane roundabout 4-lanes on the north leg, 4-lanes on the south. 2-lanes east. and 2- lane5 on the west leg between 2036 and 2040. * The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and SH•69 (Meridian Road) is listed in the CIP to be widened to 64anes on dsa north leg, 6-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and 7-lanes on the west leg, and re-signalized between 2036 and 2040. Note:Notice the timing of the above-noted planned improvements. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics Northwest Parcel: Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1_ Condition of Area Roadways Trarfir.Count is based on Vehicle5 per hour(VPHI Roadway rrantage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of SINICa ***SH-69(Wrldlan 1,219-feat Principal Arterial 1,561 NIA Road 'Am ly Road 1,169-feet Minor Arterial 347 Better than"E' —Lyra Street 450-feet Oollector NJA NSA *Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is"E"(575 VPH), �•Acceptable level of service for a two-Iano collector ig'D-(42:5 VPH), *"ACHO does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways_ 2. Average Daily Traffic Count(VDT) A mage daffy lyaffro counts are based-on ACHO s most carrenl tmffm coot;rtts. The averacje daily traffic Mount for SH-69(Meridian Road)south of Victory Road was 33.SM on October 71,2D21. The average daily lrafFic count for Amity Road between Linder Road and SH-69 (MendLen Road)was 7.602 belween October W"and Novernber 2114,2024. + There are no currerrt traffic counts available for Lyra Street, Southwest Parcel: Level of Service Planning Thresholds 1. Condition of Area Roadways Traffic Count is based on Vehicles per hour(VPH) Roadway Frontage Functional PM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Classification Traffic Count Level of Service ** SH-$9Weridian goad 1,263-feet Principal Arterial 1,798 NIA Amity Road 829-feet Minor Arterial 347 Better than"E" Acceptable level of service for a two-lane minor arterial is "E"(575 VPH). "ACH❑ does not set level of service thresholds for State Highways- 2. Average Daily Traffic Count (VDT) Average daily traffic counts are based on ACHD's most current traffic counts. • The average daily traffic count for SH-691Meridian Road south of Amity Road was 39,548 on October Ss", 2024. • The average daily traffic count for Amity Road between tinder Road and SH-69lMeridian Road was 7,602 between October 161h and November 21", 2024. Notes: See VIII.B Additional Notes &Details for Staff Report Maps,Tables, and Charts. City of Meridian I Department Report II. Community Metrics III. STAFF ANALYSIS Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code(UDC) Table 4: Proiect Overview Description Details History CPA-08-004/AZ-08-005/VAR-08-008-Meridian&Amity [an amendment to the FLUM was approved from Medium Density Residential (MDR)to Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R);Annexation with R-15,L-O,C- C and C-G zoning approved pending DA;variance for(3)accesses via Meridian/SH-69—withdrawn];MDA-11-010(2-year time extension to sign DA-approved);VAR-12-001 [(3)accesses via Meridian/SH-69— approved]Because the DA was never signed, the property wasn't annexed. Phasing Plan 1 phase of development is proposed for the preliminary plat at the SWC. Residential Units NWC: 101 multi-family units(mix of apartments and townhome-style)- conceptual SWC: 322 multi-family apartment units Open Space SWC multi-family development: 1.85-acres required/3.14-acres proposed Amenities SWC multi-family development:tot lot,swimming pool&spa,(2)dog parks,(3)pickleball courts,half basketball court,basketball court,(2) community gardens,and a shade structure Physical Features NWC:Carlson Lateral runs along west boundary of site;the Williams Northwest gas pipeline bisects the site. There is approximately a 10'grade difference on the site, sloping down from Amity Rd.to the north. SWC:The Carlson Lateral bisects the site in two(2)different locations. There is approximately a 25'grade difference on the site,sloping up from the northeast corner of the site to the center and sloping back down again to the south(see topography on Sheet PP2.0 of the plat). Acreage The annexation area is 62.43 acres,the preliminary plat area is 24.46 acres and the CUP area is 16.35 acres. Lots SWC: 8 building lots(6 commercial&2 residential)/0 common lots NWC:NA(plat is not proposed) Density NWC: 9.57 units/acre(gross)—Net density has not been provided SWC: 18.23 units/acre(gross)—Net density has not been provided A. History In 2010,the property at the NWC of Meridian/Amity received approval of an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) in the Comprehensive Plan from Medium Density Residential (MDR)to Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R) and annexation with R-15,L-O, C-C and C-G zoning districts, contingent upon approval of a Development Agreement(DA)within 12 months. A concurrent application for a variance for three(3) access points via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 was submitted but later withdrawn due to ITD's denial of the access. In 2011, a modification to the DA was approved,which allowed an additional two(2)years for the developer to sign the DA. In 2012, a variance was again submitted for the three(3)access points via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69,which was approved based on ITD's approval of the access due to policy changes. The DA was not signed within the required timeframe and the annexation approval expired. An amendment to the FLUM designation from MU-R to Mixed Use— Community(MU-C)was later approved with the Comprehensive Plan update in 2019. In 2021,the property owner of Parcel#R4622730010,Jessica Condominiums,Inc., entered into a Consent to Annexation agreement with the City,recorded as Inst. #2021-112368,and an Agreement for Provision of Water Service Outside Meridian City Limits,recorded as Inst.#2021- 112398. The Consent to Annexation agreement states the owner consents to annexation when such units are eligible for annexation and execution of such agreement is a condition of City's City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis commitment to provide water service to the property. The property is currently provided with City sewer and water service. B. General Overview Proposed development application summary: The Applicant proposes to annex a total of 62.43-acres of land located on the NWC and SWC of S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 and W. Amity Rd. with R-15 (9.76 acres),R-40(18.01 acres),L-O 3.05 acres C-N(2.07 acres-out-parcel with church/office uses), and C-C(9-42 20.42 acres) and E- zoning districts. At the request of Staff so as not to create County enclaves with the proposed annexation,the Applicant included the 1.59-acre property owned by Jessica Condominiums Inc. (Parcel#R4622730010), developed with a multi-tenant building with a church and office space; the 0.07-acre property owned by Intermountain Gas Co. (Parcel #S 1225449220)with utility infrastructure; and the 0.29-acre property owned by Northwest Pipeline Corp. (Parcel#S 1225449910)with a transfer station. A conceptual development plan is proposed for the overall annexation area, included below in Section V.E., showing how the property is anticipated to develop with 423 multi-family dwelling units consisting of 4-story podium apartments with parking on the ground floor, 3-story garden- style walk-up apartments and 3-story townhome-style units; 146,840+/- square feet(s.f.)of commercial space and 20,800+/-s.f. of office space. The property at the SWC is proposed to annex and develop at this time(i.e.Phase 1)with a preliminary plat and conditional use permit for a multi-family development. The NWC is only proposed to be annexed at this time(i.e. Phase 2)with a conceptual development plan. Both portions are eligible for annexation separately as each are contiguous to City annexed land. Phase 1 is proposed to consist of approximately 35,000 s.f. of commercial area anticipated to include restaurants,retail shops, a coffee shop and a gas station/convenience store in the C-C zoning district; and a 322-unit multi-family residential development in the R-40 zoning district. Commercial structures are anticipated to be a single-story in height;residential structures are anticipated to be 3 to 4-stories in height. Phase 2 consists of 30.6 acres of land proposed to develop with a 65,000+/- s.f. grocery store with retail shops,restaurants and a bank and 21,000+/- s.f. of office uses that could include medical office, a gym, a daycare,personal care services or professional services in the C—G L-O zoning district; all structures are anticipated to be a single-story in height. A 101-unit multi-family residential development is proposed consisting of a mix of 4-story apartments and 2 to 3-story townhome-style units in the R-15 zoning district. A Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit(CUP)are proposed for the SWC of the annexation area. The plat consists of 8 building lots(6 commercial&2 residential)on 24.46 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-C zoning districts and is proposed to develop in one(1) final plat phase. The CUP is for a multi-family residential development consisting of 322 apartment units on 16.35-acres of land in the R-40 zoning district,located on the southern portion of the SWC property.A mix of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom units are proposed for a variety of living situations. The Applicant requests the following be included in the development agreement to provide for flexibility to develop the commercial and residential areas in accordance with changing community preferences and values.All changes would remain in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: (Staff's comments in italics) o Allowance for up to 15 dwelling units per acre across the residential area of the overall site for a total of 423 residential units.Because an arterial street bisects the project, the density is calculated on each of the mixed-use development areas and not the overall property; City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis therefore, Staff is not supportive of this request. As proposed, the density of 18.23 units/acre on the SWC exceeds the maximum allowed of 15 units per acre by 3.23 units/acre; and the residential area (72%) exceeds the maximum allowed(50%) by 22%. o Allowance for a deviation of up to 15%(higher or lower)of total gross floor area within each use type and Phase(Office,Commercial,Residential). The general layout of the site will be consistent with the submitted concept plan. The MU-C designation only includes a minimum and maximum percentage of residential uses—there is no such requirement for office and commercial uses. To achieve the mix of uses desired to support residential uses by providing employment opportunities, neighborhood services and other non-residential supporting services within the development, which reduces vehicle trips, residential uses should not exceed the established 50%maximum. Staff is not supportive of any deviations to the provisions in the Comprehensive Plan that would increase the allowed residential area or density. o Cross-access to the existing church/office parcel shall be granted at such time when development plans are submitted for the northwest corner of the site. The reason is because the exact location for cross-access will be determined by the final configuration of the proposed development and the future use of the office and church space at the time when cross-access is provided. Staff is amenable to this request as access is currently provided via S. Meridian Rd./SH--69. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: This property is designated Mixed Use—Community(MU-C) on the FLUM contained in the Comprehensive Plan and is part of a larger enclave area surrounded by City annexed land. The purpose of the mixed-use land use designations is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents,workers,and visitors. The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential,and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas tend to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU- N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted in Figure 3E. Functional Integration Development review for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan will consider the integration of use and holistic design sub-sections(below)in all mixed-use areas unless otherwise noted. To be successful,the principles outlined must be considered as interrelated features serving the basis of plan design. Contiguous Mixed Use identified areas that are bisected by an arterial or highway are considered separate and independent areas for use and design integration and will be evaluated independently of each other per the Plan(pp.3-14&3-16). City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis FA3. Mixed Use Community Concept Color Diagram with Markup Preference for i Retail.t5ffic�or fronting units with ti ! I Service Uses on-street parking for + i - Relail AnEhar new developments M � Multi-family 5mge•#ansEly it t Neighborhood Residential Connectivity d Neighborhood uses and integrated open space that _ "hold the corners"with LEGEND inward facing focus. Points of Interest Support for a variety of Primary Loral Corridor tom? l Community uses clustered (Visual and Physical) ;�' around shared urban amenities Secondary local Corridar ~ (`risua!and Physiral) i Figure 3E: Mixed Use Community Concept Diagram Single family I I { i , Residential Apartments, four plexes L or Duplexes Office, Local or Collector Road Day-care or Service Use a Integrated Plaza Area Do � ago Office or 0 Service Use _� 4 Retail the JL(Q:T Arterial Road City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis Integration of Uses—Review Successful projects reduce vehicle trips for nearby residents and/or visitors by having frequent, accessible and safe pedestrian connections. Residential and non-residential areas feel cohesive, as one neighborhood, even when developed across multiple properties over multiple years or by different developers. Consistent with the Plan Review Yes No N/A Design Principle& Review Design Principle: Mixed use projects are to be developed with an overall master or conceptual plan for the larger mixed-use area; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for projects with a Mixed Use,future land Q ❑ ❑ use designation. Review:A conceptual development plan was submitted for the overall annexation area. If the property is annexed, a development agreement (DA)will be required as a provision of annexation. Design Principle: Mixed use areas must include at least three land use types within a designation. Exceptions may be granted for Mixed Use designations smaller than 10 acres on a case-by-case basis. Individual projects within a large mixed use designation area may not warrant a mix of uses, provided compliance with a larger vision and integration of uses. Note:For the purposes of the Mixed- Use section, the City identifies five(5)different generalized land use types:commercial(includes retail, restaurants, daycares, etc.); Q Q ❑ office;residential;civic(includes both public and quasi-public open space for leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces);and industrial. Review:The NWC includes a mix of three (3) different land use types consisting of multi-family residential (apartment and townhome style units), office and commercial,which complies with this design principle.The SWC only includes two(2)different land use types consisting of multi-family residential (apartments) and commercial,which does not comply with this design principle.See the conceptual development plan below in Section V.E. Design Principle: High intensity residential (higher density or significant percent of an overall mixed-use area) requires commensurate levels of employment or other non-residential elements supporting residents and reducing local vehicle trips (see specific allowances of residential and non-residential within each Q Q ❑ sub-category). The specific allowance of residential is 20-50%of the development area with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units per acre;if transit is available, an additional 15%is allowed. Review: In the NWC, 34%of the 30.66-acre site is residential at a gross density of 9.57 units per acre based on 101 units on 10.55 acres of land,which complies with this design principle. In the SWC, City of Meridian Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 72%of the 24.45-acre development area is residential at a gross density of 18.23 units per acre based on 322 units on 17.66 acres of land,which is not consistent with this principle.The excess residential area and density limits commensurate levels of employment or other non-residential supporting elements that reduce local vehicle trips. Design Principle: Mixed use projects must inherently support intentional opportunities for neighborhood and community services such as recreation centers (e.g. —specialized gyms), daycares, and office (e.g. -professional offices). Some of these uses do not need prominent arterial road visibility to be successful but instead rely on strong connectivity and access nearer to residential and employment areas. Q ❑ ❑ Review: Office pads are proposed on the NWC as a transition between the grocery store and multi-family residential area that could house such neighborhood and community services in accord with this design principle; h^wever, there ; RG gUaFaRtee these afl �the .1-pirgest scale a""irauhrr^vcadest mix of retail, office, ` rvrry"cc and light industrial uses, pless r.,r+riete J f.,r eh through the hn No such uses are proposed on the SW portion of the development,which is not consistent with this design principle. Design Principle: Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools, civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in most mixed-use developments thereby reducing extraordinary service and transportation network impacts. ❑ Q ❑ Review: No such facilities are included in the proposed development,which does not comply with this design principle and will have a negative impact on the service and transportation network.There is an existing church on the periphery of the NW portion of the site in the multi-tenant building oriented toward Meridian Rd./SH-69 that is not part of the proposed development. Design Principle: Supportive and proportional outdoor public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including, but not limited to, parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, linear open space, and schools are expected. These areas may be located in spaces between residential and non-residential uses to provide both Q Q ❑ integration and transition between uses. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants are not considered supportive public spaces unless integrated into shared open space, natural amenities, and interconnected with cohesive pathway elements. Review: On the NWC, a plaza area is proposed at the southeast corner between Pads A& B with a pathway connecting to a linear City of Meridian Department Report Ill. Staff Analysis open space area adjoining Pads D & E; and another plaza area is proposed between the office buildings on Pads J & K,which complies with this design principle. On the SWC, a plaza area is proposed at the northeast corner of the development area but no other significant quasi-public areas are provided,which does not comply with this design principle. No schools are proposed. Neither of the quasi-public areas are located between the multi- family and non-residential uses for integration and transition of uses. Holistic Design—Review The uses and site elements of a proposed mixed-use project will be designed foremost around the idea of visible, attractive, and accessible destinations. The designer(s) must purposefully layout features to create focal elements that are visibly and physically linked within a development, to ensure that residents and employees have prioritized access to the places and services of most interest. Consistency with the Plan Review Yes No N/A Design Principle& Review Design Principle: Mixed use areas are to be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi-public centers of activity. Spaces must be designed with community supportive purpose, incorporate permanent design elements with features to promote frequent use, and support amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from relaxation to play.These areas must be strategically integrated into the overall development, interconnected with meaningful points of interest, prioritize pedestrian infrastructure, be highly visible and accessible, and designed to enhance both the adjacent uses and larger mixed-use area. Review: On the NWC, commercial building pads are arranged ❑ Q ❑ around a linear quasi-public space with pedestrian pathways and green space that connects to the plaza area at the southeast corner of the site that is highly visible. Only the commercial area is situated around the area,which doesn't meet this design principle as the larger mixed-use area is not centered around it and therefore doesn't provide an integration and transition of uses as desired. On the SWC,the plaza at the northeast corner of the site is the only significant quasi-public area and uses aren't centered around it, it's on the periphery of the development. Other common open space areas are part of the multi-family development,are private in nature and situated internal to the multi-family development,which does not comply with this City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis design principle. Permanent design elements to promote frequent use and amenities that foster a wide range of interests are not identified other than pedestrian pathways and hardscape areas with planters. Design Principle: In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed, the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space. Review: On the NWC, commercial Pads D & E on the eastern portion of development are arranged to create a common, Q ❑ ❑ usable green space area; commercial Pads A& B are arranged to create a plaza area; and office Pads J & K are arranged to create a small green space area between the buildings, which complies with the design principle. On the SWC, commercial Pads C& D at the northeast corner of the site are arranged to create a plaza area, which complies with the design principle. Design Principle: Open space should be purposeful in supporting a visible community and utilized to enhance synergies between residential and non-residential uses. Review: Open space in the proposed development is not ❑ Q ❑ situated to enhance synergies between residential and non- residential uses—open space is provided separately in the residential and commercial portions of the development, which does not provide interaction between uses and does not comply with this design principle. Design Principle: Open space should be prioritized along natural or naturalized amenities (i.e. creeks and canals), integrated with pathways and pedestrian corridors, and located away from site features that may obscure visibility and attract dangerous or illegal behavior. Review:There are no natural amenities on this site—existing Q ❑ ❑ laterals are proposed to be piped. On the NWC,the commercial open space area is integrated with pathways, is highly visible and located away from site features that may obscure visibility, which complies with this design principle. On the SWC,the open space areas in the multi-family development are integrated with pathways and are highly visible from within the development and from the collector street, which complies with this design principle. Design Principle: Commercial drive aisles must contemplate a Q ❑ ❑ pedestrian friendly built environment with a minimal number of conflict points, and oriented so that aisle ingress and egress is City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis generally parallel to multiuse pathways, sidewalks, and linear open space. Drive aisles supporting primary pedestrian connectivity for a site must feel safe and should include planted and/or hardscaped parkway treatment, or other enhanced separation with both aesthetic and safety benefits. Review:The proposed drive aisles contemplate a pedestrian friendly environment with landscaped parkways providing separation between adjacent drive aisles,with aisles generally parallel to pedestrian walkways, which complies with this design principle. Design Principle:All mixed-use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both automotive and alternative- vehicular transportation opportunities. Pedestrian circulation must be convenient and interconnect different land use types. Q ❑ ❑ Vehicle connectivity must not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. Review:The proposed projects are accessible to adjacent existing and future neighborhoods by streets, sidewalks and multi-use pathways, which complies with this design principle. Design Principle:A mixed-use project should be designed to support alternative transportation such as public transit stops, park-and-ride lots, other ride sharing services including auto, bike, or scooter, and/or other innovative or alternative modes of transportation. Alternative transportation improvements should ❑ ❑ Q be integrated as functional, convenient, and comfortable spaces. Electric charging stations for a variety of transportation modes is encouraged. Review: No public transit routes exist or are planned in this area, nor are ride share lots or other such services. Electric charging stations are encouraged. Design Principle: Non-residential buildings should transition to and complement adjacent residential buildings in mass and form, and include safe and meaningful mitigation for operational impacts such as loading docks, storage, and outdoor equipment. Review: On the NWC, single-story office buildings are planned Q ❑ ❑ adjacent to 2 and 3-story multi-family structures, which shouldn't have negative operational impacts and complies with this design principle. On the SWC, single-story commercial buildings are separated from 3 and 4-story multi-family residential buildings by a local street with landscape buffers on each side, which complies with this design principle.There shouldn't be any negative City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis operational impacts from commercial uses on the adjacent residential development. Design Principle: New buildings on pad sites adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods should be limited to no more than a 1-story disparity in building height (or floor height equivalent). Natural features, differences in grade, and other context Q ❑ ❑ sensitive neighborhood preservation design features should be considered with transitions. Review:There are no existing single-family neighborhoods adjacent to proposed pad sites. Proposed pad sites are anticipated to have single-story buildings. Design Principle:Transitions between different residential product types and dissimilar land uses should include the use of alleys, roadways with landscaped parkways, or highly connected open space.The use of barriers such as closed vision fencing or walls that limit connectivity and reduce visibility are typically not appropriate as transitions. Q Q ❑ Review: On the NWC, there is no such transition between the residential and non-residential portion of the development, which doesn't comply with this design principle. On the SWC,the proposed multi-family buildings are separated from commercial uses by a local street and landscaped parkways, which complies with this design principle. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)—Review The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non- residential buildings in these areas tend to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. Consistency with the Plan Yes No N/A Design Principle& Review Design Principle: Development must comply with the Functional Integration Q Q ❑ principles for development in all Mixed-Use areas. Review: See above analysis. Design Principle: Residential uses are expected to comprise between 20% and 50%of the development area, with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre (of the residential area). Review: On the NWC, 34%of the 30.66-acre site is conceptually residential at a gross density of 9.57 units per acre based on 101 units on 10.55 acres of Q Q ❑ land, which complies with the design principle. On the SWC, 72%of the 24.45-acre site is residential at a gross density of 18.23 units per acre based on 322 units on 17.66 acres of land,which exceeds the maximum allowed and does not comply with the design principle. Note: The density is not calculated cumulatively between the NWC& the SWC because the development is bisected by an arterial street. Design Principle: Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places should comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area are required. Review: On the NWC, quasi-public spaces and places appear to comply with the minimum percentage of the development area required in accord with Q Q ❑ this design principle. On the SWC, quasi-public spaces and places do not meet the minimum percentage required in the commercial area and the open space areas in the multi-family development don't qualify toward this requirement since they're private in nature and meant for residents of the multi-family development, which does not comply with this design guideline. Design Principle: Where the development site has transit available or stops are planned, an additional 15% of the site may be dedicated to residential uses. Alternatively, this bonus may be applied where the development site is within one-mile of planned transit stops or an identified employment area, and where last-mile transportation features are incorporated into the site ❑ Q ❑ including thoughtfully located and integrated ride share parking, commensurate with potential trip capture. Other innovations to reduce traffic and/or parking impacts and capture local trips may be considered. Review: Public transit is not available in this area, no routes or stops are planned and no ride-share-parking exists or is planned in this area, thus making more neighborhood-serving uses essential in this area to capture local trips. Q ❑ ❑ Design Principle:Sample uses appropriate in MU-C areas include: All MU-N categories, community scale grocers, clothing stores, garden centers, City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis hardware stores, restaurants, banks, drive-thru facilities, auto service station, retail shops, and other appropriate community-serving uses. Sample zoning includes: R-15, R-40,TN-R,TN-C, C-C, and L-O. Review:A 65,000 s.f. grocery store, restaurants, coffee shop, a bank, drive- through facilities, fuel sales facility/convenience store, retail shops, office type uses (i.e. professional/personal services, medical office, gym, daycare, etc.) and multi-family residential uses are proposed,which is generally consistent with the MU-C designation.Staff recommends the grocery store not exceed 65,000 s.f. to ensure a traditional community scale grocer. Based on the above-noted general mixed-use and MU-C design principles and analysis, Staff does not find the proposed development plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, cannot provide a recommendation of approval on the annexation request and consequently the preliminary plat and conditional use permit requests.Additionally,the plans for extension of sewer and water service for this development area do not meet City standards as submitted and are not approved. If City Council determines the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City at this time, Staff recommends the following modifications to the Applicant's request: • Removal of the NWC development from the annexation area until such time as development is proposed to ensure zoning isn't granted without a more firm plan in place for development that complies with the Comprehensive Plan. • The zoning of the office uses on the NWC of the development • Pads 1,j, L 0 instead of C G for-the following reasons: • The L 0 distfiet is less intense and pr-ovides a befter-tFansition in zoning and uses between the groeef�, stofe to the soi4h and the multi family f:esideiitial deNelopment to the north and futufe residential to the west. distAet afe limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm when the propei:ty abt4s a residential use of dktpiet. The Applicant is now requesting L-O zoning. • The zoning of the eommer-eial uses on the NIAIC of the development is C C instead r for-the following reasonsi City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis z9in#e ig",in height. e it provides a better-tfansition to ft4afe meditim deasity Fesidei#ial uses to the west a-ad operation within either di-striet are knikedfroni 6.-00 a.ni. to 11.-00 .ni. when the pFo 4 abuts a residential use ep dktyiety a C—Up ntay be requestedfor extended hours in eithe The Applicant is now requesting C-C zoning, • The conceptual development plan for the SWC of the development should be revised to reflect residential uses comprising between 20% and 50% of the development area with gross densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre(of the residential area). Currently, 72%of the 24.45-acre site is residential at a gross density of 18.23 units per acre. • If the NWC property is annexed,the conceptual development plan for that development should be revised to include driveway(s) accesses to the out-parcels(#R4622730010, #51225449220�) along S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 that currently take access via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 for internal access from within the site. C. Site Development and Use Analysis Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.02E—Encourage the development of high quality, dense residential and mixed-use areas near in and around Downtown,near employment, large shopping centers,public open spaces and parks,and along major transportation corridors, as shown on the Future Land Use Map. 1. Existing Structures/Site Improvements (UDC 11-1): NWC: There is an existing multi-tenant building with a church and office space and an existing utility infrastructure for Intermountain Gas Co. and transfer station for Northwest Pipeline Corp. with associated improvements on three(3) out-parcels along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 included in the annexation area. There is also an existing home and accessory structures on the west parcel that will be removed with redevelopment of the site. The remainder of the site is vacant/undeveloped agricultural land. SWC: There is an existing structure and accessory structures on the property that will be removed with redevelopment of the site. 2. Proposed Use Analysis (UDC 11-2): The proposed uses as shown on the proposed conceptual development plan and described in the application narrative are all desired uses in the MU-C designation, although the percentage and density of residential uses on the SWC of the project exceeds the maximum allowed. The proposed uses are all principally permitted in the proposed zoning districts except for multi-family residential,which requires conditional use approval, and drive-through establishments,which also require conditional use approval if they're within 300' of an existing residence or residential district. 3. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2): See UDC Tables 11-2A-7 and 11-2A-8 for dimensional standards of the R-15 and R-40 zoning districts,respectively;UDC 11-4-3-27B.1 for multi-family residential; and UDC Table 11-213-3 for dimensional standards of the L-O, C-N, and C-C zoning districts. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis 4. Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3): Staff has included links to the specific use standards below applicable to the identified uses for information purposes only. Staff is only including analysis on consistency with these standards for the multi-family residential proposed on the southwest portion of the SWC development with the CUP application. Analysis of the other use's consistency with these standards will take place with future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and/or CUP application(s), as applicable. Restaurant—UDC 11-4-3-49 Financial institution—UDC 11-4-3-17 Fuel Sales Facility—UDC 11-4-3-20 Daycare Facility—UDC 11-4-3-9 Arts,entertainment or recreation facility,indoors and outdoors (i.e.gym) —UDC 114- 3-2 Drive-through Establishment—UDC 11-4-3-11 Multi-family Development—UDC 11-4-3-27 A CUP is only requested for the multi-family residential development on the SWC of the development;therefore,the following analysis only applies to that multi-family development and not the one proposed on the NWC of the development. Multi-family developments with multiple properties shall be considered as one(1)property for the purpose of implementing the standards set forth in this section.Note:Although two (2) lots are proposed for flexibility of ownership and financing/refinancing opportunities for the multi family development, the development will share all common areas, open space, amenities, and maintenance responsibilities and operate as a single development. A. Purpose 1. To implement the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Plan for safe, attractive, and well-maintained neighborhoods that have ample open space, and generous amenities that provide varied lifestyle choices. b. Require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools,and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities as part of new multi-family residential and mixed-use developments. 2. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality of life of its residents. a. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the visual character of the community. b. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and well-integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. c. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community, provide an attractive setting for buildings, and provide safe,interesting outdoor spaces for residents. B. Site design 1. Residential buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten(10)feet unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title and/or Title 10 of this Code. City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis Building setbacks shall take into account windows, entrances,porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. The proposed structures comply with this standard. 2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street.All such areas should be depicted on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance in accord with this standard. 3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping,entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in Section 11-513-5 of this title. The open space exhibit states 80 sf. will be provided for each unit. The floor plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with this standard if the use is approved. 4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas,and private usable open space shall not be considered common open space.None of these areas are included in the common open space. 5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. Comply with this standard. 6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts",of this title. The proposed parking complies with these standards (see Section 111.1). 4 below for more information). 7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following: a. A property management office. b. A maintenance storage area. C. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access. d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The location of these items are required to be depicted on plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application if the use is approved. C. Common open space design requirements 1. The total baseline land area of all qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten(10)percent of the gross land area for multi-family developments of five(5)acres or more.When multi-family is approved concurrently with single- family,the minimum open space requirements in Section 11-3G-3 shall apply to the gross land area of entire development. The proposed multi family development consists of 16.35 acres of land; therefore, the baseline requirement is 1.64 acres; a total of 2.28 acres is provided per the open space exhibit included below in Section V.M. City of Meridian I Department Report 111. Staff Analysis 2. All common open space shall meet the following standards: a. The development plan shall demonstrate that the open space has been integrated into the development as a priority and not for the use of land after all other elements of the development have been designed. Open space areas that has been given priority in the development design have: (1) Direct pedestrian access; (2) High visibility; (3) Comply with Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CTED) standards; and (4) Support a range of leisure and play activities and uses. Irregular shaped, disconnected or isolated open spaces shall not meet this standard. b. Open space shall be accessible and well connected throughout the development. This quality can be shown with open spaces that are centrally located within the development, accessible by pathway and visually accessible along collector streets or as a terminal view from a street. c. The open space promotes the health and well-being of its residents. Open space shall support active and passive uses for recreation, social gathering and relaxation to serve the development. The proposed open space areas have been integrated into the development as a priority, are accessible by pathways and internal drive-aisles, are highly visible and incorporate a mix of active and passive uses as desired. 3. Alternative compliance is available for the standards listed in subsections(C)1 and (C)2 above,if a project has a unique targeted demographic;utilizes other place- making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. 4. All multi-family projects over twenty(20)units shall provide at least one (1) common grassy area integrated into the site design allowing for general activities by all ages. This area may be included in the minimum required open space total. Projects that provide safe access to adjacent public parks or parks under a common HOA,without crossing an arterial roadway, are exempt from this standard. a. Minimum size of common grassy area shall be at least five thousand(5,000) square feet in area. This area shall increase proportionately as the number of units increase and shall be commensurate to the size of the multi-family development as determined by the decision-making body. Where this area cannot be increased due to site constraints, it may be included elsewhere in the development. b. Alternative compliance is available for the standards listed in subsections (C)1 and(C)2 above,if a project has a unique targeted demographic; utilizes other place-making design elements in Old-Town or mixed-use future land use designations with collectively integrated and shared open space areas. Several common grassy areas are provided that meet and exceed this standard. 5. In addition to the baseline open space requirement,a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred (500)or less square feet of living area. b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. All 322 units have between 500 and 1,200 square feet of living area. Therefore, a minimum of 1.85 acres of outdoor common open space is required—a total of 3.14 acres is provided, exceeding the minimum standard by 1.29 acres. 6. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area, and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty(20) feet.All common open space areas counted toward qualified open space meet this standard. 7. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. The development is not proposed to be phased. 8. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The common open space adjacent to S. Meridian Rd./SH--69 will be separated from the street by a 3-4'tall berm and barrier. The common open space adjacent to S. Hermatite Ave. is proposed to not have a berm/barrier—the Applicant requests City Council approval of such through the CUP. 9. Buffer(s): One hundred(100)percent of the landscape buffer along collector streets and fifty(50)percent of the landscape buffer along arterial streets that meet the enhanced buffer requirements below may count towards the required baseline open space. a. Enhanced landscaping as set forth in Article 11-313,Landscaping Requirements; b. Multi-use pathways; c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; d. Enhanced context with the surroundings. Because the landscape buffers along the collector street(i.e. S.Hermatite Ave.) and arterial street(i.e. S.Meridian Rd./SH--69) are both counted toward the required common open space, compliance with these standards is required. Ten- foot-wide multi-use pathways are proposed along both streets. D. Site development amenities 1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows: a. Quality of life. (1) Clubhouse (2) Fitness facilities City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis (3) Enclosed bike storage (4) Public art such as a statue (5) Dog park with waste station (6) Commercial outdoor kitchen (7) Fitness course (8) Enclosed storage b. Open space (1) Community garden (2) Ponds or water features (3) Plaza (4) Picnic area including tables,benches, landscaping and a structure for shade. c. Recreation (1) Pool (2) Walking trails (3) Children's play structures (4) Sports courts d. Multi-modal amenity standards. (1) Bicycle repair station (2) Park and ride lot (3) Sheltered transit stop (4) Charging stations for electric vehicles 2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows: a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two (2) amenities shall be provided from two(2) separate categories. b. For multi-family development between twenty(20) and seventy-five(75) units,three(3) amenities shall be provided,with one(1)from each category. c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided,with at least one(1)from each category. d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision-making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. The amenity rendering included below in Section V.M depicts the following amenities from each category: Quality of life: Clubhouse,(2)dog parks Open space: Community garden, shade structure City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis Recreation: Swimming pool and spa,walking trails, children's play structure and sports courts [(3)pickleball courts and a half basketball court]. If the use is approved,based on 322 units, Staff recommends the following additional amenities from the Multi-modal category: bicycle repair station and charging stations for electric vehicles.As part of the proposed amenities, waste stations in the dog parks and a picnic area,including tables,benches and landscaping are required with the shade structure.A detail of the proposed children's play equipment should also be submitted. 3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar level of amenity. E. Landscaping requirements 1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this Title. Street buffer landscaping is required with development of the subdivision per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Parking lot landscaping is required with site development per the standards in UDC 11-3B-8C and will be reviewed for compliance with these standards with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. 2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: a. The landscaped area shall be at least three(3)feet wide. b. For every three(3)linear feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four(24)inches shall be planted. c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. If the use is approved, the landscape plans submitted with the final plat and Certificate of Zoning Compliance, as applicable, should be revised to reflect compliance with these standards. F. Maintenance and ownership responsibilities. All multi-family developments shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features. G. Police access under exigent circumstances. Multifamily developments with units that take access via secured common corridors shall install and maintain a keyless entry system,or suitable alternative,to provide police access to the common corridors under exigent circumstances. The keyless entry system or alternative shall be subject to review and approval by the Meridian Police Department. The developer should obtain approval by MPD for any such systems. D. Design Standards Analysis Comprehensive Plan Policy#2.02.02D—Apply appropriate design and construction standards to infill development in order to reduce adverse impacts to existing development. 1. Existing structure and Site Design Standards (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-19): Compliance with the structure and site design standards in UDC 11-3A-19 is required. The purpose of UDC 11-3A-19 is to encourage site design that provides an interconnected network of walkways,pathways, streets, and/or drive aisles that combined promote pedestrian and vehicular mobility within the development and connect to adjacent City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis developments; and to facilitate the efficient movement of traffic into,out of, and through a site,protect pedestrian and bicycle users, establish an aesthetically consistent street presence and limit the visual impacts of large parking areas on a site. NWC: There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the west side of the development area and an existing multi-tenant building with a church/office space,utility infrastructure for Intermountain Gas Co. and a transfer station for Northwest Pipeline Corp. along the east side of the development area adjacent to Meridian Rd./SH-69. SWC: There is a wholesale nursery(Victory Greens) occupying the site. Future development is required to comply with the structure and site design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. 2. Qualified Open Space &Amenities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3G): The standards in this section are not applicable; see the standards in UDC 11-4-3-27C for common open space and site amenity requirements for multi-family developments addressed above in Section CA. 3. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B): i. Landscape buffers along streets Landscaped street buffers are required to be constructed as part of the subdivision improvements on the SWC of the site, as follows: • A 35' wide buffer is required along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69, an arterial street and entryway corridor; • A 25' wide buffer is required along W. Amity Rd., an arterial street; • A 20' wide buffer is required along S. Hermatite Ave. and W. Lyra St.,both collector streets; and • A 10' wide buffer(s)is required along local/private streets. Street buffers are conceptually proposed for the overall site as required. On the portion of the site being platted(SWC), all street buffers should be depicted on the plat in a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer easement,maintained by the property owner,homeowner's association or business owner's association. Landscaping is required within the buffers per the standards in UDC 11-3B-7C. Additional landscape design features are required within street buffers along entryway corridors per UDC 11-313-7C.3f,which may include berms of no less than four to one (4:1) slope to at a three-foot minimum height, decorative landscape walls(no greater than three (3)feet in height), decorative open vision fencing(no greater than four(4)feet in height), or design elements with a similar level of effort(Example: a dry creek design with river rock,boulders, etc.). Detached sidewalks within landscaped buffers are required along entryway corridors. On the SWC,in the southern portion of the street buffer along Meridian Rd./SH-69 adjacent to residential uses, a 3-4' tall berm at a 4:1 slope is proposed with a 10' wide detached sidewalk/pathway,trees, shrubs,vegetative groundcover and decorative boulders/rocks. In the northern portion of the buffer adjacent to commercial uses, a dry stream bed with river rock is incorporated into the buffer with a 10' wide detached sidewalk/pathway,trees, shrubs,vegetative groundcover and decorative boulders/rocks. ii. Parking lot landscaping Parking lot landscaping is required with development per the standards listed in UDC 11- 313-8C. Development of the area not included in the CUP application will be reviewed for City of Meridian I Department Report 11I. Staff Analysis consistency with these standards with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) application for future development. The landscape plan submitted with the CUP application generally complies with the required standards; a detailed review will take place with the CZC application. The "hatched"areas identified in the Plant Schedule as internal parking lot landscaping should be further defined to demonstrate compliance with the standards in UDC 11- 3B-8C.2d and 11-3B-5N,which requires planter islands to be covered with low shrubs,lawn,or other vegetative groundcover at a coverage of at least 70% at maturity. iii. Landscape buffers to adjoining uses A 20' wide buffer is required to adjoining residential uses in the L-O and C-N districts and a 25' wide buffer is required to adjoining residential uses in the C-C and C 0 zoning districts per UDC Table 11-2B-3, landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-9C. Because the out-parcel proposed to be zoned C-N is already developed, Staff recommends a 20' wide buffer is provided on the subject property to buffer the proposed residential uses to the west in Building H. iv. Tree preservation Mitigation is required for all existing trees 4"caliper or greater that are removed from the site with equal replacement of the total calipers lost on site up to an amount of 100% replacement per the standards in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. There are several existing trees on the SWC that will be removed with development, some in poor and some in good condition. The Mitigation Calculations shown on the landscape plan submitted with the preliminary plat included below in Section V.J, state 190 caliper inches are required for mitigation with 200 caliper inches provided, in accord with UDC standards. There are also several existing trees on the NWC that will be evaluated for mitigation requirements with submittal of a development application for that property. v. Stormwater integration An adequate storm drainage system shall be required in all developments in accord with the city's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances per UDC 11-3A-18. Design and construction shall follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the city. vi. Pathway landscaping Landscaping is required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. Minimum 5' wide landscape strips are required on each side of all pathways with landscaping consisting of a mix of trees(one per 100 linear feet), shrubs,lawn,and/or other vegetative groundcover. The landscape plan should reflect compliance with these standards.Because trees are not allowed within the Northwest gas pipeline easement on the NWC,an alternative compliance application should be submitted to UDC 11-3B-12C.2,which requires one(1)tree per 100 linear feet of pathway. 4. Parking (UDC 11-3Q: All parking spaces shall comply with the required stall dimensions in UDC Table 11-3C-5. i. Residential parking analysis Off-street parking is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi- family dwellings; the number of parking spaces is based on the number of bedrooms per unit. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis SWC: Based on(116) 1-bedroom units, (168)2-bedroom units and(38) 3-bedroom units, a minimum of 656 spaces are required with 322 of those in covered carports or garages. A total of 693 spaces are provided,with 330 of those being covered in podium(129), carports (145)and garages(56),which exceeds the minimum standard by 37 spaces. NWC: Parking will be evaluated for compliance with these standards with future CUP and/or CZC applications. ii. Nonresidential parking analysis Off-street parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6B.1,unless otherwise required by the specific use standards for the use. Parking will be evaluated for compliance with these standards with future development applications for detailed site plan approval. iii. Bicycle parking analysis A minimum of one(1)bicycle parking space must be provided for every 25 vehicle spaces or portion thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G;bicycle parking facilities are required to comply with the location and design standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. For the multi-family development on the SWC, a total of 693 vehicle parking spaces are provided; therefore, a minimum of 28 bicycle parking spaces are required—28 are provided. 5. Building Elevations (Comp Plan, Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the single-story commercial Pad A at Plaza A building along with perspective drawings of Plaza A and B and the adjacent commercial buildings,included below in Section V.F.All commercial buildings are anticipated to be a single-story in height. Building materials consist of brick veneer, stucco and wood siding in neutral colors with flat roofs and parapets. Conceptual elevations were not submitted for the grocery store. The multi-family structures (Building F)at the NWC are anticipated to be 2 to 3-stories in height, depending on the number of bedrooms,with first floor garages similar to the photos below in Section V.O of the Broadstone project in Nampa. Building H is proposed to be of similar architecture to Building E on the SWC shown below in Section V.N. Elevations were also submitted for the 3-story garden-style and 4-story podium-style multi- family buildings with parking on the ground floor on the SWC, included below in Section V.M. Building materials consist of fiber cement siding variegated board&batten in a variety of colors and styles(8"clapboard, 10.25"vertical shiplap,lap siding), stucco and brick. All structures are required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual. 6. Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): No fencing is proposed. The UDC (11-311-41))requires traffic noise abatement to be provided for residential uses adjoining SH-69 consisting of a berm or a berm and wall combination parallel to the state highway that meets the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D.A detail of such should be depicted on the landscape plan submitted with the final plat application. 7. Parkways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks with landscaped parkways are proposed along all streets. The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees shall be 8'; the planter width for Class II trees may be reduced to 6' if there are root barriers that are a City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis minimum of 18" below subgrade adjacent to the sidewalk and a minimum of 24" below subgrade adjacent to the curb. The root barriers shall extend 2" above grade. Compliance with these standards is required. E. Transportation Analysis Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.01.01A—Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks). The primary transportation considerations for this development involve the timing and coordination of required off-site improvements, access management along Amity Road and SH- 69, and completion of internal street and pathway connections needed to support a functional mixed-use neighborhood pattern. The project would add measurable traffic to a network that already experiences operational strain during peak hours,underscoring the need to align development phasing with programmed intersection and signal improvements. Because of its proximity to two major transportation corridors,the design must emphasize efficient site access, safe circulation, and continuous pedestrian and bicycle connections consistent with the City's adopted street and pathway standards. The Ada County Highway District's recommended conditions and findings addressing intersection mitigation, access spacing, and collector completion reflect these shared objectives and are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code policies for coordinated land use and transportation planning. While traditional traffic modeling evaluates vehicular capacity, it does not fully capture the pedestrian,bicycle, and access-conflict dynamics that accompany higher-intensity mixed-use and multi-family development.Within these contexts, design features—such as continuous multi-use pathways, clearly defined pedestrian crossings, separated sidewalks, and internal circulation loops—serve a critical safety function that extends beyond aesthetic or amenity value. The City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted Pathways Master Plan identify these elements as necessary infrastructure to ensure that residents and visitors can move safely and efficiently between uses without over-reliance on the arterial network. For this site, intentional design of frontage paths, internal connections,and collector stubs is essential to mitigating localized conflicts and supporting the overall transportation performance of the surrounding system. The City's mixed-use policies emphasize pedestrian-oriented design as the foundation for functional,higher-density development. These areas are intended to place walking and biking at the top of the circulation hierarchy,with vehicular access and parking designed to complement— not dominate—the public realm. As projects seek both greater residential densities and auto- attractive commercial uses,design quality must correspondingly increase to manage the intensity and ensure safe, direct, and convenient pedestrian movement throughout the site.Features such as continuous sidewalks,building-oriented pathways,compact block structure,and minimized driveway conflicts are integral components of this expectation. This approach aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's mixed-use and transportation policies,which direct that density and design be balanced through form, connectivity, and safety rather than by roadway expansion alone. The proposed site plan includes elements that are detrimental to this concept that should be revised if the application is approved. Additionally, as noted in the ACHD report under Traffic Impact Study—Summary and Findings, "The applicant has indicated that site is multi-use and that contributes to trip capture rate. While there are a mix of uses proposed on the site plan they are not integrated, as the multi- family is stand alone and separated from the commercial uses by parking lots with no clear vehicular access via drive aisles or dedicated pedestrian facilities.The commercial uses are oriented towards SH-69 and include auto-oriented uses(fast-food with drive-thru,drive- thru coffee shop,gas station, etc.).Because of the mix of uses,the layout of the site plan and City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis parking lots, and prior experience with trip capture,ACHD will not be accepting any trip capture for this development." 1. Access (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-3, UDC 11-3H-4): Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.07.02B—Locate smaller-scale, neighborhood-serving commercial and office use clusters so they complement and provide convenient access from nearby residential areas, limiting access to arterial roadways and multimodal corridors. Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.02.01 G-Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services, including water, sewer,police, transportation, schools,fire, and parks. Comprehensive Plan Policy#6.01.02B-Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. Access is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3 and 11-3H-4 for state highways. 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. Access is proposed for the overall site(NWC& SWC)as shown on the conceptual development plan,included below in Section V.E. ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM) depicts a planned collector street along the west boundary of the NWC property connecting to W. Lyra St at the north boundary and S.Meridian Rd./SH-69. See the ACHD resort for existing conditions, analysis of the project and improvements required with the proposed development(SWC). NWC: This portion of the development is estimated to generate 10,366 vehicle trips per day, 1,166 trips per hour in the PM peak hour,based on the Traffic Impact Study(TIS). The conceptual development plan depicts two (2) driveway accesses via W.Amity Rd. as well as a collector street(S. Hermatite Ave.)access at the west boundary of the site in accord with the MSM; one(1) driveway access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69;two(2)accesses via W. Lyra St., a collector street; and two(2)accesses via S.Hermatite Ave., a collector street. South Solaris Ave. is proposed to extend into the site 45' from the north property line. ACHD only supports one(1) access via Amity located a minimum of 660' west of the Amity &Meridian/SH-69 intersection since the property will have access to a lesser classified street (i.e. Hermatite)—UDC 11-3A-3 supports this by limiting access to arterial and collector street to improve safety and ensure motorists can safely enter all streets. ACHD recommends this access is a temporary full access,restricted to a left-in/right-in/right-out when the Hermatite/Amity intersection is signalized in the future. This driveway may be further restricted in the future as traffic conditions warrant, as determined by ACHD or if the west leg of the Amity&Meridian/SH-69 intersection is widened beyond 5 lanes. Comments have not been received from ITD pertaining to the access via Meridian/SH-69. In 2012,the City granted a Variance(VAR-12-001)to UDC 11-3H-4B.2a,which prohibits new accesses to a state highway,to allow three(3)access points to SH-69/Meridian Rd. between Harris St. &Amity Rd., one of which lies on the subject property. This approval was based on ITD's approval of the access. All existing approaches should be removed. UDC 11-3A-3A.2 requires cross-access/ingress-egress easements to adjoining properties, either by recorded easement or as a note on the final plat.Additionally,UDC 11-3A- 3A.3 requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that currently takes direct access from an arterial or collector street—this applies to the three(3) out- parcels along Meridian Rd./SH-69(i.e.Parcel#R4622730010,#S1225449220 and City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis #51225449910)—the existing accesses shall be removed with development of the site and sole access should be provided internally from within the development area. The access points depicted on the conceptual development plan are not approved and should be evaluated with a future subdivision application. SWC: This portion of the development is estimated to generate 6,378 vehicle trips per day, 551 trips per hour in the PM peak hour,based on the Traffic Impact Study(TIS). There are three(3)existing driveways via Meridian/SH-69—the use of these driveways should cease upon development, and the approaches should be abandoned and removed in accord with UDC 11-3H-4B. The conceptual development plan depicts one(1)driveway access via W. Amity Rd. and one (1)driveway/private street access via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69.A portion of a future collector street(Hermatite)via W. Amity Rd. is depicted along the southern portion of the west boundary of the site and stubs to the property to the south—the portion that connects to Amity Rd. is off-site on the adjacent property to the west and is not proposed to be constructed with this development. The collector street access is needed for emergency service providers to adequately provide service the multi-family development; therefore,the collector street should be extended from W.Amity Rd.to the site prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the multi-family development. Two (2)access driveways are proposed via Hermatite in the multi-family development. The UDC (11-311 4B.2a)prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. City Council may consider and approve a modification to the standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council.The Applicant is requesting Council approval of the proposed access; comments have not yet been received from ITD on whetheF that they alFeady have granted OF Will grant the right-in/right-out access south of Amity Rd. A backage road generally paralleling Amity Rd. and Meridian/SH-69 is proposed for access to the properties fronting those roads in accord with UDC 11-3H-4B.3. As part of the development,the Applicant proposes improvements to the existing Amity& Meridian Rd./SH-69 signalized intersection. ACHD has modified these improvements to include widening of the west leg of the intersection to 5-lanes,with two(2)receiving through-lanes, one(1)left-turn lane, one(1)through-lane and one(1) shared through/right- turn lane,which will require adjustments to the striping on the east leg to reflect this configuration and any necessary modifications to the existing signal. Although ACHD cannot require the Applicant to improve/widen the eastern leg of the intersection, ACHD Staff recommends the Applicant improve/widen the eastern leg of the intersection to 5-lanes to match the west leg.If the proposed development is approved, City Staff recommends these off-site improvements are required as a provision in the DA. 2. Multiuse Pathways (UDC 11-3A-5): All multi-use pathways should be constructed in accord with the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Meridian Pathways Master Plan,the ACHD Master Street Map and Roadways to Bikeways Master Plan per UDC 11-3A-5. The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts multi-use pathways along S. Meridian Rd. and along the Northwest gas pipeline corridor with a connection across the northwest corner the NWC property to the future north/south collector street to the west at the half mile between Meridian&Linder Roads. The conceptual development plan depicts 10' wide pathways in accord with the Plan. City of Meridian I Department Report III. Staff Analysis All pathways should be located outside of irrigation district easements unless permission is specifically obtained from the governing irrigation district. For pathway segments and other improvements within the pipeline easement,the developer should work with Williams Pipeline Co.to secure the necessary permissions and approvals. Easements for the pathways should be a minimum of 14 feet wide(10' pathway+2' shoulder each side). Public use easements are only required to be dedicated for multi-use pathways that lie outside the public right-of-way. If this project is approved and if the developer can obtain permission from the property owners, Staff recommends a DA provision that requires the developer construct a 10' wide detached pathway across the frontage of the out-parcels (i.e.#R4622730010, #S1225449220 and#S1225449910) along Meridian Rd. for continuity and pedestrian safety. 3. Pathways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-8): All pathways shall comply with the standards in UDC 11-3A-8. Internal pathways are proposed through common open space areas in the residential and commercial areas and throughout the development for pedestrian connectivity as shown on the exhibit below in Section V.G. 4. Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17): Sidewalks are required along all streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached 10' wide sidewalks are required along all arterial and collector streets and 5' wide attached sidewalks are required along all local streets although detached sidewalks may be provided. The proposed plat depicts sidewalks as required. The proposed eoneeptual development should.PlaH fOF the NMIC doesn't inelude 10' wide sidewalks along the eolleetor-str-e (Lyr-a44ermatite) and The concept plan was revised to include 10'wide sidewalks along Lyra &Hermatite. 5. Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4): Private streets are not proposed but should be provided for addressing purposes in the locations shown on the exhibit below.A private street application should be submitted with the final plat application for approval of these streets and should be depicted on the final plat. The requirement for private streets on the NWC will be evaluated with a future subdivision application for that ro erty. ro 4_ i 10 City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 6. Subdivision Regulations (UDC 11-6C): The design, location and widths of all street and street intersections shall comply with the requirements of the transportation authority,unless alternative standards are adopted by the City.All driveway openings in curbs shall comply with the requirements of the transportation authority. i. Dead end streets The proposed plat does not depict any dead-end streets. ii. Common driveways The proposed plat does not depict any common driveways. iii. Block face The proposed plat complies with the block face standards. F. Services Analysis Comprehensive Plan policy 3.03.03G requires urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments,including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities. 1. Waterways (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-6): The Carlson Lateral runs along the west boundary of the NWC and crosses the SWC property in two(2)locations. The laterals on the SWC property are proposed to be relocated and piped with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B. Easements for such should be depicted on the plat; any development within the easements should be approved by the easement holder.The Applicant has secured agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation to relocate the easements as shown below. — ------ ICI' TE _ � a II � t t nY� a�..a wuaxic I I:rM B City of Meridian Department Report III. Staff Analysis 2. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation system is required with development to provide irrigation water to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. There is a 30-40' wide gravity irrigation easement on the commercial portion of the SWC proposed to be improved with a drivable rock dry stream bed for access when needed by Boise Project Board of Control vehicles(see exhibit in Section V.P below). Irrigation piping, trees, and large herbaceous shrubs are not allowed within the easement. 3. Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18): An adequate storm drainage system shall be 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. A Geotechnical Investigation report was submitted with the application, included in the public record. 4. Utilities (Comp Plan, UDC 11-3A-21): Comprehensive Plan Policy#3.02.0IE-Phase-in developments in accordance with their connection to the municipal sewer and water system and the provision of other necessary infrastructure and services. All utilities for an approved use should be installed at or below grade in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Street lighting should be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development should connect to the City water and sewer systems,unless otherwise approved by the City engineer.ITD has granted conditional approval for this development to install a sewer line within the SH-69 right-of-way. Adequate fire protection is required in accord with the appropriate fire district standards. IV. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Meridian Planning Division Stag The Commission is-recommendeding denial of the annexation application and consequently the preliminary plat and conditional use permit applications;therefore, conditions of approval are not included. If the City Council determines the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City with the proposed development plan,the project should be continued to a later hearing date in order for Staff to prepare recommended conditions of approval. B. Meridian Public Works The updated conceptual engineering plans for sewer and water service for the proposed development,submitted on Fes'March 17t'',have not yet been reviewed by the Public Works Dept. as of the date of transmittal of this report; therefore,it's unknown if this development can be serviced as proposed.LDIR-2026-0006 for the sewer portion has received rinal approval, water has not vet been approved. C. Meridian Fire Department Based on the review of the current Fire Access Exhibit provided by KM Engineering,the proposed access outlined for the Commercial Development is acceptable however the access for the Multi-Family Residential Development is only sufficient upon the completion of S. Hematite Avenue before being acceptable and meeting the criteria as outlined in the 2018 IFC,Appendix D for secondary access and remoteness. City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions D. Meridian Police Department https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=420383&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC LU See Service Accessibility Reports below in Section V.B. E. Meridian Park's Department https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=420384&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv F. Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho(COMPASS) https://weblink.meridiancity.org WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=421739&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty G. Irrigation Districts Boise-Kuna Irrigation District https:llweblink.meridianciU.org WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=423842&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Boise Project Board of Control https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=421301&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ) https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=421645&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty I. West Ada School District(WASD) https://weblink.meridianciU.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=422248&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty J. Community Development School Impact Data https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=420985&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty K. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) NW portion: https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=418302&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty SW portion: https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=418301&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty L. Idaho Transportation Department(ITD) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=422848&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity https://weblink.meridiancit .00rg WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=442978&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv https://weblink.meridiancit .00rg WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=445505&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv City of Meridian I Department Report IV. City/Agency Comments &Conditions 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 proposed conceptual development plan associated with the map amendment to the R-I S, R-40, L-O, C-N, and C-C zoning districts is not consistent with the general mixed-use and Mixed Use—Community development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan as noted above in Section X. 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 the R-I5 and R-40 zoning districts and conceptual development plan with a mix of multi family housing types (i.e. apartment and townhome-style units) complies with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it provides for a range of housing opportunities. However, the percentage and density of residential uses on the SWC is greater than allowed in the MU-C designation; therefore, the map amendment with the proposed development plan is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to the L-O. C-N, and C-C and C zoning districts and conceptual development plan complies with the purpose statement of the commercial district in that it provides for the retail and service needs of the community. However, the percentage of commercial uses and public/quasi-public uses on the SWC is less than desired in MU-C designated areas. Therefore, the map amendment with the proposed development plan is not 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 with the traffic generation anticipated from the proposed uses and intensity of development will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and The Commission finds the map amendment may result in an adverse impact upon the West Ada School District as the 2024-2025 enrollment for Victory Middle School was over capacity and additional children from this development could further adversely impact services. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. The Commission finds the annexation is not in the best interest of the City with the proposed development plan as it isn't consistent with the mixed use and specifically the Mixed Use— Community development guidelines as noted above in Section III. Further, the revised conceptual engineering plans for sewer and water service for the site have not yet been approved by Public Works so it's uncertain if services can be provided in accord with City requirements. City of Meridian I Department Report V. Findings B. Conditional Use(UDC 11-513-6E)—Multi-family Development on SWC Because the annexation request is recommended for denial, the subject property would remain in the unincorporated area and outside the City's jurisdiction. The City does not have legal authority to approve a conditional use permit for property located outside its corporate limits. Therefore, no findings analysis is provided for the associated conditional use permit request. C. Preliminary Plat(UDC-6B-6)—SWC Because the annexation request is recommended for denial, the subject property would remain in the unincorporated area and outside the City's jurisdiction. The City does not have legal authority to approve a conditional use permit for property located outside its corporate limits. Therefore, no findings analysis is provided for the associated preliminary plat request. VI. ACTION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the proposed annexation based on the proposed development not being consistent with the mixed-use and MU-C development guidelines as discussed above in Section III. Consequently, Staff recommends denial of the associated preliminary plat and conditional use permit requests since the City doesn't have legal authority to approve land use applications outside its corporate limits. B. Commission: The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 2,2025 (continued from: 12/18/2025, 2/5/26 &2/19/26).At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject AZ, PP and CUP requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing a. In favor: Ethan Mansfield,Hawkins Companies; Cooper Sharp b. In opposition:None c. Commenting None d. Written testimony: Ethan Mansfield,Hawkins Companies(response to staff report) e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Nearby resident is in support of project as it brings more services nearbyprovides better quality of life. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Questions to the Applicant about the STAR's agreement; b. The Applicant's request for the development to be analyzed as a whole,rather than two (2) separate developments,in determining consistency with Mixed Use policies in the Comprehensive Plan, C. Preference to have ITD's recommendation on the access via S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 before acting on this application; d. The site design is too vehicular oriented and unsafe for pedestrians; e. Not in favor of the plaza areas on the corner of Amity/SH-69 due to noise,nearby traffic, etc. f. Opinion the proposed development is multi-family and commercial,not a mixed-use development as the uses are separate and not integrated. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None—the Commission recommended denial of the project for the following reasons: Inadequate integration between residential and non-residential uses; lack of prioritization of pedestrian mobility within the project; and existing open space as proposed failing to serve residential and non-residential users adequately under the Comprehensive Plan. City of Meridian I Department Report VI. Action 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. The Applicant requests the following waivers from Council: 1)The UDC 11-4-3-27C.8 states common open space areas in multi-family developments shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial street buffers unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least four(4)feet in height,with breaks on the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The Applicant requests aqpproval through the CUP for common open space areas in the multi-family development to be located adjacent to a collector street buffer without a berm or barrier separating it from the street. The reason for such is an enhanced interaction is desired between the street and 10' multi-use pathway along the collector street with a narrower street section and wider pathway adjacent to common areas. 2)The UDC (11-3H-4B.2a)prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state highway. City Council may consider and approve a modification to the standard upon specific recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Dept. or if strict adherence is not feasible, as determined by City Council. The Applicant is requesting Council approval of the proposed access south of Amity Rd.; a recommendation has been received from ITD on the access—they will allow a right-in/right-out access. b. The Applicant submitted updated application information/plans to the City on June 1"in response to comments from the Planning&Zoning Commission meeting. This information is not reflected in the Commission recommendation to City Council since it was not reviewed by the Commission. C. City Council: Pending VII. EXHIBITS A. Project Area Maps (link to Project Overview) 1. Aerial Legend Project Location Area of Impact OAnalysis J.� �, F - 140 I Y� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 2. Zoning Map Legend R7 Project Location _ 0 Area of Impact L4- OAnalysis R-4 R=8 S�LMA -t 1R=8 R1 RUT RUT 7� R-4 L4TN-R A` R-8 R1 R�6 FR=2 R74 3. Future Land Use rRd Legend Project LocationArea of Impactnsity ntial OAnalysis _��_� Mecllum,Dens High Re denf�—rI Density Residential Med-High Density < Residential c MU-C ra City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 4. Planned Development Map Legend ® ff 0 Project Location 0"Area of Impact T= City Limits ^ ! Planned Parcels ® ® ® OAnalysis LLL , i City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 5. Map Notes Northwest Parcels: Recent Area Preliminary Plats(last 5 years): H-2023-0033; H-2023-0041 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits: H-2018-0100 H-2018-0054 H-2018-0129 H-2019- 0129 H-2020-0067 H-2019-0150 H-2020-0117 H-2021-0021 H-2021-0036 H-2021-0087 H- 2015-0005 H-2019-0097 H-2022-0050 H-2023-0031 H-2023-0041 H-2023-0055 H-2024- 0014 H-2024-0022 H-2024-0067 Southwest Parcel: Recent Area Preliminary Plats(last 5 years): H-2023-0033; H-2023-0041 Recent Area Conditional Use Permits: H-2018-0100 H-2018-0054 H-2018-0129 H-2019- 0129 H-2020-0067 H-2020-0117 H-2021-0021 H-2021-0036 H-2021-0087 H-2019-0097 H- 2022-0050 H-2023-0031 H-2023-0041 H-2024-0014 H-2024-0022 H-2024-0041 H-2024- 0067 H-2025-0041 City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits B. Service Accessibility Reports Northwest parcel: Southwest parcel: PARCEL S1225449650 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY PARCEL S1236110060 SERVICE ACCESSIBILITY Overall Score: 8 2nd Percentile Overall Score: 8 2nd Percentile Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Location Within 1/2 mile of City Limits YELLOW Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains<500 ft.from parcel Extension Sewer Trunkshed mains<500 ft.from parcel Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or>2 acres Floodplain Either not within the 100 yr floodplain or>2 acres Emergency Services Fire Response time>9 min. Emergency Services Fire Response time 5-9 min. YELLOW Emergency Services Police Reporting District does not meet most response time Emergency Services Police Reporting results por ing District does not have enough data to report goals - Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Pathways Within 1/4 mile of current pathways Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route Transit Not within 1/4 of current or future transit route ll ltimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets Ultimate configuration(#of lanes in master streets Arterial Road Buil dout Status plan)>existing(#of lanes)&road IS NOT in 5 yr work ■ Arterial Road Buildout Status plan)>existing(#of lanes)&road IS NOT in 5 yr work plan plan School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW School Walking Proximity From 1/2 to 1 mile walking YELLOW Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a Either a High School or College within 2 miles OR a School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving ■ School Drivability Middle or Elementary School within 1 mile driving (existing or future) (existing or future) Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type Park Walkability No park within walking distance by park type Report generahsi on 01-07-2025 by MERIDIAN15all- Report generated on 01-07-2026 by MERIDIAH1s 11- City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits C. Site Photos NWC (looking northwest): �i. ,ate 6 SWC(looking southeast): ift { C s - . City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits D. Annexation Legal Description& Exhibit Map—REVISED LYR a,T 'i m aF � II J - , Q ' s cn .... ro � III �I �Ti J1W�LI�I j.. II O x 'N ayN I I I I o C� rt , 3 m c C� r 0 m — I I �i III II II ---- --- ------- — — -—_— w_ r :.: — __ ___ —_----------- -- _----------------------- $EE SHEEf EM1.0 RJR CONTINIIATION ------------------------ i€ P 151510 3 •� z cgs SGCB m s L o aRRi y� 8a d 66... ,.� 9 6 AMITY&MERIDIAN-NORTHWEST CORNER MERIDIAN,IDAHO v p[ q CONCEPTUALSITE PLAN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits SEE SHEEF IX2A FOR CORTIN LATION II II IIIIII s j E 8 i p�pI pl �c ^� 3 n I I NVE Al yv Xk kk E 0 1 r ......... a q a L�[;� � � y a��.• ru ,m� ia�t��,'-r'`.--�-�' _�� '�I I I I I I � � I a�56 �ggAb s gig3��6§�gMg 2 P. Q 3 WC add€�6 E� ❑ � }^� _ € 2 e a RL N II C�4yrfiwp'+filrwpli5ti. K�; C"x+.i R" ."+SiIV�9 �'Mf:+.:�h'iPh'n�F I I rq� '�.��g my K !I •aRR�s re�''Rs ay�=�� �®a°€, - I I I �I lig '101 € Mw bay ate. �P @¢ 3a 0 �Ffi��'O ��������� p�aI D EB £ [ j mm 3 �'-- ® ,.,.,... AFC���E' p�� I�GGG G6GGGGG�pkk Ea.S f CEG ItlCAp�a ® d. AMITY&MERIDIAN-SOUTHWEST CORNER MERIDIAN,IDAHO o I �"_ CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits km E N G I N E E R I N G September 1,2023 Project Na.23-151 Annexation Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25 and a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particuiarly described as follows: BEGINNING at a found aluminum cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 25,which bears 500°32'50"W a distance of 2,664.88 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the East 1/4 corner of said Section 25,thence fo€lowing the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,500'37'50"W a distance of 1,320.65 feet to the North 1/16 comer of said Section 36; Thence leaving said easterly line and following the southerly lute of said Northeast 1./4 of the Northeast 1/4, N89'13'03"W a distance of 893.66 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N00"36'05"E a distance of 1,322.93 feet to the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 36; Thence following said northerly line,NB9"04'18"W a distance of 343.66 feet; Thence leaving said northerly line,N+05'15'42"E a distance of 1.,480.39 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 552'04'27"E a distance of 240.08 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar, Thence S89'15'25"E a distance of 274.79 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar on the boundary of Stapleton Subdivision No.1 iBoak 120 of Plats,Pages 18746.18750); Thence following the boundary of said Stapleton Subdivision No.I the fallowing six(6)courses; 1. S89°15'25"E a distance of 66.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 2. S00`3250"W a distance of 79.93 feet to a found 5/&inch rebar; 3. S89°18'36"E a distance of 144.81 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 4. 89.63 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 17'07'04",a chard bearing of N82'07'52"E,and a chard distance of 99.30 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; S. 88.88 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 16"58'30",a chord bearing of N82'03'35"E,and a ef}ord distance of 88.56 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 6. S89'27'10"F a distance of 156.27 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary,589°27101 a distance of 82.00 feet to the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of Section 25; Thence following said easterly line,S00°32'50"W a distance of 1,280.20 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 62.432 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements �4 ALLAV s and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. �S �tcENS All subdivisions,deeds,records of surveys,and other instruments of record referenced � � herein are recorded documents of the county in which these described lands are situated. a 6 Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. 4F s�4 5725 North Discavery Way•Boise, Idaho 83713•209.639.6939• kmengllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits EAST t/4 CORNER 25 30 SECTION 25 �� Unplatted Stapleton N o L2 O o vbdivision No. 1 L5 C. � L6 0 400 8OD 1200 L4 a ° Plan Seale: 1" =400' L7 LEGEND FOUND ALUMINUM CAP o I „} FOUND 5/8" REBAR r°x CALCULATED POINT �� CID N�� SECTION LINE ZD� � BOUNDARY UNE w CD nJ zo Annexation Area: ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE 20: V 62.432± AC 0 0Lei POINT 0F' BEGINNING EDUTHEAST 1/4 CORNER SbUTH 1 f4 CORNER SECTION 25 SECTION 25 25 1398-77' W.Amity Rd. 29 3+3� _ _ 343.fi6' 394.34' 36 R N89'04'18"W — — y 36 311 N89'04'18"W 2636.77'— 1 3 w CURVE TABLE zz CURVE RAprLJS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD Rl C1 300.00' 89.63' 1707'04" N82'07'52"E 89,30' w 'r C2 3DD_DO' 88.88' 16'58'30" N82'03'35"E 88.56' w � � w LINE TABLE O LINE BEARING DISTANCE w Ll S5Z04'27`E 240.08 z L2 S59'15'25"E 274.79 L3 S59'15'25"E 65.00 L-4 S00'32'50"N 79.93 0 N99'13'03"W 893,66' t� L5 SB9'18'351 144,81 llnplatted LIS SB9'27'1O"E 156.27 L7 S89'27'10"E 82,40 rAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 36 E N 0 1 N E E R I N G 36 3] 5775 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY 3015E,IDAHO 93723 PHONE[2VN 537-5939 Exhibit B Ian@nEllp c Annexation PATE: Srpt—b-7R)9 i'ROJEC: 23-151 SHEET: A portion of the E 112 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 25 and a portion of the 1 OF 1 NE 114 of the NE 1/4 of Sec. 36, T3N., R1W., B.M., Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits km E N G I N E E R I N 0 February 25,2025 Project No.23-151 Rezone to R-15 Legal Description Exhi bit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being mare particularly described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 25,which beans S00°3250"W a distance of2,664,93 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the East 114 comer of said Sertinn 25; Thence fallowing the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4,N00"32'50"E a distance of 910.29 feet to the boundary of the Piat of Jessica Condos Project Amendment No.1(Book 123 of Plats,Pages 19519-19522), Thence leaving said easterly line and following said subdivision boundary,N89°27'10"W a distance of 297.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said subdivision boundary,N89'27'10"W a distance of 25.11 feet; Thence 50a"32'50"W a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence N89°27'10"W a distance of 177.12 feet; Thence SW32'50"W a distance of 51,96 feet; Thence N89"27'10"W a distance of 655,87 feet; Thence N06°15'42"E a distance of 656.20 feet to a found 5/8-Inch rebar, Thence S52"04'27"E a distance of240.08 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence 589°15'25"E a distance of274.79 feet ta a found 5/8-inch re bar on the houndary of Stapleton Subdivision No.1{Book 120 of Plats, pages 18746-18750); Thence fallowing the boundary of said Stapleton Subdivision No.1 the following six(6)courses: 1. 589°15 2YE a distance of 66.00 feetto a found 5/8-inch rebar; 2. S00°32'50"W a distance of 79.93 feet to a found 5/S-inch rebar; 3. 589'18'36"E a distance of 144.81 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 4. 89-63 feet along the arc of a curare to the left,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 17°07'04",a chord bearing of N82°07'52"E,and a chord distance of 89.30 feet to a found 5/9-1nch re ba r; S. 88.88 feet alpng the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet,a delta angle of 16"58'30",a chord bearing of N82°03'35"�,and a chord distance of 88.56 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; 6. S89'27'10"F a distance of 156-27 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary,S89°27'10"E a distance of 82.00 feet to said easterly line; Thence following said easterly line,500"32'50"W a distance of 63.23 feet; Thence leaving said easterly line, N897P10"W a distance of MDIDfeet to the Northeast corner of said Plat of Jessica Condos Project Amendment No.1; 5725 North Discovery Way• Boise, Idaho 93713 • 208.639.6939• krnengllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits Thence following the boundary of said Jessica Condos Prujea Amendment NO. 1 the fallowing two(2)courses: 1. 586'13'04" a distance of 245.22 feet; 2. 502°49'51"E a distance of 283.67 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains 9.752 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. All subdivisions,deeds,records of surveys,and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the county in which these described lands are situated. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof, �p L L A N y5� p s ,ENS o a 6 � 9p OF 4�p 2/2 2 5 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHAR❑BRG CHORD C1 300.00' 39,63' 17'D7'04" N82'07'52"E 89.30' C2 300.00' 83,88' 15'58'3O" N82'03'35"E 88,56' p 230 5DO 750 Plan Scale: 1" 250' LINE TABLE z5 3O LINE BEARING P15TANU EAST 1/4 CORNER, SECTION 25 L1 S89'15'25"E 86.t}4 SS Unplatted Stapleton m L2 SQ6'32'50"IN 79.93 � 5ubdfvision No. 1 1 L3 589'18'36"E 144.81 2 C�p } ' S89"15'25"E L1 PO L4 SB9'27'1 Q"E 156-27 274,79' L3 C1 G2 L4 L5 a L5 S59'27'10"E 82.00 to cv qa Rezone Area:9.762±AC 58Gi 3'04"W L7 ❑o U ro L6 SOO 32'50'1N 6$.23 APN:S1225449650 z Z45.22' `10 L7 N89'27'10"W 70.00 Proposed Zoning: R-15 Jesslca Current Zoning: RUT 502 49'81"E Condos 253.67' 0 o Project (D N89'27'101Y 25.11 Amendment S00'32'50"W 30.00' No. 1 0 N89'27'10'W 177.12' 297.81' 5OQ'32'54"YV Naa,27'10' 51,96, N89'27'10"W 655.87' POINT OF BEGINNING Unplatted I LEGEND FOUND ALUMINUM CAP Q FOUND 5/8" REW _ Li CALCULATED POINT n 1 I+7 SECTION LINE , BOUNDARY LINE I a LOT LINE 34i -- ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE t r-a liy POINT OF COMMENCEMENT SOUTHEAST CORNER, SECTION 25 JJ 25 30 — W.Amity Road — — ' E N G I N E E A I N G 5725 NOM DISOOV€RY WAY E015E,IDAHO 93723 PHOPMf 2081639-6939 Exhibit B kmang]Ip.wm Rezone to R-15 DATE: Fcurwary 2025 PROJECT: 28-151 SHEET: A portion of the E 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of Section 25, 1 OF 1 T.3N., R.1W., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits km E N G I H E E R 114 0 September 1,2023 Project No.23-151 Rezone to 13-40 Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows- Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said section 36,which bears N00"37'50"E a distance of 2,641.47 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the East 1/4 cornerof said Section 36,thence following the easterly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,500"37'SOr,W a distance of 694.11 feet to the PIOINT OF BEGINNING. Thence following said easterly line,S00'37'50"W a distance of 636.54 feet to the North 1/16 corner of said Section 36; Thence leaving sa id easterly line and followingthe southerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4, N89`13'03"VV a distance of 893.65 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar; Thence NOO°36'05"E a distance of 1,055.25 feet; Thence 589°22'10"E a distance of 375.19 feet; Thence 235.62 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet,a delta angle of 90-00'00",a chord bearing of SW22'10"E,and a chord distance of 212.13 feet; Thence 500°37'50"W a distance of 238.08 feet; Thence 51.84 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,so id curve having a radius of 33.00 teet,a delta angle of 90`00'00",a chord bearing of 544'22'10"E,and a chord distance of46.67 feet; Thence 589'22'10"E a distance of 335.00 feet to the POINT OF 6EGINNING. Said parcel contains 18.OID7 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of•way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. LANp S rye LOGE N 5 t^ a o 9p 0 F kaP 5725 North discovery Way + 6oise, Idaho 83713 *208,639.6439* kmenjllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 0 200 400 600 -7 Plan 5ca'e: V'=200' I V ram,✓S W. Amity Rd. �F - _ — — 25 30 36 3 POINT OF COMMENCEMENT NORTHEAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 36 � I 589'22'10'E 375.19' Rezone Area: 18.007f AC ' f ARN:5123611O46D Proposed Toning: R-40 oG i-- Unplatted Current Zoning: RUT N o rn ify 589'22'1 O"E Ln 336.0p' u� m LEGEND POINT OF BEGINNING �a w o FOUND ALUMINUM CRP } FOUND 5f8" REBAR o b CALCULATED POINT 'Z ct �- SECTION LINE M BOUNDARY LINE ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE aaQ q� CURVE TABLE b o m+aj Lni CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA EHoRD 6RG CHOPID I Cl 150,00' 235.62' 90'0O'OT S44'22'10"E 212.13' 02 33.00' 51.84' 90'01)'00" S4422'10"E 46.67' o f N89'13'03-W 893.56' iv• Unpiatted&am o I N r] EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 36 fl E NGIN EERI NG 3fi 31 5725 NORCM PLWQV[RY WAY NOISE,IDAHO erns r PMONE{2os)fin-l"19 Exh i b[t B kmengffpAc Rezone to R-40 Waif: 5eptem6w 2A29 PROJECT: 23-251 SH=: A portion of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 36, 1 OF 1 UN., RlW., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits krn E N G I N E E R I N G Novembers,2023 Project No.23-151 Rezone to CN Legal Description Exh i bit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described as follows; Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 25,which bears SW'32'50"W a distance of 2,664.Sa feet from a found a I uminum cap marking the East 1/4 corner of sa id Section 25,thence following the easterly line of said Southeast 1/4,N00°32'50"E a distance of 910.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGI NNING. Thence leaving said easterly line,N89°27'1D"W a distance of 70,O0 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of S. Meridian Road and being the Southeast corner of the Plat of Jessica Condos Project Amendment No.1(Book 123 of Plats,Pages 19519-19522); Thencefollowing the boundary of said Jessica Condos Project Amendment No.1 the fallowing three(3) courses: 1. 1189°2TXl V a distance of 227.91 feet; 2. NO2°49'51"W a distance of 253.67 feet; 3. N86°13'04"E a distance of 245.22 feet to said westerly right-of-way line; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary,5B9°27'10"E a distance of 70.00 feet to said easterly line of the Southeast 1/4; Thence fallowing said easterly line,500"32'50"W a distance of 301.69 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 2.072 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. All subdivisions,deeds,records of surveys,and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded documents of the county in which these described lands are situated. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. �4*pL L A Np a . 0 5 a� �o g�f OF HY r.C11/4/2025 5725 North Discovery Way• Boise, Idaho 83713 • 208.639.6939• kmengilp.com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 25 30 EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 25 } 0 150(IN 3U1J 450 I4 Pian Scale: 1" = 150' m� • I STAPLETON SUKIVISION W. 1 L . 4"E 245.2Z � L2 U NP TATTED NSA'13 0 0°4o t9 LEGEN❑ 7o.aa cc � ra°c Rezone Area:2.072 AC N c FOUND ALUMINUM CAP pPN; R4fi22734410 Q LL CALCULATED POINT m Proposed Zoning:CN �' a T SECTION LINE Jr- Current Zoning: LO -Ni 4 BOUNDARY LINE ! N o LOT LINE 4- JESSICA CONDOS ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE " PRaJEOT AMENDMENT 7- No. 1 N89'27'10"w 227.81' L1 POI NT Of BEGINNING LINE TABLE LINE BEARING ❑I57ANCE i f L1 N$9'27'1O'W 70.DD UNPLATTED .m L2 SB9'27'1O"E 70.00 o i f yin POINT Of COMMENCEMENT ���n SOUTHEAST CORNER ~ SECTION 25 25 30 E N G I N E E R I KG 30 31 5725 NORTH DISCOVERY WAY 13015E.IDAHO S3713 MOW[ZN9 639-6939 Exhibit B kmergllpmum Rezone to CN DATE: Nuv mh".X23 PRCUECT: 23.151 SHEET: A portion of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 25, 1 OF 1 T.3N,, R,1W., B.M, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits km E N G I N E E R I N G March 27,2025 Project Nc.23-151 Rezone to CC Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows. BEGINNING at a found aluminum cap markingthe Southeast comer of said Section 25,which bears S00°32'50"W a distance of 2,664.88 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the East 1/4 corner of said Section 25,thence following the southerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4,N89°04'18"W a distance of 1,238.DD feet; Thence leaving said southerly line,N06"15'42"E a distance of 618.84 feet; Thence S89"27'10"E a distance of 629.97 feet; Thence 10.53 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 115.DO feet,a delta angle of 05°14'44",a chord bearing of i417"42'56"E and a chard distance of 10.52 feet; Thence N20"2D'18"E a distance of 107.65feet; Thence 39.72 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 115.00 feet,a delta angle of 19°47'28",a chord bearing of N10'26'34"E and a chord distance of 39.53 feet; Thence NDO"32'50"E a distance of 106.01 feet; Thence 589°2710"E a distance of 177.12 feet; Thence N00`32'50"E a distance of 30.00 feet; Thence 589'27'10"E a distance of 25.11 feet to the boundary of the Plat of Jessica Condos Project Ame n d men t No.1(Book 123 of Plats,Pages 19519-19522,Records of Ada County,Idaho); Thence following said subdivision boundary,589`27'10"E a distance of 297.81 feet to said easterly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4; Thence leaving said subdivision boundary and following said easterly line,S00°32'50"W a distance of 910.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 20.417 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. y��ypL L.4Ae o � � a a � LP 4 0 F 1�q 0f b 5725 North Discovery Way •Boise,Idaho 83713 • 248,639,6939• kmengllp.com City of Meridian I Department Report Vll. Exhibits CURVE TABLE I CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHDRD 200 400 600 C1 115.00' 10.53' 5'14'44" N17'42'56'E 10.52' Plan stale:1"=200' C2 115,00' 39.72' 19'47'28" N10'26'34"E 39,53' 25 3D EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 25—le" I Jessica Condos ' Project Amendment ¢ 19'27'10"E No.I n J 25.11' S89'27'10"E 297,81' Llnpiatted 27'10"E . NaO'32'50'E 77.12' 30.00' NOb 32'50"E 10&131, 2 20 2() VES89'27'10'E 629.97' 07.B5' z �wa•C) Rezone Area:20.417±AC m To AM S1225449450,51225449650, 51225449910,51225449920 ry Nu)au _ Proposed Zoning:CC o Q. CO LEGEND Current Zoning:RUT sin„0 vi ¢ FOUNb ALUMINUM CAP L] CALCULATE4 POINT a — — — SECTION LIME a 001LIMpARY UNE � M1 n PARCEL LINE CO c M — — ADJACENT 6OUNDARY -:NE 2S N89'04'18"W 1238.00' S 31 —N89'04'1$AW 2636.77'` — - SDUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 25 W. Amity Road POINT OF BEGINNING SOUTHEAST CORNER r SECTION 25 J J f Z.Z . kin _ ENGINEERING ~~ 4 577;NORT4 OGCOVERT WAY x BOISE,IDAHO 83713 PHONE I209h539-5939 Exhibit B kmrnallp.com Rezone to CC DATE: MARCH,=6 PROJECT: 2.3-151 a SHEET; A portion of the SE 1/4 of the 5E 1 f 4 of Section 25, 1 pF 1 T3N., RIW., B.M.,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho i City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits km E N G I N E IE R I N G February 25,2025 Project No.23-151 Rezone to CC Legal Description Exhibit A A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 36,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described asfollows: BEGINNING at a found aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said Section 36,which bears N00°37'50"E a distance of 2,641.47 feet from a found aluminum cap markingthe fast 1/4carrler of said Section 36,thence following said easterly line,500'37'50"W a distance of 68411 feet; Thence leaving said easterly line, N89'22'10"W a distance of 336.0Dfeet, Thence 5 2.84 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 33-00 feet,a delta angle of 90°00'04",a chord bearing of N44°22'10"W,and a chord distance of 46.67 feet;; Thence N00'37'50"E a distance of 238.08 feet; Thence 235.62 feet aiong the art of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 150Mfeet,a delta angle of 90°00'00",a chord bearing of N44°27'10" ,and a chord distance of 212.13 feet; Thence N89'22'10"W a distance of 375.19 feet,- Then ce N00°36'05"E a distance of 267.69 feet to the northerly line of said Northeast 1/4 of Section 36; Thence f❑Ilowing said northerly line,S89°04'18"E a distance of 994.34 feet to the P0INT OF BEGINNING. &aid parcel contains 9.120 acres,mQre or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereof. � wL LAN 2/22o25 $725 North Discovery Way Bolze,Idaho 93713• 208.639,6939- kmengilp.cnrn City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits 3iL V) NORTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 36 POINT OF 6EG;NNING ") . Amlt NORTHEAST 1/4 CORNER ~~ SECTION 36 — —58704'18"E 2636.77' S89'04'i 8"E 594,34' 25 30 36 31� *} C� � cn N 1` CURVE TABLE w CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD 4 C1 33,00' 51,84' 90"00'00" N44'22'10`W 46,67' ++ O ra z O2 150,00' 235.62' 90'40'00' N44*22'1O'w 212-13' a C CF Rezone Area:9,120} AC m APNI: 51236110060 o N m Proposed Zoning:CC ,o0" Current Zoning: RU7 n p CU Unplatted ro 0 I w i� I LEGEND , FOUND ALUMINUM CAP N59-22'10"w 33s.Oo' CALCULATED POINT ' I — — — SECTION LINE of BOUNDARY LINE EAST 1/4 CORNED SECTION 36 l - -- ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE 35 31 I 0 150 300 450 EN01NEEkiK0 Plan 5cale; 1"= 150' s?Zb NuRTH 615Z0VERK WAY BOISE,IDA11O S3713 PhDW;203)639-6939 Exhibit P krna-01p.m— Rezone to CC DATE: Fe61ua'Y 2O25 PRIM ET: 23-151 SHEET: A portion of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 36, 1 OF 1 T3N., f71W., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits km E N G 1 N E E R I N G March 27,2026 Project No.23-151 Rezone to LO Legal Description ExhibitA A parcel of land situated in a portion of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 25,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly descrdbed a5foIlows� Commencing at a found aluminum cap marking the Southeast cornerof said Section 25,which bears S00°32'50"W a distance of 2,664-88 feet from a found aluminum cap marking the East 1/4 corner of said Section 25,thence following the southerly line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4, N89"04'18"W a distance of 1,239.00 feet; Thence leaving said southerly line,N06.15'42"E a distance of 618.94 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence ND6"15'42"E a distance of 205.35 feet; Thence 589°27'I E a distance of 655.87feet; Thence SOW32'50"W a distance of 54.05 feet; Thence 39.72 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 115.00 feet a delta angle of 19°47'26",a chord bearing of 510'26'34"W and a chard distance of 39.53 fleet; Thence 520"20'18"W a distance of 107.65 feet; Thence 10.53 feet along the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 115.00 feet,a delta angle of 05°14'44",a chord bearing of S17°42'56"W and a chord distance of 10.52 feet; fence N89°27'10"W a distance of 629.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains 3.054 acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is made a part hereoforENS � a a � z #� 4f � 5725 North pisravery Way- Boise, Idaho 83713 - 208.639,5939- kmengllp_com City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits CURVE TABLE N CURVE RADIUS LENGTH DELTA CHORD BRG CHORD 0 200 400 600 01 1 15.00' 39.72' 19'47`28" S10'26'34W 39.53' Pia n Scale: 1"=200' C2 1 15.00' 10.53' 5'14'44' 51 T42'56"W 10.52' 25 30 EAST 1/4 CORNER SECTION 25 I Jessica Condos Project + II + Amendment Nv.1 I Unplatted —FL— — — 589'27'10.E 655.87' SOD'32'50'w 54.05' Rezone Area:3,054±AC APfV: 51225449450,51225449650 1 b o Proposed Zoning:LO Current Zoning: RUT 07.65' N89'27'14'W 629.91' C2 g000 rev ¢z0 POINT OF � BEGINNING In ry 0 0•— a LEGEND y FOUND ALUMINUM CAP "o CALCULATE[) POINT — — — SECTION LINE j BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE J — — - ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE N89'04'1I3"W 1238.0W — — 36 1 — —IN 9'04'18"w 2636.77' — SOUTH 1/4 CORNER SECTION 2536 Amity Road P0114T OF COMMENCEMENT y ' SOUTHEAST CORNER > SECTION 25 f E N G 1 N E E R I N 0 } S77S NORTH DISCOVERY WAY BOISE,IOAHO B1713 k. PHONEf18 61 63 4-0 19 Exhibit B i kMenEIIP W- Rezone to L❑ iATE' MARCH.2026 SPR--; 23-757 i SHEET: A portion of the 5E 1/4 of the 5E 1/4 of Section 25, 1 OF 1 T3N., R1W., B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idahlo City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits E. Conceptual Development Plan for Annexation Area(dated: 1/6/26)-REVISED 5YRINGA CROSSING MEXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ELOPMENT PhIASE 2 ElOPEN SPACE EA MULTI-FAMILY ■COMMERCIAL .OFFICE 14 hr W. YRA STRE,_ _ I - G 4.3! _ L• _ r s . r , 1 }'ist� r _ - _ R-15 _ ..... � � rwul YN]J IF .CTG sj '`• NOTA z....... .. PART! llI' � CONCEPTUAL,SUEJEC7 TO(HANG L City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits SAGA CROSSING D-USE DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE 7MU I-I I-FAMILY COMMEXIAL OF* - '--. . - -- - - - E AMITY RQAQ `�r.=rl" Ell R-40 ___ BUIIAINGA-2 f i � y CLULWuu5E .• 1 0 F ' t PADF ' I I I- JA J I + r tlVILVING tr2.V 11I0NGEI2 ov� BUILVING E-1.1 I BUILVINGC-1A L I r t - - BUILE Oil BNLCiNG61 ' 6UILOI� I BUILVING&2 BUILDINGB-1 = BUILVING G7A "'AAA""" II i ly - ra tlLILL1N'�GI Li _ -- '._ - ---- - -� CONCEPTUAL-SUBJECTTO CHANGE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits €s a` 'Lid II S a II i 1' � ♦J G I II L s Nkl IMl MAC �A61 � M. �w I 1 I II Y r.ee 1 I I I II 1 Inl i s �C5 I1 II I K � �p II II S rwk !?!IV�akKrt2aX. - i rokr - I I I I "�i Ir�G• 1 I I I II II SEE SHEET E[10 F!-0R C[IWI1NIlATIOW ............. . . . . . . . . . E � H�]Ysk a ' RFell Yo AM HY&MER IO IAN-NORTHWEST CORNER man MERIOLAN,IOAHO p FF ;�i+' CON CEPTLIAL SITE PLAN Mi�.• �6 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits s� r .arancoHnlluanoH I I I r Ii r.I J. `—— ——— -- i III a r-- ml '1 r: ��� -.� F • y ��� o I I r l - YLIIMI�I• '+ - • ' I I I r• ' r � I I 1 1 7iwf 9p$ � S f II II 3 rw '1� Fps g§� zs•i�•cs �i . C>� � ft� '�.c ;;t-. g �+ - .- 1 r 4 I r P A I t,' .•'tat Ine�a 'M1 - I I _ , �� '�r w'. ... �. a KC { aaweY ppI888888! b M cfma.aen�^4]'S.Hrsyl.. ae.p3 1 Fyy pg f222� eil�: 1 I y ti �n I i'a � F;�•'i F„y�yn � �� ' �'. •act '%i':Q�i 'R'' .. _.....-_..... � .�x I I I I a 77:: � '}� IrIr � � � ��1 n.+ •OUMr� � ��jT L I I I I . �w .. .pie •J'iii ii l'�I_ �i� � I1 I }HH g y{ _ I r I S■I ._^p ��E PpS �L�•� l��d.3 q n unAe I II. .�c- �� ��+.a. a I I EY I s � xTj ���¢5�k9 E��3� �:::-. .._i I. :. :.-i-SSE Y•�.r I I �I R II 1 II E� j 1` i r AR a r ... i a €l6k a E;s. • nrt.aast E Y & 3 pge�j a` AMITY&MERIDIAN-SOUTHWEST COE NER o leunlelu kJ w MERIDIAN,IDAHO Ei CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN li�.• {P City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits �Y':.'[':�.i:.=7.:!w^.[.uY:isr.�.[�-�:5.:>h.'if[��,•.�r:J�• ... -..... - .. _ ..J:.. __ r .�#i_ '.�S�9a:itp�,-ir..L4r_f�.�CG��:t� •,if.>F, .... I ... .—. .: ,_--- ��_-- --�,— --_--- ,_---_w--�— `---- ___� e.�'r`i�2dm:il:t::4:x.'°a>.....�;.s:.sls.a.'�:::,ti:•+e=_ _�ja�:i:- ., .. .�.�.. —.�.—.�—..—_ ————— 9�Y.'1^..-�..Y�i" !'�. •� � sc.�- '•`-:s�rnna_�:'s�:L9• Tga •i �.•. F 1 i __ •ef:•r.:,..,r..__.,.....�' L'm:f ale..^.y,a+s.... 4 I 2. - # R4. I I n5a n ,.�•I.�,y. _. � - s- - :•:tix.•s::ire:.e;so,r•trn:,......,'e:s::xt.r' I ge � $g � � Yjr+.A.�rf''i?i'��:'S:"' -�.�"3Q.�::•nTf:...f...�;sivr.k �I�F'y�� ^'i�5'u:`ir :r.Y.:x,£� I Iv �m 3 Q ro a Ve�j 3"yi AMITY&MERIDIAN-SOUTHWEST COP NER ^E ij sr MERIDIAN,IDAHO CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN G H- M�f.E p City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits F. Conceptual Commercial Building Elevations&Perspectives for Plaza Areas :a F ozroseaai rvviaiaa�n � � N- ei $ to LE9al'35i0e'OOEb 15OVOMe MSSBOki NV10Ia3YY SSL6e- P�tfik � C") I € m� NVIflRI3W V AIM R, !p 5 i �$F 2'16 R! Y '1111101 1 11€¢'-" p I zl C9 NI r I Z .- I I I _ _ I � o � � pG pK City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 4 H RIL I C 1 Y 3 'SS#.I MIXED-USE DEVL�LOP?0. ENT ODKEPMAL.SuHAUT4liatGE COMMERCIAL PLAZA A A n - — -�.., W.LYRdSTREET 'a #'1 I i • L'� i .. r .. • # O� i O�q}. 'o �4. a a B COMMERCIAL PLAZA B I' P_,L * � L ` Ob '"02j }' DININGLSTABLISHMENT r PLAZA 11 4 L �" ir1w" I�NMI 4 _ L r'{� 7JIplG6i Ill R4G 41� V� . To City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits ` ca © rp PLAZAA Rs City �� � :•fir:_ i of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits G. Overall Pedestrian Plan-REVISED SY RINGA CROSSING MI E-D-USE DEVELOPMENT w.AA STRE ET L C-N NOT A PART _ z .� r,nr IVA.Ij C .1 WNW 9 ..I ..,ry...... ............... CONNECTIVITY LEGEND .......... ....,....:..�, `{'oaoo 5'•6'SIOEWAEIt _ I Rio S'SIDLWALK CONCEPTUAL,SU&JECT TO CHANGE City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits H. Preliminary Plat(dated: 1/23/26) Ur ~z¢ z cn z = a a W �N O'n 00 00o py r•. W _ Z m �� _ �e ss ax sxsss 4b=_aa�sss a115 z Ln L Q O ¢ w a J w H w F 0 dZ > jOZj �_ o Z �� 0 F2�p G 4 `aix'o Q m = 6 9 gg �� apR G y E<� a gp �'a� do e F- 2pF H 0~_ h �� 'dd7 9 � 3B 11F11 3 V 2Z !S ;,z CL p Q ==z G S '� d ti C a 9 q _ ~ ° ��NI 4 g 00 x Q. 8, 1 12 66VIN: g � 4 Y �,6!g f S H10s[61g [A S a; �§�°g�g ��°1 J. o c 21 IT All- 0 a Mm '� 9 b Duos xupisow's I a s ati�.rw�a3wa �Ig 5.a w __` w xr ueure.wun T I 1 3 I ROB I 1 w I yl I 0.. - 1/nor � , 4®qs� I Ia I I i i �i p - u IIa w 1 1 I 1"+.w�a a� II I� ✓`.sl i I 1 � i I I II AY I I sl----------- —r Lr a II I �I i le_ III I rl I wmaio I I � I e 5 I f I of-sales w JI I I j I II I I I 'I IF _______ _________ _____ / I J— _ _— µ—_Nam_ �I City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits m _mz `j5i�ID Q O R 4 V=1(.') O Q < d Z W Z j III II Q� m �=�a 500a Z ��z �i Nis s d w Q CCxz = a¢K O 9 ¢ z~ a 8 aF g sg t3 3 s a ® j a�= rr r — — r e — — — --- --- _----_---- `------- s �\--I� f I.pI �! i � � I rI�� IIIIII �� � �'/! 3�11 �f fIlrrrlrlrllr' I � II II f ! 1 1 I1l11 / 1 rllll I f l I I I ! 11 frlr I I I I 4/1 11 I , , 11 1lI 1 1 i t Ell City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits W (> z Q @ @ ® y m I� �_ 0 0 s g 4 4 �SylS 2 0- W w g Z � Z U �p gS' � 3� � � � "• } � o �Zzfr o W �illlllllallll!II � �_ Q [% � o? o �� iIIIIIIII00000 ��� Z N N Z r Q e $ o 4 w Y o a g � z�i a Q adz a Z i �46 in g ^I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------- wi gV�o I it I �s I ms�9 I I I I 9s a�N II �� rl •���' J _ -- --- � � it 9 I I ! it Yy i1c k ICIj1( II'I 3 I 1 C II J ------------ J I it /N a I 11 I IIf I P City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits I. Access Exhibits for Southwest Corner a 119 IH K3553]7V IVI 831W W$ s �n ❑I'N VIO N>lVW 1NIM013/V3❑NVIOIH3W❑NV ALWV zS 2E e t F, x� s 'o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ❑VOH NVIOIN3W$3>I � s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I � I IR I I ! I I I o' I 'QI � I I I � a ® ®Ff � I I I I I I 00 a g AYNMOe OnB d 03SOdOUd IQ p 131 m QQ / ! I og I I I 1 a m ,• City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits $y SEE SX E 7 E](l A FOR CONTIN NARIO" 77—� _ '——————— ————————————————————�I III g�Ag �����€ 8g� �'°�sY:tiRF�N�1n']YkNHiah� .•,�•��giLG2P1G3i%S:ii°2F1"i3�uw'LRf�X�Y� .._-. _ __ __ I �k��'� ���3�@ 0� p �. �` � x45°`�—`i--'t`'P-��•-``�--� �p-s�':t3"-'.3'a:a�-R83a i �aR � a RA gg € R 55 4�9� i4i 3R�X euAp16A 1 I I I • _ •� ! 1 9F b i 6 x �3i Lv q $` �....RL a ` •1 1 �I } Ir i I1 pp P {r i Akita p3OW QFQ'pp � II ate.JE _...�L'�•b� p x':Wre� _ w I.i.=f�", V�:ii - 1: •� I I PIN ii �i PP yZ ifi i3 gc E .�co �z ��C��l� tlC�GGCCCCCGGCggEEE�� E� �El�tltl•�� AMITY&MERIDIAN-SOUTHWEST CO RN ER MERIDIAN,IDAHO E is CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits J. Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan(dated: January 12,2026) WV A 2 1 2 r, E 9JI M . . . ... I j fi E 11H - --- ————— N! z E!I 1H., I flal 14 lo lip ------- 0 S RJR 5itrnaa FrFF q 22 'M I Jimilull TWF ....... 8 W.-HP. JA Big City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits 1 � s I i li IE3 I III 1 a a. I 1 I I II 1 I I I I 1 ' I 1 it 1 I I 1 vi oil Eg ad I + •I`, I III I i' � i � �� �p"p� �� �� e° � �s� ���� �1 Jl�r 1* A Pt 5� a c e Ir 1 A. "Eat 1 I I g y= y 5� � 1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits u m oaf� a . , ° z_0 5 @ 9 s 1 0 �1 m I i g � a x 1 m s s R ao gc F� o:aa ' 4^1 0000 1 9"YHdliilli iii-illl H3LYW — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ........................... .. 771!11� �` - _ — ------ --- ------ -- 1 � 1 i :1 p o � c 1 ' I _ I I 1 DVWJ33HS33S-3Wl HOLLVW City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits u 0 - s � m ■ 1 oFlmd3�s3�-■inmdm m Fuu o€ 1 000000 �offi Ws $� n 1 II s Vet Wlo f 1 '1 3 3 ] 9 3 a e x 1 `1 E m 11,1� 1 In Y ■ @lap g4li � J€-A ioi � S"' C C Ud333N5335-3NI7 Helm IIIIIIIIII 1 II I 1 I I I 1 II I I 1 I I I I � 1 I I ❑ rill I I S I g�F ° ■ I gI _ I I I 1 I g 1 a' a bl w a 1 I I IIo cc I I I I II 1 }sa I I _ I I i I I 1 I I a Zq f Lu City of Meridian I Department Report VII. Exhibits s si gg m �3� t� =�4 =a 4 O C O p Z�w _ Z Y w d � 2 t 0 � z c g a yy � s y s ggZ g qp ptlg �H — _ 1 l II } I I I I I V I I I I I J I I i 11 • annaa J I I I I I } I I O igar Imaa I II I ��� F I I� ' ��,,q k 3 F,..,af3-�,#aaTi�!f�" Y:rru�:,'-�'�.�kr:-:wsi..�t;c'tl:3vk�".z..c�,:<.c.xi..I;Y'fi4�N:`4•°.c�,c,...�A�.S;" City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits K. Conditional Use Permit Site Plan for Multi-family Development(dated: 12/18/24) U3AOa-11YNU3d 3SnIMOLLIONO3 OVHdI•NVIOIU3W B " •s3f15 9N ISSOU�VDNIUAS SNIUMVH :@ Baas I g Q Y BBB 3 E A P; •tggP4 E " 4rEEF »333a 5�a G �9 � �ARA � R � � �� � ��•$ Will sa$ eaa$ � � p$g$gggqg Cam ggqq a � 3Y m��a ��� pppppppp pppppp pppppp pppppp m 1! .. � g� � yff s 9q 5�tl a=1:g5 'tl 8R3 Qee I Fl6 H WV' I •, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ;;i.f--- - - - - - _—_- - - _ _ - - _ — — _ _ - - - - ----- -- - _ moMMA9tl3lV3 a � I 1�- I I III ,•-.% �.I - li.'. • - -") F9 I I qal ao�a •I - I1� ••11 1 m II{�.,� `�� I� I b bt R II � 99 / tl IJ1 I I - City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits NV1d 311S 03NOISN3W10-11WQd3d 3Sn WNOWONO1 W g!a=a o _ OVHOI'NVIOIN3W sMdsren 'qns ONISSOM VONINASSNIMMVH rl �OO�C�O00000� III I 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — T� —- -- — lz 1 YOM— I ae@�h `�O T - w I.. 1 3' Jyv I _ 7 - � LI I f LLLLI l a. 1 m iopa� amm�rvudwxxs ' �n 3sloe vlo3w 3tivnb5rvMo1 —1 City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits N, ld 311S03NOISN31NI(I-11WH3d 3Sn 17NO111UNW_ _ GVH01'NNIOIN3W srvask3a 'gns!)N ISSOM tl9NINAS SNINMVH :@ Jujj w 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - --- -- 1 ' - 1. •, w 1 1 - 1 u� a , - 1 I - LA 1 '9 1 A� City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 9NIH33NI9N3 AlIVNIV41 Id-llWtl3d 35f1 IVNOLLIaNO3 W OVHOI'NVICHOW s sn3u 91159NISSOI V9NIUASSNIJIMVH LIP 29 �es�e J a ee�g to 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -—u-- - 1 1 rl ge I ,1 Z. ,lo r�Mm sI�i 1 �F. , —' 1 (ry 9mmnP 77- III' II � IIII 1"— — im m 351DA YIRYI3JY(IOSNMOI / City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits 9NI933N19N3 AQdVNIWI139d-11WN3d 3Sh IVNOLLI(INO:) 9 -i OtlHal'NtlI41N3W snusra• '9f159NISSONJ tl9NINA5 SNINMVH :@� ������ g °s�� s $� ¢a! yy gg as ®®a @a. � �P�° I IIIIIII• ��� ��� 1� I � t � �000 1 - - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ 1 — LI~ ` —T- R. VIA 1 IA =g IME °i-��•�� � I ' �R�, III: �' - u 1 • Ir • �1 ;l I y III I I- I m •y�2 III l i 1 f I II n J f,�➢ LLL - I City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits L. Conditional Use Permit Landscape Plan for Multi-family Development(dated: 1/12/26) 3 Mild 3dVS5ONV9 dO7 W d § o OHV01�NVIOIH3W sr�dsn e w -am xJNI550H]tl9NIHAS SNIHMVH €I � n �� § d a n FI & P Y gaff y e $ se �- 5� N ss oi� sa R$ �� e G 2 5��� 'S �'�� as ffa (� w S �s z e.3s g. sa Ee B e g Yq yEY E a �B�FQb�9 s 93 V 1' gg 99 c id E �€�r F _2� m 3�� 8 E 9 � '�k �3� � b � ggF��{ � p��p@ ���❑ in $ O H W t e w a V ffin c 4�19 Ci:gESa = g ✓i r � e � � � ii V� P w � 'E� L� k�` �G 33�n� �3 F Y r z s s a w s R 3w z F �g • pd �e � �;3 r �,��tg�= aN 1 - .� II I l i � a m z R s z City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits M. Conditional Use Permit—Multi-family Development Open Space & Site Amenity Exhibits (dated: 1/12/26) LIUIHX33]VdS N3d4dn x OHVOI•NVIOIN3W ° sndsreu '9ns 9N I90'3 V9NINAS SNDIA&VH s @ »» sa r» a sR3 ec� qF eee s @ r; °86 86 c e 'e 8 6 86 9 8 e 8 8 86° a 2 8 6 as o 4 @4 ag a $ @4 Ha @4 g F ggHB a � �E.. gFgHgBg� 'y ww ��EH�H4 Ell pi ��� �!H H"g1 e�� ��4g ggw @»yBw gI � a e ` a .�� d as ���" a p dd33 �_� yH gg''gg q @ @ pj z 5§ � 6b.`^�6 68�kaa, Bbt aka a5 B��. I; `u B � a@@• T H I . I � I' R I — I f i Ogg P go OIL pFF� ry _ Z A§��s City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits L ---• .. K" ��'� z.�. ♦�tiR �� � r.t r �� .� aye• 42 m 11111VIhOEM .= r Sol Poo City ,M ' �.. t of MeridianDepartment Re 11Exhibits SYRINGA CROSSING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT pMMERCIAL GREENSPAU COWEPTlL1 WBACTT004AME A r-Ij C 6 '' — OL — — Wl.LY.mFT fET Qr irk. I r, . , 1 L -4 W, A *��J— } i J � We •a ♦ `" , r _ ppµ + �"� # i ,�y GAF z WP asL 4 � Alb ANRYP4PA ..__..— ". .." .. EI�MTtPAPQ ! 42 At *Air L iA MULTI FAMILY ENTRANCE * }r�eti—: i GREENSPACE . J � #• 1�� I R MULTI FAMILY AMENITY GREEN5PACE �- *fir s► "4$ '� + - " l J - li� O Ilk dk � �w•gF;li1� � � LING •4 �'I rt�i �ILpIG7i LUWG1�1 � '-;iios 3 : JY City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits N. Conditional Use Permit—Multi-family Building Elevations T Q :5 "+�-, I xs__rs� o c (el(�arsanr•� I I I I I I I I I A3.00A s — s 9 4 x 4 4 - 4 4 4 _ IN (f Y 4 T Y r I I I I I C A3-OOB City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits i I � �O IM I I I I I I I I �eeebxs�.�.e E�„nx rlewinwv�.soE E�e.nx., e A3.00C I a HN E E i� I � 4 — $gg rt�Fr#xe. i :�euwwc o.fimxr e�ee�mx r�avawxc o.awee�evanox.� .,„J1L_..,y � A3.aao City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits eau, - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- A3.00E j j I I A� A3.00G City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits I 7atun& VIEW 5 p z md VIEW 2 VIEW 6 z f N F G �q � o - VIEW 3 .- VIEW 7 'J OPMEAMW g E a VEW ® ® _ City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits O. Conceptual Building Elevations for Multi-family Residential Buildings at NWC Building H: Anticipated to be of similar architectural style to Building E on the SWC Building F: Elevations will be modeled off of units at the Broadmore project in Nampa and will be 2 to 3-stories in height, depending on the bedroom count,with first floor garages, as follows: I ■P rii i it 1r rr loss F-r nr if 11 v ed City of Meridian Department Report VII. Exhibits P. Schematic Gravity Irrigation Exhibit for 40'Wide Easement I �Tn N, 1, r be 011 -i 21 15 LAl P i Mg w q V City of Meridian Department Report V11. Exhibits VIII. ADDITIONAL NOTES & DETAILS FOR STAFF REPORT MAPS,TABLES,AND CHARTS (link to Community Metrics) A. One-Mile Radius Existing Condition Notes This data is automatically derived from enterprise application and GIS databases, and exported dynamically. Date retrieved notes generally reflect data acquired or processed within the last 30- days.Analysis is based on a one-mile radius from the centroid of the identified parcel. Parcel based data excludes certain properties and represents land as it exists now. Properties considered are only those with a total assessed value greater than 0(i.e. excludes most HOA area,transitional development, government, and quasi government facilities). The following values also constrain included property acreage to reduce outliers and non-conforming instances from distorting averages: R-2<5.0; R-4<2.0; R-8< 1.0; R-15 <0.5; R-40<0.25. Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary plat data likely include duplicate project submittals as they may be for the same project, approved at different times through multiple application types. Consider each independently or review prior application approvals. Some approved entitlements, and particularly older ones,may be constructed. Decennial population counts and household counts are based on the most recent Decennial Census. Current population and current household values are COMPASS estimates,usually for the year previous, and are based on traffic analysis zone boundaries(TAZ's). prioritized outcome of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. B. ACHD Roadway Infographic Notes The Ada County Highway District utilizes a number of planning and analysis tools to understand existing and future roadway conditions. • Existing Level of service(LOS).LOS indicator is a common metric to consider a driver's experience with a letter ranking from A to F.Letter A represents free flow conditions, and on the other end Level F represents forced flow with stop and go conditions. These conditions usually represent peak hour driver experience. ACHD considers Level D, stable flow,to be acceptable. The LOS does not represent conditions for bikes or pedestrians,nor indicate whether improvements: are possible; if there are acceptable tradeoffs; or if there is a reasonable cost-benefit. • Integrated Five Year Work Plan (IFYWP).The IFYWP marker(yes/no) indicates whether the specified roadway is listed in the next 5-years. This work may vary, from concept design to construction. • Capital Improvement Plan(CIP).The CIP marker(yes/no)indicates whether the specified roadway is programmed for improvement in the next 20-years. City of Meridian I Department Report VIII. Additional Notes&Details for Staff Report Maps, Tables, and Charts Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Syringa Crossing Mixed Use Development H- 2025-0007 Hearin Date: December 18, 2025 Assigned Planner: Sonya Allen To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above "Link to Project Application" will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to comment(a)_meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, City Clerk's Office 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: 208.888.44331 Email: cityclerk meridiancity.org Built for Business, Designed for Living All e-mail messages sent to or received by City of Meridian e-mail accounts are subject to the Idaho law, in regards to both release and retention, and may be released upon request, unless exempt from disclosure by law. C i E IDIAN.;--- Agenda Item Applicant Presentation Hm2025mOOO7 Syringa Crossing Meridian City Council June 16 , 2026 HAWKINS u u iuu Location Map }} r f nrRdma+n jr- T oroY#11�=jr=y4, • Request: 71 Milli, �.� 5 _ �, Annexation, Zoningand Development Agreement of 56 acres .V '�i�!"� '� �� � '�� �� on NW and SW corners of Amity and Meridian Rds. MUMMOL 1P.. —2 Phases considered under a single development agreement ' a7w -14I -1 W Lyra 5t Phase I: SW Corner Phase 11: NW Corner CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) jL le KID 'E AwIlY Rd I h 7F11 * i .2 {Licraior rNO i.� } � • � .r is il r -LLaidera bc' �HAWKINS 2 History - Consider as a Single Project • July 21, 2020 - Pre-app with City of Meridian for Northwest Corner only. SWC - Remain in County for Future County Use (currently wholesale nursery) NWC - 284 residential units and 131,000 SF Commercial on 26 acres • City of Merdian Feedback: Pursue Master Plan for both NW and SW corners, considered under one development agreement. "Mixed Use projects are to be developed with an overall master or conceptual plan for the larger mixed use area; during an annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for projects with a Mixed Use, future land use designation." �H<w.INa 3 Project Overview ❑OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IPI COMMERCIAL• El OFFICE +Jftp ' Request: • Annexation, Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and SW corners 1: 2 VV Lyra St. CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) ' 3 -- =-_ • Project Summary ? [11- 4, F,� . • —56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd ---- --- *� �" • Homes for u to 400families -23 from last Ian IV kt Id 14 r� R -.*�... EA ----- ' � 1 aHAWKINS ' 4 Project Overview ❑OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IPI COMMERCIAL- El OFFICE Jftp Request: ^-;� '� N .. _ • Annexation, Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and " � - SW corners 1'kk VV Lyra St. L �. r -----�-- I R • CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) 1 . of V • ` --- as 1-�-="T=r- • Project Summary: � 1 • -56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd { �� " • Homes for up to 400 families -23 from last Ian I� � ■ � ���� � i PMT I F� • i 45,000 sf of dedicated offices ace (e.g. p professional office, medical offices, daycare) (+24,000 sf from last plan) r 5 +4 '4 - ■7 �11 IILW PkLI �__ l - ft A An - til' J� �HAWKINS ' 5 Project Overview ❑OPEN SPACE MULTI—FAMILY IPI COMMERCIAL El OFFICE -JmpWL I • Request: ^-;� '� N .. _ • Annexation, Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and SW corners 1'kk ■+ VV Lyra St. : . } ; �' _ • CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) � '° ` -�-=`==_ ;.` • Project Summary: .,s # �F f ? + �• 1 ~ o • —56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd t .. r9 - - -{-# Homes for up to 400 families (-23 from last plan) " r • iaJ"-: • 45,000 sf of dedicated office space (e.g. professional office, fit *o% *Jm medical offices, daycare) (+24,000 sf from last plan) l - � * - __ • 147,500 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial a - services (e.g. daily needs grocery story, restaurants, hair/nail 1 - ' salon, bank, gas station, daycare, medical clinic) (+10,000 sf I r� from last plan) Jr - r �HAWKIr ' 6 Project Overview ❑OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IP]COMMERCIAL El OFFICE - _; # GI. • Request: 11 z 3W LIMN miR` _ # rruw rt-rT� _- • Annexation, Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and SW corners *I P VV Lyra fix. CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) • Project Summary: '� I • —56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd • Homes for up to 400 families (-23 from last plan) • 45,000 sf of dedicated office space (e.g. professional office, medical offices daycare) +24 000 sf from last Ian NOR _== • 147,500 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial �* services (e.g. daily needs grocery story, restaurants, hair/nail _ salon, bank, gas station, daycare, medical clinic) (+10,000 sf from last plan) 5 • 9.9 acres (18%) quasi-public open space - 10% required by rC_ / Comp Plan (excluding multi-family CLIP open space) I r �HAWKINS INN 7 Project Overview ❑OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY IP]COMMERCIAL El OFFICE - -� I. • Request: ipill �I i r I � �.4 � aril • Annexation, Zoning and Development Agreement on NW and SW corners * 2 I VV Lyra St. v r - • CUP and Preliminary Plat on SW Corner (Phase 1) • Project Summary: • —56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amity and Meridian Rd Homes for up to 400 families (-23 from last plan) 45,000 sf of dedicated offices ace (e. p g• professional office, �~ medical offices, daycare) +24,000 sf from last Ian ` " 147,500 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial 1-i-i•i i m#"f i i i i i i i i i i _ services (e.g. daily needs grocery story, restaurants, hair/nail salon, bank, gas station, daycare, medical clinic) (+10,000 sf - from last plan) w f • 9.9 acres (18%) quasi-public open space - 10% required by 0 Comp Plan (excluding multi-family CUP open space) ""'� ' • 3.3 acres (21%) multi-family common open space (-50% �° quasi-public) - 10% required by UDO �HAWKINS F '� 8 encradized Land Use Types Mix of Uses Fnrthe purposes of the Mixed Use section, the City identifies _ . five different generalized land use IP]COMMERCIAL types- El 'OPEN SPACE 1. [o m rn ercla I (includes retail, restaurants, dayc aresr etc.); -W L; 2. of fice, 19, 3. residential; 4. civic (includes both public and quasi-public open space, 41"R01 AR)l _, i' for leisure, active play, or enhanced natural spaces); and, ZZ .5. industrial. 1' Iry Lyra St. .. , _J + ---� _ = - `� - r `,}, : J�f • "Mixed use areas must include at least three land use - ' f c Cr types within a designation.' r,e re iF � - :. ` ` _ � } • Project Summary: gal `��` ��� • -56 acres on NW + SW Corners of Amityand Meridian Rd i S 6 1 CI sip#1 {�{ 13#o-* , .�'°�` .I° • Homes for up to 400families (-23 from last plan) 45,000 sf of dedicated offices ace e. . professional office, FT P,,,I,LV P11ti1 - _ _ _ medical offices, daycare) (+24,000 sf from last plan) • 147,500 sf of food, retail, personal services, other commercial s services (e.g. daily needs grocery story, restaurants, hair/nail AM salon, bank, gas station, daycare, medical clinic) (+10,000 sf : . I _ i from last Ian • 9.9 acres (18%) quasi-public open space - 10% required by - Comp Plan (exc/udingmu/ti-farm/ycommon open space ,,. • 3.3 acres (21%) multi-family common open space (~50% � 7T quasi-public) - 10% required byUDO AHAWKINS ' 9 Mix of Uses (NWC - Phase 11) El OPEN SPACE 10MULTI-FAMmV E C-DMMERCIAL 0 OFFICE NWU ummary: l - C.1a&& - • ~30.7 acres on NW Corner of OLD � ' I �� NEW Amity and Meridian Rd I 1. = - -- _-____ - } � -- • 117,600 SF of Commercial Space _ 141V9k 1."A4Ff 14 , y k ai rr• SI E . 63 000SFgrocery/daily needs { q0 q - r Added 10,000 SF of Shops Space(all Lrk , 0. non-drive-thru) K1071k WIT G C-N 37,000 SF of Office Uses I ; -J NOT A PART Added 16,000 SF more office and f * ■ ,.w •., - - �.; CA reoriented it to better integrate et __ _ I P-xs L I between shopping and residential 15 -: . pp g ra r J�_rr-r-r _ I - 2 ; 4, nal� � -r.,uR' Pam. 7 i�+ I uses. I ,. vna� A�w FFUh r,3ue FAL,C , , • Up to 98 multi-family units. (-3 `� units from last plan) - 11 y Added garden-style multi-family units �{I to residential area. OTA I, • Created additional open space I . PRT integrating residential and I J * commercial uses. { * " I' • 23% quasi-public open space (7.1 5 � __ --- - ••l I' 14At?1 y X 0 acres) _ 10 /o required by Comp - - �__-_ -- _ _ Plan - -- --_---- --____ --- — Tr.l .. _ E.AMITY ROAD �HAWKINS Mix of Uses (SWC - Phase 1) OPEN SPACE MULT6 FAMo V E-DWEIICIAL CIFFICE • SWC Summary: NEW ' ~24.5 acres on SW Corner of Amity and E.AMITY ROAD Q Meridian Rd C, 30,000 SF of Commercial Space PA - - ,.. Shops, restaurant, bank, coffee shop, gas I' station Cc R-40I " • 7,800 SF of Office Uses new from last _ _ I BUILD NGA 1 r ------- - - Id I R I plan) - Removed 20 residential units to add office € 4- • PAD' — _ I � � ��....-� . �, 1 - I�- sp ace. Qs a • 302 multi-family units (-20 from last -- - - - I cl &LI . plan) _ Created more efficient building footprints to tlll LlllNe E7fi gJ110T1G F.13 mwn,XFII k.lhflFlLC i• i � _ �� °. allow for more open space and connectivity. -- --- - - - � _ ; - ' • Created additional open space --------- i - R integrating residential and commercial i ld+1G suaw.D 1 j V I -1 - uses. .- .,I � I. �V, _ F • 2.8 acres quasi-public open space (11.4/o of total acreage) - 10 /o required 9USD�iG&7 HLILDNG 61 6UILL NG D- I WILDING C-� o 0 I bY p Com Plan. 91� ' - I t'3iJIlPING#-2 BUILDIM1JG E 1 Btl71 [.2 _ I� �HAWKINS �� Mix of Uses (SWC - Phase 1) • SWC Summary: �' • ~24.5 acres on SW Corner of _- - E.AMITY ROAD Amity and Meridian Rd . ,� : . ° • 30,000 SF of Commercial Space Shops, bank, coffee shop, gas - 4 station a _ " ; I • 7,800 SF of Office Uses HUILDINGA 1 [W6H4L 5E I... Y 1 • Removed 20 residential units to add _ office space. ;, • Created additional plaza space integrating residential and . :. ,I . _ commercial uses. �'` `-° • 302 multi-family units. Created mo re effici ent bu ild ing �-0 footprints to al low for more open ��•<I space. _ • 2.8 acres quasi-public open space (11.4% of total acreage) - 10% i 6UI0INGC-2 IBU,LDINGD- ,�«, -3 required by Comp Plan. PLUS •BUILDIIdG E•t S 3.3 acres "Common 0p Space" ace" I 6UILpINU#2A. i i - - (21% of acreage in Orange) _ :r. �HAWKINS 12 Functional Integ ration +� �-•�.J , �. � � l.�rlNlnnlrnnl! �[HHn IIn OIL IN �_ f '�"' +�`i�. ~ __ •. __ y'i �.f..:_: x r r �n 1/r� +II41i1i illII II IT FADC 1 ,:V,, 4 �4 Ilnnr llq * ..-- _ AItB C `.L * may.. •. r' ryn+l nr!- ..■.■■. C R-15 _ + q + � ;� -� - ��-'+ � tea~' • � /5 #F; IF14 rI4 I III r1 1 r --- # .. ; ? w.•*+*i -3i' z �+; SUI:DINGA l CWBHOU.`f - ., , p C N ° �� �Rr NOT APART =� sG � I � f rh �. �. .. .. - �1111ii 1aal Iui�lrrlr{ii+f1111RIP1111414�1..■■.■� _ - 'c.. _.. i I �-C T iy-_ f1-15 _ � Ul't111If 1J�1 .ILNirfLIrJ1{I.`j,1{+ RI 4M IFIi 1�l1L11111+ t - - f i a I f = T ' RADA PAIL B :I :.�,:i I I I j Al Y I: L-0 1 31111101 Is . IN lur 41 II Pf1ln1■R ! Ii1111�� !rILI111101rlrlPI Pig FIFO IITI ilY..r.� fa + 4 R- 40 C G = CONNECTIVITY LEGEND r f ij T I�L71 {C I _ A - .r.1 •1 1-j�+ �:,I,. J�•;��'i� .� -.� -.� I � :A:l- PART.: 10'51DEWALK 5-7'SIQEWALK ma +:af :s - is G upl�l R, f e r 6UILDINGC-3 - ` Rku II PAflf * -- r•. , f BUILDING E-2 , t'• .• 81JILDINGE-1MD PAID I i I: C 111 _ v7 C �. -f � �. r � y ` i 411r4• y a J40. ! 111111l111l11l111111 •' ,: ; I �wr11�i!*i411i1fnsjlwu.nr }igI1t1lp1■1 anal 1 A Lrn - � f _- �' - X :._ E AMITY ROAD �HAWKINS Functional Integ ration 7+ I rj� NOT A F J. AIL PAI!A VY;L]d PAL1 r- _ - 11� I VA0 F RAO L PA PA:PK At .. Tf � •ice _ T .AMrr9 RUAD �HAWKINS 14 Functional Integ ration I rr .ti 1'' r li C IN 4 / C-N { q 1 NOT APART FF ' I CA N 1. loini I PAIIA y - r TPITT�f C-G wA0 f PAD L OT A • 'I PART - TL I -L ..� _ T E.Af rrY ROAD J �HAWKINS Functional Integ ration Y M -- — E.AMITY ROAD _ DD k � C- T J BUILDING R-1 cLuer,ouse ,. - i '� B111LDHJGJ1-1 a m -I a `i ` _•. �1 i � '! DTIJ PAD _ ,- - - Q2D --. I - ! y • aulLr}In��i ti' Bl11Ll]IHG❑-1 . .�l3VILRING C-� .ti'I - �..: dIJII DING E 2 Lt RVILDINGE•1 } Y I i �HAWKINS 16 Functional Integ ration It -- — E,AMr GOADIn[W77qL .1 msfilm�;-� -%�� AIL dry PAG C l k IJd1i0LISE di11fDIP3G R-1 Cf 1, i i �. IRS...] r f � t• I ti - . Bl11LdHJGA-1 011111[.1 II I IIV Jq # D PAD.,I +4 a R `wd INU 61Fti -1 NIL- dVILDING C 2 dulLnlH�❑-I : � l3VIL01 - I dIJIIL'INGE 2 9UIL[71hlGE•1 I �HAWKINS 17 Transportation Improvements Your Safety • Your Mobility STARS Agreement y H 9 ; y,RA Q�F Your Economic Opportunity °9r�r�Qp • Only feasible if I wanted to provide both you and planning staff with an update regarding the Syringa Crossing Mixed-Use Development. Over the last several months, we have been coordinating with Hawkins on the possibility of a considered as a single STARS agreement for this project. The project meets the requirements to enter into a STARS agreement and �! - would offer a great opportunity for transportation improvements in this area. While the goal is to partner on project. these improvements,we understand Hawkins must carefully review and consider the proposed scope. ITD and "MIIII0� , Hawkins are continuing to meet and work in good faith towards an agreement, and we will keep the City IRRRLATILTHGL7lkL.APFCT Commercial Anchor apprised of any decisions. -- - - - on NW Corner is IRRBATIIN14NYLMPI.GT I - critical i I PdNERPIXERE L,]C4T.]!i'T'/", f J f Hermatite Ave lrHr�P°5E°RIGFtT•H - -FJ CU . . extended as art of .4E3, L development w -- r •� -ULI I.U$L wRi1YI M 1 j{ �Q I 1 I _N .# I FRDFDSMRISM41L L� .tea � `� CFiT-04T Ap°L;gs I _ __ REUM&oe=nPxn�wuLcrr= ' - _ Pp51ER P171E RFL°CATIfSN IT•: _ r •,+ �� 'YM;lFSlSlU 15r:iI,��IN. - iiLLl - RIGHToLRACGE5F I'I.'W'•:0�54�?.:: ?� PR9PO8E6RIG1i MUHTJ",RIGXT.i�.,: r ewreorr Iecrrru�necn,, ier*-rinccess - f J RE-FININGkY'A=.`� �'i HCw f�M1h' I i1U8E PATHH0.V Approved by ITD k � ,ra r'-.N rip ;6 - - _ Ail *may �a 4 T jfJ s +f �HAWKINS Why Our Plan Works and Complies with Merdian 's Comprehensive Plan Ultimately, any mixed use project must work towards the purpose and intent statements, including availability of goods and services to the community, and must offset impacts by providing quality of life opportunities not typically achievable through other single use areas of the City. The base land use coverage ranges are a starting point, with exceptions expected to include justification not on current market conditions, but the health and wellbeing of the community, and the market potential and buildout overtime for the service area of each mixed use designation. • Across NW and SW corners, density remains consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Is Mixed-Use Community desires <15 units/acre. We propose <15 units/acre. • Across NW and SW corners, we offer 4 different land use types that are functionally integrated with safe, convenient, and accessible pathway connections. This wi//increase the share of non-motorized trips to/from the development. • Commercial • Residential • Office • Civic/Quasi-public • The higher the residential density of the project, the greater the share of non-motorized trips to/from the development will be. • Successful mixed use projects not only require a mix of uses, but people who live within convenient walking cycling distance of those uses. �H<w.IHa 19 Why Our Plan Works and Complies with Merdian 's Comprehensive Plan • STARs Agreement made possible by successful Commercial Center (only possible by grocery-anchored center) • Additional transportation improvements above and beyond what is required to mitigate development impacts. • Shopping Center with Grocery Anchor requires more land on NW Corner, which shifts larger residential area to SW Comer • Single Development Agreement provides clear expectations • One developer, one owner on both sides of road, provides a unique opportunity for collaboration between City and Developer to create truly integrated plan. • City and Developer have clear understanding of how the entire property will develop. aH<wkINa 20 Thankyou ! Please Approve H -2025-0007 Questions? Proposed Right- in/ Right-out Access 1 11 1 V Va y �� 7.� - � C.�—a •1i 1 � 1 y Irk 11 1 -� �: lfll I I ' Ij I1: Wit 11' , 11 1` /1 11 �� .,.��.rr� � •art.-"'--'�� 4 J 11, 11 1�'• 1 0 -� ���li� Ik 11 � r � f I 11 17 11 •11 �, II II 11 11 � J Comp Plan Open Space UDO Multi -family Open Space OPEN SPACE DATA OPEN SPACE LEGEND SITE DATA AND CALCULATIONS ACREAGE REQUIRED AC PROVIDED AC REQUIRED% PROVIDED% QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE PER UCD 114-6-MIMMEIN OPEN SPACE NORTH CALCULATIONS ±30,67 AC 3.1 AC 7.1 AC 10% 23.1% QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE PER UCD -MULTI-FAMILY COMMON OPEN SPACE QLIALIFIE13 OPEN SPACE PER LICD 11 4 3 27 MULTI FAMILY PONATE OPEN SPACE SOUTH CALCULATIONS ±24.47 AC 2.4 AC 2.8 AC 10% 11.49/o TOTAL ±55.14 AC 5.5 AC 9.9 AC 10% 18% i BLOCK 1 LOT9 AND BLOCK I LOT10 ACREAGE REQUIRED PROVIDED REQUIRED% PROVIDED% COMBINEDCALCULATION5 A SF AC SF W.Lma UCD 11-3-G-COMMON OPEN SPACE ±15.79 AC 1.58 AC 3.28 AC 10% 20-8% UCD11-4-3-Z7-MULTI-FAMILY COMMON OPEN SPACE 79,3005E 85,3695E =Ra+.iEweacwa•x (264)U NITS AT500-1,200SF*250 (039)UNITS AT 1,200 PLUS-350 SF UCD11-4-3.27-MULTI-FAMILYPRNATE0PENSPACE 24,160SF 27,362SF 1 awcs: 84SFOF PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PER UNIT*302 UNITS rl U mV , r II 5 1 E?,d ws] I 1 •yin s 44 r '^ *am@, 1 N I GA—T:h n}.i a �ORTi v,•nwn'a�nL I�CY.L4 p.a 4 sautes I >. I k I I W * 1'lA■,�I}�I1.I�Ir.JI.IIµ1 rc 2 'III I1111� a exTr nennwx+w � 1 •?� _-- --1 -- y- I fl m m r:v< :or=nur+ I aIHiN�iO dIIHHIHDIi[HRH6 ' ..... - I , I a _ I �HAWKINS 23 � ao' GRAVITY IRRIGATION EASEMENT a' i a' LAPE SCE�PE- 15' DRIVABLE ROAD DUFFER BU Lrxoscrrc e.ne-- � ` I I iurlhGnwex�i ren iY1Frt5a£m—.... I pum raw d — — = - K E PAR STRIP PAR STRIP C WEWA WALKA ° GRAVITY IRRIGATION EASEMENT SECTION ;aor mrrP•.rpe,rrrxr'. Mr -. I 1 rA imcm NG r•Ir FNt.Yf •'t N — J ri Lu PRIVATE ROADWAY A �^ } - Fw .4. I + , — — — —— — .— — — — — — — — — — — .- — - — — — — — — — — — J L_ I J)�SCHEM,ATIC GRAVITY IRRIGATIONEXHIBIT ,� 3..N. own...kSrKr,c+as�cr' ` �HAWKINS Proposed 1 Corner .:.eW;YN.:-♦.::�w3!3+h'hsY.=:a'>+5{�-r'F.w YY� IY11111<r� _ r Ir µF ■!� s ter` 1 i 'pa -lFy _p'� r 1� h 111 ii L�Y. J L �� � .. 1 IZJ■ {:J�114f�::�#!#I��11!!Ei���ll1�±Ei3?iq.E�l1l���d#IIEE�3tl1��Il��Ei€#IIIE##!i`,� 4 i _ M + E y■ � h F I RI I It I Ulf p IN " 1 i ■■ �■ ■■�;� ■ui■rrpilll n■. uil �1 �i■ ■qll■■ Y�f� . r � � llll!!1� R .• -Umm ��i 1-- �--- L11 ##{ 11 II�J ■11 INI! I.I1�11111 11� 1 11 #1 oil ` A I TIS - Traffic Counts - With 18-20% trip capture (scoping accepted by ACHD) Table 3. Updated N ort h Pro ert Pro ase�i Tr1Generation r • ■ i - • iWeekday ■ ■ ■ i Gross ■f ips 1 RO94 698 377 321 1,411 732 679 Intemal Trips ( ,647) (84) (4 ) (4 ) (270) (135) (135) External Trips 10,447 614 335 279 1#1 1 597 Pass-By Taps (2,728) (11 ) (5 ) (5 ) ( 45) (1 4) (1 1) Net New Trips 7,719 502 279 223 896 473 423 Tall . l! dated Southr art r0 ad Geeraflon Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Total • • Gross Trips ID,324 902 426 4746 853 463 390 fnterryc:f Trips (1,:m) (120) ( ) ( ) (156) (79) (78) External Trips 8,436 782 366 425 697 3W 322 Pass-By Trips (3,946) (393) (197) (1 ) (302) (152) (150) Net New Trips 4.p490 389 169 220 395 233 162 aHAWKINS 26 TI S - Traff i c Co u nts - with 0% tri p ca ptu re Table 3. Updated N ort h Pro ert Pro osed T Generation r • ■ Weekday AM PeakiWeekday PM Peak Hour Total AOL out Tot Out External Trips 1 ,04 698 377 321 1,471 732 679 Pass-By Trips (3,364) ( 123) ( 2) �6 1) (2 ) P 0) ( 14 ) Net New Trips 9,730 575 3150 II J 13 582 531 Table 4. U dated South Pro ert Pr ced Tri Generation o a Total In Out Total In Out Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Gross Trips 10,324 902 426 476 853 463 390 Pass-By Trips (4,820) (4 ) ( 4) (2 3) (3 ) (13 ) ( 1 3) Net New Trips 5,504 455 202 253 484 277 207 aHAWKINS 27 Functional Integ ration +� �-•�.J , �. � � l.�rlNlnnlrnnl! �[HHn IIn OIL IN �_ f '�"' +�`i�. ~ __ •. __ y'i �.I _: x r r �n 1/r� +I I41i11 illll II IT FADC AIIB C `.L * may.. •. r' ryn+l nr!- ..■.■■. C R-15 _ + q + � ;� -� - ��-'+ � tea~' • � /5 #F; IF14 rI4 I III r1 1 r --- # .. ; ? w.•*+*i -3i' z �+; SUI:DINGA l CWBHOU.`f - ., , p C N ° �� �Rr NOT APART =� sG � I � f rh �. �. .. .. - �1111ii 1aal Iui�lrrlr{ii+f1111RIP1111414�1..■■.■� _ - 'c.. _.. i I �-C T iy-_ f1-15 _ � Ul't111If 1J�1 .ILNirfLIrJ1{I.`j,1{+ RI 4M IFIi 1�l1L11111+ t - - f i a I f = T ' RADA PAD B :I :.�,:i I I I j Al Y I: L-0 1 31111101 Is . IN lur 41 II Pf1ln1■R ! Ii1111�� `f !rILI111101rlrlllrllflFOIITI R- 40 z C G = CONNECTIVITY LEGEND r f ij T I�L71 {C I _ A - .r.1 •1 1-j�+ �:,I,. J�•;��'i� .� -.� -.� I � :A:l- PART.: 10'51DEWALK 5-7'SIQEWALK ma +:af :s - is G upl�l R, f e r 6UILDINGC-3 - At II PAflf * -- r•. ,# f BUILDING E-2 , t'• 81JILDINGE-1 r' 111 _ v7 C -f L �. r � y `� i 411r4• y a J40. ! 111111l111l11l111111 •' ,: ; I - 1 _ �wr11�i!*i411i1fnsjlwu.nr }iqI 1t1lp1■1 anal 1 A i # 4k :._ E AWY ROAD �HAWKINS 28 High -QualityMaterials & Finishes 3G3� VINYL WINDOWS - BLACK VPI WINDOWS $B7F ARCHI-TECTURAL METALS B STOREFRONT WINDOWS F49 DARK 4 BRONZE BRICK CANYON MIST RUNNING BOND 1AIA MUTUAL MATERIAL FIBER CEMENT SIDIN:, INDIGO BATIK VARIEGATED BOARD&BATTEN ALLURA 101A FIBER CENI ENT SIDING STEELY GRAY VARIPGATED BOARD&BATTEN ALLURA ,���t' 7I6F STUGCO I#SC LIGHT CREAM FIDERCEMENT$I[]IN[, MEDIUM SAND PEBBLE FINISH WARM W+{ISiCY 10.25'1+ERTICAL SHIPLAP JAMI=S NAM3IE IHOA ic2A 516ER CEMENT LAP SIDING FIBER CEMENT SIDING WHITE BLACK MAGIC TRADITIONAL LAP 8'CLAPBOARD ALLURA ALLURA JACKSON I MAIN THE �I H 11 KI T MATERIAL 311 FIRST AVEN4IC S4LT i yEAT rot wxmi-g GA CROSSING SELECTION 1 26fr324 ABW .1 n WWW.-MCKS3NN iN.Mm PROJECT NO.: 2We$ DRAWN BY: R MG 1 1 1 �HAWKINS Multifamily Elevations and ReI story centralbuildings no w— SEE mmm nm=l n ■■ ■ i■i■ ■■i■ ■i■■1101 11111 nrm mrom I rm j �� 111��■ii ■ ,., ■ r- S-, . = . , ■■ =._._.�'ME■ WE■=in .... 11 11111111 ��■ - ! - I-I ! •� _ ! ! - ! - =MENME i ■■I ilmmmm—... �=====i=ii-ii=�I- -1■ice i i i ii om � _��=�� �� li Dili M-� �iW■ _liiiii it ram_ ■� sill �M_ _ __ _ ��� i� L � li IF'}� �-� ■■ ■ Ila I■■!■■; ■■ ■ ■ I ■ ■■++ ■■i1111111111 11 1111 ■ �1� 11 ����I��il■� -� ® n iz=a Multifamily Elevations and Renderings - 3 story tuck- under garage RO I��■� nnnm� ■■■�' ■ nmmn ■■■■ �mllm� �■��I � � �■ _ _ _ _ II �:lilllli'�--��� -- 11 : 1111 �-� �III:� III - - ■� - � ■� �` ■ II_�� ��� ��;,�,.III I_ ��� ;; ___I ,�■ III�ii iiii��ii ii� II_ ■i�,� LEVEL03 Ff 5Il �i ii ii II R1 ................................................... nnunu mmui� imnmi _ _= LEVEL 1 1 1 LEVEL icr NORTHi Multifamily Elevations and Renderings - 3 story garden style T1= II ���i�l I ,ill, ,■■ 1 ass■■ U-111i——II —_,��■■■ 1 1 �I� ■ I II � iu II I Ifu ■ i— II ou. uou� 1 �� u� ■ 1 ■��.■■■ - --- -_■ 1 ■■ 1 SOUTH + / CONCEPTUAL RO .Il.� LEVEL 03 1 1 1 r�I■ I�I��I�•�•I ���:f•l �I :I•:�I•I • I�• •• .I I. LEVEL 1 1 1 NORTH ELEVATION, CONCEPTUAL m i f Commercial Shops BuildingConcept Elevation 7 7 1 ! I � � N SIGN SIGN SIGN - ---�----.--------�--- {----�----�---- ------- ---�---� �---- -ate I 1 Y 1_ 4 Ir Y N I I I I I I I I 1 I I I - -�- ------ -�--�------ -----�- - - lam I } I i I 1 pAQ A PLAZA A EAST ELEVATMN �HAWKINS 33 Conceptual Examples Mon- ILI fI I f y � �� ' '�• i w. j �► ... .. � ''tam-�-'•� _.. -� - -`�_:-. �HAWKINS Conceptual Townhome soon N I rr HAWKINS y err r_ _ �; - ; pp d Ti • vow '- �; •�t�-• �M�s� 5 - Intersection view ICI _ _ F STARS Agreement �M!3 1 Wr E MUL71—UEE PATH-WAv feasibleOnly 1 1 d as • I r I�� �� 1 single project Hermatite Ave extended as part u 1 +F• of development IM 16 PEW FbDVd I � - 1■ I v: 1 r � - `• � yF uu a a a a � _ - - F 1 f 1-, lC 00 V Ol U7 4h O � C m N n � O N � o cn• � CD � o a (D c N c O cu rF m � Q. cr o p = (D T1 = a) rF 0 d4 CL —• Vf `) v �' M m a- =r m r. 3 A rF T o 0 m v v v x O -% Q. D -D -� � v ( x cn M rt o m c All W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 26-2126: An Ordinance Adding a New Title 12 Called "Countywide Development Impact Fees" to the Meridian City Code and Adding Thereto a New Chapter 1 Called "Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees" That Provides for Short Chapter Title; Authority, Findings, Applicability, and Purpose; Definitions; Capital Improvements Plan; Periodic Review of the Capital Improvements Plan; Intergovernmental Agreement with Ada County; Imposition of County Impact Fees and Payment; Enforcement and Collection; County Impact Fee Administrator and City Powers to Require Payment of County Impact Fees; County Impact Fee(s) Exemptions; Process for Individual Assessment; Extraordinary Impacts; Developer Credits and Reimbursements; County Impact Fee Payment Mistake or Misrepresentation; Fee Payer Refunds; County Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund, Expenditures, Budget, Audit, and Surcharge; Appeals and Mediation; Miscellaneous Provisions; Punishment for Violations; Construction of Ordinance Intent; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2126 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE ADDING A NEW TITLE 12 CALLED "COUNTYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES" TO THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE AND ADDING THERETO A NEW CHAPTER 1 CALLED "ADA COUNTY JAIL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES" THAT PROVIDES FOR: • SHORT CHAPTER TITLE,AND • AUTHORITY,FINDINGS,APPLICABILITY,AND PURPOSE; AND • DEFINITIONS; AND • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; AND • PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; AND • INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH ADA COUNTY; AND • IMPOSITION OF COUNTY IMPACT FEES AND PAYMENT; AND • ENFORCEMENT AND COLLECTION; AND • COUNTY IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATOR AND CITY POWERS TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF COUNTY IMPACT FEES; AND • COUNTY IMPACT FEE(S)EXEMPTIONS; AND • PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT; AND • EXTRAORDINARY IMPACTS;AND • DEVELOPER CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS; AND • COUNTY IMPACT FEE PAYMENT MISTAKE OR MISREPRESENTATION; AND • FEE PAYER REFUNDS; AND • COUNTY IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS TRUST FUND, EXPENDITURES,BUDGET,AUDIT,AND SURCHARGE;AND • APPEALS AND MEDIATION; AND • MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS; AND • PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATIONS; AND • CONSTRUCTION OF ORDINANCE INTENT; AND • PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the Meridian City Code be amended by adding a new Title 12 called"Countywide Development Impact Fees" and by adding thereto a new Chapter I called "Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance"to read as follows: Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 1 TITLE 12 COUNTYWIDE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1 ADA COUNTY JAIL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PART 1: SHORT CHAPTER TITLE,AUTHORITY,FINDINGS,APPLICABILITY,AND PURPOSE: 12-1-101: SHORT CHAPTER TITLE This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance. 12-1-102: CITY AUTHORITY This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's general police powers, its authority to enact ordinances, and its authority as provided by the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act codified at Chapter 82 of Title 67, Idaho Code (the "Act") and other applicable laws of the state of Idaho to impose development impact fees, which includes the establishment and collection of development impact fees pursuant to its authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with Ada County (the "County") as provided for in Idaho Code § 67-8204A. 12-1-103: COUNTY AUTHORITY A. The County has authority to construct, and has constructed and maintains, the common jails of Ada County which are kept by the Sheriff pursuant to I.C. §§ 20-601 and 31- 2202(6). B. The County has general police powers and the authority to enact ordinances,but County ordinances do not apply within any incorporated city within the County. C. The County has authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City as provided for in I.C. § 67-8204A to establish its jail development impact fees within the City. 12-1-104: FINDINGS A. Cities and counties are "governmental entities" empowered to impose and collect development impact fees pursuant to the provisions of I.C. §§ 67-8202(5) and 67-8203(14). B. The County has established the Ada County Development Impact Fee Ordinance at Chapter 2 of Title 10 of the Ada County Code which provides for the establishment, imposition and collection of certain development impact fees within the unincorporated area within Ada County. C. The County and City are experiencing considerable new growth and development, which new growth affects the ability of the County to provide adequate jail facilities (the "Public Facilities") to serve the County and the City. D. The ability of the County to provide such adequate Public Facilities jointly affects both the County and the City. Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 2 E. The City and the County are each experiencing considerable growth and development. F. The purposes of the Act are as follows: 1. Ensure that adequate Public Facilities are available to serve new growth and development; 2. Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments, such as the City and the County, may require those who benefit from new growth and development pay their Proportionate Share of the costs of new Public Facilities needed to serve that new growth and development; 3. Establish minimum standards for adoption of development impact fee ordinances; 4. Ensure that those who benefit from new growth and development are required to pay no more than their Proportionate Share of the cost of Public Facilities needed to serve that new growth and development and to prevent duplicate and ad hoc Development Requirements; and 5. To empower cities and counties to adopt ordinances to impose development impact fees. G. The Act authorizes the County to enact development impact fee ordinances but County ordinances do not apply within the City. H. The Act does provide, pursuant to I.C. § 67-8204A, in circumstances where the City and the County are both affected by the considerable Development as is occurring within the City, that the City and the County may enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the purpose of agreeing to collect and expend development impact fees for System Improvements which provides for a funding mechanism for those System Improvements Costs incurred by the County to meet the demand and growth occurring within the City and which promotes and accommodates orderly growth and Development and protects the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents within the boundaries of the City. I. New growth within the City is expected to continue and will place increased demands on the County to provide and expand its Public Facilities to serve that new growth. The tax revenues generated from new Development within the City often do not generate sufficient funds to provide the necessary improvements and expansion of the County's existing Public Facilities to accommodate that new growth. J. Section 67-8204A of the Act authorizes the City to enter into intergovernmental agreements with the County to collect development impact fees for County Public Facilities needed due to new growth and Development in the City. K. The creation of an equitable development impact fee system facilitated by the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the County will promote the purposes set forth in the Act,in that it will: (a)ensure that the County has adequate capital facilities which are available to serve new growth and Development; (b)promote orderly growth and Development by establishing uniform standards by which the City may require that those who benefit from new growth and Development pay a Proportionate Share of the cost of the County's capital facilities needed to serve new growth and Development in the City; (c) establish minimum standards for the adoption of County Jail Impact Fees; (d) ensure that those who benefit from new growth and Development Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 3 are required to pay no more than their Proportionate Share of the cost of the County's capital facilities needed to serve new growth and Development in the City; and (e) prevent duplicate and ad hoc Development Requirements in the City. L. The Capital Improvements Plan contains System Improvements planned by the County during the term of its Capital Improvements Plan, and such element has been developed in conformance with the requirements of the Act. M. The Capital Improvements Plan sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of new Development on the County's Public Facilities and determines the cost of acquiring or constructing the improvements necessary to meet the demands for such facilities created by new Development. N. In accordance with the Act, the Capital Improvements Plan was based on actual System Improvements Costs or reasonable estimates of such costs. In addition, the Capital Improvements Plan uses a fee calculation methodology that is net of credits for the Present Value of revenues that will be generated by new growth and Development based on historical funding patterns and that are anticipated to be available to pay for System Improvements, including taxes, assessments,user fees, and intergovernmental transfers. O. The County Jail Impact Fees established by this Chapter are based on the County's Capital Improvements Plan, and do not exceed System Improvements Costs to serve new Development that will pay the County Jail Impact Fees. P. The County's capital facilities, included in the calculation of the fees in its Capital Improvements Plan, will benefit all new Development throughout the City, and it is therefore appropriate to treat all areas of the City as a single Service Area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the County Jail Impact Fees collected from Developers. Q. There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between Development impacts created by each type of Development covered by this Chapter, the development impact fees assessment of such Development covered by this Chapter, and the development impact fees that Developers will be required to pay. R. This Chapter creates a system by which development impact fees paid by Developers will be used to finance, defray, or reimburse a portion of the costs incurred by the County to construct and/or purchase System Improvements in ways that benefit the Development for which the development impact fee was paid within a reasonable period of time after the development impact fee is paid, and in conformance with I.C. § 67-8210. S. This Chapter creates a system under which development impact fees shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies for any County Public Facilities,or to replace or rehabilitate existing Public Facilities, or to pay for routine operation or maintenance of those facilities. T. This Chapter creates a system under which there shall be no double payment of development impact fees, in accordance with I.C. § 67-8204(19). U. This Chapter is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Act concerning development impact fee ordinances. 12-1-105: APPLICABILITY Except as otherwise exempted in section 12-1-701,the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the development of property located within the boundaries of the City of Meridian, Idaho. Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 4 12-1-106: PURPOSE A. This Chapter is adopted to be consistent with, and to help implement, the Capital Improvements Plan. B. The intent of this Chapter is to ensure that new Development bears a Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements; to ensure that such Proportionate Share does not exceed the cost of such System Improvements required to accommodate new Development; and to ensure that funds collected from new Development are used for System Improvements in accordance with the Act. C. It is the further intent of this Chapter to be consistent with those principles for allocating a fair share of the cost of System Improvements to new Development, and for adopting development impact fee ordinances, as established by the Act. D. It is not the intent of this Chapter to collect any money from any new Development that exceeds the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for System Improvements created by such new Development. E. It is the intent of this Chapter that any monies collected, as imposed County Jail Impact Fees, are deposited in the proper Development Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund Account, are never commingled with monies from a different impact fee Accounts, are never used for a development impact fee component different from that for which the fee was paid, are never used to correct current deficiencies in any County Capital Facilities, and are never used to replace or rehabilitate County Capital Facilities when it does not increase capacity, or be used to maintain or operate any County Capital Facilities. PART 2: DEFINITIONS 12-1-201: DEFINITIONS As used in this Chapter,the following words and terms shall have the following meanings, unless another meaning is plainly intended and words and terms appearing in the singular number include the plural and the plural the singular: ACCOUNTS shall mean any of one or more interest bearing accounts within the County Development Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund established in Part 13 of this Chapter. ADVISORY COMMITTEE shall mean a County advisory committee established and identified in the Intergovernmental Agreement which is formed and staffed pursuant to I.C. § 67-8205 to prepare and recommend the Capital Improvements Plan and any amendments, revisions, or updates of the same. ACT shall mean the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act as set forth in Chapter 82 of Title 67, Idaho Code. APPROPRIATE shall mean to legally obligate by contract or otherwise commit to the expenditure of funds by appropriation or other official act of the County Board of Commissioners. BUILDING PERMIT shall mean the City permit required for new construction and additions under Title 10 of the Meridian City Code. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS shall mean improvements with a useful life of ten(10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increases the service capacity of County Capital Facilities. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT shall mean a component of the Capital Improvements Plan identified in the County's CIP adopted by its governing board and the City Council pursuant to Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 5 Chapters 65 and 82 of Title 67, Idaho Code, and as amended, which component meets the requirements of the Capital Improvements Plan required by the Act. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN shall mean an impact fee study and capital improvements plan, which has been recommended by the Advisory Committee and adopted by the County Board of Commissioners and the City Council pursuant to the Act that identifies the County Capital Facilities for which the County's impact fees may be used as a funding source. CITY shall mean the City of Meridian,Idaho. CITY COUNCIL shall mean the City Council of the City of Meridian. COUNTY shall mean Ada County, Idaho. COUNTYBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS shall mean the Board of Commissioners of Ada County, which is Ada County's governing board. COUNTY CAPITAL FACILITIES shall mean County Public Facilities which are identified in the Capital Improvements Plan, and specifically including those related costs including System Improvements Costs,but not including maintenance, operations, or improvements that do not expand capacity. COUNTYIMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATOR shall mean the person appointed by the County Board of Commissioners to administer the imposition of County Jail Impact Fees in accordance with the Act and the Intergovernmental Agreement. COUNTYJAIL IMPACT FEES shall mean a payment of money imposed as condition of Development Approval to pay for a Proportionate Share of the County's costs of System Improvements needed to serve the Development. The term does not include the following County charges: • A charge or fee to pay the administrative plan review or inspection cost associated with permits required for Development; • Connection or hookup charges; • Availability charges for drainage, sewer, water or transportation charges for services provided directly to the Development; or • Amounts collected from a Developer in a transaction in which the County has incurred expenses in constructing Capital Improvements for the Development if the owner or Developer has agreed to be financially responsible for the construction or installation of those Capital Improvements, unless a written agreement is made, pursuant to I.C. § 67- 8209(3) as amended, for credit or reimbursement. DEVELOPER shall mean any person or legal entity undertaking Development including a Development that seeks an annexation into the City and/or undertakes the subdivision of property pursuant to I.C. §§ 50-1301 through 50-1334, as amended. DEVELOPMENT shall mean any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the annexation into the City and/or subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. DEVELOPMENTAPPROVAL shall mean any written duly authorized document from the City which authorizes the commencement of a Development. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS TR UST FUND OR TR UST Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 6 FUND shall mean the Ada County Development Impact Fee Jail Capital Projects Fund(or Jail Capital Projects Fund) as established by action of the County Board of Commissioners. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS shall mean a requirement attached to a Developmental Approval or other City governmental action approving or authorizing a particular Development. EXTRAORDINARY COSTS shall mean those costs incurred as result of an Extraordinary Impact. EXTRAORDINARYIMPACT shall mean an impact which is reasonably determined by the County Impact Fee Administrator to: (i)result in the need for System Improvements, the cost of which will significantly exceed the sum of the County Jail Impact Fees to be generated from the Development or the sum agreed to be paid pursuant to a development agreement as allowed by I.C. § 67-8214(2), as amended; or(ii)result in the need for System Improvements which are not identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. FEE PAYER shall mean the person who pays or is required to pay County Jail Impact Fees. A Fee Payer may include a Developer. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT shall mean the most recent Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for Ada County Sheriff's Jail on Development within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian entered into by and between the City and the County pursuant to I.C. § 67- 8204A for the collection and expenditure of County Jail Impact Fees established pursuant to this Chapter. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS shall mean a description of the Service Area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities and population in the Service Area over at least a ten-year period. LEVEL OF SERVICE shall mean a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for Public Facilities. MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME shall mean a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections,which, in the traveling mode, is eight(8) feet or more in width or is forty(40)body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty(320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical systems contained in such structure, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under 42 U.S.C. §§ 5401 et seq. MODULAR BUILDING shall mean any building or building component other than a Manufactured/Mobile Home,which is constructed according to the International Building Code, as adopted or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. PRESENT VALUE shall mean the total current monetary value of past,present or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials, construction or money. PROJECT shall mean a particular Development on an identified lot or parcel of land. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS, in contrast to System Improvements, shall mean site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular Project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the Project. Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 7 PROPORTIONATE SHARE shall mean that portion of System Improvements Costs determined pursuant to I.C. § 67-8207 which reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the Project. PUBLIC FACILITIES shall mean land,buildings and equipment used for a County jail which have a useful life of ten (10) years or more. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE shall mean a vehicular type primarily designed as temporary quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use,which either has its own motive power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle. SERVICE AREA shall mean the defined geographic area in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan including the geographic area within the City as identified by the County in which specific Public Facilities provide service to Development within the areas defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles or both. For purposes of this Chapter, there shall be one Service Area which includes all of the City of Meridian. SERVICE UNIT shall mean a standardized measure of consumption,use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of Development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of Capital Improvements. As specifically used in this Chapter, Service Units include residential dwelling units as defined in the Unified Development Code of the City of Meridian and square feet of nonresidential Development. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, in contrast to Project Improvements, shall mean Capital Improvements to Public Facilities which are designed to provide service to a Service Area. For the purpose of this Chapter, System Improvements are for County jail capital facilities. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COSTS shall mean costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of System Improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in I.C. § 50-1702(h), as amended,to provide additional Public Facilities needed to service new growth and Development. For clarification, System Improvements Costs do not include: • Construction, acquisition or expansion of Public Facilities other than Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plan; • Improvements,repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new capital; • Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; • Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to provide better service to existing development; • Administrative and operating costs of the County unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plan, as provided in I.C. § 67-8208, as amended; and • Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the County to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. PART 3: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 12-1-301: Proportionate Determination Methodology County Jail Impact Fees imposed by this Chapter are determined by the approved Capital Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 8 Improvements Plan and shall not exceed a Proportionate Share of the cost of the System Improvements determined in accordance with I.C. § 67-8207, as amended. County Jail Impact Fees shall be based on actual System Improvements Costs or reasonable estimates of such costs, and shall be calculated using the methodology contained in the Capital Improvements Plan which complies with the following: A. Based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the impact fees imposed do not exceed a Proportionate Share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the County in the provision of System Improvements to serve the new Development. The Proportionate Share is the costs attributable to the new Development after the consideration of the following: 1. Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land or construction of System Improvements; 2. Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new Development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; 3. That portion of general tax or other revenues allocated by the County to System Improvements; and 4. All other available sources of funding for such System Improvements. B. In determining the Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements to be paid by the Developer,the following factors shall be considered and accounted for in the calculation of the impact fees: 1. The costs of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; 2. The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; 3. The extent to which the new Development will contribute to System Improvements costs through taxation, assessments, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to System Improvements costs through Developer or landowner contributions; 4. The extent to which the new Development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; 5. The extent to which the new Development should be credited for providing System Improvements without charge to other properties within the Service Area; 6. Extraordinary Costs, if any, incurred in serving the new Development; 7. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of fees paid at different times; and 8. The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation. C. County Jail Impact Fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for Public Facilities adopted in this Chapter that are applicable to existing Development as well as new growth and Development. The construction, improvement, expansion or enlargement of new or existing Public Facilities for which the impact fees are imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new Development. 12-1-302: Service Area The Service Area includes all areas identified and defined in the approved Capital Improvements Plan. Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 9 12-1-303: Review and Modification of Capital Improvements Plan The County shall, at least once every five (5) years, commencing from the date of the original adoption of the Capital Improvements Plan, review Development potential and update the Capital Improvements Plan in cooperation with the City and in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act, as amended. Each update shall be prepared by the County Impact Fee Administrator in consultation with the Advisory Committee. PART 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT 12-1-401: Authority to Enter into Intergovernmental Agreements The City is a governmental entity that is empowered by the Act to adopt development impact fee ordinances and is authorized by I.C. § 67-8204A to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the County for the purpose of developing joint plans for capital improvements and for the purpose of agreeing to collect and expend development impact fees for System Improvements. 12-1-402: City and County Intergovernmental Agreement The City has entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the County which Intergovernmental Agreement is in full force and effect. 12-1-403: County Subject to this Chapter The Intergovernmental Agreement complies with this Chapter and requires the County to be governed by and to fully abide by the provisions of this Chapter. 12-1-404: Amendments to Intergovernmental Agreement Any amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement shall be implemented by corresponding relevant amendments of this Chapter which amendments shall not apply to any County Jail Impact Fees previously collected not yet expended and currently held in the Trust Fund. PART 5: IMPOSITION OF COUNTY JAIL IMPACT FEES AND PAYMENT 12-1-501: County Jail Impact Fees Imposed County Jail Impact Fees are hereby imposed on all new Development within the Service Area, as defined in the Capital Improvements Plan, in accordance with the impact fee schedules as set forth in this Part of this Chapter. 12-1-502: Impact Fee Calculation The County Jail Impact Fees shall be calculated in accordance with the impact fee schedule set forth in the Capital Improvements Plan which provides for standard fees based on the total number of dwelling units or square feet of nonresidential space in the Development, unless: A. The Fee Payer requests an individual assessment pursuant to Part 8 of this Chapter; or B. The Development will have an Extraordinary Impact pursuant to Part 9 of this Chapter. The methodology for determining the costs per Service Unit provided for in the fee schedule is set forth in the Capital Improvements Plan. Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 10 12-1-503: Impact Fees Schedule The County Jail Impact Fees for the various land uses per unit of Development are set forth in the following impact fees schedule and shall take effect the 30th day following verification that all the incorporated cities within Ada County have adopted ordinances in compliance with the Act to impose and collect County Jail Impact Fees. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter, no County Jail Impact Fees shall be imposed on new Development until the County Jail Impact Fees take effect. A. Impact Fees Schedule: Residential (per Single Family Dwelling Unit) $ 516.00 Residential (per Multi-Family Dwelling Unit) $ 357.00 Non-Residential (per 1,000 retail square feet)* $ 944.00 Non-Residential (per 1,000 office square feet)* $ 364.00 Non-Residential(per 1,000 industrial square feet)* $ 163.00 Non-Residential (per 1,000 institutional square feet)* $ 361.00 * Prorated to the nearest square foot. 12-1-504: Developer's Election Pursuant to the Act, a Developer shall have the right to elect to pay a Project's Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs by payment of an impact fee according to the Fee Schedule as full and complete payment of the Development Project's Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs, except as provided in I.C. § 67-8214(3), as amended. 12-1-505: Procedures: The collection of County Jail Impact Fees shall be in accordance with the following procedures: A. Building Permit. Upon submittal of a complete application for a Building Permit for the Development to the City, the City shall calculate the County Jail Impact Fees due for the Development in accordance with the Fee Schedule in section 12-1-503 of this Chapter unless the Fee Payer requests an individual assessment or is the subject of a credit or the County Impact Fee Administrator determines that the Development may have Extraordinary Impact. B. Exemption. An exemption pursuant to section 12-1-701 of this Chapter must be claimed by the Fee Payer upon application for a Building Permit or manufactured home installation permit. Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed waived by the Fee Payer. 12-1-506: Certification of Impact Fees Due After the County Jail Impact Fees for a proposed Development have been calculated by the City pursuant to the Fees Schedule or by the County Impact Fee Administrator using the individual assessment process, or there is a credit, or Extraordinary Impact,the Fee Payer may request from the County Impact Fee Administrator a certification of the amount of the County Jail Impact Fee due for that Development which shall be processed as follows: A. Within thirty (30) days after receiving such request the County Impact Fee Administrator shall issue a written certification of the amount of the County Jail Impact Fee due for the proposed Development. Such certification shall establish the County Jail Impact Fee so long as there is no material change to the Project as identified in the individual assessment application, or the impact fees schedule of the Capital Improvements Plan. Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 11 B.The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the County Jail Impact Fee, including an explanation of factors considered under Idaho Code Section 67-8207,and shall also specify the System Improvements for which the County Jail Impact Fee is intended to be used. C. The County Impact Fee Administrator shall provide the certification to the Fee Payer and the City. 12-1-507: Payment and Receipt of Fees County Jail Impact Fees shall be paid to the City at the following times: A. Following application for a Building Permit and prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for a dwelling unit or nonresidential building; or B. At such other time as the Developer and the County has agreed upon in writing with advance notice to the City. C. All County Jail Impact Fees paid to the City pursuant to this Chapter and the Intergovernmental Agreement shall then be timely delivered to the County in accordance with the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. D. In the event County Jail Impact Fees are paid directly to the County,then the County Impact Fee Administrator shall immediately notify the City of such payment. 12-1-508: Payment Under Protest A Fee Payer may pay a County Jail Impact Fee under protest in order not to delay in the issuance of a Building Permit by the City.A Fee Payer making a payment under protest shall not be estopped from exercising the right to appeal provided herein,nor shall such Fee Payer be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deemed to have been improperly collected. PART 6: CITY AND COUNTY IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATOR POWERS TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES 12-1-601: County Jail Impact Fee Payment Enforcement When any County Jail Impact Fee is due pursuant to this Chapter, or pursuant to the terms of any written agreement between a Fee Payer and the County and has not been paid in a timely manner,the City, upon request from the County Impact Fee Administrator, may exercise any or all of the following powers as authorized by law, in any combination, to enforce the collection of the impact fee: A. Withhold Building Permits or other Development Approval until all County Jail Impact Fees due have been paid. B. Withhold utility services from the Development until all County Jail Impact Fees due have been paid. C. Add interest to the County Jail Impact Fees not paid at the legal rate provided for in I.C. § 28-22-104, as amended,plus five(5)percent beginning on the date at which the payment of the impact fees was due until paid in full. D. Impose a penalty of one (1) percent of the total County Jail Impact Fees (not merely the portion dishonored, late or not paid in full) per month, beginning on the date at which the payment of the County Jail Impact Fees was due, until paid in full. E. Impose a lien pursuant to the authority of I.C. § 67-8213(4) for failure to timely pay the Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 12 County Jail Impact Fees following the procedures contained in Idaho Code Chapter 45, Chapter 5. PART 7: EXEMPTIONS 12-1-701: Exemptions The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following: A. Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which is destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, provided the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two (2)years of its destruction; or B. Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of Service Units; or C. Replacing a residential unit, including a Manufactured/Mobile Home, with another residential unit on the same lot;provided that the number of Service Units does not increase; or D. Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; or E. Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of Service Units; or F. Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as a tennis court or a clubhouse,unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of System Improvements; or G. The installation of a Modular Building, Manufactured/Mobile Home, or Recreational Vehicle if the Fee Payer can demonstrate by documentation, such as utility bills and tax records, that either: 1. A Modular Building,Manufactured/Mobile Home, or Recreational Vehicle was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date of this Chapter; or 2. A County Jail Impact Fee has been paid previously for the Modular Building, Manufactured/Mobile Home, or Recreational Vehicle on that same lot or space. H. Construction that would otherwise be subject to payment of the County Jail Impact Fee pursuant to this Chapter if undertaken by a taxing entity, as defined in section 63-201,Idaho Code, or by an authorized public charter school, as defined in section 33-5202A, Idaho Code, in the course of carrying out its statutory responsibilities. 12-1-702: Exemption Claim Process An exemption from a County Jail Impact Fee must be claimed on the application by the Developer or Fee Payer upon submitting an application for a Building Permit or manufactured home installation permit. Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed waived by the Developer or Fee Payer. The City shall refer exemption claims to the County Impact Fee Administrator for determination. PART 8: INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS 12-1-801: Individual Assessment Process Requests for individual assessment shall be processed in accordance with the following: A. In lieu of calculating the amount of the County Jail Impact Fee pursuant to section 12-1- 503 and the Capital Improvements Plan, a Fee Payer may file a request with the County Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 13 that the amount of the required impact fee be determined by the County Impact Fee Administrator through an individual assessment for the proposed Development. A request for an individual assessment process shall involve consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the Fee Payer to adjust the amount of the County Jail Impact Fee. If a Fee Payer files a request for the use of an individual assessment, the Fee Payer shall be responsible for retaining a qualified professional to prepare the individual assessment that complies with the requirements of this Chapter, at the Fee Payer's expense. The Fee Payer shall, at the Fee Payer's expense, bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the resulting individual assessment complies with the requirements of this Chapter. The Fee Payer shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the resulting individual assessment is a more accurate measure of its Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements, based on the adopted Levels of Service, than the impact fees that would otherwise be due pursuant to section 12-1-503 of this Chapter and the Capital Improvements Plan. B. Each individual assessment shall be based on the same Level of Service standards and unit costs for System Improvements used in the Capital Improvements Plan,shall use an average cost(not a marginal cost)methodology,and shall document the relevant methodologies and assumptions used. C. A request for an individual assessment shall be delivered and filed with the County Impact Fee Administrator at the time that the number of dwelling units in the proposed Development and the types and amounts of Development in each nonresidential category identified in section 12-1-503 of this Chapter and the Capital Improvements Plan is known. The County Impact Fee Administrator shall issue a written decision within thirty(30) days following receipt of a completed request for individual assessment together with all supporting information from the Fee Payer, so as not to unreasonably delay subsequent applications to the City for Building Permits. D. Each individual assessment request delivered to the County Impact Fee Administrator may then be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the County Impact Fee Administrator as the basis for calculating the impact fee. The criteria for acceptance, rejection, or acceptance with modifications shall be whether the individual assessment is a more accurate measure of demand for System Improvements created by the proposed Development, or the costs of those facilities, than the applicable fees shown in section 12- 1-503 of this Chapter and the Capital Improvements Plan. E. The decision by the County Impact Fee Administrator on an application for an individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the County Jail Impact Fee, shall specify the System Improvements for which the impact fee is intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of those factors identified in I.C. § 67-8207. F. If an individual assessment is accepted or accepted with modifications by the County Impact Fee Administrator,then the County Jail Impact Fee due under this Chapter for such Development shall be calculated and collected according to such individual assessment. G. The County Impact Fee Administrator shall provide notice of final determination of an individual assessment to the Fee Payer and to the City. PART 9: EXTRAORDINARY IMPACTS 12-1-901: Extraordinary Impact Determinations Determinations of Extraordinary Impacts are made as follows: A. In the event the City has reasonable cause to believe that a Development application may Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 14 involve Extraordinary Impacts; it will notify the County Impact Fee Administrator. B. The County Impact Fee Administrator shall review and determine whether the Development application will impose Extraordinary Impact. C. If the County Impact Fee Administrator determines that a proposed Development generates Extraordinary Impact that will result in extraordinary Systems Improvements Costs, the County Impact Fee Administrator will notify the Fee Payer of their determination within thirty (30) days after the County Impact Fee Administrator's receipt of the Development application. Such notice shall include a statement that the potential impacts of such Development on System Improvements are not adequately addressed by the Capital Improvements Plan, and that a supplemental study, at the Fee Payer's expense, will be required. D. Circumstances that may lead to a determination of Extraordinary Impact include,but are not limited to, an indication that the assumptions used in the Capital Improvements Plan underestimate the level of activity or impact on Capital Facilities from the proposed Development or activity. E. Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a Development with Extraordinary Impact, the County Impact Fee Administrator shall meet with the Fee Payer to discuss whether the Fee Payer wants to: 1. Pay for the supplemental study necessary to determine the System Improvements Costs related to the proposed Development; or 2. Modify the Development application to avoid generating Extraordinary Impact; or 3. Withdraw the Development application. F. If the Fee Payer agrees to pay for the supplemental study required to document the proposed Development's Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs, then the County and the Fee Payer shall jointly select an individual or organization acceptable to both to perform such study. The Fee Payer shall enter into a written agreement with the individual or organization to pay the costs of the study. Such agreement shall require the supplemental study to be completed within thirty(30)days of such written agreement unless the Fee Payer agrees to a longer time. G. Once the study has been completed, the Fee Payer may choose to: 1. Pay the Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs documented by the supplemental study; or 2. Modify the proposed Development to reduce such costs; or 3. Withdraw the application. H. If the Fee Payer agrees to pay the System Improvements Costs documented in the supplemental study,that agreement shall be reduced to writing between the County and the Fee Payer, prior to review and consideration of any application for any Building Permit related to the proposed Development. I. Notwithstanding any agreement by the Fee Payer to pay the Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs documented by the supplemental study, nothing in this Chapter shall obligate the City to approve Development that results in an Extraordinary Impact to the County. Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 15 PART 10: DEVELOPER CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENT 12-1-1001: Developer Credits and Reimbursement Process When a Developer or their predecessor in interest has constructed System Improvements of the same category as a Capital Improvements Element, or contributed or dedicated land or money towards the completion of System Improvements of the same category as a Capital Improvements Element, and the County has accepted such construction,contribution or dedication,the County shall issue a credit, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, against the County Jail Impact Fees otherwise due for the same Capital Improvements Element in connection with the proposed Development, as set forth in this section. Credit shall be issued regardless of whether the contribution or dedication to System Improvements was required as a condition of Development or was offered by the Developer and accepted by the County in writing, and regardless of whether the contribution or dedication was contributed by the Developer or by a local improvement district controlled by the Developer. 12-1-1002: Credit Limitations Credits against County Jail Impact Fees shall not be given for: A. Project Improvements; or B. Any construction,contribution,or dedication not agreed to in writing by the County prior to commencement of the construction, contribution, or dedication. Credits issued for one Capital Improvements Element may not be used to reduce the impact fee due for a different capital improvement. No credits shall be issued for System Improvements contributed or dedicated prior to the effective date of this Chapter. 12-1-1003: Valuation of Credit at Present Value The valuation of System Improvements for credit against impact fees shall be in accordance with the following: A. Land. Credit for qualifying land dedications shall, at the Fee Payer's option, be valued at the Present Value of: 1. One hundred(100)percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the Ada County Assessor; or 2. The fair market value established by a private appraiser acceptable to the County in an appraisal paid for by the Fee Payer. B. Improvements. Credit for qualifying acquisition or construction of System Improvements shall be valued by the County at the Present Value of such improvements based on complete engineering drawings, specifications, and construction cost estimates as submitted by the Fee Payer. The County Impact Fee Administrator shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if it is determined that such information is inaccurate or unreliable,then on alternative engineering or construction costs acceptable to the County as a more accurate measure of the value of the offered System Improvements. 12-1-1004: When Credits become Effective Credit against County Jail Impact Fees become effective in accordance with the following: A. Land. Approved credits for land dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the County, in a form acceptable, at no cost, and has been accepted by the County. Upon request of the Fee Payer, the County shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. B. Improvements. Approved credits for acquisition or construction of System Improvements Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 16 shall generally become effective when(a)all required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the County, (b) a suitable maintenance and warranty bond has been received and approved by the County, and (c) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding,and acceptance procedures have been completed in compliance with all applicable requirements of the City, County,and the State of Idaho. Upon request of the Fee Payer,the County shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. 12-1-1005: Credit Request Procedures The following are the procedural requirements for the processing of credit against County Jail Impact Fees: A. Request. In order to obtain a credit against County Jail Impact Fees otherwise due, a Fee Payer shall submit to the County Impact Fee Administrator a written request to dedicate specific parcels of qualifying land or a written offer to contribute or construct specific System Improvements to the Capital Facilities in accordance with all applicable state and local governmental design and construction standards,and shall specifically request a credit for the land dedication or System Improvements offered. B. Review. After receipt of the written request for credit,the County Impact Fee Administrator shall review the request and determine whether the land or System Improvements offered for credit will reduce the costs of providing Capital Facilities by an amount at least equal to the value of the credit. If the County Impact Fee Administrator determines that the offered credit satisfies those criteria and will be acceptable to the County Board of Commissioners, then the credit shall be issued. The review and determination of a written request for credit shall be completed by the County Impact Fee Administrator within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written offer and application for credit. C. Credits exceeding fee amounts due. If the credit due to a Fee Payer exceeds the County Jail Impact Fees that would otherwise be due from the Fee Payer pursuant to this Chapter (whether calculated pursuant to section 12-1-503 of this Chapter or through an independent assessment), the Fee Payer may choose to receive such credit in the form of either: 1. A credit against future County Jail Impact Fees due for the same System Improvements; or 2. A reimbursement from County Jail Impact Fees paid by future Development that impacts the System Improvements contributed or dedicated by the Fee Payer. Unless otherwise stated in an agreement with the Fee Payer, the County shall be under no obligation to use any of its funds other than County Jail Impact Fees paid by other Development for the same System Improvements to reimburse the Fee Payer for any credit in excess of the impact fees that are due. D. If credit or reimbursement is due to the Fee Payer pursuant to this section, the County shall enter into a written agreement with the Fee Payer, negotiated in good faith, prior to the contribution, dedication, or funding of the System Improvements giving rise to the credit. The agreement shall provide for the amount of credit or the amount of time and form of reimbursement, and shall have a term not exceeding ten (10) years. E. The County Impact Fee Administrator's determination on the written request for credit shall be provided to the Fee Payer, City, and the County Board of Commissioners. PART 11: IMPACT FEE PAYMENT MISTAKE OR MISREPRESENTATION 12-1-1101: Incorrect County Jail Impact Fee Payment If County Jail Impact Fees are calculated and paid based on a mistake or misrepresentation, they Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 17 shall be recalculated. Any amounts overpaid by a Fee Payer shall be refunded by the County within thirty(30)days after the acceptance of the recalculated amount,with interest at the legal rate provided for in I.C. § 28-22-104 from the date on which the fee was paid. Any amounts underpaid by the Fee Payer shall be paid to the County,within thirty(30)days after the County Impact Fee Administrator's acceptance of the recalculated amount,with interest at the legal rate provided for in I.C. § 28-22-104 from the date on which the fee was paid. In the case of an underpayment of County Jail Impact Fees, the County Impact Fee Administrator may request the City and the City may withhold issuance of Building Permits or other Development Approvals for the Project for which the impact fees were paid until such underpayment is corrected, and if amounts owed are not paid within such thirty-day period, the County Impact Fee Administrator may also ask the City to revoke any Building Permits or other Development Approvals issued in reliance on the previous payment of such County Jail Impact Fees and refund such fees to the Fee Payer. PART 12: REFUNDS 12-1-1201: Duty to Refund County Jail Impact Fees shall be refunded to the Fee Payer, or to a successor in interest, in the following circumstances: A. Service is available but never provided; or B. A Building Permit or permit for installation of a manufactured home is denied by the City or abandoned; or C. The Fee Payer pays County Jail Impact Fees under protest and a subsequent review of the fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the fee paid exceeded the Proportionate Share to which the County was entitled to receive; or D. The County collected the County Jail Impact Fees and failed to Appropriate or expend the collected fees pursuant to this Chapter and the Act. 12-1-1202: Time for Expenditure; Refund Requirement Any County Jail Impact Fees paid shall be refunded if the County has failed to commence construction of System Improvements in accordance with this Chapter, or to Appropriate funds for such construction, within eight (8) years after the date on which such impact fees were collected. Any refund due shall be paid to the owner of record of the parcel for which the impact fees were paid. The County may hold County Jail Impact Fees for longer than eight (8) years if it is identified in writing and in written notice to the owner of record of the parcel identifying: A. A reasonable cause for why the County Jail Impact Fees should be held longer than eight (8) years; and B. An anticipated date by which the County Jail Impact Fees will be expended,but in no event greater than eleven(11) years from the date the impact fees were collected. 1. If the County fails to comply with subsection(A)or(B), fails to commence construction of System Improvements in accordance with the written notice, or fails to Appropriate funds for such construction on or before the date identified in the written notice, then any County Jail Impact Fees so identified shall be refunded to the Fee Payer or to a successor in interest. 12-1-1203:No Refund Due for Subsequent Reduction in Size of Development or Service Units After County Jail Impact Fees have been paid pursuant to this Chapter and after a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the City, no refund of any part of such fee shall be made if the Project for which the fee was paid is later demolished,destroyed,or is altered,reconstructed,or reconfigured Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 18 so as to reduce the size of the Project or the number of units in the Project. 12-1-1204: Interest Each refund shall include a refund of interest at one-half the legal rate provided for in I.C. § 28-22- 104 from the date on which the County Jail Impact Fee was originally paid. 12-1-1205: Timing. The County Impact Fee Administrator shall make a determination of whether a refund is due within thirty(30)days after receipt of a written request for a refund from the owner of record of the property for which the fee was paid. When the right to a refund exists,the County shall send the refund to the owner of record within ninety(90) days after it determines that a refund is due. PART 13: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS TRUST FUND - EXPENDITURES, BUDGET,AUDIT,AND SURCHARGE 12-1-1301: Establishment of Development Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund by County The County shall establish a Trust Fund for the purpose of ensuring that all County Jail Impact Fees collected pursuant to this Chapter are used to address impacts reasonably attributable to new Development for which the impact fees are paid. The Trust Fund shall be maintained in one (1) or more Accounts.All funds in all Accounts in the Trust Fund shall be maintained in an interest-bearing account. The interest earned on each Account pursuant to I.C. § 67-8210(1) shall not be governed by I.C. § 57-127, as amended,but shall be considered funds of the Account and shall be subject to the same restrictions on uses of funds as the impact fees on which the interest is generated. 12-1-1302: Trust Fund Deposits and Accounting All monies paid by a Fee Payer, pursuant to this Chapter, shall be identified as County Jail Impact Fees and shall be promptly deposited by the County Impact Fee Administrator in the appropriate Account of the Trust Fund. A. First-in/first-out. Monies in each Account shall be spent in the order collected, on a first- in/first-out basis. B. Maintenance of Records. The County shall maintain and keep accurate financial records for each Account that shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, account for all monies received, ensure that the disbursement of funds from each Account shall be used solely and exclusively for the provisions of Projects specified in the Capital Improvements Plan, and provide an annual accounting for each Account showing the source and amount of all funds collected and the Projects that were funded. C. Accounting Principles. The calculation of impact fees shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Impact fees shall not be deemed invalid because payment of impact fees may result in an incidental benefit to owners or Developers within the Service Area other than the Fee Payer. 12-1-1303: Expenditure Eligibility Expenditures of County Jail Impact Fees collected and deposited in the Trust Fund shall be made only for System Improvements within the Service Area for which the impact fees were collected in accordance with the Capital Improvements Plan. 12-1-1304: Annual Capital Budget The County shall annually adopt a capital budget in accordance with the Act. Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 19 12-1-1305: Monies in Trust Fund not Expended Carried Over from Fiscal Year to Fiscal Year Any monies, including any accrued interest, not assigned to specific System Improvements within such Capital Improvements Plan and not expended or refunded shall be retained in the same Account until the next fiscal year. 12-1-1306: Annual Audit Report As part of their annual audit process, the County shall prepare an annual report: A. Describing the amount of all County Jail Impact Fees collected, appropriated, or spent during the preceding year by category of Public Facility and Service Area; and B. Describing the percentage of taxes and revenues from sources other than the impact fees collected, appropriated, or spent for System Improvements during the preceding year by category of Public Facility and Service Area. 12-1-1307 Surcharge Reimbursement A portion of each County Jail Impact Fee collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be designated as a surcharge for reimbursement for the cost of preparing the Capital Improvements Plan in accordance with I.C. § 67-8208. The surcharge shall not exceed the Development's Proportionate Share of the cost of preparing the Capital Improvements Plan. PART 14: APPEALS/MEDIATION 12-1-1401: Appeals to County Board of Commissioners Any Fee Payer who is or may be obligated to pay a County Jail Impact Fee under this Chapter who claims a right to receive a refund, reimbursement, exemption, or credit under this Chapter or is otherwise dissatisfied with a decision made by the County Impact Fee Administrator in applying this Chapter, may appeal such decision to the County Board of Commissioners in accordance with Interagency Agreement and the following process: A. The Fee Payer shall have the burden of demonstrating that the decision was in error. B. In order to pursue the appeal described in this subsection,the Fee Payer shall file a written notice of appeal with the County Impact Fee Administrator within thirty (30) days after the date of the County Impact Fee Administrator's decision, or the date on which the Fee Payer submitted a payment of the County Jail Impact Fees under protest, whichever is later. Such written notice of appeal shall include a statement describing why the Fee Payer believes that the appealed decision was in error, together with copies of any documents that the Fee Payer believes support the claim. C. The County Board of Commissioners shall hear the appeal within sixty (60) days after receipt of a written notice of appeal. The Fee Payer shall have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The County Impact Fee Administrator shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of their decision. The criteria to be used by the County Board of Commissioners in considering the appeal shall be whether: 1. The decision or interpretation made by the County Impact Fee Administrator or the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the Fee Payer more accurately reflects the intent of this Chapter that new Development in the Service Area pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System Improvements to the County's facilities necessary to serve new Development and whether the provisions of this Chapter have been correctly applied. The County Commissioners shall issue a decision upholding, Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 20 reversing,or modifying the decision being appealed within thirty(30)days after hearing the appeal. 12-1-1402: Appeals to City Council Any Fee Payer who is or may be obligated to pay a County Jail Impact Fee which is established by the City and is subject to an Intergovernmental Agreement, and who claims a right to receive a refund, reimbursement, exemption, or credit under this Chapter or is otherwise dissatisfied with a decision made by the County Impact Fee Administrator or the decision of the County Board of Commissioners in applying this Chapter, may appeal such decision to the City Council. A. The Fee Payer shall have the burden of demonstrating that the County Impact Fee Administrator's or the County Board of Commissioners' decision was in error. B. In order to pursue the appeal described in this subsection, the Fee Payer shall file a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after the date of the County Board of Commissioners' decision. Such written notice of appeal shall include a statement describing why the Fee Payer believes that the appealed decision of the County Impact Fee Administrator or the County Board of Commissioners was in error,together with copies of any documents that the Fee Payer believes support the claim. The City Clerk shall within three (3)business days deliver the notice of appeal together with copies of any documents filed with it to the County Impact Fee Administrator. C. The City Council shall hear the appeal within sixty(60)days after receipt by the City Clerk of a written notice of appeal. The Fee Payer shall have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The County Impact Fee Administrator or designee shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of the decision. The criteria to be used by the City Council in considering the appeal shall be whether: 1. The decision or interpretation made by the County Impact Fee Administrator or the County Board of Commissioners' decision on appeal or the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the Fee Payer more accurately reflects the intent of this Chapter that new Development pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System Improvements to facilities necessary to serve new Development and whether the provisions of this Chapter have been correctly applied. The City Council shall issue a decision upholding, reversing, or modifying the decision being appealed within thirty (30) days after hearing the appeal. 12-1-1403: Mediation Any Fee Payer that has a disagreement with the County Impact Fee Administrator regarding an impact fee determination that is or may be due for a proposed Development pursuant to this Chapter may enter into a voluntary agreement with the County to submit the disagreement to mediation by a qualified independent party acceptable to both the Fee Payer and the County. A. Mediation may take place at any time following the filing of a timely appeal pursuant to sections 12-1-1401 and 12-1-1402, or as an alternative to such appeal, provided that the request for mediation is filed no later than the last date on which a timely appeal could be filed pursuant to section 12-1-1402. Applicable time periods provided in sections 12-1-1401 and 12-1-1402 are tolled during mediation. B. Participation in mediation does not preclude the Fee Payer from pursuing other remedies provided for in I.C. § 67-8212. C. If mediation is requested, any related mediation costs shall be shared equally by the Fee Payer and the County, and a written agreement regarding the payment of such costs shall Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 21 be executed prior to the commencement of mediation. D. In the event that mediation does not resolve the issues, the Fee Payer retains all rights to seek relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. PART 15: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 12-1-1501: No Requirement of the City to Approve Extraordinary Impact Development Nothing in this Chapter shall obligate the City to approve Development which results in an Extraordinary Impact. 12-1-1502: City Not Obligated to Approve Development that Reduces Levels of Service Nothing in this Chapter shall obligate the City to approve any Development request which may reasonably be expected to reduce levels of service below minimum acceptable levels established in this Chapter. 12-1-1503: No Additional Right to Develop Created by this Chapter Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to create any additional right to develop real property or diminish the City in regulating the orderly development of real property within its boundaries. 12-1-1504: No Limit on City's Authority Nothing in this Chapter limits the use of the City's power of eminent domain or supersedes or conflicts with requirements or procedures authorized in the Idaho Code for local improvement district or general obligation bond issues. 12-1-1505: Agreements Between Property Owners, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), and other Governmental Entities for Construction or Installation of System Improvements Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent or prohibit private agreements between property owners or Developers,the Idaho Transportation Department, and governmental entities in regards to the construction or installation of System Improvements or providing for credits or reimbursements for System Improvements Costs incurred by a Developer including inter-project transfers of credits or providing for reimbursement for Project Improvements which are used or shared by more than one (1)Development Project. 12-1-1506: Plan for Alternative Sources of Revenue The County shall develop a plan for alternative sources of revenue, which shall include but not necessarily be limited to a plan generated during its annual budget process. These alternative sources of revenue may include tax increment financing, user fees, administrative and regulatory fees, and other forms of revenue. 12-1-1507: Safety Codes and Other Rules Applicable to Project Improvements Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from requiring a Developer to construct reasonable Project Improvements, as are required by applicable safety codes and other rules that are adopted which it has jurisdiction to enforce in conjunction with a Development. 12-1-1508: Development Approved by the City Prior to the Effective Date of this Chapter Not Subject to County Jail Impact fees Notwithstanding any other provision(s)of this Chapter,that portion of a Project for which a complete application for a Building Permit has been received by the City, prior to the effective date of this Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 22 Chapter, shall not be subject to a County Jail Impact Fee imposed by this Chapter. If the resulting Building Permit is later revised or replaced after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter, and the new Building Permit(s) reflects a Development with density, intensity, size or number of units more than ten(10)percent higher than reflected in the original Building Permit,then the impact fee may be charged on the difference in density, intensity,size or number of units between the original and the revised or replacement Building Permit. 12-1-1509: Punishment Violation of this Chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in this Code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the City or County charged with the administration of this Chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this Chapter including,without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed Development, shall be a violation of this Chapter. 12-1-1510: Liberal Construction All provisions, terms,phrases, and expressions contained in this Chapter shall be liberally construed in order that the true intent and meaning of the Act may be fully carried out by the City Council and the County Board of Commissioners. SECTION 2: ORDINANCE LIMITED This ordinance is limited to Title 12, Chapter 1, of the Meridian City Code only. All other provisions of the Meridian City Code shall remain unchanged. SECTION 3: EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the 301h day following its passage, approval, and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 16th day of June , 2026. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this 16th day of June , 2026. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robert E. Simison,Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance 23 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 26-2127: An Ordinance Amending the Meridian City Code by the Addition Thereto of a New Chapter 2 to Title 12 Called "Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees" Providing for Short Chapter Title; Authority, Findings, Applicability, and Purpose; Definitions; Capital Improvements Plan; Periodic Review of the Capital Improvements Plan; Intergovernmental Agreement with EMS District; Imposition of EMS Impact Fees and Payment; Enforcement and Collection; EMS District Impact Fee Administrator and City Powers to Require Payment of EMS Impact Fees; EMS Impact Fee(s) Exemptions; Process for Individual Assessment; Extraordinary Impacts; Developer Credits and Reimbursements; EMS Impact Fee Payment Mistake or Misrepresentation; Fee Payer Refunds; EMS Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund, Expenditures, Budget, Audit, and Surcharge; Appeals and Mediation; Miscellaneous Provisions; Punishment for Violations; Construction of Ordinance Intent; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 26-2127 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: CAVENER, LITTLE ROBERTS, OVERTON, STRADER, TAYLOR,WHITLOCK AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF A NEW CHAPTER 2 TO TITLE 12 CALLED"ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES" PROVIDING FOR: • SHORT CHAPTER TITLE,AND • AUTHORITY,FINDINGS,APPLICABILITY,AND PURPOSE; AND • DEFINITIONS; AND • CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; AND • PERIODIC REVIEW OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; AND • INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH EMS DISTRICT; AND • IMPOSITION OF EMS IMPACT FEES AND PAYMENT; AND • ENFORCEMENT AND COLLECTION; AND • EMS DISTRICT IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATOR AND CITY POWERS TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF EMS IMPACT FEES; AND • EMS IMPACT FEE(S)EXEMPTIONS; AND • PROCESS FOR INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT; AND • EXTRAORDINARY IMPACTS;AND • DEVELOPER CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS; AND • EMS IMPACT FEE PAYMENT MISTAKE OR MISREPRESENTATION; AND • FEE PAYER REFUNDS; AND • EMS IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS TRUST FUND, EXPENDITURES,BUDGET,AUDIT,AND SURCHARGE; AND • APPEALS AND MEDIATION; AND • MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS; AND • PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATIONS; AND • CONSTRUCTION OF ORDINANCE INTENT; AND • PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the Meridian City Code be amended by adding a new Chapter 2 to Title 12 called "Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees Ordinance" to read as follows: 1 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance CHAPTER 2 ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PART 1: SHORT CHAPTER TITLE,AUTHORITY,FINDINGS,APPLICABILITY,AND PURPOSE: 12-2-101: SHORT CHAPTER TITLE This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees Ordinance. 12-2-102: CITY AUTHORITY This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the City's general police powers, its authority to enact ordinances,and its authority as provided by the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act codified at Chapter 82 of Title 67, Idaho Code (the "Act") and other applicable laws of the state of Idaho to impose development impact fees,which includes the establishment and collection of development impact fees pursuant to its authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District (the "EMS District") as provided for in Idaho Code § 67-8204A. 12-2-103: EMS DISTRICT AUTHORITY A. The EMS District is an ambulance service district formed and existing pursuant to I.C. § 31-3901 et seq., and has authority to provide ambulance service and advanced life support emergency medical services throughout the EMS District's boundaries, which encompasses all of Ada County including the incorporated cities located in Ada County. B. The EMS District has authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City as provided for in Idaho Code§ 67-8204A in order to establish its EMS Impact Fees within the City. 12-2-104: FINDINGS A. Cities are"governmental entities"empowered to impose and collect development impact fees pursuant to the provisions of I.C. §§ 67-8202(5) and 67-8203(14). B. Effective July 1,2026, ambulance service districts are"governmental entities"empowered to impose and collect development impact fees pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code §§ 67-8202(5)&67-8203(14). C. The EMS District and City are experiencing considerable new growth and development, which new growth affects the ability of the EMS District to provide adequate EMS public facilities (the "Public Facilities") to serve persons and property within the EMS District, including persons and property within the City. D. The ability of the EMS District to provide such adequate Public Facilities jointly affects both the EMS District and the City. E. The City and the EMS District are each experiencing considerable growth and development. 2 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance F. The purposes of the Act are as follows: 1. Ensure that adequate Public Facilities are available to serve new growth and development; 2. Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments, such as the City and the EMS District, may require those who benefit from new growth and development pay their Proportionate Share of the costs of new Public Facilities needed to serve that new growth and development; 3. Establish minimum standards for adoption of development impact fee ordinances; 4. Ensure that those who benefit from new growth and development are required to pay no more than their Proportionate Share of the cost of Public Facilities needed to serve that new growth and development and to prevent duplicate and ad hoc Development Requirements; and 5. To empower governmental entities to adopt ordinances to impose development impact fees. G. The Act provides,pursuant to I.C. § 67-8204A, in circumstances where the City and the EMS District are both affected by the considerable Development as is occurring within the City, that the City and the EMS District may enter into an intergovernmental agreement for the purpose of agreeing to collect and expend development impact fees for System Improvements which provides for a funding mechanism for those System Improvements Costs incurred by the EMS District to meet the demand and growth occurring within the City and which promotes and accommodates orderly growth and Development and protects the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents within the boundaries of the City. H. New growth within the City is expected to continue and will place increased demands on the EMS District to provide and expand its Public Facilities to serve that new growth. The tax revenues generated from new Development within the City often do not generate sufficient funds to provide the necessary improvements and expansion of the EMS District's existing Public Facilities to accommodate that new growth. I. Section 67-8204A of the Act authorizes the City to adopt a development impact fee system and to enter into intergovernmental agreements with the EMS District to offset, recoup, or reimburse the portion of the costs of needed improvements to EMS District Public Facilities caused by new growth and Development in the City. J. The creation of an equitable development impact fee system facilitated by the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and the EMS District will promote the purposes set forth in the Act, in that it will: (a) ensure that the EMS District has adequate capital facilities which are available to serve new growth and Development; (b)promote orderly growth and Development by establishing uniform standards by which the City may require that those who benefit from new growth and Development pay a Proportionate Share of the cost of the EMS District's capital facilities needed to serve new growth and Development in the City; (c) establish minimum standards for the adoption of EMS Impact Fees; (d) ensure that those who benefit from new growth and Development are required to pay no more than their Proportionate Share of the cost of the EMS District's capital facilities needed to serve new growth and Development in the City; and(e)prevent duplicate and ad hoc Development Requirements in the City. 3 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance K. The Capital Improvements Plan contains System Improvements planned by the EMS District during the term of its Capital Improvements Plan, and such element has been developed in conformance with the requirements of the Act. L. The Capital Improvements Plan sets forth reasonable methodologies and analyses for determining the impacts of various types of new Development on the EMS District's Public Facilities and determines the cost of acquiring or constructing the improvements necessary to meet the demands for such facilities created by new Development. M. In accordance with the Act, the Capital Improvements Plan was based on actual System Improvements Costs or reasonable estimates of such costs. In addition, the Capital Improvements Plan uses a fee calculation methodology that is net of credits for the Present Value of revenues that will be generated by new growth and Development based on historical funding patterns and that are anticipated to be available to pay for System Improvements, including taxes, assessments, user fees, and intergovernmental transfers. N. The EMS Impact Fees established by this Chapter are based on the EMS District's Capital Improvements Plan, and do not exceed System Improvements Costs to serve new Development that will pay the EMS Impact Fees. O. The EMS District's capital facilities, included in the calculation of the fees in its Capital Improvements Plan, will benefit all new Development throughout the City, and it is therefore appropriate to treat all areas of the City as a single Service Area for purposes of calculating, collecting, and spending the EMS Impact Fees collected from Developers. P. There is both a rational nexus and a rough proportionality between Development impacts created by each type of Development covered by this Chapter, the development impact fees assessment of such Development covered by this Chapter, and the development impact fees that Developers will be required to pay. Q. This Chapter creates a system by which development impact fees paid by Developers will be used to finance,defray,or reimburse a portion of the costs incurred by the EMS District to construct and/or purchase System Improvements in ways that benefit the Development for which the development impact fee was paid within a reasonable period of time after the development impact fee is paid, and in conformance with I.C. § 67-8210. R. This Chapter creates a system under which development impact fees shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies for any Public Facilities, or to replace or rehabilitate existing Public Facilities, or to pay for routine operation or maintenance of those facilities. S. This Chapter creates a system under which there shall be no double payment of development impact fees, in accordance with I.C. § 67-8204(19). T. This Chapter is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Act concerning development impact fee ordinances. 12-2-105: APPLICABILITY Except as otherwise exempted in section 12-2-701, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the development of property located within the boundaries of the City of Meridian, Idaho. 12-2-106: PURPOSE A. This Chapter is adopted to be consistent with, and to help implement, the Capital Improvements Plan. B. The intent of this Chapter is to ensure that new Development bears a Proportionate Share 4 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance of the cost of System Improvements; to ensure that such Proportionate Share does not exceed the cost of such System Improvements required to accommodate new Development; and to ensure that funds collected from new Development are used for System Improvements in accordance with the Act. C. It is the further intent of this Chapter to be consistent with those principles for allocating a fair share of the cost of System Improvements to new Development, and for adopting development impact fee ordinances, as established by the Act. D. It is not the intent of this Chapter to collect any money from any new Development that exceeds the actual amount necessary to offset new demands for System Improvements created by such new Development. E. It is the intent of this Chapter that any monies collected, as imposed EMS Impact Fees, are deposited in the proper Development Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund Account, are never commingled with monies from a different impact fee Accounts, are never used for a development impact fee component different from that for which the fee was paid, are never used to correct current deficiencies in any EMS District facilities,and are never used to replace or rehabilitate EMS District facilities when it does not increase capacity, or be used to maintain or operate any EMS District facilities. PART 2: DEFINITIONS 12-2-201: DEFINITIONS As used in this Chapter,the following words and terms shall have the following meanings, unless another meaning is plainly intended and words and terms appearing in the singular number include the plural and the plural the singular: ACCOUNTS shall mean any of one or more interest bearing accounts within the Development Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund established in Part 13 of this Chapter. ADVISORY COMMITTEE shall mean the Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established and identified in the Intergovernmental Agreement which is formed and staffed pursuant to I.C. § 67-8205 to prepare and recommend the Capital Improvements Plan and any amendments, revisions, or updates of the same. ACT shall mean the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act as set forth in Chapter 82 of Title 67, Idaho Code. APPROPRIATE shall mean to legally obligate by contract or otherwise commit to the expenditure of funds by appropriation or other official act of the EMS District Board of Commissioners. BUILDING PERMIT shall mean the City permit required for new construction and additions under Title 10 of the Meridian City Code. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS shall mean improvements with a useful life of ten(10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increases the service capacity of EMS District Capital Facilities. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT shall mean a component of the Capital Improvements Plan identified in the EMS District's CIP adopted by its governing board and the City Council pursuant to Chapters 65 and 82 of Title 67, Idaho Code, and as amended, which component meets the requirements of the Capital Improvements Plan required by the Act. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN shall mean an impact fee study and capital improvements 5 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance plan, which has been recommended by the Advisory Committee and adopted by the EMS District Board of Commissioners and the City Council pursuant to the Act that identifies the EMS District Capital Facilities for which the EMS Impact Fees may be used as a funding source. CITY shall mean the City of Meridian, Idaho. CITY COUNCIL shall mean the City Council of the City of Meridian. DEVELOPER shall mean any person or legal entity undertaking Development including a Development that seeks an annexation into the City and/or undertakes the subdivision of property pursuant to I.C. §§ 50-1301 through 50-1334, as amended. DEVELOPMENT shall mean any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the annexation into the City and/or subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. DEVELOPMENTAPPROVAL shall mean any written duly authorized document from the City which authorizes the commencement of a Development. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS TR UST FUND OR TR UST FUND shall mean the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fee EMS Capital Projects Fund(or EMS Capital Projects Fund) established by action of the EMS District Board of Commissioners. DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS shall mean a requirement attached to a Developmental Approval or other City governmental action approving or authorizing a particular Development. EMS DISTRICT shall mean the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District. EMS DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS shall mean the Board of Commissioners of the EMS District, which is the EMS District's governing board. EMS DISTRICT CAPITAL FACILITIES shall mean Public Facilities which are identified in the Capital Improvements Plan, and specifically including those related costs including System Improvements Costs,but not including maintenance, operations, or improvements that do not expand capacity. EMS DISTRICT IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATOR shall mean the person appointed by the EMS District Board of Commissioners to administer the imposition of EMS Impact Fees in accordance with the Act and the Intergovernmental Agreement. EMS IMPACT FEES shall mean a payment of money imposed as condition of Development Approval to pay for a Proportionate Share of the EMS District's costs of System Improvements needed to serve the Development. The term does not include the following: • A charge or fee to pay the administrative plan review or inspection cost associated with permits required for Development; • Connection or hookup charges; • Availability charges for drainage, sewer, water or transportation charges for services provided directly to the Development; or • Amounts collected from a Developer in a transaction in which the EMS District has incurred expenses in constructing Capital Improvements for the Development if the owner or Developer has agreed to be financially responsible for the construction or installation of those Capital Improvements,unless a written agreement is made,pursuant to I.C. § 67- 8209(3) as amended, for credit or reimbursement. 6 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance EXTRAORDINARY COSTS shall mean those costs incurred as result of an Extraordinary Impact. EXTRA ORDINAR YIMPA CT shall mean an impact which is reasonably determined by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator to: (i)result in the need for System Improvements, the cost of which will significantly exceed the sum of the EMS Impact Fees to be generated from the Development or the sum agreed to be paid pursuant to a development agreement as allowed by I.C. § 67-8214(2), as amended; or(ii)result in the need for System Improvements which are not identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. FEE PAYER shall mean the person who pays or is required to pay EMS Impact Fees. A Fee Payer may include a Developer. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT shall mean the most recent Ada County Emergency Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District on Development Within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian entered into by and between the City and the EMS District pursuant to I.C. § 67-8204A for the collection and expenditure of EMS Impact Fees established pursuant to this Chapter. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS shall mean a description of the Service Area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities and population in the Service Area over at least a ten-year period. LEVEL OF SERVICE shall mean a measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for Public Facilities. MANUFACTURED/MOBILE HOME shall mean a structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one (1) or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight(8) feet or more in width or is forty(40)body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty(320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning and electrical systems contained in such structure, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under 42 U.S.C. §§ 5401 et seq. MODULAR BUILDING shall mean any building or building component other than a Manufactured/Mobile Home, which is constructed according to the International Building Code, as adopted or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. PRESENT VALUE shall mean the total current monetary value of past,present or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials, construction or money. PROJECT shall mean a particular Development on an identified lot or parcel of land. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS, in contrast to System Improvements, shall mean site improvements and facilities that are planned and designed to provide service for a particular Project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the Project. PROPORTIONATE SHARE shall mean that portion of System Improvements Costs determined pursuant to I.C. § 67-8207 which reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the Project. PUBLIC FACILITIES shall mean land,buildings and equipment used for EMS purposes which have a useful life of ten (10) years or more. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE shall mean a vehicular type primarily designed as temporary 7 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance quarters for recreational, camping, or travel use, which either has its own motive power or is mounted on or drawn by another vehicle. SERVICE AREA shall mean the defined geographic area in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan including the geographic area within the City as identified by the EMS District in which specific Public Facilities provide service to Development within the areas defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles or both. For purposes of this Chapter, there shall be one Service Area which includes all of the City of Meridian. SERVICE UNIT shall mean a standardized measure of consumption,use, generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit of Development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards for a particular category of Capital Improvements. As specifically used in this Chapter, Service Units include residential dwelling units as defined in the Unified Development Code of the City of Meridian and square feet of nonresidential Development. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, in contrast to Project Improvements, shall mean Capital Improvements to Public Facilities which are designed to provide service to a Service Area. For the purpose of this Chapter, System Improvements are for EMS District Capital Facilities. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS COSTS shall mean costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of System Improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs, and also including,without limitation, the type of costs described in I.C. § 50-1702(h), as amended, to provide additional Public Facilities needed to service new growth and Development. For clarification, System Improvements Costs do not include: • Construction, acquisition or expansion of Public Facilities other than Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plan; • Improvements,repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new capital; • Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to serve existing development in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; • Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing Capital Improvements to provide better service to existing development; • Administrative and operating costs of the EMS District unless such costs are attributable to development of the Capital Improvements Plan, as provided in I.C. § 67-8208, as amended; and • Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except financial obligations issued by or on behalf of the EMS District to finance Capital Improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Plan. PART 3: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN 12-2-301: Proportionate Determination Methodology EMS Impact Fees imposed by this Chapter are determined by the approved Capital Improvements Plan and shall not exceed a Proportionate Share of the cost of the System Improvements determined in accordance with I.C. § 67-8207, as amended. EMS Impact Fees shall be based on actual System Improvements Costs or reasonable estimates of such costs, and shall be calculated using the methodology contained in the Capital Improvements Plan which complies with the following: A. Based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the impact fees imposed do not exceed a Proportionate Share of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the EMS District in 8 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance the provision of System Improvements to serve the new Development. The Proportionate Share is the costs attributable to the new Development after the consideration of the following: 1. Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land or construction of System Improvements; 2. Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new Development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; 3. That portion of general tax or other revenues allocated by the EMS District to System Improvements; and 4. All other available sources of funding for such System Improvements. B. In determining the Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements to be paid by the Developer, the following factors shall be considered and accounted for in the calculation of the impact fees: 1. The costs of existing System Improvements within the Service Area; 2. The means by which existing System Improvements have been financed; 3. The extent to which the new Development will contribute to System Improvements costs through taxation, assessments, or Developer or landowner contributions, or has previously contributed to System Improvements costs through Developer or landowner contributions; 4. The extent to which the new Development is required to contribute to the cost of existing System Improvements in the future; 5. The extent to which the new Development should be credited for providing System Improvements without charge to other properties within the Service Area; 6. Extraordinary Costs, if any, incurred in serving the new Development; 7. The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of fees paid at different times; and 8. The availability of other sources of funding System Improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation. C. EMS Impact Fees shall be calculated on the basis of levels of service for Public Facilities adopted in this Chapter that are applicable to existing Development as well as new growth and Development. The construction, improvement, expansion or enlargement of new or existing Public Facilities for which the impact fees are imposed must be attributable to the capacity demands generated by the new Development. 12-2-302: Service Area The Service Area includes all areas identified and defined in the approved Capital Improvements Plan. 12-2-303: Review and Modification of Capital Improvements Plan The EMS District shall, at least once every five (5) years, commencing from the date of the original adoption of the Capital Improvements Plan, review Development potential and update the Capital Improvements Plan in cooperation with the City and in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Act, as amended. Each update shall be prepared by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator in consultation with the Advisory Committee. 9 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance PART 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT 12-2-401: Authority to Enter into Intergovernmental Agreements The City is a governmental entity that is empowered by the Act to adopt development impact fee ordinances and is authorized by I.C. § 67-8204A to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the EMS District for the purpose of developing joint plans for capital improvements and for the purpose of agreeing to collect and expend development impact fees for System Improvements. 12-2-402: City and EMS District Intergovernmental Agreement The City has entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the EMS District which Intergovernmental Agreement is in full force and effect. 12-2-403: EMS District Subject to this Chapter The Intergovernmental Agreement complies with this Chapter and requires the EMS District to be governed by and to fully abide by the provisions of this Chapter. 12-2-404: Amendments to Intergovernmental Agreement Any amendments to the Intergovernmental Agreement shall be implemented by corresponding relevant amendments of this Chapter which amendments shall not apply to any EMS Impact Fees previously collected not yet expended and currently held in the Trust Fund. PART 5: IMPOSITION OF EMS IMPACT FEES AND PAYMENT 12-2-501: EMS Impact Fees Imposed EMS Impact Fees are hereby imposed on all new Development within the Service Area, as defined in the Capital Improvements Plan, in accordance with the impact fee schedules as set forth in this Part of this Chapter. 12-2-502: Impact Fee Calculation The EMS Impact Fees shall be calculated in accordance with the impact fee schedule set forth in the Capital Improvements Plan which provides for standard fees based on the total number of dwelling units or square feet of nonresidential space in the Development, unless: A. The Fee Payer requests an individual assessment pursuant to Part 8 of this Chapter; or B. The Development will have an Extraordinary Impact pursuant to Part 9 of this Chapter. The methodology for determining the costs per Service Unit provided for in the fee schedule is set forth in the Capital Improvements Plan. 10 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance 12-2-503: Impact Fees Schedule The EMS Impact Fees for the various land uses per unit of Development are set forth in the following impact fees schedule and shall take effect the 30th day following verification that all the incorporated cities within Ada County have adopted ordinances in compliance with the Act to impose and collect EMS Impact Fees. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Chapter, no EMS Impact Fees shall be imposed on new Development until the EMS Impact Fees take effect. A. Impact Fees Schedule: Residential (per Single Family Dwelling Unit) $ 175.00 Residential (per Multi-Family Dwelling Unit) $ 121.00 Non-Residential (per 1,000 retail square feet)* $ 273.00 Non-Residential (per 1,000 office square feet)* $ 105.00 Non-Residential (per 1,000 industrial square feet)* $ 47.00 Non-Residential (per 1,000 institutional square feet)* $ 104.00 * Prorated to the nearest square foot. 12-2-504: Developer's Election Pursuant to the Act, a Developer shall have the right to elect to pay a Project's Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs by payment of an impact fee according to the Fee Schedule as full and complete payment of the Development Project's Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs, except as provided in I.C. § 67-8214(3), as amended. 12-2-505: Procedures The collection of EMS Impact Fees shall be in accordance with the following procedures: A. Building Permit. Upon submittal of a complete application for a Building Permit for the Development to the City, the City shall calculate the EMS Impact Fees due for the Development in accordance with the Fee Schedule in section 12-2-503 of this Chapter unless the Fee Payer requests an individual assessment or is the subj ect of a creditor the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator determines that the Development may have Extraordinary Impact. B. Exemption. An exemption pursuant to section 12-2-701 of this Chapter must be claimed by the Fee Payer upon application for a Building Permit or manufactured home installation permit. Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed waived by the Fee Payer. 12-2-506: Certification of Impact Fees Due After the EMS Impact Fees for a proposed Development have been calculated by the City pursuant to the Fees Schedule or by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator using the individual assessment process,or there is a credit,or Extraordinary Impact,the Fee Payer may request from the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator a certification of the amount of the EMS Impact Fee due for that Development which shall be processed as follows: A.Within thirty(30)days after receiving such request the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall issue a written certification of the amount of the EMS Impact Fee due for the proposed Development. Such certification shall establish the EMS Impact Fee so long as there is no material change to the Project as identified in the individual assessment application, or the impact fees schedule of the Capital Improvements Plan. 11 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance B.The certification shall include an explanation of the calculation of the EMS Impact Fee,including an explanation of factors considered under Idaho Code Section 67-8207, and shall also specify the System Improvements for which the EMS Impact Fee is intended to be used. C. The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall provide the certification to the Fee Payer and the City. 12-2-507: Payment and Receipt of Fees EMS Impact Fees shall be paid to the City at the following times: A. Following application for a Building Permit and prior to the issuance of any Building Permit for a dwelling unit or nonresidential building; or B. At such other time as the Developer and the EMS District has agreed upon in writing with advance notice to the City. C. All EMS Impact Fees paid to the City pursuant to this Chapter and the Intergovernmental Agreement shall then be timely delivered to the EMS District in accordance with the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement. D. In the event EMS Impact Fees are paid directly to the EMS District,then the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall immediately notify the City of such payment. 12-2-508: Payment Under Protest A Fee Payer may pay an EMS Impact Fee under protest in order not to delay in the issuance of a Building Permit by the City.A Fee Payer making a payment under protest shall not be estopped from exercising the right to appeal provided herein,nor shall such Fee Payer be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deemed to have been improperly collected. PART 6: CITY AND EMS DISTRICT IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATOR POWERS TO REQUIRE PAYMENT OF IMPACT FEES 12-2-601: EMS Impact Fee Payment Enforcement When any EMS Impact Fee is due pursuant to this Chapter, or pursuant to the terms of any written agreement between a Fee Payer and the EMS District and has not been paid in a timely manner,the City, upon request from the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator,may exercise any or all of the following powers as authorized by law, in any combination, to enforce the collection of the impact fee: A. Withhold Building Permits or other Development Approval until all EMS Impact Fees due have been paid. B. Withhold utility services from the Development until all EMS Impact Fees due have been paid. C. Add interest to the EMS Impact Fees not paid at the legal rate provided for in I.C. § 28-22- 104, as amended, plus five (5) percent beginning on the date at which the payment of the impact fees was due until paid in full. D. Impose a penalty of one (1) percent of the total EMS Impact Fees (not merely the portion dishonored, late or not paid in full) per month, beginning on the date at which the payment of the EMS Impact Fees was due, until paid in full. E. Impose a lien pursuant to the authority of I.C. § 67-8213(4)for failure to timely pay the EMS Impact Fees following the procedures contained in Idaho Code Chapter 45, Chapter 5. 12 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance PART 7: EXEMPTIONS 12-2-701: Exemptions The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following: A. Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which is destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, provided the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two (2)years of its destruction; or B. Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of Service Units; or C. Replacing a residential unit, including a Manufactured/Mobile Home, with another residential unit on the same lot;provided that the number of Service Units does not increase; or D. Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; or E. Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of Service Units; or F. Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as a tennis court or a clubhouse, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of System Improvements; or G. The installation of a Modular Building, Manufactured/Mobile Home, or Recreational Vehicle if the Fee Payer can demonstrate by documentation, such as utility bills and tax records, that either: 1. A Modular Building, Manufactured/Mobile Home, or Recreational Vehicle was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date of this Chapter; or 2. An EMS Impact Fee has been paid previously for the Modular Building, Manufactured/Mobile Home, or Recreational Vehicle on that same lot or space. H. Construction that would otherwise be subject to payment of the EMS Impact Fee pursuant to this Chapter if undertaken by a taxing entity, as defined in section 63-201, Idaho Code, or by an authorized public charter school,as defined in section 33-5202A,Idaho Code,in the course of carrying out its statutory responsibilities. 12-2-702: Exemption Claim Process An exemption from an EMS Impact Fee must be claimed on the application by the Developer or Fee Payer upon submitting an application for a Building Permit or manufactured home installation permit. Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed waived by the Developer or Fee Payer. The City shall refer exemption claims to the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator for determination. PART 8: INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS 12-2-801: Individual Assessment Process Requests for individual assessment shall be processed in accordance with the following: A. In lieu of calculating the amount of the EMS Impact Fee pursuant to section 12-2-503 and the Capital Improvements Plan,a Fee Payer may file a request with the EMS District that the amount of the required impact fee be determined by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator through an individual assessment for the proposed Development. A request for an individual assessment process shall involve consideration of studies, data, and any other relevant information submitted by the Fee Payer to adjust the amount of the EMS 13 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance Impact Fee. If a Fee Payer files a request for the use of an individual assessment, the Fee Payer shall be responsible for retaining a qualified professional to prepare the individual assessment that complies with the requirements of this Chapter, at the Fee Payer's expense. The Fee Payer shall, at the Fee Payer's expense, bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the resulting individual assessment complies with the requirements of this Chapter. The Fee Payer shall bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the resulting individual assessment is a more accurate measure of its Proportionate Share of the cost of System Improvements, based on the adopted Levels of Service, than the impact fees that would otherwise be due pursuant to section 12-2-503 of this Chapter and the Capital Improvements Plan. B. Each individual assessment shall be based on the same Level of Service standards and unit costs for System Improvements used in the Capital Improvements Plan, shall use an average cost (not a marginal cost) methodology, and shall document the relevant methodologies and assumptions used. C. A request for an individual assessment shall be delivered and filed with the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator at the time that the number of dwelling units in the proposed Development and the types and amounts of Development in each nonresidential category identified in section 12-2-503 of this Chapter and the Capital Improvements Plan is known. The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall issue a written decision within thirty (30) days following receipt of a completed request for individual assessment together with all supporting information from the Fee Payer, so as not to unreasonably delay subsequent applications to the City for Building Permits. D. Each individual assessment request delivered to the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator may then be accepted, rejected, or accepted with modifications by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator as the basis for calculating the impact fee. The criteria for acceptance, rejection, or acceptance with modifications shall be whether the individual assessment is a more accurate measure of demand for System Improvements created by the proposed Development, or the costs of those facilities,than the applicable fees shown in section 12-2- 503 of this Chapter and the Capital Improvements Plan. E. The decision by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator on an application for an individual assessment shall include an explanation of the calculation of the EMS Impact Fee, shall specify the System Improvements for which the impact fee is intended to be used, and shall include an explanation of those factors identified in I.C. § 67-8207. F. If an individual assessment is accepted or accepted with modifications by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator, then the EMS Impact Fee due under this Chapter for such Development shall be calculated and collected according to such individual assessment. G. The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall provide notice of final determination of an individual assessment to the Fee Payer and to the City. PART 9: EXTRAORDINARY IMPACTS 12-2-901: Extraordinary Impact Determinations Determinations of Extraordinary Impacts are made as follows: A. In the event the City has reasonable cause to believe that a Development application may involve Extraordinary Impacts; it will notify the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator. B. The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall review and determine whether the Development application will impose Extraordinary Impact. 14 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance C. If the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator determines that a proposed Development generates Extraordinary Impact that will result in extraordinary Systems Improvements Costs, the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator will notify the Fee Payer of their determination within thirty (30) days after the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator's receipt of the Development application. Such notice shall include a statement that the potential impacts of such Development on System Improvements are not adequately addressed by the Capital Improvements Plan, and that a supplemental study, at the Fee Payer's expense, will be required. D. Circumstances that may lead to a determination of Extraordinary Impact include,but are not limited to, an indication that the assumptions used in the Capital Improvements Plan underestimate the level of activity or impact on EMS District Capital Facilities from the proposed Development or activity. E. Within thirty (30) days following the designation of a Development with Extraordinary Impact,the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall meet with the Fee Payer to discuss whether the Fee Payer wants to: 1. Pay for the supplemental study necessary to determine the System Improvements Costs related to the proposed Development; or 2. Modify the Development application to avoid generating Extraordinary Impact; or 3. Withdraw the Development application. F. If the Fee Payer agrees to pay for the supplemental study required to document the proposed Development's Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs, then the EMS District and the Fee Payer shall jointly select an individual or organization acceptable to both to perform such study. The Fee Payer shall enter into a written agreement with the individual or organization to pay the costs of the study. Such agreement shall require the supplemental study to be completed within thirty(30)days of such written agreement unless the Fee Payer agrees to a longer time. G. Once the study has been completed, the Fee Payer may choose to: 1. Pay the Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs documented by the supplemental study; or 2. Modify the proposed Development to reduce such costs; or 3. Withdraw the application. H. If the Fee Payer agrees to pay the System Improvements Costs documented in the supplemental study,that agreement shall be reduced to writing between the EMS District and the Fee Payer, prior to review and consideration of any application for any Building Permit related to the proposed Development. I. Notwithstanding any agreement by the Fee Payer to pay the Proportionate Share of System Improvements Costs documented by the supplemental study, nothing in this Chapter shall obligate the City to approve Development that results in an Extraordinary Impact. PART 10: DEVELOPER CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENT 12-2-1001: Developer Credits and Reimbursement Process When a Developer or their predecessor in interest has constructed System Improvements of the same category as a Capital Improvements Element, or contributed or dedicated land or money towards the 15 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance completion of System Improvements of the same category as a Capital Improvements Element,and the EMS District has accepted such construction, contribution or dedication, the EMS District shall issue a credit, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, against the EMS Impact Fees otherwise due for the same Capital Improvements Element in connection with the proposed Development, as set forth in this section. Credit shall be issued regardless of whether the contribution or dedication to System Improvements was required as a condition of Development or was offered by the Developer and accepted by the EMS District in writing, and regardless of whether the contribution or dedication was contributed by the Developer or by a local improvement district controlled by the Developer. 12-2-1002: Credit Limitations Credits against EMS Impact Fees shall not be given for: A. Project Improvements; or B. Any construction,contribution,or dedication not agreed to in writing by the EMS District prior to commencement of the construction, contribution, or dedication. Credits issued for one Capital Improvements Element may not be used to reduce the impact fee due for a different capital improvement. No credits shall be issued for System Improvements contributed or dedicated prior to the effective date of this Chapter. 12-2-1003: Valuation of Credit at Present Value The valuation of System Improvements for credit against impact fees shall be in accordance with the following: A. Land. Credit for qualifying land dedications shall, at the Fee Payer's option, be valued at the Present Value of: 1. One hundred (100) percent of the most recent assessed value for such land as shown in the records of the Ada County Assessor; or 2. The fair market value established by a private appraiser acceptable to the EMS District in an appraisal paid for by the Fee Payer. B. Improvements.Credit for qualifying acquisition or construction of System Improvements shall be valued by the EMS District at the Present Value of such improvements based on complete engineering drawings, specifications,and construction cost estimates as submitted by the Fee Payer. The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall determine the amount of credit due based on the information submitted, or, if it is determined that such information is inaccurate or unreliable, then on alternative engineering or construction costs acceptable to the EMS District as a more accurate measure of the value of the offered System Improvements. 12-2-1004: When Credits become Effective Credit against EMS Impact Fees become effective in accordance with the following: A. Land. Approved credits for land dedications shall become effective when the land has been conveyed to the EMS District, in a form acceptable, at no cost, and has been accepted by the EMS District. Upon request of the Fee Payer,the EMS District shall issue a letter stating the amount of credit available. B. Improvements. Approved credits for acquisition or construction of System Improvements shall generally become effective when (a) all required construction has been completed and has been accepted by the EMS District, (b) a suitable maintenance and warranty bond has been received and approved by the EMS District,and(c)all design, construction,inspection, testing, bonding, and acceptance procedures have been completed in compliance with all applicable requirements. Upon request of the Fee Payer,the EMS District shall issue a letter 16 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance stating the amount of credit available. 12-2-1005: Credit Request Procedures The following are the procedural requirements for the processing of credit against EMS Impact Fees: A. Request. In order to obtain a credit against EMS Impact Fees otherwise due,a Fee Payer shall submit to the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator a written request to dedicate specific parcels of qualifying land or a written offer to contribute or construct specific System Improvements to the EMS District Capital Facilities in accordance with all applicable state and local governmental design and construction standards, and shall specifically request a credit for the land dedication or System Improvements offered. B. Review. After receipt of the written request for credit, the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall review the request and determine whether the land or System Improvements offered for credit will reduce the costs of providing EMS District Capital Facilities by an amount at least equal to the value of the credit.If the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator determines that the offered credit satisfies those criteria and will be acceptable to the EMS District Board of Commissioners, then the credit shall be issued. The review and determination of a written request for credit shall be completed by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator within thirty(30) days after receipt of a written offer and application for credit. C. Credits exceeding fee amounts due. If the credit due to a Fee Payer exceeds the EMS Impact Fees that would otherwise be due from the Fee Payer pursuant to this Chapter (whether calculated pursuant to section 12-2-503 of this Chapter or through an independent assessment), the Fee Payer may choose to receive such credit in the form of either: 1. A credit against future EMS Impact Fees due for the same System Improvements; or 2. A reimbursement from EMS Impact Fees paid by future Development that impacts the System Improvements contributed or dedicated by the Fee Payer.Unless otherwise stated in an agreement with the Fee Payer,the EMS District shall be under no obligation to use any of its funds other than EMS Impact Fees paid by other Development for the same System Improvements to reimburse the Fee Payer for any credit in excess of the impact fees that are due. D. If credit or reimbursement is due to the Fee Payer pursuant to this section, the EMS District shall enter into a written agreement with the Fee Payer, negotiated in good faith,prior to the contribution, dedication, or funding of the System Improvements giving rise to the credit. The agreement shall provide for the amount of credit or the amount of time and form of reimbursement, and shall have a term not exceeding ten(10) years. E. The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator's determination on the written request for credit shall be provided to the Fee Payer, City, and the EMS District Board of Commissioners. PART 11: IMPACT FEE PAYMENT MISTAKE OR MISREPRESENTATION 12-2-1101: Incorrect EMS Impact Fee Payment If EMS Impact Fees are calculated and paid based on a mistake or misrepresentation, they shall be recalculated.Any amounts overpaid by a Fee Payer shall be refunded by the EMS District within thirty (30) days after the acceptance of the recalculated amount, with interest at the legal rate provided for in I.C. § 28-22-104 from the date on which the fee was paid. Any amounts underpaid by the Fee Payer shall be paid to the EMS District, within thirty (30) days after the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator's acceptance of the recalculated amount, with interest at the legal rate provided for in I.C. § 28-22-104 from the date on which the fee was paid. In the case of an underpayment of EMS 17 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance Impact Fees, the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator may request the City and the City may withhold issuance of Building Permits or other Development Approvals for the Project for which the impact fees were paid until such underpayment is corrected, and if amounts owed are not paid within such thirty-day period,the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator may also ask the City to revoke any Building Permits or other Development Approvals issued in reliance on the previous payment of such EMS Impact Fees and refund such fees to the Fee Payer. PART 12: REFUNDS 12-2-1201: Duty to Refund EMS Impact Fees shall be refunded to the Fee Payer, or to a successor in interest, in the following circumstances: A. Service is available but never provided; or B. A Building Permit or permit for installation of a manufactured home is denied by the City or abandoned; or C. The Fee Payer pays EMS Impact Fees under protest and a subsequent review of the fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the fee paid exceeded the Proportionate Share to which the EMS District was entitled to receive; or D. The EMS District collected the EMS Impact Fees and failed to Appropriate or expend the collected fees pursuant to this Chapter and the Act. 12-2-1202: Time for Expenditure; Refund Requirement Any EMS Impact Fees paid shall be refunded if the EMS District has failed to commence construction of System Improvements in accordance with this Chapter, or to Appropriate funds for such construction,within eight(8)years after the date on which such impact fees were collected.Any refund due shall be paid to the owner of record of the parcel for which the impact fees were paid. The EMS District may hold EMS Impact Fees for longer than eight (8) years if it is identified in writing and in written notice to the owner of record of the parcel identifying: A. A reasonable cause for why the EMS Impact Fees should be held longer than eight(8)years; and B. An anticipated date by which the EMS Impact Fees will be expended,but in no event greater than eleven(11) years from the date the impact fees were collected. 1. If the EMS District fails to comply with subsection (A) or (B), fails to commence construction of System Improvements in accordance with the written notice, or fails to Appropriate funds for such construction on or before the date identified in the written notice, then any EMS Impact Fees so identified shall be refunded to the Fee Payer or to a successor in interest. 12-2-1203:No Refund Due for Subsequent Reduction in Size of Development or Service Units After EMS Impact Fees have been paid pursuant to this Chapter and after a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the City, no refund of any part of such fee shall be made if the Project for which the fee was paid is later demolished, destroyed, or is altered, reconstructed, or reconfigured so as to reduce the size of the Project or the number of units in the Project. 12-2-1204: Interest Each refund shall include a refund of interest at one-half the legal rate provided for in I.C. § 28-22- 18 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance 104 from the date on which the EMS Impact Fee was originally paid. 12-2-1205: Timing The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall make a determination of whether a refund is due within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written request for a refund from the owner of record of the property for which the fee was paid. When the right to a refund exists,the EMS District shall send the refund to the owner of record within ninety(90) days after it determines that a refund is due. PART 13: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROJECTS TRUST FUND - EXPENDITURES, BUDGET,AUDIT,AND SURCHARGE 12-2-1301: Establishment of Development Impact Fee Capital Projects Trust Fund by EMS District The EMS District shall establish a Trust Fund for the purpose of ensuring that all EMS Impact Fees collected pursuant to this Chapter are used to address impacts reasonably attributable to new Development for which the impact fees are paid. The Trust Fund shall be maintained in one (1) or more Accounts. All funds in all Accounts in the Trust Fund shall be maintained in an interest-bearing account. The interest earned on each Account pursuant to I.C. § 67-8210(1) shall not be governed by I.C. § 57-127, as amended,but shall be considered funds of the Account and shall be subject to the same restrictions on uses of funds as the impact fees on which the interest is generated. 12-2-1302: Trust Fund Deposits and Accounting All monies paid by a Fee Payer, pursuant to this Chapter, shall be identified as EMS Impact Fees and shall be promptly deposited by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator in the appropriate Account of the Trust Fund. A. First-in/first-out. Monies in each Account shall be spent in the order collected, on a first- in/first-out basis. B. Maintenance ofRecords. The EMS District shall maintain and keep accurate financial records for each Account that shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, account for all monies received, ensure that the disbursement of funds from each Account shall be used solely and exclusively for the provisions of Projects specified in the Capital Improvements Plan, and provide an annual accounting for each Account showing the source and amount of all funds collected and the Projects that were funded. C. Accounting Principles. The calculation of impact fees shall be in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Impact fees shall not be deemed invalid because payment of impact fees may result in an incidental benefit to owners or Developers within the Service Area other than the Fee Payer. 12-2-1303: Expenditure Eligibility Expenditures of EMS Impact Fees collected and deposited in the Trust Fund shall be made only for System Improvements within the Service Area for which the impact fees were collected in accordance with the Capital Improvements Plan. 12-2-1304: Annual Capital Budget The EMS District shall annually adopt a capital budget in accordance with the Act. 19 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance 12-2-1305: Monies in Trust Fund not Expended Carried Over from Fiscal Year to Fiscal Year Any monies,including any accrued interest,not assigned to specific System Improvements within such Capital Improvements Plan and not expended or refunded shall be retained in the same Account until the next fiscal year. 12-2-1306: Annual Audit Report As part of their annual audit process, the EMS District shall prepare an annual report: A. Describing the amount of all EMS Impact Fees collected, appropriated, or spent during the preceding year by category of Public Facility and Service Area; and B. Describing the percentage of taxes and revenues from sources other than the impact fees collected, appropriated, or spent for System Improvements during the preceding year by category of Public Facility and Service Area. 12-2-1307: Surcharge Reimbursement A portion of each EMS Impact Fee collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be designated as a surcharge for reimbursement for the cost of preparing the Capital Improvements Plan in accordance with I.C. § 67-8208. The surcharge shall not exceed the Development's Proportionate Share of the cost of preparing the Capital Improvements Plan. PART 14: APPEALS/MEDIATION 12-2-1401: Appeals to EMS District Board of Commissioners Any Fee Payer who is or may be obligated to pay an EMS Impact Fee under this Chapter who claims a right to receive a refund, reimbursement, exemption, or credit under this Chapter or is otherwise dissatisfied with a decision made by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator in applying this Chapter, may appeal such decision to the EMS District Board of Commissioners in accordance with Interagency Agreement and the following process: A. The Fee Payer shall have the burden of demonstrating that the decision was in error. B. In order to pursue the appeal described in this subsection, the Fee Payer shall file a written notice of appeal with the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator within thirty (30) days after the date of the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator's decision, or the date on which the Fee Payer submitted a payment of the EMS Impact Fees under protest, whichever is later. Such written notice of appeal shall include a statement describing why the Fee Payer believes that the appealed decision was in error,together with copies of any documents that the Fee Payer believes support the claim. C. The EMS District Board of Commissioners shall hear the appeal within sixty(60)days after receipt of a written notice of appeal. The Fee Payer shall have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of their decision. The criteria to be used by the EMS District Board of Commissioners in considering the appeal shall be whether: 1. The decision or interpretation made by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator or the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the Fee Payer more accurately reflects the intent of this Chapter that new Development in the Service Area pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System Improvements to the EMS District's facilities necessary to serve new Development and whether the provisions of this Chapter have been correctly 20 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance applied. The EMS District Board of Commissioners shall issue a decision upholding, reversing, or modifying the decision being appealed within thirty(30) days after hearing the appeal. 12-2-1402: Appeals to City Council Any Fee Payer who is or may be obligated to pay an EMS Impact Fee which is established by the City and is subject to an Intergovernmental Agreement, and who claims a right to receive a refund, reimbursement, exemption, or credit under this Chapter or is otherwise dissatisfied with a decision made by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator or the decision of the EMS District Board of Commissioners in applying this Chapter, may appeal such decision to the City Council. A. The Fee Payer shall have the burden of demonstrating that the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator's or the EMS District Board of Commissioners' decision was in error. B. In order to pursue the appeal described in this subsection, the Fee Payer shall file a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within thirty(30) days after the date of the EMS District Board of Commissioners' decision. Such written notice of appeal shall include a statement describing why the Fee Payer believes that the appealed decision of the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator or the EMS District Board of Commissioners was in error, together with copies of any documents that the Fee Payer believes support the claim. The City Clerk shall within three (3) business days deliver the notice of appeal together with copies of any documents filed with it to the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator. C. The City Council shall hear the appeal within sixty (60) days after receipt by the City Clerk of a written notice of appeal. The Fee Payer shall have a right to be present and to present evidence in support of the appeal. The EMS District Impact Fee Administrator or designee shall likewise have the right to be present and to present evidence in support of the decision. The criteria to be used by the City Council in considering the appeal shall be whether: 1. The decision or interpretation made by the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator or the EMS District Board of Commissioners' decision on appeal or the alternative decision or interpretation offered by the Fee Payer more accurately reflects the intent of this Chapter that new Development pay its Proportionate Share of the costs of System Improvements to facilities necessary to serve new Development and whether the provisions of this Chapter have been correctly applied. The City Council shall issue a decision upholding, reversing, or modifying the decision being appealed within thirty(30) days after hearing the appeal. 12-2-1403: Mediation Any Fee Payer that has a disagreement with the EMS District Impact Fee Administrator regarding an impact fee determination that is or may be due for a proposed Development pursuant to this Chapter may enter into a voluntary agreement with the EMS District to submit the disagreement to mediation by a qualified independent party acceptable to both the Fee Payer and the EMS District. A. Mediation may take place at any time following the filing of a timely appeal pursuant to sections 12-2-1401 and 12-2-1402, or as an alternative to such appeal, provided that the request for mediation is filed no later than the last date on which a timely appeal could be filed pursuant to section 12-2-1402. Applicable time periods provided in sections 12-2-1401 and 12-2-1402 are tolled during mediation. B. Participation in mediation does not preclude the Fee Payer from pursuing other remedies provided for in I.C. § 67-8212. C. If mediation is requested, any related mediation costs shall be shared equally by the Fee Payer 21 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance and the EMS District, and a written agreement regarding the payment of such costs shall be executed prior to the commencement of mediation. D. In the event that mediation does not resolve the issues,the Fee Payer retains all rights to seek relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. PART 15: MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 12-2-1501: No Requirement of the City to Approve Extraordinary Impact Development Nothing in this Chapter shall obligate the City to approve Development which results in an Extraordinary Impact. 12-2-1502: City Not Obligated to Approve Development that Reduces Levels of Service Nothing in this Chapter shall obligate the City to approve any Development request which may reasonably be expected to reduce levels of service below minimum acceptable levels established in this Chapter. 12-2-1503: No Additional Right to Develop Created by this Chapter Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to create any additional right to develop real property or diminish the City in regulating the orderly development of real property within its boundaries. 12-2-1504: No Limit on City's Authority Nothing in this Chapter limits the use of the City's power of eminent domain or supersedes or conflicts with requirements or procedures authorized in the Idaho Code for local improvement district or general obligation bond issues. 12-2-1505: Agreements Between Property Owners, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), and other Governmental Entities for Construction or Installation of System Improvements Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent or prohibit private agreements between property owners or Developers, the Idaho Transportation Department, and governmental entities in regards to the construction or installation of System Improvements or providing for credits or reimbursements for System Improvements Costs incurred by a Developer including inter-project transfers of credits or providing for reimbursement for Project Improvements which are used or shared by more than one(1) Development Project. 12-2-1506: Plan for Alternative Sources of Revenue The EMS District shall develop a plan for alternative sources of revenue, which shall include but not necessarily be limited to a plan generated during its annual budget process. These alternative sources of revenue may include tax increment financing, user fees, administrative and regulatory fees, and other forms of revenue. 12-2-1507: Safety Codes and Other Rules Applicable to Project Improvements Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from requiring a Developer to construct reasonable Project Improvements, as are required by applicable safety codes and other rules that are adopted which it has jurisdiction to enforce in conjunction with a Development. 12-2-1508: Development Approved by the City Prior to the Effective Date of this Chapter Not Subject to EMS Impact fees Notwithstanding any other provision(s) of this Chapter,that portion of a Project for which a complete application for a Building Permit has been received by the City, prior to the effective date of this Chapter, shall not be subject to an EMS Impact Fee imposed by this Chapter. If the resulting Building Permit is later revised or replaced after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter, and 22 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance the new Building Permit(s) reflects a Development with density, intensity, size or number of units more than ten (10) percent higher than reflected in the original Building Permit, then the impact fee may be charged on the difference in density,intensity,size or number of units between the original and the revised or replacement Building Permit. 12-2-1509: Punishment Violation of this Chapter shall be subject to those remedies provided in this Code. Knowingly furnishing false information to any official of the City or EMS District charged with the administration of this Chapter on any matter relating to the administration of this Chapter including, without limitation, the furnishing of false information regarding the expected size or use of a proposed Development, shall be a violation of this Chapter. 12-2-1510: Liberal Construction All provisions, terms, phrases, and expressions contained in this Chapter shall be liberally construed in order that the true intent and meaning of the Act may be fully carried out by the City Council and the EMS District Board of Commissioners. SECTION 2: ORDINANCE LIMITED This ordinance is limited to Title 12, Chapter 2, of the Meridian City Code only. All other provisions of the Meridian City Code shall remain unchanged. SECTION 3: EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the 301" day following its passage, approval, and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 16th day of June , 2026. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this 16th day of June , 2026. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk 23 EMS District Development Impact Fees Ordinance E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for Ada County Sheriff's Jail on Development Within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian COUNTY AGREEMENT NO. ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN [Idaho Code § 67-8204A] Parties to Agreement: Ada County County Ada County c/o Director of Ada County Development Services 200 W. Front St., Room 2119 Boise, ID 83702 City of Meridian City City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Ada County, a duly formed and existing county pursuant to the laws and Constitution of the State of Idaho("County") and the City of Meridian,an Idaho municipal corporation("City") as an Intergovernmental Agreement as provided for in Idaho Code § 67-8204A effective on the Effective Date. The County or City may also be referred to herein as "Party" or"Parties." NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration hereby acknowledged by the Parties to this Agreement as having been received, the Parties hereby mutually promise, covenant, and agree as follows: SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS For all purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the definitions as herein provided in this Section unless the context of the term clearly requires otherwise: 1.1 Act: Means and refers to the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, Chapter 82, Title 67, Idaho Code, as it may be amended or restated from time to time. 1.2 Advisory Committee: Means and refers to the Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established by the County pursuant ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 1 to sections 67-8205 and 67-8206(2), Idaho Code, which shall serve as the development impact fee advisory committee pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8205(3) to prepare and recommend the Capital Improvements Plan ("CIP") and any amendments, revisions, or updates of the same. 1.3 Agreement: Means and refers to this Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for Ada County Sheriff's Jail on Development within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian which provides for the collection of development impact fees. 1.4 Capital Improvements Plan and/or CIP: Means and refers to the most recent Ada County Jail Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study, adopted by the County pursuant to the Act. 1.5 City: Means and refers to City of Meridian, Party to this Agreement. 1.6 County: Means and refers to Ada County, Party to this Agreement. 1.7 Development: Means and refers to any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. As used herein, "development" shall not include activities that would otherwise be subject to payment of the development impact fee if such activities are undertaken by a taxing district, as defined in section 63-201, Idaho Code, or by an authorized public charter school, as defined in section 33-5202A, Idaho Code, in the course of carrying out its statutory responsibilities, unless the adopted impact fee ordinance expressly includes taxing districts or public charter schools as being subject to development impact fees. 1.8 Effective Date: Means and refers to the effective date of this Agreement, which shall be the same date as the effective date of the Ordinance. 1.9 Jail Capital Projects Fund: Means and refers to the Ada County Development Impact Fee Jail Capital Projects Fund established by the County pursuant to the Ordinance and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8210(1). 1.10 Jail Impact Fees: Means and refers to Jail development impact fees imposed pursuant to the Ordinance. 1.11 Ordinance: Means and refers to the Ada County Jail Development Impact Fees Ordinance enacted by the City Council of the City pursuant to the Act and pursuant to this Agreement. ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 2 1.12 Party/Parties: Means and refers to the City and/or the County, as the Parties in this Agreement, depending upon the context of the term used in this Agreement. 1.13 Public Facilities: Means and refers to the definition for Public Facilities in Idaho Code § 67-8203(24) 1.14 Service Area: Means and refers to a service area as defined in the Act at Idaho Code § 67-8203(26) and specifically as defined in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan which includes all of the geographic area of County including the geographic area of the County within the municipal boundaries of the City. 1.15 System Improvements: Means and refers to capital improvements to Public Facilities designed to provide service to a service area as defined in the Act at Idaho Code § 67-8203(28). SECTION 2 RECITALS 2.1 The Purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the intent and purpose of the Capital Improvements Plan to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development, protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents within the County and within the boundaries of the City, and to further the best interests of the Parties. 2.2 The County and City are "governmental entities" empowered to impose and collect development impact fees pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code §§ 67-8202(5) & 67- 8203(14). 2.3 The County and City are experiencing considerable new growth and development, which new growth affects the ability of the County to provide adequate jail Public Facilities to residents of the County which includes residents living within the municipal limits of the City and the ability of the County to provide such adequate Public Facilities to all residents of the County jointly affects both the County and City. 2.4 Idaho Code § 67-8204A provides that the County has the authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the City for the purpose of agreeing to collect and expend development impact fees for system improvements when they are jointly affected by development. 2.5 The County has provided the City with a Capital Improvements Plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of Idaho Code § 67-8208 in consultation with the Advisory Committee,the members of which were appointed by County pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-8205 and 67-8206(2). ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 3 2.6 The City Council of the City has adopted the Capital Improvements Plan in accordance with the Act. 2.7 The Ordinance will provide, as required by Idaho Code Section 67-8210, that all Jail Impact Fees, collected pursuant to the Ordinance shall be maintained in one (1) or more interest-bearing accounts within the Jail Capital Projects Fund, which this Agreement provides for. 2.8 The City desires to aid the County in the provision of the Public Facilities by adopting the Capital Improvements Plan and by the adoption of the Ordinance. 2.9 That by reason above stated, the Parties have determined it is necessary and desirable to enter into this Agreement. SECTION 3 JAIL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 3.1 Jail Capital Projects Fund Name: The County shall establish and maintain the Jail Capital Projects Fund; and 3.2 Deposits to the Jail Capital Projects Fund Accounts: Jail Impact Fees collected by the City pursuant to the Ordinance and transferred to the County shall be maintained by the County and deposited proportionately to the accounts of the Jail Capital Projects Fund; and 3.3 Interest Bearing Jail Capital Projects Fund Accounts: The County shall establish and maintain the Jail Capital Projects Fund accounts as interest-bearing accounts; and 3.4 Jail Capital Projects Fund Accounts Accounting: The County shall account for the Jail Capital Projects Fund Accounts as follows: 3.4.1 Establish a separate accounting for each collected and transferred Jail Impact Fee by the designation of the year, month, and date the Jail Impact Fee was collected by the City, the name of the fee payer, and the identification of the real property which is the subject of the collection of the Jail Impact Fee; and 3.4.2 Each separate accounting shall be additionally designated in the event it was paid under protest(i.e.,UP)or is the subject of a claim for refund or reimbursement(i.e., CR); and 3.4.3 All Jail Impact Fees in all Jail Capital Projects Fund Accounts shall be maintained in interest-bearing accounts. The interest earned on each account,pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-8210(1) shall not be governed by Idaho Code Section 57-127 as amended and shall be considered funds of each account and shall be subject to the same restrictions on uses of collected Jail Impact Fees on which the interest is generated; and ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 4 3.4.4 First-in/First-out. All Jail Impact Fees in each account shall be spent in the order collected, on a first-in/first-out basis; and 3.4.5 Financial Records. Accurate financial records shall be maintained and kept for each account that shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, account for all Jail Impact Fees monies received, ensure that the disbursement of funds from each account shall be used solely and exclusively for the provisions of projects specified in the Capital Improvements Plan, and provide an annual accounting of the Jail Capital Projects Fund accounts showing the source and amount of all Jail Impact Fees collected and the projects that were funded. 3.5 Jail Capital Projects Fund Accounts Audit: The County shall perform and prepare an annual report including an audit of the Jail Capital Projects Fund: (a)describing the amount of all Jail Impact Fees received, appropriated or spent during the preceding year by category of Public Facility; and (b) describing the percentage of taxes and revenues from sources other than the Jail Impact Fees collected, appropriated, or spent for System Improvements during the preceding fiscal year under the System Improvements category of public facility and the Service Area. A copy of this audit shall be provided to the City; and 3.6 Jail Capital Projects Fund Accounts Expenditures: Distribution from the Jail Capital Projects Fund, except for a Fee Payer Reimbursement or Fee Payer Refund made pursuant to the Ordinance and this Agreement, shall be in accordance with Idaho Code § 67-8210. SECTION 4 IMPACT FEE PAYMENT 4.1 General Rule - Building Permit Issuance: The City will collect Jail Impact Fees at the time of, and as a condition of, the issuance of a building permit or manufactured home installation permit for any Development for which an impact fee is due under the Ordinance unless the applicant and the County inform the City that they have agreed to defer collection to a later date pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8204(3), in which case the County or City will collect the Jail Impact Fee at the deferred date the applicant and County have agreed to. SECTION 5 DELIVERY OF COUNTY IMPACT FEES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 5.1 Administrative Fee and Remittance of Fees to County: The County agrees to pay the City an administrative fee, if any, for the collection and remittance of the Jail Impact Fees which the Parties establish by entering into the City Administrative Fee Addendum to this Agreement using the form which is attached and marked Appendix 1. ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 5 SECTION 6 SERVICE AREA 6.1 Idaho Code § 67-8203(26) provides that the Parties can identify a geographic area by an intergovernmental agreement in which specific Public Facilities such as law enforcement(Idaho Code § 67-8203(24)(f))provide service to development within that geographic area on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles or both. 6.2 The adopted Capital Improvements Plan defines the Service Area which includes all the area within the City. SECTION 7 COVENANTS OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFIC TO THE COUNTY The County shall at all times: 7.1 Abide by the terms and conditions required of the County as set forth in the Ordinance and any amendments to the same; and 7.2 Maintain and staff the position of County Impact Fee Administrator to manage and perform the duties and responsibilities of the County Impact Fee Administrator as set forth in the Ordinance; and 7.3 Establish and maintain the Jail Capital Projects Fund in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Ordinance and the provisions of Idaho Code Section 67- 8210 and any amendment or recodification of the same; and 7.4 Pay the following costs: 7.4.1 Costs associated with (a) preparing and updating the Capital Improvements Plan and (b) the Advisory Committee's periodic review of the Capital Improvements Plan; and 7.4.2 Costs of drafting and publication of the Ordinance and any amendment or repeal of the same as may be requested by the County; and 7.4.3 Costs of drafting this Agreement and any amendment or termination of the same as may be requested by the County; and 7.4.4 Costs associated with the County's performance of this Agreement; and 7.4.5 Costs associated with an appeal of a claim of exemption; and ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 6 7.4.6 Legal costs and fees of any action brought by a Fee Payer or Developer involving a determination of the County under the provisions of the Ordinance. 7.5 Be solely responsible for the County's performance of the terms and conditions required of it by the Ordinance and by this Agreement. SECTION 8 COVENANTS OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFIC TO THE CITY The City shall: 8.1 Approve and enact the Ordinance and maintain the same in full force and effect until amended and/or repealed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; and 8.2 Manage and perform the duties and responsibilities of the City as set forth in the Ordinance; and 8.3 Abide by the terms and conditions required of the City as set forth in the Ordinance and any amendments to the same, including the calculation and collection of Jail Impact Fees in accordance with the terms of the Ordinance; and 8.4 Remit all Jail Impact Fees collected by the City to the County for deposit in the Jail Capital Projects Fund in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Ordinance and the provisions of Idaho Code Section 67-8210; and 8.5 Be solely responsible for the City's performance of the terms and conditions required of it by the Ordinance and by this Agreement. SECTION 9 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING 9.1 The administration and performance by the City of this Agreement and the Ordinance shall be under the direction of the Director of Community Development; and 9.2 The administration and performance by the County of this Agreement and the Ordinance shall be under the direction of the County Impact Fee Administrator. SECTION 10 INDEMNIFICATION 10.1 Except as otherwise provided in Section 10.2, to the extent permitted by law, the County shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, actions, damages, judgments, costs, and expenses arising out of or in connection with the County's process followed and/or the content of documents used to ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 7 establish and/or amend the County's development impact fees and/or expenditure of impact fees provided by the Ordinance, and/or any claim involving the County's administration of impact fees as provided by this Agreement. In the event of such claim, the County shall defend such allegations; and the County shall bear all costs, fees, and expenses of such defense,including,but not limited to,all attorney fees and expenses,court costs,and expert witness fees and expenses. Such indemnification and reimbursement for defense shall be limited to only those claims, and only to the extent that the County itself could be liable under state and federal statutes, regulations, common law, and other law. 10.2 Except as otherwise provided in Section 10.1, to the extent permitted by law, City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents, and employees from and against claims, actions, damages,judgments, costs and expenses solely to the extent such claims arise directly from the City's failure to legally comply with public hearing notification or Open Meeting Law requirements in connection with the City's process of adoption or amendment of the County's development impact fees. City's indemnification and defense of County herein is further limited by all defenses, burdens of proof, immunities, and limitations on damages to which City would be entitled if the claims were asserted against City. SECTION 11 TERM/TERMINATION/AMENDMENT 11.1 Term. This Agreement shall continue in force and effect perpetually from its execution date. 11.2 Party Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party upon ninety(90) day notice in writing to the other Party. Any notice of intent to terminate shall include a timeline regarding repeal of the Ordinance. No termination of this Agreement or repeal of the Ordinance can be retroactive, and the Agreement and Ordinance shall remain in effect regarding any active accounts in the Jail Capital Projects Fund. Upon termination of this Agreement: 11.2.1 The City shall remit all collected Jail Impact Fees as provided in the Ordinance. 11.3 Renegotiation: This Agreement may be renegotiated by either Party upon ninety(90)day notice in writing to the other Party and amended only by written agreement of the Parties. 11.4 Notice. 11.4.1 To the County: Ada County Development Services Department Attention: Director 200 W. Front Street, ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 8 Boise, ID 83702 With Copy to: Ada County Prosecutor's Office Attn: Chief Civil Deputy 200 W. Front Street, Room 3191 Boise, ID 83702 11.4.1.2 By scanning, attaching and e-mailing to: adacountyprosecutorkadacounty.id.Gov 11.4.2 To the City: City of Meridian ATTN: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 11.4.2.1 By scanning, attaching and e-mailing to: ci ohnson(a,meridiancity.org 11.4.3 In the event either party has a change in the address and/or contact information provided for in this Section, notice of the same shall be provided to the other and upon acknowledgment of receipt of said notice, this section of the Agreement shall henceforth be amended. 11.5 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained herein shall create any relationship, contractual or otherwise,with, or any rights in favor of, any third party. 11.6 Time is of the Essence. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to the performance of every term, condition, and provision hereof and failure of a Party to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach hereof and a default under this Agreement by the Party failing to perform. 11.7 Severability. Should any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any persons,parties, or circumstances, for any reason be declared illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained herein. 11.8 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed by the Parties in two (2) counterparts, and each such counterpart shall be deemed an "original." ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 9 11.9 Choice of LawNenue. This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of Idaho with venue in the courts in Ada County. 11.10 Assignment. No Party may assign this Agreement or any interest therein. 11.11 Attorney Fees. In the event of any litigation between the Parties arising under or as a result of this Agreement, arising from any of the acts to be performed hereunder, or as a result of the alleged breach of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year written below. Board of Ada County Commissioners By: Rod Beck, Commissioner By: Ryan Davidson, Commissioner By: Thomas Dayley, Commissioner ATTEST: Trent Tripple, Ada County Clerk City of Meridian By: Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-16-2026 ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-16-2026 ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 10 APPENDIX 1 City Administrative Fee Addendum to this Agreement City Administrative Fee Addendum No. 1 ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN [Idaho Code§67-8204A] Parties to Agreement: City of Meridian City City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Ada County County Ada County Development Services Department Attention: Director 200 W. Front Street, Boise, ID 83702 This City Administrative Fee Addendum No. 1 to the Ada County and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection of Development Impact Fees for Ada County Sheriff's Jail on Development within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian (the "Intergovernmental Agreement") by and between the parties is made effective as of the day of , 2026, and it is agreed by the Parties as follows: 1. The City's administrative fee, as provided in section 5.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement, is established at Zero and No/100ths Dollars ($0.00) per Jail Impact Fee collected by the City and delivered to Ada County. 2. The City shall deliver to Ada County, together with the collected Jail Impact Fees, the following: • The City Administrative Fee invoice, if any; and • For each Jail Impact Fee collected,the name of the fee payer, and the identification of the real property which is the subject of the collection of the Jail Impact Fees including the name of the subdivision, the lot #, and the block #, or the Assessor parcel number (i.e., 25/11/1- Smith— View Subdivision No. 1, Lot , Block or County Assessor's Parcel No. ); and ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 11 • Ada County agrees to pay the total monthly administrative fee owed, if any, to the City within thirty(30) days after receipt of City's invoice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year written below. Board of Ada County Commissioners By: Rod Beck, Commissioner By: Ryan Davidson, Commissioner By: Thomas Dayley, Commissioner ATTEST: Trent Tripple, Ada County Clerk City of Meridian By: Mayor Robert E. Simison ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADA COUNTY AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY SHERIFF'S JAIL ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 12 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ada County Emergency Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District on Development Within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian DISTRICT AGREEMENT NO. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN j1daho Code § 67-8204A] Parties to Agreement: Ada County Emergency Medical District Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Services District c/o Director of Ada County Development Services 200 W. Front St., Room 2119 Boise, ID 83702 City of Meridian City City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 THIS INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into by and between Ada County Emergency Medical Services District, a duly formed and existing ambulance service district ("District") and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation ("City") as an Intergovernmental Agreement as provided for in Idaho Code § 67-8204A effective on the Effective Date. The District or City may also be referred to herein as "Party" or"Parties." NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration hereby acknowledged by the Parties to this Agreement as having been received, the Parties hereby mutually promise, covenant, and agree as follows: SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS For all purposes of this Agreement, the following terms have the definitions as herein provided in this Section unless the context of the term clearly requires otherwise: 1.1 Act: Means and refers to the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, Chapter 82, Title 67, Idaho Code, as it may be amended or restated from time to time. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 1 1.2 Advisory Committee: Means and refers to the Ada County/Ada County Ambulance District Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established by the District pursuant to sections 67-8205 and 67-8206(2), Idaho Code, which shall serve as the development impact fee advisory committee pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8205(3) to prepare and recommend the Capital Improvements Plan ("CIP") and any amendments, revisions, or updates of the same. 1.3 Agreement: Means and refers to this Ada County Emergency Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District on Development within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian which provides for the collection of development impact fees. 1.4 Capital Improvements Plan and/or CIP: Means and refers to the most recent EMS Capital Improvement Plan and Development Impact Fee Study prepared for and adopted by the District pursuant to the Act. 1.5 City: Means and refers to City of Meridian, Party to this Agreement. 1.6 Development: Means and refers to any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, which creates additional demand and need for Public Facilities or the subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use, character or appearance of land. As used herein, "development" shall not include activities that would otherwise be subject to payment of the development impact fee if such activities are undertaken by a taxing district, as defined in section 63-201, Idaho Code, or by an authorized public charter school, as defined in section 33-5202A, Idaho Code, in the course of carrying out its statutory responsibilities, unless the adopted impact fee ordinance expressly includes taxing districts or public charter schools as being subject to development impact fees. 1.7 District: Means and refers to the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District, Party to this Agreement. 1.8 Effective Date: Means and refers to the effective date of this Agreement, which shall be the same date as the effective date of the Ordinance. 1.9 EMS Impact Fees: Means and refers to EMS development impact fees imposed pursuant to the Ordinance. 1.10 EMS Capital Projects Fund: Means and refers to the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fee EMS Capital Projects Fund established by the ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 2 District pursuant to the Ordinance and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8210(1). 1.11 Ordinance: Means and refers to the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Development Impact Fees Ordinance enacted by the City Council of the City pursuant to the Act and pursuant to this Agreement. 1.12 Party/Parties: Means and refers to the City and/or the District, as the Parties in this Agreement, depending upon the context of the term used in this Agreement. 1.13 Public Facilities: Means and refers to the definition for Public Facilities in Idaho Code § 67-8203(24) 1.14 Service Area: Means and refers to a service area as defined in the Act at Idaho Code § 67-8203(26) and specifically as defined in the adopted Capital Improvements Plan which includes all of the geographic area of Ada County including the geographic area within the municipal boundaries of the City. 1.15 System Improvements: Means and refers to capital improvements to Public Facilities designed to provide service to a service area as defined in the Act at Idaho Code § 67-8203(28). SECTION 2 RECITALS 2.1 The Purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate the intent and purpose of the Capital Improvements Plan to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development, protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the residents within the District and within the boundaries of the City, and to further the best interests of the Parties. 2.2 The City is empowered to impose and collect development impact fees pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code §§ 67-8202(5) & 67-8203(14). 2.3 The District and City are experiencing considerable new growth and development,which new growth affects the ability of the District to provide adequate EMS Public Facilities for residents of the District which includes residents living within the municipal limits of the City and the ability of the District to provide such adequate Public Facilities to all residents of the District jointly affects both the District and City. 2.4 Idaho Code § 67-8204A provides that the City has the authority to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the District for the purpose of agreeing to collect and expend development impact fees for system improvements when they are jointly affected by development. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 3 2.5 The District has provided the City with a Capital Improvements Plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of Idaho Code § 67-8208 in consultation with the Advisory Committee the members of which were appointed by District pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-8205 and 67-8206(2). 2.6 The City Council of the City has adopted the Capital Improvements Plan in accordance with the Act. 2.7 The Ordinance will provide, as required by Idaho Code Section 67-8210, that all EMS Development Impact Fees,collected pursuant to the Ordinance, shall be maintained in one (1) or more interest-bearing accounts within the EMS Capital Projects Fund, which this Agreement provides for. 2.8 The City desires to aid the District in the provision of the Public Facilities by adopting the Capital Improvements Plan and by the adoption of the Ordinance. 2.9 That by reason above stated, the Parties have determined it is necessary and desirable to enter into this Agreement. SECTION 3 EMS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 3.1 EMS Capital Projects Fund Name: The District shall establish and maintain the EMS Capital Projects Fund; and 3.2 Deposits to the EMS Capital Projects Fund Accounts: EMS Impact Fees collected by the City pursuant to the Ordinance and transferred to the District shall be maintained by the District and deposited proportionately to the accounts of the EMS Capital Projects Fund; and 3.3 Interest Bearing EMS Capital Projects Fund Accounts: The District shall establish and maintain the EMS Capital Projects Fund accounts as interest-bearing accounts; and 3.4 EMS Capital Projects Fund Accounts Accounting: The District shall account for the EMS Capital Projects Fund Accounts as follows: 3.4.1 Establish a separate accounting for each collected and transferred Impact Fee by the designation of the year, month, and date the Impact Fee was collected by the City, the name of the fee payer, and the identification of the real property which is the subject of the collection of the Impact Fee; and 3.4.2 Each separate accounting shall be additionally designated in the event it was paid under protest(i.e.,UP)or is the subject of a claim for refund or reimbursement(i.e., CR); and ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 4 3.4.3 All EMS Impact Fees in all EMS Capital Projects Fund Accounts shall be maintained in interest-bearing accounts. The interest earned on each account, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67-8210(1) shall not be governed by Idaho Code Section 57-127 as amended and shall be considered funds of each account and shall be subject to the same restrictions on uses of collected EMS Impact Fees on which the interest is generated; and 3.4.4 First-in/First-out. All EMS Impact Fees in each account shall be spent in the order collected, on a first-in/first-out basis; and 3.4.5 Financial Records. Accurate financial records shall be maintained and kept for each account that shall show the source and disbursement of all revenues, account for all EMS Impact Fees monies received,ensure that the disbursement of funds from each account shall be used solely and exclusively for the provisions of projects specified in the Capital Improvements Plan, and provide an annual accounting of the EMS Capital Projects Fund accounts showing the source and amount of all Impact Fees collected and the projects that were funded. 3.5 EMS Capital Projects Fund Accounts Audit: The District shall perform and prepare an annual report including an audit of the EMS Capital Projects Fund: (a) describing the amount of all EMS Impact Fees received, appropriated or spent during the preceding year by category of Public Facility; and (b) describing the percentage of taxes and revenues from sources other than the EMS Impact Fees collected, appropriated, or spent for System Improvements during the preceding fiscal year under the System Improvements category of public facility and the Service Area. A copy of this audit shall be provided to the City; and 3.6 EMS Capital Projects Fund Accounts Expenditures: Distribution from the EMS Capital Projects Fund, except for a Fee Payer Reimbursement or Fee Payer Refund made pursuant to the Ordinance and this Agreement, shall be in accordance with Idaho Code § 67-8210. SECTION 4 IMPACT FEE PAYMENT 4.1 General Rule - Building Permit Issuance: The City will collect EMS Impact Fees at the time of, and as a condition of,the issuance of a building permit or manufactured home installation permit for any Development for which an impact fee is due under the Ordinance unless the applicant and the District inform the City that they have agreed to defer collection to a later date pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8204(3), in which case the District or City will collect the EMS Impact Fee at the deferred date the applicant and District have agreed to. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 5 SECTION 5 DELIVERY OF EMS IMPACT FEES AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 5.1 Administrative Fee and Remittance of Fees to District: The District agrees to pay the City an administrative fee,if any,for the collection and remittance of the EMS Impact Fees which the Parties establish by entering into the City Administrative Fee Addendum to this Agreement using the form which is attached and marked Appendix 1. SECTION 6 SERVICE AREA 6.1 Idaho Code § 67-8203(26) provides that the Parties can identify a geographic area by an intergovernmental agreement in which specific Public Facilities such as emergency medical facilities (Idaho Code § 67-8203(24)(f))provide service to development within that geographic area on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles or both. 6.2 The adopted Capital Improvements Plan defines the Service Area which includes all the area within the City. SECTION 7 COVENANTS OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFIC TO THE DISTRICT The District shall at all times: 7.1 Abide by the terms and conditions required of the District as set forth in the Ordinance and any amendments to the same; and 7.2 Maintain and staff the position of District Impact Fee Administrator to manage and perform the duties and responsibilities of the District Impact Fee Administrator as set forth in the Ordinance; and 7.3 Establish and maintain the EMS Capital Projects Fund in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement,the Ordinance and the provisions of Idaho Code Section 67- 8210 and any amendment or recodification of the same; and 7.4 Pay the following costs: 7.4.1 Costs associated with (a) preparing and updating the Capital Improvements Plan and (b) the Advisory Committee's periodic review of the Capital Improvements Plan; and 7.4.2 Costs of drafting and publication of the Ordinance and any amendment or repeal of the same as may be requested by the District; and ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 6 7.4.3 Costs of drafting this Agreement and any amendment or termination of the same as may be requested by the District; and 7.4.4 Costs associated with the District's performance of this Agreement; and 7.4.5 Costs associated with an appeal of a claim of exemption; and 7.4.6 Legal costs and fees of any action brought by a Fee Payer or Developer involving a determination of the District under the provisions of the Ordinance. 7.5 Be solely responsible for the District's performance of the terms and conditions required of it by the Ordinance and by this Agreement. SECTION 8 COVENANTS OF PERFORMANCE SPECIFIC TO THE CITY The City shall: 8.1 Approve and enact the Ordinance and maintain the same in full force and effect until amended and/or repealed in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement; and 8.2 Manage and perform the duties and responsibilities of the City as set forth in the Ordinance; and 8.3 Abide by the terms and conditions required of the City as set forth in the Ordinance and any amendments to the same, including the calculation and collection of EMS Impact Fees in accordance with the terms of the Ordinance; and 8.4 Remit all EMS Impact Fees collected by the City to the District for deposit in the EMS Capital Projects Fund in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Ordinance and the provisions of Idaho Code Section 67-8210; and 8.5 Be solely responsible for the City's performance of the terms and conditions required of it by the Ordinance and by this Agreement. SECTION 9 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFFING 9.1 The administration and performance by the City of this Agreement and the Ordinance shall be under the direction of the Director of Community Development; and ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 7 9.2 The administration and performance by the District of this Agreement and the Ordinance shall be under the direction of the District Impact Fee Administrator. SECTION 10 INDEMNIFICATION 10.1 Except as otherwise provided in Section 10.2,to the extent permitted by law,the District shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, actions,damages,judgments, costs,and expenses arising out of or in connection with the District's process followed and/or the content of documents used by the District to establish and/or amend the EMS Impact Fees, and/or the District's expenditure of EMS Impact Fees provided by the Ordinance, and/or any claim involving the District's administration of EMS Impact Fees as provided by this Agreement. In the event of such claim,the District shall defend such allegations; and the District shall bear all costs, fees, and expenses of such defense, including, but not limited to, all attorney fees and expenses, court costs, and expert witness fees and expenses. Such indemnification and reimbursement for defense shall be limited to only those claims, and only to the extent that the District itself could be liable under state and federal statutes,regulations, common law, and other law. 10.2 Except as otherwise provided in Section 10.1, to the extent permitted by law, City shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District, its officers, agents, and employees from and against claims,actions,damages,judgments, costs and expenses solely to the extent such claims arise directly from the City's failure to legally comply with public hearing notification or Open Meeting Law requirements in connection with the City's process of adoption or amendment of the EMS Impact Fees. City's indemnification and defense of District herein is further limited by all defenses, burdens of proof, immunities, and limitations on damages to which City would be entitled if the claims were asserted against City. SECTION 11 TERM/TERMINATION/AMENDMENT 11.1 Term. This Agreement shall continue in force and effect perpetually from its execution date. 11.2 Party Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party upon ninety(90)day notice in writing to the other Party. Any notice of intent to terminate shall include a timeline regarding repeal of the Ordinance. No termination of this Agreement or repeal of the Ordinance can be retroactive, and the Agreement and Ordinance shall remain in effect regarding any active accounts in the EMS Capital Projects Fund. Upon termination of this Agreement: 11.2.1 The City shall remit all collected EMS Impact Fees as provided in the Ordinance. 11.3 Renegotiation: This Agreement may be renegotiated by either Party upon ninety(90)day notice in writing to the other Party and amended only by written agreement of the Parties. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 8 11.4 Notice. 11.4.1 To the District: Ada County Emergency Medical Services District Attention: Director of Ada County Development Services 200 W. Front St., Room 2119 Boise, ID 83702 With Copy to: Ada County Prosecutor's Office Attn: Chief Civil Deputy 200 W. Front Street, Room 3191 Boise, ID 83702 adacounyprosecutor(ae,adacounty.id.gov 11.4.2 To the City: City of Meridian ATTN: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 11.4.3 In the event either party has a change in the address and/or contact information provided for in this Section, notice of the same shall be provided to the other and upon acknowledgment of receipt of said notice, this section of the Agreement shall henceforth be amended. 11.5 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained herein shall create any relationship, contractual or otherwise,with, or any rights in favor of, any third party. 11.6 Time is of the Essence. The Parties acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to the performance of every term, condition, and provision hereof and failure of a Party to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach hereof and a default under this Agreement by the Party failing to perform. 11.7 Severability. Should any term or provision of this Agreement or the application thereof to any persons,parties, or circumstances, for any reason be declared illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement, and this Agreement shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained herein. ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 9 11.8 Counterparts. This Agreement shall be executed by the Parties in two (2) counterparts, and each such counterpart shall be deemed an "original." 11.9 Choice of LawNenue. This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by the laws of the State of Idaho with venue in the courts in Ada County. 11.10 Assignment. No Party may assign this Agreement or any interest therein. 11.11 Attorney Fees. In the event of any litigation between the Parties arising under or as a result of this Agreement, arising from any of the acts to be performed hereunder, or as a result of the alleged breach of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall recover its costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year written below. Board of the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District By: Rod Beck, Commissioner By: Ryan Davidson, Commissioner By: Thomas Dayley, Commissioner ATTEST: Trent Tripple, Ada County Clerk ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 10 City of Meridian By: Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-16-2026 ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-16-2026 ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 1 I APPENDIX 1 City Administrative Fee Addendum to this Agreement City Administrative Fee Addendum No. 1 ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN [Idaho Code§67-8204A] Parties to Agreement: City of Meridian City City of Meridian Attn: City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 Ada County Emergency Medical District Ada County Development Services Services District Department Attention: Director 200 W. Front Street, Boise, ID 83702 This City Administrative Fee Addendum No. 1 to the Ada County Emergency Medical Services District and City of Meridian Intergovernmental Agreement for the Collection and Expenditure of Development Impact Fees for Ada County Emergency Medical Services District on Development within the Municipal Boundaries of the City of Meridian (the "Intergovernmental Agreement")by and between the parties is made effective as of the day of ,2026, and it is agreed by the Parties as follows: 1. The City's administrative fee, as provided in section 5.1 of the Intergovernmental Agreement, is established at Zero and No/100ths Dollars ($0.00) per EMS Impact Fee collected by the City and delivered to the District. 2. The City shall deliver to the District, together with the collected EMS Impact Fees, the following: • The City Administrative Fee invoice, if any; and • For each EMS Impact Fee collected, the name of the fee payer, and the identification of the real property which is the subject of the collection of the Impact Fees including the name of the subdivision,the lot#, and the block#,or the County ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 12 Assessor parcel number (i.e. 25/11/1- Smith— View Subdivision No. 1, Lot , Block or County Assessor's Parcel No. ); and • Ada County Emergency Medical Services District agrees to pay the total monthly administrative fee owed to the City within thirty (30) days after receipt of City's invoice. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement on the date and year written below. Board of Ada County Emergency Medical Services District By: Rod Beck, Commissioner By: Ryan Davidson, Commissioner By: Thomas Dayley, Commissioner ATTEST: Trent Tripple, District Secretary City of Meridian By: Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-16-2026 ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-16-2026 ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AND CITY OF MERIDIAN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE ADA COUNTY EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES DISTRICT ON DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN—PAGE 13