2020-07-14 Regular CITY COUNCIL REGULAR
MEETING MINUTES
.��WE IIN
?ity Council Chambers
33 East Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, July 14, 2020 at 600-PM 6:02 PM
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance
Z Liz Strader X Joe Borton
X Brad Hoaglun _Z Treg Bernt
X Jessica Perreault Z Luke Cavener
X Mayor Robert E.Simison
Z—Denotes attendance via Zoom
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
Item 3: Adoption of Agenda - Adopted
Item 4: Future Meeting Topics
Item 5: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Franklin Storage (H-2020-0033) by Franklin
Storage, LLC, Located Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North
Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S.
Cloverdale Rd. - Denied
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.143 acres of land with an
I-L zoning district to accommodate the future construction of a
self-service storage facility.
B. Public Hearing for Sagewood West Subdivision (H-2020-0038)
by Southpoint Estates, LLC, Located at 1335 W. Overland Rd. -
Approved
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.41 acres of land with an
R-8 zoning district; and,
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 53 building lots and 7
common lots.
Item 4: Ordinances [Action Item]
A. Ordinance No. 20-1885: An Ordinance (H-2020-0029 Midgrove
Plaza) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of That
Parcel Described in Warranty Deed Instrument No. 111069481,
Ada County Records, and Also Being a Portion of "Parcel One"
as Described in Meridian City Ordinance No. 748, Recorded as
Instrument No. 96104790, Ada County Records, Lying Within the
East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use
Zoning Classification of 1.963 Acres of Land From I-L (Light
Industrial) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail and Service
Commercial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code;
Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed with the
Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a
Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the
Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date - Approved
Item 5: Future Meeting Topics
Meeting Adjourned at 7:39 pm
Meridian City Council July 14, 2020.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, July
14, 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, Joe Dodson, Tracy
Basterrechea, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
Item 1 : 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
Simison: Council, I will call this meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, July 14th,
2020, at 6.02 p.m. We will begin tonight's City Council meeting with roll call attendance.
Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance
Simison: Item No. 2 is the Pledge of Allegiance, which I will ask Councilman Borton to,
please, lead us in.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
Item 3: Adoption of Agenda
Simison: Item No. 3 is adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Unless I hear otherwise, it looks like our agenda is set for this evening. I would
move approval of the agenda as presented -- as published.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any
discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The
ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 116 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 2 of 33
Item 4: Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up under future meeting topics?
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Item 5: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for Franklin Storage (H-2020-0033) by Franklin
Storage, LLC, Located Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North
Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S.
Cloverdale Rd.
1 . Request: Annexation and Zoning of 5.143 acres of land with
an I-L zoning district to accommodate the future construction
of a self-service storage facility.
Simison: Okay. Then we will move directly into Action Items. We will open up Action
Item 5-A, a public hearing for Franklin Storage, H-2020-0033, and I will turn this over to
Joe for staff comments.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, Council Members. The first project
before you tonight is for Franklin Storage, Item No. 5-A. The site consists of 5.143 acres
of land currently zoned RUT and located near the half mile mark between South Eagle
Road and South Cloverdale on the north side of Franklin Road. The proposed annexation
is for these five acres of land and a requested zoning designation of I-L, which is light
industrial, and this application is only for annexation and zoning and the associated new
development agreement, not a plat. As noted, the subject site is labeled as general
industrial in the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. This future land use designation
allows a range of uses, including warehouses, light manufacturing, flex space and storage
units. The applicant has provided a concept plan depicting a self storage facility that staff
is not approving with this application. Staff believes that tying this annexation and
subsequent DA to a specific site plan could create difficulty for both staff and developers
in the future. For example, if the concept idea were to change, as markets sometimes
dictate, staff believes that a site that is only annexed and zoned I-L is a better fit for the
City of Meridian than a property that is tied to a specific self storage site plan. Staff
supports this annexation and zoning, but does not believe a self storage facility is the
highest and best use of the site. Thus this annexation will be recommended to not be
tied to a specific site plan. This applicant intends to develop the site as a self storage
facility, which is a principally permitted use in the I-L zoning district. As stated above, staff
does not see this as the highest and best use of the property unless staff has reviewed
and analyzed the submitted concept plan, but will not be providing conditions of approval
to correct any issues noticed. Instead, staff offered these comments within the analysis
of the staff report. Access to this site is proposed to be an extension of an industrial
collector way, East Landmark Street, which bisects the property. Direct access to East
Franklin Road will be prohibited, except for an emergency access that is required to meet
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 117 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 3 of 33
the two points of access requirement for the specific use standards of self storage. East
Lanark Street bisects the subject property as noted and, therefore, requires the property
to be subdivided prior to future development. Because of this the city will have the
opportunity to fully analyze and condition the site plan that will be submitted with that
application or any future subdivision application. In addition, any new industrial or
commercial building will also be required to apply for a certificate -- certificate of zoning
compliance and administrative design review, which gives staff yet another opportunity to
review the site and its design. East Franklin Road is designated as an entryway corridor
on the master street map. Because of this designation buildings should be held to a
higher standard than the traditional design standards for industrial buildings. Staff has
previously required adjacent industrial buildings to adhere to the commercial building
design standards, rather than just the industrial. Therefore, staff also is recommending a
DA provision any future buildings on the site comply with the commercial architectural
design standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard these items on May 28th,
2020, and recommended approval of the applicant's request for annexation and zoning.
The main points of discussion of this were the applicant's desire to only annex and not
develop at this time and also the flexibility of not tying annexation to the submitted concept
plan. And with that I will stand for questions. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for Joe at this time?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I was a little confused on this one. There had been a long practice of not doing
annexations without plats or at least concept plans to tie it to and I couldn't figure out, in
light of the request, why -- why is there an ask to annex this property now?
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Borton. The main point is they do at this current time intend to
do self storage. But, again, as I stated in my staff report, I --we have all stated it -- another
self storage facility is not necessarily what we want. That's why I'm not tying it to this
specific site plan. I -- we do need more industrial zoning and if things tend to change and
we can use that industrial zoning for something else -- even the applicant has stated that
they are open to doing that. Maybe doing different things on the site. And at this time
they are not yet prepared to offer a very specific site plan or preliminary plat for that. If
East Lanark Street didn't bisect the property, then, they wouldn't have to plat it.
Technically they could just do all the buildings on one line. However, because of that they
are going to have to at least subdivide it there. But further subdivision may occur if they
want to do different types of uses on the property.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 118 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 4 of 33
Perreault: I don't mean to speak for Council Borton, but I guess maybe also what he's
asking -- or what I'm understanding is what would be the purpose of the city taking on this
responsibility from -- from a service standpoint if there isn't a concept plan or an intention
of the applicant to move forward in the near future. And I apologize for my simple
question, but --
Dodson: No.
Perreault: -- that's --
Dodson: Thank you, Council Member Perreault. They are -- it's not a simple question. I
understand. It's -- I don't know exactly the timeline of when the applicant intends to
subdivide the property, but I know that it's not a five year plan or anything like that. There
is an intention to do it sooner rather than later. I could have tied this to the concept plan,
but I decided not to, because I would rather have an opportunity to maybe work with the
applicant and get some type of other use -- maybe some more flex space and not just self
storage on the site. So, that -- that was more of my reasoning behind not requiring the
concept plan with it. I think there could be some more massaging that me and the
applicant could do to -- to better -- better benefit the city than just more self storage.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor and Joe, so it looks like on page ten that we do adopt a development
agreement as part of this, but it is -- the DA shall -- I'm quoting from that -- at a minimum
incorporate the following provisions and it looks like it's just referencing to the extension
of Lanark, sidewalks, turning radiuses, all the minimum things that need for that property
-- whether it's storage or whatever else it might be; is that correct? Did I read that
correctly?
Dodson: Mr. Hoaglun, yes, that is correct. Yeah. As of right now, because there is not a
specific site plan, just those basic needs. I could have required certain other things with
regards to the concept plan that was submitted, but because I'm not tying it to the concept
plan I found that that would just be a waste, because if it were to be subdivided or a
different use came we would just have to strike all those out anyways.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor and Joe, thank you.
Dodson: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions for staff? Mr. Cavener?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Thanks. Joe, I noted that this came up at P&Z. Can you summarize
for Council what complications you have had with the applicant at Planning and Zoning
before tonight? And your comments are -- kind of suggest that you wanted to continue to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 119 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 5 of 33
work with the applicant with the particular pieces. I'm just curious what has happened
since P&Z prior to today?
Dodson: Council Member Cavener, thank you. Mr. Mayor. No specific additional
conversations have happened since the Planning and Zoning Commission, other than a
brief discussion in e-mail where he had a -- he had thanked us, you know, for our time
and, then, he had stated that he could intend to see some flex space on -- with storage
here or even some type of commercial use closer to Franklin, depending on the use.
Again, nothing specific has been discussed, but Mr. Hatch, the applicant, is -- and from
what I understand the owner of the property is very willing to do something other than just
storage. They, too, would like to see more than one use on the property. And I apologize
I don't have any more specific answers to that, sir.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Joe, the -- the omission of conditions of approval, you know, kind of caught me
off guard and I'm just -- my assumption is that's not something the applicant requested,
that's something that on an administrative level the decision was made to not provide
that?
Dodson: Council Member Cavener, yes, sir, that is -- again, the reason why I didn't do
that is because I'm not tying it to the site plan. If I tied it to the site plan there would be
conditions of approval related to the site plan, but because there isn't one and it's just
going to be annexing the land, let's say they only developed the southern portion,
regardless of when they extend to East Landmark they are going to have to subdivide,
they are going to have to do some type of plat and that will require other conditions of
approval and, then, on top of that there will be a CZC and design review, which will have
other conditions of approval regarding whatever use is proposed. But that was
intentional.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I guess maybe a question and I'm not sure if it should be directed toward
planning staff or maybe legal, but by potentially approving an annexation without those
conditions and with this general zoning, but no real specifics, is there -- is there a trade
off? Is there something that -- that we are giving up that we would normally get in terms
of the, you know, real discretion with an annexation? I'm just curious if there is any
feedback on that or if we just feel pretty confident that at a staff level there is so much
oversight during these further phases that were covered.
Dodson: Council Woman Strader, thank you for your question. It's -- just annexing in, if
they don't develop it, there should not be any additional cost to the city services. It's just
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 120 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 6 of 33
going to sit there and continue to be vacant, you know. More than that if they -- when
they decide to develop it, you know, we -- we are gaining another five acres of I-L zoning,
which we desperately need in the city right now and that -- as I discussed in my staff
report that is part of the reasoning of me not approving this concept plan of self storage.
I think that, you know, Mr. Hatch stated specifically in the Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting that he is also willing to work and provide some other uses on the
site, too. So, I think that there is potential to get something better than just more storage
facilities on site and if we just annex we do leave that flexibility in there versus if -- yes,
he could have come in with a plat to subdivide it, but it's not necessarily the -- the end of
the road. We are not losing anything by making them come back and having to do that
again.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Strader, maybe to add on to what
Joe said. I don't think this would be wise in other types of zones with residential and such.
That's why you always have concept plans and they are -- and elevations and things that
you want to tie to, because that's what you like. In industrial, again, there is certain uses,
so I think basically what Planning is saying is we are comfortable with any uses that
industrial would allow within that five acres and it sounds like Mr. Hatch is also agreeable
to considering some of those other things. So, this is avoiding the potential need for a
modification of a DA. That's really what you are avoiding right now, because, again, you
are -- you have got limited uses, again, in an I-L and we don't have that much I-L in the
city now, as much as we'd like, so this is really an addition of I-L with, again, limited uses,
so you are not at risk like you are in a residential or an office or commercial setting where
you have no idea what's going to go there. Here you have got a list of things that are
fairly limited that are going to have to be congruent with other adjacent I-L. So, I think
this is one that this is -- makes the most sense to give that level of flexibility that you
wouldn't have in some of the other annexations you see.
Simison: Council, any further questions for staff at this time?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yes. Just a quick follow up to confirm that the annexation to industrial is
exclusively what's listed here, so warehouses, light manufacturing, flex space, storage
and there isn't some type of -- let's say heavy industrial use that Council may not like that
could come in that might not be compatible with adjacent residential areas.
Dodson: Council Woman Strader, regardless of if they came in with a plat or any use
right now, that could always change and it would -- if it comes in under I-L, then, all of
those permitted or conditional uses would be allowed. Obviously, with a conditional use
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 121 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 7 of 33
it would come before Planning and Zoning Commission, so -- versus doing it now or later,
it's -- having the I-L zoning is going to allow those uses there regardless, but, again, all
industrial zones require the CZC, certificate of zoning compliance, and design review, so
we will, again, have another opportunity to check what use they are proposing. It's not
going to be a free for all when -- once it's annexed.
Strader: Thanks.
Dodson: You are welcome.
Simison: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here with us in the virtual room?
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor -- there he is. Mr. Hatch?
Simison: Mr. Hatch?
Hatch: Do you want me to introduce myself, address, all that kind of --
Simison: Yes. If we could give your name and address for the record and you will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
Hatch: City Council Members and city staff, thank you for hearing the application this
evening. Jeff Hatch with Hatch Design Architecture. Our address is 200 West 36th Street
in Boise, Idaho. 83714. We were involved at least in some of the public hearings last fall
with the Comprehensive Plan and FLUM amendments and -- and workshops. Through
-- through that and a brief pre-application meeting that we had with the city that there was
a recommendation that we present to City Council the consideration of rezoning or
recommending that the Comprehensive Plan be adjusted to have this area be light
industrial and that presentation was well received and it's reflected in Joe's presentation
from there, talking with -- with Joe and staff, the intent was for us to be able to annex
these properties, one, because of the bigger picture of what we got out of that
comprehensive workshop and public hearings was, you know, there was a lot of concern
for growth -- the need for growth and considerations for residential development, but, you
know, on the -- on the industrial side there is a grave need in Meridian for light industrial
and the opportunity for that type of commercial development in the future. Is that storage?
Maybe. Is that flexible space for various different businesses? Maybe. Is that any of the
other intended uses of light industrial? I think so. And so in talking with the applicant and
-- my clients, our intention is -- is to propose light industrial and to develop that in the
intent of the light industrial and so I think, you know, based on market needs and
businesses moving into the area, that may be an opportunity for some flex space and
maybe an opportunity for storage and maybe opportunity for other intended uses in that
light industrial. But I would agree with -- with Joe and his direction as far as trying to keep
this not tied to a DA. We have worked on many a DA project in the past where maybe a
DA that has no timeline, it's been around for 30 years and has no relevance to the actual
current date, situation and surroundings of the area and trying to kind of unravel that to
make sense of it in many cases becomes very confusing, very expensive and very
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 122 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 8 of 33
convoluted and so based on the CZC, the design review, and all of the other processes
that we are going to have to go through to develop these uses, it will be at least two
parcels in the future. We felt that Joe's recommendations were prudent for this and we
are in favor with the staff recommendations for this annexation and so with that I would
stand for -- for any questions.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just one. Jeff, the question that was asked to staff I -- in fairness will ask to you.
I -- the annexation by itself is extremely rare and what, if anything, is gained by doing the
annexation now, as opposed to -- I mean it's -- it's comp planned to be industrial and
everyone thinks it's going to be industrial, so why annex now with no development plan,
as opposed to bringing an annexation application at the time you -- you finally know what
you want to do there? And I understand what the city loses to some degree by doing it in
two parts. So, help me understand what the applicant gains by doing it this way, if
anything.
Hatch: I mean we gain the ability to -- to help annex industrial land into City of Meridian.
As far as, you know, the -- my client's intent and use, I don't -- I don't know if there is any
individual benefits that -- that he really gains, other than helping Meridian. I know there
was the comment about, you know, as -- as this use or -- and/or proposed use and review
-- and we were required to go through the same expectation as we would if this was tied
to a DA, so we had to do engineering, we had to do modeling for the water and make
sure that the infrastructure would be suitable for the proposed layout. Would there be
modifications through CZC and -- and design review. Absolutely. But can the intended
use be utilized on that site. Yes. And that has been rammed through in this whole review.
So, I think the -- the expectation, at least for my client, is that at least a portion of this
would be utilized for storage. Would all of it be utilized for storage? I think both myself
and the -- the future of owner of the property, the applicant, would like to keep an open
mind based on the city's needs for this property and the surrounding properties. I think
the consideration for being able to bring this into Meridian is something that we see benefit
for a future development, but to answer your question more specifically, staff
recommended that we take this approach and we respect their vision and insight.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 123 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 9 of 33
Dodson: So, just to clarify, the project would be tied to a DA, but not a concept plan. I
just want to make sure that Mr. Hatch and everybody understands that -- that is very clear
-- will be tied to a DA, but not a concept plan.
Simison: Council, any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, Madam
Clerk, do we have anybody who has signed up to testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, we do not.
Simison: Okay. Well -- and there is nobody in the room. Is there anybody online who --
who would like to testify? If so, if you could, please, indicate by raising your hand at the
bottom of the screen. We do have one person who has raised their hand. If you could
state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for three minutes.
This is for Greg.
Weatherly: Mr. Mayor, I have asked Greg to unmute.
Simison: There we go.
Ferney: I'm sorry. Can you hear me now?
Simison: Yes, we can.
Ferney: Okay. I apologize. I actually did not mean to hit that -- the hand. I didn't intend
to testify. I would just echo that -- both what staff and Jeff Hatch have stated and we have
worked diligently with staff to come up with a solution that they are very comfortable with
and more comfortable with and so that's -- that's all I have to report.
Simison: Greg, could you say your name and address for the record, please.
Ferney: Yeah. Yes. Greg Ferney. F-e-r-n-e-y. At 4549 North Mackenzie Lane in Boise.
83703.
Simison: Thank you very much. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Seeing no one else with their hand raised or in the room, would the applicant like to
provide any last comments on this application?
Hatch: I would just, again, like to thank City Council and staff. You know, we don't rezone
property and go through the workshop that -- that has transpired over the last couple of
years in Meridian very often and so taking a look at this area, what would be the best
zoning for that. You know, it was an exciting process to be involved with and there is a
lot of change in Meridian, which is exciting, but also takes a lot of thought and insight.
So, we appreciate your time and consideration. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any comments or questions?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 124 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 10 of 33
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Before we close the public hearing I guess to summarize the -- the concern that
I had reviewing the application was just that the process in an annexation without a
concept plan or a plat or something in more detail always seemed to beg the question of
-- you know, Councilman Rountree used to call it the -- is it the right time and what's the
rush and -- and I couldn't still figure out what the purpose of this to an annexation by itself
was with this one, knowing that the comp plan says it's going to be industrial, it's --whether
it's today or it's future, it's going to be an industrial zone, but we have always liked to have
the plat or concept plan with DA provisions. Councilman Cavener referenced it. You don't
know what you don't know until the future and this is the only time at the annexation
process where the Council and Mayor have a voice in what some of those details might
be and it might be small and inconsequential, but oftentimes it's more than nothing. So,
the benefit to the development community we have been -- we have been pretty
consistent saying don't bring an annexation by itself, you run a huge risk it's just not going
to fly. Not that it's the wrong zone or -- or there is anything wrong with it, we just don't
have the details we need to make the decision if it's appropriate to become part of
Meridian today, as opposed to sometime in the future. So, this one the risk might be
miniscule -- minimal. Mr. Nary's provided some good guidance that the -- the variabilities
might be small, but, again, they are more than zero. So, that's why I had the initial
concern. I still have it, even though it may be smaller here that -- and for the benefit of
the community, the risk I think is if we -- if we are open to it approving annexations by
themselves sometimes and not others, I don't know where the line is and we certainly
don't want folks to come to this stage to find out that it's on one end of the spectrum and
not the other, because they would be rightfully concerned and our staff needs to know our
perspective, just so we can consistently apply it. So, I'm extremely reluctant to approve
it, but I understand this one's pretty unique and I'm not fighting to -- one way or the other,
but -- at least that's the policy consideration for me that makes any annexation by itself
almost never.
Simison: So, from a process question -- and I don't -- can you tie the concept plan that's
in there, that's not recommended to this if you wanted to at this point in time? And I'm not
saying we would want to, but I'm just saying is that even an option to tie the concept when
the staff said not to tie to it, if Council wanted to have something.
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, basically the staff recommendation was simply
to not tie it to the concept plan that's been submitted. I mean that's -- that's about the
only one you could tie it to at this point --
Simison- Right.
Nary: -- it's the only thing that's been noticed that was part of the application. So, if that
was the direction of the Council that -- that -- although staff has advised that that you
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 125 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 11 of 33
would like it tied to that initial concept plan that was submitted I don't see any conflict in
the code to allow for that, so --
Borton- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: And I'm -- I'm not advocating for that, but I think if we tied it to a concept plan the
developer didn't want to do they wouldn't sign the DA.
Simison: Right.
Borton: It would just all fall apart anyway. So, again, I'm not -- I don't have terrible
heartburn, other than the policy considerations that are already described.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Just wanted to mention to Councilman Borton. It's a little hard to hear you from
time to time, kind of fading a little in and out. I think we are tracking. I think we got most
of it.
Borton: I will get closer.
Strader: I share that concern as well. I -- I guess I would have to -- I just haven't heard
a great compelling reason why we have to do it this way and I -- I feel like we are giving
up a level of control that we would normally have had it sounds like in the past. I don't
know what the harm would be in just continuing this or, you know, maybe not approving
it, but not creating a time frame where they can't come back when they have more
information.
Simison: Joe.
Dodson: Mayor. Yeah. I understand the Council Members' concerns. I do. One part of
that I believe is -- the next step would be to plat it, which does not require a DA. So, in
order to help bring maybe some clarity or another opportunity for Council Members to add
or remove DA provisions perhaps you could recommend a DA provision that any future
subdivision will require a modified DA and gives you the opportunity to use a development
agreement again to mitigate any potential issues at the future subdivision and future uses.
Food for thought.
Simison: Council, any additional thoughts or comments at this time? Any action item that
the Council would like to take on this item?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 126 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 12 of 33
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Borton.
Borton: To force the issue just for a bit, if there was -- if there is a different perspective
on the policy consideration of being consistent that -- let's visit about it now. Again, I'm
not -- I have said my peace. If we are all on the same page we can be consistent, that's
great, but if we are not, if there is something that I'm missing for this discussion, by all
means. I -- Joe, you are being super creative on the fly, but sometimes that bites us if we
are trying to round peg square hole things here at the 11 th hour, as opposed to being
consistent on the front end, so --
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I just wanted to comment. Yeah, I don't oppose the application to change it to
I-L zoning. I think all the things are there, but in the listening to Councilman Borton talk
about policy and our procedures and consistency and I do like it when we are consistent.
We don't surprise people. We know what the process -- they know what the process is.
We know how we move forward on things. So, you know, I don't have any heartburn not
-- to not approve this and let them come forward at a future date to --with -- with a concept
that is something we could accept, along with the zoning change. So, I think there is
decent sideboards on it, but at the same time, if we are going to be doing some things
that are kind of out of character for the Council historically and in the future, then, I think
we probably should be consistent.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: In general I'm in agreement with Councilman Borton and Hoalgun's comments
and -- but I am hesitant if there is a vote that results in denial to limit their ability to come
back within a year's time. So, just want to keep that -- it's my understanding that it would
-- it would prohibit them from applying within a year if something changed in their -- is that
right?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I think if it's the same or similar application, but this is just an annexation
application with almost an express request to not tie it to a concept plan, with a new
application of any type of new? I might alleviate the concern.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 127 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 13 of 33
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Perreault and Council
Member Borton, yeah, I would agree, since the -- I guess the only concern I would have
from where the Council's direction is going, it sounds like -- and Joe can correct me, but
from what I have read in the staff report and heard tonight, the -- the project came forward
with this project in mind. Staff wanting to be more creative and looking for additional types
of uses in the industrial zone, essentially talked them out of it and they agreed to look
beyond this and, then, not tied to a concept plan. So, it sounds like we talked them out
of the project that they wanted to do and now the Council is considering denying it. So,
it feels like it's a fairly tough outcome on a fairly narrowly defined project. I agree with
you, Council Member Borton, it's -- it's not common for the city, but I wouldn't say it never
happens. I mean we have annexed parcels with just the idea that whatever those uses
are that are allowed in that zone that's what they can do and so I wouldn't say we have
never done it, it is very uncommon for sure, but -- but that's -- you are right, if the Council
denial -- they come back with a plan -- in theory they could come back with this plan and,
then, there would be a new project, so that we wouldn't be barred by the year. But that's
kind of what I'm hearing and I don't know if -- if that's, you know, where the Council wants
to land, because, again, we have occasionally done it and occasion is really occasion,
so --
Simison: And, Mr. Nary, that -- that is -- that was the heart of where I was going when we
brought this up earlier was would this Council support the concept plan that's not tied to
this. Would you support that concept at this location. I think even the applicant hearing
that information would help them to -- regardless of whatever -- whatever action you do
take, whether or not it -- because if you don't like that -- storage in that location for this
purpose, you know, you could tie the concept plan back to this and deny it or you can
make a statement in other ways. But I think that's the -- the heart of what staff probably
ultimately needs is what you do want to see, if not -- or if you don't want to see that.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like staff has mentioned that the highest and
best use for this -- this piece of property isn't storage units and for that purpose they are
wanting to proceed as presented. So, that's where I have a little bit of a concern with it is
if this isn't the highest and best use for this piece of property and that's what staff believes,
I'm sort of confused as why you are wanting us to go this other direction. Maybe a little
bit more clarification in regard to that.
Dodson: Council Member Bernt. Sorry. Thank you for your question, sir. It -- I don't
have a good answer as to -- just going a little bit further back as to what we gain here
compared to doing this later. However, it -- my main point is to still annex the property,
maybe minimize a development agreement modification if we tied it to a concept plan that
changes because they deem -- oh, no, never mind, we don't want to do self storage. But
at the same time still gain us some guaranteed industrial zoning and offer us the
opportunity to be flexible in the uses that can go there, rather than just tying it to a self
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 128 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 14 of 33
storage concept plan. That's the main points. If -- if the Council deems that annexations
cannot occur without a concept plan or plat, I'm not aware of that being in the code. It is
a policy decision? Yeah? I -- I'm more than understanding of that and I agree with the
consistency. I understand that, too.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And I understand planning's concern about the highest and best use for
industrial property, because that is something we don't have a lot of and to me industrial
is where we make stuff. I mean that's the place where we create, purchase raw materials,
put things together, employee people, and -- and this site has rail access, it has excellent
access to the freeway, and so I can see why they look at this and go, boy, the storage
units, that's where we are going to store the stuff that's made. Now where do we make
it? Well, we are going to make it in another country? No, let's make it here if we could.
So, I really get that for what they are saying about highest and best use and it might be if
this were to come forward as just storage, you know, it may not have flown before this
Council. But this is kind of unique, because we are being asked to annex and to apply a
DA with -- with those minimal standards for anything that might come forward we know
that would be applied to that property and what that is that's going to come forward we
don't know. Might -- as you -- as Planning staff pointed out, could be a variety -- a mixture
of things. So, I can see why this is not the highest and best use for industrial land and so
it would be nice to see something to work and make something.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 5-A, H-2020-0033.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there 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.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 129 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 15 of 33
Borton: I will make a motion for discussion. I'm going to move that we deny Item 5-A, H-
2020-0033.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I will second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to deny the application. Is there discussion on
the motion?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Following up what's been said moments ago, I just -- I don't doubt this certainly
is going to be industrial land when it's zoned and will probably be wildly successful, but
what it actually becomes will determine at the time that the annexation comes forward
with its concept plan or plat, whether or not it's assembled with other parcels and comes
in as a larger package, whether it has higher and better uses, as Councilman Hoaglun
describes, we can cross that bridge when it comes. Again, there is nothing that's -- no
unique benefit to doing the annexation by itself, but there are costs to the city in -- in doing
it in this fashion. So, for all of those reasons I think the motion is appropriate.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I agree with that reasoning and I also echo Councilman Hoaglun's comments. I
think if -- if just in general I were to be asked do you want to see just a ton of storage in
the precious amount of industrial land that we have on our rail corridor, for me the answer
is no. Then, hopefully, that's a good direction just from one person, but I don't believe
that that should really be the focus. If it's part of the bigger project, happy to consider it.
Simison: Is there further 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 to deny passes.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
B. Public Hearing for Sagewood West Subdivision (H-2020-0038)
by Southpoint Estates, LLC, Located at 1335 W. Overland Rd.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 130 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 16 of 33
1 . Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.41 acres of land with
an R-8 zoning district; and,
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 53 building lots and
7 common lots.
Simison: Council, we will move on to Item 5-13, public hearing for Sagewood West
Subdivision, H-2020-0038. We will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The project before you is a site
that consists of 10.41 acres of land and the request is for an application of annexation,
zoning, with a preliminary plat consisting of 53 building lots and seven common lots, one
of which is a common drive that serves three homes and acts as the emergency access
for the property to the west. The applicant is requesting an R-8 zoning designation, which
is an allowed designation under the future land use designation of medium density
residential. The proposed zoning and density is also consistent with that of the
surrounding development. The proposed development is in close proximity to existing
employment and shopping centers. Within a half mile is a Walmart, assisted living facility,
waterparks, school and the commercial intersection of Overland and Meridian Road.
These businesses offer both services and employment opportunities within walking
distance of this subdivision. Therefore, staff finds the development to be generally
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives. There is an existing
home on the site and it will be removed prior to development. The existing home has
access to West Overland, but this applicant has elected to close that access. In lieu of
an access to Overland, all accesses to this development are proposed via extensions of
existing local streets. Two from the east and one from the south. In addition to these
accesses, staff has recommended a condition of approval to make the proposed common
driveway also an emergency access for the adjacent parcel to the west. Staff is currently
processing a land use application for a commercial development on the property to the
west and an emergency access is a requirement of its proposed use. That application
involves a rezone and is proposing to change the zoning from residential to commercial.
But there is no guarantee that that application will be approved and the existing residential
zoning could remain. Therefore, staff's condition of approval regarding this access is
based on whether the parcel to the west develops as commercial or residential. Staff and
the applicant have worked together to write a condition that is amenable to both parties
in the interim. In the very southwest corner of the subject site there is a small sliver of
open space -- small sliver of open space that they are incorporating into their plat. It is
the rear of Lot 26, Block 1 , which was the revised plat they have made Lot 27, Block 1,
and it does not have adequate visibility for emergency or police services. The applicant
is incorporating this odd sliver into their plat in order to help the city fix a surveying mistake
from the past. In discussions with the applicant staff has requested this property owner
work with the property owner to the west to transfer this area to them. In doing so this
area will no longer be tucked away in a corner and would be usable space by that property
owner to the west. Staff has included a condition of approval for this request and the
applicant has agreed to it. The applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single
family homes for this project as depicted in the staff report. The single family homes are
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 131 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 17 of 33
depicted as both single and two story structures, with two car garages and a variety of
finish materials. The homes are also shown with optional enhancements. For example,
larger garages or a different master bathroom layout. The submitted sample elevations
appear to meet the design requirements for single family homes. As with all preliminary
plats over five acres, a minimum ten percent qualified open space meeting the standards
in UDC 11-3G-3 is required for this development. Based on the proposed plat of 10.4
acres, a minimum of 1.04 acres of qualified open space should be provided and one site
amenity. The applicant is proposing 1 .25 acres of open space or approximately 12
percent, consisting of common lots with open space, located in larger lots on the end caps
of blocks. In addition the applicant is proposing pathways along the northern property
boundary that connect to West Overland Road. The open space lots at the end of the
develop -- end of the development provide two amenities, a picnic area with public art
and climbing boulders. The other proposed open space was in the north area of the
development, contains the micro pathway and added pedestrian access to Overland
Road. Prior to the Commission meeting the applicant addressed a condition regarding a
linear open space behind those lots in the north, lots one through ten, and the emergency
access to the adjacent property to the west. They revised the plat and this area of open
space now appears to meet the open space requirements and should be included in the
open space calculations. To be clear, the revised plat will satisfy staff's questions
surrounding the amount of qualified open space. The revised landscape plan and open
space exhibit should be provided to ensure congruency in all plans. Staff and Fire have
agreed with the location of the emergency access and its dimensions as well and that
emergency access again is that common driveway in the northwest corner of the site. As
you can tell between this plat and the open space exhibit where the pathway was in --
along the northern boundary has changed. They are now -- they took some of those lots,
one, two and three, took some of the rear of their lots away and connected that pathway
all the way through in order to count that area for open space. On May 28th the Planning
and Zoning Commission heard these items and recommended approval of the subject
applications. The key issues of discussion were the location and layout of the open space
and amenities within the subject site and in relation to the adjacent subdivision to the
east, which is Sagewood Subdivision. The applicant's request to modify staff's conditions
regarding changing the lot depths and adding landscaping to the northernmost lot, Lot 11 ,
Block 1 , and location of the proposed common drive and its purpose also serving as an
emergency access to the parcel to the west. Commission recommended changing
condition 2-B and 3-C and, then, to delete condition 2-C, since the condition had been
satisfied with the revised plat. The outstanding issue for Council, as slightly mentioned
before, is conditioned 2-E, which was the applicant was conditioned to convey Lot 27,
Block 1 , the odd sliver, to the property owner to the west prior to the -- to this hearing, but
has not yet done this. There was not enough time there. The applicant intends to comply
with this -- with this condition, but ran out of time. Staff is understanding of this and prior
to the development agreement being signed this will have to take place. So, the members
of the Council can recommend changing that condition to allow the applicant more time
to take care of that. And with that staff recommends approval of the subject application
and stands for questioning.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff at this time?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 132 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 18 of 33
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I guess a question for staff. Have we received any communication from West
Ada regarding this application? I did not see a letter from them. I understand they may
be trying to get their data gathering organized over there. But is there any kind of update
that they have provided?
Dodson: Council Woman Strader, Members of the Council, unfortunately, no, I did not
get any updated numbers from them.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Joe, could you go over again this challenge with the access to the property to
the west and help me understand what it is that I have concerns that that's not resolved I
guess before we make a decision this evening. So, hopefully, the applicant has
addressed that and will be able to share that with us in their testimony. But if they haven't,
then, what is the staff's feeling in regard to whether we would continue and wait to hear
from them or is there a comfort level on the south part that that could be taken care of
and -- and we could potentially move forward, if -- if there is a yes vote.
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, thank you. Staff is comfortable with the way that the
revised plat has been designed, as well as the existing condition in the staff report that
will change the type of access that they would be meeting if the property to the west -- if
their future application to you is not approved. I don't know if I'm allowed to share more
of the details about what that is, because they are not being heard tonight, but it is
currently zoned residential R-8, but they want to rezone it to commercial, because these
properties along Overland have both future land use designations. The proposed use
that they have or -- they are hoping for requires an emergency access and because the
properties to the south and the west and directly to the west of that -- of the property
directly to the west -- so this site, those are all developed so there is no way to gain that
emergency access. This is the only avenue for them to do that and so it was gracious of
this applicant to work with them and turn that common drive into emergency access. That
question semi came up in the Planning and Zoning Commission where they were
recommended for approval previously on that application and the distance. This is not a
Fire requirement for this emergency access, it is a Planning requirement. So, there is no
need to have the required separation that would normally be there. So, that is why staff
is comfortable with its location and it will be bollarded -- they will have bollards, it will have
all of the same things to keep all kinds of traffic from there and only if there is an
emergency will it be used.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 133 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 19 of 33
Simison: Council, any further questions? Okay. I invite the applicant to come forward
and state your name and address for the record and, Mr. Clark, you are -- you are
recognized for 15 minutes.
Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hethe Clark. 251 Front Street in Boise. And let me see if
I can get my screen to share now. There we go. Okay. So, this applicant -- or excuse
me. This application is -- is a great in-fill project located near Overland Road. It has
convenient access to shopping, schools, parks and the Meridian Road freeway
interchange. A couple of details about the layout and the project itself. The proposal, as
Joe mentioned, is for 53 residential units on 10.41 acres. It's proposed with an R-8 zone
that -- that is all exactly within what is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for this
location. This is a true in-fill project. There are always challenges associated with in-fill
and I think that the applicant's done a great job with this one. So, a couple of things that
I would emphasize as you look at the layout. One is that the applicant has agreed not to
take access onto Overland Road. I think that's a big deal. Instead, the site is designed
around three existing internal stub streets from the Fall Creek Subdivision on the south
and the Sagewood Subdivision on the east. I point out that in many ways this is a lot like
a new phase of the Sagewood Subdivision and matches the density with a slight transition
to what we understand is likely to be a commercial project to our west and as Joe
mentioned that -- my understanding that that application is in and there was a
recommendation of approval from P&Z. So, that -- that is not just a plan, that that is
something that's actually actively being considered by the city. And let me move on to
talk about -- a little bit about the amenities. As Joe mentioned, we are in excess of what
is required by code. We will have a pedestrian pathway, as well as accessory in
connection to Overland Road. We will have common area art and a seating area, as well
as climbing boulders. And I want to be clear about what those are. You know, climbing
boulders are -- are specifically designed to be able to be a child's amenity. They are not
just -- you know, it's not just dropping a rock in the middle of your open area and calling it
an entity. They are designed to be something that would be fun and useful for the
residents of the subdivision. As I mentioned, this is much like Sagewood to our east. We
are in discussions with them about potentially annexing into their HOA, which would be
great for everyone from an efficiency perspective. We have tried to choose amenities
that are complimentary as a result of that, but we do also stand on our own and we don't
require that annexation in order to be able to move forward. I do always like to show you
all, you know, some of the work that's gone into making the projects better through
conversations with staff and one item that we did work through was this pathway on the
north and northeast boundary of the project. As you can see that path is constrained by
the Hardin Drain, as well as the location of West Flower Garden Street, which has -- there
was an existing stub there which led to kind of a short edge on the property. What you
see on the screen and what's on the revised plat that Joe described is the solution that
we all came up with. The element that we are working through now is discussions with
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to allow for some trees on the far side of the pathway.
So, on the other side of the drain on the subdivision side of that path. That's something
that we have been successful in negotiating in the past and we expect that that would be
the same here. With regard to the property to the west, again, that -- that emergency
access is not something that's required for us. We have three stubs already. But that is
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 134 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 20 of 33
something that we have discussed with the -- with that neighbor and they were in
agreement with that emergency access location. And, again, we understand that that
project is moving forward through the city. So, I will wrap up with just kind of mention
again, the -- the project density does comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation
of medium density residential. There are no waivers of standards or variances that have
been requested here. It is true in-fill. I think it's great for the city and we would hope for
your approval. So, with that I'm happy to answer any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you for that presentation, Hethe. Did I understand correctly that this
will be part of a broader homeowner's association within Sagewood and that the residents
will have access to the amenities for each section?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that is the intent and we have had
conversations with their HOA board. Obviously, everybody wants to know that we have
a real project before people put pen to paper to -- to memorialize that and put it in stone.
But that is what we expect is that the subdivision -- if this would act like a phase two of
Sagewood and folks would have access to all the amenities.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: The reason I ask is because I -- I have been selling homes for many years and
I have never had an applicant ask for an amenity regarding climbing rocks and I'm not
familiar with them as a neighborhood amenity and I'm curious if the applicant had
considered any other amenity possibilities and typically, you know, most of the time in
Meridian our developers have done great at providing excellent amenities. They are
aware that that's something that's important to us and I don't oftentimes make
recommendations for specific amenities, but in this situation, because of the location there
is -- there -- there is a park that's down around the corner near Bear Creek. However,
there -- there really aren't a lot of options for children in this area to -- to play and so in
this situation I do have concerns that that may not be substantial enough.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, so I think I understand where you are
coming from. I would just state that count -- that this idea of climbing boulders is actually
quite popular. We are finding that it is a use that folks -- it's actually getting -- has more
of a lifespan of use than your typical tot lot. We -- we are seeing them used -- you know,
I have seen them with a number of clients, you know, throughout the valley and they have
-- they have worked great for -- as a children's amenity from that perspective. So, I would
just say that that's -- that's something that I think -- it's a qualifying amenity. I think it's
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 135 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 21 of 33
market driven and our read of the market is that these --these are something that satisfies
exactly what Council Member Perreault was trying to address.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I don't usually chime in on amenities. I personally am a fan of them, because I
think it's rare now for kids to get risk based play, which is really important for their
development, and this is really something different. So, I'm not opposed to them at all. I
have some concerns about the location of the open space and maybe if you could maybe
comment a little more around the choice of the locations for those open space areas and
the wider vision that I don't -- I just don't feel like they are very centralized.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, we like to have, you know, entries to the
developments that are open and inviting and so that's part of why we like to have -- why
we would like to have that open space there. But I would just be clear that they are fenced
in. There is -- there is safety that's kept in mind with -- with all of this and I would also
point out that we -- that the amenities are both on the top and the bottom of the project.
So, people are able to -- you know, if you want to get out to Overland, you know, you are
going to the appropriate location to do that. If you want to take advantage of the play
amenities you would be going away from the transportation corridor. It's a -- it's a small
development, you know, we are talking about, you know, ten acres total. It is not a -- it's
not a long jaunt for anybody to get to the -- to the open space.
Strader: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Borton.
Borton: Just one question, Hethe. On that condition 1-E that referenced that sliver on
that southwest corner, it sounds like that -- efforts have been made and it's almost
resolved, not yet resolved. What would -- would you recommend to be the trigger date
or due date of accomplishing that task? That would be included in 1-E to kind of
memorialize when that has to occur.
Clark: Council Member Borton, Mr. Mayor, it's -- that's -- it's a good question. You know,
one thing to keep in mind is that I believe that our neighbor to the west in the -- in the
county still, so -- or -- yeah. Excuse me. He's in the city. We are -- yeah. I got that
backwards. So, what we have envisioned -- and it's probably six of one, half a dozen of
the other, in terms of how this actually gets taken care of. What we had envisioned was
just plat it and convey that lot. That doesn't create any legal split or do anything along
those lines and, then, they can do a lot consolidation to just absorb it. I think that's the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 136 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 22 of 33
easiest thing to do, you know, and maybe we just are required to -- to convey in
connection with our development agreement recording or something along those lines.
To me that -- you know, we -- we are making the commitment to -- to address that. You
know, the logistics I think are pretty straightforward and can be taken care of either --
either way. To me it makes more sense just to plat it and convey the lot itself.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions at this time? Thank you, Hethe. Appreciate
it.
Clark: You bet.
Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have nobody signed up for this.
Simison: Okay. We have nobody in the room. Is there anybody who is online that would
like to provide testimony on the item? If so, if you could indicate by raising your hand
using the button at the bottom of the Zoom platform. Seeing nobody who would like to
provide testimony on this item, Mr. Clark, do you have any last comments you would like
to make?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, no, not at this time, unless there is other questions.
Simison: Okay. Well, then, Council, I will turn this back over to you. Is there any further
discussion or comments or motions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I agree with Council Woman Strader's comments about the location of the --
of the open space. I'm not a fan of how it's set up. I would really like to see something
more centralized as well. But also realize that it is a small project, so it's not as if these
are going to be --the open spaces are going to be far away from each other, but I wouldn't
mind actually hearing from Mr. Clark before we close the public hearing if there was
consideration made for any other locations for those open spaces.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, you know, we -- we look at all of those
various alternatives. I think, you know, something to keep in mind is that if you move the
common area to the -- to the middle of the project, what you end up having when you
enter the project is -- you are either looking at the front or backs of houses and it makes
for a less descript project. You know, in this case you get a -- as you -- as you are driving
into the project you get a much better feel in our view of what the project is all about and
what the theme of it should be and we don't -- you know, what you are talking about is,
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 137 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 23 of 33
you know, the difference of walking the distance of five or six, you know, a lot to get to
that area on the south. So, from our perspective it makes for a -- a better, more
marketable project, if we have it in an area that -- that functions also as an entry.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Maybe I will kick off a little bit of discussion. Would have hoped -- obviously,
going forward I think we are -- we are hoping to get data and input from West Ada. I'm
kind of torn -- I'm really hesitating to even approve projects if they are not providing input.
On the other hand, this is an in-fill project and it's a relatively small unit count, which
maybe leads me to make an exception to not punish this one applicant, while we give
West Ada a reasonable amount of time to provide some more input. But I would be
curious as to the rest of Council's opinion on that.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Council Member Strader, I think your -- I think your concern is valid, but I think
that it is not the applicant's responsibility to ensure that another jurisdiction provides non-
required comment. I think the district is well aware of our response to feedback from the
citizens, from their patrons, from the district themselves about the impact of development
on classroom size and if they chose not to send something to us it's disappointing, but
I'm not in a place that I think that we need to slow or penalize, for lack of a better word,
the applicant because of that. You're right, it is a small in-fill project. I'm pleased that they
are -- they are taking -- they are not taking their access off of Overland. It complements
the area nicely. My hope is is that the neighbors to the east want to join up and this really
does become kind of a de facto second phase. I don't see any compelling reason to deny
this project. I'm in support of it and be happy to --
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I'm leaning towards the same thought process in terms of this application,
again, based on the fact that it's clearly in-fill, which we need, and it's also a small unit
count. I guess my hesitation -- challenge that I'm seeing is if this was a much much bigger
project, if this was hundreds of units I think I would have a really hard time taking the
same view. And maybe it's an order of magnitude for me, but I do think for very large
projects we would have to have that input at least for me to feel comfortable. But I agree
with you on this one.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 138 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 24 of 33
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I understand that Mary McPherson is the elementary school that is going --
undergoing an expansion right now. I don't recall off the top of my head what that is going
to allow for student count. I am aware that Hillsdale Elementary is -- is busing some of
their students to Mary McPherson. I don't know how that's going to end up playing out
for the school year. I think that this project would actually be within the boundaries of the
new elementary school that would be proposed if a bond were to get passed. I can't say
that for sure. I'm not a member of West Ada. But I believe that's the case. So, it's possible
that the students would only be at Mary McPherson for a couple of years. But what I
wanted to specifically say is that -- and to -- to let Mr. Clark know if he -- I imagine he is a
busy man and he isn't paying attention to every conversation we are having about the
school district, but I know myself and some -- some other Council Members in our
conversation with developers and different representatives of developers in the area, we
have asked them to help us to encourage the school district to give us clarity on what we
can do to respond to our residents who are --who are very strongly sharing their concerns
regarding schools, especially elementary schools being over capacity, and so I -- we feel
like -- I should say myself as a Council Member -- I can't speak for my other Council
Members -- I feel like we have been vocal with West Ada and done what we could do to
ask for them to make the changes that they are able to make and we are really hoping
that we can get a community effort to encourage the district to do the same.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Just to concur with Councilman Cavener's remarks. I think he laid it out
very well about this project and -- and I can -- I can move forward with that.
Simison: Council, any further comments or is there a motion?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I don't think we closed the public hearing yet, did we?
Simison: No, we have not.
Borton: Move we close the public hearing on Item 5-B, H-2020-0038.
Perreault: 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. Oppose nay. The ayes
have it.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 139 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 25 of 33
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I think there is very sound and wise comments by Council that makes sense to
support approving this project. An additional comment is I think the inclusion of common
area art is to be commended. I think it's creative. I love seeing it. We probably don't see
enough of it around, so I appreciate that as an additional part of this project. I move that
we approve H-2020-0038 as presented on the staff report dated July 14th, 2020.
Strader: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2020-0038. 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: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Item 4: Ordinances [Action Item]
A. Ordinance No. 20-1885: An Ordinance (H-2020-0029 Midgrove
Plaza) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of That
Parcel Described in Warranty Deed Instrument No. 111069481,
Ada County Records, and Also Being a Portion of "Parcel One"
as Described in Meridian City Ordinance No. 748, Recorded as
Instrument No. 96104790, Ada County Records, Lying Within the
East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use
Zoning Classification of 1.963 Acres of Land From I-L ( Light
Industrial) Zoning District to C-G ( General Retail and Service
Commercial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code;
Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall Be Filed with the
Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for
a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the
Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date
Simison: Item No. 6-A is Ordinance No. 20-1885. 1 will ask the Clerk to read this
ordinance by title.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 140 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 26 of 33
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This ordinance related to H-2020-0029, Midgrove Plaza,
for rezone of a parcel of land being a portion of that parcel described in Warranty Deed
Instrument No. 111069481 , Ada county records and also being a portion of parcel one as
described in Meridian City Ordinance No. 748, recorded as instrument number 96104790,
Ada county records, aligning within the east half of the southeast quarter of the southeast
quarter of Section 7, Township 3 North, range 1-E, Boise meridian, Ada county Idaho,
establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 1 .963 acres of land
from I-L, light industrial zoning district, to C-G, general retail and service commercial
zoning district, in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be
filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission as required by law and providing for a summary of the ordinance and
providing for a waiver of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
Simison: Council, you have heard this item read by title. Would you or any member of
the staff like -- or public like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing not, do I have a motion?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I approve -- I would move that we approve ordinance number 20-1885 with
suspension of rules.
Perreault: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the item under suspension of the
rules. 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: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 5: Future Meeting Topics
Simison: We have reached Item No. 7 under future meeting topics. Council, anything for
future meeting topics?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I think I alluded to this earlier and hopefully under our emergency we can touch
on it. It's pretty clear from watching the Central District Health meeting that they have
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 141 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 27 of 33
passed a mask order for Ada county. You know, I wanted some flexibility tonight, because
I -- I have been vocal and feel strongly that -- we are in unfortunate circumstances where
in order to protect the health of our community some type of a mask requirement is
necessary for those that can wear them. That being said, you know, I -- we may want to
consider -- and I would be curious if people would be interested in a future meeting topic,
perhaps on a more urgent special meeting basis, but in listening to their meeting it -- it
became clear to me that while they passed the mask order, they clearly had reservations,
because my understanding is that under state law an order from a Mayor or an order from
Central District Health can only be done if it becomes a misdemeanor and so my
understanding is that that could result in up to six months in jail, could result in up to a
thousand dollar fine. Certainly it's a very serious penalty for a situation that even the folks
in that meeting touched on a situation where education should come first. I would be
curious if in order to support the Central District Health mask order we might consider an
ordinance as a city that as long as their order is in place we would consider a process of
implementing it as an infraction. I feel that if Meridian were to support compliance it would
actually help the effort to get people to wear their masks and I think it would provide a
more efficient enforcement mechanism, hopefully one that started with education first by
the Meridian Police Department and, then, possibly result in an infraction and some type
of fine, as opposed to a full on misdemeanor, again, in support of their order in the hopes
I think of getting better compliance for the -- from the community. That was my thought.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: I guess maybe a question either for you or Council President or Mr. Nary.
Council Member Strader at least touched on -- on a sooner rather than later approach to
this. What options or mechanics do we have to move this forward as a future meeting
topic, but at least having the possibility of not waiting until next Tuesday to discuss this.
Simison: Mr. Nary, how -- can Council call a special meeting if they would like to?
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, Council Member Cavener, so you do have the
ability to call a special meeting. I believe it requires 24 hours notice. Or it's 48. 1 don't
have the ordinances -- the statute in front of me. There is a time period that's required
before you can hear it. So, it would be closer to the end of the week. You can -- let me
break it down a little bit because I -- I'm afraid I potentially may have misled Council
Member Strader on this topic to some degree. State law allows the Central District Health
to order, under the health order requirements, allows them to order what they have
ordered tonight. It is a misdemeanor under state code. The Mayor currently has
independent authority to order that same thing as you have seen over in Boise what
Mayor McLean has ordered that prior to Central District Health. It also was a
misdemeanor. Under the state code the cities are allowed to establish their own
infractions, like parking tickets and dog violations off leash, such as that. So, we have
the ability to create an infraction, but we can't make the state law the infraction, we would
have to make a city order to be an infraction. So, it would require the Mayor to issue a
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 142 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 28 of 33
city order that, then, could be -- could be created as an infraction offense that could be a
citable offense. So, it would require an order by the Mayor and, then, an ordinance by
the City Council that a violation of that order would be an infraction. To pass an ordinance
you are required to have three readings, which can be collapsed into one hearing if you
wish. So, you are allowed to do that. It then has to be published. We published in the
Meridian Press, which is published on Fridays. So, we have to give them notice ahead
of time -- at the minimum they require 48 hours notice to even be able to publish it in any
form. Normally it's a ten day period for it to publish in their usual legal notices section and
we have -- we have published it in other sections of that paper on occasion when
necessary. So, minimum of -- and I apologize that I can't recall. I believe it's 48 hours for
a regular meeting. It's only 24 if it's an emergency executive session. So, you would
have a couple days before you could have a meeting. You would have discussion. Again,
if you wanted public input it's a little tight time frame in which to do that and, then, you
would have to publish -- and, again, it wouldn't be posted -- the earliest we could possibly
publish it at this juncture would be next Friday, which is the 24th.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council, I'm just going to make -- if you look across our
country a lot of folks have differing opinions on -- on a mask mandate and that may exist
amongst our Council, but I think one thing we probably are all united on is that a -- a
misdemeanor charge, thousand dollar fine, potential six months in jail, while even unlikely
is not the right approach to handle this type of an order. Furthermore, I think at least
giving our citizens the opportunity to provide public testimony and their opinion on this to
us is something that -- I wish the Health District would have done, but recognize they
didn't have the ability to do that. So, I'm supportive of a special meeting about this. If we
can take the lightest hand of government when it comes to this particular approach, that
does encourage education, I do believe the vast majority of our citizens want to do the
right thing and for those that either are unaware or are not complying, I don't think that a
potential jail sentence is -- is the right way to educate the public. So, I'm supportive of
that. I think it's the right approach and I would be supportive of us meeting in a special
meeting setting sooner rather than later to formalize it.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so Mr. Johnson was quick on the research.
So, a special meeting can be held with at least 24 hours notice, unless an emergency
exists. So, Council would have to determine if it was less than 24 hours if there was an
emergency. If I recall in the state code -- because I think we looked at this before -- the
emergencies are very very narrowly defined and I don't know if this would qualify without
looking at -- at a different section of the code, but I would suggest using at least 24 hours
notice just to be cautious.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 143 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 29 of 33
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Cavener.
Cavener: Thanks. Mr. Nary, just for clarification. So, it is -- it is 7:28 p.m. right now. Does
that mean that if we wanted to meet at 7:30 tomorrow we would have to move in the next
90 seconds for -- is there flexibility in terms of if we wanted to meet -- again, I'm not -- I
don't know where Council wants to go on this, but if we wanted to meet tomorrow at 6:00
has -- has that opportunity already passed?
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Johnson's put up the particular provision of the code and, again,
it says an emergency is injury or damage to persons or property, immediate financial loss
or the likelihood of such injury, damage or loss when the notice requirements would make
such notice impractical or increase the likelihood and severity of injury, damage or loss.
That's -- that's the basis of an emergency to be less than 24 hours. So, it's your decision,
Council. If you think the necessity to meet in less than 24 hours fits that category, if it's
the specific language in the code.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: If I understood Mr. Nary correctly, even if we have the meeting tomorrow
evening we still wouldn't be able to get an ordinance published this Friday; is that right?
Nary: It was my experience. Mr. Johnson would know better than I. He's the one that
handles that relations with -- it would be a pretty tight turnaround to have an ordinance to
you by tomorrow-- but we could. And for you to, then, approve it tomorrow on Wednesday
night and get them to publish something on Friday and I don't know if their timing would
allow that.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, Mr. Nary is correct. Generally -- we
generally send notices tomorrow for the following Friday with Meridian Press in order to
get in their legal section. We have at times under the gun had to publish in the Idaho
Statesman and whether or not that would be appropriate is, you know, really -- as a legal
opinion I wouldn't speak to that. But it would be definitely pushing. I don't know that they
would be able to get that published by Friday, even if we gave it to them tomorrow evening.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, I don't mean to interrupt. What I hear is a lot of I think mechanical
solutions or mechanical challenges that we can work through. I think 24 hours is
sufficient. So, I would move that we schedule a special meeting for tomorrow at 7:30 p.m.
to discuss the city's response to Central District Health's mask mandate and to discuss a
potential ordinance around that.
Strader: Second.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 144 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 30 of 33
Borton: I don't think we can --
Strader: If I can second. I don't know.
Simison: Yeah. Are we allowed to take motions at this point in time, Mr. Nary?
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council --
Simison: I have tried to be very -- give a lot of latitude for something -- under something
I don't think we should be talking about, but --
Nary: So, this is a future meeting topic.
Simison: Correct. This is about --
Nary: This is not action items.
Simison: Right.
Nary: But you can calla special meeting. It doesn't say in the code that it can't be done
in the meeting or done outside of the meeting. At this juncture I would put it later than
7:30, because it's 7.31 on my watch and on the city's clock here, but you can call a special
meeting without it being a motion. I would agree with you, Mr. Mayor --
Cavener: Okay.
Nary: -- this is probably not the forum to do it. But if the direction or the desire of the
Council is to have a special meeting, ultimately the decision on holding a meeting is yours.
Simison: Correct.
Nary: Yeah.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: To talk about this as a future meeting topic, in that order that was up for a little
while that was just signed by Central District Health director, it talks about in item nine
that the city may enact more stringent health orders than those set out in this order,
referring to the order. Is that you have to wear a mask to bed? Is that more stringent? Is
-- is the fine itself part of the order? It's in state code, so can we only go more stringent
or we can go lesser for the fine or misdemeanor in their case?
Nary: So, lots of unproven ground here. So, in my opinion -- again, I think you are exactly
right, though. The -- on the first step. The city can always be more restrictive. The city
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 145 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 31 of 33
can also pass the same directive as well. So, that's -- independently the Mayor has that
authority. So, you can be more restrictive or the same if you wish. What we would be
creating is an ordinance that says if you violate the Mayor's order it's an infraction. So,
you are not -- you are really not even addressing the state -- the Health District's order
any longer, all you would be enforcing is the Mayor's order if he were to order that, so --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, it sounds to me like the first -- if a special meeting were to be held the first
thing we need to discuss is whether the Mayor -- the Mayor would need to share with us
whether he would be comfortable issuing that. Otherwise there is no point in Council
hearing an ordinance; correct?
Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Perreault, not
necessarily. I mean, again, the Mayor doesn't have to make that decision now. The first
step is basically the Council is asking would the Mayor consider scheduling a special
meeting, whether it's tomorrow night at 7:45 or Thursday at 6:00. The decision to hold --
the way the state code is drafted, the decision to hold the meeting is the Mayor's. The
decision on the topics of the meeting is initially the Mayor, but the Council has the authority
by a majority to also change or set the agenda of the meeting. So, the first step really is
whether the Mayor is going to issue the order or not. It really is whether the Mayor is
willing to call a special meeting at all.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I wanted to find out from Deputy Chief Basterrechea if -- if -- and we didn't hear
the whole meeting, we just heard a snippet of it. Some of the laws -- like the cellphone
law the state passed this year, they gave an -- for enforcement there was a period of
warnings and not bring the hammer down right away. Is there -- was there anything done
in this situation that you are aware of or does law enforcement -- does Meridian Police
Department have that ability to give warnings early on in the process until people
understand that this is required to wear a mask?
Basterrechea: Councilman Hoaglun, Members of the Council, the answer to that is yes.
I don't know of any city that has issued a misdemeanor citation for any of these violations
that they have already implemented. So, yes, we can do that. I can tell you that as a
department we would certainly -- if you want to enforce this strictly, we would prefer an
infraction, as opposed to a misdemeanor citation. One, the courts are already backed up
because of this whole COVID-19 mess and this is just going to clog those up even more
so. And the other thing you have to ask yourself is how willing are you as the Council to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 146 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 32 of 33
take that heat as well. We have already dealt with some COVID-19 things as an agency
and -- and we were inundated with the -- the hate a-mails and -- and Facebook posts and
we are used to that. I don't know that you all are quite used to that, but it would be coming.
We would certainly rather, if we are going to be very strict on enforcing this, have the
opportunity to write citations for infractions, rather than misdemeanors. Our goal is to
educate from the very beginning. It doesn't matter -- even when we implemented our
cellphone ordinance long before the state ordinance, we took a period of time -- almost
-- I believe almost two months to educate the public before our -- we started writing
citations for that. So, education is always the very first goal. Enforcement is our last goal
as an agency. We want to go education, prevention, and, then, enforcement as a last
step.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I think Deputy Chief Basterrechea nailed it on the head. I think first and foremost
the role of our Police Department going forward -- and in regard to this -- this order by
Central District Health is to educate period. Period. We -- I can't guarantee, you know,
citations or misdemeanor whatever, but I highly doubt that our Police Department is
maybe out and about writing tickets, you know, in doing what the deputy chief just
mentioned in regard to misdemeanor citation it's just not going to happen. I'm just going
to be honest. I will say it. It's not going to happen.
Simison: Thank you.
Bernt: We can have this conversation -- I personally wouldn't support a special meeting
to discuss this, because it's going to be very difficult to enforce something that's
unenforceable, so that's my thought.
Simison: Council, I have tried to give a lot of latitude, but I would like to bring this to a
close. If there is more conversation about this it should be done under a noticed agenda
topic from that perspective. So, is there anything else under future meeting topics for
consideration? If not, do I have motion?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move to adjourn.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adjourn. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 147 of 590
Meridian City Council
July 14,2018
Page 33 of 33
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I guess before we -- we vote, are we scheduling a special meeting? Is that
happening? Is that not? What --
Simison: I allowed the conversation. I will have the conversation with the Council
President of whether or not that should be scheduled or not.
Cavener: Okay.
Simison: Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor signify by saying aye.
Those opposed nay. The ayes have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:39 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
7 / 20 /2020
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 21,2020— Page 148 of 590
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:
CITY OF MERIDIAN
1
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET
{
i
Date: July 14, 2020
Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City
Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints
about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or
comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and
Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three
(3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the
matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet
or other provisions of law or policy.
Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic
i
/ E IDIAN
WIN ' L
IDAHO
Planning and Zoning Public Hearings
Staff Outline and Presentation
Meeting Notes:
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #5A: Franklin Storage (H-2020-0033)
Application(s):
Annexation and Zoning
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 5.143 acres of land, zoned RUT, located near the half mile
mark between S. Eagle Rd and S. Cloverdale Rd, on the north side of E Franklin Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Industrial to the west; Railroad directly to north (Lewis & Clark Middle north of that); RUT to the east;
Vacant land with L-O zoning to the south.
History: N/A
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Industrial
Summary of Request: The proposed annexation is for 5.143 acres of land and a requested zoning designation of I-L, and this
application is only for annexation and zoning and the associated new development agreement (DA). As noted, the subject site is
labeled as General Industrial in the City of Meridian comprehensive plan. This future land use designation allows a range of uses
including warehouses, light manufacturing, flex space, and storage units. The Applicant has provided a concept plan depicting a self-
storage facility that Staff is not approving with this application. Staff believes that tying this annexation and subsequent DA to a specific
site plan could create difficulty for both Staff and developers in the future. For example, if the concept idea were to change, as markets
sometimes dictate, Staff believes that a site that is only annexed and zoned I-L is a better fit for the City of Meridian than a property that
is tied to a specific self-storage site plan. Staff supports this annexation and zoning but does not believe a self-storage facility is the
highest and best use of the site. Thus, this annexation will be recommended to not be tied to a specific site plan.
This Applicant intends to develop this site as a self-storage facility, which is a principally permitted use in the I-L zoning district. As
stated above, Staff does not see this use as the highest and best use of this property. Nonetheless, Staff has reviewed and analyzed
the submitted concept plan but will not be providing conditions of approval to correct any issues noticed. Instead, Staff offered these
comments within the analysis in the staff report.
Access to this site is proposed via extension of an industrial collector roadway, E. Lanark St. Direct lot access to E. Franklin Road will
be prohibited except for an emergency access that is required to meet the two points of access requirement if the use of self-storage
comes to fruition. E. Lanark St. bisects the subject property and therefore requires the property to be subdivided prior to future
development. Because of this, the City will have the opportunity to fully analyze and condition the site-plan that will be submitted with
that application. In addition, any new industrial or commercial building will also be required to apply for Certificate of Zoning
Compliance and Administrative Design Review which gives Staff another opportunity to review this site and its design.
E. Franklin Road is designated as an entryway corridor on the Master Street Map (MSM). Because of this designation, buildings should
be held to a higher standard than the traditional design standards for industrial buildings. Staff has previously required adjacent
industrial buildings to adhere to the Commercial building design standards rather than the industrial. Therefore, Staff is also
recommending a DA provision that any future building(s) on this site comply with the Commercial architectural design standards.
Written Testimony: None
Commission Recommendation: Commission recommends approval of the Applicant’s request for annexation & zoning with the
requirement of a Development Agreement with the conditions noted in Section VIII.A per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report.
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 28, 2020. At the public hearing, the Commission
moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation request.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Jeff Hatch, Applicant Representative
b. In opposition: None
c. Commenting: Jeff Hatch
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. None
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:
a. Applicant’s desire to only Annex and not develop at this time.
b. Flexibility of not tying annexation to submitted concept plan.
4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:
a. None
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0033, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of July 14, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0033, as presented during the
hearing on July 14, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2020-0033 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific
reason(s) for continuance.)
Item #5B: Sagewood West (H-2020-0038)
Application(s):
Annexation and Zoning; Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 10.41 acres of land, currently zoned RUT, located at 1335 W.
Overland, approximately a ¼ mile east of Linder Road.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning: Residential to the North, East, and South, with R-8 zoning to the East and South, R-2 zoning to the
North; R-8 zoning to the West that was recently recommended for approval by P&Z Commission for a rezone and a commercial use.
History: N/A
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential/Commerical
Summary of Request: This application is for annexation and zoning of 10.41 acres of land with a preliminary plat consisting of 53
building lots and 7 common lots, one of which is a common drive that serves three (3) homes. The applicant is requesting an R-8
zoning designation which is an allowed designation under the future land use designation of medium density residential. The proposed
zoning and density is also consistent with that of the surrounding development. The proposed development is in close proximity to
existing employment and shopping centers. Within a half mile is a Wal-Mart, assisted living facility, water-park, school, and the
commercial intersection of Overland and Meridian Road. These businesses offer both services and employment opportunities within
walking distance of this subdivision. Therefore, Staff finds development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies
and objectives.
There is an existing home on the subject site and will be removed prior to development. The existing home has access to W. Overland
Road but this Applicant has elected to close that access. In lieu of an access to Overland Road, all accesses to this development are
proposed via extensions of existing local streets; two from the east, and one from the south. In addition to these accesses, staff has
recommended a condition of approval to make the proposed common driveway also serve as an emergency only access for the
adjacent parcel to the west. Staff is currently processing a land use application for a commercial development on the property to the
west and an emergency access for that parcel is a requirement of its proposed use. That application involves a rezone application that
is proposing to change the zoning from residential to commercial but there is no guarantee that that application will be approved and
the existing residential zoning could remain. Therefore, Staff’s condition of approval regarding this is based on whether the parcel to
the west develops as commercial or residential. Staff and the Applicant have worked together to write a condition that is amenable to
both parties in the interim.
In the very southwest corner of the subject site there is a small sliver of open space located at the rear of Lot 26, Block 1 that does not
have adequate visibility for emergency and police services. The Applicant is currently incorporating this odd sliver of land into their plat
in order to help the City fix a surveying mistake from the past. In discussions with the Applicant, Staff has requested this property owner
work with the property owner to the west to transfer this area to them. In doing so, this area will no longer be tucked away in a corner
and would be usable space by that property owner. Staff has included a condition of approval for this request and the Applicant has
agreed to this.
The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this project as depicted in the staff report. The single-
family homes are depicted as both single and two-story structures with two-car garages and a variety of finish material combinations.
The homes are also shown with optional enhancements, i.e. larger garages or a different master bathroom layout. The submitted
sample elevations appear to meet the design requirements for single-family homes.
A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for this development. Based on the
proposed plat of 10.41 acres, a minimum of 1.04 acres of qualified common open space should be provided and one (1) site amenity.
The applicant is proposing 1.25 acres of open space (or 12.04%) consisting of common lots with open space, located on larger lots on
the end caps of blocks. In addition, the Applicant is proposing pathways along the northern property boundary that connect to W.
Overland Road.
The open space lots at the south end of the development provide two (2) amenities, a picnic area with public art and climbing boulders;
these. The other proposed open space within the north area of the development contains the micro-pathway and added pedestrian
access to Overland Road.
Prior to the Commission meeting, the applicant addressed a condition regarding the linear open space located behind building lots 1-10
and the emergency access to the adjacent property to the west. According to the revised plat, this area now appears to meet the open
space requirements and should be included in the open space calculations. To be clear, the revised plat will satisfy Staff’s questions
surrounding the amount of qualified open space. A revised landscape plan and open space exhibit should be provided to ensure
congruency in all plans. Staff and Fire have agreed with the location of the emergency access and its dimensions.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a Development
Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the conditions noted in the staff report.
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 28, 2020. At the public hearing, the
Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Preliminary Plat requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Hethe Clark, Applicant Representative
b. In opposition: None
c. Commenting: Hethe Clark
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. None
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:
a. Location/layout of open space and amenities within the subject site and in relation to the adjacent
subdivision to the east, Sagewood Subdivision.
b. Applicant’s request to modify Staff’s conditions regarding changing the lot depths and adding
landscaping to the northernmost common lot, Lot 11, Block 1.
c. Location of the proposed common drive and its purpose also serving as an emergency access for the
parcel to the west.
4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation:
a. Modify condition 2-B to add “if NMID does not allow for landscaping within their easement.”
Modify condition 3-C to add “if NMID does not allow for landscaping within their easement.”
b. Delete condition 2-C since that condition has been satisfied with a revised plat.
5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:
a. Condition 2-E has not been satisfied by the Applicant; Applicant was conditioned to convey Lot 27, Block
1 to the property owner to the west prior to City Council but has not yet done this. The Applicant intends
to comply with this condition but ran out of time.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0038, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of July 14, 2020: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020-0038, as presented during the
hearing on July 14, 2020, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2020-0038 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific
reason(s) for continuance.)
Item #AERIALZONINGFLUM Annexation–Franklin Storage 5A:
Concept Plan
Item #AERIALZONINGFLUM AZ/PP–Sagewood West Subdivision 5B:
Revised Plat
Conceptual Elevations
Open Space Exhibit & Landscape Plan
Revised Plat
�E IDIAN^ ITEM SHEET
IDAHO
Council Agenda Item - 5.A.
Presenter:
Estimated Time for Presentation: 0
Title of Item - Public Hearing for Franklin Storage (H-2020-0033) by Franklin Storage, LLC,
Located Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd.
and S. Cloverdale Rd.
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing
Council Notes:
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report Staff Report 7/2/2020
Planning and Zoning Minutes Minutes 6/4/2020
REVIEWERS:
Department Reviewer Action
Clerk. Weatherly,Adrienne Approved 7/2/2020 -4:17 PM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 5 of 68
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: July 14, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 5A
PROJECT NAME: Franldin Storage (H-2020-0033)
i
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
1
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
STAFF REPORT C:�*%-
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 7/14/2020 Legend
DATE: I g
uProject Location
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
Bruce Freckleton,Development '
Services Manager
208-887-2211
TTTM
SUBJECT: H-2020-0033 11111
TTI
Franklin Storage
r e
LOCATION: The site is located near the half mile
mark on the north side of E. Franklin
Road,between S.Eagle Road and S.
Cloverdale Road,in the SW 1/4 of the SE
1/4 of Section 9, Township 3N.,Range 1 E.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for annexation and zoning of 5.143 acres of land with an I-L zoning district to
accommodate the future construction of a self-service storage facility.
SUMMARY OF REPORT
B. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 5.143 acres
Future Land Use Designation General Industrial
Existing Land Use Vacant
Proposed Land Use(s) Future self-storage facility
Current Zoning RUT in Ada County
Proposed Zoning I-L
Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 1 lot(future use will require subdivision)
Amenities N/A
Physical Features(waterways, Evans Drain runs along norther boundary of property
hazards,flood plain,hillside) (minimal flood hazard).
Neighborhood meeting date;#of February 20,2020;0 attendees.
attendees:
Page 1
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 6 of 68
C. Community Metrics
Description �_ Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
(yes/no)
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two(2)driveway accesses to Franklin Rd. currently exist;
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Access will be provided via proposed extension of E.Lanark
St(an industrial collector roadway).
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross E.Lanark is proposed to be stubbed to eastern property
Access boundary with attached sidewalks. See analysis below for
more information.
Existing Road Network W.Franklin Road is built to its ultimate configuration. 5-
travel lanes,bike lanes,curb,gutter and detached sidewalk.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is existing attached sidewalk.A landscape buffer will
Buffers be required upon future development.
D. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend �� � Legend �
Project Location Project Location �—
>� Commercial �Y" -
K AL ---
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Page 2 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 7 of 68
Legend R;4 � Rig. A�- Legend : .
R-10
'
Project Location e Project Location
City Limits
L-O -
L-O Planned Parcels ;
M-1 _
T—�
�� M1
C-G R1�
-C-C
R-2 r
> r
� 9
ae
APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Representative:
Jeff Hatch,Hatch Design Architecture 6126 W. State St. Suite 107, Boise,ID 83703
B. Owner/Developer:
Franklin Storage,LLC—6126 W. State St. Suite 101,Boise,ID 83703
C. Contact:
Same as Applicant Representative
NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper notification published 5/13/2020 6/26/2020
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 5/12/2020 6/23/2020
Public hearing notice sign posted 5/18/2020 7/2/2020
Nextdoor posting 5/12/2020 6/23/2020
STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject site is labeled as General Industrial in the City of Meridian comprehensive plan. This
designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial
uses may include warehouses, storage units,light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and
offices uses. In some cases uses may include processing,manufacturing,warehouses, storage
units,and industrial support activities. Sample zoning include: I-L and I-H. Applicable
comprehensive plan policies are:
Page 3
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020- Page 8 of 68
"Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-
access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and
collector street connectivity." (6.01.02B).Franklin Storage, regardless of its future layout, is
proposed with no public accesses to Franklin Road. The only access proposed from the site to
Franklin Road is an emergency-only access as is required by code. E. Lanark Street(an
industrial collector) currently stops at the western boundary of the subject site. The Applicant is
proposing to extend this public collector street through their property to their eastern boundary
and construct a temporary turnaround at its terminus. Staff supports the proposed closure of a
public access onto Franklin Road because there is a lesser classified street available for access.
"Keep the Future Land Use Map current by defining appropriate locations for industrial,
commercial, and office businesses."(2.08.03A). The proposed annexation comes with a request
to zone the property as Light Industrial(I-L)which meets the underlying future land use map.
The subject site abuts the rail corridor and also has a planned industrial collector that bisects the
property. The City welcomes additional industrial zoning, especially in those areas that have
collector road access to arterials and highways, and potential access to the rail corridor. Staff
supports the annexation of the site and the requested zoning of I-L because of the potential of
land uses that could occur at this particular site.
The proposed annexation is for 5.143 acres of land and a requested zoning designation of I-L,
which is an allowed zoning district under the general industrial future land use designation. A
legal description for the annexation area is included in Section VII.A of this staff report. This
application is for annexation and zoning and the associated new development agreement(DA).
The Applicant has provided a concept plan that Staff is not approving with this application. Staff
believes that tying this annexation and subsequent DA to a specific site plan could create
difficulty for both Staff and developers in the future. For example, if the concept idea were to
change, as markets sometimes dictate, Staff believes that a site that is only annexed and zoned I-L
is a better fit for the City of Meridian than a property that is tied to a specific self-storage site
plan. Staff supports this annexation and zoning but does not believe a self-storage facility is the
highest and best use of the site. Thus,this annexation will be recommended to not be tied to a
specific site plan.
This Applicant intends to develop this site as a self-storage facility,which is a principally
permitted use in the I-L zoning district. As stated above, Staff does not see this use as the highest
and best use of this property.Nonetheless, Staff has reviewed and analyzed the submitted concept
plan but will not be providing conditions of approval to correct issues noticed. Instead, Staff will
offer those comments within this analysis for transparency. In general,the drive aisles between
the buildings need to allow for a turning radius of 28-feet inside, and 48-feet outside for fire
access; some of these dimensions shown on the concept plan do not appear to meet this
requirement. Consequently,the required turnaround area within the southern area of the concept
plan may not be located within the required landscape buffer along E. Franklin Road; only an
emergency access is allowed in this area.
Access to this site is proposed via extension of an industrial collector roadway,E. Lanark St.
Direct lot access to E. Franklin Road will be prohibited except for an emergency access that is
required to meet the two points of access requirement if the use of self-storage comes to fruition.
E. Lanark St.bisects the subject property and therefore requires the property to be subdivided
prior to future development. Because of this,the City will have the opportunity to fully analyze
and condition the site-plan submitted with that application. In addition, any new industrial or
commercial building will also be required to apply for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and
Administrative Design Review which gives Staff another opportunity to review this site and its
Page 4
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 9 of 68
design. E. Franklin Road is designated as an entryway corridor on the Master Street Map (MSM).
Because of this designation,buildings should be held to a higher standard than the traditional
design standards for industrial buildings. Staff has previously required adjacent industrial
buildings to adhere to the Commercial building design standards rather than the industrial.
Therefore, Staff is also recommending a DA provision that any future building(s)on this site
comply with the Commercial architectural design standards.
DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for annexation&zoning with the
requirement of a Development Agreement with the conditions noted in Section VIILA per the
Findings in Section IX of this staff report.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on May 28,2020.At the public
hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation request.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: Jeff Hatch,Applicant Representative
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting: Jeff Hatch
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony
a. None
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission.
a. Applicant's desire to only Annex and not develop at this time.
b. Flexibility of not tying annexation to submitted concept plan.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
Page 5
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 10 of 68
EXHIBITS
B. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map
°sy tee
-ACCUR TE Z '�-
SURVEYING & MA P P N 0 —�
sFxv�cE
Land Description
Annexation/Rezone
A parcel of land located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9,Township 3
North,Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,County of Ada,State of Idaho being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the found aluminum cap monument at the Quarter Corner common to Sections 9 and
16,T3N,R1E as perpetuated by document 113006165,Records of Ada County,from which the found
aluminum cap monument at the comer common to Sections 9,10,15 and 16,UN,R1E as perpetuated
by document 11084522,Records of Ada County bears S 89'20'44"E a distance of 2702.61 feet;thence
S 89'20'44"E for a distance of 639.62 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence N 00'34'57"E along the easterly line of Seyam Subdivision for a distance of 1048.12 feet to a
found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 7881;
Thence 5 88'27'42"E for a distance of 214.12 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 7881;
Thence S 00`34'55'W for a distance of 1044.82 feet to a point on the section line;
Thence N 89°20'44"W along said line for a distance of 214.10 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING.
Parcel contains 5.143 acres,more or less.
0 �
>
1602 W.Hays St.,Suite 306•Boise,10 83702•Phone:208-488-4227
www.accuratesurveyors.com
Page 6 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 11 of 68
I I ' MAP
REZONE FOR HATCH DESIGN ARCHITECTURE
A PORTION OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 9, T3N., R.1E., B.M.
CITY OF MERIDIAN— COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO
S 882742" E 274.12'
BAS15 OF BEARING
S 89 20'44" E BETWEEN FOUND
MONUMENTS AT THE THE SOUTH
714 CORNER AND SOUTHEAST SCALE: 1"=200'
CORNER OF SECTION 9 COMMON
TO SECTIONS 9 & 16.
LEGEND
RECORD BOUNDARY LINE
OF RECORD
SURVEY PARCEL LINE
N OF R1GNT—OF—WAY
No. 17: SUP, � Raw
r Q 120/6 SECTION LINE Na. � �1
FOUND ALUMINUM CAP
Q O W N Q IN ASPHALT
cp cv - • FOUND 5/8"IRON PIN, W177-1
W o a Z PLAS77C CAP, PLS 7881
OR AS NOTED
ino a • FOUND 1/2"IRON PIN, WITH
Lij2 51109438871 WITH PLASTIC CAP, PLS 7837
LINE TABLE 224,044+ &r. O SET 5/8" IRON PIN WITH
5.143f AC 2" ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 12720
LINE BEARING DISTANCE p CALCULATED POWT
L1 S 00,34'57" W 42.00'
L2 IN 00"34'55" E 42.00'
1/4 CORNER SECTION CORNER
CP&F No. 173006165 CP&F No. 11084592
3" ALUMINUM CAP IN 2 7/2" ALUMINUM
MONUMENT WELL, CAP IN ASPHALT
PLS 102.9 Row aow Pl-5 13551
9 639.62 274.10 2062.99' n9�,10
1� ^ ——N 89'20'44" W 2702.61'_ 16 15
BASIS OF BLARINC
W. FRANKLIN RD.
\��NL Np S -ram
+ �C! c�
!ic
1602 W. Hays Street #306
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 480-4227
R. A� www.accuratesurveyors.com
DATE: FEBRUARY, 2019 JOB 19-274
Page 7
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 12 of 68
C. Submitted Concept Plan(NOT APPROVED)
wo�s6ulplingaB�o;�x�:11ew3 '`E" s��� I
ZBLPE4E(90Z)`xed a 0 _
S46Z-6Z9(90Z)'auoId
90L£8 01'aslog N01vool ('')
pnlg�aluaurled AA96E
wvawW onuauna I(;jadoaa ull�uea-A E3
z
RO Y I I II I
OI 9 1
I I
I \ I
I � I
� g
I n
a m
LL-
rn qq< o
C mo ih¢ihAx�XyXno V) 5-31
N y 6�JU16
Food
❑'r N N _,o. 1S J12{'dNYI 3-
I
--
� I
o -
LLo
�a iS I I
I I
I I
I I
I I I
�yry I I
nol o N
a o
.�,09�
O m I
m amd�
mN o
I
m I
9:M x m
No
OM NIINN1Md ls3m
Page 8 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 13 of 68
D. Applicant Narrative
lH AT C H
40 DESIGN
ARCHITECTURE
16126 W.state stv botse,Idaho 83703■phone 2 08.47 5.3204-fax 208.475.3205+email inWhauhda.mrn
Protect Narrative
January 30,2020
Development Services,Planning Services
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave.
Meridian, ID 93642
Re: Annexation Application for Franklin Storage
3NIES09 of E Lanark St., Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Planning Staff,
The owner for the property located at 3N I 509 of E Lanark St.is proposing the new construction of an
approximately 70,025 s.f.self-storage facility.The project will be used as private self-storage.
The owner of the property is proposing an annexation for the use of the land to construct a new self-
storage facility and extension of E.Lanark 5t.This annexed use is In keeping with the current zoning and
use of the surrounding parcels. Future development cf the parcels to the east will be facilitated by the
road extension;however,the required presence of the new road will severely reduce options for future
development of these parcels rnaktng the Industrial use more fitting for this area and mare in keeping
with the current use/aesthetic cf this area.
Please contact our office vuith any questions you may have in reviewing the application materials.
Sincerely,
Jeff Hatch,AIA LEEP AP
HATCH DE13I13N ARCHITECTURE
Page 9 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 14 of 68
CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS
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. Prior to issuance of any building permits,the applicant shall subdivide the property in
accord with UDC 11-6B.
b. At the time of future subdivision,the Applicant shall extend E. Lanark St. to the eastern
boundary of the subject site as a complete 40-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter,
and 5-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk on both sides of the roadway within 58-feet
of right-of-way.
c. When E. Lanark St. is extended,the Applicant shall construct the required offset
temporary turnaround at the terminus of E. Lanark St.with a minimum turning radius of
45-feet.
d. The uses allowed on this property are those listed in UDC Table 11-2C-2 for the I-L
zoning district.
e. At the time of future subdivision,the Applicant shall close the existing driveway
connections to E. Franklin Road; direct lot access to E.Franklin Road is prohibited.
f. Prior to issuance of any building permits,the applicant shall obtain approval of a 14-foot
wide public use pedestrian easement along the north boundary of the property.
g. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application
submittal.
h. The Applicant shall comply with the Commercial architectural design standards in the
City of Meridian's Architectural Standards Manual(ASM) at the time of Certificate of
Zoning Compliance and Design Review submittal.
B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
1. A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and or building permit application.
Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards.
2. No onsite sewer mains have been shown in the submitted conceptual drawings. It is assumed
that all onsite sewer lines will be private.
C. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188465&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
ity
D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
Page 10
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 15 of 68
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=187171&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
II. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an I-L zoning designation is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan GI FL UM designation for this property(see Section Vfor more
information).
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds that a map amendment to the I-L zoning district is consistent with the
purpose statement for the industrial districts in UDC 11-2C-1.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any
oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by
any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited
to, school districts; and
Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact
upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City.
Page 11 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 16 of 68
Annexation Request
a —,
w _
S
Vicinity Map HATCH DESIGN
ARCHITECTURE
E Franklin Rd. July 14, 2020
Annexation Request
y
•��` . y 0
�. .44-11
Proposed 0 1� %
Rezone � �
compatible with
comprehensive
r
plan —rExFRANKIIN Rd *Bad ---r
r
Comprehensive Plan Map HATCH DESIGN
ARCHITECTURE
E Franklin Rd. July 14, 2020
Annexation Request
Thank you for your time.
Questions?
HATCH DESIGN
ARCHITECTURE
E Franklin Rd. July 14, 2020
�E IDIAN^ ITEM SHEET
IDAHO
Council Agenda Item - 5.13.
Presenter:
Estimated Time for Presentation: 0
Title of Item - Public Hearing for Sagewood West Subdivision (H-2020-0038) by Southpoint
Estates, LLC, Located at 1335 W. Overland Rd.
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at Hearing
Council Notes:
ATTACHMENTS:
Commission Recommendations and Staff Report Staff Report 7/7/2020
Planning and Zoning Minutes Minutes 6/4/2020
REVIEWERS:
t
Clerk. Weatherly,Adrienne Approved 7/7/2020 -8:26 AM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 24 of 68
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: July 14, 2020 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 513
PROJECT NAME: Sagewood West Subdivision (H-2020-0038)
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
STAFF REPORT C:�*%_
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 7/14/2020 g
Le end
DATE:
Project Location
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner '
208-884-5533 _T fl
Bruce Freckleton,Development
Services Manager ;
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: H-2020-0038
Sagewood West Subdivision
LOCATION: The site is located at 1335 W. Overland
Road,between S.Linder Road and S. -
Stoddard Road,in the NW'/4 of the NW ��FFR=Fl®�
'/4 of Section 24, Township 3N., Range
1W.
L PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation&zoning of 10.41 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat
consisting of 53 building lots and 7 common lots,by Southpoint Estates, LLC.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 10.41 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential and Commercial(on northern
portion of property)
Existing Land Use(s) Residential
Proposed Land Use(s) Residential
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 60 total lots-53 single-family residential;and 7 common
lots.
Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one(1)phase.
Number of Residential Units(type 53 single-family units.
of units)
Density(gross&net) Gross- 5.11 du/ac.;Net-7.86 du/ac.
Open Space(acres,total 1.25 acres of qualified open space(approximately 12.04%)
[%]/buffer/qualified)
Amenities 4 amenities-Micro-pathways,public art,tot-lot(climbing
boulders),and picnic areas.
Page 1
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 25 of 68
Description Details Page
Physical Features(waterways, N/A
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of January 28,2020—3 attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) N/A
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District i
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes Section
VIII.H
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action(yes/no)
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Existing access is off of E. Overland Rd—this access is
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) proposed to be closed upon development.Access is
proposed via extension of existing local streets from the
east and south.
Traffic Level of Service
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is not proposing any additional stub streets as all
Access streets into this property are from existing stub streets.
Parcels to the north,east,and west surrounding the subject
site are developed and there is no need for additional stub
streets at this time. See analysis section below for more
information on parcel to the west.
Existing Road Network Overland Road,an arterial,is fully improved with two
travel lanes in both directions abutting the site.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Yes
Buffers
Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is not required to improve Overland Road or
dedicate additional right-of-way.
Distance to nearest City Park(+ Bear Creek Park(18.34 acres)— 1 mile
size)
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station .4 miles from Fire Station#6
• Fire Response Time Meridian Fire can meet the 5 minute response time goal.
• Resource Reliability Reliability is unknown at this time as the station is new.
• Risk Identification Risk Factor 1—Residential
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,
and turnarounds.
Police Service
See Agency Comments(Section VIILD).
West Ada School District
• Distance(elem,ms,hs) No comments submitted at this time.
• Capacity of Schools
• #of Students Enrolled
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Services N/A
• Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed
• Estimated Project Sewer See application
ERU's _
• WRRF Declining Balance 13.92
Page 2 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 26 of 68
Description Details Page
• Project Consistent with WW YES
Master Plan/Facility Plan
Water
• Distance to Water Services 0'
• Pressure Zone 3
• Estimated Project Water See application
ERU's
• Water Quality Concerns None
• Project Consistent with Water YES
Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns Utility easement for possible future water main extension
must be provided to property to the west via the common
driveway.
COMPASS
• Other nearby services and Bus stop- 1.6 miles(when ValleyConnect 2.0 is
information operational,the nearest bust stop would be less than'h mile
away)
Public School-0.3 miles(Victory Middle School)
Grocery Store-0.5 miles
Jobs to Housing Ratio-1.1 (ratio of 1-1.5 is ideal).
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend 10 -Den- Legend
edwm y
a 0
Project Location Residential 0 Project Location
Mixed � -
Employment
MY-Corn ..r i
High Density
Residential - �
O
II I FTl-rTTI
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Page 3 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020- Page 27 of 68
R' 1
Legend 0 s Legend 3 0
Project LocationQ�� Project Location
City Limits
Planned Parcels
RUT �_L C2
C-G
C=C RUT L-O OVER '
TN-C
R-15 RUT R
TN-R
-
R-2 R-4 R-4
RU_T
Rl
Rl Al HffTT--"= �A �lInr
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Southpoint Estates LLC—PO Box 6385, Boise, ID 83707
B. Owner:
Corey Barton— 1977 W. Overland Road,Meridian,ID 83642
C. Representative:
Laren Bailey—PO Box 6385,Boise,ID 83707
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 5/13/2020 6/26/2020
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 5/12/2020 6/23/2020
Site Posting 5/18/2020 7/2/2020
Nextdoor posting 5/12/2020 6/23/2020
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross
densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered
with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated
for public services.
The proposed annexation area is surrounded by existing City of Meridian zoning. The proposed
land use of detached single-family residential is consistent with the dwelling types noted in the
Page 4
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020- Page 28 of 68
Future Land Use Map (FLUM)designation definitions. Certain densities are required to be met
on this property and the proposed project meets the densities listed above. In addition, the
proposed zoning and density are consistent with that of the surrounding development. Therefore,
Staff finds the density proposed with the preliminary plat and proposed zoning district are
consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential.
The subject site also has the Commercial future land use designation that was added when the
comprehensive plan was revised in 2019. This applicant is choosing to utilize the residential
designation rather than the commercial designation. Pursuant to the comments above, Staff
supports the residential use and proposed R-8 zoning district in lieu of a commercial
development as this is an extension of the existing Sagewood Subdivision on the east boundary.
Further, the Hardin Drain, which runs along the north boundary,provides a natural transition
between the proposed residential development and what could be commercial uses in the future
along the Overland Road frontage.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-651IA.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 VULA1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned
to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council
and subsequent recordation.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.ot /�compplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics.
"Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;
provide for diverse housing types throughout the City" (2.01.01 G). The proposed R-8
zoning and proposed land use of single family residential is an extension of what exists
near the subject site today. R-8 zoning and detached single-family homes are abundant in
the immediate areas to the south and east but within a half mile of the site, there are a
multitude of land-uses that include existing lower density residential, civic (school site,
park site, and fire station), light-industrial, office, and multi family residential. Due to
the nearby mix of existing and future uses and the size of this site, Staff finds the proposed
project to meet the intent of this comprehensive plan policy.
"With new subdivision plats, require the design and construction of pathways
connections, easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the
incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities" (2.02.01A). This new
subdivision does not offer additional multi-use pathways but will offer attached sidewalks
and micro pathways that will help connect neighboring subdivisions together and create
a more walkable neighborhood. W. Overland Road is labeled as a transportation
corridor in the ACHD Master Street Map and additional pedestrian connections to this
corridor are welcomed. This additional connection will allow easier pedestrian access
for nearby developments that currently do not have said access to Overland Road.
The open space proposed at the southern end of this development offers some actual
usable open space for children but is not centralized. These areas (approximately 19,000
square feet combined) are only separated by a local street at the southern end of the
property which helps create an area that will be more inviting to the neighborhood.
However, the area in the northern portion of the subdivision, but central to the site,
appears to be a token piece of open space to accommodate seepage beds. Staff finds the
Page 5
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 29 of 68
open space to be adequate but not premier. The addition of a tot-lot with climbing
boulders and the addition of a picnic area with public art help elevate the open
space/amenity package in this development.
"Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such
as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and
promoting local and collector street connectivity" (6.01.02B). The proposed street
network is an extension of existing local street stub and the Applicant has chosen to close
the existing access to W. Overland Road. Staff and ACHD support the internal local
street connectivity because it is designed to integrate with the existing street network that
was put in place with the developments to the south and east. The proposed access points
easily meet the intent of this Comprehensive Plan policy.
The City is currently processing a land use application for a commercial development on
the property to the west and interconnectivity is an integral part to both of these
applications. Staff has recommended this property owner and the property owner to the
west meet and discuss this interconnectivity and possibly work together to create a
shared access to Overland Road near the existing curb cut for the property to the west.
Staff is unaware if this meeting has occurred. There is no guarantee that the application
being processed for the property to the west will be approved as a commercial
development and its existing zoning of R-8 could remain. If the property to the west
develops as commercial an emergency only access should be provided; if it develops as
residential, a full stub street should be provided to their western boundary. Staff has
added a condition of approval regarding this in Section VIII.A of this staff report.
"Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers" (3.07.02D). The
proposed Sagewood West development is in close proximity to existing employment and
shopping centers. Within a half mile is a Wal-Mart, assisted living facility, water park,
school, and the commercial intersection of Overland and Meridian Rd. These businesses
offer both services and employment opportunities within walking distance of this
subdivision.
"Preserve,protect, and provide open space for recreation, conservation, and aesthetics"
(4.05.0IF).As proposed, this development would provide approximately 12%open space
for the subdivision. However, Staff has concluded that not all of this area meets UDC
requirements as proposed. Staff is recommending conditions of approval to correct this
and with that more open space would be available for both this subdivision and its
neighbor to the east, Sagewood Subdivision. The open space proposed is provided via
common open space lots at both ends of the development, north and south. Within the lots
in the southern half of the plat, climbing boulders and a seating area with public art are
proposed. In the northern half of the plat, there is a green space lot and a common lot
with a micro pathway proposed. Staff finds that if the common lot with the pathway can
meet UDC requirements to count towards linear open space, it would be a great addition
of open space and pedestrian connection for this subdivision and adjacent subdivisions.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan
policies and objectives.
Page 6 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 30 of 68
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There is an existing home located in the southern portion of the subject site. This
residence will be removed from the property prior to development. There is also a private
dirt/gravel driveway that comes from the existing access onto Overland Road—as
discussed, this access will be closed by the Applicant and the private road will no longer
exist. No other site improvements are known at this time.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is single-family residential; single-family detached dwellings are listed
as principally permitted uses in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2.
This development is proposed as one (1)phase and all existing access points to Overland
Road be closed. There is no requirement for an emergency access as this project is
proposed with three (3) access points. According to the submitted preliminary plat, all
lots appear to meet the required zoning and use requirements.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per
the submitted preliminary plat. This includes property sizes, required street frontages, and
road widths.
In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision
Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). There is one (1) common driveway
proposed and such driveways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-6C-3D. An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that
depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope, and orientation of the lots and
structures accessed via the common driveway; if a property abuts a common
driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking access via the
public street,the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared
property line from the common driveway.
F. Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
Access is proposed via extending existing local street stubs into this development. The
subdivision to the east has two stub streets to this site and the subdivision to the south has
one stub street to this site. These three accesses are more than adequate to disperse traffic
to nearby arterial roadways.
During pre-application meetings with the Applicant, a stub street to the property to their
west was requested by staff because they are currently zoned R-8 which would
accommodate a residential development. However, the property to the west also has two
future land use designations on it, residential and commercial. Because of this, the
property owner to the west has recently submitted a Rezone application to change the
zoning from R-8 to C-G with a proposed use of self-storage (the proposed use is RV
storage but is proposed as a much more specific and encompassing use than traditional
self-storage). Staff is recommending a condition of approval that this property provide a
full public street stub to the property to the west unless it develops as commercial. This
Applicant and the adjacent property owner should work together on the location of this
stub. If the adjacent western property is developed as commercial, the public street stub
Page 7
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 31 of 68
may be an emergency only access—both property owners should together with ACHD on
the appropriate location for this access.
G. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC
Table 11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms
per unit. Future development should comply with these standards. No parking plan was
submitted with the application. The proposed street sections (33 feet wide)shown on the
submitted plat accommodate parking on both sides of the street.
H. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8):
No multi-use pathways are proposed or required with this development. However, one of
the proposed amenities are micro-pathways that connect the internal public roads to W.
Overland Road. These connections will help improve pedestrian and cyclist connectivity
along the arterial roadway.
The submitted plat and landscape plan show a portion of the proposed micro pathway
along the Hardin Drain, which is behind the homes along the northern property
boundary. The proposed pathway does not show any trees along the pathway as is
required by code. This is due to the drain easement not allowing trees within its
easement. UDC allows Staff to require an additional five feet outside of the easement be
provided so that trees can be added and therefore meet the landscaping requirements.
Providing this additional five feet will still allow all affected building lots to meet the R-8
dimensional standards with a property depth of no less than 95 feet in length. Therefore,
Staff is recommending a condition of approval to provide this additional five feet and
subsequent landscaping along the rear property lines of Lots 4-10, Block 1.
In addition, this section of pathway turns away from the building lots and is proposed to
stop at the northeast property line which does not meet UDC requirements of being open
at both ends. The Applicant states that this micro pathway will later connect to a
common driveway that abuts the eastern property boundary but will have to go through
the adjacent property to the northeast. Staff finds it difficult to fully support this micro-
pathway layout because there is no guarantee that the property to the northeast will ever
redevelop and add this small section of pathway. Staff recommends a condition of
approval to continue the pathway behind Lots 1-3, Block 1, within a 20 foot wide
common lot (UDC 11-3G-3 standards for qualifying linear open space) that connects to
the existing common driveway that lays at the eastern property boundary in the adjacent
Sagewood Subdivision. Again, this adjustment would still allow Lots 1-3, Block I to meet
the required UDC dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district.
NOTE:In discussions with the applicant, it is their desire to negotiate an easement
with the adjacent property owner to the northeast(parcel#S1224223106) to use a
portion of the property to extend the pathway as shown on the attached open space
exhibit. Although an easement may allow for the construction of the pathway, there is
no guarantee this area will be landscaped and maintained like a typical common lot
owned by an HOA.As an option, the applicant could try to purchase that portion of the
property(SEC) so it can be incorporated into the proposed plat. Incorporating the
property into this plat would require the applicant to obtain approval of a property
Page 8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 32 of 68
boundary adjustment application, amend the boundary of the proposed plat and submit
a concurrent rezone application. Due to the complexity and timing needed to resolve
this issue, staff believes the extension of the common lot along the north boundary of
Lots 1-3,Block I is the most feasible solution.
I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along all internal local streets. There is
existing 5-foot wide attached sidewalks along W. Overland Road. Staff is not
recommending that the existing sidewalk is removed.
J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W. Overland Rd., an arterial roadway,
landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A common lot that is at least 25-
feet wide at this section and contains the proposed micro-pathways is depicted on the plat
and the correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted landscape plans (see
Section VII.D).
Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space are included in the
Landscape Calculations/Requirements table along with the required number of trees to
demonstrate compliance with UDC standards.
Pathways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 1I-
3B-12. See further analysis above (section VII.H) on proposed pathways landscaping
conditions. The total linear footage of pathways and the required number of trees is not
included on the submitted Landscape Calculations table. The landscape plan should be
corrected to depict these calculations and the required number of trees (I tree for every
100 linear feet of pathway).
K. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-313
is required. Based on the proposed plat of 10.41 acres, a minimum of 1.04 acres of
qualified common open space should be provided.
The applicant is proposing 1.25 acres of open space (or 12.04%) consisting of common
lots with open space, located on larger lots on the end caps of blocks. In addition, the
Applicant is proposing micro-pathways along the northern property boundary that
connect to W. Overland Road.
Both of the common lots proposed at the end caps of the central block are more than
10,000 square feet in area, meeting the minimum UDC requirements to count towards
qualified open space. The additional end cap lot in the southwest of site also meets these
dimensional standards and is proposed with a qualifying site amenity (picnic area with
public art). The other proposed open space is that area with the micro pathway
contained within it in the north area of the development. The proposed pathway connects
to the common driveway and heads north to connect to Overland Rd. The pathway also
turns east and heads behind the building lots and runs along the northeast boundary, as
discussed previously. As proposed, this linear open space with the pathway does not meet
UDC standards for qualified open space as it is not open on both ends as required by
Page 9
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 33 of 68
UDC 11-3G-3B. Staff has calculated that if this area is not qualifying open space, the
amount of qualified open space should be reduced by approximately 15,000 square feet.
Without this area, the amount of qualified open space is reduced to about 0.9 acres which
is below the required minimum 10%qualified open space.
If the Applicant were to make the adjustments to the plat and open space per the
conditions in this report and continue the pathway lot all the way along the northeast
property boundary, this area and more could be added back into the qualified open space
calculations. If this condition cannot be met, Staff recommends that at least one building
lot be converted from a buildable lot to a common open space lot and additional open
space be provided in order to meet the minimum 10%requirement.
The adjacent subdivision to the east(Sagewood Subdivision) is operated by the same
HOA that will operate this proposed development. Because of this, the Applicant does
have the option of counting some of their excess open space with this development so
long as both projects would then meet the minimum 10%open space. Sagewood
Subdivision provided a park that is over an acre in size in addition to other qualifying
open space. Staff finds that some of this area can count towards the qualifying open
space within this development because of its proximity, two local street connections with
attached sidewalks, and the existence of the same HOA governance.
In the very southwest corner of the subject site there is a small sliver of open space
located at the rear of Lot 26, Block I that does not have adequate visibility for emergency
and police services. The Applicant is currently incorporating this odd sliver of land into
their plat in order to help the City fix a surveying mistake from the past. In discussions
with the Applicant, Staff has requested this property owner work with the property owner
to the west to transfer this area to them. If this sliver is incorporated into the property to
the west, the area will no longer be tucked away in a corner and would be usable space
by that property owner. In doing so, the Applicant will have to adjust the boundary of the
plat; Staff has included a condition of approval for this request in section VIII.A of this
staff report.
L. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3U):
Based on the area of the proposed plat(10.41 acres), a minimum of one (1) qualified site
amenity is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.
The applicant has proposed three (3) qualified amenities: a seating area with public art; a
boulder play area; and micro-pathways.
The proposed amenities exceed the minimum UDC requirements and Staff finds them
appropriate for the development.
M. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is
proposed as shown on the landscape plan; fencing shown next to the proposed open space
and pathway lot located behind the future building lots needs to be corrected per the
conditions of approval in this staff report(see Section VIII.A3)to show open-vision or
semi-private fencing.
Page 10 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 34 of 68
N. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the single-family homes for this
project(see Section VILE).
The single-family homes are depicted as both single and two-story structures with two-
car garages and a variety of finish material combinations. The homes are also shown with
optional enhancements, i.e. larger garages or a different master bathroom layout. The
submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement
of a Development Agreement and approval of the requested preliminary plat with the
conditions noted in Section VIILA per the findings in Section IX of this staff report.
B. Commission:
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 28, 2020. At the
public hearing, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation
and Preliminary Plat requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Hethe Clark, Applicant Representative
b. In opposition: None
c. Commenting: Hethe Clark
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony
a. None
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:
a. Location/layout of open space and amenities within the subject site and in relation to
the adjacent subdivision to the east, Sagewood Subdivision.
b. Applicant's request to modify Staff s conditions regarding changing the lot depths
and adding landscaping to the northernmost common lot, Lot 11, Block 1.
c. Location of the proposed common drive and its purpose also serving as an
emergency access for the parcel to the west.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Modify condition 2-B to add"if NMID does not allow for landscaping within their
easement."
b. Modify condition 3-C to add"if NMID does not allow for landscaping within their
easement."
c. Delete condition 2-C since that condition has been satisfied with a revised plat.
L. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. Condition 2-E has not been satisfied b t�pplicant; Applicant was conditioned to
convey Lot 27, Block 1 to the property owner to the west prior to City Council but
has not yet done this. The Applicant intends to comply with this condition but ran
out of time.
Page 11
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 35 of 68
C. City Council:
Enter Summary of City Council Decision.
Page 12 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 36 of 68
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map
Sawtooth Land Surveying, LLC
2030 5.Washingtor F\'✓r
5✓���T���1WID 83G 17
(208)308-8 1 Od
(7.08)396-8�05
Sagewood West Subdivision Annexation Description
BASIS OF BEARING for this description is South 8903442"East, between a brass carp
marking the northwest corner of Section 24 and a brass cap marking the N1/4 of Section 24,
both in T. 3 N., R. 1 W., B.M., City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho.
A parcel of land being a portion of the NW1/4 of the NW1/4 of Section 24,T. 3 N., R. 1 W.,
B.M.,City of Meridian Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the northwest corner of said Section 24;
Thence South 89034'42"East, coincident with the centerline of W. Overland Road, 800.09 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing, South 89113442"East coincident with said centerline of W. Overland Road,
a distance of 77.38 feet;
Thence leaving said centerline of W. Overland Road, South 0'25'18"West,48.00 feet to a 5/8"
rebar with no cap;
Thence South 57046'04"East, 532.56 feet to a 5/8"rebar with no cap on the west boundary
of Sagewood Subdivision,as shown in Book 110 of Plats, Pages 15846-15847,Ada County
Records;
Thence South 01126'18"West, coincident with said west boundary of Sagewood Subdivision,
759.66 feet to a 5/8"rebar with no cap marking the southwest comer of said Sagewood
Subdivision and an angle point in the northerly boundary of Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision
No. 2,as shown in Book 115 of Plats, Pages 17180-17188,Ada County Records;
Thence South 0119'18"West, coincident with said northerly boundary of Fall Creek Meadows
Subdivision No. 2, a distance of 29.74 feet to a 5/8"rebar/cap PLS 11334;
Thence North 77045'27"West, coincident with the northerly boundary of said Fall Creek
Meadows Subdivision No. 2 and Fall Creek Meadows Subdivision No. 1, as shown in Book 114
of Plats, Pages 17036-17046,Ada County Records, 313.88 feet;
Thence North 61003'23"West, coincident with said northerly boundary of Fall Creek Meadows
Subdivision No. 1, a distance of 351.87 feet to a 5/8"rebar/cap PLS 11334;
P:1202011 EMT11 200 1 7-1 335 W OVERLAND SUB-CG1SurveylDrawings\Descriptions1120017-Sagewood West
Annexation Description.docx
1
Page 13
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 37 of 68
Thence South 66110134"East, 134.28 feet to a 1/2"rebar/cap PLS 7323;
Thence North 202532"West, 396.59 feet to a 1/2"rebar/cap PLS 7323;
Thence North 2001'52"West, 178.11 feet to a 1/2"rebar/cap PLS 7323;
Thence North 1048'29"West, 147.07 feet to a 1/2"rebar/cap PLS 7323;
Thence North 09525"West, 167.48 feet to a 5/8"rebar/cap PLS 5082;
Thence North 0007'23"W., 51.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 10.41 acres, more or less.
0 S
O �
1157
OF
ISE
P-1202011 EMT11 2001 7-1 335 W OVERLAND SUB-CG\SurveylDrawingslDescriptions1120017-Sagewood West
Annexation Description.docx
12
Page 14
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 38 of 68
RA513 OF REARING
. ............ .. .......... ..,..,...,.. _.._.._.. 589-NW-F a6Y5.61: ..._... _ _
IO—v 589-3942°E
I4'.m �il'A4NG 77.38' W.OVEHL ROAp
nz4gso ---- �.. - 4.W.36' l n 9AS17.79'
5,91 Aw.w �-------
LEY 107151515 -----�-—....`- PLS 529I
NO°O7�'W� 50°258'W Wt/f6 m2,58'. '
4LW
nus wn,sca
trdFflO s
3 I
.�s pNA
.',5��' y� 0 3
Pf55087'*��1. ,5y
¢AS7323 ��
NTS x F s73n I
17J 10.41�t3� j
SI
_ ilnf B69RING OtSFAN� j
�P157323 11 50°]9']B"W 29.]4'
1 II j
1 1 574 '
42.
sZQIxOP�o �j 5 2
� o_
OF�� I j3
v BEAG�' I jq aF
w�
NI ly t.w
A
i
FL5113�•s I I j
a�fiAsgO �S�fT� I
A4,
pro BinaSON .\• _- --
r�oyeNG •�i�1s `-. -.
ti, N kK73' --~ NO GP
rZT'yy-3'IJgg... _ - - - - -- - - -- - -
PLS tl334
T.3 N„R i W.,B.M. FALL BOOK CREEK
6.PAGES 1OWS 7R1BO-17188 O.2
PROJECT: OWNERIDEVELOPER, 2030 S. WASHINGTON AVE DWG#
SAGEWOOD WEST SUBDIVISION EMMETT,ID 83617 120017-Ex
ANNEXATION EXHIBIT CONGER GROUP �f P:(208)398-8104 PROJECTW
MERIDIAN,IDAHO 5Al-/roor, 1 F.'(Z08)398 8105 120017
VY r/ SHEET
OAT—E. 312020 La aaSu uey rh LLG WWW.SAWTOOTHLS.COM 1 OF 1
Page 15 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 39 of 68
B. Preliminary Plat(date: 4/22,L202-0)(date: 5/27/2020)
Lu-
311d'SHIDILVAONNI IIAIO
NOISIAlauns IS3M GOOM39VS
K
!H
-T izQ,-
z
qgp V pi. ff
NNI
U) HN Mu2
>
5
>
C)
Z)
<
z
<
C) Ji w
0
0
0
�j
T�I
L
4
Page 16
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 40 of 68
C. Open Space Exhibit(date: 3/27/2020)
-Vr
' a
xrr 1
. - Yr
. .. . . . . . .. .
. . . .. . . . . . ..
x` ; - I -=MITT
Page 17 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 41 of 68
D. Landscape Plan(date: 4/3/2020)
qhl
P4
�-Y
T
5 4,
W."
IH
�v
Hg-
�5k ageIL
0,
ku E
Uj LE
cq
A
V) 0
A
io OQ)
14 go Ln
tn
Uj H
9'4
0
0
z LU
Rto
Page 18
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020- Page 42 of 68
V ovEFl:woifoao
I 774�_ I
- _ 16 WN- air ---
9 JE41AWELid
1`
r m 'eu'�-i-i
1.
4 BL➢OM I
g } W
ly
m c1
0
r' w a a
6 _
s _ r
I i s16 4
2
— I
eLocx2 -
.�
I I
7 {{III
II
Ib6 :III 6 -IL
-oa7� - -
«31
I L1
11 SMiwic�NLINE L1
P_AN—PALETTE
MATGiLINE LI
MATCMLINE L2 0
17,
IEldse an
EIpGILI BLOCN2 /
-
v"
In 0
i� Z
Lu
L La
_ W J
,y�, VOTE O
r h 1 x 2 y'�i, BLZK
r
9
5
PLAN E
:. L2
Page 19 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 43 of 68
E. Conceptual Building Elevations
The proposed homes are one and story homes ranging in size from approximately 1,8Dd square feet to 2,2DO square
feet. We are proposing 53 detached single-family homes.The proposed homes are comparable in terms of architectural
design and square footage to homes in the immediate vicinity.
The following elevatiai-is and floor plans are meant to be examples of what could be built in the development and are
subject to change.
I
GRILL OPT.EXT.
EAT la'xla RATIO
4 cslling
- DREAM
13'
9'oellln9 i
p _
+
e ' WATCH '-
� Off 4'ceil✓g ;..,i+:
+ C
+
el
_
SEEEP u2
13tr1'ly M/.IG + e STORE 9oetlma
J..hti IJ« 70'Fd'
<Ir �
+
+
LD
I
NOTE:Furnace stalled WASH '
lh—tt, garage. 10IP E'ffEEEF
DENIELEEP#4
11]'�nllnq ! O
CUTIA! ---------
PAR {�CAR)
912
9'aeilinq
'ARRIVE SLEEP43-
' .---- 'Ycolling
. �
MAIN iL'd_L
BLNGALDN
Page 20 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 44 of 68
UPPERIVEL
P"sl
FLAYMPF.
SLEEP 04
ff
SEE
j, GRILL
EAT FUND A2
Lol..1,,oM 3!LLG SLE—1
17 u, ly.0
F.-
9AN
WATCH
WT.UNSFERIBAM
QFr.SCAR i Frol)hm cc wVEA it ON
IANP M
EATH
C)
sTuffy GREET
cL, Q�EM
v— OPT.3"kl
PARK
2 UR
cL4
UMLFVFL "RRIVE
Page 21
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 45 of 68
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,landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the
single-family dwellings included in Section VII and the provisions contained
herein.
b. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of
application submittal.
c. Direct lot access to W. Overland Road shall be prohibited.
2. Ten(10) days prior to the City Council hearing,the preliminary plat included in Section
VII.C, dated 04/22/2020, shall be revised as follows:
a. Add a note prohibiting direct lot access via W. Overland Road.
b. If Nampa Meridian Irrigation District does not allow for landscaping within their
easement Mon Lot 11,Block 1, five feet of width shall be added on the proposed
common lot along the rear of Lots 4-10, Block 1 to accommodate the required
landscaping for linear open space.
e. The proposed pat4way and of(Lot 1'�ock '�nall be extendea
easy
d. The applicant shall provide a stub street at the west boundary(Parcel#S 1224223270).
Location of the stub street shall be coordinated between ACHD,the applicant and the
adjacent property owner. If the property develops with a non-residential use,an
emergency access shall be provided in lieu of the stub street.
e. Coordinate with the property owner to the west on the conveyance of the sliver of land
located at the rear of Lot 26,Block 1 of the proposed plat. The Applicant shall adjust the
boundary of the plat to reflect this change.
3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.E, dated 04/03/2020, shall be revised as follows
prior to submittal of the final plat application:
a. Revise landscape plan to show open vision or semiprivate fencing along the common
open space and pathway located on Lot 11,Block 1; all fencing shall comply with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
b. Revise landscape plan calculations table to include the linear feet of pathway and the
required number of trees per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12.
Page 22
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 46 of 68
c. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show
an additional rive feet of width with landscaping on the proposed common lot(Lot 11,
Block 1) along the rear of Lots 4-10,Block 1 to accommodate the required landscaping
per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12 if Nampa Meridian Irrigation District does not allow
for landscaping within their easement.
4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in
UDC Table 11-2A-6 for all buildable lots.
5. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table
11-3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
6. An exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the setbacks, fencing,
building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common
driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street
frontage and is taking access via the public street,the driveway shall be depicted on the
opposite side of the shared property line from the common driveway as set forth in UDC 1I-
6C-3D.
7. For any common driveway that serves a dual purpose(i.e. driveway/emergency
access/pathway), signage shall be provided to notify residents that the common driveway is a
no parking zone.
8. Prior to submittal of final plat application,the Applicant shall provide the city arborist with a
tree mitigation plan and receive approval of said mitigation plan.
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.
1.2 Applicant shall adjust their sanitary sewer design to remove the mainline out of the common
driveway. In this case, service lines shall be extended to the common drive lots from the
mainline located in the public right-of-way.
1.3 Utility easement for possible future water main extension must be provided to property to the
west via the common driveway.
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
Page 23
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 47 of 68
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 I I"map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development
plan approval.
2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-
round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not
available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a
single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of
assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final
plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to
evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed
per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code
42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
2.7 Any 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.
Page 24
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 48 of 68
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to
ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation
district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have
been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be
required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record
drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be
received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures
within the project.
2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. 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(MFD)
https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WeUink/Doc View.aWx?id=186859&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
i &Cr=1
Page 25 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 49 of 68
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD)
hgps:11weblink.meridianciU.or,g/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=186743&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187169&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187164&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH)
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=187428&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=187579&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
I. COMPASS(COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION)
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=188455&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
ity
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8 and subsequent development
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all provisions of the Development Agreement
are complied with.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will allow for the development of
single-family detached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities
available within the City, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and the purpose statement
of the residential districts.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
Page 26 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 50 of 68
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by
any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited
to, school districts; and
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact
on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City per the Analysis
in Section V.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian
connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more
information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with
development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service
providers)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at
their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD,
etc). (See Section VII for more information)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
and,
Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the
platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and approves of
the project.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this
site that require preserving.
Page 27 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 51 of 68
Applicant's Presentation
agewoodWest
Neighborhood Layout is expectedthe west to use of property Commercial densitymatching Subdivision, with SagewoodNew “phase” of existing existing developmentsThree roadway stubs into
proposedNo access to Overland Road
Amenities ouldersClimbing bareaPlaza with common area art and seating Roadconnection to Overland Pedestrian Pedestrian pathway
Pathway on far side of pathwaypermission to allow trees Working with NMID to gain resolved with StaffPathway alignment Garden St. stubDrain and W. Flower Constrained by Hardin
Legal Standards road placementswith regard to lot sizes or or variances requested No waivers of standards designationwith comprehensive plan Project density complies
THANK YOUWestagewood
Transition
Schools Meridian High (2,047/2,400)High School:Victory Middle (962/1000)Middle School:expansion coming online in 2020)Mary McPherson (550/566, with Elementary School:
�E IDIAN^ ITEM SHEET
IDAHO
Council Agenda Item - 6.A.
Presenter: Chris Johnson
Estimated Time for Presentation: 3 Minutes
Title of Item - Ordinance No. 20-1885: An Ordinance (H-2020-0029 Midgrove Plaza)for
Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of That Parcel Described in Warranty Deed
Instrument No. 111069481,Ada County Records, and Also Being a Portion of"Parcel One"
as Described in Meridian City Ordinance No. 748, Recorded as Instrument No. 96104790,
Ada County Records, Lying Within the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast
Quarter of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho;
Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 1.963 Acres of Land
From I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial)
Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of This Ordinance Shall
Be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and
Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date
Midgrove Plaza Rezone Ordinance
Council Notes:
ATTACHMENTS:
Midgrove Plaza RZ Ordinance Ordinance 7/8/2020
Midgrove Plaza- Exhibit A Exhibit 7/8/2020
Midgrove Plaza- Exhibit B Exhibit 7/8/2020
REVIEWERS:
Department � Reviewer Actio
Legal. 1weatherly,Adrienne Approved 7/8/2020 -2:42 PM
Legal. Albertson, Michelle Approved 7/8/2020 -5:14 PM
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda July 14,2020— Page 63 of 68
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2020-088301
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 07/16/2020 08:43 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 20-1885
BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE (W-2020-0029 MIDGROVE PLAZA) FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL OF
LAND BEING A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN WARRANTY DEED
INSTRUMENT NO.111069481,ADA COUNTY RECORDS,AND ALSO BEING A PORTION
OF "PARCEL ONE" AS DESCRIBED IN MERIDIAN CITY ORDINANCE NO. 748,
RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO.96104790,ADA COUNTY RECORDS,LYING WITHIN
THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING
CLASSIFICATION OF 1.963 ACRES OF LAND FROM I-L(LIGHT INDUSTRIAL)ZONING
DISTRICT TO C-G (GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL) ZONING
DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS
ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA
COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,AS REQUIRED BY
LAW;AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE;AND PROVIDING FOR
A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein
incorporated by reference as Exhibit"A"is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and
that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re-zoning by the owner of said property,to-wit:
Arthur Berry.
SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from I-L(Light Industrial)
Zoning District to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) Zoning District in the Meridian City
Code.
SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property.
SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of
the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property.
SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the
official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of
Meridian in accordance with this ordinance.
PAGE 1 OF 3
SECTION 6. All ordinances,resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed, rescinded and annulled.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval
and publication, according to law.
SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall,within ten(10)days following the effective
date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman
manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of
Idaho,to-wit: the Recorder,Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified
copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho.
SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2)plus one(1)of the Members of
the full Council,the rule requiring two(2) separate readings by title and one(1)reading in full be, and the
same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage, approval and publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 14th day
of July 2020.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,this 14th day of
July , 2020.
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) ss:
County of Ada )
On this 14th day of July , 2020, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk,
respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of
Meridian executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written.
(SEAL) Notary Public for Idahp
Residing At: Meridian, Idaho
My Commission Expires: 3-28-2o22
RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—MIDGROVE PLAZA-H-2020-0029
EXHIBIT A
' GEOMATICS 2308 N.Cole Rd.,Ste.G
SURVEYING MAPPING Boise,I❑ 83704
EXHIBIT"A"
Re-Zone Description
A parcel of land,being a portion of that Parcel described in Warranty Deed Instrument No.
111069481,Ado County Records, and also being a portion of"Parcel One"as described in
Meridian City Ordinance No. 748 recorded as Instrument No.96104790,Ada County Records,
lying within the Fast Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7,
Township 3 North,Range I East, Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, being
more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Southeast Corner of said Section 7,thence South 89'46'02 West,along
the South Line of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7,
662.90 feet to the Southwest corner thereof;
Thence North 00'26'59" East,along the westerly boundary of said East Half, 590.04 feet to its'
intersection with the northerly boundary of"Parcel One"as described in Meridian Ordinance
No.748,the POINT Of BEGINNING;
Thence continuing North 00`26'59"East, 132.98 feet;
Thence South 89°34'03"East, 662.73 feet to the East Line of the Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 7;
Thence South 00'26'25"West,along said East Line, 125.18 feet to the northerly boundary of
"Parcel One"as described in Meridian Ordinance No.748;
Thence South 89"46'02"West, along said northerly boundary,662.90 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Containing 85,513 Square Feet (1.963 Acres),more or less.
End of Description
Prepared by: Aaron Rush, PLS
C�gti LAND
12464
� p
41 OF
Page 1 of 3
Midgrove Plaza H-2020-0029
EXHIBIT " B"
RE-ZONE SKETCH
SE 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC. 07, T3N, R1E
NOTE S88.29'51"E
330.01'
FOR ADDITIONAL BOUNDARY INFORMATION,REFER
TO RECORD OF SURVEY NO.8037 AND WARRANTY
DEED INSTRUMENT NO. 111069481.
C 1
DESIGNATED I-L
SCALE: 1" = 150'
50 i 14
FRANKLIN RD
S89°34'03'E 662.73'
NOW 26' °26'25"W
AREA FOR RE-ZONE TO C-G S00
132.88.88' 85,513 S.F./1.963 AC. 125.18'
S891 46'02"W
POINT OF 1 662.80'
BEGINNING EXISTING ZONE
BOUNDARY
(QRDINANCE NO.748) A
w
DESIGNATED C-G W
rn \ 0
a
N C�'
V
5 F� ® O
zIJI
E. FRANKLIN RD ' 18
S89°46'02"W 662.90' 18 17
Midgrove Plaza H-2020-0029