2020-05-12 Regular C� E II � �:7- CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES
City Council Chambers
https://meridiancity.org/virtualmeeting
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 6:00 PM
Item 1: Zoom Meeting Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83685789213
Item 2: Roll-Call Attendance
X Liz Strader X Joe Borton
X Brad Hoaglun _X Treg Bernt
X Jessica Perreault X Luke Cavener
X Mayor Robert E.Simison
Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance
Item 4: Community Invocation with Vinnie Hanke of Valley Life Christian
Church
Item 5: Adoption of Agenda - Adopted
Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum)
Item 7: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Kenneth Allen Garage Vacation (H-2020-0037)
by Kenneth Allen, Located at 2420 N. Victor Way - Approved
1. Request: Vacate 5 feet of an existing 10-foot wide public utility,
drainage, and irrigation (PUDI) easement located along the south
property line of Lot 7, Block 3 of the Tuthill Estates Subdivision No. 1.
B. Public Hearing for Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) by Boll Cook
Investments, LLC, Located at 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and 2800 E.
Jasmine Ln. - Denied
1. Request: Annexation & zoning of 15.22 acres of land with R-8 (2.76
acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and R-40 (3.64 acres) zoning districts; and,
2. Request: A Preliminary plat consisting of 66 single-family residential
building lots, 1 building lot for a future multi-family development, 8
common area lots and 2 other (common driveway) lots.
Item 8: Ordinances [Action Item]
A. Ordinance No. 20-1879: An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing
Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, Regarding Flood Damage
Prevention; Voiding Any Conflicting Provisions; and Providing
an Effective Date - Approved
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
Meeting Adjourned at 10:13 PM
Meridian City Council May 12, 2020.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, May
12, 2020, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica
Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Adrienne Weatherly, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Joe Bongiorno
and Warren Stewart.
Item 1: Zoom Meeting Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83685789213
Item 2: Roll-call Attendance:
Liz Strader Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: All right. Well, with that let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. For the
record it is Tuesday, May 12th, 2020, at 6:02 p.m. We will begin this meeting with roll call
attendance.
Item 3: Pledge of Allegiance
Simison- Item 3 is the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 4: Community Invocation with Vinnie Hanke of Valley Life Christian
Church
Simison: Item No. 4 is our community invocation and we have Vinnie Hanke. Did I
pronounce that right? Dr. Hanke with Valley Life Christian Church. If you will all join us
in the invocation or take this as a moment of silence or reflection for yourself. Pastor
Hanke.
Hanke- Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you City Council for giving me an opportunity
just to pray for you all. God, we thank you for this evening and I just begin by praying and
lifting up part of the City of Meridian, the county of Ada, God, and the state of Idaho. We
pray that you might comfort the afflicted at this time, you might provide courage to the
fearful and hope to the discouraged, power for the Meridian City Council. God, I pray that
tonight you would give prudence and their actions wisdom and their thinking and
ultimately zeal in your leadership. We thank you for the grace and mercy that you
revealed through the gospel of Jesus Christ and I pray that it would empower this
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 30 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 2 of 71
community to be one that glorifies you and blesses its citizens. We ask these things
through Christ, the Savior. Amen. Thank you all. Have a great meeting. God bless you.
Item 5: Adoption of Agenda
Simison: Okay. Item 5 is adoption of the agenda.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we approve the agenda as published.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a section -- a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as
published. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Item 6: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum (Up to 30 Minutes Maximum)
Simison: Move on to Item 6, future meeting topics. Adrienne or Chris, did we have
anyone sign up?
Johnson- Mr. Mayor, there is nobody signed up for that.
Item 7: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Kenneth Allen Garage Vacation (H-2020-0037)
by Kenneth Allen, Located at 2420 N. Victor Way
1. Request: Vacate 5 feet of an existing 1 0-foot wide public utility,
drainage, and irrigation (PUDI) easement located along the
south property line of Lot 7, Block 3 of the Tuthill Estates
Subdivision No. 1.
Simison- Okay. And with that we will move on to Item 7-A, a public hearing for Kenneth
Allen Garage Vacation, H-2020-0037, and I will turn this over to -- I don't know which staff
-- for comments.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 31 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 3 of 71
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's mine. Joe Dodson.
Simison: Okay. Thanks, Joe.
Dodson: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Good to be here again. Get the short --
short PowerPoint up for a second. Chris, is that going up or are we a no go on that?
Johnson: I'm trying to get that right now. One moment.
Dodson: No worries. Perfect. All right. As stated, we are here tonight for Item No. 7-A,
Kenneth Allen Garage Vacation. This site consists of .2 acres of land, zoned R-4, located
at 2420 North Victor Way. Next slide, Chris. Before you is a request-- a request to vacate
five feet of an existing ten foot wide public utility drainage and irrigation easement or PUDI
easement if you will, located along the south property line of Lot 7, Block 3, of the Tuthill
Estates Subdivision No. 1 . The applicant, who is the owner, is requesting to vacate half
of the PUDI easement on their property in order to build a new stand-alone garage,
located five feet from the property line. Five feet is the minimum interior side setback for
the R-4 zoning district. All easement holders have submitted written consent agreeing to
vacate a portion of this existing easement. I have noticed that none of them have many
of their utilities or equipment within the requested five feet of area to be vacated. Staff
recommends approval of the vacation as proposed by the applicant and I will stand for
questions.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions? Thank you very much. This is a
public hearing. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up? I see we have Kenneth Allen in
the room, so I assume that he is here to testify on this item.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, he is unmuted and able to speak if he would like.
Simison: Okay. Mr. Allen, would you wish to testify? If so state your name and address
for the record.
K.Allen- Kenneth Allen. 2420 North Victor Way, Meridian, Idaho.
Simison- Do you have any -- any testimony you would like to provide on this topic or are
you good with the staff information?
K.Allen: Well, the whole purpose of it is to build a garage, so I can do a little RV storage
and a little office spot beside it, you know. Just building a garage, you know.
Simison- Okay.
K.Allen- That's about it.
Simison- Perfect. Council, do you have any questions for Mr. Allen? Thank you very
much. Is there anybody else who signed up to testify, Chris?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 32 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 4 of 71
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, this is Adrienne. There is no one signed in to testify on this project.
Simison: Okay. Well, we do have people in the -- in the attendee. Just for the record, if
you would like to testify just raise your hand and we will bring you in to testify on this item.
That will be the case when we move to the next item as well. And if you -- I don't see
anybody who is just on the phone. It looks like everyone is in using the app, so we don't
have to worry about star nine to speak, but I don't see anybody wishing to testify. So,
with that, Council, do I have a motion?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I move we close the public hearing on Item 7-A, H-2020-0037.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: Okay. I have a motion and a second by Councilman Cavener to close the public
hearing. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying
aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: After considering all of the staff comment on this application, I move that we
approve file number H-2020-0037.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I will second that.
Simison- I have a motion and a second to approve item H-2020-0037. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, the clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault,
yea.
Simison- All ayes. Motion carries. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 33 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 5 of 71
B. Public Hearing for Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) by Boll
Cook Investments, LLC, Located at 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and
2800 E. Jasmine Ln.
1 Request: Annexation & zoning of 15.22 acres of land with R-
8 (2.76 acres), R-15 (8.82 acres) and R-40 (3.64 acres)
zoning districts; and,
2. Request: A Preliminary plat consisting of 66 single-family
residential building lots, 1 building lot for a future multi-family
development, 8 common area lots and 2 other (common
driveway) lots.
Simison: Council, next up we will consider Item 7-B, public hearing for Delano
Subdivision, H-2019-2027. I will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you
is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 15.21
acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 2800 and 14120 West
Jasmine Lane. This property is designated medium density residential on the western
portion, which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre on the west side of the
extension of Centrepoint and mixed use regional on the east side of Centrepoint. This
project was originally heard by the Commission May 2nd and July 18th, 2019. At the
hearing on July 18th the Commission voted to recommend denial of the project to City
Council. The City Council heard the project on November 12th and voted to remand the
project back to the Commission to address the density issue of the proposed development
and for Commission's review of a revised plat with changes to lots along the northern
boundary of the subdivision that front on East Della Street, consisting of single story
detached homes and the loss of one buildable lot. The revised plans before you tonight
are the result of discussions at the previous City Council hearing and meetings with the
neighbors. Their revisions include a reduction in the number of buildable lots from 85 to
66. A change to the proposed zoning. The portion of the site along the north and west
boundaries previously proposed to be zoned R-15 is now R-8. And a change to the
conceptual building elevations. Since the hearing at City Council in November the city
adopted a new Comprehensive Plan, which included an amendment to the future land
use map that assigned a mixed use regional designation to the majority of the property
that lies east of the proposed Centrepoint Way. Therefore, the previous application for
an amendment to the future land use map is no longer needed and has been withdrawn.
This area was formerly in the city of Boise's planning area, but last October Boise city
council approved a resolution to amend the land use map of Blueprint Boise to transfer
this area from Boise's area of city impact to the City of Meridian's area of city impact
boundaries, since Meridian is able to provide water and sewer services to the property.
The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 3.31 acres of land with R-8 zoning
on the north and west portion of the site, R-15 zoning for the 8.12 acres directly to the
south and east of the R-8 portion and R-40 zoning for the five acres on the east side of
Centrepoint Way. The proposed zoning is consistent with the proposed development plan
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 34 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 6 of 71
and the future land use map designations for this site. The preliminary plat is proposed
consisting of 66 single family residential building lots for the development of single family
residential detached homes at a gross density of 5.7 units per acre. One building lot for
a future 96 unit multi-family residential development at a gross density of 27 units per
acre. Eight common lots and two other lots for common driveways on 15.22 acres of
land. The plat is proposed to develop in three phases as shown. A concept plan is
proposed for the multi-family portion of the site, which will require subsequent approval
of a conditional use permit with a detailed plan. One access is proposed on either side
of Centrepoint Way, a collector street, and an emergency only pedestrian access is
proposed from the extension of North Dashwood Place at the north boundary of the site.
A stub street is proposed to the parcel to the west for access and future extension. Public
streets are proposed within the single family residential portion of the development with
27 foot wide street sections. Private drive aisles will be provided within the multi-family
portion of the development. The Commission, consistent with ACHD's action,
recommends the connection of Dashwood Avenue to the existing stub street to the north,
Dashwood Place, occur as a temporary emergency access and pedestrian connection
until Centrepoint Way is extended to Wainwright Drive to the north where the signal is or
within ten years, whichever occurs first. When Centrepoint Way is extended to
Wainwright, Dashwood Place will be reconstructed as a public street for vehicular
connectivity to Wainwright Drive. A driveway and cross-access ingress-egress easement
is required to be provided to the parcel to the east of the multi-family residential portion
of the site, since it only has access via Eagle Road, State Highway 55. The applicant
provided a concept drawing showing how development could possibly occur on the Wong
parcel to the north with the extension of Centrepoint to Wainwright, consistent with the
master street map in the location proposed on this site. Twenty-seven foot wide street
sections are proposed, which only allow parking on one side of the street. A parking plan
was submitted as shown that demonstrates the amount of available on-street parking,
which is 58 spaces, as well as the location of such spots. A 20 foot wide landscape street
buffer is required along Centrepoint Way, a collector street. A minimum ten percent
qualified open space is required to be provided for the overall development, along with
one site amenity. The applicant is proposing 10.8 percent on the single family residential
portion of the site, consisting of a .69 acre park with amenities, parkways, linear open
space and a collector street buffer. Because the multi-family residential portion of the site
is separated from the single family portion by a collector street and the development plan
is conceptual at this time, staff recommends as a development agreement provision that
the ten percent open space is provided on that portion of the site at the time of
development, in addition to the open space required in the specific use standards for
multi-family developments. A shade structure, a children's play structure, climbing dome,
climbing boulders, seating benches and public art are proposed as qualified site
amenities, which exceed UDC standards. The Nourse Lateral runs along the northern
boundary of the site and is piped. An easement should be depicted on the plat for the
waterway if one exists. If there is an easement and the width is ten feet or greater, it
should be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20 feet wide and outside of a
fenced area, unless modified by City Council. The elevations shown are the original
elevations. New concept building elevations were submitted for the single family
residential detached homes as shown. All single family homes along the west and north
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 35 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 7 of 71
perimeter boundaries of the development will be restricted to a single story in height as
proposed by the applicant. The concept elevations for the apartments are as shown and
didn't change. The Commission recommended approval of these applications and I will
just go through a summary of the Commission hearing. Hethe Clark, the applicant's
representative, testified in favor. There were several folks that commented on the
application as follows: Malissa Bernard. Laura Trairatnobhas, Michael Bernard, Sandi
King, Kenneth Clifford and Ali Crane. Written testimony has been received from many
letters of the public and they are all contained in the public record. Hethe Clark, the
applicant's representative, submitted a response to the staff report. Key issues of
discussion were as follows: The homeowners association to the north, Alpine Pointe,
requests the Dashwood stub street at the north boundary be vacated and sole vehicular
access be provided to the site from the south via Centrepoint Way to keep traffic from
cutting through their neighborhood. This could also be accomplished with a gate for
emergency access only. Feeling that the subdivision to the north is overconnected and
more connections aren't necessary to Wainwright Drive from the south, especially with
Centrepoint planned to extend to Wainwright in the future. They request larger lots and
single story homes along the north boundary for a better transition. Belief that funds
should be provided by all development for improvement of the Eagle Road and
Wainwright intersection. Concern pertaining to the impact the proposed development will
have on the capacity of various schools. Frustration from the neighbors that they weren't
aware that Dashwood was planned to be extended in the future, as there were no signs
erected at the end of the stub street and concern pertaining to the removal of all of the
existing evergreen trees, approximately 40, along the southern boundary of the site and
request for mitigation to be required. The owner planned to cut these trees down for
firewood. Key issues of discussion by the Commission are as follows: The Commission
asked the applicant to clarify the status of the Nourse Lateral easement along the northern
boundary of the site. The applicant stated that the Alpine Pointe Subdivision plat depicts
a 15 foot wide easement for the piped lateral that exists on the adjacent property to the
north within the easement. The applicant also proposes to depict an additional easement
on the subject plat in case it's needed for maintenance of the lateral. The transportation
plan for this area and existing in plan connections to Wainwright Drive. Whether or not
Dashwood should be extended to Centrepoint with the first phase of development as
recommended by staff or extended as a temporary emergency access and pedestrian
connection until Centrepoint is extended to Wainwright or within ten years, whichever
occurs first. When Centrepoint is extended to Wainwright Dashwood would be
reconstructed as a public street for vehicular connectivity to Wainwright as required by
ACHD. The applicant's request for homes along the west boundary to not be restricted
to single story in height and for the buffer and sidewalk along the east side of Centrepoint
to not be constructed until development of the multi-family portion of the site, which is in
phase three. Support for retaining the existing trees or acquiring mitigation for them if
removed. In support of fewer lots and lower density proposed. And, finally, the timing for
construction of the street buffer and sidewalk along the east side of Centrepoint with the
first phase as recommended by staff or with a third phase as proposed by the applicant.
The Commission made the following changes to the staff recommendation. They
approved access consistent with ACHD's decision. They allowed bonus rooms on single
story homes along the west boundary with no rear facing windows for the bonus rooms.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 36 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 8 of 71
They allowed the street buffer and sidewalk along the east side of Centrepoint to be
constructed with the third phase, rather than the first phase, as recommended by staff.
And, finally, they required the developer to retain as many trees as possible along the
southern boundary of the site. So, the only outstanding issue that staff has for Council
tonight is if Council determines that all of the existing trees on the site should -- that are
proposed to be removed should require mitigation in accord with UDC standards, even
those removed by the property owner for firewood, that condition A-3-A and section eight
should be modified accordingly. Currently there is no mitigation requirements if the
property owner removes the trees for firewood. Many letters of testimony have been
received and they are included in the public record since the Commission hearing. Staff
will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I have a question for Sonya. If you could help me understand what the interplay
is with ACHD and if -- if -- what -- what would be a downside or are we prohibited from
making Dashwood a permanent emergency access -- pedestrian access only?
Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Council, that is under your purview. The City
Council can choose to extend it, not extend it, or temporarily extend it or emergency
access.
Strader: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any other questions for staff at this time? Okay. With that I will turn it
over to the applicant and for the record I am the timer today, so it will be on my phone.
We don't have a way to show up on the screen. Mr. Clark, I will try to give you a one
minute wrap up if we get to that point in time. Signal. Maybe a -- something like that.
Did you see that? So, anyways, the time is yours for 15 minutes.
Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. And just
maybe a thumbs up if everybody can hear me. Great. So, we are here at the continuation
of a pretty long process at this point. Appreciated staff's efforts on this and we are hoping
to have a good conversation tonight. Chris, do I have control of the slides?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor and Mr. Clark, you have control.
Clark: Okay. Thank you. It just worked. Thank you. As a reminder, this is the location
of the property. I emphasize that it's close to major transportation corridors in Eagle and
Ustick, as well as proximity to shopping. I also want to emphasize the Comprehensive
Plan elements. As Sonya mentioned, the area that we are going to be discussing tonight
is the medium density area on the west part of the project. The area to the east is mixed
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 37 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 9 of 71
use regional. Those designations are per the new land use map and match the prior
Boise city planning on the area on the east. It also matches the Comprehensive Plan
designation for the much more dense apartment project on our south. I think it would be
good to talk a little bit about the history here. So, let me hit some of it. I want to -- I want
to kind of emphasize a few elements. This application was before you late last year.
There was plenty of debate at that hearing. Some of you probably remember. I would
say that the tension points really focused on the Dashwood connection. If you will recall
at that time the proposal was to cut off access at Centrepoint, which the idea was that
that would restrict the big Brickyard residents from coming up and through and into Alpine
Pointe through Dashwood. The proposed project at the time would rely on that connection
until Wainwright was completed. The result of that conversation was essentially -- we
were remanded to explore two issues. We were instructed to go back and look at the
density of the project, including on the northern boundary against Alpine Pointe, as well
as to reconsider the nature of the Dashwood connection. So, after the November hearing
before City Council there was -- the -- there was a change in the applicant group. Devco
and BlackRock exited and the group of investors asked me to try to help move the project
forward. I scheduled meetings with the Alpine Pointe board beginning in -- well, both
meetings were in December of 2019. During the first meeting I took in a full size copy of
the prior site plan and we discussed the board's priorities. The board's priorities were
identified. We wrote them down on the plat. This is a picture of that plat with the notes
on it. The priorities were -- in no particular order -- to reduce the density overall and on
the north boundary, while still retaining the single story limitation on the north that had
been previously offered. The number that was put out during that meeting for the size of
those lots was to shoot for 6,000 square feet. The board wanted to see the primary
access be down at Centrepoint. So, in other words, to invert the access that had been
previously proposed. Folks wanted to see cross-access provided on the multi-family area
and, of course, the board wanted to see Dashwood either vacated altogether or made
emergency only. So, I took those comments and we came up with the plan that is before
you tonight. As it turned out, a prior draft iteration was actually pretty close to -- and
seemed to me to incorporate a lot of what the board had been asking for and so we started
there to get to what we have -- what you have before you. As you can see, the density is
significantly reduced. The primary connection is down on Centrepoint. The internal lots
are reoriented and the park is still facing Alpine Pointe, but has been increased in size.
Getting a little bit more into those details. There was a reduction -- this plan reduces the
overall lot count from 85 to 66. So, a 22 percent reduction in overall lots. Primary access
is, again, at Centrepoint as requested. The lots on the north boundary were reduced and
we will talk about that some more here in a minute. But we kept the single story limitation,
which is something I would point out that not many applicants would do if they lost the
lots, they wouldn't keep the single story limit. As mentioned, the internal lots are
reoriented and the park is expanded and we were able to get permission to install bollards
in the ACHD right of way for an emergency only access at Dashwood. I reviewed this
plan with the board in -- again in late December and, then, at the board's suggestion we
held a meeting with the membership of Alpine Pointe in February of 2020. 1 felt pretty
confident coming out of those meetings that we had addressed a lot of the neighbors
concerns. A couple of other items. I do want to point out based on neighbor comments
we no longer have any attached product in the project. So, everything is single family
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 38 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 10 of 71
detached. Accordingly, we updated the home elevations. These are some examples.
Sonya showed you the larger batch. Also despite the reduction in density, the
neighborhood amenities have not been reduced. We have five more than what is
required, including a proposal which I think is pretty cool for an art installation and a
seating area on the southwest corner of the project. That's this area down here and on
-- down on the southwest corner in that triangular area and I would also note that when it
comes to the open space calculations we did not get credit for that triangle, nor did we
get credit for the area just north of it. So, we are actually quite a ways above the -- the
ten percent limit, even though it looks like we were just squeaking by. We didn't get credit
for those and we meet the statute -- or the code requirements, so I preferred not to have
any arguments with Sonya about that one. It didn't really matter. So, talking about the
points of discussion, as I read the record the neighborhood comments had focused on
two general themes, desire for larger lots on the northern boundary and a desire to make
the Dashwood emergency only access permanent. So, let's talk about the northern
boundary. The proposal that is now before you reduces the number of lots on the border
by 25 percent, from 15 units with five duplexes, to 11 all detached. So, a 25 percent
decrease. The average square footage on those lots went up to 5,661 square feet, from
about 3,800 square feet. But I think the numbers don't tell the whole story. You also have
to look at the transition and think about where we have -- we have to go from the south
to the north of this project. There is a lot of transition to cover in only about 600 feet. We
have to transition from Alpine Pointe's three units to the acre all the way to the Brickyard
development's multi-family in 22 to 30 units to the acre. Those multi-family areas in turn
surround commercial and retail around Ustick and Eagle and that's where you want
density to be. So, a little more context. This is what the -- the project to the south of us
looks like. That's the Brickyard. Again, 22 to 30 units per acre. And this is what it looks
like in terms of the -- the transition from the lot size from the Brickyard into our project and
we think we have transitioned this appropriately. The densities are certainly within the
limit of the zone and the medium density residential -- residential designation on the comp
plan. The other issue is the Dashwood stub. As you know, Meridian and ACHID really
emphasize conductivity. Meridian's Comprehensive Plan is filled with references to
conductivity. ACHID's policy manual was the same way. Dashwood is an existing stub
with public right of way. It's maintained at public expense and I'm showing these pictures
just to kind of give everyone a feel for what it looks like and what the -- what the challenge
is here. At the Council hearing back in November the direction was to revisit Dashwood
and see if there were other alternatives. Alpine Pointe's board indicated they would like
to see emergency only and I -- and I get the concern. You know, I think -- we think our
project functions just fine as long as we have emergency access at Dashwood. So, I
went to -- to see if I could get that done. I asked ACHID if we could have an emergency
access only there. I did not propose it to be temporary. At the time of the meeting without
Alpine Point at their HOA, which was February 18th, we did not yet have the ACHID
decision. I let the group know that my initial conversations with ACHID were encouraging,
but we needed to get their decision. I also explained the likely difficulty and I explained
that the Alpine Pointe folks could petition to vacate Dashwood to increase the chances of
what they wanted to see. I explained the --the process to do so during that meeting. Two
days later on February 20th ACHID issued their updated decision. They agreed to
emergency only, but only on a temporary basis. There are a lot of reasons for this,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 39 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 11 of 71
including the policies promoting connectivity, but we should be clear getting ACHD to
agree to this, even on a temporary basis, was significant and I personally considered it a
big win on behalf of the neighbors. I want to talk about a couple of other points that are
related there. First, you know, obviously, the neighbors would really like to see Dashwood
be permanent as emergency only. So, I went back to ACHD and asked, again, you know,
can this -- can this be a permanent emergency only condition and the answer was no.
Second. There have been several emergency -- or, excuse me, several alternative
layouts that have been floated in order to be -- they kind of have a common theme of
continuing Della which, is our east-west street on the north, out and through the project
to create another connection to Centrepoint. I ran that by ACHD as well. They said they
would not permit Della Street to punch through to the east with the current approved road
configuration. They have also said that even if Della punched through they still would not
agree to a permanent emergency only limitation. And, third, I also asked if we could enter
into a license agreement to landscape Dashwood. The idea that I had was to try to make
it look less like a road in the interim. Try to add to some of the comfort level there for
folks. But the -- again, the answer there was no. So, I just want to be clear that we have
tried to be -- I personally have tried to be very responsive to the neighbors' concerns.
Perhaps, you know, if -- if the neighbors apply to vacate Dashwood they can get to a
different result. I agree with the comments of the neighbors at the last meeting before
P&Z that a temporary emergency only limitation gives the neighborhood the opportunity
to continue to work on the issue, but I want to be clear that I do not oppose a permanent
emergency only condition on Dashwood and have, in fact, asked for it. So, I don't want
to be misunderstood when -- when that comes up through the course of the night. So, I
will try to wrap up. There may be additional questions and I'm certain there will be things
that come up through the course of the night, but I just want to emphasize that this project
is very much in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, which calls for a medium
density and mixed use regional designation. There are no issues with the agencies. You
know, one thing I would like to emphasize is that Meridian water and sewer service
connections are at the property on the north and south and this will allow the -- your utility
folks to be able to -- to connect those loops. This is truly in-fill, which I know was a city
priority. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan is full of references to in-fill and this is one
of those instances where not here than where. I wish it weren't the case, but in-fill is
always hard and I think we have made significant modifications to satisfy the neighbors'
concerns. So, as I wrap up I want to talk a little bit about the conditions of approval in the
-- in the document. Okay. I will finish up very fast, Mr. Mayor. First with regard to the
trees, I just wanted to give everybody an idea of what we are talking about there. The
trees are pretty scrubby. They are not very healthy. They have been topped, because a
lot of them are underneath an Idaho Power line. We are happy to try to preserve them
where we can. I mean it saves us money if we can save -- if we can use the same trees.
But I just want everyone to be on the same page that that may not be the easiest thing to
do given what those trees look like. But keep in mind that the transition area where those
trees are located on the southwest includes the triangular kind of park area where the
public -- public art is going to be. I think that that provides an appropriate transition in any
case. With regard -- we had two modifications to the conditions of approval and I will be
done, Mr. Mayor. First is on the west side of the project we had previously shown duplex
product there. We are no longer limit -- we have single family detached there and so we
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 40 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 12 of 71
are asking and given the reduction in the density we are asking to remove the single story
limitation on the west and, then, with regard to Dashwood, the request would be to remove
language that that has to be temporary and instead just allow it to track with ACHID, so
the additional conversations could be had. And, then, if ACHD changes their mind, then,
you wouldn't have to come back and modify this condition as well. With that I'm happy to
answer any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Hethe. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: In my business we do a big know your customer type focus and I'm a big believer
in fundamentally knowing who you are dealing with. Are you able to disclose who the
investors are in this new application?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I have been asked to -- by a group of investors
to be the person out front. This kind of stuff is not very much fun and it oftentimes is --
you end up taking the arrows. The group of investors that I'm working with are going to
be either identifying a new developer or a builder team if they end up doing the
development themselves. Ultimately this is not something where, you know, we judge it
based on who the applicant is or is not, but this is a group of investors that will most likely
not be involved in the product -- in the project long term. They would be looking to sell
their interest.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I -- I sort of understand what you are saying, but, you know, I -- it does strike me
as a little odd. And certainly we don't evaluate applications just on the basis of who is
doing them. I just find it a little strange. Have -- have the investors identified -- can you
give us a flavor for the type of investors that they are? They are -- the reason I'm asking
the question is there have been some concerns mentioned in the written testimony that,
you know, this could be sold to a total for rent subdivision or something along those lines
and I just was hoping you could give us a flavor as to the business plan and the types of
investors involved.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council -- Council Woman Strader, I don't think I have much more to
add than what I said before there. They would be looking for potentially someone else to
purchase the project and move forward with it. So, there is not a plan along those lines.
Strader: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 41 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 13 of 71
Simison: Council, are there any other further questions for the applicant at this time?
Okay. Thank you very much.
Clark: Thank you.
Simison: So, Adrienne or Chris, would you mind explaining how we are going to proceed
through the next section -- sections so Council is aware. A little bit so I'm aware as well,
so I can time appropriately through the communication you have had with the neighbors.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I would be happy to do that. Council Members, we have several
members from Alpine Pointe, the HOA, as well as the residents, who have signed up to
testify. In order to be efficient they have actually provided a PowerPoint presentation with
much of their material combined. So, they have given me an order of how those slides
are organized and so we have first the HOA president, who is not speaking as the HOA
representative, followed by a person who will be speaking as the HOA representative and,
then, followed by an additional four people that are part of this initial set. Beyond that we
do have another eight to ten people signed up to testify, as well as others in the room.
So, we would just be calling them in the order we have. Normally it's the order they have
signed up, but we are trying to work with what they have given us and call them in that
order.
Simison: So, Council, just so you are aware of what you just heard is you are going to
hear a three minute, a ten minute, multiple three minutes to get through one presentation,
followed by, then, additional people signing up to testify on this application. Councilman
Cavener?
Cavener- Mr. Mayor, thanks. I just want to get -- this is -- if I'm not mistaken this is
somewhat unorthodox to how we have typically done things. I'm not necessarily I'm -- I'm
opposed to it, I just -- this is really I think the first time that we have kind of had multiple
parties touching on what sounds to be like a neighborhood presentation over their allotted
time.
Simison- Mr. Cavener, I don't disagree with you. Just in my mind I -- put it this way. We
have a ten minute person go first and, then, every other person got up and spoke for three
minutes and they called up their own PowerPoint to do it, it's essentially -- in my opinion
it is a little bit outside of what I would call the spirit of the rules, but I don't think it's in
violation of the rules and, technically, I'm going to hold each person to their time. So, if
they don't get through their slides, then, they will just move on to the next person and so,
hopefully, all the attendees are hearing this as well that they will need to stick to their time
frame.
Cavener: And, Mr. Mayor, I agree, I think that from an efficiency standpoint it seems
appropriate. It just is very unorthodox of how we have done things and I just think it's
important for our neighbors to be aware of that. We are -- we are being pretty flexible
with this presentation style in light of kind of this new environment that we are in.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 42 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 14 of 71
Simison: Yeah. Mr. Nary, do you have anything you would like to add?
Nary: No, sir. I think that's exactly right, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Okay. All right. So, Mr. Clerk, if you want to bring them in and like everybody
else I -- I'm going to leave my -- my mute open, so that people can hear the timer go off
and I will ask all the presenters to, please, respect when the timer goes off to conclude
and I will try to give a one minute if you can see me. I know you can't always see
everybody, but that's what I will try to do. So, with that it looks like -- if you can state your
name and address for the record and once we have that I will start the time.
Weatherly: Okay. First we would like Frank Marcos to come to the podium.
Marcos: Can you hear me okay?
Simison: Yes, we can.
Marcos: Thank you. Frank Marcos. 2580 East Lakewood Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council President, and Council Members. From the beginning of
this proposed project Alpine Pointe residents have not been trying to stop this
development, but instead we have been encouraging better and wiser decisions that will
affect current and future residents of the Delano project, Alpine Pointe, and the City of
Meridian. Please understand your citizens desire is to see this project completed with a
good plan. After all, in the City of Meridian strategic plan it says that, quote, a plan poorly
implemented is like having no plan at all. Unquote. As evidenced early on by the many
submitted project proposals by the original developer and lack of community involvement,
this previously was a poorly planned project. The previous City Council recognized this
when they remanded the original plan by the Conger group and demanded that he meet
with the residents of Alpine Pointe. While additional meetings did occur, the residents
individually and collectively have asked for Dashwood to remain closed permanently. We
have been steadfast in that and the option for temporary was not what we were looking
for. While Mr. Conger offered to ask for a temporary closure, which he did, that was, in
essence, not our outcome that we desired. Our residents, your citizens, have been very
vocal about this project from the beginning as evidenced by the previous meeting's
attendance numbers. Some of you have experienced this firsthand in the P&Z committee
meetings and the City Council meetings. There were hundreds of pages of testimony,
but what you are missing is being able to see us. We appreciate tremendously the
opportunity to do this through the efforts of your city employees. However, we -- we really
-- we can't emphasize that the opportunity to be in front of you was really a strong point
of what we were trying to do. In addition, we recognize the importance of transparency.
Thank you, Council -- Council Woman Strader -- to each of you and the City of Meridian
employees, we ask that you continue to demand the applicant to disclose who the
developer is and who the builder is and the reason for this is that we know that there is
nothing improper occurring. P&Z member Patty Pitzer was vetted by the City Council
prior to our recent P&Z meeting as she's a resident of Alpine Pointe. According to public
record she was vetted. For additional research we found that P&Z Chairman Ryan
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 43 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 15 of 71
Fitzgerald recently worked for the Conger group. Mr. Fitzgerald was not vetted due to his
relationship with that developer, at least as far as we know. Since Mr. Clark will not
disclose whether or not Mr. Conger is still the developer, there is a strong possibility of a
lack of transparency and due process in the previous P&Z meeting, as Mr. Fitzgerald
sided with the applicant. Hopefully, by reading the written material we presented and
hearing the verbal testimony tonight you are able to make the correct decision to close
Dashwood permanently. We would like to thank City Council, P&Z, and city staff
employees for their patience and guidance through this process, for allowing us the
opportunity to help shape the future of Meridian. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council President
and Council city -- City Council Members.
Simison: Council, any question for Mr. Marcos?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thanks. I guess -- I assume we are going to maybe take questions from each
person that testifies.
Simison: Yes.
Cavener: Mr. Marcos, appreciate your testimony tonight and in your e-mails about this
application your -- your comments about people being in the room have intrigued me. I
think that probably -- I try really hard to never speak for the Council, but I'm sure that we
would all prefer to be in Council Chambers and see all of our citizens in that room, but I
guess I'm trying to understand what you are hoping to convey or what your concern is
that you are unable to convey by not being in the room physically and how that pertains
to the application.
Marcos: Thank you, Councilman Cavener. In our recent meetings, whether it's P&Z,
ACHID, or that City Council meeting, it was extremely visible that the presence of all of
our residents in those rooms had an impact on each of the members of those committees
and we know, having seen other presentations, very seldom is there such an output of
interest in a project like this and so I know that -- we appreciate the opportunity to do this
by way of virtual meeting, but what I'm trying to stress, sir, is that we would have overfilled
that -- that City Hall meeting because our neighbors are concerned. We are concerned
about this project, about the lack of transparency, about things that have gone on and
while we appreciate Mr. Clark coming in and taking over for whomever -- we still don't
know. There is still -- there is still that -- that opportunity of being present. For example,
can you see me? I don't even know if you see me. I can't see that you can see me. We
saw Hethe. Mr. Clark. So, a big part of my letter writing has to do with we want to be
able to have you see us, so you understand our passion behind this. I hope that answers
your question.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 44 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 16 of 71
Simison: Yes.
Johnson: Mr. Marcos, you have the ability to turn your camera on. I'm not able to turn it
on for you, but everyone presenting tonight does have that capability.
Marcos: And how do I do that? Or it's too late now, but, hopefully, the rest of our people
-- again that wasn't -- I didn't see that in the instructions if it was there. My apologies.
Cavener: And, Mr. Mayor, a comment if I may.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Frank, just for your own benefit -- again, I'm not sure what your perspective is.
We are able to see a significant list of attendees that are --that are watching online. While
I don't -- I don't take a roll in these meetings, it does appear this is probably the largest
contingent of attendees that we have had in one of these virtual meetings since we have
done them. So, I appreciate your desire to make sure that your -- your neighbors are
visibly represented from attending this meeting. I appreciate it.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Marcos: Thank you very much.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Marcos, I really appreciate you being here tonight and
testifying in regard to this application and representing, so to speak, in some -- some of
your neighbors and conveying your interest. I also want to make it crystal clear to you,
Mr. Marcos, that, you know, whether you are -- you give your testimony via audio or -- or
via camera, I promise you it carries the same weight. I know that you have a concern
with that and I respect that concern and because of that I just -- I just want to make it clear
to you -- and it's really important for me and my Council Members to let you know that,
again, whether you are on camera or if you have combed your hair or brushed your teeth,
to us it -- honestly, I just -- we just want to know the facts. We want to know data and we
want--we want to hear your concerns and whether that's on camera or in audio, it speaks
volumes. It speaks equally. So, I just wanted to let you know that. Thank you for being
here tonight.
Marcos- Thank you so much and we appreciate your -- your openness to that and
willingness to -- as you just said -- listen to the facts, go by the facts, because that's really
what we are hoping to -- to accomplish here with -- with all the testimony. So, thank you
very much.
Bernt: You're welcome. My pleasure.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for Mr. Marcos? Okay. Well --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 45 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 17 of 71
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Adrienne. Please.
Weatherly: Next up we have Malissa Bernard.
Simison: Okay. Thank you, Malissa. And I understand you will be speaking on behalf of
a group of residents and you will have ten minutes to present. So, you are aware, if you
would like to activate your camera, there should be an element -- I think in the left hand
corner. It doesn't always show up. You're going to have to mouse over if you want to be
present and for the Council's information, in addition to the people that are in our wait
mode, we have about 26 people watching online. So, with that I will turn this over to you
for ten minutes and I will also give you a one minute wrap up time frame.
Bernard: Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Can you hear
me all right? Okay. I would like to -- could we put this into presentation mode? It's -- it's
actually showing up as -- as huge on my side.
Johnson: I have it in the mode I can get it in, Malissa.
Bernard: Okay. You will have to bear with me as I use my iPad. It will be a little easier
for me to start. My name is Malissa Bernard. I live at 4025 North Dashwood Place in
Meridian, Idaho. No one's seeking to bend the rules or anything, we just felt it was easier
to submit one PowerPoint presentation, rather than try to load down several of these just
for ease and simplicity. I am representing Alpine Pointe, most of my neighbors, and as
you know that there has been a letter submitted and signed by over 180 people thus far
and these are the things that we are seeking for our neighborhood. The transparency
issue has been covered. We are hoping for a full scope of plans. This is a little too vague
and I think the city should know who they are dealing with and what the project actually
is. We are seeking reduced density on the Cook parcel. That would be the multi-family
from the renderings you saw three and four story models. We were seeking a two story
limit. We are surrounded by three story product and we feel that would be a better
transition to offices and -- and to our neighborhood. Also close Dashwood to vehicular
traffic in perpetuity. There is another ingress-egress for Delano and you can see that in
the ACHD e-mail traffic that is online and there is one chance to get this right. This in-fill
is coming. I know it's a big city push. So, let's get the right things available. Thank you,
Chris. ACHD accepted Dashwood as a closed cul-de-sac in 2005. Next slide, please.
The reasons for Dashwood -- city staff looked at this plan and decided that the Bollinger
parcel would be landlocked or there was a long block face on the Wainwright. Well, with
the redevelopment of Zebulon Heights, as that came along, the long block face wasn't an
issue anymore and the Bollinger parcel was never landlocked, which makes this a moot
point. Next slide, please. Here is -- there has been mistakes. This is a city planning and
also an ACHD mistake. Look at the proximity of all these three roads onto a collector.
You are supposed to have 330 feet between the roads on collectors. One of these is 165
feet. The other one is 130. And this is very important to remember the 330 rule. Next
slide, please. As you can see at 25 miles per hour per ACHD you are supposed to have
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 46 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 18 of 71
330 feet between streets. Now, this is going to be planned as your mid mile collector,
even though it was a residential street with front-on housing. With this dangerous
situation that the roads being so close we are going to have a problem. This is going to
be very unsafe. Next slide, please. Dashwood proximity to Rosepoint, which is another
road on the collector, is only 183 feet approximately. You are to have 330 feet between
the street and access points. So, Dashwood is probably accepted by ACHD as a cul-de-
sac, because you are going to have limited traffic. You are going to have maybe 80 car
trips per day. If you open Dashwood to Delano and Centrepoint Way -- I'm sorry. To all
the -- the traffic from the Brickyard, the commercial, et cetera, you are going to cause a
big problem here. I don't know how this got by ACHD. How this got by the city planning
staff. If you open Dashwood you are just asking for a disaster. Next slide, please. Thank
you. And as you can see it's a very short segment of road and you can see Rosepoint is
very long. It's going to be for the collector streets to take you to McMillan. Also I would
like to point out that Dashwood is only about 540 feet from the Centrepoint collector that's
proposed. So, why do you need another access point? Again, it should be 330 feet
distance between these access points. Next slide, please. Thank you. In 2005 ACHD
policy was no front-on housing on collector streets. Well, this is what -- essentially what
you are going to be doing. This is all front-on housing. You are going to be creating a de
facto collector element and most of Alpine Pointe is front-on housing. Next slide, please.
You also tied to naming conventions in Ada county and in the City of Meridian. Place is
defined as a north-south cul-de-sac in both Ada county and the City of Meridian. And City
of Meridian goes further to say place when you use that name is a dead end street. Next
slide, please. This has been in place for almost all of my life. I was seven years old when
this ordinance came out. As you can see place is defined as a north-south dead end
street or a cul-de-sac. So, when people buy on a place it means a dead end or a cul-de-
sac. Next slide, please. These are places all through Meridian. Most of these are in
Meridian. There is a couple from Boise. These are all donut cul-de-sacs, hammerheads,
whatever you call them. Some of them are Snoopy. These are all places and they are
all dead ends. Dashwood Place is the exception, not the rule. Next slide, please. As you
can see, this looks very similar to Dashwood, but it's named Gray Towers and it's drive
and it's signed to be continued in the future. Next slide, please. This also applies to Sky
Mesa. There is a way and a drive and these are all --they look somewhat like Dashwood,
but since they are named a different way that implies they are going to be continued.
Next slide, please. Tricia is named a way and is signed to be continued in the future.
This looks very similar, but it's not the same. It's not named place. It's not named court.
Next slide, please. City Council has the authority to waive 11-3A-3, which is access to
streets. You have done this in the past with stubs via City Council decision. Next slide,
please. The utilities are already existing on the Bollinger parcel. Dashwood is not
necessary for Delano. There is water. There is sewer. There is a fence line. You probably
just need electric -- electric, cable, and such, but all the access points and easements are
easily available on the Bollinger parcel. Next slide, please. Stub streets that did not
connect. You have got Dvorak and Barclay on Three Corners Ranch. Upriver, which is
adjacent to BridgeTower Heights and Alaska, which is down by the Lowe's and Walmart
in Meridian. South Meridian. Now, you will notice the ones in the middle, they are very
close to collectors and arterial streets, but yet City Council decided to close these stubs.
Next slide, please. In conclusion, place means cul-de-sac and dead end. You have 14
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 47 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 19 of 71
families who have bought and sold on the street based on its name, based on its
appearance, based on its lack of signage. But there has been mistakes in this
neighborhood made by ACHID and the city. If you were to open Dashwood completely to
traffic you are going to create a twin de facto collector element. I think the best thing to
do is to make a motion this evening to close North Dashwood Place forever to through
traffic to avoid the situation. You are going to have a very dangerous road being 182 to
185 feet from Rosepoint, which, essentially, is -- is very very dangerous. It's already very
very dangerous on Camas Creek with those three streets so close together. A lot of
people make huge lifetime investments based on the information we see. The city failed
us by not requiring the signs to be there. They named it a place. They created it to look
like a cul-de-sac and in every sense it is a cul-de-sac and that's what it should remain. Is
there any questions?
Simison: Thank you. Counsel, any questions? Okay.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I don't -- I don't have any questions right now, but maybe just a request that as
the presentation goes on if maybe Malissa might be available later on in case any
questions do arise.
Bernard: Absolutely. I will be available. Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Adrienne.
Weatherly: Next we have Sandi King.
Simison: Okay.
King: Can you hear me?
Simison: Yes, we can.
King: Thankyousomuch. I want to thank the Mayor and City Council for allowing -- are
we okay? I just heard another voice, so --
Simison- We are now muted. Go ahead. And if you could state your name and address
for the record.
King: No problem. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't in the wrong. So, I live at 2453
East Honeywood Court in Alpine Pointe. I have previously been on the board. I am no
longer on the board. So, I have been present for the meetings with Mr. Clark, along with
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 48 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 20 of 71
several other members. I would like to say every meeting we had with him specifically
Dashwood was number one and we made that very very clear. Dashwood being closed
has always been number one. And so I want to make sure that you understand that as
well. And to the issue as to this being an on running PowerPoint, we were hoping to save
city time and staff, because it is difficult being in a Zoom environment it isn't always as
smooth as when you are physically there. So, if you can look at the screen that's up right
now, the --the --the two streets that have the red dashed lines on them, the one is actually
coming off of McMillan and it's Camas Creek. The other one is Wainwright coming in off
of Eagle. That is where the chains were back in -- hold on just a second. In March.
March20of2019. That is the last traffic study that was done. I raised this issue atACHD
at their hearing and it was ignored. That study did not run for seven days as it shows in
the -- in the printout from ACHD, it was only a few days that it actually was in place and
being counted. It was also during spring break, which meant a lot of people were gone
and the people that leave during the winter were also not here. So, the number of traffic
was much lower than it is on a normal day. So, those traffic numbers have been
considered at every level and every hearing and they are flawed and I asked previously
to have a new traffic study done if you want to use numbers to -- yes. Oh, one minute?
Simison: One minute left.
King: Oh. Okay. So, I'm going to just jump to the other. So, the yellow circles are the
existing ingress-egress. The blue circles are the proposed. Dashwood is number eight.
I strongly ask that you close Dashwood permanently to traffic. There are many
handicapped residents on that street. It is a small street. It -- granted it's wider than a --
than some streets, but it is still a small residential area. Something else to consider.
Delano -- Delano proposed 27 foot width, if you start looking at what you are anticipating
to have on Dashwood, you are way over the numbers when you consider a parking on
one side, 27 foot street subdivision. So, I appreciate all of your time. I appreciate your
allowing us to give testimony. Lastly, on the R-40 apartments, we would ask that it be a
lower R number. If you are looking at our subdivision versus the surrounding ones from
an R-4 to an R-20 to 30, you are jumping dramatically and we are already flushed with so
many people and so many residences in a very very tight condensed area. So, I would
ask that it not be in R-40. Thank you. And if you have any questions.
Simison- Council, any questions?
Hoaglun- Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun- Sandi, thanks you for your presentation. There at the end you were talking
about the blue circles and I understand what you are talking about Dashwood, but I
wanted to find out real quick -- seven and nine, what -- what was -- what's -- what are
those?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 49 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 21 of 71
King: Seven is Rogue River. That is signed and posted to be continued in the future as
it's developed. Nine is Centrepoint Way, which is the collector.
Hoaglun: Okay. Great. Thank you.
King: You're welcome. Thank you for your question.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: One second. Council, any -- any further questions? Okay. Yes, Adrienne.
Weatherly: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Next is Ken Clifford.
Simison: Mr. Clifford, if you could state your name and address for the record, please.
And you will have three minutes.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, this is Chris. I'm attempting to find Mr. Clifford and unmute him.
You have the ability to mute and unmute yourself, but you are unmuted.
Clifford: Can you hear me?
Simison: We can, Mr. Clifford.
Clifford: Okay. My name is Kenneth Clifford. I'm at 4523 North Rosepoint Place,
Meridian, Idaho. I oppose this application as submitted and appeal to the City Council to
deny both the request for annexation and zoning of the 15.22 acres of land and a request
for a preliminary plat for Delano Subdivision. There has been much discussion about
whether North Dashwood Place should be extended as a full street, remain a closed cul-
de-sac or something in between. I'm advocating that North Dashwood Place remain a
closed cul-de-sac in perpetuity. You can see from this slide up here the original design
forAlpine Pointe was submitted with North Dashwood Place as a closed cul-de-sac. You
saw in Malissa's slide number four ACHD approved the plat with Dashwood as a closed
cul-de-sac that looked just like the cul-de-sac on either side. Next slide. Meridian City
staff recommended that a stub be created to provide access to the Wignall's parcel, now
Bollinger, to the south should it ever become landlocked. Next slide. Dashwood does
look different, because it was designed to accommodate a possible driveway access to
the Bollinger parcel if it became landlocked. It's no longer needed. Next slide. This slide
shows the in-fill area that we have been talking about. Next slide. The traffic from the in-
fill area could equal that of a small city. The Delano project and City of Meridian have not
adequately resolved traffic concerns. Next slide. West Ada School District asked
Meridian City Council to deny the Delano Subdivision application because of school
overcrowding. Next slide.
Simison: One minute more, Mr. Clifford.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 50 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 22 of 71
Clifford: School overcrowding still exists and will continue. The developer has been trying
to pound a square peg into a round hole for more than two years. It is obvious that this
project does not work for this in-fill. This project does not work. I think that it needs ---
it's just the wrong development for this in-fill. Please keep Dashwood Place a closed cul-
de-sac in perpetuity and deny the request for annexation and zoning of the 15.22 acres
and deny the request for a preliminary plat as submitted. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: If it's possible on the topic of schools, I did have a question for staff. I could
save it for a different time or since we are on the topic now I could ask it now.
Simison: As far as I'm concerned you can ask the question now if you would like to.
Strader: Okay. I was wondering if staff has had an opportunity--this has been an ongoing
discussion and a frustration for Council of not understanding I think the global capacity
numbers for WestAda. Are there-- are we aware of any other middle schools in the entire
West Ada School District that have capacity?
Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I'm sorry, I can't answer that.
Strader: Thought I would ask the question. Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: If I remember correctly, Council Member Strader, there was an application that
we had a few weeks ago that Victory I believe is under capacity.
Bernt: Meridian Middle.
Cavener: Maybe it was Meridian Middle. One of the two elementaries that was impacted
from the application that we saw a couple of weeks ago was not at their full capacity. For
your benefit.
Strader: Thank you.
Allen: Council Woman Strader, if I may. If-- if you are thinking of these types of questions
before the hearing, please, feel free to reach out to staff and I can certainly obtain that
information prior to the hearing for you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 51 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 23 of 71
Strader: Mr. Mayor, follow up?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I think it -- to me it's a bigger data request than on individual applications.
Like I would like to see district wide what the capacity is for each school and I would like
to understand what expansion projects they have funded or taken on already, such as
adding portables or expanding them, and I would like a projection of, you know, what we
expect the student population to be in the next two years based on the projects that we
have approved and entitled and so I -- if we could get that information perhaps in a larger
request, because I think it is an ongoing amount of information that -- that I have asked
for now pretty much on every development and you could consider it that I will ask it every
single time. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Clifford.
Clifford: Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Adrienne.
Weatherly: Next we have Laura Trairatnobhas.
Simison: Okay. I see Laura's in the room. If you would like to unmute herself and video
if you would like and you -- if you would state your name and address for the record and
you will have three minutes.
Trairatnobhas: Okay. Can you hear me and see me?
Simison: Yes.
Trairatnobhas: Great. All right. I'm Laura Trairatnobhas, 4621 North Camas Creek Way
in Alpine Pointe. First point I would like to say is that we are not asking that Dashwood
be vacated. We are asking that Meridian City Council close it in perpetuity, obviously,
with ingress and egress for emergency services. But that is not the same thing as
vacation. We are not asking for a vacation. Just closure. I'm very concerned about who
is going to be developing this project and what it will be. I really appreciate Council
Woman Strader asking Mr. Clark some very pointed questions, which I realized for legal
reasons perhaps he is not able at this time to answer. However, I do feel that it is
incumbent on the City Council to find out what the actual final project will be and when I
say that I mean is it going to be build to rent or are we building homes that individuals can
buy and live in. We need more homes for people to buy and live in. We do not need
another large rental project. I am especially concerned -- Mr. Clark said -- and I'm going
to quote here. He said the investors won't be involved long term. They will sell -- he
suspects they will sell their investment. To me that does sound like something that's going
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 52 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 24 of 71
to be sold as a whole as a -- you know, a build to rent project. My request tonight is that
the City Council come down firmly against that and that you require that the project not
be build to rent. I'm really not sure how this is handled. I know that Meridian has had
several build to rent projects built in the last few years and I'm just asking that you take
this on as a serious question. We need to know what the product will be. We would also
like it if the project -- the apartments did not go over two stories. Next slide, please. And
just a couple things to point out. COMPASS -- that's our community -- okay. Community
Planning Association says we are going to have about 4,850 homes in a one mile radius
of this development with a very poor job-to-housing ratio of 0.7. You want your job-to-
housing ratio to be somewhere between one to 1.5, so that you don't have too much
congestion. Obviously, the fewer jobs the farther people have to drive. Police and fire
barely qualify as far as distance goes. And the last slide, please. And the nearest bus
stop is 1.8 miles. So, we should not be kidding ourselves and saying that people in the
apartments are going to somehow walk or ride bikes or take buses to work. They will be
driving. They will be coming through Alpine Pointe if Dashwood is open and we are
exceeding the growth forecast according to COMPASS for transport infrastructure. So,
that's what I have. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Simison: Thank you. Council, are there any questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: A question maybe for -- for Mr. Nary. Because the topic keeps coming up I
think it's a good opportunity for either you or for Council to address it, because it will
refresh my memory. Mr. Nary, as I recall Council is unable to include how the properties
will be used, whether they are a for sale by owner, rental, rental as an individual unit,
rental as a group, in rendering our decision on this application. Is my recollection correct?
Does that deal with fair housing rules or am I -- am I not remembering correctly?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Cavener, you are remembering
exactly correctly. We have no authority to require that the applicant reveal who they are
or what their long term plans are. You are dealing with entitlement of land uses based on
your comp plan and your ordinances. Whoever builds it is whoever builds it. It may be
the person that Mr. Clark is representing today. It could be sold to somebody else and be
built. Yes, based on fair housing laws we have no authority or ability to prevent or deny
an application because the intention is to build to rent or build to own. We don't prohibit
anybody from renting out their home, whether it's in Alpine Pointe, whether it's anywhere
else. Again, that's a completely different decision that is not at the city level. So, we don't
have any ability to address that concern that's been raised tonight. Mr. Clark certainly
has no legal responsibility or obligation to tell us who his client is and we can't deny it
based on that either.
Cavener- Okay. Thank you, Mr. Nary.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 53 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 25 of 71
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Nary, good looking face on camera, another question for him. To --
to follow up with Laura's comment about the proposed apartment project and mandating
about the heights and different things, in my -- again, I think my recollection is that unless
it is before us there is nothing -- there is no action we can take on that; is that right?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Hoaglun, yes, you are correct.
The applicant has basically told you that it's a concept there, they would have to come
back with a conditional use permit to build any type of apartment there, whether it's two
story, three or four. Obviously, it will have to comply with what our codes are at the time
they apply. So, there will be other additional public hearings if that will become a multi-
family apartment complex, whether it's two, three, or four, whatever they are proposing,
there will be other additional hearings. But tonight that's not before you.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions for Laura? And, I'm sorry, I won't try to pronounce
your last name. Okay. Thank you very much.
Trairatnobhas: Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Adrienne.
Weatherly: Next is Mike Bernard.
Simison: Okay. Mr. Bernard, if you would state your name and address for the record
and you will have three minutes.
M.Bernard: Sir, can you hear me?
Simison: Barely.
M.Bernard: How about now?
Simison: The closer you get the better.
M.Bernard: Okay. So, my name is Mike Bernard. I live at 4025 North Dashwood Place.
I hope to demonstrate to you tonight the scope of this issue is much larger than a concern
about Alpine Pointe residents for those of us on Dashwood Place and the connection of
the Delano application. You can see on this slide we have a mix of residential high density
and commercial properties and it lies near one of the busiest intersections in the state of
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 54 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 26 of 71
Idaho. Now, if you add all those up, depending on future developments, we are going to
be pushing close to one thousand residential units. Now that doesn't even take into
account traffic from the commercial properties to the south. Slide. May I have the next
slide? Thank you. On this slide you can see in red Centrepoint Way, both as it exists and
as it will extend to the north of the ingress into Delano. Now, those are designated as
commercial collectors according to both the county and the city. Now, designated in
yellow you will see what staff is recommending -- the connection through the Delano
proposal onto Dashwood Place and, then, to Alpine Pointe. All residential streets. Next
slide, please. Now, here is just a close up view of what I have previously demonstrated.
The yellow solid line going through the Delano application onto Dashwood and eventually
Wainwright and Alpine Pointe. Now, as you heard mentioned earlier, the Delano
applications are relatively narrow streets with only enough room for parking on one side.
If we permanently closed Dashwood as we are proposing and recommending that you do
tonight, it's actually in the interest of not only the Alpine Pointe residents, but it's in the
interest of the future Delano residents as well and I will explain why. If you look at how
they are designed you basically have -- would have two closed loops without the addition
of Dashwood Place. Two closed loops, Mr. Mayor. So, I ask any of you where would you
rather live? Would you rather live on a busy thoroughfare or a residential street that
somebody had turned into a de facto commercial collector, or would you rather live on a
closed cul-de-sac or a closed loop? I think in written testimonial you will find some real
estate agents who have indicated that they can have a significant impact on your property
values thorough -- thoroughfare versus closed loops up to and including 20 percent and
an increase in those property values are good for all of us, both the city and the
homeowner. Next slide, please. Thank you. So, just very briefly highlighted you see the
definitions of the collector streets versus local residential streets and their purpose. It's
pretty clear a connection through Delano and onto Dashwood Place would be a violation
here. That's without even considering the code violations mentioned earlier relative to
intersection spacing as it connects to Wainwright. And slide, please.
Simison: Mr. Bernard, if you could wrap up your testimony, please.
Bernard: That is what this slide is about. I'm wrapping it up now, sir. So, in summary, it
seems there has been a handful of errors and oversights related to the Alpine Pointe
Subdivision in this application that have been approved by this body in the past. I'm
willing to chalk that up to maybe bad advice, human error, and the fact that none of us
have a crystal ball. Tonight I'm asking you all to demonstrate the integrity referenced in
your campaigns and do the right thing for all of us, both current residents and those future
residents that don't have a voice tonight. Do not connect Dashwood Place. Return it to
its original intended purpose as a cul-de-sac. Require that connect--connectivity to occur
where it belongs via the commercial collector on Centrepoint. If necessary build onto
Dashwood Place just as an extension for emergency vehicles and build it to those
specifications of the 20 foot. Finally, please, Mr. Mayor, Council Members, fix this tonight.
Don't kick it down the road, but fix it tonight. This was created, as we have heard in earlier
testimony, by a recommendation from City Council. So, the city needs to fix this. It's not
a county problem, it's a city problem that you all have the authority to fix tonight. That
concludes my prepared testimony.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 55 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 27 of 71
Simison: Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Adrienne.
Weatherly: That concludes the collective presentation by the homeowners. There are
several other people signed up, so we will go with that list if that's okay with you and first
up would be Christine Marcos.
Simison: Okay. And for anybody else who is in the Zoom meeting and if you have not
yet signed up, just, please, use the raise your hand function and we will make sure that
we get you queued up to go in at the appropriate time to speak on this item.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I do not see Christine Marcos, but I do see Frank Marcos, so I have
moved him in to be able to speak. I'm not sure if she's using his account.
Simison: Okay.
Marcos: Mayor, if you can hear me, Christine did not want to speak tonight. Shehadjust
answered the questions on the testimonial sign-up. That's all.
Simison: Okay. All right. Thank you, Frank.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, that would bring Dorene Mills up next.
Simison- Okay. If you could state your name and address the record, Dorene, and you
will have three minutes.
Mills: My name is Dorene Mills and I live at 2611 East Granadillo in Alpine Pointe and
most of the residents in Alpine Pointe are a little bit older. There is not that many young
families and so not a lot of those people can be on the Zoom meeting, because they don't
understand the technology, so I'm feeling bad that they are being left out of this and it's
-- it's because of the situation today with the Coronavirus and everything, but I'm just
another member of the neighborhood who wants to keep the street closed as a cul-de-
sac. It does not have a sign that says it will be a through street and it needs to stay closed
forever. Thank you.
Simison- Thank you, Mrs. Mills. Council, any questions? Thank you.
Weatherly- Mr. Mayor, next we have Mike C.
Johnson- Mr. Mayor, I cannot identify that person, so I would ask if they would raise their
hand if they are here on the call.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 56 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 28 of 71
Simison: Okay. Well, since I don't see anybody raising their hand, we can move on to
the next person.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, next is Ali Crane.
Simison: Okay.
Weatherly: And Ali will have a PowerPoint I believe, so it will take just a second.
Simison: Okay.
Crane: Hello, Mr. Mayor and City -- and City Council Members. Thank you. My name is
Ali Crane. I live at 2654 East Mahoney Street, which is in the Champion Park Subdivision,
which is to the south and I will be speaking to trees. If you look -- I have basically just
taken a few of the slides from the proposal and we are right on the -- my -- my property
is basically on that corner lot which is -- is basically looking at the trees at Jasmine Lane.
If you can go to the next slide that would be great. Couldn't really find the contact
information with the developers and -- and I know that they have done a really good job
and I appreciate them trying to work with people. However, we really wanted to talk about
that southern boundary, because Champion Park is zoned R-8. We have .29 acre lots
and Delano is zoned R-1 5 at the bottom part -- at the new proposed lot. So, this this is
the previous drawing. Oh-oh. Can --
Johnson: I apologize. I'm trying to get you back on the screen.
Crane: Okay. Sorry. I hope this doesn't count against my three minutes, so okay.
Thank you. The -- the initial proposal and -- and I -- it's kind of been one of those things
where the last city Planning and Zoning I wasn't as prepared, because the original
proposal that went forward obviously there were a lot more concerns to the north, but
the southern aspect wasn't we didn't have as many concerns, because the developers
were maintaining the trees. So, on that second slide you can see the existing trees and
they are evergreen trees and -- and we will -- we will have a different picture of what ours
looked like. So, you can see they had Jasmine Lane extended. Sidewalk. Trees.
Additional trees they were adding. Some of which I think is benefiting Delano, because
on the eastern side of this is the Brickyard, which everybody talks about not being a great
view, but for the few houses in Champion Park that do border this subdivision it was pretty
important for us to have that separation. If you can go to the next slide. So, when they
revised the proposal they took out the trees from the back. They had never -- there was
nothing -- anything mentioned about the homeowners wanting to keep their trees or -- or
cut them down for lumber. It was just there. So, I think what they did was when they
changed the northern part they added the higher density to the southern boundary and
-- and -- and added that park, which we do appreciate, because that does border all of
our backyard. However, 17 and 16 -- or actually number 17 -- Lot 17 on that southern
border, that lot is -- excuse me. I have to look at my notes. Set -- setback. The height
and setback difference would be 12 feet off of our back patio. So, it's very very close.
And there isn't any information -- I haven't seen any information on that lower level -- or
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 57 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 29 of 71
that last row of houses if it would be single level or double level. So, we would like to ask
the city to require the developer to either retain all the existing pine trees, if possible, as
well as restricting the height of Lot 17 and 16 to one story, because that does impact
because of the nature of that. And the last slide. I just want to show you our view of the
trees. Now, granted, there are some weeds back there, but the trees -- the house on the
left -- or the picture on the left is from my backyard. So, those are the -- that's the -- the
trees that we are seeing. If we were to -- and, then, on the right if the houses were to
start -- basically that property line to the post we would have a house 12 feet off of our
back patio. So, that's kind of what we are asking for. I did speak to my neighbor to the
east. They were in agreement. They also felt like the trees were going to be there. We
didn't have a need to really bring it up, but with this new proposal we felt like we needed
to discuss trying to maintain those trees and the single level. So, thank you for your time.
Sorry about the PowerPoint issue.
Simison: Council, any questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Ali, I appreciate your presentation. I'm not sure if you have been here for the
full meeting. When the applicant was going through his -- his narrative he indicated that
some of these trees are -- are sick or dying and I'm just curious what your thoughts are
about those particular trees and what mitigation needs to be done or ultimately who is
responsible. If those trees remain and they actually are sick and they die.
Crane- Yeah. That's true. And I -- to tell you the truth, I don't even know where those
trees are, because they are not anywhere close to us. I don't know if they are at the far
-- that would be the -- the eastern part of the property closest to Eagle Road, because all
of the trees that -- that we have -- I would say within the -- the two -- and I'm going to refer
to the two homes, which if you look at the -- the very first slide there is really two homes
in Champion Park that this subdivision is impacting. The trees in that area are all -- they
are all healthy. I mean, obviously, with the power lines -- and my assumption is that these
power lines would be -- would have to be taken down anyway, because they are right
over lots, if you look down the -- that tree line those power lines would be taken down
anyway, so --
Simison: Council, any further questions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Mrs. Crane, thank you for the testimony. Part of -- all that we review in
preparation for today touches on -- in part on what you have raised and just a comment
that you have highlighted and I think the -- the applicant will address. At the -- at the tail
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 58 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 30 of 71
end of this is one of the design elements in the prior design utilized not only those trees,
but Jasmine Lane as a transition and buffer from property to the south to this residential
area. So, I think you have raised a good concern that will need to be addressed is trying
to articulate the reason why the relocation of Jasmine and placing these -- these
properties adjacent to the fence line not only removes the trees, but it also eliminates
what otherwise could have been an appropriate buffer. So, I appreciate you bringing up
those points.
Crane: Thank you. I actually was trying to find out if these trees were unique or if they
were home to some rare bird, but I never actually found that, so -- I was trying -- been
trying to figure out how to save the trees.
Simison: Council, any further questions? All right. Thank you very much.
Crane: Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, next is Tim Fritzley.
Simison: Okay. Thank you very much. If you would state your name and address for the
record.
Fritzley: Yes. This is Tim Fritzley and I live at 4585 North Camas Creek Way in Alpine
Pointe. Can everybody hear me okay? Hello?
Simison: Yes. We can hear you fine. We can hear you. Sorry.
Fritzley- Oh. Okay. Sorry about that. Had a little pause there. I was going to make
some very quick points here. I think Council Woman Strader hit it in her very first question
here. Codes are not laws and can be overruled on a case-by-case basis by an authorized
and empowered commission or council. The city council is authorized or empowered to
make the changes to the code based on the specific circumstances presented here today.
In point of fact, the city P&Z staff has not interpreted the codes correctly and the
recommendation to open North Dashwood Place is ill formed. It's obvious from the
testimony here today that North Dashwood Place was never designated as a through
street and homeowners within Alpine Pointe Subdivision made substantive financial
decisions based upon North Dashwood remaining a cul-de-sac forever. By opening up
North Dashwood Place, the property devaluation across Alpine Pointe would be
substantive and could be viewed as an illegal taking by the city. Is the city prepared to
compensate a large number of Alpine Pointe homeowners for this illegal taking resultant
property devaluation. This is a very serious question and one I want to make sure that
the City Council takes into consideration as they review this tonight. I would strongly urge
the Council to make the right and logical decision and make North Dashwood Place what
it was originally intended to be a, cul-de-sac forever. Thanks very much.
Simison- Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. Thank you very much.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 59 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 31 of 71
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, next is Sherry Garey.
Simison: All right. Sherry, if you could state your name and address just for the record.
You will have three minutes.
Garey: Okay. If I'm on there. Anyway, thank you, Mr. Mayor and the City Council, for
allowing us to participate in this. I am Sherry. S-h-e-r-r-y. Garey. G-a-r-e-y. I live at
4563 North Camas Creek Way and I just want to be able to comment and express my
support and all the concurrence of the information that you have received tonight from
ourAlpine Pointe neighbors. There are several of them, in particular Malissa Bernard and
the other that did a lot of extensive research through the last actually months and years
of several of the issues that you have to consider tonight and I really ask that you, please,
give their testimonies and all of the testimonies that you have received in written form to
give your thoughtful consideration to those and others have expressed and I want to
reiterate that we are not just trying to be self serving for our neighborhood, we all are
concerned about the potential negative aspects of a through street on Dashwood and
how that would affect any of the potential of people living to the south of our subdivision,
particularly in the tight quarters and the roads of all of those subdivision post Delano and
the apartments as far as that goes if you start increasing so much traffic north-south
through that. My husband and I are fourth generation Idahoans and we have lived within
the neighboring communities of Boise, we have lived in a rural part of north Ada county
and we have lived in Garden City, but after 32 years we chose, about a year and a half
ago, to move to the City of Meridian -- Meridian for our final residency and one of the
primary reasons for the fact that Meridian's reputation of being a very respectful and
strong family friendly community and so we, along with all of the other folks in this
neighborhood, made significant financial investments to become part of Meridian and we
continue to make substantial investments in our properties as we speak. Literally there
is several going on right now and it was quite a shock to us, after being fairly new residents
here this last year and a half, to find out that the ACHD and the city would even consider
routing commuter and commercial traffic through our residential neighborhood and
particularly in a scenario such as ours that are all front facing homes. We have got --
many of them have RV garages, which creates even more challenges as you would
navigate the street with that kind of traffic going in and out. So, I just respectfully ask you
and encourage you to consider protecting our residential areas of the city and I support
the permanent closure of North Dashwood Place and thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Borton- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just -- just one compliment that in -- we have got your -- what you submitted to
us March 18th.
Garey: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 60 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 32 of 71
Borton: And you resubmitted it April 16th. So, thank you for doing that, submitting those
remarks twice. I think if I look and track the sequence of events, the submission with
regards to Dashwood to ACHID, your letter -- your letter raised a concern, but the
submission to ACHD by the prior applicant with that different design had Dashwood as
opened. Then later on Mr. Clark got involved and it sounds like in his remarks today --
and your letter references that there was a desire at least on his part to make that
temporary -- or, excuse me, make that emergency access only, but ACHID, then, is the
next step, refused to allow it to be anything but temporary. So, it seemed that that
sequence of events was important. It wasn't -- I didn't see it as this applicant having met
with -- with Alpine and -- and committing to emergency access only and, then, doing
something different after that fact. So, I'm just clarify the chronology, at least what the
record seems to show.
Garey: Okay. I'm not sure that I'm totally understanding you on what your point is -- is
that, yes, it has progressed in a very different manner. It was as open and, then, it was
-- with this new owners and Mr. Clark as the representative had -- as we have all listened
to tonight -- had attempted to get that as a permanent closure. ACHD made it as
temporary. It could be open in two years, could be less, depending on Centrepoint and
no more than ten years. So, we are still needing with the explanations that you have seen
earlier today with the amount of space that we have to work with and the amount of traffic,
it's a dangerous situation. We would like to see it closed permanently.
Borton: Okay. I -- and I -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: The question was confusing. I just -- I read the letters thinking that maybe there
was a belief that the applicant -- this current applicant, after meeting with you, then, went
to ACHD and asked for it to be the 50 foot wide open street, which -- which wasn't the
sequence of events. So, perhaps I just got myself confused from your -- from the letter.
So, thanks for clarifying that.
Garey: Well, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I intended to be clear on that.
Borton: My fault.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I just want to share some good news with Sherry. She just had a lengthy
conversation with an attorney and there are no billable hours involved. So, you did well,
Sherry.
Garey: That's always a good day.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 61 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 33 of 71
Simison: All right. Any further questions? Thank you, Sherry.
Garey: Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, next we have Rand Spiwak.
Simison: Okay.
Spiwak: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council Persons. I'm not a homeowner in that
area, but I am the --the lateral manager, ditch rider, for the Parkins-Nourse No. 14 Lateral.
It serves about 600 properties all the way from Eagle Road next to the Tree City Church,
our headgate, all the way to Meridian Road.
Simison: Rand, if you could just state your name and address so we have it.
Spiwak: Oh, yes. Randy Spiwak. 1458 East Loyalty Street, Meridian. And it's in the
Heritage Commons Subdivision off of Locust Grove. I volunteered three years ago to
take on the management of the lateral and gather up as much information as I could. The
gentleman -- it was an elderly gentleman that had done this and there were very few
records and when I received a phone call from Hethe Clark about the property, one of the
concerns I had is that there are no current survey drawings of where that 12 inch gravity
flow irrigation pipe is that runs parallel to the north boundary of the property line between
Alpine Pointe and Delano Subdivision. It clearly -- we have found that it runs -- the 15
foot easement and the pipe runs under many of the backyards in Alpine Pointe, much to
the chagrin of some of those property owners who didn't know that, but at some point it
-- it moves to the south and crosses over that property -- that line and whether that's in
part of the Delano Subdivision or not we don't know. That's why I have -- the letter you
see here, one of the conditions we are asking before we sign off is that we -- is the
developer do a utility survey, so we know for sure where that underground pipe is. Idaho
law requires that the owner of the property is responsible to maintain and repair or replace
the lateral if it should have a problem. Used to be an open ditch many years ago all the
way from Eagle Road to Meridian. So, I did meet with the engineer, with the developer,
and we talked through that. They did not disagree. They said that that needed to be
done. On the end of Dashwood, though, I went down there initially and looked and saw
that there were -- appeared to be no access points. They are concrete vaults with -- with
manholes on either side of the street, so that one can visually go down that or climb down
that to see where the water flows under the road, because you have vehicles driving over
that -- that pipeline. I later talked to Frank Marcos and he was over there tapping around
with a shovel and he did find one that is on the south side. On the north side all I could
find was a cutoff valve that I really think is Alpine Pointe's. So, whether that -- that was
ever considered to be a through street or not I don't know. Normally ACHD would never
have approved it, since they are responsible for it if it wasn't built correctly, so that's
something that's in my letter that has to be corrected and I would like to get a copy of the
plat once that survey is done, so that at least as the ditch rider I have an idea whose
property the easement is located, the additional ten feet of easement that Delano is
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 62 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 34 of 71
proposing. We appreciate that. That will give us 25 feet to play with if that piping has to
be moved or access to it if there is a problem.
Simison: Rand, if you can conclude your comments, please.
Spiwak: And that's really all I wanted to say, is I wanted to make sure that my letter was
part of the public record.
Simison: Perfect.
Spiwak: Thank you very much.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, no question for Rand, just a comment. Thank you for showing up
and taking the time. You know, Meridian used to be an agricultural community and -- and
ditch riders were a common term and people know what it was and I appreciate that you
volunteer and still maintain our waterways and -- and it's very important, although it
doesn't receive quite the attention that it used to, appreciate your service.
Spiwak: I enjoy doing it and all my neighbors who volunteer enjoy it, too. It's kind of a
social thing.
Hoaglun: As long as you distance appropriately right now.
Spiwak: That's right.
Simison: Council, any further questions? Okay. Council, I'm going to ask we take a quick
recess for about ten minutes to give people an opportunity to step away. I checked in,
we had at least five more people who are signed up, so take a quick break and, then, we
will come up and resume testimony. Try to be back by 8-05. So, with that we are in
recess.
(Recess: 7:56 p.m. to 8:06 p.m.)
Simison: Okay. Council, I'm going to go ahead and call us back into the session.
Adrienne, if you can let us know who is up next.
Weatherly- Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Though there are several people that have signed in
for the meeting, only one additional has indicated a wish to testify and his name is Thomas
Hunt.
Simison- Mr. Hunt, when you come in if you can state your name and address for the
record, please.
Johnson: Mr. Hunt is unmuted.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 63 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 35 of 71
Simison: Mr. Hunt, are you there for us? Okay. While we wait for Mr. Hunt to come back
-- oh, looks like he's connecting. Adrienne, did we not have anybody else raise their hand
or have you -- we do have one attendee with a hand raised.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, I will go ahead and let-- I will defer to Chris on that. My capabilities
to see hand raised are limited. So, I will let him take over from here.
Simison: Okay.
Johnson: You did have a hand raised. They were titled administrator and I have brought
them into the meeting, so they can speak.
Simison: Okay. Administrator, if you can unmute yourself and state your name and
address for the record.
Pitzer: Is that me?
Simison: Yes, it is.
Pitzer: Oh. Thank you. So, this is Patty Pitzer and I am speaking on behalf-- as a citizen
of Meridian and an adjoining property owner and not as a commissioner.
Simison: Patty, if you could state your address for the record.
Pitzer: Yes. 2703 East Wainwright Drive in Meridian. And what I would like to say is that
the northern boundary was only reduced by two lots and I do not believe that that was the
intent from November of 2019 when they asked Mr. Conger to re-look at that northern
boundary. He reduced the entire subdivision by 20 lots, but because of the interior, but
not the northern boundary, which is what Councilman Bernt and Cavener requested was
look at the northern boundary. Marge and Bill Schumacher has the largest boundary
there and instead of looking at six houses they are looking at five houses. So, I would
like them to -- I think the southern boundary and the middle was fine, but I agree with
Councilman Cavener that the northern boundary needed to be adjusted and I do not think
that was done and I would like the Council to look at that and maybe ask that they re-look
at that northern boundary as Mr. Conger stated that he would have them to be similar to
our adjoining lots and our adjoining lots are about 14,000 square feet and the lots that
they are proposing is only 5,500 square feet and I do not see them as similar. And I stand
for any questions.
Simison: Okay. Thank you, Patty. Council, any questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 64 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 36 of 71
Strader: Yeah. Just -- I mean how many -- what kind of a reduction in lots would you
consider to be a fair outcome that -- that you would be happy with? You don't think he
went far enough, but I guess I'm just curious as to your opinion of -- if you have one of
what an appropriate compromise is for that northern boundary.
Pitzer: Well, when he first proposed 12 lots we thought that even half would be
appropriate. So, maybe six.
Strader: Thanks.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: The way that those lots are designed and -- and set against the boundary is
very unique because of their shape and I think it would be really hard to -- even at six I
think it would be -- it would be difficult to accomplish the Comprehensive Plan use and
still make that transition. So, if there are any suggestions by staff or any of the public as
to how that would be modified to work between the comp plan designation and bumping
up against these lots where they have very wide boundaries against the --the --you know,
to the south against Delano Subdivision, I -- I'm open to those suggestions, because I
have looked at it and -- and can't quite figure it out myself. I mean I definitely think that
we -- that -- that the transition needs to be softened and taking out two lots may not have
accomplished exactly what Councilman Bernt and Borton had suggested in the last
hearing, but if we can have a discussion at some point about what that would look like or
additional recommendations from the public I'm willing to listen to those and I would like
to hear the applicant's thought on that at the end of the process as well.
Pitzer- Thank -- thank you, Council Woman Perreault. And we have submitted several
-- and I would say -- by several I mean at least four alternative plans that would soften
that and that could work for this subdivision. They have not been met by the applicant.
They pretty much recycled a January 2019 plan that they had and I would welcome the
Council to look -- you know, revisit looking at these revised plans.
Simison- Council, any further questions? Okay. Thank you.
Pitzer- Thank you.
Simison- Adrienne, do you have anybody else who has signed up or would like to testify
to your ability to determine? Or Chris?
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, no one additional has signed up and so far we do not see any
hands raised in the attendees list.
Johnson- Mr. Mayor, however, I do have Mr. Hunt back in the room and he is unmuted.
We can see if we can hear him this time.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 65 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 37 of 71
Simison: Okay. Mr. Hunt, are you there? Mr. Hunt, we are unable to hear you if you are
speaking. Chris, do you want to try to go in and provide Mr. Hunt -- or if Mr. Hunt can
hear us, just a phone number to call in.
Johnson: I can do that, Mr. Mayor. I will put something on the screen.
Simison: Council, as we wait for Mr. Hunt to call in and potentially before we get to the
applicant for any final wrap up, are there questions that you would like to direct towards
staff at this point in time?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Hoaglun: Councilman Hoaglun.
Simison: Oh. Sorry.
Hoaglun: Yeah. The -- the less -- less likely to win any awards won, you know. If Sonya
or whoever is running that,Adrienne or-- if we could go to --to Council Woman Perreault's
comment about that northern boundary, I was looking at that earlier as well and there --
there are some unique -- unique residences along there and a lot of them are -- are
sideways to the back of this subdivision -- proposed project. So, it wasn't like they were
back to back and we have had those issues before where people are looking into each
other's back yard. So, that -- that is kind of a quandary there how to -- how to fix that,
because those are unique properties and -- and the way they were turned and different
things -- yeah, I was looking at that as well and that -- and maybe -- maybe later on if the
applicant can -- can speak to that we can -- we can take a look at it from -- from one of
the satellite views that show--shows the houses. So, it is a -- it is an interesting challenge
there.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Along with that, just kind of chewing things up, I see that -- that Justin Lucas is
in the participant section. If he is available -- I do have a couple of questions about the
design of that cul-de-sac and delineating not for future construction versus, you know,
designed to go through future construction. We received a lot of testimony tonight about,
you know, roadway designations that determined if it -- that roadway is supposed to
terminate or if it connects through and his expertise and maybe some of the thought
process behind the commission -- around some of the transportation issues that we have
-- we have heard from tonight would be helpful.
Simison- Okay. As I don't see Mr. Hunt back in -- there he is. He just popped back in.
Let's see if we can get him. If not we can maybe go to -- Mr. Hunter, are you there?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 66 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 38 of 71
Hunt: Yeah. I apologize for holding -- holding you all up.
Simison: No problem. If you can just state your name and address for the record and,
then, you have got three minutes.
Hunt: My name is Thomas Hunt. I live at 2448 East Honeywood in -- Honeywood Court
in Alpine Pointe. I did not actually prepare a formal testimony. I'm not sure -- I probably
clicked on the wrong button, but very briefly I just want to vocalize additional support for
the permanent closure of Dashwood and one comment that I haven't heard, but I think is
worth hearing is there have been times where there has been road construction on either
McMillan or Eagle and we have had additional traffic through Alpine Pointe that I think
opening Dashwood would -- would do virtually the same thing and because our streets
are a little bit wider in the subdivision there have been times where nonresidents really
exceed the speed limit very quickly. It's easy to go fast through our neighborhood and
while it's been discussed that there are a lot of elderly or older people, there are several
families, myself being one of them, with young children and there are a lot of kids that do
frequent the neighborhood. So, I just wanted to -- to localize that additional concern as a
parent to having those wider streets and the increased speeds through our neighborhood.
So, we are hopeful that you guys will permanently close Dashwood.
Simison: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. Council, any questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault- So, question for staff or perhaps for Bill about how that works with a public
street. So, what is our obligation to keep that street public and allow it to be used by the
public if it's closed and does -- are we going to -- if we agree to close it does -- does the
neighborhood or does Delano have to apply to have that vacated to keep it private? So,
I would like to hear your thoughts on that.
Nary- Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you know, I think probably the process for
ACHD would be really relevant for that question. Yes, I mean, again, you have a couple
different options in front of you proposed tonight between having it open and having an
emergency access only or having it completely closed. ACHD is the road authority, so,
ultimately, they have the road authority, you have the land use authority, so if you don't
want that road to be open you have the land use ability to create a plat that would not
allow access to that parcel, but you can also allow it forjust the emergency access, which
has been proposed as well. But on the vacating of the street question that's probably
better for Mr. Lucas.
Simison- Anyway questions for Mr. Hunt? Okay. Thank you. Well, with that maybe we
can just turn to Mr. Lucas and I see that you have four people that you -- five people you
have convinced to get into a nice picture with you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 67 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 39 of 71
Lucas: Yeah. Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, can you hear me?
Simison: We can.
Lucas: Excellent. For the record my name is Justin Lucas. Obviously, I have people
surrounding me. They are a lot better looking than me, which is good, and so my business
address is 3775 Adam Street, Garden City, Idaho, and I'm here tonight representing the
Ada County Highway District. I think there were a few questions thrown out there. I'm
glad to start with the question from your legal counsel Mr. Nary. I don't think that there
would be a requirement by ACHD to vacate Dash -- the existing section of Dashwood
Place. If you look at how that street is constructed, it currently operates, you know, as a
dead end street with a turnaround. It certainly -- it was meant to be extended in the future
the way it was designed. I'm not going to go into the whole history of the barricades and
the signs and all that. I think that's been spoken to by the members of the -- of the public.
But if -- if the city so chooses to -- to not extend that street or only extend it as an
emergency access, that's at the city's purview and, to be honest, I'm not even sure what
further action ACHD would have to take or if there would be a further action required.
This is one of those unique situations where the city conditions may be in conflict with
ACHD's condition and I would have to let the legal counsel for the applicant, you know,
kind of determine how they would want to proceed from there. So, I hope that answers
the -- the initial question. I will pause right here and see if there is any further clarification
needed.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Is there a preferred -- I'm trying to think of an elegant way of putting this, but I'm
not going to come up with one. Is there a preferred method by which City Council could
close Dashwood except for emergency access that gets us to the right place where we
don't have wrangling back and forth with ACHID and a bunch of headaches, whether that's
called vacating it or what you call -- orjust saying, hey, we are not allowing it. If you could
be -- is there a method we need to use for that that would have a better outcome?
Lucas- Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I wish I could provide clarity on that point. I
really -- I really can't. All I can do is state the intention of the ACHD commission, which is
clearly outlined in the staff report provided and the follow up, you know, communication
from ACHD staff. At this public hearing tonight I'm not able to negotiate on behalf of
ACHD. That's not my role. I'm just here to provide clarifying information and facts where
possible and in this specific instance the ACHD commission has, you know, acted on this
application. There is a staff report. Staff has worked with these modifications that we feel
are consistent with the -- the policies of ACHD. ACHID, much like the City of Meridian,
has a policy that stub streets need to be extended. We did analyze the property, we
looked at many of the issues brought up, and, ultimately, we are comfortable with the
recommendation from the commission and, then, the further clarification made by staff. I
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 68 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 40 of 71
know that's not a -- that's probably a very -- kind of a roundabout way to answer your
question, but that's probably the best I can do tonight.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: That's fine. I understand the spot that you are in and I -- I get it and I -- you
know, I --we are always looking for connectivity as well and I'm sure we will have a chance
to deliberate a little bit about this tonight, but it just strikes me that, you know, I'm looking
at a neighborhood that's highly connected already and feels like there is -- sometimes
exceptions are warranted. So, thanks for the insight and we did receive the staff report.
So, thanks.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Justin, earlier tonight we heard testimony about kind of the City of Meridian's
street naming policy and I know I live -- I live on a -- on a cul-de-sac and my address is
court and the testimony we heard was that, you know, I think roadways that end in court
or place are designed to be terminated and I just don't know if that mirrors ACHID's policy
and and, Justin, I will kind of cut to where I'm -- where I'm at. I'm trying to wrestle with
the the -- what looks to be the design of a cul-de-sac, which to me seems to insinuate
connectivity, with the testimony that we heard from the public that says, you know, this
has always been identified as a as a roadway that wouldn't connect. I'm trying to
understand what -- what is -- what what's likely? What -- what was the intention behind
the design or what was the intention behind the roadway name?
Lucas: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, you know, I think the story told tonight is what
-- kind of what happened, which is the original preliminary plat for this -- the Alpine Pointe
Subdivision had a layout that was approved by ACHID that did not show that -- that stub
street connection, but that original preliminary plat was, then, acted on finally by the city.
The city always is the final action. And at that time the city required that stub street to be
extended, which didn't conflict with any ACHID policy. If the city says we want the stub
street at the final plat ACHID said, okay, we will allow the stub street and the -- the cul-de-
sac or the -- the reason why it's round like that is because it's probably long enough to
require a turnaround. So, if we have a street of that length, even though it is going to be
extended in the future, we do require some kind of turnaround, which is why it was in that
cul-de-sac configuration and I think there was even several pictures of similar scenarios
all across Meridian that were shown tonight, so -- and, then, when we get into the signage
and the barricades and the fence or no fence, you know, that's -- those are details that
happened through the development process. Was there a sign there? Maybe at some
point, yes. Maybe no. I don't know. The barricade certainly is there and -- and the little
blue sign that we require, could it have fallen off, could it have been taken down, I don't
know. I don't know the answer to that question.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 69 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 41 of 71
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Justin, thanks. I think that comment specifically about the turnaround for the
fire truck seems to make a lot of sense and that at least helps me with my understanding.
I appreciate it. Appreciate you being with us tonight.
Simison: Council, any further questions for Mr. Lucas while he is here? Okay. Thank
you, Justin. I assume you won't go anywhere in case we need you again.
Lucas: Yes. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. I will hang on the line. I will certainly mute
myself, but I will stay here for the duration to make -- just to see if you have any further
questions.
Simison: Okay.
Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Deputy Chief.
Bongiorno: We have been --we have been dancing around the fire code all night tonight,
so I'm going to take this opportunity to jump in, since Justin and Councilman Cavener
brought up the word firetruck. Thank you very much for that. So, as this map is presented
we have to have secondary access. So, whatever Council decides, you know, you can
permanently close that road, but I have to have an emergency access point as presented
with this drawing. If they drop to 30 lots total, then, they can have one way in and one
way out. So,just wanted to make sure that was clear and -- and I appreciate everybody's
testimony tonight. It was -- it was -- it's been great listening to all this.
Simison: Thank you. Mr. Stewart, since you have unmuted yourself and given us your
visual, I assume you, too, would like to make a comment.
Stewart: Yeah. I was just going to make a quick comment. There is -- excuse me. There
are existing utilities in the roadway that we are talking about, Dashwood there, and we
will require that the waterline in particular, but also sewer comes from the north to serve
a portion of this development I do believe, but the waterline has to be looped. We need
the fire protection. We can't get fire protection without the looping of that water and it will
also improve water quality in that area as well. Does that have to be in a public right of
way? No, it does not necessarily have to be in the public right of way, but I did want to at
least make sure that you are aware that the utilities through that corridor need to continue.
Simison- Any questions for Mr. Stewart from Council? Okay. Thank you very much.
Adrienne, I assume we did not -- or, Chris, we didn't have anyone else raise their hand to
speak?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 70 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 42 of 71
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, that is correct.
Simison: Okay. Then I'm going to go ahead and invite the applicant back up for his
closing remarks.
Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise. Chris, can I
have my backup slides, please. Maybe? Maybe?
Johnson: I was just trying to get the button to share.
Clark: Thank you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, before Mr. Clark starts I know Councilman Cavener had asked Mrs.
Bernard to stay on the line in case there was any additional questions for the HOA after
the testimony and I thought if you wanted to do that that probably would be more
appropriate before Mr. Clark does his final summary, but I don't know if you had any other
questions, I just remembered he had brought that up.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener- Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Nary. No. I appreciate you bringing that up. I
did have a couple of questions, but they eventually got addressed in -- in future testimony.
So I appreciate that. We are good.
Clark- Thanks, Chris. Again, Hethe Clark for the record. And it looks like my video is
turned off. I don't know if you want to see my beautiful face or not, but I'm good either
way. So, I was involved in a hearing a couple weeks ago and Council Member Strader
put me through my paces on the question of schools and I vowed to myself that I would
never be caught -- or never have -- be unprepared with some of the information that she
wanted and if I can get to this slide -- there we go. So, we have looked up and had
conversations with the school district about current enrollment and the status of
enrollment. The this -- these are the most current numbers from fall of last year. You
can see that the there it -- does still remain capacity within the school district, but what
I want to point out is that by fall of '20 there will be an additional -- call it 3,500 spaces
available within the district. In addition, I would just point out that the -- on the question
of middle schools, Star Middle is very much under capacity. Victory Middle has capacity.
Meridian Middle has capacity, you know, varying levels. So, there is going to be -- you
know, Meridian is a growing city. There is going to be need for continued growth in the
school district. That's just going to be a fact of life for as long as we are all involved in
this, but that capacity is there. But the other piece I want to point out -- Mr. Clifford had
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 71 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 43 of 71
presented an April letter from the West Ada School District. If you review the record, West
Ada submitted another letter in November of 2019. That letter stated that their only
concern was to ensure that this project came online after Owyhee High School was
available and, obviously, given the delay in this that is more than handled. Next item that
I would point to is this question of transition on the north and I think that this slide might
help with Council Member Hoaglun's point. We have increased the size of these lots by
50 percent. We have tried to transition from the very dense product that's to our south to
this product to the Alpine Pointe product on the north, but as Council Member Perreault
mentioned, these are difficult lots to match. They are pie shaped lots to a certain degree
and what I also wanted to show is what faces our project. So, this was a slide that was
done with the -- with the prior iteration and I had the current plat put on to, you know, kind
of show what we are dealing with, but as you go along what you can see is A corresponds
to what the side of that house looks like. That's the -- it's looking at the side of a garage
and a pad. B is looking at the side of a -- it looks like an RV pad. C similar. D also similar.
So, you know, again, it's -- it's always difficult to transition these things on an in-fill project
such as this, but we think that we have done, you know, an appropriate job here. It's not
a reduction of two as -- as was suggested and, in fact, there were a number of duplexes
that were there as well. So, again, we think that we have -- we have -- we have come up
with an appropriate compromise that's -- that is very close to the 6,000 square feet that
we discussed at the initial meeting with the board. Chris, can I have now the main slide
deck. Sorry to make this complicated. Thank you. So, when it comes to this -- waiting
for the system to come up for me. Sorry about that. Okay. There we go. I think we got
itnow. Okay. Sorry for the technical difficulties there. So, the next thing that I wanted to
discuss were the trees and the slide I wanted to bring up is the one that shows the
transition from our product -- project to the Brickyard project on the south, because I think
that that helps kind of explain what -- where we were coming from on the design and how
I think it addresses the -- the issues that have been identified. So, we are -- as you can
see this is -- this is the part of our project on the southwest that abuts Champion Park and
we purposefully kept -- put our little park area here with the public art installation in that
location, so that that would be the buffer against Champion Park to the extent that we
could create one. The the trees in that location are topped. You know, they are not
great trees, but we are we are intending to keep as many of them as we can in that
location. I expect that there will be some additional trees added. So, as you can see we
think that we have addressed that -- that issue in terms of trying to create a buffer for
those folks. With regard to Council Member Borton's question about, you know, why have
lots there on the south now versus the continuation of Jasmine along the south and that
creating a buffer, you know, a couple of things there. We -- in -- in going to this alternative
design we reduced the density throughout the center of the project and on the north of
the project. The -- that-- we went with a larger park and consolidate -- consolidated open
spaces and so from that perspective that made more sense at that point to put our most
dense product up against the Brickyard. That is two story potentially product down there
and we think that that creates an appropriate transition between the Brickyard and our
product -- in our project. So, that was the -- that was the thought process and so that's
where we were coming from in getting to there. One -- you know, just to kind of wrap up,
I will leave you with -- sorry. A little bit of lag here. I will leave you with the modifications
to the conditions of approval as we have requested them. Along the west, again, because
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 72 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 44 of 71
we no longer have duplex products along the west and because of our reduced density,
we are asking for the restriction on single story to be removed and, then, again, with
regard to Dashwood, this has been a unique experience for me. As -- you know, some of
you have seen me doing these hearings for a long time. I'm usually the -- kind of the
closer, you know, kind of come and help get ready for the hearing. In this case I pretended
to be a planner for the last few months and tried to make sure that we were addressing
people's concerns. I'm a happy boy if we get emergency only access along Dashwood.
We need to have emergency only to be able to satisfy Deputy Chief Bongiorno's point,
but if we have emergency only, then -- then I'm -- I'm satisfied and that's what we have
asked for to date. From there, you know, in terms of the -- the question of where does
land use authority end and exclusive jurisdiction over the highways begins, that's why I
have suggested to remove the language stating that the City of Meridian is requiring this
to be temporary and, then, therefore, then, it becomes just a question of, you know, what
is ACHD going to require in terms of its exclusive jurisdiction over roads and, then, that
opens it up to just a conversation with one government -- governmental body, rather than
having to deal with both, which is the -- kind of the difficult part of the way that land use
plays out in -- in Ada county. So, with that I'm happy to answer any questions that remain
at this point.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Mr. Clark, I would like to congratulate you and commend you on providing me
with this capacity information that I have been asking for. I really appreciate you doing
that legwork and I would ask the city clerk to provide me with a copy of this presentation,
if possible, because I could use that as a starting point for some additional analysis that I
was asking for. But I just wanted to say thank you very much for listening to my concern
about the schools and providing that information.
Simison- Council, any further questions?
Hoaglun- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question for Mr. Clark. On that southwest corner for Champion Park with those
trees, from Mrs. Crane's perspective those -- those trees look pretty good. Maybe it's
because they make the turn and they are not necessarily -- I don't know if they were
topped, because the lines -- and maybe they were, but the photo she showed from her
backyard it looked like those were adequate for a nice buffer from --for that triangle piece.
You are going to have art in there. I know it would be nice. But they are looking for
privacy is -- and you know that property better than I do. I just see from photos and your
drawings. Is that something -- those trees there could be left to -- to maintain that buffer
for those homes in Champion Park?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 73 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 45 of 71
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, yes. So, the -- those -- those trees are
topped there. I think that Mrs. Crane's photographs also showed the power line in that
location. So, they have been previously topped, but we -- you know, it -- from every
perspective it makes sense for us to keep those trees to the extent that they are not
diseased. You know, we save money, all of that. So, yes, those trees will remain in that
triangle -- triangular park area that we are showing here. And, then, we will take a look
at the rest of the trees on a case-by-case basis to see if any of them could be relocated
or re-used.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, just to comment further on that.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. And, Hethe, I -- I was referring just to those pine trees there in that
triangular area. I see the need for your -- what you are doing there to the -- to the south
for putting new trees in and -- up against the Brickyard, so that makes sense. But for that
triangle area it made sense to probably keep -- keep those if possible.
Simison: Council, any further questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, a question for Mr. Clark, but I -- I know you probably won't have an
answer for me, but I want to -- I want to get a sense of Centrepoint -- that Centrepoint
Way, which -- which to me makes sense to be the collector for going to Wainwright. You
have residents to the west, they will have commercial to the -- to the east, but the
ownership of that property -- I mean that's contingent upon future development it appears
to me. Can you give me any insight, if you have any, you may not, on what that future
may hold for -- for development going to that north -- north way.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, so you are correct, the Centrepoint will be
the -- the spine for the transportation along that area. Unfortunately, I don't have any
insight in terms -- in terms of the timing for that, because it's -- that property is owned by
a -- by a third party. It is part of the -- the master street map that it -- that it will ultimately
connect and I also agree with your approach in terms of describing the way that that
development should proceed, which, you know, with the residential on the west side of
Centrepoint, Centrepoint forming a buffer, and, then, allowing the type of mixed use
regional uses that would be permitted over there, because that is what the comprehensive
planning is for that parcel.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, a follow-up question.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Simison: Mr. Clark, you did say that collector there would be -- is in the -- the master
street plan?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 74 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 46 of 71
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, yes, that is -- that's shown on the master
street map.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Mr. Clark, I noticed there also was some landscaping removed from the east
side of Centrepoint from the original rendering. Can you speak to that as well, please?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, so the -- this really goes back to the
question of what further entitlements are required for the property on the east, which is
the -- the R-40 multi -- likely multi-family property. When -- when we were at Planning
and Zoning one of the questions was what would be the timing of putting in streetscape,
you know, what -- which phase would that occur and we discussed that with -- with
Planning and Zoning and they agreed that that should go in with the rest of the project as
we didn't want to have throw away and what I'm -- the reason I'm just giving you that
context is that we do have a condition of approval that requires that we do an independent
landscape plan and identify specific open space when that CUP comes in. So, there will
be additional landscaping done on the R-40 piece. That's just going to be part of the CUP
process that will come later through -- through the course of this project.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up?
Simison- Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault- So, if I understand correctly, you just removed it from the rendering to reflect
the request to not finish out the landscaping and the sidewalks on that east side as part
of this application?
Clark- Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, it was -- I don't know if it was that purposeful,
but that reflects how this will develop. Correct.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: So, I don't know if this is the right time to even mention this, but I will anyway.
On the next phase that we are not approving tonight, I just thought I would point out,
based upon the things I learned tonight about, you know, connectivity, ACHID issues with
driveways, I might suggest to the applicant that you swap building A more to the north
and the clubhouse down to the south, so it will line up the exit point from the -- from that
parcel onto the other street. I don't know if that's relevant to policies or not, because it's
not a street, but that would seem to make more sense than having an offset the way it is,
but --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 75 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 47 of 71
Clark: Mr. Mayor, thank you. We will -- I or whoever is running that application at that
point will -- we will make a note of -- of that comment.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I'm wondering -- I know you will come forward with more definitive plans for the
apartment piece of the development, but what are -- what are you envisioning in terms of
open space and I had seen some suggestions that, you know, we require independent
open space, obviously, for the apartments as well. Do you want to comment on that?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, so I think that Sonya discussed this to a certain
degree during her presentation. As I recall, the -- the requirement for the R-40 is that
there would have to be an independent ten percent provided there. You know, obviously,
that's dependent on the rules that are in place at the time of the application, but I believe
Sonya included a condition that would point us in that direction regardless, so --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Mr. Clark, are you able to speak to a request that was made by one of the
neighbors about Lots 16 and 17? 1 think it was the same conversation regarding leaving
those trees in that triangular open space area, to keep those at a single level height. I
know we -- I think we actually had this conversation last time you were here about a single
level -- keeping single level of particular lots. Can you share your thoughts with us on
that?
Clark: Yeah. Council -- Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, you know, I just brought
up this slide to be able to illustrate what we are talking about here. These -- these lots
are largely up against the Brickyard, which is three stories, and so I -- you know, we are
preserving that -- you know, the -- creating the buffer against Champion Park with the
triangle. I don't think that putting single story up against the three story barracks really
moves the ball forward for anyone in this instance and so I -- that's not -- I don't think
that's something that I would be -- that I would be interested in agreeing to at this point.
Those are -- those are only two stories that we are talking about up against the three
stories at the Brickyard. Oh. And I would also point out, Council Member Perreault, that
the -- the adjacent homes are two stories as well. So, in Champion Park they are two
story buildings.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 76 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 48 of 71
Borton: Hethe, on your -- your reference to proposed condition 1-F that speaks to
Dashwood, what would happen if the city includes a condition 1-F that does state that
Dashwood is provided as emergency access only permanently, not temporarily. If that is
how condition 1.F reads or if it were to read that way, the ACHID staff report -- that prior
design has -- it doesn't have anything in reference to Dashwood. It references that
specific temporary access down at Jasmine. Truly a different animal back then and the
-- the outreach that we see in the record that you did with Mr. Miller at ACHID was not a
commission decision, but it was -- I'm quite sure not exactly where it came from, but it
looked like what the commission had conditioned to be a Jasmine emergency access
only, sort of flipped in the same principle with the ten year or Centrepoint becoming now
a Dashwood condition. So, in light of that, the ACHID staff report and conditions as they
exist today and if the city were to do 1-F as I suggested, is there any -- in your eyes is
there a legal prohibition to the city doing it if ACHID refused to sign your final plat or
something like that?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, that is the -- that is the difficulty and why I
mentioned the kind of unclear line between where land use authority ends and the
exclusive jurisdiction over the highways begins. My suggestion of removing the language
on the -- referring to temporary on the city's decision is to allow that conversation to
continue, if necessary, with ACHID and not require a modification of this condition at the
city. That --
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton- So -- and, Hethe, I just -- sorry to interrupt, but that -- that concept of -- are you
suggesting removal of 1.F in its entirety?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, no. My-- my-- my suggestion is just to remove
the temporary -- so, the way I read condition 1.F is that it's directing that it would be
temporary and rather than directing that it be temporary, take that language out, directing
that it -- not requiring that it be temporary, so that if it went to permanent we didn't have
to change the condition that the city has, but that will -- and, then, that would allow folks
to, then, go have a conversation with ACHID later on as the time comes and as other --
other roads are coming in and being connected and, then, maybe that's an opportunity
for the larger neighborhood as a whole to have that conversation with ACHID without
having to change a decision that the city made years ago. If that makes sense.
Borton: Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: So, if that change was done in 1.F and that would remove the temporary, it would
remove the portion as drafted now that has this Centrepoint connection or ten years,
whichever comes first, all of that would come out.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 77 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 49 of 71
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, yes, that's how I -- how I -- that -- that's my
suggestion.
Borton: But quick follow up. And, Hethe, the question at that point is there any risk to
you that if that is done and the city approves it in that fashion, that ACHID can hold you up
in any form? And the example was refusing to sign the final plat.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, you know, our -- we are looking at this from
the perspective of this is -- allows us to move forward and best addresses the
neighborhood --the neighborhood concerns. You know, obviously, I don't want to be held
up at ACHID over this condition. I don't want them to refuse to sign the plat. My -- the
way I see it is that these would be overlapping requirements where the -- where the city
has made a requirement, the -- ACHID has made a requirement, they may not be in
agreement. ACHD after ten years might say, you know what, this -- this -- we said that
this was temporary and so, you know, we are going to go ahead and open this and they
would do that under their exclusive jurisdiction over the -- over the highways. I don't think
that this requires a hold up at the plat -- at the plat level if you guys have different
viewpoints on this -- on this particular point.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Or, I'm sorry, Councilman Borton.
Nary: So, I -- I want to add something, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Okay. Well, let's go to you, Bill, and, then to Council Woman Strader.
Nary: Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Borton, I think Mr.
Clark's suggestion avoids any conflict with ACHID, because it's basically the city is silent
on the length of this condition and, therefore, they would be less likely to not want to sign
the plat. If there is a condition in there that they either think is in conflict with them or they
think it should be something different -- here it's silent, so I think that would be the safest
route. The reality is it's been there for 15 years with nobody wanting to open it. The
emergency access is really a safety issue and once this is constructed it's even less likely
to want to be made a full connection. So, I think taking the suggestion of Mr. Clark and
taking that language out and simply just stating that it would be emergency access only,
I think gives the neighbors or the developer a better opportunity to say this should be the
permanent solution.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 78 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 50 of 71
Strader: Thank you. I think this might be a question for Mr. Nary. I guess my concern
would be -- part of why I would feel comfortable approving this application is with the
caveat that it would be permanently emergency access only. I don't think it is an
appropriate street to open up and if we remove that condition don't we run the risk of
having that outcome thatACHD will open it. We had no condition, so the applicant doesn't
have to come back with a revised proposal. Don't we run the risk that we get an outcome
that we didn't want?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Strader, so I think what -- all
Hethe is suggesting is that the condition simply say the city's condition is that this be an
emergency access only and we generally don't designate temporary or permanent in most
of these. Most of the time they are what they are and whether or not they become a street
or something really isn't the issue as it is tonight, but just designating it as an emergency
access only makes clear the city's intention is that is only -- the only use you anticipate
that to be is emergency.
Strader: Follow up?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I just -- I want to make sure we are not -- I know we are still having kind of a
discussion about it. I want to make sure we are not opening ourselves up ultimately to
an outcome that at least I'm not looking for. I guess is there anything legally that prohibits
us from designating something permanent or is there another method by which we could
ensure that ACHD doesn't kind of come back and -- and upset the apple cart.
Nary- So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, no guarantees.
I can't really give you that. My concern would be I think similar to what Mr. Clark has
stated, that if we designate that based on our preference of it being permanent versus
temporary and ACHD thinks that's in conflict with their staff opinion, they may not sign the
plat. So, we may be back here doing the same thing. So, by leaving it silent and saying
emergency access only, clearly, again, the city's not giving an alternative, so it's only
emergency access and that's all and that's the normal course of how we designate these.
That won't be in conflict with ACHD and they will likely sign the plat. Again, they always
have the ability as the road authority to change their mind, change your policy. Like the
sign issue that was spoke of earlier, that's a policy change that occurred probably 15
years ago, but the -- we really don't have the ability to make it be permanent, since it is a
roadway. They can change their mind. But clearly we just don't want to be in conflict with
it. We want it to be clear your recommendation is this is an emergency access.
Hoaglun- Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun- Yeah. To add -- add my two cents to this, what -- for Councilman Strader's
benefit, where I see the issue -- if we just go with the emergency only, not putting in the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 79 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 51 of 71
time frame, we are not boxing ACHD in, we are giving them the option or, to me, there is
a clear alternative with North Centrepoint Way. So, you know, for -- to get into this fight
and, well, we need something -- and it may be ten years from now Centrepoint Way is not
completed -- I don't believe that will be the case, but you never know, but we have an
option there that gets us a collector-- or an arterial to -- to Wainwright and -- and we leave
them with an option and I think that's -- that they are reasonable people, they can work
through this, the same issues that the neighborhood raised with us I think would resonate
-- resonate with them, but because there is this viable option that that is out there, I
think it's -- it's a safe option to go with and -- and not having to put creating a conflict
where we think we can avoid one. I don't know if that helps or not, but that's my thinking
on it.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I think that's helpful. I -- it's not an ideal I think approach in the sense
that we may -- it's possible it sounds like ultimately we might get an outcome that we are
not looking for though. It's not likely, but it's possible and I -- I'm still kind of wrestling with
it. But, thank you, that did help.
Simison: So, Council, the public hearing is still open. Do you have any additional
comments or questions for the applicant or staff or would you like to close the public
hearing at this time?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: It does not sound like there is requests for additional information from staff, so I
will move that we close the public hearing on Item 7-B, H-2019-0027.
Hoaglun- Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I will second.
Simison- Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion
on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes
have it. The public hearing is closed. Sorry.
MOTION CARRIED- ALLAYES.
Bernt- Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 80 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 52 of 71
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I haven't spoke much.
Borton: You muted yourself.
Bernt: Can you hear me now? My computer's been acting weird tonight. It's weird. I
haven't said much tonight, I have been listening, and I remember this -- this -- this
application from November and, honestly, it's an interesting application. I appreciate the
dialogue this evening from both the applicant and also the residents. I always enjoy it
when -- when -- when people are concerned, they come out and they express their
opinions. It helps us out as a Council to come to a decision or conclusion and also I think
Hethe always does a great job. He's -- he's one of the professionals, so good job, Hethe.
One thing that it-- is during discussion that--that continues to pop in my mind is assuming
something might happen in the future or -- we don't have a crystal ball and we don't know
exactly what will happen in regard to connectivity, whether Dashwood is permanently
closed or if it's emergency access only, temporarily or permanently. We all know we have
an interesting situation with the stakeholder partners and how we deal with certain
decisions and that makes things really interesting, but it -- in these instances for me it
causes great concern, because I think sometimes when we assume that things might
happen or -- or what's been spoken about with -- or by residents about kicking this can
down the road, I think it causes more problems than --than -- than it solves. I -- I -- I pride
-- I -- I have a different perspective to a certain degree. I believe connectivity is always
important. There are many subdivisions in the valley where past councils have said, hey,
you know, we don't want to create more traffic into this subdivision, we are not going to
-- we are not going to recommend connectivity here, but later on we realize that -- that if
we had connectivity there it probably would have solved some problems. It would have
probably solved, you know, less traffic going in another place. So, basically, we are saying
to ourselves, you know, we feel for the folks over here in -- in Alpine Pointe, but we -- you
know, the folks over here that are -- that are renting units and living in units and have
kiddos in those units, we don't necessarily give those -- that connectivity as much
credence and to me it doesn't -- connectivity is connectivity and we need connectivity no
matter what. Which leads me to my next point. So, my next point is -- is the greatest
concern in this whole situation is what Council Member Borton brought up back in
November and if you were to go back, his -- his concern that I never thought of until --
he was the last person to speak at that Council meeting was that the connectivity from
Centrepoint to Wainwright solves all the problems. If we -- if we had connectivity from
Centrepoint to Wainwright, I -- whether -- whether Dashwood is temporary or -- or
permanent or whatever, really makes it somewhat of a moot point to me. All right?
Because most of the traffic will be flowing through that corridor and so although I believe
that this -- this project is great and I commend Hethe and his -- the new owners of this --
this -- of this property-- this project for --for making it less dense and listening to us, I just
think that in my opinion we are putting the cart before the horse. I just think that approving
this -- this -- this project this evening, for me, in my opinion, is just premature and it --
maybe it boils down to in-fill and how in-fill can get really tricky and I get that, but I want
to get it right and if you want to guarantee -- if we want to guarantee the Council that
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 81 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 53 of 71
connectivity is going to be legal and there is not going to be any, you know, mud throwing
in the future between us and ACHD wondering who is right and who is wrong and who
has precedence and who doesn't, the only way to fix that is just to wait and to make sure
that there is connectivity from Centrepoint to Wainwright. You know, sometimes just got
to be patient -- and I apologize, I -- you know, I think this is a great project. I don't think it
can become any better honestly, you know. It's just that we need connectivity from
Centrepoint to Wainwright to solve all these problems and that's the only guarantee that
we have.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I so appreciate that comment, because now that I have heard your perspective
I -- I think it's a good point. Like I'm concerned about trying to put a condition on something
that might not even give us the outcome we are looking for, when the truth is that that --
the proper connectivity on Centrepoint is what gets us to the right answer. So, I appreciate
you sharing your perspective, Treg.
Bernt: I stole it from Borton. So, I appreciate Borton more than you appreciate me.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, I have the same situation. I live in a community that's off of -- a section of
Pine that does not connect between Black Cat and Ten Mile and our neighbors for years
have taken Pine out to Black Cat and exited one way in and out of a very large community
and I don't see any issue with the residents of a future Delano Subdivision exiting on
Centrepoint to the south out to Ustick up until the time that Centrepoint is connected to
Wainwright. They can do that. That's essentially going to become -- Centrepoint's
essentially going to become a dead end up to the Delano Subdivision until it's connected.
There is going to be just that one option for them to get out to Ustick or to get out to Eagle
Road and so I'm in favor of removing the -- the word temporary in the -- modifying the
condition 1.F removing the word temporary and allowing that -- allowing Dashwood to be
emergency access only and that's at the request of the applicant. That's at the request
of the neighbors. A lot of the neighbors have said if you can't or aren't willing to close it,
which I don't think that we as a city should make that determination, the -- and, obviously,
the Deputy Chief Bongiorno said that we -- we can't do that, we have got to have that
secondary access. I'm in favor of keeping it as a secondary access by removing the --
the temporary terminology and, then, if ACHD chooses to do something later down the
road that's -- we don't have any control over that, but -- but by -- by really -- to me that --
that's the middle ground and I guess I'm hesitant to -- to recommend denial on an
application that has a fairly solvable issue and I -- and I say that -- I'm biting my tongue
right now, because we have these conversations every week; right? I say that because
there also have been -- there also have been situations in the past where we considered
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 82 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 54 of 71
an application, denied the application, and, then, something else came in its place that
was not as beneficial as what was presented originally. So, I'm thinking about that
element of it as well. So, my -- my opinion on this is that I am comfortable with approving
the application, modifying that condition 1.F to remove the terminology -- the temporary
terminology as Mr. Nary explained and -- and I also am comfortable with allowing the east
side of Centrepoint to be developed with the conditional use permit that will come in the
future application for the multi-family. Oh. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Before -- one more thing. So, in the -- in the notes for this evening staff had
mentioned that they would like Council to address regarding the existing trees, whether
they should be removed --whether they are going to be removed by the --or by the owner,
whether we are going to require mitigation for both and I believe that we should. If I'm
understanding that request correctly.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I'm for the most part in agreement with Council Member Perreault and maybe
working backwards first. One, yeah, if we can keep those trees, let's keep the trees. It
sounds like the applicant wants to keep the trees, the neighbors want to keep the trees.
If for whatever reason one or two have to be removed for a certain reason, that they
mitigate that loss. I -- I think this is a huge improvement from what we saw a year ago.
This is a good in-fill project. It meets so many checkboxes I guess in our -- in our
Comprehensive Plan. The ongoing conversation that we are going to continue to have
and could probably have for another year is -- is about the connectivity and Council
Member Bernt, I appreciate your -- your comments tonight. I know you give credit to
Council Member Borton, but I appreciate you sharing them. The biggest piece -- and I
have touched on this a lot tonight -- is really what was communicated to the public before
and doing all we can to adhere to that. Justin Lucas did a great job of kind of talking
about what if and what could have happened. Ultimately I think that--that that connected
road was designed to terminate there and so I -- I do struggle with opening that back up.
I think I can wrap my head around emergency access, pedestrian connectivity, those to
me seem to make sense, but your point about, you know, our residents who live in that
apartment complex not having access to that connectivity and -- and putting on them to
find some other place is -- is well heard. I just go back to what has been in the past and
what warrants making a substantial change and I don't think that if -- it rises to the level
of making a substantial change that we need to open that up to everyone. Leave it set.
Removing the condition as I think has been articulated. AllowACHID to make any decision
that they think is necessary. But, again, I don't think we get much better of -- of an in-fill
project and I'm really pleased to support it, hoping to see it move forward.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 83 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 55 of 71
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: So, basically, the -- and whether we leave that Dashwood as temporary or
permanent, that's fine, but depending on that -- that northern parcel and when it develops
and adding, you know, that -- that R-40 project to the east, we are essentially saying that
entire -- this entire project will have one access. That's essentially what we are saying.
Put -- put your -- put yourself in the shoes of those people who will be living in those
apartments with kiddos, just like we all do, I mean in -- I mean that -- that is a lot of traffic
to be putting in a subdivision that size with one access point.
Simison: And if-- if I could just weigh in a little bit. I'm not -- I'm not going to say anything
that's popular in this case, but, you know, quite frankly, I don't think any of us got elected
just be popular, but I'm going to take Councilman Cavener -- look at the area of that
property. To me it's clear that that road was intended to be moved forward in the future.
It is not a traditional cul-de-sac. There is no homes at the end. The sidewalks aren't
completed around it. You know, if you -- if you take all those things into consideration --
now, the naming structure that was put to it, you know, perhaps gave that different
impression, but to me that road was meant to be improved when you look at the two cul-
de-sacs on the north -- on the east or west of it, they are both very much cul-de-sacs.
This one is not in the same vein as those two. One, the issues with Alpine Pointe that I
think is different than many other areas is every home in this subdivision is facing the
road. There --there is no clear cut collector street in this area. So, if you look at someone
on the -- on the far southwest corner and how they have to navigate through the
subdivision, someone moving anywhere in the subdivision from the interior has to drive
by approximately-- anywhere from ten to 30 homes that are all front facing in order to exit
the subdivision. So, I'm not going to -- I don't have a solution to say what direction you
should or should not go. I might say one right -- or maybe things that should have been
put in when the development was first developed and try to fix it, but going back to
connectivity to me is huge and if I was -- if I was put to on my hat and if you had the --
that road fully connected, yeah, I can see about maybe half the people going through that
direction and half the people going out through another direction, depending on which
way they are going to go. I don't think it would be everybody. But until -- once Wainwright
is put together all the way. Until then a different story, you know, completely. So, it's just
an observation. It's not anything more than that from my perspective.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I appreciate your comments on this, because, quite frankly, I think where you
are is where I was at the start of this meeting. The design of that cul-de-sac I think would
lead anybody to believe that that street is going to go through in the future and it wasn't
until I had heard the -- the comments from Mr. Lucas and from Mr. Bongiorno about a
turnaround lane that that --that at least clicked with me. You mean you have got a design
of a cul-de-sac that leads itself to be connected through, but the name designation seems
to indicate that it terminates. So, they both can't be right and so for me, at least the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 84 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 56 of 71
conclusion I got to, is that it was designed to be a term. I'm not saying that that's correct
or incorrect -- again, I don't think any of us know, but to me at least that piece seemed to
connect with me and I understood that. So, I appreciate your comments. I just think that
we have come to two different conclusions.
Simison: Yeah. I think if the sidewalk was connected throughout the entire curve I would
agree, but it's not, because the sidewalk stops.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: A big element of this for me is if we -- if we were to recommend that Dashwood
were to be connected and vehicles would -- would come through and/or we were to -- to
go along with ACHID's recommendation, I'm very concerned that these are private streets,
that they are going to be more narrow and it's not going to handle the -- the amount of
traffic that a public street size would. It's -- that -- that's one piece of this particular project
that is different. As we talked about whether we allow access on Dashwood -- vehicle
access or not, is that it -- and I know -- I know Alpine -- Alpine Pointe Subdivision very
well. I drive through there on a regular basis. I have done business in that subdivision.
I know it exceptionally well. It is -- it is a little bit hard to get around in. The streets all go
different directions. It's easy to get lost in. And I do anticipate that just like we have
discussed with our field -- or with our priority growth areas, the -- the Magic View area
that -- that there is a lot of traffic coming through there, coming through from Eagle Road,
I anticipate that same scenario happening with this, where people are going to take --
take an alternative route off of Eagle Road. It's not -- it's not dissimilar in what we have
experienced with Woodbridge and -- and so -- and, then, add to that private roads that
are more narrow. So, if these were in private streets and they didn't -- then I may not -- I
may even have less concern about actually being okay with the connectivity into -- into
Alpine Pointe, but I don't see it managing the traffic because of the size of the street.
Simison: And just from my perspective -- and I know that's all it is is when you do have
more narrow streets -- I mean people go the -- the path of least resistance and if
Wainwright was open I don't think it would ever be an issue, because people would have
to go slower. They are not going to take that path to get out, unless they live in that area
in my opinion. But traffic models would -- would -- would prove what it is to a certain
extent, but even that -- they don't always get that right, but --
Borton- Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Councilman Borton.
Borton- So, the quick response -- I guess the conclusion drawn from all of this -- there is
so much that's better. I mean really Hethe and his crew really did a lot I think to address
a lot of concerns. I think the way that he's -- he's worked the transition and reduced
density and addressed the height of the homes on the north, I think all of that makes great
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 85 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 57 of 71
sense and he really -- I think that the applicant was stuck with an almost insurmountable
challenge, because the challenge that -- that was raised back in November still exists in
my eyes. I don't think -- and in some of the discussion that I --that I pressed with regards
to Dashwood to the north is just not -- you just can't have it remain emergency access
only. It might -- very well might happen, but -- but it might not. So, what very well could
happen is -- it ties into a concern I had throughout this application is you could have a
lack of connectivity-- Centrepoint Way might not go north. You now have smaller parcels
that might be less -- more cost prohibitive for the parcel to the north to develop,
understanding the magnitude of the roadway that's got to be put in. With that unknown,
if Centrepoint Way is not connected to the north and if we have no control to ensure
Dashwood is truly emergency, again, I -- I phrased it the way before, this is not all the
applicant's fault. The project -- the footprint is what it is, but you could have generations
of this development with a lot of folks connecting to Wainwright through this project and
-- and through Dashwood, because it's never connected and that's a real possibility and
that's one of the unfortunate problems I think -- I just couldn't get around last time, I can't
get around it right now, the principal ultimately falls to me being it's -- it's not the right time
in light of the property that this project's comprised of. I think that the lack of certainty or
any control over Centrepoint Way makes this project really difficult and it makes me
believe that it's just not the right time. I think the applicant's done a great job and I think
the public raised a lot of great concern and we all listened to their concerns and read all
of the input that's been provided, so after considering all of that I -- I'm just stuck, I don't
think I could support this one.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I was going to bring up the point that, you know, our traffic policies, how we
look at things, what we try to do sometimes kind of conflict with each other, because we
want to have lights at quarter miles and access points and limit any other ingress and
egress at other locations. You know, I remember driving down Eagle Road and there was
little farm houses and this that and the other and everyone had their own driveways. Of
course traffic was a lot less. So, I get it. So, we create Wainwright and we want that to
be the access point to and from Eagle Road and at Ustick we have a light at the
Centrepoint there, that's the access point, and eventually those are to connect and that's
how we move people around and you go up a little farther, another quarter mile from
McMillan you have got another entrance and that's how we have designed it. So, there
is not a way to say, oh, they -- we need to create access directly in so people aren't going
through these neighborhoods. Well, we don't want that access, unless it's commercial
where they are just going in and out there, there has to be these through streets. Then
we create a chicken and the egg. What comes first. If the businesses come in and they
go why do we need Centrepoint. There is nothing behind it, you know. Or do we link the
residential and -- well, we are not going to do it until the businesses are there. It's -- it's
kind of this difficult situation that we are in and I remember a few months back if you just
do a mile and a quarter, mile and a half to the south on Eagle Road to -- on the east side
having a very long discussion about a vacant lot and connection point and they will
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 86 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 58 of 71
connect someday and we went ahead with that proposal because someday they will
connect and there will be an access point. So, it's -- I see it in a similar vein. There will
be access. It's on our master street plan. It makes sense. If you look at the satellite map
it was -- the width is there. When? You're right, we have no guarantees, no certainty, but
I -- you know, I had -- to me I have to -- I have to close up Dashwood. You got how many
apartments there at the Brickyard that people will find a way if they are going to Rocky
Mountain or where ever, they find that's quicker to weave their way through, they will do
it. So, to me there is -- and not having the benefit of having been through this process
before, as the other three gentlemen have, I think it's a good development. They have
responded well to --to the request and the needs of the neighborhood. So, that's --that's
where I'm coming from. I respect everyone's opinion, everyone has thought through
these things and sometimes we just come out to a different conclusion.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Just want to correct the record for Mr. Hoaglun. He referred to three of us as
gentlemen. There is only two of us that are gentlemen and I will let you figure out which
two to count.
Simison: I think now is a perfect time to make a motion, as Councilman Hoaglun left, so
it's an odd vote. Oh.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor it said my internet connection wasn't stable. I have another
computer, so I thought I need to shut some things down over there and make sure I don't
miss out on all this fun. Well, Mr. Mayor, I will throw one out and knowing that it may not
go anywhere, so be it. We have already closed the public hearing. So, I would actually,
I do have one comment or request before I make a motion and that was on the the trees
to the south. You know, I'm -- I'm very willing to have those remain in the southwest
corner, but keeping those trees -- I didn't see an option for the setbacks with those trees
and the lot size that would have to mitigate that and where it says as many existing trees
as possible on the southern border of the site shall be -- the site shall be retained on the
site -- I was thinking that they could remove and mitigate as -- as -- as --as necessary.
So, anyway, that's -- that's where I was coming from on that and where I will go on this,
but if that's an issue with someone I would like to know.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I read that differently and it is a little bit confusing the way it's worded in here,
but I read it as determining whether we are going to require the owner to mitigate that if
they choose to take them down for firewood. Am I misunderstanding that?
Allen: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 87 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 59 of 71
Simison: Yes, ma'am.
Allen: If I -- if I may answer that. Council Woman Perreault, it would be the developer
that would be responsible. It was the owner that was planning to remove the trees for
firewood. That's why -- that's why staff didn't place a condition on it for mitigation as is
typical. It was a little different deal. But this condition would be on the developer if you
choose to put one on them. Thank you.
Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I would move approval of Item 7-13, H-2019-0027, with the following conditions
to be modified. 1-C. Not limit to single story. Modify 1-F. Remove the word temporary
and just have it be that Dashwood would be emergency access only. And also a condition
that the trees in the southwest corner remain to the extent possible and I think on -- on
the conditions that mitigation has been pointed out, will -- will follow the developer if there
are other trees that are removed on -- on the site in other areas. So, with -- with those
points I would move approval of H-2019-0027.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Hoaglun: Question for Councilman Hoaglun. I don't have 1-C in front of me. Is that the
condition that allows just the northern boundary to be single level, but not the west
boundary?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, yes, that's my understanding that
referred to the northern boundary.
Perreault: If that's the case, then, I second your motion.
Allen: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Sonya.
Allen: That condition is not number 1-C, it's number 1-D as in David.
Hoaglun: I definitely want to get it right. I had written down 1-C. So, if it is 1-D I would
like to amend my motion to -- to make that fit to the correct condition.
Simison- Okay. Does the second agree?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, yes, the second agrees. Thank you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 88 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 60 of 71
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I'm going to be a no vote tonight and I -- and I think even if it does pass, I'm glad
we are trying to do something about temporary access on -- on -- to the Alpine Pointe
Subdivision. I just -- to me there is safety issues in that neighborhood with how close the
streets are and if ACHID decides to open that street up I think it's going to cause a lot of
issues. I think in the meantime, to Councilman Bernt's point, now we are going to be left
with this development that might have really limited access in and out. It just doesn't feel
like the right order that we should be going in and that's hard and I -- I applaud the
applicant for really improving the application. I just -- I just -- I think we have got to get
the connectivity that we are looking for in the right order that we are looking for it or else
we might be left with a real mess on our hands for like ten years and I just -- it's just too
important to me to get it right. I don't think it makes sense to vote for it. So, I will be voting
against it.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I have to say I think since we have become a new Council this is probably the
most excited I am to see how a vote plays out. I will just -- I'm just going to reiterate. This
is a wonderful in-fill project. We have talked in so many meetings about wanting to make
in-fill a priority, but the reason why we want to make in-fill a priority is because it's never
easy and it never fits into a perfect box. We can't wrap a bow on it. And it doesn't always
follow the plan that we hope. This is a great project that is going to meet the needs of our
community. Thoughtfully designed. I think that we as a Council tonight -- again even
knowing where some of you are going to land on this vote tonight, the fact that you put
the time and attention to kind of deliberate on some of these small -- what appear to be
smaller issues, just speaks so much to our approach to serving our citizens. I think this
is a great project. It's a great piece of in-fill. I'm obviously going to be supportive of the
motion and I would hope that you would all be, too. Let's vote.
Simison: If there is no further comments I will ask the clerk to call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, nay; Borton, nay; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, nay; Perreault,
yea.
Weatherly: Mayor Simison?
Simison: My first time I get to vote I'm going to explain my vote before I cast it and for me
it does come down to connectivity and Councilman Cavener talked about it all in terms of
the pluses and minuses of the in-fill and there is give and take, you don't always get what
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 89 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 61 of 71
you want when you do it from that standpoint and I agree with everything about the quality
of the project from when I first saw proposals for this when I was a staff member about
this coming in from the city of Boise and considering it, but one of my frustrations that I
have in the whole land use policy discussion and it's really born with ACHID and I'm going
to go back to last year when there was a conversation about another in-fill project where
they pick winners and losers in terms of what roads would be connected and what roads
would not be connected and, quite frankly, we all have the struggle in our subdivisions
about people that drive by our homes, why we get to choose that, why we don't get to
choose that and I understand some people buy their homes with the anticipation that no
one will do that. But when we have roads that are eligible to be connected and we choose
not to do it or when ACHD weighs in and chooses not to make roadway connections that
are there to be established, I have a hard time, especially on an in-fill project, because
you don't have any idea what the true nature of the movements of the people in that area
are going to be. So, my vote tonight is going to make probably nobody happy, except for
the homeowners, but I'm going to vote no, but it's because the road is not being fully
connected. That to me is something that does need to occur if we are going to have
connectivity in our community. I know that's not what the homeowners wanted. I know
that's not what the applicant proposed. But that's the rationale for me voting no on this
project is the -- is that road not being connected as an access point. So, the motion fails.
MOTION FAILED: THREE AYES. THREE NAYS. MAYOR NAY.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt- I move that we deny item H-2019-0027.
Strader- Second.
Simison- I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion?
Nary- Mr. Mayor?
Cavener- Mr. Mayor?
Nary- I just -- Mr. Mayor, if I could just make -- if the maker of the motion would clarify the
basis for the -- why it's not in the best interest of the city.
Bernt: I move that we deny item H-2019-0027 for conductivity purposes. I believe that in
the best interest of our city and that -- that region of our community I believe that in order
to solve all of the problems that we are debating tonight, both back and forth, those that
have been discussed by the applicant and also the residents and us as the decision
makers on -- as Council and the Mayor himself, I believe the only way that we can solve
this problem is connecting Centrepoint all the way to Wainwright and so that's the basis
of this -- this denial for myself.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 90 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 62 of 71
Nary: Thank you.
Simison: Does the second agree with that, the termination for themself?
Strader: I agree.
Simison: Is there discussion on the motion?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I don't want to belabor the point, but this is something that this Council, the
Planning and Zoning Commission, citizens, have wrestled with for a year. The applicant
has made considerable changes. I guess I don't know if there is any other changes that
could come to this -- this application that would satisfy the three in opposition, I just would
-- I always like to give the applicant who has spent so much time and attention one last
opportunity to make any changes before we push a denial and I don't know if that would
change anybody's mind, but I know that we typically frown on substitute motions, but I will
likely be opposing that motion just in case there is another opportunity for the applicant
to have another look at this.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton- I don't know what that means.
Cavener- Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Councilman Cavener.
Cavener- While I think I have a good understanding as to why the four of you opposed it,
I don't know if there would be any changes to the design of the project that you would,
then, be supportive of or if it's only we either connect Wainwright or whatever the name
of that street is and that's -- that's why you would support it or if there is nothing that would
get you to change your mind. I'm one that always believes in giving the applicant the
opportunity to course correct or fix what we believe are deficiencies prior to rendering a
decision. Now, if there is not anything that will change anyone's mind, then, we don't
need to go through that exercise, but if there is, then, I think it's at least worthy of giving
the applicant the opportunity to address it.
Perreault- Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Council Woman Perreault.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 91 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 63 of 71
Perreault: Considering that a denial requires the applicant to wait a year before
reapplying, I agree with Councilman Cavener.
Hoaglun: Mr. -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I -- you know. And that was my course of questioning. I wanted to find out if
we knew any of the details about the property to the north at Centrepoint Way would
traverse to see if -- you know, if there was some certainty and there was not, but with the
limited information he shared and obviously -- and no doubt that he didn't know of
anything, unless, you know, someone's going in to purchase the property with that intent
of developing right now, you know, I would be open to allowing him to try, but I -- I'm not
optimistic about that at all. So, I just -- without -- without that connectivity the votes aren't
there and I think it's back to the drawing board or waiting until someone develops it up
front and then -- then they might come back in and be able to go again, so --
Simison: Well, for the -- for the other three of you I explained to you my main rationale
for the denial -- or from my no vote, but I don't think that's where the Council wants to go
and I'm not going to say that's the right place for it to go, but --
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I don't mean to beat a -- you know, my drum any more than I have. At -- at the
end of the day there is -- there is just too many question marks for me and we just -- we
have heard this application twice and both times it's boiled down to the same reasoning
for the most part. So, we have had great discussion tonight. I mean I remember back in
the day when we had these applications and they lasted five or ten minutes, I mean now
-- I mean like it's -- it's fantastic how we -- we dot every I and cross every T and I -- and I
love every second of it. So, I personally don't know -- you know, I don't know what else
the developer could do in order to fix this issue, other than connecting a road and he has
no control over that, so --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: The -- the challenge is that that -- there is probably never going to be a point
at which owners in Alpine Pointe are going to want that to connect. It's just-- it's not going
to happen and so whether it's this application or it's another application that comes before
us in the future, this conversation is not going away and that for me is one of the elements
of why I'm taking the perspective I'm taking, because looking at the application itself, it's
a good application, it falls within the Comprehensive Plan, they have made the
modifications, but a majority of the modifications that were recommended by the Planning
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 92 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 64 of 71
and Zoning Commission they made. The applicant has responded to nearly everything
that has been requested and so what I guess -- I guess I'm saying all this to ask the
question of the other Council Members, is this a let's wait until Wainwright goes through
and all of this entire area gets developed, including the property to the north and this
property jointly, or is this a matter of Dashwood needs to connect period? Those are, in
my opinion, two very different things that affect Alpine Pointe one way positively and one
waynegatively. But one way or the other Alpine Pointe's always going to have an interest
in what happens with Dashwood and that's not going to change whether it's this
application or a different one.
Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, just to answer that question --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. To me we cannot have Dashwood open. The -- the -- the -- the
apartments at the Brickyard do not have connectivity and Dashwood, that -- that would
be a travesty for the neighborhood. They have made it very clear. I get it. I understand
it, you know, and -- and Mr. Marcos, if he's still on, we don't need to see your face and --
and have you at City Hall, because you guys made the -- made the the case very very
well and it is a matter of having to me that alternate collector that that arterial, sorry,
that goes through there. Centrepoint Way. So, yeah, to me it's not about that connectivity,
that -- that to me I don't think should ever happen.
Cavener: Here. Here.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I'm in agreement in general with the thought process. I -- I feel like the
connection on Dashwood is problematic for the neighborhood and in the absence of a
good connection that either alleviates the need to have only temporary access or create
an alternative or better access, so unless we have an alternative we would be approving
a project that doesn't have any connectivity or a situation that might get overruled and we
are going to fight with ACHID and we don't get the outcome that we want anyway. So, I
just -- I really took to heart Councilman Bernt's and Borton's points about trying to do this
in the right order and the applicant could go through all the efforts in the world and I
applaud them for doing it, but if it's just not the right timing and it's not the right outcome
we are looking for, I just can't approve it and that's where I'm at. I don't see how they
could -- short of working with the other parcels to the north to come up with the
connectivity we are looking for, I don't see how it solves the issue and we have gone
around and around and I think it's unfair to prolong the process for the neighbors and for
everybody else to go through this continuously. Unless there was -- like I said, unless
there was a connectivity solution that we are looking for.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 93 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 65 of 71
Simison: And I think I would just add that this does -- it's a -- it's different, but it's very
reminiscent of the project two weeks ago in south Meridian where we have one parcel
that wants to develop, we have others that did not, which was creating challenges in this
area and if it all developed at the same time you may have a lot more options that make
sense for this area. So, that is something that I think has merit for the future. It may not
ever solve the issue, though, and -- is there any further comments or should I have the
clerk call the roll?
Bernt: Call the roll.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, just one last comment. People see the tie vote that we just
had and think, wow, they are really divided on this issue. We really are not divided on
this issue, it's just a matter of when that connection is to be made. I mean I think we are
pretty much in agreement on that. So, yeah, this is not a divided Council if anybody gets
-- don't get the wrong idea, because it's just a matter of when that will happen. If we
believe it will happen we can do the development and it will happen or let's make that --
make sure that happens and, then, we do the development. So, that's all.
Bernt: Great point. Well said.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, if I'm understanding correctly, what we are essentially saying is that any
applicant that comes in to develop this property is really just not going to get -- I guess so
long as the -- the six of us are here -- likely not going to get approval unless Wainwright
is extended all -- or, excuse me, Centrepoint is extended all the way up to Wainwright.
Well, if there is a -- if there is an individual or a company that comes in and wants to
develop that north parcel or the owner who is currently there, that's going to make it really
hard for them to develop that north parcel, because Centrepoint wasn't connected up from
the south. So, I just see this -- sort of this circular, you know, situation where the property
to the north doesn't really have value as a -- as a developable piece, because Centrepoint
doesn't connect to it and so you are not going to have somebody that's going to come in
and finish the north side of Centrepoint up to Wainwright if you don't have the south piece
already done. So, essentially, what we are saying, in essence, by default is that none of
this is going to get developed unless it all gets done together with all of those parcels in
between what exists now and Alpine Pointe. I just want to throw that out there.
Nary: Mr. Mayor? I appreciate Council Member Perreault's comments, because that is
a concern. You are placing this condition that they cannot fix. It is a highway district. If
you recall, the highway district even testified before -- it wasn't tonight, so I don't want to
raise it, but the roadway is designed and on their master street map and it is a planned
future, but you are, essentially, prohibiting this parcel from developing even if they can
meet any other means to meet the traffic conditions they are creating; right? So, I mean
at the right time it's okay, I'm not concerned about that, but the reality is is you have made
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 94 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 66 of 71
it so no one can develop this parcel until somebody else builds a roadway that is not on
the city, it's not an ACHD five year work plan and so no development of any kind can
occur there, even if they can mitigate their impact and that's a little more concerning to
me from a -- from a defended -- defending it standpoint, is that's -- that's a problematic
condition you are placing on this one property that has at least presented some evidence
to show they are meeting their needs for safety for the volume of traffic and all of those
things and the condition about the connectivity is a different condition that's not really their
making or their ability to change. So, it is a concern. But, again, I understand your points.
Everybody's point is valid. I get it. And annexation is a different animal, but that is
problematic, not just for this developer, for any other developer.
Simison: Mr. Nary, if-- could you address -- because I feel like this condition has existed
up at the -- I forget the -- the property right there by the Meridian Road interchange where
it required a connection to Corporate coming in that was, again, off property.
Nary: Right. And Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, that's a great example. So,
when that project was denied, again, it was because all of the traffic was predominantly
going to spill through the subdivision and they had very little connectivity to the other
roadway system there and they couldn't fix that. So, again, like I said, in an annexation
-- I mean you have a greater latitude on what you can do, but I think Council Member
Perreault has pointed out a bigger fact. You can -- in that parcel you had a very large
piece that you can address in many different ways to try to address the traffic. But was a
little different. This is an adjoining parcel. They don't own it. It's not one piece. That's a
little more problematic. And, again, the roadway system is completely within the purview
of ACHD and they don't have a future project to build that road yet. They -- they have it
in their plans, but they aren't planning on doing it. So, I think what Council Member
Perreault is at least raising is you aren't just setting the stage for this applicant, you are
setting the stage for anybody else that wants to develop in this area, that it's all or nothing
and that hasn't been a very common practice by the city.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I don't agree with that perspective personally. Just to share my view on it, I think
that the stakes for this development are significantly higher because of its location and
the specific density in this area. I don't think we are saying there is a hard and fast rule,
but we are -- at least speaking for myself I'm voting for what I think is in the best interest
of our community as a whole and I think achieving the connectivity that we want is
important and I wouldn't underestimate, you know, the entrepreneurial abilities for any
applicant to work with an adjoining parcel and work out a business deal or figure
something out in the future. I just -- you know. So, I don't think we are saying there is a
-- there is a precedent that we are setting by this, I just -- for me, for this application, the
timing and the stakes I think for the neighborhood that's next door and also just the
amount of folks that are living in the Brickyard, I mean those are all factors that are
weighing on it. And also the safety factor of the roadway, Dashwood, if that were to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 95 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 67 of 71
connect, you know, I don't think it's an appropriate road to funnel like all of the traffic for
this one development through it and I also don't think it's workable to end up with basically
one entrance and exit for a massive subdivision if -- if we are closing Dashwood. I just
think the specific circumstances warrant -- warrant the vote.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: In regard to traffic from Brooksburg, which is there whether this gets approved
or not, there are many different exits out of that area not just Centrepoint. So, they -- that
-- there is a street that runs in front of Fast Eddy's that goes out to Eagle Road. There
are several exits out of the commercial area in that -- there is multiple exits out of the
commercial area. Some are right turn only, some are left turn onto Eagle Road, but -- but
all of the -- all of the Brickyard apartments don't just have to use Centrepoint to get out of
their community, there is already connections that exist. There is that -- again, there is
two or three different options for them to exit onto -- onto Eagle Road, as well as to exit
to the south onto Ustick. So, this isn't just a one -- a one in one out scenario on
Centrepoint for the apartments that have already been approved.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: To maybe ask Mr. Naryaboutthe implications orthe ramifications of the motion,
if I remember correctly, this initially was continued because we needed to get the okay
from the city of Boise that they were comfortable with releasing this property from the city
of Boise area of impact into Meridian. If the denial is approved tonight, do we prevent the
applicant from going to the city of Boise and being able to explore doing a project within
their jurisdiction?
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Cavener, the process
would be the same in reverse. They would have to come to you first to request to be
released from our city's area of impact. You would make that separate decision from this
application on whether or not that makes sense to this Council to allow this to be removed
to the city of Boise and, then, the city of Boise would have to agree to accept it back and
do the map amendment changes that they did last fall. The other option, just throwing it
out there just for your consideration, they are still in the county. I don't know what level
of development is allowed in the county for what they are seeking. Obviously, there is
sewer and water issues about that, but they are -- that's certainly an option they have as
well. But, yeah, they could certainly come back and ask for it to go back to Boise.
Simison- Although I would -- I would think that the county would not allow them to develop
based upon the location and the availability of sewer and water. So, I highly doubt that
would occur.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 96 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 68 of 71
Nary: Yeah. The only thing I would suggest that -- Mr. Mayor, is that Central District
Health is the issue on septics and not the county and they have already stated in the past
if we won't annex them they will allow them to build a septic. Now, again, can they build
a septic for this level of development, I don't think so. But, again, they have other options
besides this one.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I don't buy into the notion that we are setting any type of precedent this evening.
All right? Because we are given facts on developments, proposed projects, and we
deliberate, we make decisions based upon those facts. By -- by-- by assuming that there
is a precedence being set is that you are saying that all future projects for this area are
going to be the exact same and so -- and I just don't -- I just don't think that -- I mean I
don't know how you could ever say that or-- or-- or how we could even assume that. We
weren't -- we were given a set of facts and we were -- we listen to deliberation all night
long and we vote on what we hear and so to say that, you know, that is going to be the
same going forward and that it's going to be a no vote going forward, is -- is not -- I don't
believe it's a fair statement to make.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I know that that was -- that wasn't what I was communicating. What I was
communicating was -- is that as far as how these parcels are laid out, if we are going to
require that Wainwright be connected in through the north parcel in order for the south
parcels to be to be developed, whether it's this project or a different residential project,
however the the project is laid out is not a factor in the discussion we are having right
now. The fact is is that -- that now we are tying two parcels with two different owners and
we are saying that unless both of you develop in such a way that Wainwright -- that
Centrepoint and Wainwright connect, then, neither of those parcels, no matter how great
their application is, is going to work, because we are saying that whether it's this piece or
whether it's the piece to the north, Mr. Wong's property, we are saying that Wainwright
has to connect all the way through all of those parcels in order for the city to be
comfortable with the connectivity. So, it's not a precedent. I'm not -- I'm not saying we
are setting any kind of precedent about how we vote regarding these types of applications,
I'm saying on these specific parcels in this specific location, we are saying that the south
parcel cannot develop without the north being developed, because Wainwright's got to go
through both of them to connect to it's -- in its current location.
Borton- Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Mr. Borton.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 97 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 69 of 71
Borton: I agree with Councilman Hoaglun's comments -- now it's been a while ago -- but
I think we are all on the same page, seeing things a little different, but this is I think healthy,
good, robust discussion and helpful. Having said that, if I may, I would call the question
on the motion.
Simison: Okay. The question has been called. I will ask the clerk to call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, nay; Hoaglun, nay; Strader, yea; Perreault,
nay.
Simison: Aye.
Weatherly: Sorry?
Simison: I said aye. Sorry. Motion passes. Four to three.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. THREE NAYS. MAYOR AYE.
Item 8: Ordinances [Action Item]
A. Ordinance No. 20-1879: An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing
Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, Regarding Flood
Damage Prevention; Voiding Any Conflicting Provisions; and
Providing an Effective Date
Simison: Item 8-A is an Ordinance No. 20-1879. 1 will ask the clerk to read this ordinance
by title.
Weatherly- Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ordinance No. 20-1879, an ordinance repealing and
replacing Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, regarding flood damage prevention;
voiding any conflicting provisions-, and providing an effective date.
Simison- You have heard this ordinance read by title. Would anybody like to have it read
in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Simison: And move that we approve Ordinance No. 20-1879, repealing and replacing
Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code regarding flood damage prevention.
Hoaglun- Mr. Mayor?
Simison- Councilman Hoaglun.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 98 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 70 of 71
Hoaglun: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 20-1879. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Bernt, yea; Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea; Perreault,
yea.
Simison: Ordinance passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Item 9: Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Item 9. Any items of future meeting topics?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Recognizing I'm talking about future meeting topics and I wasn't at the
workshop meeting today when we talked about a future meeting topic I -- I requested, so
my apologies to Council for not making the workshop, but I thought it might be beneficial
-- there has been a lot of dialogue amongst Council Members and staff about our working
relationship with the school district. I know you and your staff are working really hard to
fill a much needed position to help address some of that, but a thought might be if it's
worth us as a Council discussing maybe creating a Council liaison role to the district. You
know, we have got liaison roles with so many other boards and organizations and perhaps
this may be another step forward in trying to really build a collaborative relationship with
the school district and their trustees and, again, I don't know if it's something that the rest
of the Council feels strongly about one way or another. Perhaps that could be a
conversation for a future meeting.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Bernt.
Bernt: You know, I apologize, it's sort of late and my internet connection went sort of
fuzzy, so I didn't -- I didn't hear what Luke said, unfortunately, at the beginning.
Simison- If I could have a future meeting topic regarding liaison roles with West Ada
School District.
Bernt: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 99 of 616
Meridian City Council
May 12,2020
Page 71 of 71
Simison: Okay. Are there any other future meeting topics? If not, I would entertain a
motion.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we adjourn the meeting.
Hoaglun: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adjourn the meeting. Is there any discussion
on the motion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed nay. The
ayes have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:13 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
5 / 26 /2020
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATEAPPROVED
ATTEST-
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 26,2020— Page 100 of 616
E N
DIAN ---
IDAHO
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Item Title: Future Meeting Topics - Public Forum
(Up to 30 Minutes Maximum)
Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required. This time is reserved for
the public to address their elected officials regarding matters of general interest
or concern of public matters and is not specific to an active land
use/development application. By law, no decisions can be made on topics
presented under this public comment section, other than the City Council may
request that the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for a more detailed
discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in
resolving the matter following the meeting
Meeting Notes:
WI IDIAN ---
IDAHO
Planning and Zoning Public Hearings
Staff Outline and Presentation
Meeting Notes:
City
-JCW- a 12 2020
-
Ash
m
e
L
i
Item #7A: Kenneth Allen Garage VAC — Zoning Map
- Legend —LL
120
Project Location
oll
W T Q%
z R-4
W
z
S
WC AT A U DR
Rutledge � L'RI-8
ieral - -
z
DISPLAY FOR Proposed
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION
LOCAT7M IN LOT 7 BLOCK 3 TUTHILL ESTATES NO, 1
A PORTION OF THE SW1/4 OF THE NWl/4
SECTION 2, T3N R1W, B.M.
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO S 'te Plan
N89°1936'W-125.00'
0 10 20 40
SCALE: 1" = 20'
TUTHILL ESTATES No. 1 6
LOT 7 BLOCK 3 v
9 b
W 125'
N I N
20 --
z
LEGEND < i i 10'
f�€JBLIC UTILITY Boundary Line i
EASEMENT VACATED ------------- Easement Line O ro i House f ii CD
— --- — Setback Line 3 O1
_ S89°0534E-125.04' - - - - U
T ITIAL POINT >� Z w SUBDIVISION
5.00 S89-0634-E-125.00'
5.00 z 76' 15'
S89-0634-E-125.00' E v
PREPARED BY �-�. -----
SHARP & 9MrrE INC. j
327 N. 27th 125'
8015E, 10 83702 Proposed
1-208-344-0676 lid Storage
Bldg
Easement to SITE PLAN ACTION STEEL BUILDERS INC.
�.0. Box 2604
2420 N. Victor Woy Eagle, ID 83616
0 20 40 80
be Vacated Located /n Lot 7 Block 3 -208-322-1333
Tuthill Estates Sub No. 1
PREPARED BY
Section 2, TJIV R 1 W, B.M SHARP & SMITH INC.
Scale: 1" = 40' Ada County, Idaho 327 N. 27th
BOISE, ID 83702
1-208-344-0676
�y 1■■1■■1■1� .1
� - ■1 ■1■■IY� � _ _ ��� i1i■llliiR�� - - _ _
- F - ■ Z :■ ■ ��1� ■ SI * * : NI��iiiiE' � �
oil
• F u■ 1 i■1� �I�11 =1 a IININI � � � • • � IIII: �R f��� `�;; J��ulrrr ■■rn � • • i • ; , , .:� - -
■■1■1 ■■ - illllll -. ■IIIIIIIIN(L -�*f�Ir Y r■(�!■ rrrllr
1■1■1■ - : 4111111 �I111111111■ ■ ♦ 1■IIII •� • ■IIIIII �-irlillrlrl ':: p
■11■1■ 1■li ■1 Ir�l 111111IrN 11111111111■ ■■ I wl �.■ll111r1l1 `, u, .
' 1"111 fi 1111 Ill llllllll��i■1 ■1�1f111!l17�11l1■7■ � a �i11 ■■a� ►911111r��f�llpl■IIr
G - . _ "�"' r 1► 'i� �� 1411111ni11r!!llr��=1
■■ i -� 1■ � � '�� '� � ► �
Sri - �i �� ` � ��� j� i� ■ �•�■ ,� Illlrll -r �■ r i -� �
itpp
■ IIII■ ��■ � 22 � � + � ! � �. � lII�III ■r<� i ,, :.�; : " � _, � i� 'i�� �� .. ,
■ - ■ ■ ■ ■ a 9i11111111111 � � ���*♦� �i� ■ N �Illr .r � �IIr111111111 *I� - � .. Yd� �41�, ' - r
. ■�It s■1 - 11 . ► 'r!i ��- �rA■A■111 =,,f•' . ', T�,`-_'yieF� 1
Is mill son --Ii
r- If1 � u■ 1�■■1���/Ii1 I��I ��__�� �r � *i■iN ,�#� i"' r, r �•..�.: - �.�; , , •
r111r� �■
� �i■■ : ■■ ��1 � *� ��� � ;, - � ram* � __..
� �■ ■� .. .. � �-■ - ..:�� �i i� #��*fir*� �►**�� �rl■ i_:� ,
af�fi2 ■r■■1 ■ - ...:■.� MEN Em IA►if 1f�■■: ice is ■ �r } �� ` .r ` +' _ . _. ...
■■■■■ 1■1■ ■■ - ■ s■ F MINI ■ ��r■1■■! logololls ris■ ■■ _ -1 , r;
■ ■■ - ■1■Itt - 11■111■■1■ - _■ i S'1111111 ' ■ ■__ - ■rl � � .:}: . .. ! .. .:^^
■■ _ - , - _■ ■ fi'fi ■ ■ I NONNIis1 =i _ W IAr■ r ,- . a r. ;y..'Y - _ ? ■ i. " .
■■ - 111 = 11 ■■■ � i!i ■■ ■ii#� IIII 11i11 :y►1 _i - � �Il1 'i k', _ ■ ; ,"',. �
■ ■ 1■IIII■ _! ■ �• 11 + ■■ -�A 1AANIra� - rll r _ ■
- ■ - - : A■�A��IIIIIIIV W
■ 1■111■ IIII III -■ _ � � � ■ ■ rlrrrr � � ` � � 1 _ • � - � � .,
$� � u■ _ Ili ■ w _. �' .r. �-, .',
■� 1■1■ r ■IIIIII - � � IIIII ' a■ IIrIr!■ �illllilllr►� ,.+ !Y■■ -- - - f1■1 ,
i■! ■ ■ IIII! II IIIII = - ■�1111 �i�� ■ice IIII■�?;�!illllll = ■�! �■rl V
� ' IIIII G� ����� �� ■■■t■■ .��■1■ r111■�, �� l#IIII!! � i ■11 � - t.
1■/tea■■�� uulal ����llullnA �r _ M,
■■■■■ III _■■ :■'Ill _ aAm
VTIf\
-III IIIIII■■ti - � - l �� �
sl I I■� -•■ ■■■■ �- Noll! 1
III IIII
.I■ ■ _ .
z
tF -lhLi 6Mh Mftd4 ft w+ _ k3F PeAlb FOB iF„r.
91
{ 1 •, 7, t i!i fM A"� it
� l��111
won
rp
r �
Lw.1
i
F ii @"a FYIY-p■. + PLMwF�lplw.*l.
pir so
Y + t
ORR4. iw i
-
i i ! �r
f * f IF f !a * �� Y i•
�• on
Y+ -
mr w
IL
3
� r 7z?v m
R-Q I'm Sr
ux (� s a�xr t
Proposed Zoning {t
p 9 �
w7,
w :� I,
Rmw
Ow AWAM
14
r.r,.t fmat #
t
.. I
I Pr J.A[mac I
6011 OLM I f JIpow Ill �` 4
SF CP�
!eL Jt
w LOr 1,am t
w mpV Ao�
k
r
R- 1 5 R-4
forx■=J ti
I s- *
dk L
}' LOr Z i14�Pr t rE Avgw ul
�srt �a+r �sr��r s,t�n!
r- - •r-•t� v;
rf
Preliminary Plat/Landscape Plan
I
F Y
�.r.� ....x,•
r - � � a _ � - - � a a. R•'P4!.TF�T+�4��+F¢YL.• �Y.Aft+P iyF
5+.r+.k. +....te r.�.. w�. 6.rF 0-41�—# + .a + a--s--ff
fpwr
s.�WLW
n.w
y a l FEE*W"A.wT'I1r•M�kT • 'Ift.+w+EaF PW
r� " �. • 6'VwT'L PRI+I � �'� � ;!� e Sewn Ior]N Ff!,
r � +
rum
�.K
G I
- - �
. +
r
L
5
�+ - ��;+•mow
' # awe t#� ■ iiF#ihLL 1 .0 ff~i
0 R r p old
1pol§ CQ
DeI,Ia
.� I'V1111" Flo
,k
"Ib�
e rim .
ti■ + 1'■�R� ■M+ tiRr 4� f t AftELF�■'
I — x RPM Sp■w"owR�Rw now�4 .1*MR V~�
WWI
i
1
tc.cr L I
4 A 1 ii1�•
w■� � w"ft 4 O� `A pry 1
-{� Jasmine Y
I I
�Ih�■F ii■�li�i
Possible Conceptual Development Plan for Parcel to the North 6
' � 1
_ Possible Future Development Pattern
DRIL F
CL
IE
OVA
f Q r' si
I .
C:-G E
-raAxstav&R
— - C:-G
7
On-Street Parking Exhibit
4�
■ t # r . Y # 4 }
p
i1PPwmW
f r parking
in
spaces
do
' r
YL I {{
Y A
.. r
■ ■ +■%A+
L i r
MVLLT J1
WOO vweL ol IN
F•
.. � � .3 � .. .a Lf F. w � * � ■ ■ a s
99L +
t• t f ! -f � - � i - i. .t —i t f t y t� t � # a * — — � � � r — � — t — a � � � � :
Qualified Open Space Exhibit 8
a & Site Amenities
Proposed Arrrenities:
I
Lame 2f 3•Acre IVvghbarhood Park The large park will contain the t,- -
Shade Structure
Play strutlure
Seating areas with benches
Climbing Dome
Climbing Boulders
I Public Art
l 4 -
I Lhal rrrr,
1 � ,
3
ULMO SuWrviSIOM
1.17 acres of qualified open OPEN SPACE EthYaR
space Without crossed Out area RESIDEKT14L AREA-1:11 AS ACRES �
quALR UNC OPEN SWE-R 1.23 ACRES 110 VW _
Nate: The crossed out area does not count tolvard the minimum qualified open space standards because it isn't
accessible at the west end, per UDC 11-3G-3B.I e.
I'
. 1
•
a
.o
Conceptual Building Elevations 10
Single-Family Detached Homes
#ROPO�SED MOM ELE VAT MI A14D 14OL7S NOSTTLE5At
r r
r
in.-A
} r- T
.1i
rid
I 77"
a
e all"Mot IN=
. -
y. -ME y 40
r s {D
40
LFY
IL
T
■ # ..�.� I .... _1 ---� .-- i ilk■► 1��, � �'.
I I
-tol #-. I'1� r±7¢ �—
ASO
n 167"51 A -5 1 [
dp
IS
1 .� 0 �IRa
T -
man
imam -
_Sir
pvp { ISE
JFL
-'-
�:
+ '
Wei
%.
' +jp- i• r __
Preliminary Plat
N6339'12'E 727.7O'
744n �a�oc' SLOP' �a cn' s,.dP' E�.IP'
BLOCIf4 BLAC' 1 I
8 8 T 5 ` 5 4 3 2IF; -",
1 1 a 1 $ 2 3 4
.g .31 F g II*W aF Skip� rL1+Cr $ �+u 1t $ MO F $ r,4a SF n MI sF I'm 5F a s+�5 9F g e%1 sF
I p
42.4d u.o7 fapd' S,.40' Sa cu' 7a.ny Si.OP' +s.aat = tA
d+r:7 yIAC' 573,'
1447 SFr8 � s a Eoeuwsre�r $�.W 131+ti
am
z" 10 5w sr1 ! 3h_----_—___wllun._
,nocn' HI ng IW m RSd 1 169F ]®Er # 1'.56' 1d466 I
aIN ZF h I BLOOf 3 - =845 3F ;� I 51 sari SF
_ MCI' e000 ao
zs m I o4•.w o-,em' I
w
I
redw '71n�' @LCC14 2 d
8 $
12 $
# � 5784 W
$ 14 # I
1 41.67 G/lY 45. R{1Y ldxdd' lnn nlf L1.'++ R�' I
,loud- ,41n<r $ 12 2
1 3 e 44IM 5F WN sr `¢' 9 �I
'JI1 SF 7+4!w A
1000. L
# swo BF g em4 sr g I 1w a� — —
wagazbo'E ss�.2s'
I W loom
g >�4n g' Y} +i6 4 Q 0..RF cl c p qW1�sF
W4 sF eoas 4 71 "2 12 6 aI 9 q�.BLOa7
1,042. .
y +0I4 7 LI J —
I
lG $ # 8 ,a.w'15cxo 1 +0.117 pI■ I
_ VALE a+Fr
v = BlOOL 3 = T 'n.uv roaaa' e,sv s 1
It ,_u # $ teeE f $ aool a 1
.1 SE o q 5 1 Ot.os' 1 I
04DP W I
„.n,' r60.W 'ro.n7 BlO0L2 I a1 lr I
+4a� ,dxOP' � 12 I � I 9LAU4 5
ww� soaa SF g soou>t k1 S o 6 R N ti ffi I R
COW" c � +aae SF -w SF
it Sall" 1 '610Y ,07cn icn an' Y04' 1 S1 o I 1
r
I
e.�� 2.P7 ,dd Ce' ,aloe' 13 ! I x leee+a�r y}[�
__ F, 1 }3d+ t
§.%' ,. Me+r_17.--=— a ---4ae+F- — ----- ------7'S,m+SF—'---- dx a1 cc—t.~--f 1
q$2, odwLUra 5 rr E —— wwoR _ T— eawon — — 1
5 U.93' I FG.aF' xx.4d
L.W
+L5- !9.23' EJl1�f£STY.fff OF
�2! 77.BS 40,C. 40A 401%, W.M' 40 ' 40,5' 4uA[' 4QA6' 44.4Y 40.¢' wac' +d.dC' id.W i4.r'
1 I I I
\ 1 g xl1C]CYL S i9M/CHO� W 0�R ' � mrr
BW
R I
15 a 1 S $ 14 1 3 1 1 2 -9 1 1 9 10 9 8 S 7 fi 5 8 4 'r3 3 2 i
21M9 sF g �5F 8 •YC4 u a -wd s -wO sF g 4m sF$ +wo sF 8 woo>r g ,eac sr g 4POO sF 8 woo 5F 8 +wo$r g ,eat iF g ,Pau OF� 4DOG SF{� -M 5F=a ww
9
aI4 —
�Ril' �� U� U� - a11YJ — — •1 nr( �LYl U.d-0'T —aPaP' 1]nP a1� W.�JC 25:7T —4C.1P' L — — —� — — —� aLY:Y _
——— — — 5WdW3OV 1 204.02'
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #7A: Kenneth Allen Garage (H-2020-0037) (SLIDE 1 – MAPS)
Application(s):
Vacation
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.28 acres of land, zoned R-4, located at 2420 N. Victor Way.
History: Part of Tuthill Estates Subdivision No. 1
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential
Summary of Request: (SLIDE 2)Request to vacate 5 feet of an existing 10-foot wide public utility, drainage, and irrigation (PUDI)
easement located along the south property line of Lot 7, Block 3 of the Tuthill Estates Subdivision No. 1.
The applicant (property owner) is requesting to vacate half of the PUDI easement on their property in order to build a new standalone
garage five feet from the property line; five feet is the minimum interior side setback in the R-4 zoning district.
All easement holders have submitted written consent agreeing to vacate a portion of the existing easement.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the vacation as proposed by the applicant.
Written Testimony: None
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0037, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 12, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0037, as presented during the
hearing on May 12, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2020-0037 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific
reason(s) for continuance.)
Item #7B: Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) (slide 1)
Application(s):
Annexation & Zoning
Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 15.21 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 2800
& 14120 W. Jasmine Ln.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre) on the west side of Centrepointe & MU-R (Mixed Use- Regional) on
the east side of Centrepointe)
History: (slide 2)This project was originally heard by the Commission on May 2 & July 18, 2019; at the hearing on July 18th, the
th
Commission voted to recommend denial of the project to City Council. The Council heard the project on November 12 & voted to
remand the project back to the Commission to address the density issue of the proposed development and for Commission’s review of
a revised plat with changes to lots along the northern boundary of the subdivision that front on E. Della Street consisting of single-story,
detached homes and the loss of (1) buildable lot.
The revised plans before you tonight are the result of discussions at the previous City Council hearing and meetings with the
neighbors. The revisions include a reduction in the number of buildable lots from 85 to 66; a change to the proposed zoning – the
portion of the site along the north & west boundaries previously proposed to be zoned R-15 is now R-8; and a change to the conceptual
building elevations.
Since the hearing at City Council in November, the City adopted a new Comp Plan which included an amendment to the FLUM that
assigned an MU-R designation to the majority of the property that lies east of the proposed Centrepointe Way; therefore, the previous
application for an amendment to the FLUM is no longer needed & has been withdrawn. This area was formerly in the City of Boise’s
planning area but last October Boise’s City Council approved a resolution to amend the land use map of Blueprint Boise to transfer this
area from Boise’s AOCI to the City of Meridian’s AOCI boundary since Meridian is able to provide water & sewer services to the
property.
Summary of Request: (slide 3) The Applicant requests annexation & zoning of 3.31 acres of land with R-8 zoning on the north &
west portion of the site, R-15 zoning for the 8.12 acres directly to the south & east of the R-8 portion; and R-40 zoning for the 5 acres
on the east side of Centrepointe Way. The proposed zoning is consistent with the proposed development plan and the FLUM
designations for the site.
(slide 4) Preliminary plat consisting of 66 SFR building lots for the development of SFR detached homes at a gross density of 5.7
units/acre, 1 building lot for a future 96-unit MFR development at a gross density of 27 units/acre, 8 common lots & 2 other lots for
common driveways on 15.22 acres of land. The plat is proposed to develop in 3 phases as shown. A concept plan is proposed for the
multi-family portion of the site, which will require subsequent approval of a CUP.
(slide 5) One access is proposed on either side of Centrepointe Way, a collector street; and an emergency only/pedestrian access is
proposed from the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. at the north boundary of the site. A stub street is proposed to the parcel to the west
for access and future extension. Public streets are proposed within the SFR portion of the development with 27-foot wide street
sections; private drive aisles will be provided within the MFR portion of the development. The Commission, consistent with ACHD’s
action, recommends the connection of Dashwood Ave. to the existing stub street to the north (Dashwood Pl.) occur as a temporary
emergency access/pedestrian connection until Centrepointe Way is extended to Wainwright Dr., or within 10 years, whichever occurs
first. When Centrepointe Way is extended to Wainwright Dr., Dashwood Pl. will be reconstructed as a public street for vehicular
connectivity to Wainwright Dr. (slide 6) A driveway and cross-access/ingress-egress easement is required to be provided to the parcel
to the east of the MFR portion of the site since it only has access via Eagle Rd./SH-55. The Applicant provided a concept drawing
showing how development could possibly occur on the Wong parcel with the extension of Centrepointe to the north to Wainwright
consistent with the MSM in the location proposed on this site.
(slide 7) 27’ wide street sections are proposed which only allow parking on one side of the street – a parking plan was submitted that
demonstrates the amount of available on-street parking (58 spaces) as well as the location of such.
(slide 8) A 20’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along Centrepoint Way, a collector street. A minimum 10% qualified open
space is required to be provided for the overall development along with (1) site amenity. The applicant is proposing 10.8% on the SFR
portion of the site consisting of a 0.69 acre park with amenities, parkways, linear open space & a collector street buffer. Because the
MFR portion of the site is separated from the SFR portion of the site by a collector street & the development plan is conceptual at this
time, staff recommends as a DA provision that the 10% open space is provided on that portion of the site at the time of development in
addition to the open space required in the specific use standards for MFR developments.
A shade structure, children’s play structure, climbing dome, climbing boulders, seating benches & public art are proposed as qualified
amenities, which exceed UDC standards.
The Nourse Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site and is piped. An easement should be depicted on the plat for the
waterway if one exists. If there is an easement & the width is 10’ or greater, it should be located within a common lot that is a minimum
20’ wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council.
(slide 9) The elevations shown are the original elevations; (slide 10) new conceptual building elevations were submitted for the SFR
detached homes as shown; all SFR homes along the west & north perimeter boundaries of the development will be restricted to a
single-story in height as proposed by the Applicant. (slide 11) The concept elevations for the apartments are as shown & didn’t
change.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Hethe Clark, Applicant’s Representative
ii. In opposition:
iii. Commenting: Malissa Bernard; Laura Trairatnobhas; Michael Bernard; Sandi King; Kenneth Clifford; Allie Crane
iv. Written testimony: Many letters of public testimony were received (see public record); Hethe Clark, Applicant’s Representative
v. Key Issue(s):
a. The HOA to the north (Alpine Point) requests the Dashwood stub street at the north boundary
be vacated and sole vehicular access be provided to the site from the south via Centrepointe
Way to keep traffic from cutting through their neighborhood – this could also be accomplished
with a gate for emergency access only; feeling that the subdivision to the north is
“overconnected” and more connections aren’t necessary to Wainwright Dr. from the south,
especially with Centrepointe planned to extend to Wainwright in the future; requests larger lots
and single-story homes along north boundary for a better transition; belief that funds should be
provided by all development for improvement of the Eagle Rd. & Wainwright intersection;
b. Concern pertaining to the impact the proposed development will have on the capacity of area
schools;
c. Frustration from the neighbors that they weren’t aware that Dashwood was planned to be
extended in the future as there were no signs erected at the end of the stub street;
d. Concern pertaining to the removal of all of the existing evergreen trees (40+/-) along the
southern boundary of the site and request for mitigation to be required (the owner planned to
cut the trees down for firewood);
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. The Commission asked the Applicant to clarify the status of the Nourse Lateral easement along the northern
boundary of the site – the Applicant stated the Alpine Pointe Subdivision plat depicts a 15’ wide easement for
the piped lateral that exists on the adjacent property to the north within the easement; the Applicant also
proposes to depict an additional easement on the subject plat in case it’s needed for maintenance of the
lateral;
ii. The transportation plan for this area and existing and planned connections to Wainwright Dr.;
iii. Whether or not Dashwood should be extended to Centrepointe with the first phase of development as
recommended by Staff; or extended as a temporary emergency access/pedestrian connection until
Centrepointe is extended to Wainwright, or within 10 years, whichever occurs first – when Centrepointe is
exended to Wainwright, Dashwood would be reconstructed as a public street for vehicular connectivity to
Wainwright as required by ACHD.
iv. The Applicant’s request for homes along the west boundary to not be restricted to single-story in height and
for the buffer and sidewalk along the east side of Centrepointe to not be constructed until development of the
multi-family portion of the site;
v. Support for retaining the existing trees or requiring mitigation for them if removed;
vi. In support of fewer lots and lower density proposed;
vii. The timing for construction of the street buffer and sidewalk along the east side of Centrepointe Way (with the
first phase as recommended by Staff or with the 3rd phase as proposed by the Applicant).
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
a. Approved access consistent with ACHD’s decision;
b. Allowed bonus rooms on single-story homes along the west boundary with no rear facing windows for the
bonus rooms;
c. Allowed the street buffer and sidewalk along the east side of Centrepointe Way to be constructed with the
rdst
3 phase rather than the 1 phase first phase as recommended by Staff.
d. Required the Developer to retain as many trees as possible along the southern boundary of the site.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i. If Council determines that all existing trees on the site being removed should require mitigation in accord with UDC standards,
even those removed by the property owner for firewood, condition #A.3a in Section VIII should be modified accordingly.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many letters of testimony have been received (see public record)
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2019-0027, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 12, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2019-0027, as presented during the
hearing on May 12, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2019-0027 to the hearing date of ______________ for the following reason(s): (You should
state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
C-/WE IDIAN-- ITEM SHEET
Council Agenda Item -7.A.
Presenter:
Estimated Time for Presentation: 0
Title of Item - Public Hearing for Kenneth Allen Garage Vacation (H-2020-0037) by Kenneth
Allen, Located at 2420 N. Victor Way
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing
Please click this URL to join the meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83685789213
Council Notes:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description T U loa
Staff Report Staff Report 5/7/2020
REVIEWERS:
ctic a
Clerk. Weatherly,Adrienne Approved 5/7/2020 -6:56 PM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 3 of 85
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 5/12/2020 Legend
DATE: ,Z ,z
Project Location
TO: Mayor&City Council _
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner QLu—
�i
Lu
208-884-5533 a
Bruce Freckleton,Development z R-4 .
Services Manager ~
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: H-2020-0037
Kenneth Allen Garage
z
5
W
LOCATION: 2420 N. Victor Way �
Rut, -CHATE--U=DR
edge R_g
Lateral
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request to vacate 5 feet of an existing 10-foot wide public utility, drainage,and irrigation(PUDI)
easement located along the south property line of Lot 7,Block 3 of the Tuthill Estates Subdivision
No. I (see Section V.A).
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Applicant/Owner:
Kenneth Allen, Owner—2420 N. Victor Way, Meridian, ID 83646
B. Representative:
Same as owner.
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
The 5-foot wide easement proposed to be vacated consists of public utility, drainage, and irrigation
easement(see Section V.Q.
The easements on this lot are part of the standard easements placed on buildable lots when a new
subdivision is approved. The owner is requesting to vacate half of the 10-foot easement in order to
build a new standalone garage five feet from the property line; five feet is the minimum interior side
setback in the R-4 zoning district(see Section V.B).
According to some of the utility providers, there are no utilities within the easement area proposed to
be vacated.The easement holders(i.e.Cable One/Sparklight,Idaho Power,Intermountain Gas,Century
Link, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District) have all submitted written consent agreeing to vacate a
portion of the existing easement as proposed(see Exhibit V.D.).
Page 1
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 4 of 85
IV. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the vacation of easement request as proposed by the Applicant.
V. EXHIBITS
A. Recorded Plat
PLAT SHOWING IEG.
TUTHILL ESTATES ,NO, I
34 JS r.u•_,_e.+r rA jr. A SUBDIVISION • n w z r■r,x,.,,.nw.m u.
37 ' A PORTION OF SW 1/4 OF NW 1/4, SECTION 2,
T.3N., R.1 Nf. B.M..
MER€DIAN, AOA COUNTY, IE]AHO scea[
1 ■ NUeaLE€NINNEEMN0.1NC. N
r a A RUSE, IDAH❑
€ 1994 tiro
PARKKO0 MEAOOWS MJNWMCN N0.i
CUWM DATA
■o,a'x-r
- n y w — —
W I
� I 3 I _
N W �
` "q 9
k •
° ,� u n..•W:�.n rn.a,m.n.c ra.�a.-w.�za xza�m�nn rar
II .ls
'wax s
6 ' Fri 1 � nuan.nans•..s«ues•zt..wer.esxun
� °iis1°wse'"'u a M w°•'w'�"�v'��x�..r°Rn,.'".�n°n'" n°,w
„
L—'gy^rt a ew.``r.�m wxn m..m�.r,.�.,.,..v«.�m..mw•u.wf rM e:re-
MATT �' NInAR mr oe+FlmOt
5 en s a'UAAe — """` p�'P� [wrr.aw.a KM
p rsu ' •'•^'�•�� sxua 1rix emu*-- wa,new.rniiuAr+N
a i91S'SR'E{5,Ei'W 11•C) M10.N''r
Page 2 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 5 of 85
B. Site Plan Depicting Easement to be Vacated(date: 8/20/2019)
IOft
0
n 125'
I
LEGEND > Ii 10,
Boundary Line ' ' j
------------------- .Easement Line a `".'-"� House j a
-•- - ------ Setback Line � 'ir;a-,,:, ,��� �
7
z 76'
I
a
125' Proposed
o h Storage
Bldg
SITE PLAN ACTION STEEL BUILDERS INC.
P.O. Box 2604
2420 IV. I/'ctor Way Eogle, ID 83616
0 20 40 g0 LoCOted In Lot 7 Block 3 1-Zoe-322-1333
Tuthill Estotes Sub No. 1 PREPARED 2Y
Section 2, T3N RIW, R.M. SHARP & SMITH INC.
Scale: 1" = 40' Ada County, ldaho 327 N. 27Lh
8015E. ID 83702
1-208-344-0575
0
125'
' 2o'T- �
LEGEND
Bourdary Line I
--- Easement Line Ixt n . House
----- Setback Line �f; Q
U i
s
z 76 75'
LY
125'
`Proposed
Ln Storage
Bldg
SITE PLAN ACTION STEEL BUILDERS INC.
P.O. Box 2604
2420 N. V'ctor Wc), Eagle, ID 83616
Located In Lot 7 Block 3 206-322-1333
0 20 40 80 Tuthill Estates Sub No. 1
PREPARED BY
Section 2, 7-,3N R7W, B.M. SHARP & SMITH INC.
Scale: 1" = 40' Ada County, Idaho 327 N. 27.h
BOISE, IC 83702
1-208-344-0676
Page 3 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 6 of 85
C. Legal Description of Easement Proposed to be Vacated
I
DESCRIPTION FOR EASEMENT VACATION
This description is for the vacation of the north one half of the 10'Public Utility Easement
across the south portion of Lot 7 Block 3 of the Tuthill Estates No.1 as recorded in the Ada County
Records Book 65 Page 6590 located in the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter Section 2
Township 3 North,Range 1 West Boise Meridian and Ada County Idaho and more particularly
described to wit:
Commencing at the southeast corner of said subdivision which is the Initial Point for the Subdivision
and the southeast corner of Lot 7; thence along the west line for the Lot 7,NO°54'26"E(basis of
bearing west line Tuthill Estates No.1)a distance of 5.0o feet to a point and the Real Point of
Beginning;;
Thence N89°05'34"W a distance of 125.00 feet to the west line of Lot 7;
Thence NO"54'26"E along said west line of Lot 7 a distance of 5.00 feet,-
Thence S99°05'34"E a distance of 125.00 feet to the east line of Lot 7;
Thence S0"54'26"W a distance of 5.00 feet and back to the point of beginning.
Said parcel contains some 625 square feet more or less.
Page 4
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 7 of 85
DISPLAY FOR
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT VACATION
LOCATED IN LOT 7 BLOCK 3 TUTHILL ESTATES NO. 1
1 PORTION OF THE SW1/4 OF THE NW1/4
SECTION 2, T3N R1W, B.M.
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
I
`. HB9'10'SBtiIY-125.00'
❑ 10 20 40
SCALE: 1° = 20'
TUTHILL ESTATES No. 1
LOT 7 BLOCK 3
o
oI-
nl
z
PUBLIC I.TILITY
EASENEAT VACATE❑
SN'M'34`E-125.00'
INITIAL
UBQ�VESION
6.00' w SBV0534"E-125.00' _ 5,00'
SWDY34'E-125.00' PREPARE C 9Y
SHARP & SMITH INC.
:W N. 77t F.
�3015E, 10 53702
1-20B-344-0676
Page 5
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 8 of 85
D. Relinquishment Letters from Easement Holders(service providers)
1
1503 FIRST STREET SOUTH NAMPA,IDAHO 8W 1-4395
FAX#208-4&.3-0092 nmid.org
OFFICE: Nampa 208-466-786I
December 12,2019 SHOP: Nampa 2DS 466-0663
Kenneth Allen
2420 N.Victor Way
Meridian,ID 83646
R1E: Request for relinquishment of right of way—2420 N_Victor Way
Dear Kenneth:
I have reviewed your letter from December 11, 2019, asking Nampa& Meridian Irrigation
District (NMID) to respond to your request for relinquishment of a right of way on your
property.
Upon investigating our records,NMS)does not have any facilities that we operate or maintain
on your property and claims no easements or right of way.Therefore,we will have no further
comment regarding your request.
Should you have any further questions,please feel free to give me a call(208)466-0661
Sincerely,
�L A
Greg G.Curtis
Water Superintendent
Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District
GGCI gnf
Cc:
Office/File
APPROWATE IRRIGABLE ACRES
RIVER ROW RIGHT'S-2MM
B06E PROJECT RIGHTS-40A00
Page 6 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 9 of 85
DAHO
h,s+POWERO
An IOACURC Com pant
January 15,2020
,Sent via email to. allenken54, .icloud.com
Ken Allen
2420 N'Victor Way
Meridian,ID 83646
Re: Partial relinquishment of the Public Utility Easement(PUE)located in'Tuthill Estates No.
i Block 3 Lot 7 Meridian,Idaho.
Dear Ken:
This is in response to the relinquishment request submitted to Idaho Power Company dated
December 26,2019,regarding the possible partial relinquishment of the above noted PUE. More
specifically,a reduction of the l 0-foot platted PUE on the East and South sides of Block 3 Lot 7
by 5 feet(easement area). While retaining the remaining 5-foot platted Public Utility Easement
along the East and South boundary of Lot 7,
Idaho Power's review of the relinquishment request indicated that there are no facilities within
the above noted easement area. Idaho Power agrees to relinquish the public utility easements
within described easement area.
Thank you once again for providing Idaho Power Company the opportunity to review and
comment upon the subject petition for relinquishment.
Sincerely,
Chris Jacky
Associate Real Estate Specialist
Land Management and Permitting Department
Corporate Real Estate
Idaho Power Company
208-388-2699
ciacky@jdahopower.com
1221 W.Idaho St.f837027
P.O.Box 70
Boise,1D 83707
Page 7
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 10 of 85
V ,�
2/26/2020 CenturyLink
ATTW Ken Allen
2420 N Victor Way
Meridian, ID 83646
No Reservations/No Objection
SUBJECT. Vacate the north 5'of the 10' Public Utility Easement located along the south
side,and the west 5'of the 10'Public Utility Easement located along the East side of Block
3 Lot T Tuthill Estates No. 1,Ada County,ID
APN:R8571330430
To Whom It May Concem:
Owest Corporation dlbla CENTURYLINK QC (°CenturyLink") has reviewed the request for the
subject vacation and has determined that it has no objections with respect to the areas proposed
for vacation as shown andlor described on Exhibit "A", said Exhibit "A° attached hereto and
incorporated by this reference.
It is the intent and understanding of CenturyLink that this Vacation shall not reduce our rights to
any other existing easement or rights we have on this site or in the area.
This vacation response is submitted WITH THE.STIPULATION that if CenturyLink facilities are
found and/or damaged within the vacated area as described,the Applicant will bear the cost of
relocation and repair of said facilities.
Sincerely yours,
Tommy Sassone
Network Infrastructure Services
CenturyLink
P825286
Page 8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 11 of 85
AGAS COMPANY
A&AMMydAW8WWM&V4XJx
WESTERN REGION OFFICE
555 SOUTH COL£ROAD•BCISE,ID.83709
(208)37T-6000•Fax(208)377.6867
www.intgas_cem
December 9,2019
Ken Allen,
This letter is to let you know that,
Intermountain Gas Company relinquishes any and all their rights to the following described
easement.The 10'side lot lines on the southside of Lot 7 Block 3 of Tuthill Estates 41
Subdivision in T.3 N.,R. 1 W„See 2,NW'/4 Sec_Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho.
If you have any questions,please let me know.
Bryce Ostler
.) 0116�-
GIS Field Technician
Page 9 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 12 of 85
()RIG
AL.Cable One Ina;dba 5parklight •L i V
2101 E.Karcher Road
Nampa, Idaho 83687
Ken Alien,
This fetter is to let you know that Cable One Inc.,dba Sparkl'i&relinquishes the 5-foot
casement seduction that you requested for the construction of your storage garage of the
fallowing described easement. The 10'side lot lines on the soutkside of Lot 7 Block 3 of Tuthill
$states#I Subdivision in T.3 N.,R. I W.,Sec 2,NW'/.Siec.Seise Meridian,Ada County,
Idaho.
If you have any questions,please let me know.
� ZT"90
Aia Aw- Date
Page 10
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 13 of 85
C-/WE IDIAN-- ITEM SHEET
Council Agenda Item -7.13.
Presenter:
Estimated Time for Presentation: 0
Title of Item - Public Hearing for Delano Subdivision (H-2019-0027) by Boll Cook
Investments, LLC, Located at 14120 W. Jasmine Ln. and 2800 E. Jasmine Ln.
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing
Please click this URL to join the meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83685789213
Council Notes:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description U loa
Commission Recommendations and Staff Report IStaff Report 5/8/2020
REVIEWERS:
a
Clerk. Weatherly,Adrienne Approved 5/8/2020 - 11:07 AM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 14 of 85
STAFF REPORT C�I
w IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING May 12,2020
Legend
DATE:
Project Location 0
g
hb
TO: Mayor&City Council 19k:m
�®
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner -
208-884-5533
v
Bruce Freckleton,Development
Services Manager
208-887-2211 €
SUBJECT: H-2019-0027 -�
Delano Subdivision �rt�
1 T 1
LOCATION: 2800& 14120 W.Jasmine Ln.
ILI-
History: This project was originally heard by the Commission on May 2, and July 18, 2019; at the
hearing on July 18`h, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the project to City Council. The City
Council heard the project on November 12, 2019; at that hearing, Council voted to remand the project
back to the Commission to address the density issue of the proposed development and for Commission's
review of a revisedplat with changes to lots proposed along the northern boundary of the subdivision that
front on E. Della Street(e.g. single-story, detached units, lose a lot(s)). (See pg. 16 for more information)
Update: The Applicant submitted revised plans for the Commission hearing based on discussion at the
City Council hearing and meetings with the neighbors, included in Section VIT The revisions include a
reduction in the number of buildable lots from 85 to 66; a change to the proposed zoning(the portion of
the site along the north &west boundaries previously proposed to be zoned R-15 is now proposed to be
zoned R-8); and a change to the conceptual building elevations.
Staff has updated the subject staff report based on the revised plans—original text that is no longer
applicable is shown in strike-out and new text is shown in underline format. The conditions of approval in
Section VIII are not in strike-out/underline format as there were no conditions that went forward to
Council because the Commission recommended denial of the project; new conditions are included in
accord with the revised plans based on those originally recommended by Staff to the Commission for the
May 2, 2019 hearing.
A summary of the Commission hearing on April 16, 2020 is included on page 18.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
impaet a-ad plaming area in Mer-idia-a's planning afea with a N44ed Use Regional Fupdf LA—add 16�_Je
Map designation;Note: The Comprehensive Plan Map amendment application is no longer needed as
Page 1
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 15 of 85
the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) was amended with the new Comprehenisve Plan to include an
MU-R FL UM designation for this property.
Annexation&zoning of 15.22 acres of land with R-8 (3.31 acres),R-15 (11.57 8.12 acres)and R-40
(3-.64 3.79 acres)zoning districts; and,
Preliminary plat consisting of 85 66 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for a 96-unit
multi-family development,and 12 88 common lots and 2 other(common driveway lots on 15.22 acres
of land in the R-8,R-15 and R-40 zoning districts.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
1. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 15.22
Future Land Use Designation MDR(Medium Density Residential)i City of Mer-i r &
Mixed Use-Regional(MU-R)4a C4V of B &e
Existing Land Use 2 existing homes&accessory structures
Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR),attached p• deta hed and
conceptual multi-family residential(MFR)
Current Zoning RUT in Ada County
Proposed Zoning R-8,R-15 &R-40
Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 85 66 SFR building/128 common/1 MFR building and 2 other
Phasing plan(#of phases) Yes;23 phases
Number of Residential Units(type 444 66 SFR detached units"4 ,,ttaehe 67 deta he SF ,and
of units) 96 MFR apartments)
Density(gross&net) 7-.35 5_7(SFR,R-8&R-15)&27(MFR,R-40)gross
units/acre; 11.8(SFR,v 1 c) u,27(MFR,n n m o«8.12
units/acre(SFR)(net)
Open Space(acres,total[%]/ See Analysis, Section V.3
buffer/qualified)
Amenities Shade s«...,,.ture (2)play structures,benches podestr „
walk-ways See Analysis, Section V.3
Physical Features(waterways, None
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of February 25,2019;92 attendees
attendees: Applicant met with the Alpine Pointe HOA Board on
December 16'and 231,2019;the revised plan was presented
to the HOA Board on February 18',2020-30+/-people
attended(an official neighborhood meeting was not held as it
wasn't required).
History(previous approvals) None
Page 2
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 16 of 85
2. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District
• Staff report No Yes
(yes/no)
• Requires ACHD Yes(tentatively sehe „'oa., ,.,heard on May 22,2019)
Commission This project is being heard by the ACHD Commission because of
Action(yes/no) objections from neighbors pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and
connectivity to Centre ointe Way
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire 1.34 miles from Fire Station#3 (can meet the response time requirements)
Station
• Fire Response 3 minutes under ideal conditions
Time
• Resource 82%from Fire Station#3—does meet the target goal of 9580%or
Reliability greater
• Risk 21 (SFRre4dentia4)and 4(MFR)—current resources would not be
Identification adequate to supply service to the proposed project;(see comments in
Section VIII.Q
• Accessibility Meets requirements;FD is eaneemed as there is ne visitor par-king in the
development r-estilting in people par-king in ai-7eas that may bleek aeeess to
esi es. See additional comments in Section VIII.C.
• Special/resource Doesn't The MFR portion of the project will require an aerial device(see
needs comments in Section VIII.C)
• Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 1 hour(may be less if building is
sprinklered)
• Other Resources NA
Police Service
• Distance to 5 miles
Police Station
• Police Response 4:30 minutes
Time
• Calls for Service 0904 in RD `M724'
• Accessibility PD has no issues with proposed access
• Specialty/resourc No additional resources are needed;MPD already services this area.
e needs
• Crimes 0119
• Crashes 026
West Ada School
District
• Distance(elem, Discovery Elementary—2.83 miles;Heritage Middle School—3.4-6 miles;
ms,hs) Rocky Mountain High School—5-56_2 miles
• Capacity of Discovery Elementary 650;Heritage Middle School 1,000;Rocky
Schools Mountain High School 1,800
• #of Students Discovery Elementary�5511;Heritage Middle School 1-,2-541, 446;Rocky
Enrolled Mountain High School'z,44a2, 669
• Anticipated 68
schoolaged
children
generated by this
development
Page 3
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 17 of 85
Wastewater
• Distance to 0-feet _
Sewer Services
• Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed
• Estimated 181
Project Sewer
ERU's
• WRRF 13.66 MGD
Declining
Balance
• Project Yes
Consistent with
WW Master
Plan/Facility
Plan
• Impacts& The following proposed manholes have less than 3'of cover:A-3,A-4,A-
Concerns 5,C-1 and D-5.Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant
the possibility of using grinder pumps in these shallow areas,but the plans
do not note the use of them.If the parcel to the north of the multi-family is
to be served by Meridian,applicant must stub sewer at minimum slope in
N.Centre ointc Way to the north boundary line.
Water
• Distance to 0-feet
Water Services
• Pressure Zone 3
• Estimated See application information
Project Water
ERU's
• Water Quality None
• Project Yes
Consistent with
Water Master
Plan
• Impacts& Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to
Concerns the north for the multi-family portion of the development will be provided
according to how annexation proceeds. Meridian will provide water in
Meridian,and SUEZ will provide water in Boise.
Page 4
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 18 of 85
I 1 •1. 1 1
ION 11■1111■1� -1 - ....
C .1�■I Mid - - . - • -f ,1g .: .... ., •S
• ■■1 '�•1111{l�111 IINIn I - • - • • • I -M•1a
■■1■1
11
i■1111- _•111111�:II111111111 1 '
!!1!!! !!!{ 11�I I uuu1N 1111111111 - _ -
■ 1pl IIIIGf uu unuuw/p�m
- -.III■-■■ 9111111111111 • Z 9..��[[ � � '
�1MINNIEV S
Rad
■., i■
z: ■
T
7■111r_ 1111111111:
ill■lu}ui u _ lJq; ,C• ..7.-1
_III„- .�• I': E.::J � Ib_. R
DII III{111H►I ' ■■
- • - • D►un■■■■■ram �� - • - • •rp unnm►�
.�=►- nun' !wpm nn■rIQ
-} !1♦t1 ■Ii: 11■1■!1��n nl■■ �iR7C7�i Q� �� 1'_�iNl
1 r`�� �ih1`!Iu.� nuw-�nnuun �� iyi r�iu: �In n■:
a ru!� I�� Ir� I► ►•4uuu- umn:nnuun �� �ri i��i,Unm.1 •umu_�
!{II!lurlll 11017��' � ; ti.±nl IL�I GuwaiLnuum �I��I r►+♦i Qpinuu 7I 'umu•:
1� , -
1IIIII ,, *a �I■ - .�:1; CIO III 1111111►\►
♦♦ \ �. ■ • 1111111�:--• ' • -• '• ♦ ci:c7���. IIIIIIIIII Illlu
\�, ■ ■ills=_ ! ►�!7__ \�as■ ■ I,l�I■ II�IIuI::G
' ,��1+�����..-■ =un er r iumi::� � M�'a o:�rwu'r '
r .1.11111111■. � �=� � •d
A r 1■■1■
♦♦ ♦ . �•InIl111I, , \ aaa■�a■ Iinnn
�� ,■�:.�=� :�1#,>.1!M IIII 1Miss
:r..I_elm •
m �I�1�IJiw. ' �� _�■a :114�It�!'t ' ml�sm r
�r vim►■...n :=i Ir�In�i it i�:- r:::.'�.� -- ,
r 7 t�Inn1n•-• :n �� Asl! I i■n■'�_.....►r{� ��.�� ■`I-
j1�-■ ��III■a • W Iw i%Qs�pin
I a IIIIIIII��nr■uu�,.1�i=i'
�� ::�_III■�,.unu J� �/n {■■><���II�:■i�iiii:'nnll■nu:�i_i:��I
•y■� �1l11{► -III ■ ♦�..a ■m uw - �—
I{1tI .-.� �■, r��u��ri:. Inn► _� :: w
{!l1��Q��■iiiiii:�,�anuwlry` W .N. {i11ii%iwi�►��r��:■III■ul•, _��_�■��:J�■�.
�1�■!.■I1 -' IE111EI= :■11 \{ ����■IIII/■:',�III �_■ '�,���
{III ■{k, ■Ali�■ ■IIII nnuu=` ■ r-
111 I{ •�II��F■n ME.,
un .:r►boom_ i
101.r► ,.,••,.••,•�*�>t rWl■
E IIIIII II.....I......I.IpJ6J ......fl
__ a IIIIII_II':11 ii liili iiiiii- �i11ifl �
1 1 , ■ ,
B. Owner:
Norm Cook— 14120 W. Jasmine Ln.,Boise,ID 83713
Eddy Bollinger—2800 E.Jasmine Ln.,Meridian, ID 83646
C. Representative:
yea Bailey,Devoe Developmentl 1=C; 4824 E. FaviewAve. Boise, 1P 83
Hethe Clark, Clark Wardle—251 E. Front St.,Boise,ID 83701
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
4/12/2019; 6/28/2019; 8/2/2019; 8/30/2019;
Newspaper Notification 2/25/2020; 3/27/2020
4/24/2020
Radius notification mailed to 4/9/2019; 6/25/2019; 7/30/2019; 8/27/2019;
properties within 300 feet 2/25/2020; 3/27/2020 4/21/2020
Public hearing notice sign posted 4/22/2019; 7/8/2019; 3/4/20; 9/6/2019; 11/01/2019;
on site 4/4/20 4/29/2020
Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019; 6/25/2019; 7/30/2019; 8/27/2019;
2/25/2020; 3/27/2020 4/22/2020
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
1. f''l1T,PREiiE
Since the hearing at City Council on November 12, 2019, the City adopted a new Comprehensive
Plan, which included an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM that assigned an MU-
R designation to the majority of the property that lies east of Centrepointee Way. Therefore, the
application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is no longer required; Staffhas deleted
this section from the report.
2. ANNEXATION&ZONING
The applicant requests annexation and zoning of the 11.5 7 11.43 acres west of N. Centrepointe
Way with an the R-8 (3.31 acres) and R-15 (11.57 8.12 acres)zoning districts; and the 5 acres
east of N. Centrepointe Way with an R-40 zoning district(3-.64 3.79 acres)consistent with the
MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designations.Note: There is a small portion of the Cook
parcel(east side of Centrepointe Wax) that on the FL UM does not have a designation. This was a
mapping error and the entire Cook parcel is effectively designated MU-R.
Comprehensive Plan(https://www.meridiancity.or /�compplan):
The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation for the portion of this site west of the extension
of N. Centrepointe Way is Medium Density Residential(MDR)it the City f Mar-id ;the
portion of the site east of the extension of N. Centrepointe Way is eufFent4y was previously
located in the City of Boise's Area of City Impactboundary and iswas designated General Mixed
Page 6
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 20 of 85
Use. On October 29,2019,the Boise City Council approved and adopted the resolution(RES-
521-19)to amend the land use map of Blueprint Boise to transfer this area from the City of Boise
Area of City Impact(AOCI)to the City of Meridian AOCI. The recent amendment to the City of
Meridian's FLUM included this property with a Mixed-RegionalMU-R)future land use
designation.As noted in the previous eeti n the n....i:eant proposes t amend the F UM
designation.
The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may
include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 units per acre.
The MU-R designation allows high density multi-family developments as supporting uses for
higher intense commercial uses such as those to the south and east of this site along a major
transportation corridor(i.e. Eagle Rd./SH-55)and near arterial intersections (i.e. McMillan/Eagle
Rds. &Ustick/Eagle Rds.).
Land Use:
The proposed land use for this site is single-family residential(SFR)and a future multi-family
residential(MFR)development(i.e. apartments). A total of 5566 (19 attae e a-E 67 detached)
SFR units at a gross density of 7-465_7 units per acre, and a net density of 44-8 8.12 units per acre
are proposed; and 96 apartment units are planned to develop in the future at a gross and net
density of 27 units per acre. The proposed density is consistent with that desired in the MDR and
MU-R designations respectively.
Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed single-family dwellings(a**a�detached)are listed as a principal permitted
use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts; and the multi-family development is listed as a
conditional use in the R-40 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Multi-family developments
are subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; compliance with these
standards will be evaluated in the future through the conditional use permit process.
Concept Plan:
The Applicant submitted a concept development plan for the property to the north(Parcel#
R4582530100) at Staff s request to demonstrate how the property could possibly redevelop with
the extension of N. Centrepointe Way to the north as planned on the MSM(see Section VII.E).
Transportation:
The Master Street Map(MSM) depicts a planned north/south commercial collector street through
this site from the south boundary to the north boundary eventually connecting to E. Wainwright
Dr. for access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. The portion of Centrepointe W4Y proposed to be
constructed with this development is consistent with the MSM.
Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridiancity.or /g compplan):
Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be
applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in
italics):
• "Provide for a wide diversity of housing types(single-family, modular,mobile homes and
multi-family arrangements)and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all
income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development." (3.07.03B)
A mix of SFR a;*��detached homes and MFR apartment units are proposed within
this development which will provide ownership and rental options for various income groups
in this area.
Page 7
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 21 of 85
• "Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers."(3.07.02D)
The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to the employment
and shopping center uses along the Eagle Rd. corridor.
• "Locate high-density development,where possible,near open space corridors or other
permanent major open space and park facilities,Old Town, and near major access
thoroughfares."(3.07.02L)
The density proposed in the multi family portion of the development falls within the high
density category. The site is located wiMin approximate lX a mile of rom Kleiner Memorial
Park, a 60-acre City Park, and is in close proximity to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a major access
thoroughfare.
• "Consider ACHD's Master Street Map(MSM)in all land use decisions."(3.03.04K)
The MSM depicts a north/south collector street through this site; the proposed plan depicts a
collector street in accord with the MSM.
• "Require open space areas within all development."(6.01.01A)
Qualified open space in accord with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 is
required.
• "Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time
of final approval and development is contiguous to the City."(3.01.01F)
The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to
this development.
• "Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets."(3.06.02D)
One(1) access is proposed on the west side off. Centrepointe Way, a collector street, to the
SFR portion of the development; and one (1) access is proposed on the east side off.
Centrepointe Way for the MFR portion of the development. Staff recommends local street
access (or a driveway with a cross-access easement) is provided to the property
(#R4582530202) abutting the R-40 zoned portion of the site as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A.3,
as the property currently only has access via Eagle Rd./SH--55.
• "Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit
development." (6.02.02H)
This site is not currently served by public transportation. However, ValleyConnect 2.0
proposes bus service on Eagle Rd.from the Boise Research Center to downtown Kuna with
20 minute frequencies in the peak hour. The Closest bus stop would be less than %mile from
this site when that route is operational.
• "Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to
promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system."(3.03.03B)
There are no pathway connections to this development from adjacent developments to the
north and south other than sidewalks adjacent to public streets. Staff recommends the
Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south (Brickyard
Apartments)to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments i.e. the
single-family and the mulit-family developments) on each side of N. Centrepointe Way.
In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed
Use areas,per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs.23-24): (Staffs analysis in italics)
• "Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre."
The gross density of the proposed MFR development is 27 units per acre which falls within
the range desired in mixed use designated areas.
Page 8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 22 of 85
• "Where feasible,higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be
encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination
centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69."
The proposed development incorporates a MFR component along with the SFR development
and is in close proximity (i.e. 460) to N. Eagle Rd./SH--55. The proposed development will
provide housing options for nearby employment centers.
• "A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application."
A concept plan was included on the landscape plan for the future MFR development in
conjunction with the SFR development currently proposed.
• "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed(not
residential),the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area,
such as a plaza or green space."
This development does not include commercial/office buildings.
• "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between
commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development."
The proposed single-family armed an detached units with var;ying lot sizes and setbacks
will provide a transition in density and lot sizes between larger single-family residential lots
to the north and the townhomes/multi family lots to the south. This development does not
include any commercial uses; however, the proposed multi family development on the eastern
portion of the site will provide a transition between the proposed single-family attached and
detached units and future commercial/mixed uses along Eagle Rd.
• "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial
(includes retail,restaurants, etc.), office,residential, civic (includes public open space,parks,
entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a
case-by-case basis."
The proposed development plan only includes one land use type (i.e. residential); however,
lrreetwo different types of residential units are proposed(i.e. single-family detached,
nand multi family apartment units). Within the overall mixed use designated area,
which incorporates land on both sides of Eagle Rd./SH55 to the south to Fairview Ave., there
are a mix of uses as desired consisting of commercial(retail, restaurants, etc), office and
residential uses.
• "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals,churches, schools,parks, daycares, civic
buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments."
This is a relatively small portion of the overall mixed use designated area; none of these
types of uses are proposed on this site nor have they been developed on the adjacent mixed
use designated area to the south.
• "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not
limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas,open space, libraries,and schools are
expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count."
The proposed plan does not incorporate public and/or quasi public spaces and places; the
common area proposed in the residential development is owned by the Homeowner's
Association and does not satisfy this requirement. These types of public spaces have been
provided in the adjacent mixed use designated area to the south.
• "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by
both vehicles and pedestrians."
Page 9
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 23 of 85
The proposed development plan shows interconnectivity with the residential neighborhood to
the north providing accessibility to the commercial development to the south via N.
Centrepointe Way.
• "Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are
required within the Unified Development Code."
The proposed development plan includes a north/south collector street(i.e. N. Centrepointe
Way) consistent with the Master Street Map.
• "Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the
Mixed-Use standards listed herein."
The proposed development is not within Old Town; therefore, this provision is not applicable.
In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R
areas,per the Comprehensive Plan(pg.30):
• "Development should comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use
areas."
See analysis above.
• "Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at densities
ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre."
The proposed residential uses comprise 100%of the site. Densities of the SFR and MFR
developments are in accord with this guideline.
• "Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area."
No retail commercial uses are proposed with this development; however, the MU-R
designated land to the south incorporates a large amount of retail commercial uses.
• "There is neither a minimum nor a maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as
office, clean industry, or entertainment uses."
No commercial uses are proposed with this development.
Zoning:
Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-8,R-15
and R-40 zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and
prepesed-MU-R FLUM designations and is appropriate for this site.
The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north and south;the
R-8 and R-15 area is within the Area of City Impact Boundary(AOCI)and the R-40 area is
outside of the AOCI boundary. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section
VII.A.
The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this
application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions
included in Section VIII.
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT
Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are two(2)existing homes and accessory structures on this site. These structures are
required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the
phase in which they are located.
Page 10
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 24 of 85
Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2):
The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum
dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8, 11-2A-7 for the R-15 and 11-
2A-8 for the R-40 zoning districts (so ). The proposed plat complies with these standards.
Subdivision Design&Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3):
The proposed subdivision is required to be designed and improved per the standards listed in
UDC 11-6C-3 which include but are not limited to streets,driveways,common driveways,
easements,and block face. The proposed plan complies with these standards.
Phasing Plan:
The subdivision is proposed to develop in 23 phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section
VIILC. The first phase will include the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. from the north through the
site to N. Centrepointe Way. Staff recommends the phasing plan is revised to include
construction of the street buffer on the east side of N. Centrepointe Way in the first phase so
that the street buffer and detached sidewalk is constructed and the buffer landscaped with
the first phase of development.
Access(UDC 11-3A-3,11-3H- /Streets:
Jasmine Lane, a 50-foot wide private street,currently provides access to the lots in Jasmine
Acres Subdivision,including the subject properties.The private street is depicted on the
Jasmine Acres subdivision plat. Staff is unaware if a separate recorded easement exists for
the private street.Where the easement crosses the subject property it should be
relinquished; proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to
City Engineer signature on the final plat.
One access is proposed on either side of N. Centrepointe Way, a collector street; and an
emergency only/pedestrian access is proposed from the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. at the north
boundary of the site.A stub street(E. Jasmine St.)is proposed to the parcel to the west for access
and future extension. Public streets are proposed within the SFR portion of the development with
27-foot wide street sections; private drive aisles will be provided within the MFR portion of the
development. In accord with UDC 11-3A-3,which limits access points to collector streets to
improve safety and requires access to be taken from a local street if available,Staff
recommends N.Dashwood Pl.is extended as a full access street into the site with the first
phase of development.Note:ACHD approved the connection of Dashwood Ave. to the existing
stub street to the north (Dashwood Pl.) as a temporary emergency access/pedestrian connection
until Centrepointe Way is extended to Wainwright Dr., or within 10 years, whichever occurs first.
When Centrepointe Way is extended to Wainwright Dr., Dashwood Pl. will be reconstructed as a
public street for vehicular connectivitv to Wainwri hg t Dr.
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.The parcel to the east of
the property proposed to be zoned R-40 on the east side of Centrepointe Way(Parcel
#R4582530202),currently takes direct access via N.Eagle Rd./SH-69, an arterial street and
a State Highway; therefore, Staff recommends local street access(or a driveway with a
cross-access easement)is provided to the property to the east as set forth in UDC 11-3A-
3A.3. The Applicant should coordinate with the developer of that property on a location for
the access street/driveway.
Staff recommends N. Centrepointe Way is extended/constructed with the first phase of
development from the southern to the northern boundary of the site so that if re-
development of the property to the north Won occurs before the multi-family portion of
Page 11
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 25 of 85
this site,the connection to Wainwright Dr. can be made and services can be extended-as
-H •
Traffic: A Traffic Impact Study was not required by ACHD for the proposed development;
however,the Applicant did include an informal traffic analysis in their application narrative based
on ACHD's Policy Manual that takes into consideration existing traffic volumes in relation to
anticipated traffic volumes from the proposed development and the resulting impacts to
Wainwright Dr. &Dashwood Pl. The analysis shows the total trips per day on Wainwright at
41%of total capacity; and on Dashwood at 44% of total capacity resulting in 56-59%under total
capacity for these streets,which should not overburden existing roadways systems if these
calculations are correct. See application narrative for more information.
Many letters of testimony have been received from adjacent residential property owners to
the north regarding the amount of traffic that will be generated from the proposed
development and routed through their neighborhood.For this reason,it's imperative that
the Centrepointe Way connection to Wainwright occur as soon as possible; thus,the reason
for Staffs recommendation for the pr-opeFty to the north to be ineluded in the amendm
to the Fr UM and for the construction of Centrepointe to the northern boundary of the
annexation area to occur with the first phase of development.
Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3
All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D.
TlweeTwo(32)common driveways are proposed that comply with UDC standards. Common
driveways should be a maximum of 150' in length or less,unless otherwise approved by the Fire
Dept.
An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the
setbacks,fencing,building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures.Driveways
for abutting properties that aren't taking access from the common driveway(s) should be
depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway.
Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum
5-foot wide landscaped buffer.
A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s)is required to be filed with
the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved
surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment.A copy of the easement should
be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat.
Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways on Lot 435,Block l et
7,� and Lot-19,Block 34 for emergency wayfinding purposes as requested by the
Fire Department.
Transition: There are 68 single-story structures._.�8 dwelling„rits4 -epe(ties proposed
along the west boundary of this site adjacent to the 8.2 acre rural residential property to the west,
which is currently in Ada County and designated as MDR(3-8 units/acre) on the FLUM.
There are-5-.5 6 existing single-story residential properties to the north that abut this site that are
0.31-0.38 of an acre in size;4-012 single-family structures 15 12 a.,.o'�:r.„fits/ .,.,....el4ies
are proposed along the north boundary of the site.
n a4ive of the appliea4iea tha4 demeastmtes the proposed struettifes and lots in relation to
existing home shops pafk4ag areas ra • ards. See aerial map below.
Because the homes proposed along the north and west boundaries will all be a single-story
in height, Staff believes they will have a lesser impact on adjacent neighbors than 2-story
homes would have; therefore, Staff is not recommending a greater transition in lot sizes
Page 12
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 26 of 85
isthan proposed.However,the Commission and City Council should consider any public
testimony provided in determining if fewer lots/structures should be provided along these
boundaries as a better transition to existing residential properties.
I
E
� 1
� r
--- -- ----- ' r ; - -- _7 ,
� -
{
04 ii -
Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 1-
bedroom units, a minimum of 2 spaces per unit are required with at least one of those spaces in an
enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pad. For 2-3
bedroom units, a minimum of 4 spaces per unit are required with at least 2 of those spaces in an
enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10' x 20' parking pads.
Because of the proposed reduced 27-foot wide street sections,parking is restricted to one side of
the street only resulting in fewer available on-street parking spaces for guests and households
with cars that can't be parked on private property than is typical with a full street section which
allows parkins;on both sides of the street. Off-street parkin is s required to be provided on each lot
in accord with the aforementioned UDC standards. Beeause of the w lots (
detaehed homes a-ad asseeia4ed dfiveways,there is not ade"a4e feem for-on street pafk4ag in
ftent of these lots for-guest pafk4ag a-ad in some areas par-king is a ways away. Wher-e at4aeh
heraes are proposed,there is r-eefn for-appr-eximately one spaee per-every 2 lots for-On Stfee
On-street parking(6658 spaces)is also available adjacent to common lots and along one
side of the street within 200' f e any home• ,ithi the deve opme-a+(see Exhibit H in Section
VII).
Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8):
Pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 with
landscaping on either side of the pathway(s)in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-
12C.
Page 13
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 27 of 85
Beeause inter-eonneetivity is important and espeeially so in mixed use developments, Staff
reeommends the Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south
(Brickyard Apartments)to iHeffper-ate pedestrian eonneetions between the
developments on eaeh side of N. Centr-epointe Way-.
Sidewalks(UDC I1-3A-17):
Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17.
Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along all collector and after-ial streets; and
minimum 5-foot wide attached(or detached) sidewalks are required along local streets as
proposed.
Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17):
Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
17E. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along the collector streets and along internal local
street abutting common areas in accord with UDC standards.
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
Per UDC Tables 11-2A-7 and 11-2A-8, a 20-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to N.
Centrepointe Way, a collector street. Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided within
common lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C; trees and shrubs should be
depicted within the street buffers on either side of N. Centrepointee Way in accord with
these standards. The Landscape Calculations table should include the linear feet of street
buffers and the required vs.proposed number of trees demonstrating compliance with the
aforementioned standard.
Landscapin is s required to be provided in common open space areas in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-G-3E;the proposed landscaping exceeds the minimum standards.
Landscaping is required within parkways as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E and 11-3B-7C; the
Landscape Calculations table should include the linear feet of parkways and the required
vs.proposed number of trees demonstrating compliance with the aforementioned standard.
Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G):
Based on the overall development area which consists of 15.21 acres of land, a minimum of 10%
(1.52 acres)qualified open space is required to be provided within the development per the
standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. Because the site is bisected by a collector street and the
portion of the site proposed to develop with apartments is not beingdped at this time, Staff
recommends the 10%open space is provided on each property; the R-8 and R-15 propertX
totaling 11.3+/-acres should provide a minimum of 1.13 acres and the R-40 property totaling
3.6+/-acres should provide a minimum of 0.36 of an acre(in addition to the open space required
in UDC 11-4-3-27C for multi-family developments).
A revised qualified open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.F that depicts
4431.23 acres(or 44—.510.8%)of open space for the SFR portion of the development consisting
of a 10.69 of an acre park with amenities,parkways, , and linear open space
that is at least 20' wide and has an access at each end and is landscaped, and a collector street
buffer and a lees' street buffer. The linear open space on Lot 17,Block 4 doesn't qualify as it's
not accessible at the west end as required by UDC 11-3G-3B.1e,however the rest of the area
meets the minimum standard at 1.17 acres.
stFeeVland use buffer-along the southefa bettada-r-y of the site toward the qualified open spa
eats(see Seel o ^ below for-more in f r..,4ion) The open space on the R-40 property
will be evaluated for compliance with UDC 11-3G-3B at the time of submittal of a conditional
use permit.
Page 14
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 28 of 85
are that does not qualify(i.e. the perimeter-' — I g1he east boundary)and is below the The"alified open spaee Em the N4FR pot4ion of the site east side of GefAfepoipAe Way ifielud
develop at this time and is eeneeptttal in flattir-e and likely to eha-age, Staff r-eeefmneads a DA
required of the total land area(i.e. 5 acres). Because that portion of the site is not planned to qualified open spaee is provided a4 the time of
development th-at m-e-eets the standards in UDC 11 3G 3B. This reqttiremen4 is in addition to th
ie"ir-e`� i rc�xr vDG 11 4-3 27C�vr-MF-Rueye efAs-.
Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G):
A minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is required to be provided for this development
based on the size of the overall development(i.e. 15.21 acres).
The Applicant proposes a shade structure, children's play structure, children's climbing dome,
children's climbing boulders, seating benches,public art
and a pathway as amenities,which exceed UDC standards. The pathway does not count as a
qualified amenity as it doesn't meet the standards in UDC 11-3G-3C.3; however,the other
amenities proposed do qualify and exceed the minimum standards.
Existing Trees: There are many existing trees on this site the Applicant states are being removed
by the residential property owner for firewood. Include mitigation information on the plan for any
existing trees that are not removed by the property owner in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-313-10C.5.
Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
The Nourse Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site and is piped. An easement
should be depicted on the plat for the waterway.If the easement is 10 feet or greater,it
should be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20-feet wide and outside of a
fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D.
Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
7.
The existing fencing along the north and southwest boundaries of the site is proposed to remain.
A 6-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the west, south and east boundaries of
the SFR portion of the site as well as along the nofth, oast and south boundaries of the N4F
p^.tion of th ^ t^ in accord with UDC standards. A 4-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed
around the perimeter of the children's play area on Lot 1,Block-32.
Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21):
Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed
in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.
See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions.
Pressurized Irrigation System(UDC 11-3A-IS):
An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the
development.
Page 15
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 29 of 85
Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18 :
An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's
adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best
management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18.
Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family a**a�.
detached units and multi-family apartment structures as shown in Section VII.F. Building
materials for the single-family homes consist of a mix of siding(horizontal and vertical lap siding
and board&batten) and stucco with stone veneer accents.
The multi-family structures are required to comply with the design
standards in the Architectural Standards Manual; single-family detached structures are exempt
from this requirement.
All SFR homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the development will be
restricted to a single-story in height as proposed b, t�pplicant.
Because the rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 14-1812-8,Block 1 and Lot 2,
Block 25 that face N. Centrepointe Way will be highly visible, Staff recommends those
elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following:
modulation(e.g.projections,recesses,step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,
balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up
monotonous wall planes and roof lines.Single-story structures are exempt from this
requirement.
Public Testimony:Many letters of testimony have been received on the original plan submitted
with this application,primarily from residential neighbors to the north in Alpine Pointe
Subdivision(aka Zebulon Heights). The primary concerns are the intensity of the development
(i.e. density is too high); not enough transition in lot sizes to lower larger lots to the north;
extension of N. Dashwood Pl. and Centrepointe Way and resulting traffic generated from this
development and from the developments to the south that will be routed through their subdivision
until Centrepointe can be extended to the north to Wainwright in a more direct fashion; and safety
concerns for children pertaining to traffic. The neighbors have suggested several alternate
development plans that would result in less traffic through their neighborhood. See public
testimony in the project file for more information.
Additional public testimony has been received on the revised plan that can be accessed at:
https://weblink.meridianciby.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=166928&&dbid=0&&repo=Meridian
C
4. A T TTDAT A TT;1T C-OmFi i A NC-E A local street buffer is no longer proposed;Staff has removed this
section as it is no longer applicable.
spaee for-the development.
The"alified open spaee peFtaining to street bugar-s listed in UPC= 11 36 3B allOws the full are
5B 5,to be allowed to eoun�the area of a leeal stT-eet buffer-toward the minifi+RM EtUalified Opffi
of the SFR peAien of the site with dense!andseapiag along E. jasmine ., a leeal street,
to btfff-eF
Page 16
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 30 of 85
alter-native provides an equal or superior-means of meeting the ipAent and purpose of the
regulation(see Findings in Seetion IX.D)-.
inteaded pur-pose of UDC-1-1 3G-3 has been met.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed!''l,.v...rehe..siye Plan",rap Amendment ment if- the p eel
to the aei4h(R4592530100) is also ineloded,the Annexation&Zoning and Preliminary Plat
applications with the conditions included in Section VIII.A per the Findings in Section IX.
if the par-eel to the aeAh(R4592530100) is not ineltided in the map amendment, Staff
recommends denial of annexation and zoning reqaest for the eastern par-eel(i.e. R 4 0 zone).
B. Commission:
The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on May 2 and July 18, 2019. At
the public hearingon n July 18t'',the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject
CPAM, AZ and PP requests to City Council.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Jim Conger;
b. In opposition: Malissa Bernard(representing many neighbors on Dashwood Place to the
north in Alpoint Point Sub.);Frank Marcos(Alpine Point Sub. HOA President);
Kenneth Clifford; Sherry Garey; Greg Walker;Patricia Pitzer; Joy Cameron; Sandi
King; Laura Trairatnobhas
c. Commenting?: Connie Thompson;
d. Written testimony: Many(47+/-)letters of testimony were received(see public record).
e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Ke. ids)of public testimony
a. Consensus that proposed density of development is too high;
b. Not enough transition in lot sizes is proposed to larger lots to the north;
c. Concern pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and Centrepointe Way and
resulting traffic generated from the proposed development and from the commercial
and multi-family residential developments to the south that will be routed through the
subdivision to the north if Jasmine is connected to Centrepointe before Centrepointe can
be extended to the north to Wainwright;
d. Safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic;
e. The proposed development is premature and that infrastructure (i.e. the extension of
Centrepointe to Wainwright) should be in place prior to the development goingin,n,not
after the fact;
f. There has been no negotiation with neighbors by the Developer as directed by the
Commission;
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. The desire for the City of Boise to take action on a request to exclude the eastern portion
of the site from their Area of City Impact boundga prior to the City making a decision
on this application;
b. The possibili , of only an emergency access via Dashwood Pl.;
Page 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 31 of 85
C. Concern pertainingtquacy of parking for the development;
d. Preference for R-8 vs. R-15 zoning for the single-family portion and R-15 vs. R-40
zoning for the multi-family portion of the site as a transition to adjacent zoning;
e. Density should be reduced due to Heritage Middle School and Rock Mountain High
School already being over capacity
f. Desire for the Applicant to work with neighbors to address issues that were brought up
at the hearing.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. The Commission recommended denial of the proposed CPAM,AZ and PP applications
to the City Council based on their desire for the Applicant to obtain approval from the
City of Boise for the adjustment to the Area of City Impact boundary; and opinion the
applicant did not sufficiently work with the neighbors on their concerns pertaining to
the proposed development.
5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. City Council:
The City Council heard this project on November 12,2019 and moved to remand the project back
to the Commission to address the density issue of the proposed development and for their review
of a revised site plan with changes to lots proposed along the northern boundary of the
subdivision that front on E. Della Street.
D. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on March 19 and April 16,
2020. At the public hearing on April 16`h, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the
subject AZ and PP requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: Hethe Clark
b. In opposition:
C. Commenting: Malissa Bernard; Laura Trairatnobhas;Michael Bernard; Sandi King;.
Kenneth Clifford;Alhe Crane
d. Written testimony: Many letters of public testimony were received(see public record
Hethe Clark(response to the revised staff report—in agreement except for two items: 1)
requests DA provision#1D be revised to not restrict homes along the west boundary to
a sin l�ry in height as previously proposed,to allow 2-story homes to be
constructed; and 2)requests deletion of condition 42B,which regires construction of
the 20' wide street buffer&detached sidewalk along the east side of Centrepointe to be
constructed with the first phase of development to be deferred until the multi-family
portion of the site develops.,
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony
a. The HOA to the north(Alpine Point)requests the Dashwood stub street at the north
boundary be vacated and sole vehicular access be provided to the site from the south via
Centrepointe Way to keep traffic from cuttingthrough hrou,gh their neighborhood—this could
also be accomplished with a,gate for emergency access only; feeling that the
subdivision to the north is"overconnected"and more connections aren't necessary to
Wainwright Dr. from the south, especially with Centrepointe planned to extend to
Wainwright in the future; requests larger lots and single-story homes along
boundary for a better transition;belief that funds should be provided by all development
for improvement of the Eagle Rd. &Wainwright intersection;
Page 18
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 32 of 85
b. Concern pertaining to the impact the proposed development will have on the capacity of
area schools;
c. Frustration from the neighbors that they weren't aware that Dashwood was planned to
be extended in the future as there were no signs erected at the end of the stub street;
d. Concern pertaining to the removal of all of the existing evergreen trees(40+/-)along the
southern boundary of the site and request for mitigation to be required the owner
planned to cut the trees down for firewood);
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. The Commission asked the Applicant to clarify the status of the Nourse Lateral
easement along the northern boundary of the site—the Applicant stated the Alpine
Pointe Subdivision plat depicts a 15' wide easement for the piped lateral that exists on
the adjacent property to the north within the easement;the Applicant also proposes to
depict an additional easement on the subject plat in case it's needed for maintenance of
the lateral;
b. The transportation plan for this area and existing and planned connections to
Wainwright
c. Whether or not Dashwood should be exended to Centrepointe with the first phase of
development as recommended by Staff, or extended as a temporary emergency
access/pedestrian connection until Centrepointe is extended to Wainwright, or within 10
years,whichever occurs first—when Centrepointe is exended to Wainwright,
Dashwood would be reconstructed as a public street for vehicular connectivity to
Wainwright as required by ACHD.
d. The Applicant's request for homes along the west boundary to not be restricted to
sin l�ry in height and for the buffer and sidewalk along the east side of
Centrepointe to not be constructed until development of the multi-family portion of the
sib
e. Support for retaining the existing trees or requiring mitigation for them if removed;
f In support of fewer lots and lower density proposed;
g. The timing for construction of the street buffer and sidewalk along the east side of
Centrepointe Way(with the first phase as recommended by Staff or with the 3rd phase
as proposed by the Applicant).
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Modify condition#A.1f to add language consistent with ACHD's decision pertaining to
the extension of Dashwood to Centrepoint Way; and strike condition#A.5 in Section
VIIl.
b. Modify DA provision#A.ld in Section VIII to allow bonus rooms on sin lg e-story
homes along the west boundary with no rear facing windows for the bonus rooms,
C. Strike condition#A.2b in Section VIII,which requires the street buffer and sidewalk
along the east side of Centrepointe Way to be constructed with the first phase of
development to allow it to be constructed with the third phase as proposed;
d. Include a condition requiring the Developer to retain as many trees as possible along the
southern boundar(see modification to condition#A.3a).
5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s)for City Council:
a. If Council determines that all existing trees on the site being removed should require
mitigation in accord with UDC standards, even those removed by the property owner
for firewood,condition#A.3a in Section VIII should be modified accordingly.
Page 19
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 33 of 85
VII. EXHIBITS
A ppli a*t D,-.,pose.a .e. Staff Reeon ,,ended Future Land Use Map Removed as an amendment to
the FL UM is no longer necessary.
Page 20
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 34 of 85
B. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map REVISED
Sawtooth Land Surveying, LLC
A2'%' kk-
P030 5. W.Ashmc3ton Ave. I=mmett, 11) 63617
rI f C r T f r: ;208) 39a-a 104 r: (2oe) 3q6-6,o5
Delano Zoning R-8 Description
BASIS OF BEARING for this description is South 89°39'12"West, between the illegible brass cap
marking the E1/4 Corner of Section 32 and the 518"rebar PLS 4431 marking the C1/4 Corner of
Section 32, both in T.4 N., R. i E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho.
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 3, Block 1 of Jasmine Acres, as shown in Book 59 of Plats, at
Page 5829,Ada County Records, and a portion of the 5E1/4 of Section 32, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada
County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the illegible brass cap marking the E1/4 Corner of said Section 32;
Thence South 89039'12"West, Coincident with the north line of said 5F1/4 of Section 32, a distance of
1026.20 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of said Jasmine Acres and the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence South 0°20'48"East, coincident with the west line of said Lot 1, a distance of 125.59 feet;
Thence South 89"42'00"West, parallel with the south line of said Lot 3, a distance of 121.45 feet;
Thence South 49130'18"West, 20.50 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the left;
Thence 43.46 feet along the arc of said curve,with a radius of 50,00 feet, a central angle of 49148'18",
subtended by a chord bearing North 6512351"West, 42.11 feet;
Thence South 891142'00"West, parallel with said south line of Lot 3, a distance of 382.00 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve to the left;
Thence 78.54 feet along the arc of said curve,with a radius of 50,00 feet, a central angle of 90100'00",
subtended by a chord bearing South 44°42'00"West, 70.71 feet;
Thence South 00°18'00"East, 372.09 feet;
Thence South 89142'00"West, parallel with said south line of Lot 3, a distance of 109.27 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve to the right;
Thence 14,35 feet along the arc of said curve, with a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle of 16,12624",
subtended by a chord bearing North 82104'48"West, 14.30 feet;
Thence North 73151'36"West, 18,22 feet to the westerly line of said Lot 3;
Thence North 16108'24"East, coincident with the common line of said Lots 3 and 4, Black 1, Jasmine
Acres, 25.45 feet to the northernmost common corner of said Lots 3 and 4;
P:12018118094-DELANO SUBDIVISION-CMGISurveylDrawingsloescriptions418094 zoning r-8 desc.docx
I1
Page 21
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 35 of 85
Thence North 1010'44"East,coincident with the east boundary line of said Lot 4, a distance of 511.15
to the northeast corner of said Lot 4, which is an said north line of the 5E114;
Thence North 891139'12"East, coincident with said north line of the 5E1f4, a distance of 727,70 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 3.31 acres, more or less.
11574
�Ie OF
EAG�-
RQ018118094-DELANO SUBDIVISION-CMGlSurvey%Drawing$%Descriptions118094 zoning r-8 desc.docx
IZ
Page 22
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 36 of 85
MUS OF BEARAG
N 8'39'u'E 7,7-70' POW OF BEGWNG 5Sg-"17'W
— — ^ — 1026.20, WC32
SEC 32 5903-04' ZLWWNG R-8 12557 E 114 CORNEA
C 1f4 CORMS a 13I AC3
500°2046'E
"1 1 CV
I
iOTL HLOOC i
14—qgiNEACRE5 x
�+ LINE TAKE m
LOT 4,Njxx1
mr s
--
1 LS N i6'Q8'24'E 2i4'
ICll VE TAME e
LLRVE ARC LOQGTH RAMS OELTAAN � 1
4346
4 z3 i- 42.11'
s49'u2w
9 �
�a LOT 3,aiocxt
u
Lnr4BLOMI FAaGfEVEIN —— —
5E QO 32ER
5L u
IV7
Q
r,►
pRaX:Cf• O WNERIVEVaGPER: DV k
5 7 BOLL COOK za3n s, WA 71T, D R3617 Ave. G 18094-EX
DEiANO ZONING!?� INVESTMENTS,LLC p 1(208)390 8104 PRWEL70
4T� BOUNDARY
Of,��� T.4 N. R.I E. 8.10., `5 JWT T- R(208)398-8105 18094
HE ADA COUNTY,II)AHD hare: L�� 1 SHEET
�! �7LLG WWW.S4WTOOTHL-,COM I OFI
Page 23
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 37 of 85
5awtooth Land 5urveylncj, LLC
" 2430 5-wa5mngton Ave, 1 044 Northwest DIvj_,Ste-G 141 1"Avcnue[a5t
Emmett,IV 836 17 Coeur d'Atcne,ID 8381 4 Jerome,1053335
J I P= (206)355.al04 P:(206)714-4544 P; (208)329.5303
r=(208)395-$r05 f.(206)292-4453 P:(20$)324-3a21
R-15 Re-Zone Description
BASIS OF BEARING for this description is South 89"39'12"West,from the illegible brass tap marking
the E1/4 Corner of Section 32 and the 5/8"rebar PLS 4431 marking the C1/4 Corner of Section 32,
both in T.4 N., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho.
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 3, Block 1 of 3asmine Acres, as shown in Book 59 of Plats, at
Page 5829, Ada County Records,and a portion of the N1/2 of the 5112 of Section 32, T.4 N., R. 1 E.,
B.M.,Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the illegible brass cap marking the E1f4 Corner of said Section 32;
Thence South 89"39'12"West, coincident with the center of Section line of said Section 32, a distance
of 1026.20 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of said Jasmine Acres;
Thence South 0"2048"East, coincident with the west boundary line of said Lot 1, a distance of 125.59
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing South 0°20'48"East, coincident with the west boundary line of said Lot 1, a distance
of 221.24 feet to the northwest corner cf said Lot 3;
North 89"42'00"East, coincident with the north boundary line of said Lot 3, a distance of 43.10 feet;
Thence South 0018'UO"East, 316.85 feet to the south boundary line of said Lot 3,
Thence South 89"42'00"West, coincident with the south boundary line of said Lot 3, a distance of
684.43 feet;
Thence North 481111'00"West, coincident with the south boundary line of said Lot 3, a distance of
154.02 fleet to the southernmost common corner of Lots 3 and 4 of said Jasmine Acres;
Thence North 16"08'24"East, coincident with the common boundary line of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1,
Jasmine Acres, 25.45 feet;
Thence South 73°51'36"East, 18.21 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve to the left;
Thence 14.35 feet along the arc of said curve, with a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle of 1611126'24",
subtended by a chord bearing South 82"04'48"East, 14.30 feet;
Thence North 89042'00"East, parallel with said south boundary line, 109.27 feet;
Thence North 01118'00"west, 372.09 feet to the beginning of a tangent cure to the right;
P:12018110094-DELANO SUBDIVISION-CMGISurveylDrawingslDescripticns118094 R-15 RE-ZONE
DESCRIPTION.docx
- 11
Page 24
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 38 of 85
Thence 78.54 feet along the arc of said curve, with a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle of 90000"00",
subtended by a chard bearing North 441142'00"East, 70.71 feet;
Thence North 89142'00"East, parallel with said south boundary line, 382,00 feet to the beginning of a
tangent curve to the right;
Thence 43.46 feet along the arc of said curve, with a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle of 49148'18",
subtended by a chord bearing South 65023'51"East, 42.11 feet;
Thence North 49030'18"East, 20,50 feet;
Thence North 89°42'00" East, parallel with said south boundary line, 121.45 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 8.12 acres, more or less,
ND
CGS
Q �
11574
SEA
:1-M18118094-❑ELAND SUBDIVISION-CMGISurveylDrawingslDescripti❑ns118094 R-15 RE-ZONE
7ESCRIPTION.docx
12
Page 25
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 39 of 85
MWIF BEARM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - s 83.3VI2'w 2OX94.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NBP"MWE 72770' _ 5fi9mJYt'w
SEC 32 903.PF' J 101G20' f JA Cawa
889°47="E-Won, w o
15 POINT or Wlt; jma
LDTIBLXKf
em,
w -AWNS AME9 m
� R-15 !,
&12 ACC
IA LOT 31 ILOGCS
� L
{LOT$BLOCK 1 E 70.9f1NE LY` -
W'32
LINE TA&E
NT5 p,� nnvvE T.ae�E
L! N89°a 41 GLR 944 A 9EARIl'tG OfORQ iFNi:FN
I 'E 25.IS 9 50.W' I6°Zfi'2k !
L3 5 °S]' "E i. Q ,54 N49 E .7l
a E 184 f.f6' 50.08' 1 w .22
LS H 4• .5q
1 /1 E III.
PROff : OWNERWOEVELOPER: DWG#
2030 S. WASHIIUGTOIV AVE.
DELANO ZONING R-15 BOLL COOK EMMETT,ID 83617 18094-EX
INVESTMENTS.LLC P:(208 398-8104 PRO]ECTI
BOUNDARY
Ahak F:(208j 398-8105
T.4 N.,R. 1 E.,9.M,. ��11-0orl 1809
ADD COUNTY,IDAHOsmfrr
aare: 312020 ���Y 7 r WWW.SAWTOOTHL5.COM 1 OF 1
Page 26
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 40 of 85
Sawtooth Land Surveying, LLC
2030 5. Washington Ave. �0,44 Northwest Blvd.,Ste. G 14 1 1"Avenue East
Emmett, V 83C 17 Gaeur d'Alene, ID 83814 Jerome, ID 63338
e rd��iure . P: (208)398.81 04 F: (208)714.4544 F:(205)3 29-5303
' F: (208)398-5105 Pr(208)292-4453 Fr(208)324-382 I
R-40 Re-Zone Description
BASIS OF BEARING for this description is South 89139'12"West, from the illegible brass cap marking
the E114 Corner of Section 32 and the 518"rebar PLS 4431 marking the 0/4 Corner of Section 32,
both in T. 4 N., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho.
A parcel of land being a portion of Lot 3, Block 1 of 3asmine Acres, as shown in Book 59 of Plats, at
Page 5829, Ada County Records, located in the NE1/4 of the SE114 of Section 32,
T. 4 N., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the illegible brass cap marking the E1/4 Corner of said Section 32;
Thence South 89039'12"West, coincident with the north line of said SE114 of Section 32, a distance of
1026.70 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of said Jasmine Acres;
Thence South 0"20'48"East, coincident with the west boundary line of said Lot 1, a distance of 346.83
feet to the northwest comer of said Lot 3;
Thence North 891,42'00" East, coincident with the north boundary line of said Lot 3, a distance of 43.10
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing, North 89042'00" East, coincident with said north boundary line of Lot 3, a distance
of 521.16 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 3;
Thence South 0001'00"East, coincident with the east boundary line of said Lot 3, a distance of 316.85
feet to the southeast corner of said Lot 3;
Thence South 89042'00"West, coincident with the south boundary line of said Lot 3, a distance of
519.60 feet;
Thence North 00018'00"West, 316.85 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
The above described parcel contains 3.79 acres, more or less.
b
is
5 7 4
� ,a
SEAC+�
R=18118094-13ELANO SUBDIVISION-CMG1SurveylDrawingslDescrlptions118094 R40 RE-ZONE
❑ESCRIPTION.docx
• � 1
Page 27
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 41 of 85
a4S7SOF
.5 89.39'12'W 2M94.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N 8T39W'a 727.70' S 89-3911r w _
— — 102&2v SEC3Z
56C 32 I E 1/4 OJPo1gt
C 1/4 LaYMER
O
1 I WTL NA"I 4
,y JASPRNE ACRES Z
9.00C 1
N NNN
LINE TA91E
11 N89M WE 521.16'
PRIM
LINE BEARING D O 1
11 Nffil"1 0'f 1 .Itl
z
d
3I LOT 3,BLOM I R-40 I w
l I 3.79 AC+ o
LOT%max I EIASMZNEIV I I
5 89°42'BO"W 519,fid SF CORNER
SEC 32
NT5
L
a 1 1 57.d f s PROJECT: OWNEWOEvELOPEa: 2030S. WASHINGTON AVE, DWG#
�f BOLL COOK Sj 18094-EX DELANO ZONING R-40 EMMETT,ID-8104
INVESTMENTS,LLC
9$of SOP BOUNDARY �. P.(208 398 8104 a80949r
d F:(208 398-8103 I8094
FFF8EA�4 T.4 C.,R.1 , B.M., 5.�M07- S„�
AOA COUNTY IDAHO DATE: ���1
3/2020 �` n7 WWW.SAW rOOTHLS.COM 1 OF 1
Page 28
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 42 of 85
C. Preliminary Plat(date: 2/ 4�n 3/12/2020)&Phasing Plan REVISED
PREL MINMY PLAT FOR
E,ELANO SUBDIVISION Sw
.u..• AM 20io .Ho i w..�. .w-.�. �—� W
�Wy
ud oc
�o Q
---------------
i
--- - ---
--� -
Yj
a o
L--------
w
16'COufttm six[[ iY�w1
Jett �
Fe is '§
1 p
o 3
_
a
W
I �
o
PP1.1
Page 29
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 43 of 85
11IMMINARY PLAT FOR LaeLo -
D"NOSUBDIVISION -
LOr a ewee�,ywuxcuxesaxo 3 w+umovnrteos
�acalrn iu rulx iizor rxes lnsEcnox sz 'z1�. -� - -.,.
=omswv.ucam wzwol uss,eza. — L -
^��--. non caunr,ionxo
�7 y Ze
-- — — mores umL ocwLn
000
---
------------
Elm
n 3.
YM[
isme.m.aumtirr rww Z g
NOW
III '_ I I MwK I
I I I
MEU SERA 36'COLLFLTM 5�4FFr XClIMii�'. IS LOGIL SAFFr YCipN
PP1.0
Page 30
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 44 of 85
D. Landscape Plan(date: 2/'�T3/14/2020) REVISED
NOTES PLANT PALETTE
r....r.
,...,. ..,., Ou� �,r�,K.�... q �,..,..,....,. ..,,.�...em .�....a,..... .�....
ft
! I ..vim. '�' � ��/ �� � rv.,•.a,K........,,����.a,R.,.. ��.. r.,..,. i:.;
P .e u. _ '� ,gem.n rma r.neea•st.Q2,mm_ v JENSENBELTi
=7DEVELOPMENT DATA wn
Q TREE GLANTiN6i5TAKCNS Q PLANTER cur eEv EvsE F'�N:
0 IL
„ �.
FEB
J
_ Z
LANDSCAPE
GALGULATIONS
-- LU�CBCAP!
Li
y`TES PLANT PALETTE
S..f.. un+�rc wrs�e:,xw O 5i N2itl RAN;INV M��� w..,xi w � • 1"
H
it 11E
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Oj TREE PLANTWG TPKINb
5
Ow
_ Q
AWL PFN/,GY+ZE r O5 WR T IFPN FENCE Z
qLLI
T
- I LAI.PSGAPC
Q
• _ W
GALGLLA*lo\_ rc
W.- ..
LANDSCAPE
i -..... PLAN
it
LI
• e w t r
Page 31
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 45 of 85
NOTES PLANT PALETTE
It
im
u ,..0 rumic m�.w.renn,ur mff moo.®. - w JENSEN66LT4
DEVELOPMENT DATA
O ipPE PL4NiIN6/STAKINS O PLaNTEa
ane.�.�.amv.nx
ease cr�werrun.,x uu
� mc.w wmwm•re...,,,., x
O w
W a
❑ z
a
9'V N PaIVAC FENCE O y(aWbHi�rz�.n FENCE Z
�• Q a
-_ LRNDSGRPE ❑ W
6ALGULA710N5 p�
a
QQ
�uNoecAPE
PLAN
� roM�M m L1
Page 32
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 46 of 85
E. Possible Conceptual Development Plan for Parcel to the North
I I 1
T�l
Passible Future Development Pattern -
r A
I
1 I i
1 rrr
S�
Page 33
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 47 of 85
F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit& Site Amenities REVISED
N
W
w o x goo
I I
' 1
T3857 SF 1
ffl
1
I
I I _
I I
� I
3786 SF I— 378a SF 1 7372 SF
I I
I
1.17 acres of qualified open DELANO ACE EXHI
OPEN SPACE IXIMT
space without crossed out area RESIDENTIAL AREA=111 43 ACRES
QUALIFYING OPEN SPACE—Yl.23 ACRES(10.890
Note: The crossed out area does not count toward the minimum qualified open space standards because it isn't
accessible at the west end,per UDC 11-3G-3B.le.
Page 34
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 48 of 85
PROJECT AMENITIES
As the developer we have researched and interviewed potential homeowners and followed the city
ordinance to plan the most productive amenities for this area and this development. The amenity
package exceeds the requirement of Meridian City Code. Meridian City Code requires that the
application provide one amenity for projects up to 20 acres.We are proposing five additional amenities
for a total of six, including a neighborhood park with a shade structure, a play structure,seating area,
climbing boulders,climbing dome and a pedestrian pathway.We are proposing a second open space lot
on the southwest corner of the development. This lot will help to buffer the existing home in the
Champion Park Subdivision and will include several amenities including public art and a seating area.
Proposed Amenities:
Large 2/3-Acre Neighborhood Park-The large park will contain the following recreation facilities:
Shade Structure
Play structure
Seating areas with benches
Climbing Dame
Climbing Boulders
Public Art
I
I.
L!4qN(,f'i
R' ♦ I �
W'v
Y d -2
t GLINHIN BC(ADER5,
I.pe e0 i! GNIG TM
;J
10
'
Page 35
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 49 of 85
G. Conceptual Building Elevations(Single-Family^Detached and Multi-Family
Apartments)REVISED
PROPOSED HOME ELEVATIONS AND HOUSING STYLES
t
1
M
J
Page 36
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 50 of 85
y�
i
STU
691
G
Page 37
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 51 of 85
•j
{r�,
iF-
MONA
r+ -
Page
Meridian • •Agenda May 12,2020— Page 52 of
r,
N+ �
r
Page 39
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 53 of 85
H. Parking Exhibit REVISED
0
58 parking
spaces
z
Z a
o O w
---- — -- — (n a
0
a" •a»ce � m J
® Q 6
W f
o
❑- -----}— --� I - 1— -� a
LANOBCAPE
ease c«o ee.oi PLAN
Li
Page 40
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 54 of 85
I. Site Plan
° , ------------ _ - - - __________ _
L2 .
t-
�4
N
W DELANO SUBEIIASION
SITE LAYOUT
�J
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the
developer.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division
prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner
and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council
granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum,incorporate the following
provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the
preliminary plat,phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building
elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein.
Page 41
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 55 of 85
b. A Conditional Use Permit is required to be submitted and approved for the multi-family
development prior to application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design
Review.
c. All multi-family structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the
Architectural Standards Manual. An application for Design Review and
Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted and approved for all
multi-family structures prior to submittal of building permit applications.
d. Single-family homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the
development shall be restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the
Developer. Homes along the west boundary are allowed to have a bonus room
but no rear facing windows shall be allowed for the bonus room.
e. The rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 8-12,Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 5 that
face N. Centrepointe Way shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more
of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,
banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to
break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from
this requirement.
f.
beendary of the annexation area(stub to Weag par-eel#R4 582530100) shall eeeui7 wit
the first chase f development. The connection of Dashwood Ave. to the existing stub
street to the north(Dashwood Pl.,) is approved as a temporary emergency access and
pedestrian connection until Centrepionte Way is extended to Wainwright Dr., or within
ten 00)years,whichever occurs first. When Centrepointe Way is extended to
Wainwright Dr.,Dashwood Pl. will be reconstructed as a public street for vehicular
connectivity to Wainwright Dr. as required by ACHD.
g. The R-8 and R-15 zoned property totaling 11.3+/-acres shall provide a minimum of 1.13
acres and the R-40 zoned property totaling 3.6+/-acres shall provide a minimum of 0.36
of an acre (in addition to the open space required in UDC 11-4-3-27C for multi-family
developments).
i. Provide vehicular connection to the property to the east(Parcel#R4582530202)through
the R-40 zoned property via a local street or a driveway as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A.3.
If a driveway is provided,provide a cross-access/ingress-egress easement to that
property; submit a recorded copy of the easement to the Planning Division prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
j. No building permits shall be issued on this site until the underlying property is recorded
in a final plat.
2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B,shall be revised at least 10 days prior to
the City Council hearing as follows:
a. Depict an easement for the Nourse Lateral along the north boundary of the site. If the
easement is 10 feet or greater, it shall be located within a common lot that is a minimum
20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in
UDC 11-3A-6D.If the lateral is located completely off-site and an easement does not
encroach on this site, submit written confirmation of such from the Irrigation District.
b. The stfeet buffer-a-ad minimum 5 feetwide detaeked sidewalk on the east side of N.
Gentr-epointe Way shall be ineltided in the first phase(instead of the third phase)0
develepmen4;the phase boundar-y shall be adjusted aeeor-ding!�-
Page 42
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 56 of 85
3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.0 shall be revised at least 10 days prior to
the City Council hearing as follows:
a. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees on the site that are not
removed by the residential property owner for fire wood in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5. As many existing trees as possible along the southern
boundary of the site shall be retained on the site.
b. Include the linear feet of parkways and the required vs. proposed number of trees in the
Landscape Calculations table demonstrating compliance with the standards in UDC I I-
3A-17 and 11-3B-7C.
c. Include the linear feet of street buffers and the required vs. proposed number of trees in
the Landscape Calculations table demonstrating compliance with the standards in UDC
11-3B-7C.
d. Depict trees and shrubs in the minimum 20-foot wide street buffers along N.
Centrepointee Way in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.
4. The 50-foot wide private street easement(i.e. Jasmine Lane) shall be relinquished where it
crosses the subject property. Proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning
Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
5. Net4h Pashweed Pl. shall be extended as a full aeeess street into the site with the first ph
6. Local street access (or a driveway with a cross-access easement) shall be provided to the
property to the east of the R-40 zoned property(Parcel#R4582530202) as set forth in UDC
11-3A-3A.3. The Applicant should coordinate with the developer of that property on a
location for the access. If a driveway is provided, a recorded copy of the cross-access
easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by
the City Engineer for the phase in which it is located(third phase).
7. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat
application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,building envelope and orientation of the lots
and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren't taking access from the common
driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the
common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless
separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer.
8. Provide address signage for homes accessed by the common driveways on Lot 5,Block 1 and
9,Block 4 for emergency wayfinding purposes.
9. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for
all common driveways,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface
capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement shall
be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City
Engineer.
10. All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the
final plat phase in which they are located.
Page 43
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 57 of 85
11. Parking is restricted to only one side of the 27-foot wide street sections; signage shall be
installed prohibiting parking on one side of the street to ensure emergency access can be
provided.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the
standards can be found at http://Www.meridianciU.oMIpublic_works.aspx?id=272
1.2 The following proposed manholes have less than 3'of cover: A-3,A-4,A-5, C-1 and D-5.
Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant the possibility of using grinder
pumps in these shallow areas,but the plans do not note the use of them. If the parcel to
the north of the multi-family is to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at
minimum slope in N. Centrepointe Way to the north boundary line.
1.3 Each phase must be modeled to ensure adequate fire flow.
1.4 Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to the north for the
multi-family portion of the development will be provided according to how annexation
proceeds. Meridian will provide water in Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in
Boise. If the area being considered for inclusion is to be served by the City of Meridian,
the Public Works Department would like to have a completed water main loop north to
the existing water main in E. Wainwright Drive. The purpose of this loop is not for flow
and pressure reasons,it is to create redundancy and for mitigation of water quality
concerns created by dead end mainlines.
2. General Conditions of Approval
2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is
three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate
materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments
Standard Specifications.
2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and
water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a
reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of
public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall
be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be
dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of
Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for
reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public
Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,
which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"
map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be
sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a
note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,
and approved prior to development plan approval.
Page 44
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 58 of 85
2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-
round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not
available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a
single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of
assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the
final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject
to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with
MCC.
2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,
intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall
be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply
with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic
service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian
Engineering Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services.
Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by
Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190.
2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for
this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all
uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on
the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and
construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the
issuance of a plan approval letter.
2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
Page 45
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 59 of 85
2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set
a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is
to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation
district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have
been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be
required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record
drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be
received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any
structures within the project.
2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light
plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.
2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for
surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please
contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the
amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for
surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please
contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLink/Browse.aspx?id=184561&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit
X
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=184570&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit
X
E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
http://weblink.meridiancity.orglweblink8/0/doc/165379/Pagel.aspx
F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
http://weblink.meridiancity.otylweblink8/0/doc/16523IlPa eg 1.aspx
Page 46
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 60 of 85
G. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT
http://weblink.meridianci U.org/weblink8/0/doc/164812/Pagel.aspx
H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink&DocView.aspx?id=165010&dbid=0
L DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
http://weblink.meridianci U.org/weblink8/0/doc/164959/Pagel.aspx
J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=179144&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=183358&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=169441&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
L. CITY OF BOISE
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=184571&&dbid=0&&repo=Meridian
Ci
IX. FINDINGS
A. COMPFeheasive Plan Map Amendment
Upon feeemmendation from the Genffnission,the Couned shall make a fidil investig
the Comprehensive Plan-,+he Getineil shall make the following findings:
Page 47
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 61 of 85
2. The pr-epesed amendment provides an impr-Ewed guide to fuWr-e growth and development 9
may.
3. The pr-eposed amendment is ipAernally eonsistepA with the Goals, Objectives and Polieies of
the Comprehfflsive Plan.
4. The proposed ameadment is eeasistefi4 with the Unified Development Code
Ae Gonintissionfind-s that the proposed amendment is eonsis�nt with the Unifi- e
5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned suffounding land uses.
sei�viee eapabilities.in this.Portion of the ei,,�,. Sewer and water serWees ai-e a+wilable to be
vte r to this site.
7. The proposed map amendment(as appheable)provides a legieal juxtaposition of uses tha
allows suffieient area to mitigate any antieipa4ed impaet asseeiated with the deveiepmeftt of
the area.
8. The pFeposed amendment is in the best ipAer-est of the City of Mer-idia-a.
the prepes-ed aniewhnent is.in the best interest ef the Oty,if the 19areel to Me nerth is also
B. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
Page 48
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 62 of 85
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
The Commission finds the proposal to annex and develop the subject property with R-8, R-15
and R-40 zoning consistent with the MDR and MU-R FL UM designations.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and development complies with the
purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will provide for a range of housing
opportunities 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 and subsequent development will not be
detrimental to the public if access is provided as required by ACHD.
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 that City services are available to be provided to this development.
The School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.J that currently show
student enrollment is below capacity for the elementary school and over capacity for the
middle school and high school; the Commission finds the proposed map amendment would
result in an adverse impact on the school district.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City having
obtained approval from the City of Boise to exclude the eastern portion of the subject
property from their Area of City Impact boundary.
C. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-613-6)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008)
The Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the
Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VIII.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
The Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and are
adequate to accommodate the proposed development.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's
capital improvement program;
The Commission finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public
improvements in accord with the City's CIP.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the
proposed development.
Page 49
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 63 of 85
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public safety
and general welfare if access is provided as required by ACHD.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-
30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that would
need to be preserved with this development.
shall detefFnine the feflewiftg-
1StFict-adherence or-appliea4ioa of the-e"ir-emeats are not feasible; E)F
feasible.
2. The altemative eamplianee provides an equal or- S for meeting 0 0 0s; n
meeting-the-requiremem s in UDC 11- C--3-.
3. The altemative means will not be materially det+imeatal to the p4lie welfafe or-impair-the
the high density and medium densio,residential uses alld-2 and 3 stor
Page 50
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 64 of 85
City of Meridian, City Council
May 12, 2020 at 6 PM
PowerPoint Residents of
� y
y�i t
{{ rY a�r�F� � � SY 3 •• - . f - r .
I lip •+X _.y �, '. _ '� .� e'
J
Neighborhood Representative
Alpine Pointe neighbors are seeking:
1. Transparency and full scope of plans
2. Reduced density on Cook MFR parcel, 2-story
limit
3. Lower density northern border, one story
SFR
4. CLOSE DASHWOOD TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC
in perpetuity—another ingress/egress for
Delano is possible, per ACHD memo. There is
one chance to get this right.
ACHD accepted a CLOSED cul -de -sac
for Dashwood in -2005-,
k - -
..
� ' ! // � - � . � � E D � � ' |��|`��l•`�
- p. .� - �y �� • f /
` ■ . � �_ ! , �� - 77: �_ � � �
� � � _ �� �• ` e� /�/ ° � � ���
|; @ E
, ! - . � l � a !ip
. �
a !` � ��� � . < :\� § � e . . •
.� � IJ � � ,ƒ ' } � � . « • . I
■ ! � � �� � . � � | � �
§-
, J -
�
I? .
D AS HW O O D - !� ■. ! � _
■ , � �� � -� .
' | _ _ , \�
REASONS FOR DASHWOOD: City Staff Suggestion for
conditions that does not exist. A "landlocked" Bollinger
parcel does not exist today, nor does a long block face, nullifying the
reasons for creating N Dashwood PI as a "stub" and it was NEVER SIGNED
as a road to be continued
March 17, 2005.
htt s: web4ink.m-eridlartci .etr web in DocView.as x?i d=164 58&d bid=Q&reRgEMeridian
Cl
SP E!(JAL L06-]SID EMT]QP;S rPR4LIMINARV PLAT
SWk-51rcc4,s= Thov are four C uuniy-zoned parods to the south of the sale Iitat have not
been approved recently for deve3opmcnu. Two of the parcels JSA-acrm and 8.2-acres)
+were platted with Jasmine Acres Suhdivis;on in 1 2_ The olhtx two pawcbp (5.C�-mires
And 5.2-acTea) have rwt been platted_ T he applicant is pmpumng to conmiruct -one stub
sit(Camas Cm& Way) to one of the fats pari:cla(thc 49_2-acm Kedinslci parcxl. Parcel
No. P,43825304001. When the KcU nsi parcel develops in the future Camas Vre* Way
-will be cxtmded to tie in with the stub suw pmvrided in Champ4 n Perk Subdivision to
the youth.Staff`is supporiiva of the proposed C'anius ureic Way stub tmcct,
To provide intemonnectivity aroongst the remaining 5-n4rr plus parcels and the subject
file when they&-veiop, giaff W icygg that the avy4icant shnuld proyide an -mddilional stub
s4y�-t to ■ oath tq t c S-#k=Wastnild pancl (Pamd Xo. S053'AZ78I-D). MCC 12-4-5
requires blocks io be no more Chmt 1,000-feet in length. rya +gym, H r rk 10 is over
t,3 U-feot lcsng. T-he req%Aremelt for a Stub strc- t to tM Wagnild pajoct will all*viatc the
proposed n -oanforr ing block lmgrh and provide Tneeromiecttvtty to this othcrwiw
1Andkx*ed parcel See Site Spc6fie Conditicm #2 beio*ar_ StaIT rNL supportive of the other
propo stub an is and stub suet extensions to the east and west,
.�.JR
E•McM ilia n•Rd +WMaMlll.an+R
hf w3 �We � • • � t� - �� T ti
* r A �
Ilk
f + * %_ i
T.hN 1: Aaabs ISPOC Ing an Ca1leotom{away horn a lwgm l .d Inlor;ec tlonf Access to Collectors is to be
R�"d
i3..675 Eu2*:1]•f_M IiCn5.09t O.a Hi{1r42rMX Ord 211 ls2ASnft Ol 233
{M50.76�2391i UM17j.Ord 2r0*412'12MM spaced 330" yet Lacewood to
Wagon St at Camas Creek is only
MIIwnSiol Qa par,111CY1 �«gin � � � 165 ft, G ra n a d i I l o to Wagon St i s
POSUdSpded Llmlf fcv Local Sheets than 100 vtb i iil F 1C4 V-rD
12,-MFH 1150'.
-�wrl — i1$q only 130 ft---unsafe for a
wive+ aah• Wipes- i iso
All diman Wam am 10 to Irr ured Cenlyraft 1a prntaMlno
T205.4-6 Eivrreway des&p UHrrla Collector such as N Camas Creek.
DrNWo ay# 4hall tre grotgned In naornlanre iWA M* C! Marla In TUWa 2
below.Additionally:
• 3AJI0 now dttw the a are m 1ho e1 io he payed their ruY 15w$dlh8dj ca at Ka9l There should never b e a mid-
50•iad N5L0Iha dkaTf011'171Ya4 rlr pavaR7el11 Of Use 851I9rXJt51 alraai.
If a drhlewray A 7o be gated. Me gate a keyp2d19 appbr_6 ]shaf
"xPraeed s rn IIM IMren or 5p.leel horn 0a adlmovit rtir&M arltl An
U3 an-site hr s !Mailen pravldled- mile collector connection here
- dmreuays are in tie i]entrtied an the ranstrur#ton tlrarings. thr
rnm.�lning rrr.rrgagg alnrra art armorial ut py mrua " Ipanllri d ag
-� due to this unsafe situation.
for Upla draw Is ow Lwm4m e a 4+e.€ou k-gtkLli
a}.
a'KP —
M.a
YI
Al.
t
a+
II `
L r�a.1{2h4 p' �
Ir d
rr
ACHD collector access measurements did not apply between Rosepoint
and Dashwood on collector Wainwright---a mere 183 feet of separation.
IF YOU CONNECT DASHWOOD TO DELANO THIS WILL BE A SERIOUS and
DANGEROUS SCENARIO...THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SAFE SEPARATION
DISTANCE FOR THAT VOLUME of TRAFFIC. It was likely accepted in 2005
since N Dashwood PI was designed as a limited traffic cul-de-sac that was
expected to generate under 100 vehicle trips daily.
Measurement Tool at Ada County Assessor Land Records Search
-CIi&*rUv to drawn rneas+Xamewik 1.n*.DGu41a-dir1yedw ii>FhniA.
� 5
ia3s t _
r' 0 .ar, ,,.• � .w.
3�ee�Fee�
� y
R
4
4 •' i f
i
Ip
� � 4
f 540 ft distance
This is y Frdeadn
• between
183
Dashwood to w
hi new CollectorFeet from
f
R.
• Centrepoint. c
Why add ,
UNSAFE for
E•Milf���4!
i ro r Dashwood? _
t
.10
Collector
DistanceAccess Point
,. � .
s s
1
EXH I BIT C No front-on housing for residential collectors, ACHID policy 2005, when this
prl:lirninary plat for PHASE 2, Zebulon Heights was accepted. Nov, most of Alpi Ile Pointe is
poised to become de facto collectors, disproportionat-ely carrying much of this City's block
trafftr, burdens N/S., and Ef VV. M ost of Alpine Peinte streets have front-on housiF)g.
IrM ci rs4uq�lyr trnnj8l1,1llr I enrorrLLkrll f2 oist f3ri 1141U- lS fur I iesiOl fL1101 L-aklQ;[OrS,sut h as Wrilnwa WJ41,was nu4 Iollflwcd in Alpinr Vai" _,dka Zehulun
Nclghts.
3. 31Feet So CAE0n5
Re.shfantlal colwaz
Divrict policy 724'7A. 7 .3.2 and 72112.3.-S.+egulres ftat MSICOMOA floi►a4;+ M t,a C0nIrLiCLjqd a5
364L-01 OtMEI.WCOUna with curb,!quLtar ano 64coa4w1d,5 voncrv[e s[dew4Eriks wltls r1rj front G" houaang.
7ho acbess resirfctlu"(w 05ese aimet sw�m$rLts should ho SUR-od Qn the Final Plat. Unless�;h,�nrlse
5
noted,pmrking shcm 1Gd he proYLibHed orti ihnse-street segmer,ls. Goatfftn:pM the 9ign-.Oa Pr am YytLh
Di91rict S1aif#-
ALL F-RONT-ON HOUSING ON N DASHWOOD PL
J � �
k
Ada County and City of Meridian are tied to
Street Naming Conventions by CODE
Ada County https://adacountV.id.gov/assessor/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/StreetNamingGuide.pdf
$119 NAME9ANDW —
Gen ral r s.The following general$tjndjrd$opply to stNet�I lot d in uninpipolated Ada counly and
KE
Ihr;citis of E�lt,S#at,GatferM fly�Itid Na rho Gs�ot i camplelt list�f all c�qu1+e+�tiak�,1h1�s�dtlfdrds fo+ Title 8: Public Waysand Property,
Boise ar�dMeriian are similartathese but withwrnediffererIces.for altoi all requirementsfnrQach
City of Meridian Uniform Street
�, ptt�i�+xial, traal�� ��m�s�i�tlli �t�di � rMsl� t�, o�th,Ernst Iu w�$�x a Naming Chapter 2, 8-2-6
streets general d4eriian of travel relative to the initial i of the addressing dis `
lind 10.1he waif s NNh,South,ton and RI mla i0 aar J• �`�`� `• �,��
�'` 0� � aRekYo�p�pat�v�earrd�Yyit�wr�rggfrdx�.
J '� p,iereavt��or:2�#�irrge�sapre
h, P s�,$I(eelname.irno�liotludeoneoflhetopowi P n,e�aa ra�aa r� ara�nxa ,�xa . capo�erM� or«a+ a mu�esTkWX nr.akWWA"-
�a�
v Stretr AA east west sIial�nelllY running in u QQ' ?s b I$raY oil aardeuenss�
�-..-._t,r.__}.� .
+ 17rrue:R meandering street running generally east Q Qi
�O �,a (6) Place: Anorth-seuth col-de-sac or dead-end street_
Wq,A meandedng sheet running generilly north
!7 R ad: t which extends through both url
I O r ; n east-west cul-de-sac.
P�aCe;A rlerth scut �ul-�e say. ku•t4NM-'w"'- �]'NoW Eft�CMOI .arer.�ia owlt01 .efil will Iimo.WHOrc�nrrOW%fiNscaoc e,weaarMro.yawar
ybiq��
p�� pp■Rood';A street which travels throultld�faPIMdRA. Yp ;: --m d�e�� Yy, , ,�, Ih t�nriY eg.ldre4[sd Yao�e�e Im
t�L�tdc�k:-AwhnKhaAsM�rwla"rzzAkFrzbPmhrAI k!r%Akevzdmpmhzkw�*timmrrwrl
'�$��i hand ar+d 9d�lrrord post ly��s must bt a��ta�ad by AC#f�,
City of Meridian Ordinance No. 271 YEAR 1974
https://weblink.meridiancity.ore/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=45658&dbid=O&repo=MeridianCity&searchid=70479cbc-
4801-49b0-ade7428a56d2e6ea
Avenue A North-South right-of-way generally running in a straight line
w�i a x�prorides vehicular and pedestrian access to adjacent properties, the
dedication of which haae been legally accepted, except avenues in eaistance
at this date.
Drive A right-of-way gene"lly meande#r1=S Ln an East-wee! direction whlob
provides vehicular and pedestrian access to adjacent properties, the dedication
of which has beeaa legally accepted.
A sight--af-way generally meandering in a North-South direction which
provides vehicular and pedestrian access to adjacent propertie$* t-he ded:jcatian
of which has been lege.11y accepted.
Court An Fast-West dead-end street connecting to a drive or str-aet at one and
only and at the other spud providing a cut-dei.ma with ri radius of 45 foot at
the face of curb to the center of the circle.
'lace A Hnrth-$auth dead-and a-beet connecting to oL dr# _-ire or street at on*
eag only and at the other end prcT:U ing a cul-de-sac with a radlus of 45 feet
at the face of curb to the center of the circle.
Lane A private street, officially accepted as such, but not maIntai.ned by
the Ada County Highway District. Its acceptance is Dared upon an application
request and Highmay District agency approval. "y private lane which has two
or more addresses must be officially named.
$nulevara Wormally 8a foot or greater right-of--wsty vhich prow des schlcular
and pedestrian access to adjacent properties* the dedication oY which has
been officially accepted by the Ada County Higbway Dimtari of Rnd which is
separated by a median strip, usually landscaped.
Road A designated major arterial which. extends to Tooth urban and rural areas,
dedicated and maintai-tied by the Ada County Highxay District.
The ume of 'road* or *Boulevard' shall be by deaignation of the Ada
County Highway District and ahall be based upon the function and Improvements
of such atreets.
Five platted lots or less coming immediately off cf any right-of-way
shall eax-ry the muffzx «circle" after the name of the street from which it
emerge4 and shall be numbered according -to the grid of such street. Short
12
Fill—
elf, f, { { r`
pit
41
�� � • _i �fly'" Y � *_ - - � �� J � ` - �
PLD
-'k w Pl
' a
a��' ,`I
r r ¢ {
■ Q Or LF
• • • 1 • • • w • • • 1 1 , • , , • • _ 1 • • •
• • • • • • • . • • • • a • I I I
• I`rY s •r
s
ilium
let
� T
N ote : W Grey Towers is named a " DRIVE", and it
is signed to for continuation as well
S Marsala Way
= - -Yr-
+� -� - -�
-10. � # A
-+ #
AAL
E HYPER DR
ilk x� l lw � � - } •° . . r
New Meridian neighborhood of Sky Mesa . These round
turnabouts are currently signed to be continued, and they
are designated with a "DRIVE" or "WAY" name
- s
N Tricia is named a " WAY ' a n d is signed to be
continued in the future as a stub
City Council has the Authority to waive 11-3A-3 :
ACCESS TO STREETS.
CLOSE N Dashwood PI to through vehicular traffic, in
perpetuity. This has occurred before with the closure
of "stub" streets in the past, via City Council decision .
i a Ut• R jj 0�
it
114P ACCESS TO STREETS:
i
Tk Rhmg SnDduda LU appk unless AM-15e bi Citr Couozil The'M111112 of th a Standards is to impr It safay b4 cmbrruna and i)r linalt v acc—'s poi=w collector and erterig streets UIi
e 51M that MmLits cMsaE).eater all streets.
A. The folfm-q standards shall app to as}-uk and or proper"ig takes airect access to as an-I and or collector raadw Pro fo any"ue :II or extended use or k e pmtat of she prMm-.
1. T ere access to a local street rs nikWAIr appl=SUI recMEM the site circulation plan to bkE access from siu:h IN9 street.
_'_ 'there access to a;Deal streets notatiailah ,the propem"om�r shallbere ate so giant cross access m�ress esesti e'a to adioMM properties.Is staudard is i4tea"so app)cprsmaril}"to
ireNideutul properties.but -mend to rudentul piqubes There the wis aatnpied�D cha Qti to a ammidUL use.
CityUtilities exist on the Bollinger Parcel
Dashwood is not necessary for DELANO
oil
u,
- _ Water
SE
WE
"STUB" streets that did not connect. DVORAK and BARCLAY
(Three Corners Ranch), UPRIVER (W of Ten Mile, S of
McMillan ), and ALASKA (by Stoddard, Meridian, and
Overland)
-- • �. . t _ .. ,
r�•Ga
1 1 r
" ;' 't` w I �- • wig
9 � _
" PLACE" means cul-de-sac
Idead-end
• In conclusion, if PLACE is defined in most USA cities
and towns as a closed court, dead-end, or cul-de-sac
then it is feasible for anyone to see a roadway that
ends in a circle and is named PLACE is a cul-de-sac,
especially without a sign...signs are REQUIRED.
• Furthermore, REACTORS and Land agents refer to
naming conventions in CODE to inform clients of a
roadway status. COURT and PLACE means DEAD-END
or CUL-DE-SAC.
• Close N DASHWOOD PL to through traffic, in
perpetuity. This will avoid a twin de facto
Commercial Collector situation .
CSPACE SAVER
SANDI KING
Th
A.
el% hit ti+r k St Y3 `•$�1 Fi te'H v k�52 P i - ` - { 'h~ r
77
i!—IL I# + ' , _ -1 ,
4
404
ti •N'4Bake'Ri.
r.,r _. +� � , - � r—•-try-y�� • �1�� Y;� � •r- {.
IeV
IL
J #:�
.
Pw
CU.
4BIP / y� _
_ ~ lc � �y'
IEL-
1
T �"
SPACE SAVER
KEN CLIFFORD
Dashwood was originally a closed
cul -de-sac ( red circle ) approved by ACHD
pp
�r ------ — ---
�� - W M c fw ILL i
66
Nt
_j
eL
Apl-
20
- �—— -
�d4
March 17, 2005 Staff suggests Dashwood as a "stub" for a
"landlocked" parcel
Centrepoint Shopping area was not built then, so there was no Centrepoint
Stub in 2005. The Centrepoint stub is at the Bollinger/Cook parcel today.
There is no non-conforming block length. This is pre-commercial collector
concept at Centrepoint/Wainwright as well.
I , tuh StreCIS. I licyc are four county-zoned parccis to the south of Ow site chat have nLx
bftn mpimmcd vcvimlly tot develoMeni. Tway of t parceio (5.0-scma mind 8. do&)
+rem platted with Jasmine Acrus SuhdMxion in 1 . The other two pamcls (3.0-acrcs
and 5.2 ) ha%v not bm play . '11w aWlicant Ls proposing to con-arva one Vub
a (Corw Craft Way) to one of the f rr parcels (1hc 9.2-ate KrtlinAl per . Pjirccl
o. R#S S304 ). Whon Lba Keffinsl pazccl dervOupa in the futum Carnes Crvak Way
will be cxtcndcd to tic in with ft stub scrod provided in Chunpion Park Subdivision to
the south. Stasis supportive of the proposed Cwna-s Crack Way stub iavect
TQ provide intercomiectivity amor,&.st ffic samahuing 5-acm plus parols uruf the subject
ae who% dicy do VCiQPL 1 iem U sbouhi 1,bmvi Rio an ad dit Tonal stub
tr WNMild Parcci No. 05324271910). MCC 1 S
requim bps to #a to rotes thaw i, O- act in lenoi. X% shovrn. Block 10 is irm
l,DSO-fee lcm& The rtxluircment for a stub stet to the Wap tId piucel :ill allcylate the
proposed nm-ponfbnnIn,% block laso and pomade iffleroDruiWMty to thb otherwise
I*Mlookcd parcel_ See Site Specific Camm6tion #2 Mow. Staff is ivc of tbt othcr
prop o utnb suefts wd stub V~ext=inns to the west.
Dashwood modified to allow driveway to Wagnild
parcel should it become "landlocked ."
aSmina r- M€ fe5iyii tin4•.�' + i ja ,. '
a� r~
Na Ur I!LANI
Lot
161.
I.1 i J
4
✓r x
r
■ I'I�
t •� '� _ _
{ •� In
S
qhl Dr 't:.14,}iny'rrlgli1 S7rT F::';ilnwngli'Dr
If■� � � 1
Irk
Perimeter 4,961.26 t ••r ,.,...,
j
Area 2,342,900 37 f� �
11
.MOM mpmb
� �I� � '' ' r ■ U�IfI
y r'
mr-
111111 �� � -�
*NO ; : - r
- 1 r.
■
- Iliilll
MEMO
ir INFILL IMPACTS
Small City Traffic
Densities proposed for this area could result in a
population exceeding 3,000 people; the size of McCall, ID
with about 3,350 people.
• 275,550,306 square feet (640 acres) in a square mile.
• In-fill section is only 54 acres or one twelfth (1/12) of
one square mile.
• McCall is 6,325 acres or 9.884 square miles.
• McCall area is 117 times larger than the infill area; yet
both will have similar populations.
.40"k,
., West Ada
.f�.. SCHOOL DISTRICT
April 16,Z029
City of Marldian
33 E Broadway Ave.,Ste,102
MeA lan,Ip n642
RE:D?etana Subdlwislan
F7le Hu,W2019-0427
gear Nsnners=
Joint Srhool District No. 2 (dba west Ada Schaal District) has experlemed significant and sustained growth In student
enrollment durirk�the last ten years.Many of our 5ch9015throu8hout the dEstrlctare operating at or above capsclty, Based
on tJ-5-tensus data,"ran predict that these homes,whin completed,will house 58 f■#homes x 0.1 pgr Qen{j!�0au
school aged thlldrom Approval of the Dekano SubdhrWw will affect enrollments at the following schools In West Ada
Di$tri[t=
Enrollment capatity
DIscavery Elementary 515 650
Her0ge Middle School 1254 1U00
Rocky Meunti lrr High School Z448 1800
West Ada School District supports ecouomk growth;however,growth Fosters the need far additional school capatky-
Due to the current overenrollment situation at the schools t715deweiopmentwauld Impat<tr ltisWest Ada Schmi Dkmlet's
upinipn it wmuld be best to decry the ApplicalWn far Delanp 5UbdiuFsion-In order to meet the need for additiunal sclaoal
capacity.Wmt Ada School District wilt accept the donation of larLd a pproprla to for a school site-Passage of a hand issue
will be i quIred prior to the corn"ncement of rrtw si hoci construnbri.
Jf this development isappraved resident:5 Cannot be assure¢of attendingthe neighborhood School as it may be necessary
to bus students to avallahle classmorns across the dlstrlct. The safety of o„r students is.our first arrd forpltwst priority,
With this in mind,we ask that you encourage the developer to provide safe walkways,blke baths arnd pe-destrlan access
for eur students School capacity and transportation 15 addressed in Idaho Cade t}7-5508 - future devekoprnent will
contlnue to have an impact on the district's capaclty-
inner iyr,
ve Yachum
Aaslsta nt Srrp,erintendent—Operatrnns
Lllest Oda 3ciicol flistrlct
W7V ���
WE ST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Over-Capacity Schools
In their letter dated April 16, 2019, West Ada School District recommended that the City of
Meridian deny the Application for Delano Subdivision. Of the three schools that will be
impacted by the Delano project, two were already over-capacity a year ago.
• Discovery Elementary: 515 (enrollment); 650 (capacity) = 135 under
• Heritage Middle School: 1,254 (enrollment); 1,000 (capacity) = 254 over (125%)
• Rocky Mountain High School: 2,448 (enrollment); 1,800 (capacity) = 648 over (136%)
Follow Up:
• Owyhee High School at Ustick and McDermott will not open until fall 2021; projected
to be over capacity the day it opens.
• New elementary school at Black Cat and McMillan will open fall 2020
• No middle schools are in progress or planned
SPACE SAVER
Laura Trairatnobhas
ALPINE POINTE
Laura Trairatnobhas
We are asking that
1 . Dashwood be closed in perpetuity
2 . Full disclosure be made regarding
developer, builder and final product,
particularly whether this will be a
" build to rent" project
3 . City Council mandate now that the
proposed apartment project cannot
go over two stories
Slide #1 Laura T.
COMPASS ( Community Planning
Association of SW Idaho )
1 . About 4,850 homes in 1 mile radius of the
development
2 . Job-to-housing ratio is poor (0.7) = more
Commuting and Congestion
3 . Fire/Police should be no more than 1.5
mile . Here Fire barely qualifies at 1.4
miles; Police 4 miles
Laura T. Slide #2 of 3
COMPASS Report for Delano
4 . 1 . 8 miles to nearest bus stop
personal cars used for commuting
5 . Project exceeds growth forecast ;
transport infrastructure inadequate
to support additional density
Laura as sane
SPACE HOLDER MIKE BERNARD
High Densit and
t-
VIPBollinger 66 ' •
proposed .
Cook 96 proposed 270 M F R ,,, -- COMMERCIAL
Stellar 134 proposed a
ffic
4-Plex 80 complete
Brickyard 270 -&r�t�t�N
Enzler tbd 25-60 mad{ 41
Wong tbd 7 -2oo ma
--------------
COMMERCIAL
671 to 906 D PLUS Traffic
CQMMERCLAL TRAFFIC residential +
unit
Traf 11c Patterns
Here are the cutrtent
proposed, End possIblefuture or i� `� � 't
I ratlic p$fI emu I hat this ate �,
IL
A TWIN DE FACT
DAS KWO OD ILL CONNE CTS i
SHOULD BE EMERGENCY � '
NAY I H C€�RETU ITY "� ` ' `F ,�. T r , ; ,�; . ` +■ ++ "
t
{ 1L . t
Rod = Future-Com rrerdal `�� ;� � #d P6 M � � STELLAR
TWIN , fir,f� #N%.
r
FOUremw I rMently stubhK In ��� CHAMPION PARK Fast
r
�� ckyard Eddy's ;
+ "sinioriZalOr y
Narrow Streets — not saf F b s
nor designed to handle CWAJI
W
large traffic burden
Cr
Ilk
w
y i
}
x *jr
' try n�r�ra
Summary
• Do not connect Dashwood PI or build in such a way to allow
for future connection - permanently
• Dashwood PI be used for Emergencv Use Only
• Force that connectivity to occur in its rightful place — the
future collector on CenterPoint - not residential streets
with front facing homes
• Require applicant to build stub on Delano side of fence to 20 -
foot Emergency Vehicle lane standards
• Distro remaining land to abutting lots
• City maintains utility access / easement
• Fix the errors of the past decades tonight! No can kicking. The
City created it — the City must correct it.
ACHD and Meridian Report on Meridian Collectors
https://www.achdidaho.org/Documents/Projects/764 Collectors.pdf
Def i'ni'ti'ons Collector Streets
Awell connected collector network provides drivers
A trans orfafron network has several with route choices
types ofroadways: Collector Streets;
i State High ayslInterstates 0Ja�� rai ��atiui Departmeu� l a�Jurisdictiu � ortnect to arterial roadways
Can provide direct mess to sc�eols and commercial
rtrials major roads that s2rve o ng er trips �.�CH�Jurisdw�tiffn� development but not individual residences
CoI lectors- roads that mRned arteria I s and pfovlde direct F May have bicycle lanes
access #o schools and shopping �011)Juris6ctian) Posted speed limits are generally 25 mph to 35 mph
i LocaRes idential -s m a I I ei roadways that serve homes On-skreet parking may be allowed
and nil 1lbcrhocds {i lie Jurisdiutiou} Examples of collector streets include:
Bonito wayfopper Pointe Drive from Overland Road to
Eagle Road
South Stratford Drivelentral give from Franklin Road to
Construction Limits on Rm40 Area
• No development proposed at this time on R-40 area;
requires additional public hearing ( CUP)
• Not appropriate to condition an application that is
not before you
• Proposed restrictions inappropriate in MU - R
designated area near major transit corridor
1
Delano
JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2
ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES, IDAHO
MERIDIAN, 83642 West Ada School Capacity2019ENROLLMENT RECAP9.19.1
SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CAPACITY SCHOOL ENROLLMENT CAPACITY
ANDRUS 540 d50 CROSSROADS MIDDLE 146
BARBARAMORGAN 477 45O EAGLE MIDDLE 952 -0.1
CHAPARRAL 4W 050 HERITAGE 1,246 10�.
CHIEFJOSEPH 5" 050 LAKE HAZEL MIDDLE 1,057 1000
CDSCHCOLOFTHEARTS WS 55S LEWIS&CLARK 1,053 1000
DESERT SAGE DQ 050 LOWELLSCOTTMIDOLE 1.021 1000 New School Capacity Under Construction
DISCOVERY 512 050 MERIDIANUIDDLE 1,211 125D
EAGLE ARTS MAGNET 400 45O PAT-WAYSMIDDLE 150 150 • Pleasant View Elementary - 625
EAGLE HILLS C04 545 SAWTOOTH MIDDLE 1,045 1000
FRDNTIER 337 548 STAR MIDDLE W5 100D Owyhee High School — 1917
GALILEO 7S2 'iICTCRYPIDDLE 902 1 1000
H EALE 0- ' MIDDLE SCHOOL TOTAL Star Elementary — 625
HUNTER
TER 70Z o50
JOPLIN
LAKE
483 489 IEhITENNE ARTS LHIGH AD 207 00 • Mountain View High School - 468
LAKE HAZEL 483 53S CENTENNIAL HIGH 2,177 1900
MARY MCP HERSON 5W 6W EAGLE HIGH 2,194 180D
MdAILLAN 250 531 MERIDIAN HIGH 2,047 240D
MERIDIAN 525 5W MOUNTAIN VIEW HIGH 2,304 180D
PARAMOUNT 035 050 RDCKYMOUNTAIN 2,488 1800
PEPPER RIDGE 571 050 RENAISSANCE HIGH 722 ODD
PEREGRINE 534 050 CENTRALACADEMY 155 175
PIONEER 72 EAGLE ACADEMY 1 175 Enrolled — 40,451
FONDERDSA 728 &M 050 MERIDIAN ACADEMY 173 73 175
PROSPECT 671 050 HIGH SCHOOL TOTAL 1202 11215
SEVEN VOAKS 434 050 REBOUND PROGRAM -ng Capacity — 40,609
SI ENA W1 800 IN ST Mf-7 TOTA L 40,451 40G59
SILVERSAGE 296 408
SPALDING 754 770
STAR 583 420
SUMMERWIND 432 481
USTICK 469 546
WILLCW CREEK 086 C80
ELEMENTARY TOTAL 18,U97 1988d
Delano
r s + a J
JI
, w -- r
I
IL IP4 IF -
rr
III
j@f MW _A
�®
�� - - -
3 �
1
E Wad Merit Dr
I
1
1
well 41 �agl-W rwtw
f R458250100
t
1
I
SITE
1
1
1
1
r�us141#IC Wi W]aanlldcLn -
ITI I �
❑ E= 4
x
ELI)
Aft
= Existing Unimproved Right-of-lay
1 - Future Collector MSM Location
Delano
+ T;
J - -
1 �Psk
qp } ■
_.00' AN' S
op
y L�
�. F
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
• "Provide for a wide variety of housing types... and choices between ownership and
rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of locations suitable for
residential development:' (3.07.03.B) (emphasis added)
• "Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers:' (3.07.02.D)
(emphasis added)
• "Locate high-density development, where possible, near... major access
thoroughfares:' (3.07.021) (emphasis added)
1
Delano
Boise City Approval
CITY OF BOLSE CITY OF 1015E
of Area of Impact.. Tbate Re mn� baRbe m m¢r>net ��
R—I.h-NO,RES-521-19 aaopem aepso"t
BY THE COUNCIL CLEGG,LUDWIG.MCLEAN,SAN=. ADOPTED=` Cona-d of Bast Cay.Idaho.oa O[mbea_9.Nle
Modification THOMSON AND WOODCT APPROti'EDb dRlUsorofde Ba rCr r Idsho oap[ao6er39.3019ATTEST
.�RESOL[7EON APPROS'LVG.�].45NLV'E LATE AREA OF[MPAC7 TAB\SEER APPROt'cD ATTEtiT:
lC PAl9-0000:1 BET',5'LEy THE Cm' OF BDISE CITY AND THE Cm' OF
MERIDE.AV:AUTHORILENG THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTF OX TASMLVE LAVE t
`!I
FROM THE BOISE AREA OF LuACI TO THE MEREDLAV AREA OF IMPACT: !
EST.ABLISHI`'G CO.-IlMoN5 FOR TIE ML{sYER REL:ITLD TO
['O:LPREHENSn'E PLAN DESIGNATION AND COA"DTf[O\S OF DEt'ELOPMENT;
A.V D PRO77DLV G AN EFFECTIi'E DATE.
R-HEREAS_Itr City of MefiQiaa is a AYy mg—rd aed existing mfmi[ipal<afpofaRoa
of the Satt of Edaho.located im Ada C—y.Idaho.amd
• Hearing o n October 8, 2 019 WHEREAS,the Cmydf Borne rs a dNrorpan zed and exi ng min npa rmporatmn or
mr Sg1e of 16 Id.a1h.,o,locand m Ada Conmty,]dab,:amd
WHERL,AS,a D—lWer has s,goeved.—ftew Im me laad use mW of B—'s
comPrehens_plain BlneMw Bosse,w K msfrr 415 arcs of proprsay locaW m 14120 W
I.—Lame,parcel mamber R45L530300.obe'"Pr ),Idemmfiee m Eaesbit-A"from the
Caty ofBasst Area of Impact m me M-d m Area of Impact and
WEERLAS.IM to anam and paoanmity of utllibes tin tbt Roam and am south of the
• • • Pemperty for my%opose6 d—lopmrnl would be bma sen�ed by Ille Crly of Meridian.and
• Boise agreed this property i s WHEREAS.dre Caty of Boise Ciry is silo Red ,rangh application f.11— —mat
me Ciry of Mesidiav has du capx;ly to save Btis Properry and has planed for these parcels id
its utility master ph.and
WHEREAS,Boise Ciry Cmmed app—d lbe—laessed plain a ,Io,mt o a Osfmba 2,
better served in Meridian Z019
BE IF RESOLSTA BYTHE?{AYpR A.Vp COTN Cm'OF OF THE C OF BDISE
IDA90:
Seem.i That the transfer of the Property M Iasmme Lace from the Bois[Asea of
hnQacf to the Ctp'of Menmm Asea of Impa[t is hereby app—d
SK00.I. That The land use mops and a of impart be amended as depicled in the
amuhtd Exhibit A.am[hed htrrto and made a pm hereof by reRreatt.tin delete me Property
Boise recommended from dt[Bom Area oflmpact
connectivity to property to
the east (already provided)
i
Delano
ACHD
W AMOM Pheg&dStreet Capacity
Mary ter.r•v
lm 0.Herber,innvwzk er
IfedL ,Cnnmisslerer
October 11,2019
To- Bill Parsons, -Planning Supervisor Traffic Counts•
City of Meriden an——Community Development
33 E.Broadway Avenue,STE 1 D2
Meridian,ID63642
Subject H-2019-00271 MPP19-0011
• Centrepoint Way
14120 W.Jasmine lane
Delano Subdivision S S% of capacity when Delano is
On May 22, 2019, the Ada County Highway District Commission reviewed and approved the
preliminary plat application Delano Subdivision. Since ACHD's approval of the project neighboring
property owners have raised concerns regarding the level of service of Centrepoiit Way and the
connectivity of public streets. Both of thew issues are addressed in ACHD's staff report(Table 2, completed .
pg_2 and pg_6),however,to avoid confusion the following darificabons are provided_
Level of Service—Centcr oiite Way There has been some confusion regarding the current and
future level of service far Cerrterpoiite Way. As reported in Table 2, of the staff repo
Centerpointe Way currently operates at an acceptable level of service,with 139 vehicle trips in the
PM peak hour vi 3d55 of its available capacity. ep int Way
of the anticipated
Subdivision and the Street Connectivity:
Brickyard Subdivision, located to the south, Centrepdnt Way is stil anticipated to operate at an
acceptable level of service with 233 vehicle hips in the PM peak hour,the roadway will be at 559%of
its available capacity. Cenlerponte Way is not anticipated to exceed ACHD's acceptable level of
service planning threshold_ Connectivity Policy
Public Street Comeclivity ACHD and the City of Meridian both have policies requiring the
extension of stub streets and inlerconnectivity between subdivisions. The preliminary plat
application approved by ACHD,provides public street connectivity consistent with ACHD policies_ ACHD and City of Meridian both
If you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at(208)387-6335.
Sincerely, require street connectivity.
U nk !!
Austin Miller
Plainer II Delano provides public street
Development Services
connectivity consistent with ACHD
Policies".
k*QUa HVmW oWO•V75.d4rru W".9Wden Mr,M.m„4,rM 2WX7-6 o•r'x JW7@F -~"&dK&Pnn mg
' T
1
r rr y
L
• ` 'T•J �- � J 1 f
w
1 Delano
~ � • •� 1. r•' �_ is k•- ,r- � iY • �{„;;� �° .4,
� • .t ter. -' —t
LoW
es
DicWsl
obey
sti�k Rd
X#
iA
C* . `mayLU
r .•r ��hx
ALM
' �_ -- ---
+ N �
M1f • f � r
The pillage/
Kleiner Park
l
j
1+ai rg'eve�A _
Z
Comprehensive Plan
• Medium Density
• Mixed Use- Regional
• Recently adopted by Meridian
• Most closely matches prior Boise
City planning
�'• ��`�'��`�'
• Corresponds to designation
immediately to the south
Delano
Actions Since City Council Remand
Remand by City Council to P&Z to Consider:
• Density
• Connection to Dashwood
Delano
Act6ions Seince Preior CC Meetein
N PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LEGEND
DELANOND2UNSUBDIVISION _ o New Applicant Group
LOT 3 BLOCK I JASMINE ALRE$AND 2 UN PARCELS
LOCATED IN THE N 1/2 OF THE S 1/2 SECTION 32 xa.o
rAwnsm r�rsn u¢
TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH,RANGE I LAST,B.M.
1'm ADA COUNTY,IDAHO
2019
o Two Meetings with Alpine
Pointe HOA Board in
}
—— ——� pEYELOPER CNI�ENGINEER $�RYEVDR
December 2019
B ] 6 5 3 2 II 2 3 9 fi
I i SPhV, (sml 33s ew tloel a+ea,. �fom)me-
I 1 I I I
I
A
`--------- L0T511MMARY
o Board Priorities :
aN _0..t5 IwNR6Gwc axwal Lals 9 IL
o a
° o Reduce density overall
to a 1 RawROR RRI,a 3 Rz6� 3
I6 I ; 6N i i ,Z WEUC RNa1F0E-WAY x/. 353
I Et Q II 12 13 19 15 16 18 19 20 ]1 i I i I R-4p Zg1E 369
z_1 Reduce density on north
I l e i _-_- I I
I 129P II� 3 31 2� 25
�
�
boundary & limit to single story
a 12I ,I 2 "GAeRE; Emergent connection only at
21 8
I I mn Kx l
I
Dashwoo
zz I w I
1 30. 36 36 3] 39 4R 41 a3 94 +S CK)96 IP 9B 69 50 EI zl ® ��
I C
Cross-access to future multi-
_- ------------------- family/R-40 area
Re-orient internal lots
•%t'll.� �� :Sm .�.� i® Arm - w� �!, '� � �� �
ear.
6
Changes in New Plan
• Reduction from 85 to 66 lots
��ex��swre amrnslw
FASTFe
(22% reductions
v� o
• Primary access is now N. ,
I
Centrepointe Way
f
• Emergency-only access at N.
5MR =- -
Dashwood Ave. (temporary) T ---= --�--�
• North boundary lots reduced;
retained single-story limit #
9VIlpNB• '°ice#°�
• Internal lots re-oriented . '
4-L
• Park expanded (and still faces
Alpine Pointe)
i
Delano
IEEkLEW HEKHTS SLBDtvNc'N
T�
i Revised Plan
w
rr"
k i . a I I
VIS�PI <OL.IC I
} nel,vaplp
1
• Presented to Alpine Pointe
�F I HOA general meeting in
g g
14 X '•'t++L �
February 2020
TIM"r crypt L'Pl-ft-r pj
cd
1
rL� r
Ij £i IFd IYIIGdILLl2 i
PC"( I�rA
LU{If 9 13 1
10
lu
�� r 9 4 I [iuBFpUSE py1.0 hf?.
I
1 F
1# Y L'
d 4
�4}lE�rfiFf �RJL4FiVfI.1
7�rrrna I
I
p'nsuae s't:a I
SMIP
rpa=1
LjL"rM p3j �' low
17 111 11 1. 1f 0 11 10 1 0 f i S I r I
Ly,,�,� r�
p'1ar StM o
�517 - �I rrr - - - - - - -- —��-- _�
(.Et+r[w RQWT 54C '�1510u
Example Home Elevations
— 4 ■
MIA
'In= OWN rim maw" ..,
•�. � .! -.i� � -.ate
®M
Delano
Neighborhood
b
. Amenities
One required
Al
{ proposed :
Six
2/3-acre park
a
• Play structure
Seating area w/ benches
Climbing dome
Climbing boulders
Public art
1
Delano
Concerns Identified in Recent Correspondence
• Further Reduction in Density along Northern Border
• Permanent Emergency-Only Access at Dashwood
Delano
Northern Border
• Reduced number of lots from 15 ( 5 duplexes) to 11
(all detached ) (fw25% decrease )
• Average square footage up to 5,, 661sf from fw3,800sf
(Ow50% increase)
Delano
Density Transition
�-��•. - Existin Sin le F�mil .-� _ {
Transition • • -
acre (north), all the way to
22-30 units (south) ...........................
Commercial, retaill multi-
family, and major transit
corridors in immediate
vicinity
T 5.*a * '2yle•Viev
rw _ � �� .:; Multi-Family
9 9 iJnitslAcre i ....
density
e
appropriate
- � �� Family �-��••.'� � �' � � •_ �,:
13 Delano
- 3 Development South of
this PropertV
Zoned R-40 ,
r" Built at 22-30 units per acre .. # F ;r
V
P 11 11
Delano
Brickyard Development
r-, ri
41
I -
:
If Eta-rrr +�
i
Le`+t
Delan
o
Dashwood Stub Connection
• Meridian and ACHD require connectivity
v
• There is a n existi n stub and ACHD ROW at Dashwood
r
i
r
Delan
o
Dashwood Stub Connection
• As directed by Council and at urging of Alpine Pointe,
revisited the question of Dashwood access
• Project "re-oriented" to take access on Centrepointe ( built
during first phase)
• Obtained permission from ACHD for emergency access at
Dashwood
1
Delano
Dashwood Stub Connection
• Three Additional Points :
• ACHD has stated they will not approve a permanent
emergency-only limitation
• ACHD has stated they will not permit E. Della Street to "punch
through" to the east with current, approved road configuration
• ACHD will not permit the applicant to landscape within the N .
Dashwood Ave. right-of-way Irbil
Delano
Summary
• In Accord with Comprehensive Plan
• Agency Approval
• Infill Development = City of Meridian Priority
• Significant Modifications Made to Satisfy Neighborhood
Concerns
Irbil
Delano
.,,, i �� � '.• i�" ;.� -.Y^. ^ems-T''� �.. _.„ �
�•; � r y W. �� ��3' wz •-01'd .y r' - - Y _ - _ .� 1 .. .•.ir I J7;-'�':
..'iT' .7, 1 ']�✓ { � .!I ��.f . l , �+y�, A:�y�-n4��.�- /' ..L• �:i-�'?ll
goqioqRIL5
,.�
a
Al
i.- } _ :n �Jr ' �+�'�M1- f�Ir'' }4P ,l` i 3.'_'� �. • i�� '..•.�. y _ -lr
. 56 n ''2•'9.i�s �F 4� f 3 -5 i"^ _.Mk' �
.._�.c.� . w. .�'t' '�r .i'f:�7��;Y�i`. 4! f + �ti"� �. �,�.-�.�' orw• '• .fin _ ;
20
ResponsetoofApproval 3 . a
fnY
} . 4
. le . L'tLM I'C+CF
+rr r{IFc+_rr{r ma eflr —
II
• n13 44r r:rr1 �.wF{M1�PI
Is .
� I
N
�} � {LIFd419 T':.inwx2 }
cool
n _
Is
.. r 9 � Ru @41LPM@9 sllw I
'• la a a i xe�a.r
�.ssn�tnrp arxwisru � „�y� I
r
&JLOIV6C
e.PMIF1 9UILDWA
LKM I
U`eri M Pi
I} .] II Id I .
Ramp
4{k7 AftL
PHIS 541'I
TH45
ModifyRequested Modifications to
Conditions of Approval
• • • • •
d. Single-family homes along the west G north perimeter boundaryies of the development shall be
restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Developer Hemes - - -
- - - - -Fu - re GlIe wed tehGveGbenus Feeng lbut - - FeGF fOr-iPiq - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
benus Feeng.
Nource ❑tr�i al 1 =� ' Naw_r5 ,LIWI
II!
22 Delano
ModifyRequested Modifications to
Conditions of Approval
• • • • •
Remove language requiring that emergency-only limitation at Dashwood be
temporary (allowing future efforts/conversations to make permanent)
: � _� �Wa;-qm or e wa�„wr�gno or a wa�rrwr;gnr or w w�'�r,wr;gnt or
MOW
T _ i
4 E
ri.
r
23
Thank You
Delano
RequestedModifications
to
fApproval
Conditionso
• Modify Condition 1.c, as follows:
d. Single-family homes along the west GNP north perimeter boundary+es of the development shall be
restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Developer r emes /Y►/1N/Y +he west,
• Modify Condition 1.f, as follows:
• Remove language requiring that emergency-only limitation at Dashwood be
temporary (to allow future efforts/conversations to make permanent)
Delano
2:09 PM Tue May 12 ^10D%0.
meridian.novusagenda.com
L
13of50 �
f
I r ! 1
_ - kot
1
16-522 1 3715 L-715J •
i Owl
O 4 - I W— ;'o
INN
lit
#ip. Ai
lip
n-MAN
2:13 PM Tue May 12 ?100%0,
G meridian.novusagenda.com
21110O00`RAP NO Aft OMWM A1v1"TGM to O/ALL
Raw 50"A APM RA~
•!"I"em MPAGU.LAt'1!♦M.IT Misr IN CI"Uwlr r.Np l '' I:11/�.! L .0\ ►y M4 M4
Offamn DEVELOPMENT DATA „
O•,l I14 -_ ._ I.i Alamo rotor
TREE PLANTIN6l5TAKIN6 PLANTER GUr BED EDGE P%L" irLonLLvM �1 cAla"
L"IfL.1
c4004M aN a w
we
OONI•AA{A LOK _ Ow ye
•OPAL Lon T1 l.NI
7- - rtl.l•Is w.ttar•.la•
awL.aw E.AuKa.a.MBA us,Aas 110Ai
~A Eln-061000 .. - IN .iMM
�yy n.ararteo.nlw--- M
wa "ir1.L. �,�•M•Y K Of bM
f1'rN !Ir
Vi1rL�
y • l.M��
IH Ofto
v.uL PP" I worm
PM
1f IAPI rMl r L
11.•i•l Try .• - • -
1. I
pcv�m NOR
�r • wo R'L
la • n•Of2 SALE My YARr•Lrll•LT
� •a.•T 1
• i •-W-W- � b'VINYL PRIVACY FENCE
yLoru I1 1 -. ��.�•.
.1 • '• • .I.Ci;
r
I 1/
- n 1
•
1.!!i►�!! t ��i
- - NILB. c
I.1•IsSTWIF
�•,!t.
.Z.
iFMfri
i r i. 1• N 11 I! 11 N • • I • • • / 1 i
or so
VIIrL
COYiE•ropi 91Q1M7V1
d. The driveway along the west side of the retail store shall extend to the north property boundary
for future extension and interconnectivity in accord with UDC l l -3A-3 A.
e. A cross-access/ingress-egress easement shall be provided to the property to the north (Parcel
#R4582530202, 13984 W. Jasmine Ln.) with de elope ent of this sits in accord with UDC
11 -3A-3A.2. A recorded copy ofsaid easement shall be submitted to the City prior t
issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy on the site.
.r .
s
Fast Eddy's
North Boundary
Delano
I =
f
1458 East Loyalty Street
Meridian,ID 83646-1688
hqq//ww.wPNLA14.ora
rand@pnlal4.com
386/212-7123
Rand S.Spiwak, Ed.D.
Parkins-Nourse#14 Irrigation Association, Inc.
President& Lateral Manager
4/11/20
To Whom It May Concern,
Representatives from the proposed Delano Subdivision, (Lot 3 Blockl, Jasmine Acres & 2 un-platted
parcels.......) have requested that 1 review their preliminary plat with respect to the existing easements,
irrigation pipes and related structures of the Parkins-Nourse#14 Irrigation Lateral,that may lie both within
and/or adjacent to the Delano Subdivision property boundary.
As the Lateral Manager for the Parkins-Nourse #14 Irrigation Lateral these past three years, I have
accumulated limited drawings, plans and documentation for the lateral. I have personally observed the
entire length of the lateral (sections that are above ground) and noted the approximate locations of
underground piping that last been installed over the past twenty plus years.
Initially, it is my understanding that the Parkins-Nourse #14 Irrigation Lateral piping, structures and
easements all lie to the north of the north boundary of the Delano Subdivision and may not be affected
by the Delano Subdivision construction. Upon reviewing the Delano Subdivision preliminary plat and
speaking with their engineers, (Civil Site Works, Boise),the following issues will need to be determined in
regulatory compliance or addressed in the final plat:
1. A pipe location survey along the northern boundary of the Delano Subdivision will need to be
conducted or researched to confirm that the existing Parkins-Nourse#14 Irrigation Lateral piping,
structures and easement do not lie within the Delano Subdivision property or identify any piping,
structure or easement that may lie within the Delano property.
2. The existing N. Dashwood Ave. roadway which is stubbed off at the boundary between the Alpine
Pointe Subdivision and the proposed Delano Subdivision may not have been constructed in
compliance with ACHD requirements as the lateral piping, that is assumed crossing under N
Dashwood Ave., is currently NOT serviceable on either side of the roadway by appropriate
manhole structures. This requirement may not be required by ACHD on residential road way
crossings?ACHD is responsible for the lateral piping under their roadway and side easements and
will need to confirm this potential requirement.
fa.4„
1458 East Loyalty Street
Meridian,ID 83646-1688
http:l/www.P N LA14.o rg
rand@pnlal4.com
386/212-7123
Rand S. Spiwak, Ed.D.
Parkins-Nourse#14 Irrigation Association, Inc.
President& Lateral Manager
3. 1 have no documents that addresses this issue in Item #2, nor any documentation that confirms
the appropriate construction of the lateral piping under the roadway with respect to materials,
depth and inspections.
4. The Delano Subdivision preliminary plat notes an additional 10' PLN#14 and PUD easement on
the Delano side of the property line. I understand that this 10' easement is in addition to the
existing 15' easement located within the Alpine Pointe boundary, if the actual lateral piping,
structures and easement do in fact fie entirely within the Alpine Pointe boundary. A subsequent
piping location survey should confirm this understanding.
5. The N. Dashwood Ave. planned extension into the Delano Subdivision is noted as a "temporary
access restriction"road way(emergency vehicles).The key word is"temporary".Does the existing
piping and lack of service structures meet ACHD's requirements for a future change of use from
temporary use to standard thoroughfare use?
6. Given the fact that the Delano Subdivision is contiguous to the PNL#14 irrigation piping, the
developer may wish to investigate the potential cost effectiveness of connecting this new
subdivision to the PNL#14 as I believe the Delano Subdivision area is currently"attached" to the
lateral paralleling Ustick Rd.,a third of a mile south of Delano. If this can be accomplished without
any detrimental effect on the PNL#14 existing users,this might well serve all concerned.
I will await any questions or findings in the matters as noted above.
Best......
Rand S.Spiwak
PNLA#14 President and lateral Manager
�E IDIAN^ ITEM SHEET
IDAHO
Council Agenda Item - 8.A.
Presenter: Jason Korn
Estimated Time for Presentation: 5 mins
Title of Item - Ordinance No. 20-1879: An Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Title 10,
Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, Regarding Flood Damage Prevention; Voiding Any
Conflicting Provisions; and Providing an Effective Date
The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) issued new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM(s) and a
Flood Insurance Study (FIS) on December 19, 2019. The new maps become effective June 19, 2020. The
primary purpose of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance repeal is to replace it with an updated ordinance
referencing the new studies. Along with referencing the new maps, additional defmitions and language clarifying
existing regulations and to incorporate new FEMA and state of Idaho guidance is included. These elements of the
new Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance will ensure Meridian remains eligible for participation in the National
Flood Insurance Program(NFIP).
The revised ordinance has one change in definition that removes a higher regulatory standard for Substantial
Improvements. The remaining modifications do not change any current development requirements and do not
increase or decrease the compliance responsibilities of floodplain development. Many sections have updated
language clarifying existing regulations and will better align with current FEMA and State of Idaho model
ordinances and guidance. Due to the amount of language added, removed and revised and at the recommendation
of the State and FEMA we are requesting a repeal and replace rather than modify by amendment.
Council Notes:
J5.-TTACHMENTS:
escriptio ypouncil Memo Cover Memo6-20 Final Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance CLEAN OrdinanceEVIEWERS:
R
Public Works. Weatherly,Adrienne Rejected 5/7/2020 -4:38 PM
Public Works. Weatherly,Adrienne Approved 5/7/2020 -4:41 PM
Public Works. Baird, Ted Approved 5/7/2020 -6:41 PM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 65 of 85
Mayor Robert E. Simison
W I DIAN*- - City Council Members
Bernt
Tre Bernt
Joe Borton
Public Works Luke Cavener
Brad Hoaglun
Department Jessica Perreault
Liz Strader
TO: Mayor Robert E. Simison
Members of the City Council
FROM: Jason Korn
DATE: May 6, 2020
SUBJECT: FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE REPEAL AND
REPLACEMENT
REQUESTED COUNCIL DATE: May 12, 2020
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. Approve the repeal and replace of the Meridian Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance MCC 10-6
11. DEPARTMENT CONTACT PERSONS
Jason Korn, Environmental Programs Coordinator 489-0364
Alex Freitag, Business Division Manager 489-0379
Warren Stewart, City Engineer 489-0350
Dale Bolthouse, Director of Public Works 985-1257
III. DESCRIPTION
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued new Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM(s) and a Flood Insurance Study(FIS) on December 19, 2019. The new maps
become effective June 19, 2020. The primary purpose of the Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance repeal is to replace it with an updated ordinance referencing the new studies.
Along with referencing the new maps, additional definitions and language clarifying
existing regulations and to incorporate new FEMA and state of Idaho guidance is included.
These elements of the new Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance will ensure Meridian
remains eligible for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Meridian City Council Mp tineggtpyYa May 12,2020— Page 66 of 85
The revised ordinance has one change in definition that removes a higher regulatory
standard for Substantial Improvements. The remaining modifications do not change any
current development requirements and do not increase or decrease the compliance
responsibilities of floodplain development. Many sections have updated language
clarifying existing regulations and will better align with current FEMA and State of Idaho
model ordinances and guidance. Due to the amount of language added, removed and
revised and at the recommendation of the State and FEMA we are requesting a repeal and
replace rather than modify by amendment.
Summary of Changes to the Ordinance
• Adopt New Maps: Update FIRM and FIS reference from October 2,2003 to June 19,
2020.
• Definitions: Add and revise definitions for clarity based on State and FEMA review to
align with standard definitions in the Idaho model ordinance.
• Substantial Improvement Definition: Remove section of definition where increasing
the existing gross floor area by more than 20 percent (%) qualifies as a Substantial
Improvement. Removing this additional threshold in the definition conforms to the
standard NFIP and FEMA definition of Substantial Improvement. This change will
have negligible impact to CRS scoring for higher regulatory standards and will not
affect the City's CRS Class 8 designation.
• Exemption: Remove section 10-6-4(A)(1)(a), allowing development with negligible
impact to be exempt from permit requirements. Deemed non-compliant due to
ambiguity as all development as defined in the ordinance must be permitted or decision
not to permit documented.New GFID section describes development activities exempt
from permitting.
• GFID: Add section describing General Floodplain Irrigation Development Permit. The
GFID is the result of an MOU between the State of Idaho and FEMA remedying a
conflict between state code exempting irrigation activities from floodplain permitting
and the NFIP. Describes what activities are exempt, covered under a GFID or require
an individual floodplain permit.
• Lowest Finished Floor: Removal of contradictory language of what is deemed lowest
finished floor in structures with crawl spaces.
IV. IMPACT
Failure to adopt the new FEMA maps through ordinance will result in the city being
suspended from the NFIP. Participation in the NFIP allows our residents to purchase
floodplain insurance and be eligible for disaster assistance from FEMA.
Meridian City Council Mpft24jjynVa May 12,2020— Page 67 of 85
V. TIME CONSTRAINTS
New FEMA FIRM and FIS must be formally adopted before the effective date of June
19, 2020 to avoid suspension from the NFIP.
VI. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
A. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance -Redline
B. Floodplain Program StoryMap
C. Public Outreach Timeline
Approved for Council Agenda:
Meridian City Council Mpft3ajjnVa May 12,2020— Page 68 of 85
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1879
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 6, MERIDIAN
CITY CODE, REGARDING FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION; VOIDING ANY
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,the National Flood Insurance Program is a federal program which enables
property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance as protection against flood
losses in exchange for the adoption of community floodplain management regulations that
reduce future flood damages;
WHEREAS,the City of Meridian is a participating community in the National Flood
Insurance Program;
WHEREAS,the regulatory standards set forth in this ordinance meet or exceed the
regulations of 44 CFR sections 59-65 and Parts 70 and 73, regarding floodplain management for
the protection of public health safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS,the policies expressed herein are designed to protect public health, safety,
and welfare by minimizing public and private losses due to flood conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO:
Section 1. That Title 10, Chapter 6, Meridian City Code, shall be repealed, and replaced
with language as follows:
10-6-1 FINDINGS OF FACT,PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES:
A. Statutory Authority: The legislature of the state of Idaho, in Idaho Code sections 46-1020
through 46-1024, authorizes local government units to adopt a floodplain map and floodplain
management ordinance that identifies floodplains and that sets forth minimum development
requirements in floodplains that are designed to promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare of its citizenry.
B. Findings Of Fact:
1. The special flood hazard areas of the city of Meridian are subject to periodic inundation
which can result in loss of life,property damage, hazard to health and safety, disruption of
commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood
protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the
public health, safety and general welfare.
2. These flood losses are aggravated by the cumulative effect of obstructions in special flood
hazard areas which increase flood elevations. Development that is inadequately
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 1 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 69 of 85
floodproofed, elevated, or otherwise protected from flood damage also contributes to flood
losses.
C. Statement Of Purpose: It is the purpose of this chapter to promote the public health, safety,
and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in
specific areas by provisions designed:
1. To protect human life and health;
2. To minimize expenditure of public money and costly flood control projects;
3. To minimize the need for rescue and relief efforts associated with flooding and generally
undertaken at the expense of the general public;
4. To minimize prolonged business interruptions;
5. To minimize damage to public facilities and utilities such as water and gas mains, electric,
telephone and sewer lines, streets, and bridges located in areas of special flood hazard;
6. To help maintain a stable tax base by providing for the sound use and development of
areas of special flood hazard so as to minimize future flood blight areas;
7. To ensure that information regarding the location of special flood hazard areas is readily
available to potential property buyers and other interested people; and
8. To ensure that those who occupy special flood hazard areas assume responsibility for their
actions.
D. Methods Of Reducing Flood Losses: In order to accomplish its purposes, this chapter includes
methods and provisions for managing development in flood prone areas to ensure that:
1. Structures are designed and built to acceptable standards to be protected from flooding,
and
2. Development does not increase the potential for flood damage by elevating floodwater
above regulatory limits.
10-6-2 DEFINITIONS:
Unless specifically defined below for purposes of this chapter only, words or phrases used in this
chapter shall be interpreted so as to give them the meanings they have in common usage and to
give this chapter its most reasonable application.
APPEAL: A request to City Council to overrule a permit denial because the applicant claims that
the ordinance has been incorrectly interpreted.
BASE FLOOD: The flood having a one percent(1%) chance of being equaled or exceeded in
any given year. Also referred to as the "regulatory flood," or "100-year flood."
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE): The water surface elevation during the base flood in
relation to a specified datum. The Base Flood Elevation(BFE) is depicted on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) to the nearest foot(1') and in the Flood Insurance Study(FIS) to
the nearest one-tenth of a foot(.1').
BASEMENT: Any portion of a structure, with its floor sub grade (below ground level) on all
sides.
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 2 OF 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 70 of 85
DEVELOPMENT: Any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but
not limited to, the construction of buildings or other structures, or the construction of substantial
improvements to buildings or other structures; the placement of mobile homes; mining, dredging,
filling, grading,paving, excavation, drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials; and
the deposition or extraction of materials; specifically including the construction of dikes, berms,
dams and levees.
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, INTERIM: The approved FEMA Elevation Certificate identified
as FEMA Form 81-31, completed prior to the City of Meridian approval of the foundation
inspection. The interim elevation certificate is identified by the completion of the "Building
Under Construction" item in Section C.I of the current FEMA form.
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, FINAL: The approved FEMA Elevation Certificate identified as
FEMA Form 81-31, completed prior to the City of Meridian approval of the certification of
occupancy. The final elevation certificate is identified by the completion of the "Finished
Construction" item in Section C.1 of the current FEMA form.
FLOOD OR FLOODING:
(A)A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land
areas from:
(1) The overflow of inland or tidal waters, and/or
(2) The unusual and rapid accumulation of runoff of surface waters from any source.
(3) Mudslides (i.e., mudflows) which are proximately caused by flooding as defined in
paragraph A.(2) of this definition are akin to a river of liquid and flowing mud on the
surfaces of normally dry land areas, as when earth is carried by a current of water and
deposited along the path of the current; or
(B) The collapse or subsidence of land along the shore of a lake or other body of water as a result
of erosion or undermining caused by waves or currents of water exceeding anticipated cyclical
levels or suddenly caused by an unusually high water level in a natural body of water,
accompanied by a severe storm, or by an unanticipated force of nature, such as flash flood or an
abnormal tidal surge, or by some similarly unusual and unforeseeable event which results in
flooding as defined in paragraph A(1) of this definition.
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM): The official map of a community, issued by the
Federal Insurance Administrator delineating the Special Flood Hazard Areas and the risk
premium zones applicable to the community. A FIRM that has been made available digitally is
called a Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM).
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY (FIS): An examination, evaluation and determination of flood
hazards and, if appropriate, corresponding water surface elevations, or an examination,
evaluation and determination of mudslide (i.e., mudflow) and/or flood-related erosion hazards.
Also known as the Flood Elevation Study.
FLOODPLAIN OR FLOOD-PRONE AREA: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by
water from any source. See"flood or flooding."
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 3 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 71 of 85
FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR: The community official designated by title to administer and
enforce the floodplain management regulations.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: The operation of an overall program of corrective and
preventive measures for reducing flood damage, including but not limited to emergency
preparedness plans, flood control works, and floodplain management regulations.
FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS: Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations,
building codes, health regulations, special purpose ordinances (such as floodplain ordinance,
grading ordinance and erosion control ordinance) and other application of police power. The term
describes such state or local regulations, in any combination thereof, which provide standards for
the purpose of flood damage prevention and reduction.
FLOODPROOFING: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes, or
adjustments to structures which reduce or eliminate flood damage to real estate or improved real
property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.
FLOOD PROTECTION ELEVATION(FPE): The elevation above the base flood elevation to
which the lowest floor of a structure must be elevated. The flood protection elevation for the
City of Meridian shall be two feet(2') above base flood elevation.
FLOODWAY (aka Regulatory Floodway): The channel of a river or other watercourse and the
adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than one foot(l'). Regulations require
that the floodway be kept open so that flood flows are not obstructed or diverted onto other
properties. If the base flood is entirely contained within the banks of a clearly defined channel,
the entire channel may be defined as a floodway.
HISTORIC STRUCTURE: A structure that is:
A. Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the
U.S. Department of Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as
meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
B. Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to
the historical significance of a registered historic district or to a district preliminarily
determined by the Secretary to qualify as a registered historic district;
C. Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places and determined as eligible by
states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of
the Interior; or
D. Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places and determined as eligible by
communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either by an
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 4 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 72 of 85
approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or directly by the
Secretary of the Interior in states without approved programs.
LOWEST FLOOR: The lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area of a structure (including
basement). An unfinished or flood-resistant enclosure,usable solely for parking of vehicles,
building access or storage in an area other than a basement area is not considered a structures'
lowest floor provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of
the applicable non-elevation design requirements of this ordinance. The lowest floor is a
determinate for the flood insurance premium for a building, home or business.
MANUFACTURED HOME: A structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built
on a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
attached to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a"recreational
vehicle."
MANUFACTURED HOME PARK OR SUBDIVISION: A parcel (or contiguous parcels) of
land divided into two or more manufactured home lots for rent or sale.
MERIDIAN FLOODPLAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT: Area regulated by this section of code.
MERIDIAN FLOODWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT: Floodway portion of the Meridian
Floodplain Overlay District regulated by this code.
NEW CONSTRUCTION: For the purposes of determining insurance rates, structures for which
the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of an initial Flood Insurance
Rate Map or after December 31, 1974, whichever is later, and includes any subsequent
improvements to such structures. For floodplain management purposes,"new construction"means
structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or after the effective date of a
floodplain management regulation adopted by a community and includes any subsequent
improvements to such structures.
OPERATION, CLEANING, MAINTENANCE OR REPAIR OF IRRIGATION FACILITIES:
OPERATION: The performance of typical work by an irrigation or drainage entity
including, but not limited to: the delivery or drainage of water, measurement of water, and
adjustment of irrigation and drainage works and all related appurtenances.
CLEANING: Mowing, cutting, or burning of weeds, trees and other nuisance growth,
including algae growth, application of pesticides, removal of beaver dams, and removal of
trash or other debris, whether floating, lodged or otherwise obstructing the conveyance of
water flow through channels and works.
MAINTENANCE: Ongoing upkeep of existing structures required to keep channels in a
condition adequate to support the conveyance of irrigation and drainage water; the care or
upkeep of channels, works, appurtenances, easements, utility corridors and property; to keep
in an existing state, specified state of repair, and efficiency; return to a former condition,
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 5 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 73 of 85
elevation, place, and position; to preserve from failure or decline; or to repair or renovate so
as to return it to its original condition. "Maintenance" shall not include complete or
substantial replacement of an existing structure, or"dredging," as defined herein.
REPAIR: The restoration to good or sound condition of any part of an existing structure,
channel, channel bank, or service road for the purpose of maintenance (this does not include
the complete replacement or substantial replacement of an existing structure). "Repair"shall
not include "dredging," as defined herein.
RECREATION VEHICLE: A vehicle that is a.)built on a single chassis, b.)400 square feet or
less when measured at the largest horizontal projection, c.) designed to be self-propelled or
permanently towed by a light duty truck and d.) designed primarily not for use as a permanent
dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping,travel, or seasonal use.
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA (SFHA): The land in the floodplain within a community
subject to a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. It is shown on the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as Zone A, AO, AH, AE, AR, "Special flood hazard area" is
synonymous in meaning with the phrase "area of special flood hazard".
START OF CONSTRUCTION: Includes substantial improvement, and means the date the
development, building or floodplain development permit was issued, provided the actual start of
construction, repair, reconstruction, placement or other improvement was within one hundred
eighty (180) days of the permit date. The actual start means the first placement of permanent
construction of a structure on a site, such as the pouring of slab or footings,the installation of piles,
the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of excavation; or the placement of a
manufactured home on a foundation. Permanent construction does not include land preparation,
such as clearing, grading, and filling;nor does it include the installation of streets and/or walkways;
nor does it include excavation for a basement, footings, piers, or foundations or the erection of
temporary forms; nor does it include the installation on the property of accessory buildings, such
as garages or sheds not occupied as dwelling units or not part of the main structure. For a
substantial improvement, the actual start of construction means the first alteration of any wall,
ceiling,floor,or other structural part of a building,whether or not that alteration affects the external
dimensions of the building.
STRUCTURE: a walled and roofed building, including a gas or liquid storage tank that is
principally above ground as well as a manufactured home.
SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent (%) of
the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent (%) of the market
value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. If a Substantial
Improvement is being made to a structure, the entire structure must be brought into compliance
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 6 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 74 of 85
with the provisions of this code. This term includes structures which have incurred "substantial
damage", regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not include either:
(1) Any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing state or local health,
sanitary, or safety code specifications, which have been identified by the local code
enforcement official and which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions, or
(2) Any alteration of a historic structure provided that the alteration will not preclude the
structure's continued designation as an historic structure.
VARIANCE: A grant of relief from the requirements of this chapter which permits construction
in a manner that would otherwise be prohibited by this chapter.
VIOLATION: The failure of a structure or other development to be fully compliant with the
community's floodplain management regulations. A structure or other development without the
elevation certificate, other certifications, or other evidence of compliance required in this
ordinance is presumed to be in violation until such time as that documentation is provided.
10-6-3 GENERAL PROVISIONS:
A. Lands To Which This Chapter Applies: This chapter shall apply to all areas of the "Meridian
floodplain overlay district" as defined in section 10-6-2 of this chapter within the jurisdiction
of the city.
B. Basis For Establishing The Meridian Floodplain Overlay District And The Meridian
Floodway Overlay District:
1. The Meridian floodplain overlay district is initially defined by overlaying the FEMA
effective FIRM SFHA onto digital maps and amending it through engineering hydraulic
analysis, or by surveys to correct inconsistencies with field conditions, then applying a ten
foot(10')horizontal buffer to expand the area. Amendments to the district due to hydraulic
analysis or field surveys shall be reviewed and made available by the floodplain
administrator. The Meridian floodplain overlay district will always include at least the
SFHA as depicted on the FEMA effective FIRM and shall not be decreased by FEMA
letters of map revisions based on fill (LOMR-F).
2. The Meridian floodway overlay district is initially defined by overlaying a FEMA mapped
floodway or a local floodway defined by subsection 10-6-5(B) of this chapter onto digital
maps and amending it through engineering hydraulic analysis, or by surveys to correct
inconsistencies with field conditions, then applying a five foot (5')horizontal buffer to
expand the area. Amendments to the district due to hydraulic analysis or field surveys shall
be reviewed and made available by the floodplain administrator. The Meridian floodway
overlay district will always include at least the floodway mapped by FEMA shown on the
effective FIRM.
C. Basis For Establishing Special Flood Hazard Areas: The Special Flood Hazard Areas
identified by the Federal Insurance Administrator in a scientific and engineering report titled
"The Flood Insurance Study(FIS) for Ada County Idaho and Incorporated Areas" effective
June 19, 2020, and the accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) and/or Digital
Flood Insurance rate Maps (DFIRM), are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 7 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 75 of 85
part of this chapter together with any subsequent revisions thereof. The flood insurance study
and flood insurance rate map(s) are on file in the office of the floodplain administrator at 33
E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho.
D. Penalties For Noncompliance: No development shall take place without full compliance with
the terms of this Chapter and other applicable regulations. Violation of the provisions of this
Chapter by failure to comply with any of its requirements, including violations of conditions
and safeguards established in connection with conditions, shall constitute a misdemeanor.
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the City from taking such other lawful action as is
necessary to prevent or remedy any violation.
E. Abrogation And Greater Restrictions: This chapter is not intended to repeal, abrogate, or
impair any existing easements, covenants or deed restrictions. However, where this chapter
and another chapter, easement, covenant, or deed restriction conflict or overlap, whichever
imposes the more stringent restrictions shall prevail. Additionally, in the event that any of the
requirements of this chapter are in conflict with those of 44 CFR parts 59 - 65, the more
stringent restrictions shall prevail.
F. Severability: This chapter is hereby declared to be severable. Should any portion of this
chapter be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions
shall continue in full force and effect and shall be read to carry out the purpose of this chapter
before declaration of partial invalidity.
G. Interpretation: In the interpretation and application of this chapter all provisions shall be:
1. Considered as minimum requirements;
2. Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and
3. Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes.
H. Warning And Disclaimer Of Liability: The degree of flood protection required by this chapter
is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on scientific and engineering
considerations. Larger floods can and will occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be
increased by manmade or natural causes. This chapter does not imply that land outside the
areas of special flood hazard or uses permitted within such areas will be free from flooding or
flood damages. This chapter shall not create liability on the part of the city, any officer or
employee thereof, or the federal insurance administration, for any flood damages that result
from reliance on this chapter or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder.
10-6-4 ADMINISTRATION:
A. Establishment Of Floodplain Development Permit:
1.Floodplain Development Permit Required: A Floodplain Development Permit shall be
obtained before construction or development begins within any area of Meridian
Floodplain Overlay District as defined in subsection 10-6-2 of this Chapter. The permit
shall be for all development including fill and other activities also as set forth in Section
10-6-2 of this Chapter.
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 8 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 76 of 85
2.Application For Floodplain Development Permit: Application for a Floodplain
Development Permit shall be made on forms furnished by the Floodplain Administrator
and the applicant may be required to include, but not limited to;plans drawn to scale
showing the nature, location, dimensions, and elevations of the area in question; existing
and proposed structures, fill, storage of materials, drainage facilities, and the location of the
foregoing. Specifically, the following information is required:
a.Description of site work to be done in the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District.
b. Base Flood Elevations and floodway location in the project area.
c.Proposed elevation of the lowest floor and other critical components of all structures
such as crawlspaces, mechanical and electrical equipment, vent locations, check
structures, pipe elevations, etc.
d.Hydraulic and hydrologic calculations and backwater model results showing the effect
of the development on Base Flood Elevations for areas included in the Meridian
Floodplain Overlay and Floodway Overlay Districts including areas without a FIS-
mapped floodway.
e.No Rise Certification and hydraulic and hydrologic calculations including backwater
model results verifying no rise results for work in the Meridian Floodway Overlay
District.
3. General Irrigation Floodplain Development Permit(GIFD): A GIFD applies to qualifying
activities within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District. GFID permits may be issued
to an irrigation entity for a period not to exceed five years. Examples of activities
eligible under this provision include:
a. Dredging and grading of irrigation and drainage channels, when the fill from dredging
or grading is not deposited on the banks of channels or anywhere within the regulatory
floodway or SFHA for longer than 10 days.
b. Seasonal grading within natural stream channels to check or direct water into
irrigation facilities (i.e. earthen "push-up dams" and"wing dams").
c. Deposition of fill within the SFHA for less than 10 days. After 10 days, deposited fill
must be removed from the SFHA, or graded and compacted to existing grade within
0.2 feet. Deposition of fill includes deposition of material resulting from grading or
excavating irrigation or drainage channels. Deposition of fill within the mapped
floodway requires an individual permit.
d. Construction of new underground utilities that do not permanently alter the existing
grade elevations by±0.5 feet. Excess soil from new pipes larger than 2 feet in diameter
must be disposed of outside the regulatory floodway and SFHA.
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 9 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 77 of 85
e. In-kind replacement of irrigation and drainage works or components including but not
limited to control gates or head gates, measuring devices and their housing
structures/stilling wells, culverts,pumps, pipes, flumes, siphons and similar works.
GIFD permits cannot authorize the In-kind replacement of dams or bridge structures.
f. New driveways, trails, sidewalks, roads and streets constructed completely at-or-below
existing grade.
g.Armoring, stabilizing, securing, or in-kind replacement of existing infrastructure within
the channel banks (such as bridge piers, sewer/utility supports and storm water/sewer
drainage outfalls/headwalls)when the dimensions (bank slopes, channel location,
channel elevation) of the channel are not altered. This should not involve replacement
with larger or additional above ground infrastructure.
B. Designation Of Floodplain Administrator: The floodplain administrator shall be designated by
the city engineer, and is hereby appointed to administer and implement this chapter by
granting or denying floodplain development permit applications in accordance with its
provisions.
C. Duties And Responsibilities Of The Floodplain Administrator: Duties of the floodplain
administrator shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Review and evaluate floodplain development permit applications:
a. Determine whether the permit requirements of this chapter have been satisfied.
b. Obtain evidence of approvals for all necessary additional federal, state, or local permits
and approvals if applicable.
c. Require that interim and final elevation certificates, final floodproofing certificates,
and/or other as built documents are properly completed by a qualified professional
engineer or land surveyor licensed in the state of Idaho and submitted by the permit
applicant before certificates of occupancy are granted for the project.
d.When Base Flood Elevation data or floodway data are not available, then the Floodplain
Administrator shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and
floodway data available from a federal, state or other source in order to administer the
provisions of this ordinance.
2. Conduct inspections of all development in the Meridian floodplain overlay district in
coordination with the designated building official to ensure that the provisions of this
chapter are met.
3. Notify adjacent communities and the State Department of Water Resources prior to any
alteration or relocation of a watercourse, and submit evidence of such notification to the
Federal Insurance Administrator and assure that the flood-carrying capacity of the altered
or relocated portion of said watercourse is maintained.
4. Maintain the following information for public inspection:
a. Floodplain development permit applications and attachments.
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 10 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 78 of 85
b. Results of hydraulic studies as required by this chapter.
c. No rise certificates as required by this chapter.
d. Floodproofing certificates for all new and substantially improved structures.
e. Elevation certificates of all new and substantially improved structures.
f. Any other documents pertaining to the provisions of this chapter.
5. Make interpretations, where needed, as to specific location of the boundaries of the special
flood hazard area or Meridian floodplain and floodway overlay districts (for example,
where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field
conditions).
6. A community's base flood elevations may increase or decrease resulting from physical
changes affecting flooding conditions. As soon as practicable, but not later than six months
after the date such information becomes available, a community shall notify the Federal
Insurance Administrator(FIA) of the changes by submitting technical or scientific data in
accordance with this part. Such a submission is necessary so that upon confirmation of
those physical changes affecting flooding conditions, risk premium rates and flood plain
management requirements will be based upon current data.
7. Upon occurrence, notify the Federal Insurance Administrator(FIA) in writing whenever
the boundaries of the community have been modified by annexation or the community has
otherwise assumed or no longer has authority to adopt and enforce flood plain
management regulations for a particular area. In order that all FIRM's accurately represent
the community's boundaries, include within such notification a copy of a map of the
community suitable for reproduction, clearly delineating the new corporate limits or new
area for which the community has assumed or relinquished flood plain management
regulatory authority.
D. Appeals And Variances:
1. Appeal And Variance Procedures:
a. The city council shall hear and decide appeals and requests for variances from the
requirements of this chapter.
b. The city council shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged there is an error in any
requirement, decision, or determination made by the floodplain administrator in the
enforcement or administration of this chapter. The floodplain administrator and
applicant shall consult with the city engineer prior to appealing to city council.
c. Those aggrieved by the decision of the city council, or any taxpayer, may appeal such
decision to the 4th judicial district court, Ada County, Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code
chapter 52, title 67.
d. In passing upon such applications, the city council shall consider all technical
evaluations, all relevant factors, standards specified in other sections of this chapter; and
(1) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others;
(2) The danger to life and property due to flooding;
(3) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the
effect of such damage on the individual owner;
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 11 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 79 of 85
(4) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community;
(5) The necessity to the facility of a waterfront location, where applicable;
(6) The availability of alternative locations for the proposed use which are not subject to
flooding;
(7) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing and anticipated development;
(8) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and floodplain
management program for that area;
(9) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency
vehicles;
(10) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the
floodwaters and the effects of wave action, if applicable, expected at the site; and
(11) The costs of providing governmental services during and after flood conditions,
including maintenance and repair of public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water systems, and streets and bridges.
e. The floodplain administrator shall maintain the records of all appeal actions including
justification for issuance and report any variances to the Federal Insurance Administrator
upon request.
2. Conditions For Variances:
a. Variances shall not be issued within the Meridian floodway overlay district if any increase
in flood levels during the base flood discharge would result.
b. Variances shall only be issued upon:
(1)A showing of good and sufficient cause; reasons that do not constitute good and
sufficient cause include: loss of property value, inconvenience to the property owner, or
lack of funding to comply.
(2)A determination that failure to grant the variance would result in exceptional hardship
to the applicant.
(3)A determination that the granting of a variance will not result in additional threats to
public safety, extraordinary public expense, create nuisances, cause fraud on or
victimization of the public, or conflict with existing local laws or ordinances.
(4)A determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood
hazard, to afford relief. Any variance should allow only minimum deviation from the
requirements of this code.
c. Upon consideration of the factors of subsection D I d of this section and the purposes of this
chapter, the city council may attach such conditions to the granting of variances as it
deems necessary to further the purpose of this chapter.
d. Variances as interpreted in the national flood insurance program are based on the general
zoning law principle that they pertain to a physical piece of property; they are not personal
in nature and do not pertain to the structure, its inhabitants, economic or financial
circumstances. They primarily address small lots in densely populated residential
neighborhoods.
e. Any applicant to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice by the
floodplain administrator that the structure permitted to be built with the lowest floor below
the base flood elevation will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to
amounts as high as $25 per$100 of insurance coverage and that such development
increases risks to life and property.
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 12 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 80 of 85
10-6-5 : PROVISIONS FOR FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION:
A. Standards for the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District:
1. Engineering and Mapping Requirements:
a.Determination of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs): The Floodplain Development Permit
Applicant may contact the City Floodplain Administrator to determine the Base Flood
Elevation. If the Floodplain Administrator is unable to determine the Base Flood
Elevation through FIS profiles and/or simplified methods, then the Floodplain
Development Permit Applicant shall retain the services of a Qualified State of Idaho
Licensed Professional Engineer, or Professional Land Surveyor to determine BFEs
before and after the proposed development. BFEs shall be determined based on FIRMs,
previous studies,by performing a hydraulic analysis, or other methods approved by the
Floodplain Administrator. The applicant must check with the Floodplain Administrator
to determine if additional updated information on BFEs is available.
b.Effect of Development on BFE: In areas where a floodway has not been determined,
the cumulative effect of any proposed development, when combined with all other
existing and anticipated development, shall not increase the water surface elevation of
the base flood more than one foot (F) at any point unless Letter of Map Change
(LOMC)provisions in 44 CFR Part 65 are met. It is the responsibility of the City acting
through the Floodplain Administrator to allocate the one foot increase to best serve the
purposes and objectives of this chapter.
c.Floodway Mapping: In floodplains where the floodway is not shown on the FIRM, the
Floodplain Development Permit Applicant shall retain the services of a Qualified State
of Idaho Licensed Professional Engineer to determine the location of a local floodway.
Development in the Meridian Floodway Overlay District shall then meet the standards
for development specified in section 10-6-5(B)below.
2. Construction Requirements for New Construction and Substantial Improvements of
Structures:
a. Elevation Requirements:
(1)For all residential construction and new nonresidential construction the lowest floor
elevation of any structure, including basements, or mobile/manufactured homes,
shall be elevated to the Flood Protection Elevation of no less than two feet (2')
above the Base Flood Elevation.
(2)For all residential construction and new nonresidential construction, any crawlspace
or other unfinished or flood resistant enclosure below the lowest floor that is usable
solely for parking of vehicles, building access or storage in an area other than a
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 13 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 81 of 85
basement, shall be elevated to a minimum of one foot (l') above the Base Flood
Elevation.
(3)All manufactured homes shall be elevated on a permanent foundation and meet the
same elevation requirements as other structures.
(4) Lots for new construction, removed from a defined special flood hazard area as
shown on the effective FIRM through a letter of map change based on fill (LOMR-F),
but within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District, may elevate the lowest floor to a
Flood Protection Elevation of one foot(1') above the base flood elevation provided the
post development base flood water surface elevation increase is less than one foot(I')
as determined by approved engineering hydraulic analysis and flooding source peak
discharges do not exceed one thousand five hundred(1,500) cfs per FIS data tables.
Lots where post development base flood water surface elevation increase is one foot
(F) or greater, or flooding source peak discharges exceed one thousand five hundred
(1,500) cfs shall comply with the elevation requirements of subsections A2a(1) and
A2a(2) of this section.
b. Floodproofing Requirements:
(1) For existing non-residential construction, including development which is
considered a substantial improvement, the lowest floor area of any structure, including
basements, and any unfinished enclosure area shall either be elevated to conform with
sections 10-6-5(A)(2)(a)(1) and(2) above or be dry floodproofed, together with
attendant utility and sanitary facilities, below the Flood Protection Elevation as defined
in 10-6-2, so that the structure is water tight with walls substantially impermeable to the
passage of water; have structural components capable of resisting hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy; and be certified by a Qualified State of
Idaho Licensed Professional Engineer that the standards above have been satisfied.
c. Anchoring:
(1)All construction shall be designed and adequately anchored to resist flotation,
collapse, and lateral movement of the structure resulting from hydrodynamic and
hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy.
(2)All manufactured homes must likewise be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or
lateral movement, and shall be installed using methods and practices that minimize
flood damage. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of over
the top or frame ties to ground anchors (reference FEMA guidebooks for additional
techniques).
d. Construction Materials And Methods:
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 14 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 82 of 85
(1)All construction below BFE shall be done with materials resistant to flood damage.
This includes not only the foundation walls of the crawl space used to elevate the
building, but also all joints, insulation or other materials that extend below the BFE.
(2)All construction shall use methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
(3)All building utility systems, including electrical, heating, ventilation,plumbing, air
conditioning, ductwork and other service facilities shall be elevated at least 1 foot
above the BFE.
3. Utilities and Drainage:
a.All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to minimize or
eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system.
b.New and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to minimize or
eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and discharge from the systems
into floodwaters.
c.On site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment to them or
contamination from them during flooding.
4. Land Development Applications:
a.All land development shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage.
b.All land development shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas,
electrical, and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage.
c. All land development shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood
damage.
d. Include Base Flood Elevation data for all proposals greater than 50 lots or 5 acres,
whichever is the lesser.
5. Storage Of Materials And Equipment: Storage of the following materials is prohibited
within the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District:
a. The following materials,regardless of how they are stored:
Acetone Carbon Disulfide Prussic Acid Phosphorus
Ammonia Celluloid Magnesium Potassium
Benzene Chlorine Nitric Acid Sodium
Calcium Carbide Hydrochloric Acid Oxides of Nitrogen Sulfur
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 15 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020— Page 83 of 85
b. All other materials that are buoyant, flammable, noxious, toxic or otherwise injurious to
persons or property if transported by floodwaters, except those identified in item a.)
above, are prohibited unless elevated to the flood protection elevation and using a
storage method designed to resist flood related forces including hydrostatic,
hydrodynamic, buoyancy and debris impact forces.
6. Recreation Vehicles:
a. Recreational vehicles located in the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District must either:
(1)Be onsite for fewer than 180 consecutive days;
(2)Be fully licensed and ready for highway use, on its wheels or jacking system, attached
to the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no
permanently attached structures or additions, or;
(3)Meet all the requirements for New Construction and Substantial Improvements of
Structures as specified in section 10-6-5(A)(2).
B. Standards for the Meridian Floodway Overlay District:
1. Development is prohibited in a mapped floodway as shown on the effective FIRM unless
the provisions of 44 CFR 60.3(d) are met; and a"no-rise" certification is provided by a
Qualified State of Idaho Licensed Professional Engineer and accompanied by hydrologic and
hydraulic analysis performed in accordance with standard engineering practice, including but
not limited to supporting engineering data and that information which is required under
section 10-6-4(A)(1) supporting the determination that the floodway development will not
cause any increase to BFEs at any point or a Conditional Letter of Map Revision(CLOMR)
has been approved by FEMA. If a CLOMR has been approved a Letter of Map Revision
(LOMR) must also be obtained within six months of completion of the proposed
encroachment.
2. In areas where a floodway has not yet been mapped on the FIRM, the Floodplain
Development Permit Applicant shall retain the services of a Qualified Licensed Professional
Engineer to determine the location of a local floodway for purposes of this chapter. Once
determined, development within the locally mapped floodway will not be allowed unless a
"no-rise" standard is met as stated in item (1) above.
a. Existing Local and State highway bridges and culverts that are extended or improved
using public funds may be exempt from the "no-rise" standard if they are not in a mapped
floodway as shown on the FIRM.
Section 2. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof or in conflict with this
ordinance are hereby voided.
Section 3. That this ordinance shall be effective on June 19, 2020.
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 16 of 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12,2020- Page 84 of 85
i
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian , Idaho, this 12th day of May 2020 .
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho , this 12th day of May 2020 .
APPROVED :
Robert E . Si ison Mayor
ATTEST :
�s,ynt
CUL, IDIIAN
SFAL
Chris Johnson, Ity Clerk
CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY :
William L.M . Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian , Idaho , hereby certifies that the
summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice
to the public .
William L . M . Nary, City Attorney
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO , 204879
An ordinance repealing and replacing Title 10 , Chapter 6 , Meridian City Code , regarding flood
damage prevention; voiding any conflicting provisions ; and providing an effective date .
MERIDIAN FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE UPDATE PAGE 17 OF 17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda May 12, 2020 — Page 85 of 85
E IDIAN ---
IDAHO
CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
Item Title: Future Meeting Topics
Meeting Notes: