2021-07-13 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Councilman Treg Bernt
Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
Councilman Luke Cavener
Mayor Robert E. Simison
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted as amended (Item 5 vacated)
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
RESOLUTIONS \[Action Item\]
1. Resolution No. 21-2276: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City
of Meridian, Appointing Tom Otte to Seat 9 of the Solid Waste Advisory
Commission from July 13, 2021 through September 30, 2022; and Providing an
Effective Date Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Cavener.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2021 for The 10 at Meridian (H-2021-
0025) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 75 S. Ten Mile Rd. Approved
A. Request: Annexation of 40.30 acres of land with R-40 (13.04-acres) and C-C
(27.25-acres) zoning districts.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Bernt.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
3. Public Hearing for ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility (H-2021-0029) by
Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 3764 W. Ustick Rd. Continued to July 27,
2021
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for
the I-L zoning district for the purpose of constructing an Ada County Highway
District (ACHD) maintenance facility on 23.7 acres.
Motion to continue to July 27, 2021 made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman
Cavener.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
ORDINANCES \[Action Item\]
4. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 21-1933: An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Meridian, Approving the Second Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization
Plan Urban Renewal Project, Which Second Amendment Seeks to Deannex Certain
Areas From the Existing Meridian Revitalization Project Area; Which Second
Amendment Amends a Plan That Includes Revenue Allocation Financing
Provisions; Authorizing the City Clerk to Transmit a Copy of This Ordinance and
Other Required Information to the County, Affected Taxing Entities, and State
Officials; Providing Severability; Approving the Summary of the Ordinance and
Providing an Effective Date Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman
Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
EXECUTIVE SESSION Vacated from the agenda
5. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(a) To consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff
member or individual agent, wherein the respective qualities of individuals are to
be evaluated in order to fill a particular vacancy or need; and (d) To consider
records that are exempt from disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho
Code.
ADJOURNMENT 9:00 pm
Item#2.
Meridian City Council July 13, 2021.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, July
13, 2021, 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, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Warren Stewart, Steve
Siddoway, Brian Caldwell, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, we will go ahead and call this meeting to order. For the record it is July
13th, 2021, at 6:02 p.m. We will begin this evening's regular City Council meeting with
roll call attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Simison: Next is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you will all, please, rise and join us in the
pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
Simison: All right. Next item is the community invocation, which tonight will be delivered
by Dale Newberry with Ten Mile Christian Church. If you would all, please, join us in the
community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Dale.
Newberry: Thank you. God, we come together to pray for this community. God, I pray
your blessing on this Council that you would give them a measure of -- of discernment
and judgment and that their decisions would be true and just. Lord, we -- we thank you
that you put governments in -- in place and that you give us the opportunity to serve in
many ways. Thank you for these people who have devoted their time and energies to
this community and, God, we --we just thank you for the place we live and, Lord, we pray
that we will just do our best to keep it clean and a place that -- that people desire to live
and, God, we are so grateful for what we have and this area and we just thank you for all
that you do and the way you have blessed all of our lives. God, we -- we thank you for
the blood of Jesus who unites us all, in his name, amen.
Page 29
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 2- —
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Simison: Thank you, Dale. Next item up is the adoption of the agenda.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: We do have an Executive Session scheduled for Item 5. 1 don't believe we need
that Executive Session anymore. I think we handled our business in the first Executive
Session. So, I move that we strike Item 5, our Executive Session, from the agenda and
with that I make a motion to adopt the agenda as amended.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as amended. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and
the agenda is agreed to as amended.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone sign up under public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
RESOLUTIONS [Action Item]
1. Resolution No. 21-2276: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City
Council of the City of Meridian, Appointing Tom Otte to Seat 9 of the
Solid Waste Advisory Commission from July 13, 2021 through
September 30, 2022; and Providing an Effective Date
Simison: Okay. So, the first item up is a resolution. Resolution No. 21-2276 appointing
Tom Otte to the Solid Waste Advisory Commission. Hopefully Tom is a familiar face to
this Council. He was a wonderful employee here. Also the character Trash Talk Tom.
We still own the rights to, but having him back on SWAC actually gives us a little bit closer
connection and tied to him from that standpoint, but he's moved on to do solid waste work
over with Ada county and so this is part of, you know, that ongoing relationship that we
have with Ada county as it relates to our solid waste, as well as a knowledge base and a
great Meridian resident, who has long ties to our Public Works Department as well. So,
it's --you know, with -- it's my honor and pleasure to bring him before you for consideration
to this appointment to the Solid Waste Advisory Commission and happy to stand for any
questions.
Page 30
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 3- —
Bernt: No questions.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Are we good for a motion?
Simison: If there is no questions I would be happy to entertain a motion.
Strader: No questions from me. Just a comment how much we love Tom and how
wonderful it will be to have him in that seat and if there is no other questions -- I think
everyone loves Tom and the work he has done for us. I move the approval of Resolution
21-2276 to appoint Tom Otte to Seat 9 on the Solid Waste Advisory Commission.
Cavener: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the resolution. Is there any
discussion? If not, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have
it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Simison: And I do not see Tom present for any comments this evening. He was hoping
to make it, but evidently wasn't able to. So, with that we will just send him all of our best
wishes and see him in the upcoming SWAC meeting or perhaps a presentation to Council
before we realize it.
ACTION ITEMS
2. Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2021 for The 10 at Meridian
(H-2021-0025) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 75 S. Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 40.30 acres of land with R-40 (13.04-acres)
and C-C (27.25-acres) zoning districts.
Simison: So, moving on to Item 2, public hearing, which was continued from June 22nd,
2021, for H-2021-0025. We will continue this public hearing and see if there are any staff
comments.
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, I would imagine we are on the 10 at Meridian
project? Perfect. Yes, I'm actually filling in for Sonya this evening. She is on vacation for
two weeks, so I was waiting -- making sure there wasn't anything else on the agenda
before this project, but I want to let you know that you guys did continue this project from
June 22nd. I had a chance to read through the minutes and saw that you guys had a
really robust discussion about the ratio between commercial and residential in this
Page 31
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 4- —
particular project. So, I do want to get everyone oriented to where this property is situated,
what the land use types are, and, then, go -- quickly go through some of the changes the
applicant's proposed and I let him go into more detail. So, we did recite -- based on the
discussion that occurred at the City Council --the previous City Council, there were some
revisions to the concept plan. Staff did prepare a memo and, then, forwarded on those
changes to the public record to be included as part of the public record and I will go ahead
and show those changes to you. So, right now this property is located on the southwest
corner of Franklin and Ten Mile. You can see here on the future land use map there is
three land use designations on this property. We have mixed use commercial, high
density residential, and a mixed use residential. You can see here the predominant -- the
predominant land use is mixed use commercial. It's currently RUT in Ada county and the
applicant is here tonight to request annexation into the city. So, if you recall on that
January -- or June 22nd hearing the original concept plan that was presented to you was
the one on the left. It had 559 residential units and, then, approximately 147,000 square
feet of commercial and mixed use buildings on it. Based on those discussions the
applicant went back to the drawing board, came forward with a new concept that you see
here on your right. They have increased the commercial mixed use portion of the
development from approximately 147 to about 166 K, if I'm not mistaken, and then -- but
they have also kept the -- the number of residential units. So, they are still 559 units as
part of the -- the revised plan. You will also note that some of the buildings have been
reconfigured on the plan. There is more central open space between the R-40 portion of
the site and the commercial on the --where the Kennedy Lateral bisects the property and,
then, again, smaller square footages and, then, the applicant's also proposed more -- I
think there hasn't been an increase in open space, but more parking has been added to
the commercial portion and less parking has been removed from the multi-family portion
and there is a slide after this one that breaks down all the proposed changes as well. I'm
just quickly summarizing them for you. I want you all to see that -- visually see the
differences between the two plans. Again, here is the project summary for all of you to
look at this evening. Again on the top, the left side, is what was previously proposed and,
then, the revised concept summary on the -- probably the middle of the slide here and,
then, the breakdown of those changes in more of a text form. I also wanted to remind the
Council there is a couple of items that -- if you choose during your motion tonight I want
you to take under consideration a couple of waivers that were brought to your attention
on June 22nd as well. That had -- one of those pertained to the number of access points
that they were proposing to Franklin Road and Ten Mile. I believe during that discussion
it was shared with you that a traffic study was accepted by ACHD and they did support
the analysis in that traffic study and they also supported these accesses to Franklin Road
and Ten Mile. So, if that's something that you support we ask that you include that waiver
as part of your motion and, then, as I mentioned the Kennedy Lateral bisects this property.
A portion of it will be titled and some of it will be left open and the Council --or the applicant
is seeking a waiver to keep the Kennedy Lateral open and, then, the third part of your
motion tonight -- and it's -- it's on your hearing outline, that staff is recommending a
modification to a DA provision that's in the staff report and that's highlighted in yellow on
-- on your hearing online tonight, allowing the applicant to get forward on development
before platting the property and that we would hold up occupancy on any structure on the
Page 32
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 5 of 05
site until the final plat was recorded. So, with that I will go ahead and conclude staff's
brief presentation on this application and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Okay.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thanks so much. Just to confirm -- so it looks like just back of the envelope that
approximately 11 percent more commercial compared to the square footage previous; is
that about right?
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, that's -- that sounds about right. It's
about an 18, 19 thousand square foot increase based on what the applicant provided to
us.
Strader: Quick follow up, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: And, Bill, in your opinion does that put us closer in alignment with the amount of
commercial we had hoped to see in this area once you take into account the FLUM that
we have and everything? Is this, you know, kind of what we would -- more in alignment
with what we would expect?
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Strader, I believe
so. I mean I think looking at the past record and seeing what the discussion was about,
you know, we can -- staff conveyed to you that this is a guide. When we look at mixed
use developments, when we look at the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, we have
to look at the area holistically and if you look to the south of this property there is quite a
bit of mixed use residential that can occur and some more commercial that can occur in
this area to help fuel some of the density that you see on that plan. So, again, the
Comprehensive Plan is a guide. Certainly looking -- I know I have met several times with
this applicant on trying to get this concept plan in the best configuration that we can to
make sure that it is consistent with that plan. So, in staff's opinion, yes, we find it is
consistent with not only land uses, but also the residential mix on it and I think for me
personally I like that the -- that the Council actually continued this, because some of the
suggestions you made have made this plan better, particularly with -- in regards to the
open space between the larger buildings and, then, having another access out to Cobalt
I think will help the circulation on this plan a lot better. So, again, I have to commend not
only the applicant for making the changes, but also this body and the Council for
recognizing that and having the applicant go back and fine tune the plan a little bit more.
Strader: That's perfect. Thanks, Bill.
Page 33
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 6 of 05
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Bill, I apologize. Could you go over for us again -- you said there are a couple
items that Council needs to consider for alternative compliance to include in our motion.
Would you run that by us one more time?
Parsons: I'm happy to do that, Council Woman Perreault. So, essentially, we need
Council's blessing on the access points to Franklin Road as you see them depicted on
the concept plan. We need you to support the waiver to keep the Kennedy -- Kennedy
Lateral open as a water amenity and, then, we also want you to add a DA provision -- or
modify a DA provision to allow them to get started on development ahead of submitting
their subdivision plat or recording a plat and that -- the exact language is actually in the
hearing outline in front of you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions? All right. Thank you. Would the applicant
like to come forward?
Shrief: Good evening. Again my name is Wendy Shrief. I'm a planner with JUB
Engineers and my business address is 2760 Excursion Way here in Meridian, Idaho.
83642. And we have got -- our team is here again. I'm just going to kind of do the
introduction and we really want to thank you all for the recommendations we had from
you last time. Once we -- once we left the hearing and sat down and really looked at the
changes, it's a much better plan than what we came here with. So, thank you. I think the
flow of the site is much better. I think the way we are dealing with -- with the multi-family,
I think it's much more inclusive, I think it's much more in the spirit of what we wanted to
do for this project and thank you for the push for increasing the commercial. I think it's
good you guys had faith in us. I think it's a really good improvement and I'm glad that we
have increased the commercial on the site. So, I think it really -- it was -- it was good.
We were hoping to get through it in one Council hearing. Once we sat down and looked
at the changes we think it's a -- really it's a much better design and it's going to be a much
better functioning project. Thank you for the --for the comments. So, I have Lane Borges,
who is our architect, who is going to walk through in some more detail for what the
changes were. We also have Hethe Clark here this evening, too.
Borges: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Lane Borges representing
Elk Ventures. 11500 Armor Court, Cold River, California. 95670. Mr. Parsons already
kind of stole my thunder a little bit in walking through some of the changes that we have
made since we were here last time, but I would like to maybe take an opportunity to, one,
just review the comments that we had heard when we were here, an overall review of the
changes and, then, quickly go through each kind of main element of the site and talk a
little bit about what we -- what we actually have done. The plan in front of you that shows
the plan that we presented last time, the four elements that we went back to the drawing
board on were, one, the amount of commercial space, the proportion of commercial to
residential in the property and I will talk a little more in a second about specifically what
Page 34
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page , — 55
was done there. Another element that was talked about that we clearly heard was the
location of the commercial building that we had designated in the original plan as kind of
our grocery store, which was on Ten Mile Road at the southeast corner of the site and we
will talk about where we moved that and why we moved it. The third element was the
open space and how the high density buildings in particular were connected to the open
space or in the case of the original plan not connected to the open space and attempts to
integrate them better, so that the recreation areas really appeared and functionally served
all aspects of the project a little bit better and, then, the fourth was to continue our
discussions with our adjacent property owner to the south on the alignment and the
improvement of Cobalt Drive. So, the plan that you are looking at now is the revised plan
that's been submitted and this plan does reflect all of the changes that we are proposing.
As Mr. Parsons already suggested to you, we have modified the open space, particularly
in the high density area, and I will go through a direct comparison in a second being
shown there. We relocated the commercial building designated for our grocer up into the
northwest corner of the property and we have increased the commercial space by 18,775
square feet and the actual calculation, if you exclude the square footage of the clubhouse,
is -- we actually have a 14 percent increase in the amount of commercial space that's
now being proposed for the project. So, real quickly I would like to kind of walk through
each area. We call these pods. So, you will see in this plan a comparison of the proposed
design of the pod on the left and the original on the right, so you will see that we eliminated
one of the residential buildings and we basically moved the commercial building
designated for grocery up into this location. One -- or, actually, two reasons and two very
helpful comments that were made at the last meeting and that was that when you looked
at the circulation of traffic coming to the grocery store and where the predominance of
that traffic would circulate, a lot of that traffic is projected to go northbound on Ten Mile
and from the original location that was a little more difficult maneuver to make. You had
to kind of traverse through the whole site and the building was located in an area of the
site that had more access restrictions. The current location is at an access point that has
full access. So, we believe that ingress into the site for this use at that location, as well
as egress, will be a significant improvement. The second pod was the pod in the middle
and you will see that -- oops. Okay. In the original plan we had two residential buildings
there. One of the residential buildings has been redesigned and we have added two
additional mixed use buildings with commercial space on the ground floor and residential
units above. The other two buildings are similar to the original plan. Sensitive mouse.
Okay. Our third pod, which is the pod at the intersection of Franklin and Ten Mile, we
have changed some of our proposed uses there. We still have retained the mixed use
building in that particular pod. We have increased the square footage of our commercial
pad buildings and we are now proposing a two story commercial building to kind of frame
that corner designating it as a potential location for a financial related institution. So, we
are proposing and considering the possibility of having drive through facilities there for
drive-up tellers and transactions. The fourth pod along Ten Mile Road is actually probably
the only pod that really doesn't have any significant alterations. We still have the two
mixed use buildings that were originally proposed to that location, commercial on the
ground floor and residential above, and, then, the last pod -- oops. The last pod -- again,
you will see on the right the original location of the grocery store and that's been replaced
now with two story commercial buildings and one story commercial buildings. The
Page 35
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 8- —
proposed quick service restaurant that was originally in the design is also retained. The
next component that we want to do a little look at is the clubhouse. As you will see our
flat buildings have retained their location. We have actually relocated the pickleball courts
that were proposed and taken some of the open space that was in that area and
integrated it into the space between the high density buildings. This allowed us to add a
little bit of additional parking to better support the clubhouse and the residential units at
that location and the last location is the high density. So, we will see there is quite a
change here. Unfortunately, I can't remember to give proper credit to the Council Member
that made this suggestion to slide those two buildings along Cobalt together. One of the
discussion points we had is that those buildings had originally been located there because
of the specific plan recommendations for straightforward design and placing the buildings
as frames along the streets. So, we were able to retain that and keep those buildings
with the Cobalt frontage, but at the same time move the parking that was between those
buildings basically on each side and enlarge the parking areas to the east and west and
create a very nice continuation of the open space that now flows from the recreation
center and clubhouse down past a redesigned high density building that you will see that's
now kind of a V shape and into the space between the two buildings fronting Cobalt Drive.
So, the result is the plan that you have before you of all those particular elements. Just
wanted to flash also quickly back up that we have retained the concept that kind of drove
this design was an emphasis on the vehicular and bicycle circulation, which you will see
with the red lines. So, those are our kind of main streets and those streets, again, are
two way traffic with bicycle lanes with parallel parking and street trees. So, we just kind
of affectionately call those kind of our internal mini main streets and, then, down below
you will see the secondary circulation that connects the high density building out to Cobalt
and back up to the remainder of the site with several of our pedestrian crossings over the
canal and the last slide again shows the network of pedestrian activity and access that
we have. So, at this point I'm going to turn it over to Hethe Clark to provide some closing
comments. I do also still have in this presentation the renderings that were presented
last time on the building architecture. I think the emphasis in this presentation tonight is
kind of the site plan and the layout, but if anybody has any questions or comments we do
have those available if anybody would like to revisit those at a later time. Thank you for
your time.
Clark: Hello, everyone. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise with the applicant
and I just have a couple of quick items to wrap us up here. So, one item that was
discussed at the last meeting was the conversations with our neighbor to the south and
how that's progressed. We have continued to have -- to have those conversations. We
are I think rowing in the same direction still. The one thing that we need to have in order
to finalize those conversations is a little bit more detail in engineering and in order to work
that into an agreement and we are all headed in that direction and I know Joann Butler is
here tonight and she will be able to speak to that. But I believe that we are in conceptual
agreement as to the way this is going to go, we just need to have a little more detail, but
just to remind the Council the -- the concept there was to contribute ground there on the
southeast and contribute to the cost of one half of the construction of the roadway on the
south. So, very simple parameters. We just need to get a little more detail if you have a
final agreement on that. In terms of logistics, Bill mentioned the waivers. The one thing
Page 36
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 9- —
that I would just point the Council to is that you already have in condition 1-C language
dealing with the access points, so I don't think you need to have special -- special
language in your motion about that. Condition 1-C does approve those access points.
And, then, condition 1-D, as Bill mentioned, we would ask the language be added that I
understand as highlighted in your report, that no certificate of occupancy for any structure
will issue prior to recording of the final plat and, then, the final element related to condition
1-E, which was the waiver related to leaving the Kennedy Lateral open. So, with that we
are happy to answer questions. But our group has worked really hard on this. I think
Lane did some pretty inspired work based on the -- the -- the Council's comments and we
do believe that this is an improved project that satisfies what the -- what the Council was
looking for at our last meeting.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Hethe, I have to agree with -- with you and Lane's comments about that prior
hearing. I was able to review it all in prep for today, that prior hearing and as well as these
changes and -- and I applaud the applicant for making these changes, but also the fellow
Council Members up here I think had a really constructive discussion and provided some
good direction. So, it seemed to have been a very cooperative meeting on -- on June
22nd. So, appreciate the direction from my colleagues up here, as well as the applicant's
willingness to participate in those changes.
Clark: Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Councilman Borton said it well. The applicant --we --we really pushed on you
guys and we appreciate you listening to our suggestions, you know, you spend an awful
lot of time preparing this. I do have one question for you about the access points. Do
you still want the slide that shows them as they are lettered? So, that's what's in our
notes here and I want to take a look at those letters again. There were no changes made
to that from the last hearing until today; correct? We are just reiterating to Council that
we need to not forget to make sure that's appropriately mentioned the motion.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that's correct. There is no proposed change
on the accesses to Ten Mile Road and Franklin Road, which are the subjects of condition
1-D, which, as I mentioned, I think adequately defines the Council's position that those
accesses are approved.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up.
Page 37
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 10 of 50
Simison: Councilman Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, as far as the flow of traffic through here and pedestrian access, are the
intersections -- quote, unquote, intersections going to have stop signs? Is there going to
be posted speed limits? I mean I -- if I'm envisioning this correctly they will be -- you
know, there will be enough traffic on here that it almost feels like a local road. So, can
you talk with us about that as far as safety goes as far as pedestrian crossing and, then,
this is not a consideration per se for -- for my decision, but I was just curious if there was
any consideration given to there being like a roundabout style where some of the
intersections are versus potentially stop signs or whatnot. So, can you talk with us about
that?
Borges: Yes. We do anticipate that at the major intersections there will be methods to
control the traffic, because the volume may dictate that without it it would be unsafe. I
don't think at this point in the concept plan we have determined where is the best location,
whether is it the north and southbound traffic that should be stopped or is it the east and
westbound traffic that should be stopped. We did consider briefly the idea of using
roundabouts. It was -- it's kind of a challenge, because, one, they take up a considerable
amount of space and in our experience roundabouts create actually a bit of a challenge
for a lot of drivers that are unaccustomed to proper way to enter and exit roundabouts
and actually can have a negative effect on circulation. Everybody's pretty familiar with a
stop sign or a yield sign or more conventional methods. So, we decided to go with that
for our particular plan for that reason.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Lane and Hethe and Wendy, I'm just like so happy and really like proud of this
development and the direction that you are taking it with the feedback. This is a really
great development and I will -- I'm really supportive and I will be proud to have this
development in our city. So, thanks for taking a look at everything.
Clark: Thank you, Council Member Strader. That's very nice.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: One question for you, Hethe. It was mentioned of a land swap down there on
Cobalt. Can you give us an update on what that contract looks like currently?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Bernt, so I have been having conversations with Joann
Butler and she's here and she can speak on -- I won't put words in her mouth. But the the general thought process that's been discussed amongst the principals is that the the area -- is this following my mouse, Bill, or is it -- oh, there it is. It's just super sensitive.
Page 38
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 11 of—
That there would be a swap for this area down here and, then, a contribution for half the
cost of Cobalt Drive and, then, that agreement would be finalized as we have the specific
engineering details associated with the preliminary plan.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Any issues? I mean with that agreement? Is it going pretty smoothly with the
neighbor?
Clark: No issues that I'm aware of. You know, we -- I have had a couple conversations
with Joann and I -- like I say, I will let Joann comment.
Bernt: Perfect. Thank you.
Clark: But I feel like we are rowing in the same direction, like I mentioned.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Mr. Mayor, question for Mr. Nary, I guess, and Joann might talk about it as well,
but the scenario of bad, parade of horribles, if that doesn't happen, right, and it falls
through, what happens to the lower right-hand corner that used to be an outparcel?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, that --that piece is still included in the concept
plan. It doesn't have a use associated with it. So, I would anticipate that it would be part
of the preliminary plat just created as a parcel on its own and, then, a use would have to
be assigned to it. It's -- it's more useful, frankly, to our neighbors to the south because of
the configurations there. So, we don't anticipate -- we -- you know, we think that this is
going to go forward and that it would ultimately be part of another plan. But that's the --
how we are seeing it.
Borton: Mr. Mayor, a quick follow up.
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: And we can kind of put a pin in it, but in that really unforeseeable rare chance
that something doesn't work, right, this is the one chance to -- to condition it somehow so
it's not, you know, weeds that just burnout.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, I would just say that it's not your only chance,
because we have to come back here at pre-plat and so if we don't have this sorted out by
pre-plat, then, you would have an opportunity to put -- to impose specific conditions on
that, but -- so, we -- we do have to come back before you. This is not the only bite at the
Page 39
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 12—"
apple. This is the annexation and rezoning, the concept plan, so we know what we are
dealing with and so, therefore, we can go, you know, invest the money, do all the
engineering, have the detail and, then, finalize an agreement.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. This is
a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. Joann Butler.
Butler: Mayor, Council Members, thank you. Joann Butler. 967 East Park Center
Boulevard, representing the property owner that is immediately south of this project
known as 10 at Meridian. A little different take. For the record we oppose the concept
plan and will oppose the preliminary plat. When their application is made if Cobalt
continues to be shown as it is shown on the concept plan, this application for annexation
and zoning appears to be premature. Perhaps it's appropriate to put this annexation and
zoning application on hold until the detailed plat is also submitted. Last month the Council
asked the applicant to go back and look at and redesign the multi-family and, of course,
I'm just talking about this area to the south along Cobalt. The Council will decide whether
this redesign meets some of the more welcome multi-family designs that you have had
come before you, like The Seasons at Meridian and so forth. Development like that have
set a bar-- a new bar for Meridian. For us this design does not meet that bar. The public
road, Cobalt, should be on their property. They would have had to design those buildings
much smaller, that is true, but they would have kept their development on their property.
Not to be too facetious, but perhaps the applicant's design of their project using their
nonconsenting neighbor's property makes you want to perhaps slap your forehead,
because it does us. We told the Council and the applicant at the last hearing that we
were try -- willing to try to work out some kind of agreement between the two of us that
compensates our client for burdening their property. That hasn't happened and the
detailed information that we have requested to try to draft an agreement has not been
provided and perhaps that's because it's just not available yet, which speaks to the
prematurity of the project and why I asked that maybe this be put on hold until the plat is
ready and you can look at the plat and we can look at the details of that plat and how it
affects our property together. The Council should not approve this application, at least
not where it abuts our client's property on the basis that maybe and only maybe the
neighbors will work out a road location and construction issue. There should not be any
innuendo that the Council is using its public process to approve a concept plan that can
only work if two private property owners agree outside of your public process. So, we are
asking you to hold off on the concept plan approval until the plat application is made. So,
that we have the detail to work together with property owners or in the alternative please
make it very clear to the applicant that any approval you grant tonight in no way means
that you would accept a preliminary plat application that mirrors this concept plan that
burdens our client's property without consent. Thank you.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Page 40
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 13—"
Bernt: Thank you for your testimony this evening. Are we going to get a deal? Yes or
no?
Butler: If -- I don't know. I couldn't say today, because I don't have the details --
Bernt: Close?
Butler: We have had one conversation -- I believe one conversation and a couple of e-
mails back and forth and that's it.
Bernt: So, you are not close according to what you are saying.
Butler: Technically no.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Joann, at some point from my understanding from the first hearing is that Cobalt
Drive, where it ends up meeting with the property to the west, will be on your client's
property at some point, it's just a matter of how much; is that correct?
Butler: Right. If you look at the site plan as it shows now, it shows Cobalt going straight
across the property and truncating basically north-south aligned with their western
property line. We are going to have to take it straight down south from there. Whether
that road is there or on their property just a little to the farther north, we are still going to
have to take it south. So, our contention is -- is this development ultimately should have
been originally designed to have that road on their property per ACHD rules. Their
buildings would have been smaller, that's true, and this is a use of our -- our client's
property that --they will look and try to work with them to be compensated, you know, and
-- appropriately, but in the meantime we just want to make it really clear that we oppose
it as it is without those details in place and so that we know exactly how this is going to
be developed.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Sorry to be so frank with you.
Butler: I was. I hope.
Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay.
Butler: Thank you.
Page 41
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 14 of 50
Simison: Any other sign-ups?
Johnson: There were no additional sign-ups.
Simison: Is there anybody that would like to provide testimony on the item at this time or
anybody online that would like to provide testimony? If you are online and you would like
to provide testimony we do have a couple of phone-in callers. Mr. Clerk, is it star -- how
do they notify us if they are on the phone?
Johnson: It's star 5 or start 9. One will attempt to mute and the other will raise their hand.
Don't know which is which.
Simison: Okay. Well, if you -- if you would like to provide testimony on this item and you
are on the phone, star 5 or star 9 or use the raise your hand function. Seeing nobody
wishing to come forward, would the applicant like to come forward for final additional
remarks?
Clark: Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street. This might be the most stunned that I have
been in a public hearing before. Let me just make a couple of points. So, Cobalt will be
south of our property line. That is -- it cannot continue through. The Ten Mile Interchange
Specific Area Plan has Cobalt continuing west. It doesn't have it dropping south. There
have been numerous conversations and in-person conversation amongst the principals
before the last hearing. The principals spoke again today. This was a huge -- that
testimony was a huge curveball to us. But I will just make one point. The alignment of
Cobalt is set. It needs to align on our property on the east side. It needs to be off our
property on the west side. What we have proposed in the first place we thought was
pretty equitable, because we have got the portion of the property that includes the lateral
crossing. What we have proposed is to make up for whatever is going to be on the other
side, because it needs to ultimately be on their side of the property line by contributing
property and by contributing cost to the -- to that road construction. We had offered that.
We thought we were headed in the same direction. Clearly you heard some conversation
today that we are very surprised by. But we think what we have offered is a very equitable
plan. We are happy to continue working toward a solution between now and the
preliminary plat. We see no reason to hold it up in the meantime.
Simison: Thank you. Council, questions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: So, what's the value of the requested approval if you have got this huge elephant
in the room that might -- might alter a lot more than just the alignment of the road? It
changes the multi-family as well. I mean what will you gain by seeking approval now and
still having that unresolved, as opposed to having them marry up whenever it does get
resolved?
Page 42
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page ———
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, that's a good question. The -- just -- what I
would ask the Council to keep in mind is that Cobalt does have to go south of the property
line. What we have proposed aligns it so that it's perpendicular to the Kennedy Lateral.
We think that what we proposed is equitable and when it comes to the Council's role
tonight, you have the ability to approve a concept plan that shows Cobalt moving across
the property line in the location where we have it. So, I think it's within your authority to
make that approval. We had hoped to have a solution with the neighbor. We don't think
that this should be held up based on -- on the comments that were made tonight. We will
continue to work with our neighbor, but we think it's within your authority to approve it as
we have -- as we have proposed it, because, again, I believe it presents an equitable
solution and because we have offered to make these additional -- these -- we have made
these offerings on top of that.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: A comment that gives me some pause. I don't disagree with the rights and
options that are in front of us, but if there is any scenario where -- it's that super
unforeseen, hopefully never happens, where it's not worked out and Cobalt on the
southern property never gets built. What would we do with this application? For example,
if you stubbed it there and never contemplated building it, would we look at this any
different?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, that -- that scenario is what often happens
where we stub to a neighbor's property and, then, the Council looks at a development
application when it comes on the neighbor's property and, then, continues it in accordance
with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan, which, again, would require Cobalt to
continue to the west south of our property line. So, I think that that's covered.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I have the same question as Councilman Borton that I -- I don't feel like was
really answered, which is that what does it benefit to have the concept plan tied to the
property, a DA started, if there is potential that the preliminary plat could be delayed? Is
it so that you can -- this permits you to go and seek tenants for these properties -- or kind
of give us some understanding of why not wait for the preliminary plat to be presented?
Sometimes we see -- see all three requests for annexation and zoning and planning at
the same time, sometimes we don't, but just kind of help us understand from your side
what the benefits and drawbacks are of holding off on improving -- you know, tying a
concept plan to this property.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, a lot of the reason that we came forward
with an annexation and rezone was because we wanted to have certain issues resolved,
Page 43
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page ———
including the access points. We needed to know what we had before we could really
invest the money on the engineering, because those access points, for example, were in
the air and so having our concept plan approved, that allows us some certainty to be able
to move forward on our preliminary plat and get the engineering data, so that we can,
then, go back to our neighbor and have the conversations that they are -- they are looking
to have. So, yes, it would be very helpful to us to have the -- have the concept plan
approval, so that we can move forward with that preliminary plat, knowing that we are all
rowing in the same place and not being speculative on whether there is going to be an
issue on the -- on the concept plan when everything comes back all at once.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Hethe, I mean there is a point that Joann makes, the fact that you could have
had this all on your property, except for the very southwest corner, because it will have to
line up at some point. It could have been drawn to where half of Cobalt -- you chop off
those two high density, move them forward and just half is on your property. It is
problematic where it lines up to cross Ten Mile Road that, you know, you have that parcel
that's kind of the empty lot, you know, so I can understand why you are moving that, but
I guess if you could respond to my comment that in some ways I feel like we are a pawn
in a negotiation here, that, you know, approve this and now that gives you leverage when
I think our preferences is rather you guys resolve this, come up with something both
parties can live with and, then, we can -- we can move forward. I really want to do what's
right, but at the same time I don't want to give one party an advantage over another party
based on our decision. We like the new plan. I think you got that feedback from Council
very strongly. But this is an issue that needs to be resolved and, then, we can -- we can
move forward, but -- so, if you want to respond.
Clark: Council Member Hoaglun, I think one thing that I would point out is that just having
Cobalt Drive swoop down at the very end is not going to be -- it's not going to work for a
collector layout. It's going to have to be significantly before that, which is why ACHD
directed that we stub to the neighbor to the south and so that's the reason we went with
this -- with this layout. We are certainly not asking for the Council to be a pawn in this
game. We have -- we have tried to get this worked out. We think that -- I think that this
applicant has gone above and beyond in making the offerings that they have in this case.
Unfortunately, the -- our neighbor to the south wants to have a lot more detail in an
agreement than we have right now and we won't have until the preliminary plat is ready.
Simison: Hethe, I don't know if it's for you, Bill. Without Cobalt Drive being built is that
-- is that a requirement for -- for this?
Parsons: Mayor, Council, if I may ask for a little bit elaboration. You mean as part of
stubbing it in or re -- right now the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan has a dashed
line somewhere in this area. It's -- it's not fixed. That line is meant to go float in that area
and as he has mentioned the alignment is preferred to be with Cobalt on the other side
Page 44
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page " —55
of the road, because that's where it intersects Ten Mile, which makes it safer for
intersections or people entering and exiting the intersection. So, yes, the expectation is
that per the Comprehensive Plan is that that collector street is part of the master street
map that we have endorsed from ACHD. So, the expectation is that needs to come in --
into the site somehow, whether it's to and through or stubbed to the property, I can tell
you that during our initial conversations with the applicant and they have always showed
this road layout and the only time that it came to our attention was when we started
meeting with Joann and some of her clients, because she also has other people that are
getting very interested in developing the rest of this area around this property and so we
had shared with her this concept plan and said this is what we -- we were supporting and
this is what they were bringing forward. So, at this point, yes, that needs to come in. How
it comes in -- again, it's -- this is a concept, but, usually, the first person that comes in
usually sets -- sets the tone of where the road stubs and goes and gets pulled into the
site and as the next property comes in we carry on the roadway.
Simison: How it comes in and how far it goes is subject -- and where, quite frankly, is
subject to this Council's viewpoint to a certain extent.
Parsons: You are absolutely right.
Simison: Council, further questions, comments for the applicant?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Woman Strader.
Strader: Question maybe for staff. I'm not sure. Maybe the applicant. But if we were to
approve the concept plan and, then, we get to the plat and this isn't worked out, what --
what can happen then? Can we require that there be an agreement at that point? I mean
how -- how would we proceed if we did it that way? It seems kind of unusual, but help
me understand.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, I will certainly give you my experience
with it and, then, you can maybe ask the applicant if they are willing to do that. But
typically -- we are at annexation right now. There is a requirement for a DA. So, in the
development agreement you can -- you as a Council Member can say we will not accept
a pre-plat until you have those road details worked out. That's one of your options this
evening. You can add that as a condition of approval, that with their pre-plat they submit
that documentation that that's been worked out. I can tell you right now looking at this
concept plan, we would want the plat to match with the concept plan. I mean if that road
was to shift up a little bit north, I don't think that is a substantial change to their concept
plan. I can see that happening, you could still have the parking there, you could still have
the open space between the buildings, yes. The footprint of the building shrinks and --
and they get less units on the particular property. But in the DA we are not saying do
more than --we are not capping them at a certain density on this product, we are capping
that -- this concept plan. So, as long as they still have the general layout and the open
Page 45
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 18 of 5O
space and the parking the way you see it here, I think even if that road does shift up
somewhat it's not going to substantially change what you are seeing here. So, it really
comes down to City Council's comfort level, whether or not you want that issue resolved
now or later and as you know as soon as we give zoning away, then, that discretionary
-- your discretion goes -- gets a little less, because at a plat, once zoning is in place, and
a plat, all we are really looking at is whether or not it complies with the comp plan and
their-- and their building those roads though the template that we have line out. So, that's
something that you need to ponder as well. I will go ahead an turn it over to Hethe if he
has any other commentary on it.
Clark: No, Mr. Mayor, just -- I would just say that I think Bill is spot on that applying a
substantial conformance standard if that road slides and those buildings move up just a
little bit, then, I think that that can be addressed. That's a worst case scenario.
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess on that same vein one thing I heard
Ms. Butler testify to was she wanted it clear that the Council, even in granting what level
of approval to this annexation, that they weren't necessarily tying themselves to this
particular drawing and I guess I don't know from the applicant or from Ms. Butler's
perspective, but I mean if this were to be a stub street there that would be a different
conversation we would be arguable whether that's the right place for the stub. If it was
halfway on your property and not -- and not shown to be on a finish road on an adjacent
property that there was no agreement to have a road there yet, I would feel more
comfortable with the city's approval, because we are just approving something on your
property, we are not approving something on somebody else's property and I'm not as
comfortable as saying, well, we all know we aren't really technically approving it. When
-- when we may not all be the same people sitting here when this comes back and so I
guess I don't know if this would delay, but I guess from a development agreement
standard it feels more enforceable and more protection for the city that it's shown as half
on your property, because normally with ACHD my experience has been that's what they
have required, you know, it's the half plus 12 and the other half will get built by the other
property whenever that happens and, then, that's clearly what the intention is here. I get
where you are going on the crossing and the trade and all of that, but, obviously, that's
not been resolved yet. But, then, we are not approving something else that appears we
are burdening another property when they are not in agreement with it.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, just some comments in response to the city attorney. This is a stub to
the -- the neighboring property and it is showing a road in a location on our neighboring
-- on our neighboring -- on a road that is on our--the neighbor's property that is consistent
with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan. So, there is going to be a road that
continues that direction regardless. The road has to be off of our property, because of
development that's already occurred on the west side of our property. It has to come off.
So, the stub is not at the western terminus of our property, the stub is on our southern
Page 46
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page ——"
boundary into our neighbor's property and the city always provides for future development
on neighboring property, because you do comprehensive plans and specific area plans
to show where roads are going to be on those -- on those properties.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I -- I will agree with what Council Member Strader said earlier in regard to this
project. I think it's fantastic. I think that you guys have done a great job with it. I think
you have listened. For me personally, even though I like this plan and you have done a
great job with changing the commercial and residential portions of it, multi-family portions
of it, I personally would feel more comfortable making a decision -- having you guys make
a decision prior to us approving this this evening. We had an earlier discussion with
regard to some -- a different application that has nothing to do with tonight where it got a
little clunky and we were going to approve this and with the expectation that this would
happen and we approve the plat prior to and it's turned into a pretty big mess for us. We
are going to get through it and everything's going to be great, but I don't -- I just -- the risk
of it happening again or something similar to it makes me pause for concern.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, can I have a second just to confer with my client and -- I have a couple
thoughts.
Bernt: Take a recess?
Simison: Okay. Ten minute recess.
(Recess: 6:59 p.m. to 7:12 p.m.)
Simison: We will go ahead and come on back from recess and see if the applicant has
any further comments.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Hethe Clark. And thank you to the Council for your graciousness in
giving us a couple of minutes to chat. So, this is what we would like to propose and I --
think Joann is willing to come up and confirm. What we would like to propose is that there
be a condition of approval that requires that we have an agreement on this issue prior to
submittal of the preliminary plat. Lacking an agreement, the road would be moved to be
split on the center line on the boundary, which is what you would do under any other
circumstance. Does that make sense? Joann, do you want to confirm?
Butler: Thank you. Joann Butler. For the record, yes, we did just talk about that during
the recess. Thanks for the time to address that and that we will work to see if we can get
that done prior to plat submittal and if you would make that a condition of approval we
would be comfortable.
Simison: Thank you. Mr. Nary.
Page 47
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 20——
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, we could also make that a condition of the
development agreement as well, so it's clear that -- again that condition would be the road
would need to move to the north or a resolution will be prior to preliminary plan. After the
north. I'm sorry.
Simison: Thank you. Council, are there any additional questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Cavener: Well, if -- if half of that collector, then, gets placed on the applicant's property,
is there going to need to be a change to the concept plan and, if so, does that need to
come back before Council?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault. I -- I don't believe so, because you would
be conditioning it such that it would allow for that type of an alternative and, then, I would
also point you back to Bill's comments -- Parsons -- about sub -- substantial conformance.
You will recall that he mentioned that if there was some reconfiguration of the road it's
staff's position that that would not be the type of thing that would require a modification to
the concept plan.
Simison: Mr. Borton, did you --
Borton: Yes. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I was going to ask Legal if now or -- or shortly if you
stated the condition -- right? We use the phrase move the -- move the road up -- isn't
really the most specific unit of measure. So, if there was to be a condition that we have
-- and maybe the applicant has -- like this --this is kind of on the fly. The specific language
you think would be crystal clear to include in the DA and as a condition of the plat that
would define that type of matrix?
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly Mr. Clark could weigh in. I think
what the intent was was it was not going to be a stub street, but that the conceptual plan
that is proposed would be either agreed to by the southern property owner prior to the
submittal of the preliminary plat, which would, then, allow it to be wholly on their property,
or, in the alternative, if no agreement has been reached prior to preliminary plat, then, the
road would be divided along the property line for half of Cobalt Drive to be on the northern
property and half to be on the southern property at that place where it shows the -- into
the stub area right there between the two properties. So, I could probably make it more
legalese, but I think that's the general concept we are talking about. I believe.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, the only thing that I would add to that is just recall that Cobalt ultimately
has to get all the way down. So, I would just indicate that the -- that there would have to
be approval by ACHD of that layout. So, it's -- it's -- it would have to be negotiated or
discussed with ACHD before that could be finalized. Again we have -- we have had
productive conversations, including in the hall just now, so I don't anticipate that this is
Page 48
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 21 of 50
going to be a problem, but we do want to make sure that there is -- there is explicit
condition language.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Under either scenario, Hethe, that -- that second access on the west -- western
most portion connects to Cobalt --
Clark: I'm not sure I understood.
Borton: The access that was added to Cobalt right there that the arrow is on --
Clark: Correct.
Borton: -- that will exist under either scenario.
Clark: Correct.
Borton: Okay. Great. Thanks.
Simison: All right. Thank you.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Member Bernt.
Bernt: Maybe just a quick conversation to make sure we are on the same page and
questions and comments are made prior to closing the public hearing, probably would be
the most important thing we can do.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I will start off with some comments. Finishing where we started, I think this is a
great improvement for all of the reasons described from the last hearing to this one.
Really, the only snag that knocked it sideways was Cobalt. So, appreciate the quick
constructive dialogue amongst the participants that what Mr. Nary described is to be the
gist of a condition within a DA that will resolve Cobalt either as depicted on this concept
plan or as described by Mr. Nary and agreed to by the applicant seems to be a fair
compromise. It's not going to change drastically -- really barely at all this concept plan,
these properties on the south -- southwest corner might nudge north, they might
compress a little, but, really, it's not going to alter this otherwise well designed application.
So, again, appreciate the applicant and the adjoining property owner trying to be
Page 49
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 22 of 55
constructive. This is certainly a project -- and application that I can support now that we
have that solution.
Nary: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Simison: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, based on our earlier discussion, before we
approve the findings for this application we will bring that back for conversation to make
sure we have got the findings the way you would like it.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I like it when Mr. Nary is reading my mind. It's just an amazing trait that you
have. That's right. That's right. Apologize for the hot air. Just a couple of comments.
Thanks to the applicant. My two big concerns were about the open space and really the
desire to really invest in commercial and I think you hit that both out of the park. So, like
my colleagues have said, I'm supportive. Candidly, this two-sided approach makes me
feel a little uneasy. I like these things a little bit more wrapped up in a box. Don't love
taking little breaks so things can be worked out in the hallways, but if staff feels confident
that we can get this achieved we have got an opportunity to have them come back. Trust
that you guys are going to embark on a path that's mutually beneficial. So, I don't have
any reason tonight to be opposing to this project and looking forward to seeing those
small details get worked out and something really great for Meridian being done.
Simison: Just -- I will throw my two cents in that I do also appreciate the changes and the
modifications. I think they really incorporate nicely the multi-family into the project and
makes it feel like a place you could see yourself being and not in the parking lot. So,
appreciate it very much.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I think everybody covered it. It looks great. Appreciate the changes. Love the
compromise to get it moving forward, so we can see this realized.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2021-0025 for the 10 at Meridian.
Bernt: Second.
Page 50
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 23—55
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: For the reasons stated by the record and by the Council and the applicant, I move
that we approve H-2021-0025 as presented in the staff report dated July 13, 2021, to
include the permission to allow the Kennedy Lateral to remain open as depicted in the
concept plan presented at tonight's meeting. That DA provision 8.1 and D is modified to
acquire the property to be subdivided prior to issuance of the first CO for the development.
That the Franklin Road access points are approved as presented. I think that was
condition 1-C. And that the DA will also include a provision as represented by Mr. Nary
and the applicant that has Cobalt Drive as depicted on the concept plan at today's hearing
or, in the alternative, that it has one half on -- constructed one half on this project, again,
as represented by the applicant and Mr. Nary prior to the preliminary plat. And to be
included in the DA.
Bernt: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not,
Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you, everybody. Best
of luck on getting your next phase figured out.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: And thank you again for Council Member Cavener's great suggestion. This is --
the opportunity came really quick for us, but to have particular attention when these
findings come back before us to make sure we have got everything crystal clear on this.
So, thank you for that.
3. Public Hearing for ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility (H-2021-0029) by
Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 3764 W. Ustick Rd.
Page 51
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 24 of 55
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a
request for the I-L zoning district for the purpose of constructing an
Ada County Highway District (ACHD) maintenance facility on 23.7
acres
Simison: All right. Moving on. Next public hearing is for ACHD Ustick Maintenance
Facility, H-2021-0029. I will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Good evening. Try to be quick
for you here. The application before you is for the ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility as
noted. The site consists of 23.7 acres of land currently zoned RUT, located at 3764 West
Ustick, which is approximately the half mile mark between Black Cat and Ten Mile. To
the north of the site is the Five Mile Creek. Show it a little better here. And the city's
wastewater recovery facility. To the east is the Nine Mile Creek with C-N zoning on city
property, which would be this property here. Future well and water tank site. I love getting
development right next to those. This just is great. To the south is Ustick Road with R-4
zoning and detached single family. To the west is RUT, which is county residential and
some agriculture still persisting on the site. Mixed use nonresidential is the future land
use designation for the site. The purpose of this designation -- designation is to designate
areas where new residential dwellings will not be permitted, as residential uses are not
compatible with the planned and/or existing uses. For example, the city's wastewater
resource recovery facility to the north. A heavy industrial use that should be buffered from
residential. Appropriate uses within this designation would include employment centers,
professional offices, flex buildings, warehousing, industrial uses, storage, retail and other
appropriate nonresidential uses. Staff believes that the proposed DA provisions, as well
as the screening methods proposed, will be sufficient in mitigating any noxious
consequences of the proposed use. So, staff finds that the proposed site plan, as well as
the use, will be -- is generally consistent with the comp plan. The request tonight is for
annexation and zoning, with a request for I-L zoning for this site. The annexation area is
actually 30.27 acres, but the subject site is only 23.7. This is because the applicant is
doing the city a favor and cleaning up some of our missed zoning with other applications
and including the Nine Mile and Five Mile Creek areas as well, which the staff does
appreciate. The proposed use for this maintenance facility falls under the public utility
major use within our development code. The project is proposed over multiple phases
from this year through 2028 and includes a number of different elements to the site,
including decant and washout area, broom shed, salt shed, truck washing, scales, an
admin building, fleet building, welding shop, as well as covered and uncovered storage
areas. The proposed use is permitted -- is principally permitted within the I-L zoning
district and is subject to specific use standards. Staff's analysis finds that the proposed
use is consistent with the specific use standards, as well as the dimensional standards of
the requested I-L zoning district, except for one point, which would be the position of the
admin building in the southwest corner of the site. I-L zoning requireds a 35 foot street
-- street setback and they are shown at 25, but they have plenty of time and room to move
that. The applicant is proposing solid fencing and the required landscape buffer is
consistent with code requirements. Solid fencing is proposed on the west and south
boundaries, with the open vision chain link fencing with barbed wire on the north and east
Page 52
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 25—55
boundaries. Despite the probable noise associated with this facility, staff finds the
proposed site plan offers adequate landscaping and separation from existing residents
by Ustick Road and should mitigate much of the noise from trucks and machinery. Access
is proposed via a connection of a new collector street that aligns with the Naomi Avenue
to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct the road as a three lane collector
with a deceleration lane and five foot detached sidewalk on the east side of this new
street. The street here. When the property to the west redevelops they will be expected
to complete the street by adding the sidewalk and have that detached as well. The
submitted plans show this new road to terminate in a temporary turnaround -- temporary
hammerhead type turnaround, approximately 625 feet into the site. Off of Naomi the
applicant is proposing two driveway accesses, which are both to be gated. Staff supports
the proposed access and road improvements. Sewer services are not currently available
to the site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Council waiver to delay connection to
city sewer. City water is readily available. It is not entirely clear at what point utilities will
be available or needed for the site, but due to the phasing and lack of sewer availability
the applicant did not submit any utility plans at this time. With future development the
applicant will be required to submit these plans and continue coordinating with the city to
connect to public utilities, including water needed for irrigation. The applicant is having
ongoing discussions with the city engineer on the best path forward for the sewer needs
and timeline of this project, which I will touch on soon. At the Commission hearing the
Commission discussed multiple items, specifically the timeline for the use of the site per
the phasing plan here. The construction of the deceleration lane and the overall phasing.
We also discussed potential issues associated with having large trucks utilizing the site
prior to the decel lane being constructed as part of the overall widening project, which the
applicant will discuss in more detail as well. They discussed the estimated timeline for
Ustick Road widening, which is currently shown -- they are proposed to be in the 2026 to
2030 integrated five year work plan, but it's being discussed to -- and that there is a desire
by ACHD to move that up to prior to 2025. Hopefully 2024. They also discussed how
concrete the proposed concept plan is in terms of the building placement and the phasing
and they discussed the capacity of the commission and city to limit the use of the heavy
truck traffic for the site via conditional approval or DA, which I did write and including a
new DA provision within the -- the site which is -- sorry. Down here in J. This is a new
DA provision that I created, which the applicant has noted some proposed changes. They
did recommend approval of it with this change. The only outstanding issue at the time is
this connection to city services. The applicant and Public Work staff did have additional
discussions following the Commission hearing and have agreed to a potential option for
the interim use of stormwater -- or I should say wastewater discharge, because the Black
Cat trunk shed to the west is not yet constructed, so this would have to be pumped to the
east a little bit, which, again, Public Works has not given their approval, but they are willing
to work with the applicant and I have proposed a DA provision in line with this to make
sure that the city can hold the applicant accountable. My proposed language is as such:
That the applicant shall obtain city engineer approval for the interim wastewater discharge
proposal prior to construction of the decant and washout areas as noted on the concept
and phasing plan. Additional pretreatment may be required per city engineer review.
Prior to the meeting I did discuss this with the applicant and they are fine with this
language and the additional DA provision. As noted, the applicant did respond to the
Page 53
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 26 of 55
Commission recommendation and noted these changes and gave these notes. With item
number C staff understands the concern -- I guess that you can -- Council has their
willingness to change it if they want. Staff just wants to ensure that the corridor along an
arterial is well maintained and looks good as we go along, which is why we said just the
whole Ustick frontage to be commercial based standards, rather than industrial.
Regardless, there would be no metal allowed to face Ustick, just to be clear. Regardless
if it's industrial or not. And that's not zoning, by the way, just our architectural standards.
The required multi-use pathway segment, detached sidewalks along Ustick and Naomi,
as well as a micropath and landscape buffers. We usually want those with the first phase.
That are proposed in the second phase. It really depends on what it is that they are doing
with the individual phases. As I noted I'm not necessarily married to the first phase if the
first phase is not going to include the landscape buffers anyways, because of the different
-- the decel lane and things like that. So, I will let the applicant discuss that a little further
with you. F has already been hopefully taken care of. And, then, lastly J. That was
something that I had to create based upon the discussion of the Commission and their
proposed changes I think make a lot of sense. So, I'm perfectly fine with those changes
as well. And just for your knowledge, this is more of a written way to talk about what they
are proposing in their phasing plan. So, following this I will stand for any questions and
take in -- take those in.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Not a question, just a comment, Joe, and I appreciate you touched on it at the
end. The pro-active approach of applying kind of commercial design standards, as
opposed to industrial for this particular project-- really thoughtful. I know oftentimes when
staff presents before us we are asking questions, well, why did you do this, why did you
just help us understand and I just -- I would like to take those opportunities just to say
thanks, appreciate your kind of pro-active approach and kind of educating us on the
process.
Dodson: You are very welcome.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Then let the applicant come
forward, please.
McKay: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm Becky McKay with
Engineering Solutions. 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. Business address. I'm here
representing Ada County Highway District. Different job for me tonight. As Joe indicated,
this particular site is within the influence area of the Meridian wastewater treatment facility,
which prohibits any residential development. This property had one single family dwelling
on it. It was primarily agricultural in nature. The Ada County Highway District purchased
this property, as Joe indicated, is 20.75 acres. To the east of the property is a city-owned
Page 54
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page— —55
parcel, which they plan on a -- a water tank will be located on that site. Where is the
mouse? What's that, Joe? The mouse is wonky. Okay. This kind of gives you an aerial
map. As you can see to the north of the property is Five Mile Creek. Along the northeast
boundary is Nine Mile Creek. You can see the wastewater treatment facility. In this
general vicinity there is a mixture of uses. There is a mini storage facility that I did north
of the treatment plant called Ten Mile Storage. McNelis Subdivision, which I did, is to the
east over along Ten Mile. You have flex space in there. You have got retail. You have
got a C store. I think they are coming in with some more mini storage. To the south we
do have a residential component. That's Dakota Ridge and Wilkins Ranch, which I also
did years ago, when I was younger and a little more spry. So, this area has a mixture of
uses. We have got the Ustick corridor here. When the district approached me to take a
look at this property, doing the due diligence, I did meet with your staff, met -- I met with
Public Works, Planning. They indicated they thought this was an appropriate use next to
the treatment plant. You can see this is the Ustick Road corridor looking east and the
Ustick Road corridor looking west. You can see the corn. They wanted me to come up
with a concept plan for this, so I did tour the Cloverdale facility. Their Adams facility. It
was imperative that the district, based on, obviously, the extensive growth in the Meridian
area, that they have a maintenance facility in northwest Meridian to, obviously, provide
better, faster service as far as the road networks are concerned, snow removal, sanding,
de-icing, et cetera. So, I kind of got a crash course in maintenance facilities and worked
closely with their staff, who were very talented and very helpful, to come up with this
concept plan that's before you. We pre-app'd with your staff on a couple of different
occasions. They had indicated, you know, the Council is going to want to kind of see
some type of a concept. Obviously, this is -- this is a rough concept. They will retain an
architect to, obviously, refine this, but it does include all the elements in which the district
proposes on this site. So, this evening we are asking for annexation and rezone to light
industrial, which is consistent with your Comprehensive Plan, which complies with the
overlay of the -- the treatment facility. The property is encumbered by a floodway, a flood
plain. We did take that into consideration in our -- in our site plan. We have been working
with your Public Works Department as far as the flood coordinator and what their
recommendations are. There was an existing house on the corner. Initially when I
submitted application the house on the southeast corner was going to be used as a
temporary administrative building. After further meetings with their commission they
determined that they would remove the home and would not utilize that as a temporary
administrative office. Laying this out we did provide for 25 foot of landscaping along the
Ustick Road corridor. We have a 300 foot decel lane. We have allocated, obviously, the
ultimate right of way to accommodate the rebuild of the Ustick corridor, which is in the
capital improvement plan for 2025. We also matched up with Naomi Avenue to the south.
So, ACHD will be building Naomi to the north, that north leg, and, then, when the property
to the west develops, then, they will come off that leg and Naomi Drive will, then, go
westward, obviously, to provide interconnectivity throughout that area. Right now there
is currently a 12 inch water main in Ustick. There is also a sewer main and manhole in
Ustick. This particular piece of property within your master sewer plan is right there at
the edge of that Ten Mile sewer shed and the North Black Cat sewer shed. So, what we
have been working with Public Works over the past -- probably eight weeks, providing
them flow rates, providing them information on the sweeper trucks, the VAC trucks, what
Page 55
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page——55
they will be discharging. What the needs of the district are going to be at this facility.
Obviously, in their budget it's going to be an incremental process or a phase process in
developing this site and, of course, the best laid plans, you know, obviously, what
happens, you get a monkey wrench or you get a new commission that may change that
phasing, but -- but, obviously, we have done the best to provide information to the city on
how we anticipate this to develop. Right now that North Black Cat trunk is approximately
2,650 feet to the northwest, so what we talked to Public Works about is some type of an
interim -- like grinder pump, which we would -- like for -- for example, the administrative
office, the shop, or some of the other facilities, do an interim pump pressure line going
into the existing manhole in Ustick and, then, at such time as that trunk is available, then,
the district would, obviously, extend it and, then, discontinue that interim discharge to the
Ten Mile trunk. It's kind of-- it's kind of funny, properties that are right next to the treatment
plants are the most difficult to serve. I had one at Nampa that was south of the Nampa
treatment plant and the sewer was too shallow to serve it. It was -- and so it's -- it's -- it's
kind of a funny situation. I have encountered this before. But what you see here is -- with
Naomi we will have a 20 foot landscape buffer. We met with your pathways department.
The pathway coordinator indicated that the city is planning for a multi-use pathway. We
built it in McNelis Subdivision along the Nine Mile and the Five Mile Creek. The city has
retained TO Engineers and they are designing a bridge and designing the pathway that
you see running along the north side of -- anyway, running along the north boundary.
There it is right here. So, the district has agreed that they will participate in construction
of the ten foot multi-use pathway. We will put a non-site obscuring fence. One of the
things that we talked about was something that would, obviously, meet the needs of the
district as far as security for their equipment and their facility, but yet be aesthetically
pleasing. So, we would do like a chain link coded -- color coded fence along both the
north and, then, along the east boundary. Along the south boundary we would do like a
Trex fence, an industrial height of about eight feet, and, then, along the west boundary
we would do the same. And one of the things that we did incorporate that the staff did
not ask us to do -- we have detached sidewalk that runs along Naomi and, then, along
the landscape buffer that we have going to the north up to Five Mile Creek. I also included
a five foot pathway, so people could come across Ustick at Naomi, because eventually
that's going to be a signalized intersection. Here is kind of an overall phasing plan. What
we did is -- is we took information from the district and, then, we created a color coded --
which kind of shows the phasing. Basically phase one for 2021 is removal of the existing
home and getting, you know, design plans for some of the infrastructure and
improvements within the -- within in the site. Phase two is in 2022 and that includes --
oops. So, there is phase one. You can see that the home is removed. And, then, phase
two shows that we will be building a decel lane. They will be building Naomi, kind of an
internal circulation. Getting the landscaping established along the Ustick corridor and,
then, getting the fencing, so that the site is secure. Phase two includes -- or phase --
phase three, excuse me, includes the decant center. You can see that in yellow. And,
then, 2024 is kind of the big year where they will install their -- their covered storage
facilities, their sand and salt shed, their fuel tank islands, their wash bays -- and I can't
read that small. Some other stuff. And, then, phase five is 2025. So, one of the things
that the district was very concerned about is not being held specifically to the phases,
because it -- their budget is going to dictate what they can afford to build each year. One
Page 56
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 29 of 55
of the items that came up that shows you kind of the --the Trex -- eight foot Trex industrial
fence and there is the color coded fence. One of the things that came up at the Planning
and Zoning Commission was when are you going to rebuild the Ustick corridor. Right
now it's two lanes. You are going to be adding additional traffic, additional truck traffic, et
cetera. It's important that this area has been building out at an increasing level and so
the district in their capital improvement plan has the Ustick corridor programmed for 2025.
Along with that corridor, then, they would, obviously, install Naomi and install the signal.
All access, as Joe indicated, is taken off of Naomi. This site will not have any direct
access to the Ustick corridor. We will have gated entry into -- into the facility. As you can
see we have a significant amount of landscaping and pathways that will serve this. In the
conditions of approval I did submit to the Council -- I apologize for the lateness of my
letter, but I needed to run it past the district and -- and there is lots of cooks in the kitchen
here and by the time I got everybody's -- everybody's input it was kind of late. One of the
things is in our conditions of approval 8-A-1 it indicates that they would pay the 303 dollars
for the development agreement. They have an interagency governmental agreement with
the City of Meridian to waive any costs or fees. So, that really wouldn't be applicable.
Item C deals with the design review guidelines. We designed the site so that -- and that
was due to your staff's input in the pre-application conference -- to kind of put the
administrative building right at the corner of the site, kind of as the anchor to the site. We
would have access into the administration building. It would not be gated. The gate, as
you can see, is further to the east and, then, we would have the -- the shop and, then, the
weld shop attached to that. They did review the guidelines. I reviewed the guidelines.
As far as application of them to that facility, we think that that makes sense. The only
concern I had was the covered storage. We kind of have an L-shaped covered storage.
The majority of that covered storage is oriented to the east, which will be the water tank,
but we do have a leg that will be oriented to -- along the Ustick corridor. Now, staff has
placed a condition on us that we will berm and fence and provide additional landscaping
beyond what is normally provided along the arterial. So, we -- we just want to make sure
that this isn't an excessive cost to the district for that storage building, but they have
looked at using different varieties, textures of masonry, so that it does have some
architectural features to keep a good aesthetic look along that corridor. We are in
agreement with the Public Works condition and I guess J is my last condition. The
Planning and Zoning Commission worded that such that the district was extremely
concerned that they would be caught between a rock and a hard spot. So, therefore, we
did provide the Council with some alternative language that -- that the intern uses that
may need a building permit and do not require an occupancy, that the applicant would be
able to put in like the decant center prior to the improvement along Ustick, because they
kind of stuck us with you will improve Ustick by phase X and that's just not viable for the
district and so what we provide is no certificate of occupancy shall be issued until phase
four of the project consistent with the submitted and revised phasing plan and the decel
lane along Ustick frontage is constructed. So, we just need that much -- you know, that
flexibility. Do you have any questions?
Simison: Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Page 57
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 30—55
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Becky, how -- how tall is that berm along the Ustick Road? I think you said an
eight foot Trex -- Trex fence would be on top of that.
McKay: Yeah. We have 25 feet of landscaping. So, the berm would probably be three
feet and, then, you would have maximum height -- Bill indicated in the industrial zone is
eight feet and we will use that Trex fence. So, as far as viewing the -- the backside of
that covered storage area, you are not going to see a lot of it.
Borton: I understand. And that's -- so I -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And, Becky, so that's going to be a single -- single story type of storage building,
not extra tall or a normal -- a normal height of 12, 15 feet.
McKay: Single story.
Hoaglun: Okay. And I just want to comment. Appreciate you putting in that pathway that
would connect Naomi to -- to the -- the parkway, which the -- or the --
McKay: Multi-use pathway.
Hoaglun: Multi-use pathway. Thank you. And also appreciate you putting it on your
property, not the other property, but so be it. And I had one other question. You had an
area that was hard to read. Years ago we didn't need these things and even, then, it's
kind of-- it looked like a regen area, but it also looked like an emergency access or some
access point to the east to the city property and I didn't know if there was another access
point for fire trucks or what -- what that was about.
McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, that's called a regen area and I will leave --
will leave Lloyd or -- Lloyd, can you address -- it's not an access, it's an area that they
use -- they explained it to me and it was Greek to me. Go ahead, Lloyd.
Carnegie: For the record, Lloyd Carnegie, business manager at ACHD. 3775 Adam
Street, Garden City. The regen is for our pieces of equipment that require regeneration
for the exhaust system. So, we want to designate a safe spot for them to do that regen.
Simison: Council, additional questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Page 58
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 31 —55
Cavener: Mr. Mayor. Becky,just maybe dovetailing on one of Council Member Hoaglun's
questions. That is a large L-shaped covered storage. I recognize it's one story, but what's
the anticipated height of that building?
McKay: We haven't designed it. I think -- I mean it's -- it's the -- the ones that I saw at --
at Cloverdale and over at Adams were less than 35 feet -- significantly less than 35 feet,
even to handle their -- you know, it's to park their trucks in.
Cavener: Sure.
McKay: So --
Cavener: Okay. Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Becky, help me understand which of these structures that are -- that are on
your concept plan are solid structures versus -- and I know you have referred to it as a
shed, but if it's what I'm thinking of that you have at the Adams facility, they are really like
big kind of canopy tents, really; right? Not really? When I think of a shed I think of a shed
in my backyard that's got a structure and a roof and I just want to make sure that I'm not
applying what I think is in my backyard to what you are planning to build out there.
McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, yeah, the -- the salt shed over at Adams Street
is kind of like the ITD salt sheds that you see along Highway 55 going north up to McCall,
because the -- I think it's EPA, DEQ requirements, that they have the salt covered -- salt
and sand covered and, then, like they have their decant center, that's an area where --
Cavener: Can you -- I'm sorry, Becky. I don't mean to -- Mr. Mayor. Becky, can you kind
of point -- I'm trying to get a sense --
McKay: Let me try to get this booger-- is it working, Joe? Is that you, Joe, or me? That's
you. The decant -- the decant area -- so, that's the decant area and so that's where their
sweepers come in, they discharge the material. Now, it's going crazy.
Cavener: Sorry, Becky. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense -- I don't know from the --
McKay: It's a concrete structure -- it's kind of a concrete -- it's a concrete base structure
and -- that decant area, the one I toured out at -- out of the Cloverdale site was a system
of concrete bays where they had to wash out for their sweeper trucks, pull up there, they
wash them out.
Cavener: So, Mr. Mayor? Becky, the decant bay is a solid structure without a roof?
McKay: Correct.
Page 59
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 32——
Cavener: Whereas the salt tents are a roofed based structure with no walls.
McKay: Correct. And, then, you have -- you have what they call --just in front of the salt
and -- and sand shed you have what they call their racks and so that's where their-- their
sanding trucks -- they have -- they have a little thing where they pick them up and put
them on the truck and that holds the sand. It's like a bed. That's what I'm thinking of. A
little bed area. Then they kind of had open -- open storage. Then they have -- you can
see the fuel islands and, then, they have what they call their mag tanks. So, those are all
open areas. Is that what's going on? We will try it. Oh, yeah. Oh, that's nice. Yeah. So,
here is the racks. You can see that there are -- there are fuel islands. This is the mag
tanks. So, the magnesium chloride that they have.
Cavener: Those are solid structures?
McKay: No. Those -- it's kind of a concrete pad and, then, those tanks sit on the concrete
pad and, then, the trucks come in and they -- they -- they refuel them and, then, this is a
concrete pad also and, then, that's like the truck wash. So, that's a structure. And, then,
this particular building -- I can't read that. I got to -- yeah. The broom shed. So, that's
for the sweeper trucks.
Cavener: And that's a solid structure or --
McKay: The broom shed is a solid structure that you see right there and there is the
drainage truck shed and, then, we have like truck scales also included in the site and one
of the things that -- that Heather was -- was insistent on that -- that we have a lot of pull
through, so -- to minimize those backup beepers. So -- well, I have to give her credit.
That was her idea and to make sure that -- that everything was continuous and we didn't
have a lot of backing motion. Operational hours are probably going to be 7:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. and, then, they will have night operations, obviously, if we have a significant
snow event or any type of emergency. Heather, do you have any comments that you
want to -- or any questions for Heather?
Friddle: I'm Heather Friddle. I'm superintendent for the Ustick maintenance site. I'm the
one that came up with the plan. So, I want everything to be a continuous flow and so that
there wouldn't be a hindrance with noise or have problems with the neighbors, so trying
to be very conscious of that, so --
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. I have several concerns and I will get into those in a bit, but I did
have a question while we have you here. What is the quality or environmental impact of
what you are discharging at this facility? You know, what are you -- what's coming off the
trucks and where is it going and is that okay and who says so?
Page 60
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 33——
Friddle: Mr. Mayor, Commissioner Strader, it's -- we have settling tanks. It's a decanting
station that we -- and we let the water in and it separates the solids from the liquids and
it goes through a phase approach with the forebay has settling tanks that it goes through
and it gets filtered out through a sand filter before it gets emitted into the drainage system
or the storm drain system. The waterline. And we have one at our Adams facility and our
Cloverdale facility. It's tested to make sure that there is no impurities or whatnot. So, we
are very conscious of that. We have the DEQ. We have our environmental department
that helps us with that. So, we look at that. So, we are very conscious of that to make
sure that it's not something that adds pollutants.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Council Woman Strader,just to touch on that more, they are going to be required
to do some environmental permits that the city does not do, but at the federal level. So,
all of that will be permitted outside of our purview as these come online. In addition to
floodplain permits as well, because the north half of the site is in a floodplain, which is
why they moved the decant and washout area from the northwest corner. So, they are
-- they are well aware of the environmental impacts that this could and may have, but that
will be handled outside of what our review is here in the state of Idaho.
Stewart: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Warren.
Stewart: Yeah. One of the other things -- this is Warren in the Public Works Department.
One of the other things that we talked to Becky about is that at some point we will want
to get our hands on that information with regards to the concentrations and so forth that
they are going to be discharging. So, we can analyze whether there needs to be a
pretreatment permit. We have talked about that. That's one of the conditions that was
added that, you know, we will want to make sure that we have a good idea of what's
coming out of there and if there needs to be a pretreatment permit with the city. So, we
haven't got that yet, but I think we can work that out and certainly we can develop a
pretreatment permit if that's what's required.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I will just outline my concerns right now and we will hear more, you know,
testimony and everything, but I just -- I just want to get those out there, so that you and
your team can address them, but they may be challenged. You know, to me the basic of
development has always been that we don't develop until the sewer is ready. I view this
as a pretty big departure from normal practice. I am concerned with having a DA provision
to enforce things. We just had a big meeting about our DA provisions and specifically
Page 61
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 34 of 50
issuing a certificate of occupancy is not an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure
that things happen. So, I have some pretty significant concerns about the sewer being
ready and, then, in addition, you know, hopefully, waiting for Ustick to be widened until
2024. You know, if this is a different applicant I don't know how I would view that. But
clearly we are not really using big trucks and this is within the applicant's control and I
want to see Ustick fully widened all the way to Owyhee High School and so I want to see
I think to be supportive, I guess, a plan for ACHD to do that faster or for that to happen
before I approve this. Or for you to work with the city -- somehow get that accelerated,
but right now to me, you know, waiting until 2025 for this, I just don't think it makes sense,
considering the state of that road.
Simison: Council, any additional questions or information for the applicant to consider
before we get into public testimony, if there is any?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: More additional -- Becky, is this facility coming online because of the growth in
the county and the need to expand? Is this relocating another facility? What's -- what's
the basis of this particular project?
McKay: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, the district has basically outgrown both of their
sites. The needs of -- the growth that -- that -- that we have seen in the valley, this is --
the needs for this to be a satellite site and the third full maintenance site is part of essential
services and, obviously, the Council and the Mayor have always been supportive of-- you
know, we need to provide essential services to take care of the growth that's taking place.
Obviously, hampering the development of this site is hampering essential services.
Concerning the sewer. We have been working with Public Works closely. This is right
there on the -- the borderline of two sewer sheds. We have dealt with this issue on
multiple occasions. We have had situations where we have had an interim service.
Obviously, we are -- we will work with your Public Works Department, your city engineer.
We have provided a significant amount of information data and since this will be coming
on incrementally it's not like we are going to be overloading or surcharging that Ten Mile
trunk by -- by this plan. As far as the improvements, the district has assured me they are
going to do everything they can to accelerate due to the fact that Owyhee High School is
coming online to accelerate that Ustick corridor widening. If at all possible they will try to
move it up. However, they qualified that -- that they have got to purchase right of way.
They have to design the arterial and there is just a lot of steps and even the best laid
plans sometimes get delayed if you get a hiccup. They -- they are going on the record
that they will not have any trucks going into this facility unless they have installed this
decel lane to accommodate getting those trucks outside and with this being over a -- you
know, a seven or eight year period, you are going to see this site develop incrementally.
It's not like it's coming online instantly and there is no improvements on Ustick Road. That
is not the case. That is not what the district is -- is asking the city to do. All they are doing
is taking this first step to get this property annexed and, then, start working on acquiring
Page 62
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 35 of 50
right of way, design plans, working with Public Works, getting an architect online. This is
just the first step in a multi-step process and that we asked the Council and the Mayor
support it, because, obviously, your priority area in northwest Meridian is going to put
even more of a significant burden on the district and its resources and so they need to
get out into this area.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Strader: Becky, appreciate -- and Council Member Strader appreciate you also kind of
addressing some of the questions there. I just -- I want to make sure that I heard you
right. This is a third location, not a combination of your two existing facilities?
McKay: No. It's a third location --
Cavener: Okay.
McKay: -- with a new manager. It's going to have new staff and that's one of the other
things that they -- they qualified with me is as they bring on each phase they are going to
be hiring new employees for those tasks. New mechanics, et cetera.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, can Becky speak in the microphone, please.
Simison: Yeah. Can you repeat that, Becky.
McKay: As each phase comes on and -- and they start building the -- this incrementally,
the district will be hiring new employees to work at this site. It's not like they are
transferring employees from other sites to here. This will be a whole new independent
third maintenance facility in Ada county.
Friddle: And adding equipment to accomplish that.
McKay: And adding equipment. That's the other thing. They have to budget equipment
-- significant amount of equipment, employees, and, obviously, infrastructure and
buildings.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Council Woman Strader is mentioning, you know, a point that I think is of
concern is the road widening and the decel lane is great to have, but I'm curious as to
when the center turn lane -- when trucks are coming from the west to make that left turn.
As you know, I live one mile exactly to the east and when that light changed I know on
Linder you are going to wait a while and I have got a car I'm turning left and I can sit there
Page 63
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 36 of 50
in the center lane, but this is going to backup traffic immensely, depending on time of day.
So, I want to make sure I understand the phasing plan. Phase one cleaning up the house
and the property. Phase two looks like you are doing the paving, getting things ready.
Phase three -- so, it looks like to me -- and I could be wrong -- the decant area and a
washout -- so, there will be some trucks coming in there, the sweeper trucks and whatnot.
So, we will have trucks starting -- can you give me some idea how many trucks that would
be? I know emergency situations are kind of the other. But for --for those other facilities
-- for normal operation.
Friddle: It's probably going to be no more than ten, if that, you know. It's just -- as we
progress, so it's just going to be a site out there for existing ones that can come out -- if
they are in area that can use that. But they will be primarily still using the other sites that
they are located at until we get that completed.
Borton: Okay. And, Mr. Mayor, follow up?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And, then, just to keep moving forward, then, in phase four, 2024 -- and, again,
understand budgets and whether they slide this way or that way, you are going to be
constructing the covered storage and the bulk of the facility with that -- in that phase and
to me that means definitely there is going to be a lot more truck traffic, it's going to be
almost fully operational -- quite -- quite a few trucks, but the -- if I understood correctly,
the road widening is scheduled for 2025?
Friddle: Yes. In the CIP -- in the CIP, but if-- depending on when we can -- budgets allow
we will move that up, so --
Hoaglun: Correct. And so anything that we would condition with the phase, it would just
stick with that phase, whether it gets moved up or moved back, is that how -- I mean that
-- in my way of thinking that's how we would do it, but -- not tied to a year, but to a phase.
So, if you move up a phase and we asked for something to be done in that phase, that
would happen when that happens. So, it doesn't -- doesn't matter on the year, because
it may get delayed and that requirement, then, would also be delayed to that phase --
tying it to the phase, so --
McKay: Yes. Go ahead.
Daigle: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Paul Daigle, chief of staff over at the Ada
County Highway District. One of the things that I cannot promise -- because the -- the
phases are part of the budget process, yeah, if we condition things to a date, I cannot
speak for the commission. The commission are the ones that will be ultimately
responsible for saying proceed with this project. So, I can't sit here and promise you that,
yes, you condition that Ustick widening the base here is going to have a --we cannot say
that. I cannot speak for the commission along those lines.
Page 64
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page— —55
Hoaglun: Right. And, Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And to that point -- so, if we say, hey, in 2024 if this is going to happen you are
going to have this many trucks, however we -- we discuss it, we want to have a center
turn lane and that gets delayed, so that center turn lane would be delayed, but also that
phase, because the phase was delayed. But if you move the phase up, then, that's going
to be part of the requirement for that phase, depending on the budget and -- and we
remind the Mayor of that all the time, that, you know, he can't --
Daigle: And you folks have the perfect opportunity when we have joint meetings to remind
the commission of some of your wants and wishes as well.
Simison: A question for --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: One second. From a very practical standpoint how do you operate this facility
with no employee parking? Which is in the final phase. I mean that's what -- that's what
-- one of the things I look at is like -- is it only going to be interim traffic in 2028, final
phase, or final phase is when you actually become an operational site?
Friddle: Mr. Mayor, yeah, we are going to set aside an area for temporary parking for the
employees on the site when we do the -- you know, there is going to be an area where
they are going to do that in the interim, so --
Hoaglun- Okay.
Friddle: -- put that on the plan, because I was just making the whole conceptual plan.
Borton: Okay. So, that would be when paved parking in theory is on there, but not
necessarily -- okay. Well, that helps us -- okay.
Friddle: The whole site will be paved.
McKay: The whole site will be paved.
Friddle: Eventually. Yes.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Yeah. I'm tracking with my fellow Council Members questions and thoughts
on this, but I would also like to see kind of an overlay of a timeline of road development
and the amount of truck traffic that will be coming through. Obviously, right now they can
drive on Ustick Road, there is no limitation of -- you know, we see construction trucks all
Page 65
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 38 of 50
over the place, but I did not have the knowledge of how much that changes the -- the size
and level of intense use of this area would be really helpful to know. The one thing I
wanted to point out along with what Councilman Hoaglun --where he was headed, is that
let's say that this is correct and 2024 is primarily when the majority of the infrastructure
-- of the structures are built and developed -- yeah, it's in the five year plan for ACHD to
build that section of road -- to widen that section of road, but that's just the design phase
-- my understanding it starts in 2025. So, we could be out in 2025, really, until that actually
is constructed, so now we don't have a year, we have three years, so I guess I just -- I
wouldn't mind seeing some sort of timeline that pieces together for us of what to expect
in relationship to the phases, in relationship to the construction of Ustick and I realize,
again, that it was a budget thing, but over the years that I have been watching this happen
I feel like ACHD has gotten a lot better at actually sticking to the -- the fiscal year and the
five year plans that have been created, seeing fewer modifications of those -- and maybe
I'm imagining things. But I think it's good for us to at least have -- have some idea of --
you know, we -- just as you do, we -- if you have been listening to our entire meeting
tonight there has been a lot of conversation about being open with the public and, you
know, putting out there what it is that -- that we expect to have happen and so we feel
that obligation to do that for our residents. So, I just want to say I -- I agree, I would like
to see some more information, to the best of your ability, as to what to expect for a timeline
over the next eight years and the phases involved.
McKay: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perrault, one of the things that --
Simison: Becky, if you can get a little closer to the mic.
McKay: One of the staff members brought up is that that section of Ustick right in front of
the site is already three lanes at this juncture. As far as the Ustick Road rebuild and
signalization and all that, that 2025 date is a construct date, not a design date, so -- so, it
would not be started in 2025, it would be accomplished in 2025. Correct? Construction
started in 2025. Design in '23.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: To build on this more, I would want to reiterate that one of the DA provisions that
were added by the Commission does address this, at least in some way, to say that none
of the buildings that will require any kind of CO cannot occur until the deceleration lane is
constructed, which should help with some of these truck issues. Again, it's tied to the
phase, which is shown as phase four, which includes the -- probably what would bring the
most amount of trucks, as you guys noted, with the salt shed and the covered storage
and all those things. So, Commission and staff have worked through some of those
issues for you guys. So, I did want to just reiterate that.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Page 66
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page———
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: So, Joe, just maybe to get some initial feedback, we had a meeting earlier today
where I -- I thought it was pretty clear that at some point we are obligated to issue a CO
and a TCO when all -- there is not a life safety issue in any of the buildings and so -- I
appreciate that we may have some leverage point here, but I don't know how it works at
peak hours or the number of trucks coming into another facility, what's to stop us from --
what do we do if 40 trucks come through here and a building is not constructed? What
leverage do we truly have to -- to enforce this to ensure that it happens?
Simison: Mr. Nary, I think that's for you.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, I was afraid you were going to say that. So, yes, as we spoke of earlier,
tying the COs to that are -- can be a staff challenge to address, but I don't have a good
answer to the fact that if there is no buildings there, but the truck traffic is coming there,
for whatever purpose, to just drop their loads off and leave the site, not -- not work on that
site, I don't have a mechanism to enforce that. I don't have a code enforcement officer
that could sit there and count trucks and I have neighbors complaints and I have letters
to them and at the best, if necessary, we would go to court and try to enforce that through
our -- through our development agreement. But, otherwise, it is -- it is a significant
challenge to use a DA for that type of enforcement.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: You know, first off, grateful for our strong partnership with ACHD and for all they
do for us. I really appreciate it and wanted to say that on the record. With that said, I --
I'm looking through my notes here from this past weekend and, again, yesterday, just
going over some last bit of items and Council Woman Strader has hit on almost every
single one of my concerns that I have written down, so I just wanted to state for the record
that I share the same concerns as well.
Daigle: Mr. Mayor, if I may address a couple of the questions that came up. Currently
even at our Adams and Cloverdale facility we don't have 40 or 50 trucks coming and
going. The trucks leave in the morning, go out into the field and they typically operate out
in the field. Some of the drainage trucks and some of the sweepers do make it back to
dump their loads and take on water and go back. At each of the facilities you are probably
looking at -- I think we have about 12 to 15 of the heavy dump trucks and they are not
coming and going. It's the 12 or 15 sweepers that come and go. Some of the drainage
trucks come and go. There is not going to be a whole lot of traffic, especially before we
get all the buildings built. You know, some of the sweepers are going to be out in this
area. We will use a decant station. You know, you are probably looking at maximum six
or eight a day. You know, as we start to get some of the facilities built and we start getting
people stationed out there, you are still not going to get truck traffic as you are talking
about with 40 trucks a day. As I said, the trucks will be out in the morning, they come
Page 67
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page--"
back at night, and there will be a few times when they are coming and going. Winter ops,
you may get a little bit more, because you are having to come back for salt and sand
loads. But nowhere near that the 40 trucks a day coming and going from the facilities.
Simison: Council, additional questions for the applicant at this time? Thank you. This is
a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this
item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do not.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to provide testimony on
this item? Or anybody online? Which I doubt that to be the case seeing who is online.
Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, this is Steve.
Simison: Mr. Siddoway, are you public, testifying as Steve Siddoway from your home, or
are you staff looking to make comment?
Siddoway: Staff.
Simison: Okay. Let me just make sure -- yes, I think we are good. Go ahead, Mr.
Siddoway.
Siddoway: Okay. First of all, I would like to -- one statement and two question --
clarification questions regarding the pathway and I would also like to start off expressing
some gratitude for the many partnerships we have with ACHD. But my -- so, my -- my
statement about this pathway is that -- this is a -- a key segment for us and one that I'm
very interested and, frankly, excited to see the possibility of it moving forward. It is a -- it
does fill a key gap between the existing pathway on the McNelis Subdivision on the west
and the Quartet Subdivision extension of this pathway to the east. My two questions for
clarification -- one is related to the bridge over the Nine Mile Creek to the west -- sorry.
To the east -- east of the subdivision and I -- in preparation for tonight's hearing and I go
through the staff report and I noted in a couple of locations Item J under pathways and M
under waterways, a reference to the bridge. It says the applicant has proposed to build
the required multi-use pathway, as well as to construct the pedestrian bridge over the
Nine Mile Creek to the east. Staff appreciates the added cooperation with the Parks
Department on extending pedestrian facilities. I haven't heard any reference to that
bridge over the Nine Mile Creek, so I just wanted to clarify if that is intended to be
constructed along with the rest of the pathway or not. My second question is just
regarding the phasing plan. I noticed -- I noted in the proposed changes in the conditions
that it will move from phase one to phase two. I don't have any particular heartburn over
that, but I also noted the desire not to be held to any particular phasing plan, so I don't
know how to -- how to do this. I am sensitive to the fact that any phases are subject to
the conditions of approval of budgets, but if it could at least be tied verbally to that, you
know, first phase of paving on the site, which is currently shown as FY -- as 2022, I think
Page 68
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page— —"
that works and so I just wanted to try and get some clarification related to the phasing
and, then, also the clarification on anything to do with that bridge. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you, Steve.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Joe, are you going to try to answer those questions?
Dodson: I can answer the -- yes, I will try. And, then, Becky can back me up. I will admit
a mistake of discussing the pedestrian bridges in the staff report. I was mistaken while
writing that they are not proposing to construct the bridge. They will construct our
segment and, then, the Parks Department was going to construct a bridge per the
conversations that I have -- I was not privy to, but have heard about between the pathways
coordinator and the applicant. That was a mistake by me to discuss that so directly in the
staff report, and which is also -- thankfully I didn't put a specific condition in there, but that
was my fault. And, then, also with the -- with the phasing I think what -- they requested
changes to saying that the pathway gets construction with phase two, which would be the
paving. It makes sense. I believe, Steve, that that's what they are trying to do. If we
want to change the language a little bit to include with the first phase of pavement that
would make sense as well, to include that additional language.
Siddoway: Okay.
Simison: So, did you get your questions answered sufficiently to your knowledge?
Siddoway: Yeah. It does. I was, obviously, hoping for that -- to see that the bridge was
part of it, but I do -- it looks like it might be actually an off-site improvement now that I'm
looking at this version of the phasing plan. Looking at the previous one it looked like it
might be at least partially on their site and maybe it made sense for some shared costs,
but if it's an off-site improvement it -- maybe it does belong to us and I just don't have
those details right in front of me. So, I wanted to clarify it while we are on the record.
Simison: Okay.
Dodson: Yes. Mr. Mayor, to confirm it is off site. It is within the irrigation district's land
completely. The bridge would be.
Simison: Thank you. Becky, are you coming forward for the final --
McKay: Becky McKay. Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. The bridge off site. It is on
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District property, not -- no portion of it lies within this site and
we were told that TO Engineers had been retained by your Parks Department to design
and that that would be part of the city's portion of improvements out there. But yet they
expected the district to construct the multi-use pathway along all of their frontage of Five
Mile Creek and make connection and they wanted to make sure that that bridge that we
Page 69
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page—of 50
hooked up to where it was coming across, so they sent us their CAD drawing and, then,
phase two would -- that's what we are asking for, since phase one doesn't include really
any improvements, other than removing the home, phase two would include the multi-use
pathway. So, that we could get that online and get that pathway moving westward.
Simison: Becky, was that your closing remarks? Okay. Well, the applicant's closing
remarks as well and the clerk already started your timer, but --
McKay: Oh. In the closing remarks one of the things that was brought to my attention is
at that full build out of this facility ACHD determined, based on the ITE, that there would
be 28 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour and as far as the level of service right now
on Ustick it's better than E and I guess my closing -- my closing comments are, you know,
we want this to be a partnership with the district and the city to make this happen. I mean
we come before you guys and we talk about fire stations and police stations and sewer
capacity and water capacity. ACHD is a part of that infrastructure that we all benefit from
and we use and it's their desire to work as a partner with the city to make this site happen
to better serve their constituents, which are also the city constituents. So, we would ask
for support of this annexation, so they can move into their -- their design working with
your staff to -- to, obviously, make this happen. I think this -- there is no better location
than this one as far as I'm concerned. It's perfect for north Meridian, being by the plant,
by the water tank, along the Ustick corridor. It's obviously targeted for a significant
upgrade.
Simison: Council, any final comments? I think you should stick around.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I was just going to say that as -- as we discussed this, I think I would like to
leave the public hearing open during our discussion,just because to me this is more about
a timing and what goes where when and how that all works together and I think we might
have more questions and have some dialogue on that. There is -- there is a lot of good
things about having this in that location in north Meridian and needing a facility, it's just a
matter of how do these things work together with the roads and other -- other phases, so
If Council's okay with that to have those discussions, be probably a lot easier.
Simison: And I will piggyback. I know you are representing the applicant, but when we
talk about fire stations and police stations and what we -- what we often talk more about
is lack of roads. Not lack of street sweepers, you know, and it's road infrastructure -- if
I'm ready what I'm hearing tonight it's the road. That's going to be a big question mark
about -- to Councilman Hoaglun, he's talking about timing.
McKay: Mr. Mayor, I fully understand.
Simison: Yeah. That's the infrastructure needed.
Page 70
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 43 of 50
McKay: And the district has assured me that upgrading that Ustick corridor is -- is a top
priority to them. They realize the -- the significant need for it. When we had our
neighborhood meeting we only had three residents that attended. None of them objected
to the site and the only item that came up was when are you going to rebuild Ustick. So
-- so, yes, it's -- I think it's on the minds of everyone. Obviously, that's within their purview,
but they need the time to -- like I said, purchase right of way, design the facility, build the
facility and I think what they are saying to you is the latest we would start construction
would be 2025. If at all possible we will accelerate that and, hopefully, start in 2024. This
site is going to take quite a bit of time for them to retain an architect, retain engineers and
get their EPA, their DEQ approvals, work with your Public Works. I mean it's -- it's -- it's
going to take time. It's a complicated kind of process. I was surprised when I toured both
our facilities. I guess I didn't realize what -- all the things that happen behind the scenes,
but -- but we need those things as a community. Meridian needs them and the district is
here to provide them and we just need to find a mechanism and a way that we can do
that. Thank you.
Simison: And what I will say from a practical standpoint, I think we all can agree that this
is not going to look like the Cloverdale facility. I mean I have driven by that for years and
it's -- I appreciate the effort that has been done here to try to keep from view what that
looks like, because it's -- you know, it is an eyesore for parts of our community. I'm not
going to say our wastewater treatment plan is a beautiful thing to look at in an open -- we
don't have high walls guarding the, you know, view of that, it's tucked back and so the
elements of this that are tucked back --you know, I can get that. The stuff that's up closer,
though, I think that even if you look at our -- Mr. Siddoway was on here, our parks
maintenance facility that we have, you know, that's visible from the road. It's back. It's a
pretty nice facilities at the same time and so I think the quality of what's built, whether it's
screened or not, I think that's an important component, especially as you rise above, you
know, the dismal heights, because -- sorry. When I drive by Cloverdale -- what do you
see? That's not what I think our residents want to see for a price point that is conscious
of taxpayer dollars at the same time, but --
McKay: And, Mr. Mayor, I think -- I think you -- you hit the nail on the head. One of the
things with the Cloverdale site is that's an old site and they have purchased additional
property and, then, obviously, tried to, you know, install landscaping, but it's kind of been
a retrofit. The Adams site is kind of the same way. This particular site they have the
benefit of designing it from the ground up and they are, obviously, committed to making
sure that this is not an eyesore, that it complements that Ustick corridor and they are
willing to spend some additional monies to make sure that aesthetically it's pleasing and
that's why we -- you know, we, obviously, oriented some of these buildings up there next
to Ustick and next to Naomi, you know, and it's not just a sea of parking like you see at
Cloverdale and Emerald, that -- you know. And they are willing to add additional
landscaping, up the ante on fencing. Their commitment is here and I have been pleased
with -- with how much they have -- they have worked with us and the staff.
Simison: I think that's clear and I think it's just making sure that we don't lose sight of that
as this moves forward.
Page 71
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page———
McKay: Sure. Understood. And I think that they will take that message back to the
commission and back to their superiors.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: I just want to touch on two finite points real quick, just to make sure that they
are clear. One was regarding the landscaping. I'm not requiring a berm, just to make that
clear. No berm. Just denser landscaping with landscape beds to help mitigate the noise
associated with that. Trees. As we all know, you go anywhere near the coast, trees help
so much more than pretty much any fence you could think of for noise mitigation. So,
that's why we are wanting the denser landscaping. And, then, lastly on the sewage and
the potential -- using the grinder pump to pump into the Ten Mile trunk shed, preliminary
models have shown that it can handle what's shown as a potential flow from this site. So,
there should be no issues there from the Public Works perspective as well.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Joe, real quick. That south covered storage that's along Ustick and you talked
about not having metal. So, does a roof have to be asphalt or some other material or can
they utilize a metal roof for that particular facility?
Dodson: Great question, Councilman Hoaglun. The roof material is not discussed as
much in the architectural standards manual, it's more the wall material. The roof can be
metal roof. Correct. It just can't have high reflection. They don't want to blind people
driving down the road.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Becky, I guess one more question if I can. I guess maybe two questions. You
had talked about a berm, so my assumption is that you -- the applicant, they are not
opposed to a berm as well. I know it's not in -- conditioned in the staff report according
to Joe, but is that something that you are --
McKay: Yes, they are comfortable with -- with some berming. But with the -- obviously,
with the height of the fence we don't need a huge berm.
Cavener: Sure.
McKay: We can do three foot berm, 11 foot fence and, then, have planter beds,
landscaping, you know, go through the full CZC process and have the staff provide
comment on the architect. Technical standards. They look through your design standards
and, you know, there were some masonry buildings, which had different materials and
Page 72
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page"—"
textures and colors and they said, you know, we can do that on the back of that -- of that
building, you know. So, if you are envisioning like an RM Steel Building, that's not what
their intent is, no. Not on what's exposed to Ustick. No.
Cavener: One more, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Becky, is that your -- your right turn lane there -- you know. And you have
always heard a lot of feedback from Council tonight about concerns about the road.
Would your client be opposed to having access off Naomi onto Ustick only be right out
until Ustick is improved?
McKay: I have to defer to my client --
Cavener: Maybe the question can be answered later. I just --
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Strader.
Strader: Maybe an idea -- I'm not sure, Becky, what -- what direction you and your client
want to go. We appreciate the partnership with ACHD. I just -- I'm wondering if you guys
want to consider a continuance to go back and discuss with the commission if they are
able to accelerate the plans to widen Ustick. If you want to take the opportunity to see if
that's possible and how that could be accelerated or if it can't be accelerated, if they want
to try to work with the city. I know the Mayor has often suggested plans to accelerate
improvements and, then, come back to us with something more fully flushed out. I can't
speak for the rest of Council. I'm -- I'm not comfortable -- you know, widening Ustick is
within ACHD's complete control and I'm not convinced that a CO issuance or these DA
provisions give us any enforcement whatsoever to make sure that these issues are
mitigated. So, that's my concern. So, I just wanted to throw that out there. If you want
to go back and -- and get a timeline more fully flushed out where you could perhaps
accelerate and reprioritize Ustick to make it, you know, one of the top priorities.
Daigle: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, again, Paul Daigle, chief of staff. With regard to
the meeting, as I recall you guys have just sent us a letter asking for a meeting to discuss
some sidewalk issues. So, it would be a perfect opportunity for us to continue this
discussion with the commission, especially with regard to accelerating the timeline. With
regard to the right-in, right-out, at least initially, since there is not going to be that much
truck traffic there, I think we could -- we could go along with that at least initially until we
start getting a little more traffic through there. So, I will give you a tentative, yeah, we can
probably go along with that.
Page 73
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 46 of 50
Simison: And just-- I don't want to run afoul. Mr. Nary, I assume we don't want to --would
we have to notice a public hearing for a joint meeting to have a conversation with ACHD
about items related to this?
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean that's -- that's a great question,
because, again, we are mixing up a land use record with now a joint meeting record and
that's a little more problematic to do -- I mean without really running afoul of trying to
combine them, if there is a reason to. So, although I appreciate the offer, I don't know
how we could do that. I think it's problematic. I think that's why the Council's request was
for the staff to go back and talk to the commissioners and come back and report it as part
of this hearing, rather than try to put it back on the Council to do that as part of a hearing.
Now, again, if the Commission President wants to come on behalf of the commission or
a commission representative wants to come and give testimony on behalf of the
Commission, maybe that would be a cleaner way to do it.
Simison: Thank you.
Daigle: And, Mr. Mayor, Council, I will take that message back to the commissioners. I
will be meeting with them tomorrow, so --
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just a brief comment. Councilman Strader's comments with regards to Ustick I
think is a critical piece for me as well. The reference to completing that to Owyhee. This
is a corridor that's going to have now, amongst everything else, you have a pile of kids all
over this road. This is intense use. It really is. I mean there is going to be a lot of trucks.
This is a forever decision. So, that, among other issues, is a critical issue for me as well,
so having that commitment accelerated and defined clearly is key.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor, one of Council Woman Strader's points regarding CO, understood I
wasn't there for the conversation, but I understand the premise of that. My original
language, if you look at J, does say no building permit can be submitted, which is more
restrictive. We are not holding a CO at that point. We are not even letting them apply for
a building permit. So, it's more restrictive. It might mitigate some of those issues.
Obviously, the applicant doesn't want that, but that's why they are requesting some
changes, but we do not have to allow that. So, just wanted to leave that on the table for
Council as well.
Simison: Thanks, Joe. And I'm not going to put words in Council's mouth, but I'm going
to put words in Council's mouth. What I'm hearing is no building period. No certificate
until, one, Ustick is constructed, not -- so, I think that there is probably a --
Dodson: Sure.
Page 74
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page- V,55
Simison: -- whether it's phase four -- but that's what I'm kind of hearing.
Dodson: Understood.
Simison: So -- and just from my standpoint, you know, I'm -- I'm seeing -- I'm counting
votes just like you are. As I already mentioned, the roads -- the road priority is bigger
than the street sweeper priorities in my book, so if you are counting where the Council is
right now I think it continues to be a great option for this -- to figure this out.
McKay: Okay. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to -- for the staff to go back to the
commission and, hopefully, we can gather some additional information and, you know,
give you more breakdown of the trip data based on the phasing and -- and come back
with some better answers for you. So, I guess I would ask that you defer this item, give
us an opportunity to -- to gather that information and have the staff go back to the
commission.
Simison: Council, would you like further comments?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, just for Becky to find out what -- what time -- how much time is
needed to -- to accomplish that?
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
McKay: Two weeks they are asking.
Dodson: Sorry. I was just going to say not August 17th, because I will not be here.
Please. My wife and I will finally do our honeymoon, so --
McKay: I don't want to impinge on his honeymoon.
Dodson: Please don't.
Cavener: Joe doesn't want that either.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, July 27th is available. August 3rd is not. And, then, August 10th is
as well. Although August 10th is pretty crowded, so I would recommend going beyond
that to Joe's honeymoon or two -- to two weeks as requested.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Unless I misunderstood some of the direction, it sounds like the ask is a really
big one. Not so much staff level matrix on the use might not be as intense as we think. I
think if we assume that this is extremely intense and there is lots of trucks and it's -- and
it's more of the policy consideration, perhaps, of the commissioners to say, you know,
Page 75
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page———
would you agree to a specific provision that has this commitment to accelerating Ustick
Road from Ten Mile to the high school prior to a building permit for phase four; right?
Where the uses really would even begin. It's a really clear, but hard ask.
McKay: Okay.
Borton: I don't know if that allows them to even gather within two weeks necessarily to
talk about the pros and cons of that, but --
McKay: Okay.
Borton: -- I think to be clear that's what I felt like I was hearing from us. That might
necessitate a little more time on your end perhaps.
Daigle: If I may, I would still like to go for the two weeks. I want to try and get commitment
from our commission and get you folks some answers. If I find out that it's going to take
a little longer, then, I will beg your forgiveness and -- and we will ask Joe when it's
convenient.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Just for schedule's sake, I would -- I would put it at least until Joe is back from his
honeymoon, whenever that date is, according with how it looks with our already
scheduled evenings. I will leave that up to the clerk to let us know what that is.
Johnson: Yeah. I can let you know, Mr. Mayor. The 27th has the continuance of the UDC
text amendment application and that is the only land use hearing on that night and, then,
moving beyond that we will be looking at August 24th, due to National Night Out and
another hearing scheduled.
Bernt: Joe, when is your honeymoon?
Dodson: I will be back the 24th. That's my first day back, so --
Bernt: 24th of July?
Dodson: August. Sorry.
Bernt: I know that Councilman Cavener is going to be out of town, too.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, I don't want to hinder the process.
It's important. But I wouldn't be here on the -- on the 27th, unfortunately.
Page 76
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page———
Bernt: I would -- I would continue this -- I don't believe we have a meeting on the 31st.
So, it would be -- it would be September 7th would be the first date that we have available.
Truly. We don't -- Becky --
McKay: I'm thinking, because I --
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, Becky, we don't --we don't have --we are not meeting on the 31 st. We
don't meet on the --
McKay: Right.
Bernt: -- the fifth Tuesday of the month and so --
McKay: So, September 7th. Okay. I hope I don't have a conflict. I have a lot of hearings
in Eagle and Star and Nampa and -- I think I'm okay. So, September 7th? They say
thumbs up.
Simison: So, Council, motion?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we continue Item H-2021-0029 to September 7th.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue the meeting. Is there any discussion
on the motion?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Just real quick. Again, I appreciate Council President making sure -- we get
an application before us, we kind of -- blinders come up about who is behind the
application and -- but I appreciate the Council President -- a good reminder of just how
much we appreciate the commission and everything the highway district does for our
citizens and, Paul, you have got a great team. It's great having you here. I think we are
all little partial to your communications manager, but we appreciate having you here in
this building nevertheless. So, thanks for coming out tonight.
Simison: All right. Any further comments? If not, all favor say aye. Opposed nay. The
ayes have it and the item is continued.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Page 77
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page———
Simison: Council Woman Strader, did you have something you were wanting to save?
Sorry.
Strader: Yeah. I am supportive of continuing, obviously. I likely would not be here on
September 7th due to a family holiday. So, I hope you are in good hands just, so -- yeah.
Simison: Okay. Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: ACHD, you may want to stick around for a second.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, if we -- if we are continuing it all the way up to September to account
for my schedule, I have got to -- I'm feeling guilty about that, only to find out we have got
another Council Member absent that particular date. So, we know sometimes -- we are
a team of six and votes land where they vote and there is no hurt feelings, I think, if-- if it
doesn't go the way we go, because we are not here and so I would hate to prolong it all
the way out to September and encounter the same issue that we are having, so I don't
know, Council, maybe -- Mr. Mayor, I know that I'm maybe kind of getting out there on the
ledge a little bit, but maybe if there is an opportunity for Council to at least have a
discussion about what we just passed and potentially make a motion for reconsideration,
so that we can better discuss this and make sure that we are picking a date that either
we can all be here or that we can at least accelerate based on the request from ACHD
for two weeks and give them that opportunity. But I don't know how the rest of the Council
feels. But I just-- I saw some furrowed brows when we heard the Council Member Strader
wasn't going to be here and at least before we adjourn for the night just have that
conversation.
Simison: Mr. Nary?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, again, I know you don't have a fifth Tuesday
meeting. You can schedule a special meeting on the 31 st. It doesn't have to be at 6:00
o'clock. It could be at any time you wish. If you want to do that versus moving it past the
14th or past the 7th, but that's just an option that you have. I don't think we have any
other conflict to have it on that date and you are not required to hold it at night. You could
hold it at noon if you wanted to.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, what's the process of doing what Councilman Cavener mentioned as
far as a reconsideration is concerned? I don't know if I have ever done it.
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, all you need to do is one of the members
who have been on the prevailing side, which you all voted in favor --
Simison- To reconsider.
Page 78
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page— ——
Nary: -- is simply make a motion to reconsider -- have to have that seconded, have that
approved by voice vote and, then, you can make a new motion.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move we reconsider the previous vote taken on the setting of the public
hearing -- continuance of the public hearing of the previous item.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to reconsider the previous motion. Is there any
discussion? If not, all those in favor of reconsidering so say aye. Opposed nay. The
ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Simison: And the item is open for reconsideration.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I'm supportive of a continuance for two weeks, if-- I agree with Council Member
Borton, I think that's a -- it's a big ask to get answers back in two weeks, but I would just
ask the highway district staff if they think they can get it done they will get it done and, if
not, then, at that point in time maybe we look at either a fifth Tuesday or deeper in
September perhaps. I don't how the rest of the body feels.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader, can you be here in two weeks?
Strader: Let me check. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yes, I will be here. I am sorry. I feel guilty, but I mainly -- I didn't mean to --
trust all of you to make decisions whether we are here or not. I hope you didn't think that's
what I was saying, because that's not at all how I feel. I trust you guys to make the right
decision when I'm not here or here or whatever. It's just Rosh Hashanah. So, it's a family
holiday and I can't be here on the 7th, but -- it's a big one, but any other day generally,
except for when my kids are in summer camp I will make it happen, so --
Page 79
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 52 of 50
Simison: Well, here is my -- my -- my honest belief is there is not going to be any
resolution on the 27th and it would be good to have a general direction. We could
continue it until the 27th and, then, look at resetting for a day at that point in time if
necessary. A special meeting. Yeah. I think we can -- and, honestly, I think ACHD can
communicate through staff and we will know well in advance if that's even an option,
so --
Dodson: Mr. Mayor, correct. If we cannot make the 27th we will know before and we can
request continuance even before. Perfectly fine.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we --
Simison: Just make a motion to continue it.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I move that we move this item H-2021-0029 to July 27th.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: Motion and second to continue this item until the 27th. Is there any discussion?
If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The item is
continued until the 27th.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Simison: Okay.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Do we, then, need to close the public hearing?
Simison: It's already been closed. Or I'm sorry. We didn't close it, because it's been
continued.
Perreault: Oh, we are going to leave it open, because it's being continued. Okay.
Simison: Did we close it?
Nary: We wanted additional information.
ORDINANCES [Action Item]
Page 80
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page 53 of 55
4. Third Reading of Ordinance No. 21-1933: An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of Meridian, Approving the Second Amendment to
the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project, Which
Second Amendment Seeks to Deannex Certain Areas From the
Existing Meridian Revitalization Project Area; Which Second
Amendment Amends a Plan That Includes Revenue Allocation
Financing Provisions; Authorizing the City Clerk to Transmit a Copy
of This Ordinance and Other Required Information to the County,
Affected Taxing Entities, and State Officials; Providing Severability;
Approving the Summary of the Ordinance and Providing an Effective
Date
Simison: Yeah. Okay. All right. Next item up is ordinance -- under ordinances is the
third reading of Ordinance No. 21-1933. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Meridian approving the Second Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban
Renewal Project, which Second Amendment seeks to deannex certain areas from the
existing Meridian Revitalization Project Area; which Second Amendment amends a plan
that includes revenue allocation financing provisions; authorizing the City Clerk to transmit
a copy of this ordinance and other required information to the county, affected taxing
districts and state officials; providing severability; approving the summary of the ordinance
and providing an effective date.
Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this item read for the third time. Would
anyone like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, I'm pulling my agenda back up here again to grab the ordinance
number and will make a motion, unless someone else would like to.
Simison: 21-1933.
Perreault: Great. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance No. 21-1933 with the
suspension of rules. Do we need that on the third hearing?
Simison: We do not.
Perreault: We do not. All right. Would you like me to make the motion again?
Simison: Just for clarity, since it wasn't seconded.
Perreault: Okay. Absolutely. I move that we approve Ordinance No. 21-1933.
Strader: Second the motion.
Page 81
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page———
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 21-1933. Is there any
discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the ordinance is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I was just -- I was just talking with Council Member Borton about Seat 5 and
ordinances and I think Ms. Perreault has just carried the torch like a champion. Well
done.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. I appreciate that. I'm still under the weather today, so I --
appreciate you helping me along on motions that we normally make all the time.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
Simison: Anything under future meeting topics?
EXECUTIVE SESSION
5. Per Idaho Code 74-206(1)(a) To consider hiring a public officer,
employee, staff member or individual agent, wherein the respective
qualities of individuals are to be evaluated in order to fill a particular
vacancy or need; and (d) To consider records that are exempt from
disclosure as provided in chapter 1, title 74, Idaho Code.
Simison: Then, item five was vacated. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn the meeting.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay.
The ayes have it. We are adjourned.
Page 82
Meridian City Council
Item#2. July 13,2021
Page———
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:00 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Page 83
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics
The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at
www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of
general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active
land use/development applications are not permitted during this time.
By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public
Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future
meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct
staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET
Date : July 13 , 2021
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
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 21-2276: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of
the City of Meridian, Appointing Tom Otte to Seat 9 of the Solid Waste Advisory Commission
from July 13, 2021 through September 30, 2022; and Providing an Effective Date
Page 3
Item#1.
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 21-2276
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN,APPOINTING TOM OTTE TO SEAT 9 OF THE SOLID WASTE
ADVISORY COMMISSION FROM JULY 13, 2021 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2022;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Seat 9 of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission is currently
vacant; and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of Tom Otte
to Seat 9 of the Solid Waste Advisory Commission through September 30, 2022 to be in the best
interest of the Meridian Solid Waste Advisory Commission and of the City of Meridian.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO:
Section 1. That Tom Otte is hereby appointed to Seat 9 of the Meridian Solid Waste
Commission, with a term to expire September 30, 2022.
Section 2.That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon passage.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this 13th day of July,2021.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 13th day of July, 2021.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Mayor Robert E. Simison Chris Johnson, City Clerk
APPOINTMENT OF TOM OTTE TO THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COMMISSION
PAGE 1 Page 4
Ei]on for City Appointed Commissions Submit Date:Apr 09, 2021
Profile
Tom W-- Otte
First Name Last Name
otte.thomas@gmail_com
Email Address
3628 W I3alducci St
Home Address
Meridian I 83646 _
City State Postal Code
Deputy Director, Solid Waste
Ada County
Occupation
Which Boards would you like to apply for?
Solid Waste Advisory Commission:Submitted
Question applies to multiple boards
Please select all of the following as applicable
• I have resided in the City of Meridian for two years or greater
• I have industry expertise in solid waste/recycling management
Residency
Are you a resident of the City of Meridian?
r Yes r No
If not, do you live in Meridians area of impact?
W NIA(Meridian Resident)
What areas of city government are of most interest to you?
Public Works
Have you participated in any level of volunteer government service in the past?
r Yes r• No
Page 5
Tnm nffp Pang 1 of 9
Lem—'—' �gree
with the Following Statement
I understand the following: Members of these groups serve on a voluntary basis and receive
no financial compensation. Participation requires a significant time commitment
(approximately 10-15 hours per month). Some groups have a limited number of members; in
these instances a vacancy must exist in order for a new applicant to be considered.After all
applications have been received and reviewed, the Mayor makes an appointment which must
be confirmed by the Meridian City Council.
W 1 Agree
Demographics
Interests & Experiences
Lester of Interest
Why are you interested in serving on a board or commission? You may also submit a letter
of interest.
I want to assist in the economical and environmental future of solid waste in the City.
Upload a Resume
Page 6
Tnm (')tta Pane 9 of 9
Item#1.
TOM OTTE
3628 W Balducci St . 208-869-1701
EXPERIENCE
3/25/19—4/9/21
SOLID WASTE COORDINATOR, CITY OF MERIDIAN
10/18—3/19
OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR, REPUBLIC SERVICES
EDUCATION
8/08
B.A. HISTORY, BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
It's okay to brag about your GPA, awards, and honors. Feel free to summarize your coursework
too.
Page 7
Item#1.
To Whom it may concern,
I have a desire to continue to serve the City of Meridian after leaving my post as Solid Waste
Coordinator and this seemed like an excellent way to assist in the direction of the Cities'Solid Waste
plan in which I assisted in development. I have 11 years in the waste and transportation industries and I
feel that I would be a positive asset to the City in this regard.
Thank you,
Tom Otte
Page 8
E IDIAN.;---
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Page 4
City Council Meeting July 13, 2021
Item #2: The 10 at Meridian PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Maps–
Original Concept PlanRevised Concept Plan
Revised Concept Plan the future extension of Cobalt Drive.Added an access at the southwest corner of the site to 10.is linked to the large open space and the Clubhouse;2) to create an
open space that -1 & HDR-2 (HDR-and C1 -Eliminated parking between High Density Buildings C9.Clubhouse facilities;3) to make it closer to the open space and -(HDR3 -designed and relocated
High Density Building C-Re8.to make identification easier;9 -1 thru C-Labeled all of the commercial buildings as C7.10 Mile Road easier;(Grocery Store) to Pod 1 to make access to north
bound Relocated the Commercial Bldg. that was in Pod 5 6.the site plan;the commercial component is more readily visible on Changed the color of the Mixed Use Buildings so that 5.3;-have
added Flats F2 from 3 story to 4 story and -1 and B-Changed Flats B4.3. -2 and HDR-1, HDR-3 to HDR-2 and C-C1, -Changed the labels for the High Density Bldgs. from C3.3;-2 and F-1,
F-to F3 -2 and B-1, B-Changed the labels for the Flats from B2.2);-1 & MU-Mixed Use Buildings (MUalone commercial bldgs. as well as 2 additional -stand3 and replacing them with -2 and
A-1, A-Flats Bldgs. AAdded about 18,875 sf of commercial space by deleting 1.Proposed Changes to the Plan:Original Concept Plan
Access Plan onlyin -out/left-in/right-right–Cobalt out only-in/right-right–D out only-right–C out only-in/right-right–B full access–A
MultiConceptual ElevationsFamily (Flats)-
MultiConceptual ElevationsFamily (Townhome Style)-
MultiDensity Apartments) Conceptual Elevations-Family (High-
Clubhouse Conceptual Elevations
Per the DA (Janicek AZ001) for the property to the south: -11-
Item #3: ACHD Ustick AERIALZONINGFLUM Maps–. Facility Maint
Annexation23.7 acres–Project Site –Boundary
Aerial/Vicinity Map
Revised Concept Plan
Revised Phasing Plan
General Use & Utility Phasing Plan:Finishing of outlier projects–FY28 Sewer to be hooked up –Truck Wash, and Truck Scales –FY27 or 24). If not built this year no need for sewer tie in.
Admin Building (originally, but possibly pushed up to FY23 –FY26 up as well for this building. -Sewer hook-Fleet Buildings –FY25 restrooms.connected to the sewer as well since this
building will have Drainage and Broom Sheds that would need to be -FY24 Admin Bldg. or may get pushed out to FY24.Decant and washout area, with the possibility of the -FY23no need for
sewer, just water.–installation Site Prep, cutting in access roads, landscaping and fence -FY22
Recommended DA Provision Engineer review.”plans. Additional pretreatment may be required per City Decant and Washout areas as noted on the concept and phasing of the to construction
wastewater discharge proposal prior “Applicant shall obtain City Engineer approval for interim
Applicant’s Requested ProvisionsChanges to DA
Changes to Agenda :
Item #2 : The 10 at Meridian ( H -2021 .0025)
The Council heard this project at the June 22nd hearing & requested the Applicant make changes to the concept plan per the
discussion at the hearing. The Applicant made the following changes to the plan:
1 . Added about 18, 875 sf of commercial space by deleting Flats Bldgs. A - 1, A-2 and A -3 and replacing them with stand-alone
commercial bldgs. as well as 2 additional Mixed Use Buildings (MU- 1 & MU-2);
2. Changed the labels for the Flats from B- 1, B-2 and B-3 to F4, F-2 and F-3;
3. Changed the labels for the High Density Bldgs. from C- 1, C-2 and C-3 to HDR4 , HDR-2 and HDR-3,
4. Changed Flats B- 1 and B-2 from 3 story to 4 story and have added Flats F-3;
5. Changed the color of the Mixed Use Buildings so that the commercial component is more readily visible on the site plan;
6. Relocated the Commercial Bldg. that was in Pod 5 (Grocery Store) to Pod 1 to make access to north bound 10 Mile Road easier;
7. Labeled all of the commercial buildings as C4 thru C-9 to make identification easier;
8. Re-designed and relocated High Density Building C-3 (HDR-3) to make it closer to the open space and Clubhouse facilities;
9. Eliminated parking between High Density Buildings C- 1 and C-2 (HDR- 1 & HDR-2) to create an open space that is linked to the
large open space and the Clubhouse;
10. Added an access at the southwest corner of the site to the future extension of Cobalt Drive.
Application (s ) : Annexation & Zoning
Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of 40 . 30 acres of land , zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 75
S . Ten Mile Rd , at the SWC of W. Franklin Rd . & S . Ten Mile Rd .
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation : MU - Com , HDR and MU - RES in TMISAP
Summary of Request : The Applicant proposes to annex 40 . 30 acres of land with R-40 ( 13 . 04 -acres) & C-C (27 . 25-acres) zoning
i districts . A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that proposes a mix of offices , a financial establishment, retail pads ,
a grocery store , vertically integrated residential & multi-family residential in accord with the associated MU -COM , HDR and MU - RES ,
FLUM designations for this property .
A phasing plan was not submitted ; however, the Applicant states the 3-story flats and townhome style MFR & clubhouse will develop in
the first phase along with the associated infrastructure ; the 4-story high-density MFR will follow with the commercial last as tenants
commit.
Access is proposed as shown on the conceptual development plan . AND supports the following : Access A — full access; Access B —
right- in/right-out only ; Access C — right-out only ; Access D — right- in/right-out only; and Cobalt — right- in/right-out/left-in only . Staff
recommends access is restricted through the DA as supported by ACHD . Cobalt Dr. is proposed to be extended to the west from Ten
Mile — the eastern portion lies entirely on the subject property & will require construction of a bridge over the Kennedy Lateral and stubs
to the south to be extended entirely on the adjacent property to the south .
The Applicant requests Council approval of a waiver to UDC 11 -3A-6B . 3 for portions of the Kennedy Lateral , which bisects this site , to
remain open and not be piped .
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed multi-family flats , townhome style multi-family, high-density apartments
and clubhouse as shown . Final design is required to comply with the design guidelines in the TMISAP and the standards in the ASM .
A DA is recommended as a provision of annexation that contains certain requirements for development of the property as noted in the
` staff report . Staff requests Council ' s motion include a revision to DA provision #A. 1 d , which requires the subject property be
subdivided prior to any development occurring on the site, to instead require the property to be subdivided prior to issuance
of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development.
Commission Recommendation : Approval w/a DA
Summary of Commission Public Hearing :
• In favor: Wendy Shrief, JUB Engineers ; Lane Borges ; Hethe Clark
• Commenting : Cody Black ( representing property owner directly to the south )
• Written testimony : Cody Black , Wendy Shrief (Applicant' s Representative)
• Key Issue (s) : The property owner to the south requests the western portion of Cobalt Dr. be located on the subject property &
not on their property .
Key Issue (s ) of Discussion by Commission : The location & alignment of Cobalt Dr. to the west; and opinion that too much
residential may be proposed — that the northern "flats" should be converted to commercial .
Commission Change (s ) to Staff Recommendation : None
Outstanding Issue(s ) for City Council : The Applicant requests a waiver to UDC 11 -3A-6B . 3 for portions of the Kennedy Lateral ,
which bisect this site , to remain open and not be piped .
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing : None
Possible Motions :
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H -2021 -0025 , as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of July 13 , 2021 : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021 -0025 , as presented during the hearing on
July 13 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H -2021 -0025 to the hearing date of for the following reason (s) : (You should state specific
reason (s) for continuance.)
Item #3 : ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility ( H -2021 -0029 )
Application (s ) :
➢ Annexation and Zoning , with a development plan .
Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of 23 . 7 acres of land , zoned RUT, located at 3764 W . Ustick Road
(approximately '/2 mile west of Ten Mile on the north side of Ustick) .
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning :
• North — Fivemile Creek , City Wastewater recovery facility and I - L zoning
• East — Ninemile Creek, C- N zoning on City property (future well/water tank site)
• South — Ustick Rd . , R4 zoning and detached single-family
• West — RUT , County Ag /Residential
History : N/A
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation : Mixed - use Non- Residential ( MU - NR)
Summary of Request :
• Mixed - Use Non - Residential — The purpose of this designation is to designate areas where new residential dwellings will not be
permitted , as residential uses are not compatible with the planned and/or existing uses in these areas . For example , this MU -
NR area is used adjacent to the City' s Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility, a heavy industrial use that should be buffered
from residential . Appropriate uses in MU - NR areas would include : employment centers , professional offices , flex buildings ,
warehousing , industrial uses , storage facilities and retail , and other appropriate non - residential uses . \
• Staff believes the proposed Development Agreement provisions and screening methods will be sufficient in mitigating any
noxious consequences of the proposed use . Therefore , Staff finds the proposed ACHD Maintenance Facility to be generally
consistent with the Comp Plan .
• Request for Annexation and Zoning with the I - L zoning district; Annexation area is 30 . 27 acres but subject site is only 23 . 7
acres—Applicant is also annexing creek area to ensure no County enclaves exist.
• Proposed use is for an ACHD Maintenance Facility that falls under the Public Utility , Major use within our development code .
The project is proposed over multiple phases from this year through 2028 and includes a number of different elements to the
site including : decant and washout area , broom sheds , salt shed , truck wash and scales , Admin . Building , Fleet building , and
covered and uncovered storage areas .
• The proposed use is a permitted use within the requested kL zoning district, subject to specific use standards . Staffs analysis
finds the proposal to be consistent with the specific use standards as well as the dimensional standards of the I - L zoning
district except for the required building street setback to Naomi Avenue ( new collector street along half of the west boundary) .
The site plan shows the building 25 feet from edge of ROW but should be at least 35 feet .
• The Applicant is proposing solid fencing and the required landscape buffers consistent with code requirements . Despite the
probable noise associated with a maintenance facility such as this , Staff finds the proposed site plan offers adequate
I
landscaping and separation from existing residences by Ustick Road and should mitigate much of the noise from trucks and
machinery .
• Access is proposed via construction of a new collector street that aligns with Naomi Avenue to the south . The Applicant is
proposing to construct the road as a 3 - lane collector street with a deceleration lane and with 5400t detached sidewalk on the
east side of the street; when the property to the west redevelops they will be expected to complete the street with sidewalk on
their side of Naomi .
• The submitted plans show this new road to terminate in a temporary hammerhead type turnaround approximately 625 feet into
the site for future road connectivity to the west.
• Off of Naomi Avenue , the Applicant is proposing two driveway accesses for access into the facility that will be gated . Staff
supports the proposed access and road improvements .
• Sewer services are not currently available to the site . Therefore , the Applicant is requesting a City Council Waiver to delay
connection to City sewer; City water is readily available . It is not entirely clear at what point utilities will be available or needed
for the site but due to the phasing and the lack of sewer availability currently, the Applicant has not submitted any utility plans
at this time . With future development, the Applicant will be required to submit these plans and continue coordinating with the
City to connect to public utilities , including water needed for irrigation . The Applicant is having ongoing discussions with the
City Engineer on the best path forward for the sewer needs and timeline of this project .
Commission Recommendation : Approval w/a DA
Summary of Commission Public Hearing .
• In favor: Becky McKay, Applicant Representative
• Commenting : Becky McKay; Lloyd Carnegie , ACHD Maintenance Manager.
• Written testimony : None
Key Issue(s ) of Discussion by Commission :
Timeline for the use of the site , construction of the westbound deceleration lane , and overall phasing ;
• Potential issues associated with having large trucks utilizing Ustick Road and the site prior a deceleration lane being
constructed by ACHD as part of the overall road widening project—Applicant stated that consistent truck traffic to the site
should not occur until after the Ustick Road improvements due to overall timing and use of other maintenance facilities in the
valley as well as the timing of developing the subject site ;
• Estimated timeline for Ustick Road widening—Applicant stated there is a desire to move up the construction of this road
widening project to 2024 instead of between 2026 -2030 ;
• How concrete the proposed concept plan is in terms of building placement and phasing ;
• Capacity of the Commission/City to limit the use of heavy truck traffic for the site via a condition of approval or DA provision .
Commission Change (s ) to Staff Recommendation : Create a new DA provision to help limit heavy truck traffic until Ustick Road is
widened and the deceleration lane is constructed .
Outstanding Issue(s ) for City Council : Connection to City Sewer services and what the alternatives may be—Applicant and PW Staff
have discussed a potential option for the interim discharge of wastewater to be used until Black Cat Trunkshed is constructed . Staff
recommends Council instruct the Applicant and Staff work together to come up with a new DA provision that could read similar to the
following :
- "Applicant shall obtain City Engineer approval for interim wastewater discharge proposal prior to Phase 3
development, or at the time of construction of the Decant and Washout areas as noted on the concept and phasing
plans . Additional pretreatment may be required per City Engineer review. "
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing : None
Possible Motions :
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H - 2021 -0029 , as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of July 13 , 2021 : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H -2021 -0029 , as presented during the hearing on
July 13 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H -2021 -0029 to the hearing date of for the following reason (s) : (You should state specific
reason (s) for continuance.)
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2021 for The 10 at Meridian (H-
2021-0025) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 75 S. Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 40.30 acres of land with R-40 (13.04-acres) and C-C (27.25-acres)
zoning districts.
Page 9
Item#2.
E IDIAN:--
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from June 22, 2021 for The 10 at Meridian (H-2021-
0025) by J-U-B Engineers, Inc., Located at 75 S.Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 40.30 acres of land with R-40 (13.04-acres) and C-C
(27.25-acres) zoning districts.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 10
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : July 13 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2
PROJECT NAME : The 10 at Meridian ( H = 2021 - 0025 )
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
Ye`5
Avi n 17ed
1 _1
� 2 f
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Item#2.
Adrienne Weatherly
From: Sonya Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 6, 2021 3:02 PM
To: Adrienne Weatherly; Charlene Way; Chris Johnson
Subject: FW:The 10 Meridian - Updated Concept Plan & List of Changes as Directed By City
Council
Attachments: Site Plan 7 062821 - EP.pdf
From: Lane R. Borges<lane@Borgesarch.com>
Sent: Monday,June 28, 2021 9:41 AM
To: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org>
Cc: Erik Pilegaard <erik@elkventures.net>
Subject:The 10 Meridian
External Sender- Please use caution with links or attachments.
Hi Sonya—We have been working diligently the past several days to revise our Site Development Plan as directed by City
Council.
Attached is a draft of what we have come up with.The changes that have been made:
1. We have added about 18,875 sf of commercial space by deleting Flats Bldgs.A-1,A-2 and A-3 and replacing
them with stand-alone commercial bldgs. as well as 2 additional Mixed Use Buildings (MU-1 & MU-2);
2. We have changed the labels for the Flats from B-1, B-2 and B-3 to F-1, F-2 and F-3;
3. We have changed the labels for the High Density Bldgs.from C-1, C-2 and C-3 to HDR-1, HDR-2 and HDR-3.
4. We have changed Flats B-1 and B-2 from 3 story to 4 story and have added Flats F-3;
5. We have changed the color of the Mixed Use Buildings so that the commercial component is more readily visible
on the site plan;
6. We have relocated the Commercial Bldg. that was in Pod 5 (Grocery Store)to Pod 1 to make access to north
bound 10 Mile Road easier;
7. We have labeled all of the commercial buildings as C-1 thru C-9 to make identification easier;
8. We have redesigned and relocated High Density Building C-3 (HDR-3)to make it closer to the open space and
Clubhouse facilities;
9. We have eliminated parking between High Density Buildings C-1 and C-2 (HDR-1 & HDR-2)to create an open
space that is linked to the large open space and the Clubhouse;
10. We have added an access at the southwest corner of the site to the future extension of Cobalt Drive.
In going thru our notes and the audio of the meeting we believe we have captured all of the major comments but would
ask you to let us know if we have missed anything significant.
Please review this with Bill and if either of you see anything that needs our attention please let us know as soon as
possible so that we have time to make any other needed changes before the end of this week.
Lane Borges
1 Page 11
Item#2.
STAFF REPORT C�I
w IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING June 22,2021 Legend
DATE: -
TO: Mayor&City Council = ■
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner
208-884-5533 -
SUBJECT: H-2021-0025 The 10 at Meridian—AZ
LOCATION: 75 S. Ten Mile Rd. at the southwest �-
corner of W. Franklin Rd. and S. Ten
Mile Rd.,in the NE 1/4 of Section 15, --
Township 3N.,Range 1 W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant requests annexation of 40.30 acres of land with R-40(13.04-acres)and C-C (27.25-acres)
zoning districts.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 40.30-acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Commercial(22+/-acres);High Density
Residential(11+/-acres);Mixed Use Residential(3+/-acres)
Existing Land Use Undeveloped agricultural land r
Proposed Land Use(s) Mixed use(residential/commercial)
Current Zoning RUT in Ada County
Proposed Zoning R-40(High-Density Residential)(13.04-acres)and C-C
(Community Business)(27.25-acres)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of 3/29/2021;no attendees other than property owner
attendees:
History(previous approvals) None
Page 1
Page 13
Item#2.
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) No
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two(2)accesses are proposed via Franklin Rd.,two(2)
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) accesses are proposed via Ten Mile Rd.,and one(1)access is
proposed via Cobalt Dr.
Fire Service No comments were submitted.
Police Service See comments in Section IX.D.
Wastewater
Distance to Sewer Services Adjacent to parcel
Sewer Shed South Black Cat trunkshed
Estimated Project Sewer ERU's See application
WRRF Declining Balance 14.14
Project Consistent with WW Yes
Master Plan/Facility Plan
Impacts/Concerns None
Water
Distance to Water Services Adjacent to parcel
Pressure Zone 2
Estimated Project Water ERU's See application
Water Quality None
Project Consistent with Water Yes
Master Plan
Impacts/Concerns None
Page 2
Page 14
Item#2.
C. Project Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend ■ Legend
(f
I�Praieci Lcca�ior lei
Lacaon
ed-Hiig - I
Densih t.
Identlai - �,k +
fF
ri�gh [ L_
eiid a° '
MU-Res
IMU
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend RUT - Legend
A
10Pralec- Lacaihor R Pn4ect Lnca=or
;_, city Lim -- --
RUT — Planned Parc In a r
RUT L
R1 R= -N
R-15
G�c
frl3i:f
-
- Rt.4 - -
RUT
C-C
H-E
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Wendy Shrief,J-U-B Engineers,Inc. —250 S. Beechwood Ave., Ste. 201,Boise,ID 83709
B. Owner:
Erik Pilegaard, Elk Ventures, LLC—5137 Golden Foothills Parkway, Ste. 100, El Dorado, CA 95762
Page 3
Page 15
Item#2.
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper notification
published in newspaper 4/30/2021 6/4/2021
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 300 feet 4/27/2021 6/2/2021
Public hearing notice sign posted
5/7/2021 6/9/2021
on site
Nextdoor posting 4/27/2021 6/2/2021
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
LAND USE: The majority of this property is designated Mixed Use Commercial(MU-COM) (northeast 22+/-
acres)and High Density Residential(HDR) (southwest 11+/-acres) on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in
the Comprehensive Plan with a narrow sliver of Mixed Use Residential(MU-RES) (3+/-acres)along the
southern boundary which will mostly be right-of-way for W. Cobalt Dr. This property is located within the
area governed by the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP).
The purpose of the MU-COM designation is to encourage the development of a mixture of office,retail,
recreational,employment, and other miscellaneious uses,with supporting multi-family or single-family
attached residential uses(see pg. 3-9 in the TMISAP for more information).
HDR designated areas are multiple-family housing areas where relatively larger and taller apartment
buildings are the recommended building type. HDR areas should include a mix of housing types that achieve
an overall average density target of at least 16-25 dwelling units per gross acre(see pg. 3-7 in the TMISAP
for more information).
The purpose of the MU-RES designation is to encourage a diversity of compatible land uses that may
include a mixture of residential, office,retail,recreational, employment, and other miscellaneous uses(see
pg. 3-8 in the TMISAP for more information).
Mixed use designated areas in the TMISAP are recommended locations for development of activity centers
that are specifically planned to include both residential and non-residential uses. Mixed use areas are
anticipated to have 3 or more significant income producing uses (i.e. retail, office,residential and lodging
facilities)with significant functional and physical integration in conformance with a coherent plan(pgs. 3-7
&3-8).
The site is proposed to develop with a mix of uses(horizontal and vertical)as shown on the conceptual
development plan in Section VIII.B. High-density 4-story multi-family residential apartments (380 1-and 2-
bedroom units) are proposed in the HDR&MU-RES designated portions of the site with 3-story multi-
family flats(137 1-and 2-bedroom units)and townhouse style(24 3-bedroom units)units with a
clubhouse/recreation center[14,000 square feet(s.f.)], 3-story vertically integrated mixed use [primarily
retail uses on the 1"floor(20,025 s.f.)with residential(42 1-and 2-bedroom units) on the 2'and 3'floors]
and single-story financial institution(5,000 s.£),mixed use service retail buildings (52,775 s.£)and
restaurants (9,250 s.£)with drive-throughs with 2-story office buildings (46,600 s.£)proposed in the MU-
COM designated portion of the site adjacent to Franklin and Ten Mile Roads. A total of 559 residential units
and 147,650 s.f. of commercial uses are proposed to develop in the overall site.
Page 4
Page 16
Item#2.
Staff finds the mix of income producing uses proposed as well as the vertical and horizontal integration of
such uses and residential densities interconnected by pedestrian walkways and amenities is generally
consistent with the goals of the TMISAP for this area.
Transportation: Cobalt Drive is proposed to be extended as a collector street from S. Ten Mile Rd. at the
southeast corner and along the southern boundary of the site consistent with the Master Street Map in the
Comprehensive Plan and the Transportation System Map in the TMISAP. The proposed collector street
network approved with the annexation of the Janicekproperty to the south (AZ-11-001, DA Inst.
#112073616)depicts the extension of Cobalt as proposed with this application with the western segment
lying off-site on the adjacent property to the south.
Design: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the multi-family residential structures and the
associated clubhouse building. The design of the proposed multi-family structures appear to be of a high
quality and are generally consistent in style,materials and colors. Elevations weren't submitted for the
commercial portion of the development as tenants are unknown at this time. Final design of the site and all
structures is required to comply with the design elements of the TMISAP per the Application of
Design Elements matrix on pg.3-49 of the TMISAP and the design standards in the Architectural
Standards Manual. The commercial portion of the development should incorporate similar design
elements,colors and materials as the residential portion of the development.
Goals,Objectives,&Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable
to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics):
• "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of
Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D)
A variety of multi family housing is proposed in this development consisting of flats, townhome and
apartment style units, which will contribute to the variety of housing types in the City, specifically in
the Ten Mile area as desired, that should cater to different financial capabilities.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and
urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for
public facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development
in accord with UDC I1-3A-21.
• "Locate higher density housing near corridors with existing or planned transit,Downtown, and in
proximity to employment centers." (2.01.01H)
The site is located at a major intersection along two major mobility arterials (Franklin and Ten Mile
Roads) and in close proximity to employment centers. Transit services exist in the Ten Mile Crossing
development to the east at the intersection of Vanguard/Wayfinder to serve this area—other transit
stops may be added in the future.
• "Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop, dine,
play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall livability
and sustainability." (3.06.02B)
The proposed project with multi family residential and a grocery store with nearby employment
(retail/office uses) and restaurant uses, should provide a good mix of uses that residents won't have
to travel far for, thus reducing vehicle trips and enhancing overall livability and sustainability.
• "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development;encourage
development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B)
Page 5
Page 17
Item#2.
This property is an enclave surrounded by City annexed land. Annexation and development of this
property will maximize public services.
• "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms
to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided."
(3.03.03)
The proposed development plan is generally conisistent with the City's vision for this property
through the Comprehensive Plan; the developer will extend public services and infrastructure as
needed for the development.
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. ANNEXATION&ZONING
The Applicant proposes to annex 40.30 acres of land with R-40(13.04-acres) and C-C(27.25-acres)
zoning districts. A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown in Section VIII.B that proposes
offices, a financial establishment,retail pads, a grocery store,vertically integrated residential and multi-
family residential in accord with the associated MU-COM,HDR and MU-RES,FLUM designations for
the property.
A phasing plan was not submitted;however,the Applicant states the 3-story flats and townhome style
multi-family residential and clubhouse would develop in the first phase along with the associated
infrastructure; the 4-story high-density multi-family would follow with the commercial last as tenants
commit.
The proposed C-C zoning district is listed as a possible zoning choice in the MU-COM and MU-RES;
and the R-40 zoning district is listed as the best choice in the HDR and possible choice in the MU-RES
FLUM designation,per the Zoning District Compatability Matrix in the TMISAP(pgs. 2-4&2-5).
The Kennedy Lateral bisects this site and is proposed to be tiled in certain areas and left open in others
as shown on the conceptual development plan. The UDC (11-3A-6B.3)required all laterals crossing or
lying within the area being developed to be piped or otherwise covered unless left open and used as a
water amenity or linear open space as defined in UDC 11-IA-1. The decision making body may waive
the requirement for covering such lateral if it finds that the public purpose requiring such will not be
served and public safety can be preserved. A waiver from Council is requested for portions of the
lateral proposed to be left open;if not approved,the lateral is required to be piped.
Access to the site is proposed as shown on the conceptual development plan in Section VIII.B. ACHD
has reviewed the proposed accesses and supports the following: Access A—full access;Access B—
right-in/right-out only; Access C—right-out only;Access D—right-in/right-out only; and Cobalt—right-
in/right-out/left-in only. Staff recommends access is restricted through the Development Agreement
as supported by ACHD per the comments in Section IX.K.
Page 6
Page 18
Item#2.
e
w � ;W" a qL
kIL
l■
�"'i1t Y ,.. •-\5.F .� a `,_: _.j-
■ }E{
Y ram} � uT VFM?E
_ -
Off-street parking is depicted on the concept plan to serve the mixed use development. Based on(291) 1-
bedroom units, (250)2-and 3-bedroom units and 42 vertically integrated residential units,a minimum of
979 spaces consisting of 541 covered spaces and 396 uncovered spaces are required per UDC Table 11-
3C-6; a total of 1,034 spaces are depicted. Based on 138,400 s.f. of non-residential uses, a minimum of
277 spaces are required per UDC 11-3C-6B.1 and based on 9,250 s.f. of restaurant uses, a minimum of
37 spaces are required per UDC 11-4-3-49A.1, for a total of 314 spaces; a total of 448 spaces are
proposed in excess of the minimum standards.
The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City
Impact Boundary. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section
VIII.A.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to
Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed with this application,Staff
recommends a DA is required as a provision of annexation(see provision in Section IX.A).
VII. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Annexation&Zoning with the requirement of a
Development Agreement per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on May 20, 2021. At the public
hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ request.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: Wendy Shrief,JUB Engineers; Lane Borges;Hethe Clark
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting Cody Black(representing property owner directly to the south)
d. Written testimony: Cody Black; Wendy Shrief,JUB Engineers
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony
Page 7
Page 19
Item#2.
a. The property owner to the south requests the western portion of Cobalt Dr. be located on
the subject property and not on their propeM.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. The location and alignment of Cobalt Dr. to the west.
b. Opinion that too much residential may be proposed—that the northern"flats" should be
converted to commercial.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstanding issues for City Council:
a. The Applicant requests a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B.3 for portions of the Kennedy
Lateral,which bisects this site,to remain open and not be piped.
Page 8
Page 20
Item#2.
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map
EXHIBIT
DESmrmm FoR
THE 10 AT MERIDIAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION
The NF1M of the NE114 of Section 16, T_3N., R.iW., S.M., City of Meridian, Ada Count+,
Idaho more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at NE oorner of said Section 15 from which the NI14 corner of said Section
15 bears North 89°1523"West, 2640.72 feet,
thence along the East boundary line of said Section 15 South 09°33'16"VOM, 1,329.09
feet to the N 1116 corner of said Section 15;
thence along the South boundary line of the NE114 of the NIS114 of said Section 15 North
S9"15'02"West_ 1,321.1.8 feel lu Lhe NE1116 oaf said Suutiuo 1 S.
thenr,-,along the West boundary line of Nrz114 of the NEi14 of said Section 15 North
00"35'22"East, 1, 8.96 feet to the E1116 comer of said Section 15;
thence along the North boundary Ilne of said Section 15 South 8V1513"East, 1,320.37
feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING, Containing 40.30 acres, more or less,
7729 Du
Page 9
Page 21
+m#2
$a OF 8EARNG s'lols'll
ApE " 2W32 si5 s�4
5,1O 1/4 E1 S W. FRANKLIN RD.
s15 i a ' Se9qƒF3' 1 G!y
�
� .
ka
§
� 175533 £ , z
u 40-30 IE w
\ S �
�
z
NE 1/16 Ns'? -02 , 1,1 N 1/
SCALE , 0 7729
I
0 1� O boa / �)m
* OF
Page 10
Pgew
Item#2.
EXHIBIT
DESCRIPTION FOR
THE i(l AT MERIDIAN
CITY OF MERIDIAN ZONE rere
A portion of land located in the NE114 of the NE14 of Section 'IS, T.W. R,IW.
B.M., C Ity of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly dewibed as follows,
BEGINNING at NE comer of said Section 15 from which the N114 cornarof
said swion 15 bears North 88°152Y'west, 2W.72 feet,
thence along the East boundary line of said gection 19 South 661-ST16"West,
1.329.09 feet to the N 1116 corner of said Section 15,
thence along the South boundary line of the NE114 of the NE114 of said Section
15 North 99"15'02" West, 20.27 feet;
thence leaving said South boundary line North 87°DB'08"West, 149.94 feet:
thence Worth 60"22'90"West, 293-40 feet;
thence North 66"00'44"West, 371.54 feet I
thence 131.19 feet along the arc of curve to the right, said curve having a
radius of 500.00 feet, a central angle of 15"02'00"and a long chord which bears North
5f]')q'44" st. 150
thence North 42"5944"West, 723.60 feet to a point on the West boundary line-
of NE114 of the NE114 of said Section 15;
thence along said West boundary line Forth b4°35'2 "East, 310_06 feet to the
E1f16 corner of said Section 15;
thence along the North boundary line of said Section 15 South SS"15'23" East.
1,320.37 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING Containing 27, 5 acres, more or less_
Cw
Page 1 af I
Page 11
Page 23
Item#2.
BASIS OF BEARING S.10 5.11
NB9'15'23"W 2640.72" .15 S,14
5,10 1 4 E1 16 W. FRANKLIN RD.
SA 5 132Q.35' S89'15'2.3'E 1320.37'
I
1
I
ZONE CC
:+ ++ 1187150 s.f. I.`,, w
cQI
Mil+ + + + Z
�I + + + + K3
W + + + + +
tN + + + + + Vi V1
+ + * + +
I* + + +ZQNE R-40 + + H
+ + o+ N57'06'0E1"W
a+ + + + 5fi81$4 5.f,+ +# + ++ * SyE. k• 149.94'
+ + 1 3.04 o.c. + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
1 + + + + + + + + + ; + 20
+ + + + + + + + + IN60.22 50 W + +
+ + + + 1 1 y + + 293.40' + + +
NE 1 16 N891502 W 132}_18' N 1/16
L
CURVE TABLE -�
CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CH011D DIST. CHORD 91113. DELTA 7 7,2 9
an
C1 500.00 131,19 130,91 550'29'4-41- 15'02"00" CF, F
r .c
SCALE:
0 75 150 300 604
LGROUP.
� EXHIBIT __ DRAWING FOR xs
THE 10 AT MERIDIAN-' '
nr.IxF.ex,tio aa�w RE—ZONE
11
.`-du&s-erm
LL LDrkTEI}IN TFE NE h OF lHE NE 1¢EIF SE€nON 13, T-]N., UAL`
R.1i'., B.U., €IT'!OF NEBIIIAN, AEIA ❑WNTY, IDAHO ]f1�f]421
Page 12
Page 24
Item#2.
EXHIBIT_
DESCRIPTION FOR
THE 1BAT MERIDIAN
GMY OF MERIDIAN ZONE R-40
A portion of land looted in the NE114 of the NE114 of Section 1S. T.3N_, R.IW. E.A+1.,
City of Meridlan.Ada County, Idaho more Wicularly described as fellows:
Commencing at NE corner of said Section 15 from which the N114 corner of said Section
15 bears North 8W15'23"West. 2640.72 feet;
thence along the East boundary line of said Section 15 South 00°33'16"West, 1,329,09
feet to the N 1116 corner of said Section 15;
thence along the South boundary line of the WE114 of the N E 1 A of said Section 16 North
89`1902"West, 20_27 feet the REAL POINT OF BEGIt+ININ ;
thence continuing along said South boundary line North 89'1602"West, 1.3W., I feet to
the NE106 of said Section 15;
thence along the West boundary Iinre of NE114 of the NE114 of said Seetlon 15 North
00835' 2" East_ 1,018.91 feet;
thence leaving said West boundary IirLe South 42°68'44" East, 723.60 feet;
thence 131.19 feet along the arc of curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 500.01)
feet, a central angle of 15'02'W' and along chord which bears South 51)°2944"East, 131),81
feet:
thence South 58°00'44"East, 371.64 feet;
thence South 60"22'W'East, 293,40 feet;
thence South 57'[] 08"East, 149.94 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 13_{]4 acres, more or less_
77
'Ibw
.
Page 1 of 1
Page 13
Page 25
Item#2.
BASIS OF BEARING .10 s,i1
N9915'23"W 2W.72' $.15 .14
S.10 1 4 E1 16 W. FRANKUN FAD.
5,15 k32D,3�' S89't5'23�E 732'a:.'~7'
�Lo
ZONE CC
I+ + 11EI-7154 s.1. I°v
t I.;p 27.25 o.c. '
1+ + + + 'T Z
rl + + + +
+I. t t +
+ + + + + }
+ t + + +
* + ZONE o-40 + + S
I++ + -t + ++ + + + . 457'O5'08"w
i + +5fi8184 s.f-+ + + + 5 . 149-94'
+ + 13.04 ❑.c. + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
I + + + + + + + + N60'22'56" + + 20.27'
+ + + + + + 293-40' + + +
NE 116 N89'15' 1321.18'— N 1 16
CURW TABLE �
CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD MST- CHORD 9RG- DELTA � 17 7
Cl 29
5W-00 131-19 130.61 S50'29'44"E 15'02'00" ' 01
;SCALE. 1"—.}pp'
4 75 1 DO 3H 00
IDAHO EXHIBIT _ DRAMNO FOR 21 N°
THE 10 AT MERIDIAN EET H
SURVEY SHEET"°'
�" "^"°°"�, RE—ZONE 1
GROUP, LLC Lot-A m lNE HE) F -Zm4 DWG. wrE
MAiCn � iR.11L B.M„ CM6NH, AAA CXLWTY. DAHG sl`i�I�02
Page 14
Page 26
B. Conceptual Development Plan(dated: March 10, 2021)
--------------------- Franklin-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R o a d
�-1 IIPII ILA 1 ' INII I@ RR IUlll�llhll
AXIIIIHIlIkIi
0
. . ..... ..... .. .... ....
6-
2
Projed Summary
R�k%ndad
-ini-Fri
Parting P1wq I
=VU P,d,awe TNu F.r.
.=`d U1,Sl—R-11 ..........
aartieg pw— od, be
C b a 1-t—1- -4 v c-
.......... . .......
10 Mile Road & Franklin Road Residential & Commercial Mixed Use Center
March 10.2921
Page 15
ConceptualC.
Multi-Family(Flats):
FRONT L
RIGHT
T.
RLU
1 I 1
r � �
I�r _
_�I
LEFT
-
MERL—
f�'� �I ■Ord!^ !! �i�.�Q o� !_! !! n,!-r *� -' ''I
FRONT
RIGHT
1
I �
umrrrc
!!_,
i�■■s W-
V
!! N■�■■ !! !! ' ■ !! !!
REAR
LEFT -I--- "wk`
1 ■■A �, 1
hI
Page
.d
F7�
'39
l �
4
a.
t.
l+ I I _
i rai � C
i
� f
r y
s
J s
3. r�
_ n
•
uI�
- .,
a r,
�s
fir
'� \Y
I
(Townhome
sloor
FdGHT
FWW
REAR
LEFT
Page
1 ■ •
11 11 1♦1 � I<� 1 � 1 1 I .Y 1 ! f ;' r � l ! 1 1 � �1u�1 -.
.s _J
20
it
71
� Y
(High-Density •.
f�1 • 1 � I i I I I��Il
EFT
. 21
-
wr
IIIIIIII.� 1 1
Aamillm
REAR
OG� e
- �o-n
Page 22
r�
/W �a
4
. 23
-
Item#2.
ti � r
IX. 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. The subject property shall develop in substantial compliance with the conceptual development
plan and building elevations in Section VIII.B and the land use,transportation, and design
elements of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP).
b. The project shall comply with the applicable design elements as noted in the Application of
Design Elements matrix in the TMISAP(see pg. 3-49) and the design standards in the
Architectural Standards Manual.
c. Access to the site via W. Franklin Rd., S. Ten Mile Rd. and W. Cobalt Dr. shall be restricted as
recommended by ACHD in Section IX.K.
d. The subject property shall be subdivided prior to any development occurring on the site.
e. The Kennedy Lateral shall be piped in its entirety where it crosses the subject property as
required by UDC 11-3A-613.3 unless otherwise waived by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-
3A-613.3a.
Page 24
Page 36
Item#2.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 Any unused sanitary sewer and/or water services or mains must be abandoned.
1.2 Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,carports,trash enclosures,etc.)are built within any
utility easements.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
No comments were received.
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.ory/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=227946&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT
No comments were received.
F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=228197&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=227634&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=228247&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
I. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=228703&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
J. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE
https://weblink.meridiancioy.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=228965&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCioy
K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=229278&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy
L. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=228985&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
X. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
Page 25
Page 37
Item#2.
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
The Commission finds the Applicant's proposal to annex the subject 40.30-acre property with R-40
and C-C zoning districts consistent with the MU-COM, HDR and MU-RES FLUM designations for
this property. (See section V above for more information)
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the
R-40 and C-C zoning districts and the purpose statements of the residential and commercial
districts.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and
welfare;
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare in this area.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any
political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,
school districts; and
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will not result in an adverse impact upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City.
Page 26
Page 38
E IDIAN.;---
Applicant's Presentation
Page 4
Pod 1 Original Plan–Pod 1 –
Pod 2 Original Plan–Pod 2 –
Pod 3 Original Plan–Pod 3 –
Pod 4 Original Plan–Pod 4 –
Pod 5 Original Plan–Pod 5 –
Clubhouse Pod Original Plan–Clubhouse Pod New Plan–
High Density Pod Original Plan–High Density Pod New Plan–
Vehicular & Bicycle Circulation
Vehicular & Bicycle Circulation
Design of “The 10 Meridian”Building Architecture & DesignMixed Housing StockLandscapingStreet Oriented Design & Streets as Public SpacesStreet Design & the Concept of Complete StreetsTen
Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan with special attention to:the ProjectCirculation that is Auto, Bike and Pedestrian friendly to connect all elements of Character & Identity and,Building
Design withOpen Spaces and Pathways, Vibrant & Connected using:-Comprehensive Plan and developing a Mixed2019–Execution Site Services & Recreational Opportunities-Extensive OnEmphasis
on Integrating Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation throughoutCompatible Commercial Used by the Residents & CommunityMultiple Housing Type Options Use Project with:-Cohesive Dynamic Mixed–Goal
High DensityApartments
High DensityApartments
High DensityApartments
Med DensityFlats with Tuck
Med DensityFlats with Tuck
Med DensityFlats with Tuck
Med DensityFlats with Tuck
Med DensityFlats with Tuck
Med DensityFlats with Tuck
Med DensityWith GarageTownhomes
Med DensityWith GarageTownhomes
Med DensityWith GarageTownhomes
Recreation FacilitiesWork-CoCenter &
Recreation FacilitiesWork-CoCenter &
Recreation FacilitiesWork-CoCenter &
Recreation FacilitiesWork-CoCenter &
Recreation FacilitiesWork-CoCenter &
Recreation FacilitiesWork-CoCenter &
Recreation FacilitiesWork-CoCenter &
Recreation FacilitiesWork-CoCenter &
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility (H-2021-0029) by
Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 3764 W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for the I-L zoning district
for the purpose of constructing an Ada County Highway District (ACHD) maintenance facility on
23.7 acres.
Page 103
Item#3.
C� fIEN
DIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility (H-2021-0029) by
Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at 3764 W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for the
I-L zoning district for the purpose of constructing an Ada County Highway
District (ACHD) maintenance facility on 23.7 acres.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 104
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : July 13 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3
PROJECT NAME : ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility ( W2021 - 0029 )
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
Item#3.
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 7/13/2021 '
Legend
DATE:
Project Location
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner
n
208-884-5533 -
SUBJECT: H-2021-0029 '-
ACHD Ustick Maintenance Facility
LOCATION: The site is located at 3764 W.Ustick
Road, approximately'/2 mile west of Ten 9�
Mile Road on the north side of W. Ustick
Road,in the SW '/4 of the SE '/4 of
E
Section 34,Township 4N.,Range 1 W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation and Zoning of 30.27 acres of land with a request for the I-L zoning district for the purpose of
constructing an ACHD maintenance facility on 23.7 acres,by Engineering Solutions,LLP.
Note: Sewer services are not currently available to the site. Therefore,the Applicant is also requesting a
City Council Waiver to delay connection to City sewer; City water is readily available. Further discussion
of this is located throughout the staff report below.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage AZ—30.27 acres;Project Site—23.7 acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Non-Residential MU-NR
Existing Land Uses County Residential home is no longer occupied)
Proposed Land Uses ACHD Maintenance Facility
Lots #and type;bldg./common) One 1 building lot
Phasing Plan #ofphases) Proposed as eight 8phases over eight 8 ears.
Physical Features(waterways, Fivemile Creek abuts the north property boundary;
hazards,flood plain,hillside) Ninemile Creek abuts the northeast property boundary.A
large area of the site lies within the floodplain along the
north third of the site,both Zone"AE"and Zone"X."
See further analysis in Section V.N.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of March 25,2021—3 attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) N/A
Page 1
Page 105
Item#3.
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access Access is proposed via construction of a new collector street along the west
(Arterial/Collectors/State property boundary(N.Naomi Avenue)that accesses W.Ustick Road(arterial)
Hwy/Local)(Existing and near the mid-mile mark.
Proposed)
Stub Applicant is proposing to terminate N.Naomi Avenue in a temporary
Street/Interconnectivity/Cross hammerhead type turnaround approximately 625 feet into the property.Any future
Access development west of the subject site would connect to this terminus and continue
west for interconnectivity.No other stub streets are proposed or required due to
the proposed and adjacent use.
Existing Road Network Ustick Road is existing arterial street with 2 to 3 lanes of travel.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Ustick Road is existing but there are no sidewalks or landscape buffers along the
Buffers north side of Ustick Road.
Proposed Road No road improvements are required with this application due to this segment of
Improvements Ustick being scheduled for widening in 2025,unless the proposed right-hand turn
lane is proposed with future development(see ACHD staff report in Section
VIILD).
CIP/Five Year Work Plan for Ustick and other nearby roads:
• Ustick Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Linder Road to Ten
Mile Road in 2025.
Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Ustick Road to Cherry
Lane in with design in 2025. This project is listed as in preliminary development and is
currently unfunded.
The intersection of Black Cat and Ustick Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be improved with
an interim signal in 2021. This intersection is also listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes
on the north leg, 7-lanes on the south, 6-lanes east, and 6-lanes on the west leg, and
reconstructed/signalized between 2026 and 2030.
Ustick Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Black Cat to Ten Mile Road
between 2026 and 2030.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire 1.1 miles from Fire Station#2
Station
• Fire Response Time Project lies within 5-minute response time goal -
• Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%(above the goal of 80%)
• Risk Identification None to report at this time
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths,and turnaround dimensions.
Police Service
• Concerns None/no comments
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer 2,650 feet from current sewer services to the west(Black Cat Road)
Services
• Sewer Shed North Black Cat Trunkshed
• Estimated Project See application
Sewer ERU's
Page 2
Page 106
Item#3.
Description Details Page
• WRRF Declining 14.15
Balance
• Project Consistent Yes
with WW Master
Plan/Facility Plan
• Impacts/Concerns • Sewer is a 2,650'from site and per the Master Plan needs to come from N.
Black Cat Rd.
• Provide to-and-through to parcel SO434438850 to the east.
• If sewer is not available at the time of construction of the site,provide a
utility easement to the northern end of the parcel SO434438850.
• Flow is committed.
Water
• Distance to Services 0'
• Pressure Zone 1
• Estimated Project See application
Water ERU's
• Water Quality None
Concerns
• Project Consistent Yes
with Water Master
Plan
• Impacts/Concerns • No utilities are shown with application.A utility plan will need to be reviewed
by Public Works.
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend L°w�-r Legend
Resider
Project Location MU-NR Project Location
Office
II VV�!!11 1
Nr71
L®
imu
Eo ��_oo •� TII]i
Medw�m Density
Residential°
H ghtDensity
3 i Civic �,1wL�rrr-!sir
Resi. ntml
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Page 3
Page 107
Item#3.
Legend G R-8 R-2 Legend 0
L-{
a 0
Project Location G RUT Liu aProject Location
City Limits -�___ _ __---__"
I.L—RUT ® Planned Parcels
RUT -
� Rri , RUT
RIB. I-L I-L _`--
RUT N� C-G �R1
RUT
R-8 ® �®
RUT �.
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions,LLP— 1029 N.Rosario Street,Meridian, ID 83642
B. Owner:
Ada County Highway District(ACHD)—3775 N.Adams Street, Garden City,ID 83714
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 5/28/2021 6/25/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 5/26/2021 6/22/2021
Site Posting 6/6/2021 7/1/2021
Nextdoor posting 5/26/2021 6/22/2021
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
Mixed Use Non-Residential(MU-NR)—The purpose of this designation is to designate areas
where new residential dwellings will not be permitted,as residential uses are not compatible with
the planned and/or existing uses in these areas. For example,MU-NR areas are used near the
City's Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility and where there are heavy industrial or other
hazardous operations that need to be buffered from residential. Developments are encouraged to
be designed similar to the conceptual MU-NR plan depicted. Appropriate uses in MU-NR areas
Page 4
Page 108
Item#3.
would include: employment centers,professional offices, flex buildings,warehousing, industry,
storage facilities and retail,and other appropriate non-residential uses
The subject site is an approximate twenty-four(23.7) acre parcel that abuts Ustick to the south,
two creeks along the north and a portion of the east boundary, and the City's wastewater
treatment plant directly north of the abutting creek. South of Ustick Road are existing detached
single-family residences that currently have generally vacant parcels between them and the
treatment plant. The proposed use of a maintenance facility for ACHD falls under the Public
Utility, Major use within development code and is subject to specific use standards (UDC 11-4-3-
31).
The Mixed Use Non-Residential(MU-NR)future land use designation calls for industrial uses,
such as a maintenance facility, to act as a buffer between the City's treatment plant and any
existing and/or future residential development. The Applicant is proposing to install solid fencing
and the required landscape buffers adjacent to Ustick and the existing county residence directly
to the west(in addition to a new public collector street). If the property to the west develops in the
future as a nonresidential use as called for on the future land use map, the buffer proposed with
this application along the west boundary should act as an adequate transition between uses.
Despite the probable noise associated with a maintenance facility such as this, adequate
landscaping and separation from existing residences by Ustick Road offer appropriate separation
and should mitigate the noise from trucks and machinery.
In addition to the proposed use itself, the hours of operation for the facility are an important
factor in determining if the proposed use fits in this location. The Applicant has stated the
planned hours of operation are Monday thru Friday, lam to S:30pm with occasional late-night
hours during emergency situations. During the summer, the Applicant has also stated that chip-
seal operations require some weekend hours but should be within the normal daytime operating
hours. Staff nor the Applicant can foresee emergency situations so it is not feasible to mitigate
every possibility associated with the proposed use. Due to the likely minimal late-night
operations, Staff believes the proposed Development Agreement provisions and screening
methods will be sufficient in mitigating any noxious consequences of the proposed use.
Because of this, Staff finds the proposed project and use of an ACHD Maintenance Facility to be
generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are
discussed and analyzed below.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this
application and phasing plan, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the
provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property
owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the
annexation for approval.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.otglcompplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics.
"Coordinate with utility providers on acceptable landscape materials, design and site locations for
their future facilities to avoid negative impacts to the community."(3.08.03). The location of the
proposed ACHD Maintenance Facility is located within a non-residential designated area
adjacent to the City's wastewater treatment plant. This area is intended to be developed with non-
residential uses to act as buffers between existing/planned residential and the treatment plant.
ACHD is considered a utility provider and they have worked with Staff to find an appropriate
location for their new maintenance facility to further increase road maintenance capabilities
within the City of Meridian.
Page 5
Page 109
Item#3.
Furthermore, Staff is recommending denser landscaping along the property frontage on Ustick to
further mitigate any negative impacts to the nearby single-family residences and meet this
applicable and significant comprehensive plan policy.
"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,
police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G). City water services are readily
available to the subject site but sewer services are nearly a half mile to the west. This site is in a
different sewer trunkshed than the properties to the east. As previously noted, the Applicant is
proposing to develop the site in multiple phases over the next 8-9 years with a potential for the
first building to be constructed in 2024. It is not entirely clear at what point utilities will be
available or needed for the site but due to the phasing and the lack of sewer availability
currently, the Applicant has not submitted any utility plans at this time. With future development,
the Applicant will be required to submit these plans and continue coordinating with the City to
connect to public utilities, including water needed for irrigation.
With this application, Stafffinds it appropriate for the Applicant to provide a more detailed utility
phasing plan than what has been presented in the application materials. Staff has discussed this
with the Applicant and has received a general utility phasing plan as follows:
FY22-Site Prep, cutting in access roads, landscaping and fence installation—no need for sewer,
just water.
FY23-Decant and washout area, with the possibility of the Admin Bldg. or may get pushed out to
FY24.
FY24-Drainage and Broom Sheds that would need to be connected to the sewer as well since
this building will have restrooms.
FY25—Fleet Buildings-Sewer hook-up as well for this building.
FY26—Admin Building(originally, but possibly pushed up to FY23 or 24). If not built this year
no need for sewer tie in.
FY27—Truck Wash, and Truck Scales—Sewer to be hooked up
FY28—Finishing of outlier projects
Based upon the updated information, connection to City water and sewer is likely needed by
2023. Water is readily available but sewer is not, as noted previously. The Applicant is having
ongoing discussions with the City Engineer on the best path forward for the sewer needs and
timeline of this project.
"Require industrial uses to conform to disposal, spill,and storage measures as outlined by the
Environmental Protection Agency."(4.10.01B). Because of the nature of the proposed use and its
different disposal, storage, and chemical requirements, they will be tasked with obtaining all
necessary permits from the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Planning Staff does not
perform environmental reviews as part of their analysis but due to the added layer of floodplain
being located onsite, the City's floodplain coordinator will be a consistent part of future
development of the site as phasing progresses and structures are proposed within the floodplain
that require environmental permits.
"Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Despite the project not being a residential development,
a segment of multi-use pathway is shown on the master pathways plan along the north property
boundary, adjacent to the Fivemile Creek. The Applicant is proposing to construct the required
segment of pathway and construct a pedestrian bridge over the creek to connect to an existing
pathway segment further to the east. This connection and added pathway are also proposed to
Page 6
Page 110
Item#3.
connect to detached sidewalk along the property's west boundary that eventually connects to
Ustick Road. Staff appreciates the added pedestrian connections proposed with this project and
should further Meridian's multi-modal transportation goals.
"Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as
well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is proposing to
construct a new industrial collector street along west property boundary despite it not being
required on the Master Street Map (MSM). This new street is proposed to terminate in a
temporary hammerhead type turnaround approximately 625 feet north of Ustick allowing for
future connectivity to the west if future development occurs within other areas of the MU-NR
designation to west and northwest. The existing county residence and agricultural use to the west
will have an opportunity to access this new collector street directly and gives that property an
option to utilize the collector street instead of accessing Ustick directly.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There is an existing county residence on the property that is no longer occupied. The Applicant
has stated this home is to now be sold and removed from the site instead of being used as a
temporary office, as originally proposed. Therefore,the existing driveway access to Ustick will
be closed as well. Staff is recommending this access be closed with phase 1 of the development,
consistent with standard conditions to construct required landscape buffers with the first phase of
development.No other structures are known on-site.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is an ACHD Maintenance Facility which falls under the Public Utility,Major
use within development code. This use is a permitted use in the requested I-L zoning district per
UDC Table 11-2C-2 and is also subject to Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-2-31).As
previously discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff supports the proposed
use at this location—the relatively low vehicle trips,nonresidential use,and proposed pedestrian
and landscaping improvements should make the proposed use ideal for this location next to the
wastewater recovery facility. Staff analysis of the Specific Use Standards is in italics below:
UDC 11-4-3-31—Public Utility,Major; and public infrastructure:
A. Accessory uses directly related to the maintenance and fueling of vehicles(including,but not
limited to,truck and trailer washing, fuel pumps, garages for minor repair)may be allowed.
Proposed development incorporates many of these accessory uses and the Applicant is required
to obtain all necessary City, State, and Federal permits for them. Furthermore, the submitted
concept plan shows a large maintenance building in the southern quarter of the site but
sufficiently outside of the minimum 35 foot street setback from Ustick. This separation and
landscaping should mitigate any noxious outcomes from these buildings.
B. Installation of underground fuel tanks shall require written approval from the Idaho division of
environmental quality,Idaho department of water resources,and the appropriate fire authority.
Applicant is aware of this requirement and shall comply.
C.No portion of the outside storage areas and/or outside activity areas may be visible from any
highway,interstate, gateway corridor,principal arterial,or minor arterial as herein defined.
According to the submitted concept plan, none of the proposed outdoor storage areas appear to
be visible from Ustick Road, a principal arterial street. The applicant is proposing landscaping
and a solid fence as well as future building pad sites that will screen the outside activity areas
from Ustick Road. To ensure this standard is adhered to, Staff is recommending the required
Page 7
Item#3.
landscape buffer along Ustick is constructed with the first phase of development.More specific
analysis of the landscaping and fencing material is in subsequent and relevant sections below.
D. All driveways into and through the facility and any open area with a driving surface shall be
surfaced with a dustless material including,but not limited to,asphalt, concrete,pavers or bricks.
According to the submitted concept plan, no asphalt or driveways are proposed until phase 2.
However, upon further discussions with ACHD and following the removal of the existing home,
Staff is of the understanding that phase I will occur in 2022 and will include the new road,
overall site prep, landscaping, and fencing installation. With the first phase, it appears that a
gravel pit and paved open storage are proposed along the northern boundary. In addition, other
areas of paved open storage are depicted on the concept plan. Per the submitted plans, it appears
the Applicant is compliant with this standard.
E. For any use requiring the storage of fuel or hazardous material,the use shall be located a
minimum of one thousand(1,000)feet from a hospital.No portion of the site or any hazardous or
potentially hazardous material is located within 1,000 feet of a hospital.
The concept plan and phasing plan submitted with the application depict specific parts of the
maintenance facility being constructed at different times.A revised concept plan has since been
submitted. In general, the revised concept plan depicts the following: the required multi-use
pathway segment north of the proposed fencing and along the north boundary; a gravel pit and
paved open storage along the north and northwest boundary;fuel tanks, truck scale and a
salt/sand shed within the central area of the site; central but along the east boundary more paved
open storage and the decant and washout stations are proposed; employee and fleet parking as
well as the drain truck shed are located in a majority of the center of the site; in the south and
southeast area of the site the administration building,fleet maintenance building, broom truck
shed, and covered storage is shown on the concept plan.
Please see the phasing plan in the exhibit section below(Exhibit VILE)for when these areas are
proposed to be constructed from approximately 2021-2028. Staff notes that the location of the
decant and washout areas have been moved since the revised concept plan was submitted to a
new location outside of the floodplain and is therefore not accurately shown on the phasing plan.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject property into the City with the I-L zoning district
which does not have a minimum lot size. As noted above,the proposed use meets the requested
zoning and the dimensional standards noted in the specific use standards. The project requires
both landscape buffers and building setbacks,per the I-L dimensional standards. At a minimum,
there is a 25-foot landscape buffer required adjacent to Ustick and a 20-foot landscape buffer
required along the new collector street,Naomi Avenue. In addition,the I-L zoning district
requires a street setback of 35 feet. The submitted site plan shows the required 35-foot building
setback from Ustick but shows only a 25-foot setback from the future Administration Building to
the new segment of Naomi Avenue. This should be corrected with future development
applications.
In addition,the I-L zoning district has a minimum landscape buffer of 25 feet to any residential
use which is applicable along the west property boundary where Naomi Avenue is not proposed
adjacent to the parcel to the west. The submitted concept plan shows this 25-foot landscape buffer
compliant with the required dimensional standards.
The proposed building height of any future buildings are not known at this time but Staff
presumes none are proposed near the 50-foot height limit of the I-L zoning district. With future
Page 8
Page 112
Item#3.
CZC submittals, Staff will confirm conformance with the required dimensional standards of the I-
L zone and the Public Utility, Major specific use standards(11-4-3-31). Therefore,the prosed
project meets all required dimensional standards outlined in UDC 11-2C-3 except for the required
street setback to Naomi Avenue. Staff has recommended this be corrected prior to future CZC
submittal.
F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant has not submitted any conceptual elevations of the future buildings. According to
the submitted concept plan,there will be an Administration building, Maintenance building, and a
long"L" shaped covered storage building that will require future Administrative Design Review
(DES) approval as fixture development occurs that will also require Certificate of Zoning
Compliance(CZC). Because future buildings are not proposed until later phases of the project
and because they will require CZC and DES approval, Staff does not find it necessary to obtain
conceptual elevations at this time.However, due to existing and established residential homes to
the south and Ustick being a heavily trafficked arterial roadway, Staff is recommending a DA
provision that any future building fagade that is visible along Ustick Road is held to the
Commercial design standards in lieu of the Industrial design standards.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
Access is proposed via construction of a new collector street that aligns with Naomi Avenue to
the south. The Applicant is proposing to construct the collector street as a 3-lane, 52-foot wide
street section within 74 feet of right-of-way with 5-foot detached sidewalk on the east side of the
street; when the property to the west redevelops they will be expected to complete the street with
sidewalk on their side of Naomi. The submitted plans show this new road to terminate in a
temporary hammerhead type turnaround approximately 625 feet into the site for future road
connectivity to the west. ACHD has offered their approval of the proposed Naomi Avenue
extension and termination on the north side of Ustick Road. There is an existing home on the
property that is expected to be sold and moved to a new property which allows the existing access
to Ustick to be closed sooner than originally proposed.
Off of Naomi Avenue,the Applicant is proposing two driveway accesses for access into the
maintenance facility located approximately 360 and 625 feet north of Ustick Avenue. The
concept plan also shows each access to be gated approximately 150 feet from the edge of right-of-
way of Naomi. ACHD has given their approval of the proposed driveway and gate locations for
the maintenance facility because they meet district policies.
Lastly,the concept plan also shows a westbound deceleration/right-hand turn lane from Ustick
onto Naomi Avenue. The Applicant has stated a desire to include this right-hand turn lane for
trucks and other vehicles to access Naomi without impeding traffic along Ustick. Staff is
supportive of this.ACHD has noted within their staff report this dedicated right-hand turn lane is
not required by ACHD because Ustick Road is programmed to be widened to 5 lanes of travel
within 10 years.
The Naomi Avenue extension would allow for future public road connectivity for the parcels to
the west and allow for more efficient traffic management along the Ustick corridor than
individual nonresidential access points to Ustick common within industrial areas. Staff
appreciates the initial investment being placed on the road infrastructure and extension.All of
the proposed access points (including the existing driveway closure) meet UDC requirements and
ACHD has noted compliance with district policy. Therefore, Staff supports the proposed access
and transportation element of the proposed project.
Page 9
Page 113
Item#3.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II-
3C-6B for nonresidential uses based on the ratio for industrial zoned properties of one (1) space
for every 2,000 square feet of gross building floor area. Staff will confirm compliance with these
standards at the time of CZC submittal for each building. The proposed use of a maintenance
facility will rarely have any customers so the vast majority of parking needs would be for
employees. Initial review of the concept plan does not give Staff any concern over the amount of
parking due to the proposed use and ample area for additional paved parking.
I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
5-foot wide detached sidewalks are proposed within the required landscape buffers to Ustick
Road and the new Naomi Avenue collector street(due to alignment, sidewalks are only proposed
on the east side of Naomi).At the terminus of Naomi,the 5-foot sidewalk is proposed to continue
north within the required 25-foot land-use buffer along the west property boundary and connect to
the required multi-use pathway segment at the north property boundary. The proposed sidewalk
meets UDC requirements.
There is currently no sidewalk to either the east or west of the subject site because neither
property is developed at this time. Further to the east, approximately'/mile, there is existing
sidewalk on the north side of Ustick constructed as part of the McNelis Subdivision. This area of
the City is rapidly developing so sidewalks should be constructed with the landscape buffers for
overall connectivity.
As properties further to the west and east develop in the future adequate pedestrian facilities will
be required and will connect to the overall sidewalk network. In addition, the intersection of
Naomi and Ustick is slated to be signalized in the future as more development occurs in this area.
A signal in this location would allow for safe pedestrian crossing to the established sidewalk
network on the south side of Ustick that offers connection to both Black Cat and Ten Mile Roads.
Furthermore, the sidewalk connection to the multi-use pathway segment along the north
boundary would allow pedestrian connection back to Ten Mile Road through the regional
pathway network. Overall, Staff supports the proposed detached sidewalk layout and locations
within the landscape buffers.
J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8):
Consistent with the sidewalk facilities,the proposed regional pathway extension is required of the
Applicant. In addition,the Applicant is required to construct a pedestrian bridge over the
Ninemile Creek to connect to the existing pathway segment at the west boundary of the McNelis
Subdivision.
The submitted concept plan shows compliance with all of the requirements surrounding the
construction of the multi-use pathway except for the required landscaping along both sides of the
pathway. The north side of the pathway is encumbered by the irrigation easement so the
Applicant has proposed trees only along the south side of the pathway. Staff is not necessarily
against this but the Applicant should be required to apply for Alternative Compliance with the
first CZC to determine the adequate alternative to the landscaping requirement along the creek.
To ensure these pedestrian facilities are constructed, especially the multi-use pathway segment,
Staff is recommending the pathway and sidewalks are constructed with phase I when the
landscaping and fencing are proposed.
Page 10
Page 114
Item#3.
K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The Applicant is required to construct landscape buffers along Ustick Road,Naomi Avenue, and
the remaining western boundary. In addition,the Applicant is required to install landscaping
along the multi-use pathway along the north property. The buffers along Ustick and Naomi are
governed by UDC 11-313-7; the land use buffer along the remaining west property boundary is
governed by UDC 11-313-9; and the multi-use pathway landscaping is governed by UDC 11-313-
12. The Applicant did not submit specific landscape plans for the project but the revised color
concept plan(Exhibit VII.C)does depict proposed landscaping in the required areas.
The revised color concept plan shows lawn and trees within each required landscape area.As
noted previously, Staff is recommending denser landscaping within the landscape buffer to Ustick
Road to help mitigate any noise, light, or fumes from the maintenance facility. Furthermore, the
landscape buffers should be constructed with phase I for this exact reason. The landscaping
shown on the color concept plan appears to meet code requirements but further analysis will be
done with the first CZC submittal and a specific landscape plan is submitted.
L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed
as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC standards as proposed. The Applicant
is proposing to construct 8-foot tall chain-link fencing with 2 feet of barbed wire above that
along the north and east property lines—this fencing is also proposed to be coated in a colored
and rubberized material.Along the west and south property boundaries, the Applicant is
proposing 8-foot tall TREX fencing(see fencing rendering below,Exhibit VILD). The
proposed TREX fencing is being strategically proposed to offer the most screening and
buffering to the existing residences. 8-foot tall fencing is allowed within industrial zoning
districts and per the height definition of fencing provided in UDC, barbed wire fencing is not
included in the height measurement of fencing and is allowed in the I-L zone.
M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
The subject site abuts two waterways along the north and northeast property boundaries—the
Fivemile Creek runs along the north boundary and the Ninemile Creek forks off of the Fivemile
and runs along the north segment of the east boundary. The Master Pathways Plan depicts a
segment of the regional pathway system adjacent to the Fivemile Creek but also requires a
pedestrian bridge to the northeast of the site in order to connect to the existing multi-use pathway
segment further to the east. The Applicant has proposed to build the required multi-use pathway
as well as to construct the pedestrian bridge over the Ninemile Creek to the east. Staff appreciates
the added cooperation with the Parks Department on extending pedestrian facilities.
In addition to the pedestrian elements surrounding the adjacent waterways,there is floodplain
located on the north quarter of the site. Staff has reviewed the site for compliance and notes that a
floodplain permit(s)will be required and that future construction within the floodplain will be
required to adhere to MCC 10-6 for structure elevations and waterproofing. Further and more
specific analysis will be done by Staff with future development applications. In addition,
additional environmental permits may be required with the federal government depending on
where the final location of specific items are located onsite (i.e. fuel tanks,decant station, etc.).
N. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15):
The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the development in
accord with 11-3A-15.No irrigation plans have been submitted for industrial use at this time.
With future development applications,the Applicant will be required to provide a pressurized
Page 11
Page 115
Item#3.
irrigation system for the required landscaping around the site. Land Development will review
these plans in more detail at a later date when specific irrigation plans are submitted.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a
Development Agreement per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on June 17,2021.At the public
hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning
request.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: Becky McKay,Applicant Representative
b. In opposition:None
c. Commenting. Becky McKay; Lloyd Carnegie,ACHD Maintenance Manager.
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner.
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. Timeline for the use of the site, construction of the westbound deceleration lane, and
overall phasing;
b. Potential issues associated with having large trucks utilizing Ustick Road and the site
prior a deceleration lane being constructed by ACHD as part of the overall road
widening project---:A stated that consistent truck traffic to the site should not
occur until after the Ustick Road improvements due to overall timing and use of other
maintenance facilities in the valley as well as the timing of developing the subject site;
C. Estimated timeline for Ustick Road widening Applicant stated there is a desire to
move up the construction of this road widening project to 2024 instead of between
2026-2030;
d. How concrete the proposed concept plan is in terms of building placement and phasing;
e. Capacity of the Commission/City to limit the use of heavy truck traffic for the site via a
condition of approval or DA provision.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Create a new DA provision to help limit heavy truck traffic until Ustick Road is widened
and the deceleration lane is constructed.
5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. Connection to City Sewer services and what the alternatives may be—Planning Staff is
still not aware of the final alternative decided by the Applicant and the City Engineer; if
an answer is known prior to the meeting, Staff will alert City Council.
C. City Council:
Enter Summary of City Council Decision.
Page 12
Page 116
Item#3.
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps
ACHD USTICK PROPERTY - ANNEXATION
LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34, T4N, R1 W, BM, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
C 1/4 1/4
_ _ _ _ S8917'01"E
2647 77 34 35
CURVE TABLE LINE TABLE LINE TABLE
I I
CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD LINE LENGTH BEARING LINE LENGTH BEARING
C1 98.65' 337.00' 16'46'20' S80'41'21'E 98.30' L1 182.16' S7218'11'E L8 105.95' S72'36'59"E
C2 117.40' 458.00' 14'41'10" S79'38'46"E 117.07' L2 145.45' N68'09'49"E L9 45.13' S42'31'05"E
r l C3 99.31' 229.00' 24'50'50" N80'35'14"E 98.53' L3 243.43' S53'20'11"E L10 84.44' N89 07'11"W
W
w I C4 53.16' 143.00' 2118'00" N78'48'49'E 52.86' L4 43.02' SO'53'03"W L11 49.81' 1 SO'09'49'E
a
C5 42.20' 65.00' 3772'00" 571'56'11'E 41.46' L5 295.14' N64'08'05"W L12 45.13' N42'34'43"W
Z I C6 122.51' 100,50' 69'50'36" S37'41'41'E 115.06' L6 277.37' S64'49'45"W L13 105.95' N72'36'38"W
C7 152.82' 290.92' 30'05'54" S57'34'02'E 151.07' L7 140.80' S2'46'23"E
C8 100.29' 190.92' 30'05'55" N57'33'40'W 99.14' 1
C9 72.79' 200.50' 20'48'02' N62'12'37"W 72.39'
CS 1 16 _ FIVE MILE CREEK 362.98' IJ N
S89'04'31"E-Cl -'t1 C3 N89'2T49"E,C5�
434.23' C2
1 S86'59'21"E-940.67' !3_ o
S&1'07'09`N L6 N89'0'303 Ol''w �S
287.40 N86'15'46"W 701.30'
ANNEXATION AREA =
30.27 ACRES c6 L8 J
19
� N 3 !�� �y !1•6�F' �
PARCEL SO434438600
z 3764 W. USTICK RD. y`�0.�ss � ���. 46
o Yr%`9� '3� � o
C3 ,o s2ly ,F ry/
POINT OF sd,lo� si.
BEGINNING o`sue,
�'' � �10
34 N89'07'11"W 825.29' 795,86' _ _ 935,01' 34 35
3 i/4 2640.61' W. U5i1CK RD.
IBASIS OF BEARING 3 z
A
\�NpL LA Afo
0
0 -OH 2110= Lan �1ut1on
0' 200' 400' 800' �, f"' of ���5 Land Surveying and Consulting
S A 231 E_5TH$T_,STE_A
01V W Tar MERIDIAN,ID 8254
(208)26&2040 (M)288.2557 fax
WWW,]and6vlution�biz JCB�;.::- '-
Page 13
Page 117
Item#3.
Legal Description
ACHD Ustick Property -Annexation
A parcel located in the SE '/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point marking the southwest corner of said SE %, from which a point marking
the southeast corner of said SE'%bears S 89'07'11" E a distance of 2640.61 feet;
Thence along the westerly boundary of said SE '% N 0043'44" E a distance of 1290.37 feet to a
point on the centerline of the Five Mile Creek;
Thence along said centerline, also being the southerly boundary of that annexation parcel as
described in Ordinance No. 784, Instrument No. 98003485, records of Ada County, Idaho, the
following described courses and distances:
Thence S 89°04'31" E a distance of 434.23 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 98.65 feet along the arc of a 337.00 foot radius curve right, said
curve having a central angle of 16°46'20" and a long chord bearing S 80°41'21" E a
distance of 98.30 feet to a point;
Thence S 72'18'11" E a distance of 182.16 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 117.40 feet along the arc of a 458.00 foot radius curve left, said
curve having a central angle of 14°41'10" and a long chord bearing S 79°38'46" E a
distance of 117.07 feet to a point;
Thence S 86°59'21" E a distance of 940.67 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 99.31 feet along the arc of a 229.00 foot radius curve left, said curve
having a central angle of 24°50'50"and a long chord bearing N 80°35'14"E a distance of
98.53 feet to a point;
Thence N 68°09'49" E a distance of 145.45 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 53.16 feet along the arc of a 143.00 foot radius curve right, said
curve having a central angle of 21°18'00" and a long chord bearing N 78°48'49" E a
distance of 52.86 feet to a point;
Thence N 89°27'49" E a distance of 362.98 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 42.20 feet along the arc of a 65.00 foot radius curve right,said curve
having a central angle of 37'12'00"and a long chord bearing S 71'56'11"E a distance of
41.46 feet to a point;
Thence S 53'20'11"E a distance of 243.43 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of said
SE
La_I8d::01,gfi0n ACHD Ustick Property Annexation
Q__ ' .d S„ ,m,..d C.ewtm Page 1 of g Jab geo.1 of 3
3
Page 14
Page 118
Item#3.
Thence leaving said Five Mile Creek centerline and along said easterly boundary of the SE '/4
S 0°53'03"W a distance of 43.02 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said easterly boundary N 64°08'05"W a distance of 295.14 feet to a point marking
the northeasterly corner of McNelis Subdivision as shown in Book 100 of Plats on Pages 13082
through 13084, records of Ada County, Idaho;
Thence along the northerly and westerly boundary of said McNelis Subdivision the following
described courses and distances:
Thence N 89°07'41"W a distance of 303.80 feet to a point;
Thence S 64°49'45"W a distance of 277.37 feet to a point;
Thence N 86'15'46"W a distance of 701.30 feet to a point;
Thence S 81°07'09"W a distance of 287.40 feet to a point;
Thence S 2°46'23"E a distance of 140.80 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 122.51 feet along the arc of a 100.50 foot radius curve left, said
curve having a central angle of W50'36" and a long chord bearing S 37d41'41" E a
distance of 115.06 feet to a point;
Thence S 72d36'59" E a distance of 105.95 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 152.82 feet along the arc of a 290.92 foot radius curve right, said
curve having a central angle of 30d05'54" and a long chord bearing S 57°34'02" E a
distance of 151.07 feet to a point;
Thence S 42°31'05" E a distance of 45.13 feet to a point;
Thence continuing along said boundary and the extension thereof S 36d50'13" E a
distance of 861.51 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of said SE%;
Thence along said southerly boundary N 89'07'11"W a distance of 84.44 feet to a point marking
the southeasterly corner of"Parcel C" as shown on Record of Survey No. 6018, records of Ada
County, Idaho;
Thence leaving said southerly boundary and along the easterly boundary of said "Parcel U
N 37d06'59"W a distance of 584.06 feet to a point marking the northerly corner of said "Parcel
C",
Thence along the westerly boundary of said"Parcel U S 0d09'49" E a distance of 49.81 feet to a
point marking the northeasterly corner of"Parcel B"as shown on said Record of Survey No.6018,
also being the northeasterly corner of that annexation parcel as described in Ordinance No. 02-
992, Instrument No. 103012606, records of Ada County, Idaho
Thence along the northerly and westerly boundary if said parcel the following described courses
and distances:
Lzi��r�'ution ACHD Ustick Property Annexation
Job No.21
Land Surveying and Consulting
Page 2 off 3 3
Page 15
Page 119
Item#3.
Thence N 36°49'52"W a distance of 255.94 feet to a point;
Thence N 42°30'43"W a distance of 45.13 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 100.29 feet along the arc of a 190.92 foot radius curve left, said
curve having a central angle of 30°05'55" and a long chord bearing N 57°33'40" W a
distance of 99.14 feet to a point;
Thence N 72°36'38"W a distance of 105.95 feet to a point;
Thence a distance of 72.79 feet along the arc of a 200.50 foot radius curve right, said
curve having a central angle of 20°48'02" and a long chord bearing N 62°12'37" W a
distance of 72.39 feet to a point;
Thence S 0°48'30" W a distance of 760.49 feet to a point on the southerly boundary of
said SE%;
Thence leaving said boundary and along said southerly boundary N 89*07'11" W a distance of
825.29 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains 30.27 acres and is subject to any easements existing or in use.
Clinton W. Hansen, PLS \oNPU LA Nos
Land Solutions, PC 5 STFF GpL
April 14, 2021 m
0
11118
oy �y/mil (
�iL9TF �O �5�0 F
TON W NP
� �� �ons ACHD Ustick Property Annexation
Q----' 3 U.d 5-1ying—d C—ultlng Job No. of 3
Page 3 of 3
Page 16
Page 120
Item#3.
B. Revised Concept Plan(dated: 4/14/2021)
�I
b
_ � 1
E
T
' J, l ' I
1 � (1—LL
r I
U
�� _'yI
, InI � A1,Y1111 4l).e -
�m svae'ww�wsv'� T a� ,.
�• — r
'III Y
T' 11
II
IN ZVI
Pig
fl
a y
� 4 I
I
0 A
T
Ll T _ /
9
MINE
Mop
ACID MAINTENANCE FACD ITY ENGINEERING PIANNLR/CONTACT OWNERIAPPLICAN
V) - W.USTICK ROAD (� icn couun nmr«w�usmla
- PRELIMINARY SITE {S PLAN OLUTIONS„a
Page 17
Page 121
Item#3.
C. Color Concept Plan
G�
I I I
I
E C --E-
£ L j
I
ask—
LF
I J
I
I I
I
r
r
z �
Page 18
Page 122
Item#3.
D. TREX Fence Example
Page 19
Page 123
Item#3.
E. Revised Phasing Plan- 6/14/2021� Not upda4ea a-a NOT APPROVED
Erg
FiIg MILE CkE£X L———————- A!
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
TIMELINE KEY
_-L � PRA2EP
_ — — 2022
2223
AffW4
PXAS25
II
FCr laze .
,�..�__ I
CONSTRUCTION PHASE TIMELINE
(2021-2028)
ACHD MAINTENANCE FACILITY
— -------- W. USTICK ROAD
W. USTICK RCAF] ,re, ni+Mac.� W. USTICK ROAD 1„= 150,
�— T T O _— r LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 34,
r'—T---i - -- — —T---�� II F T.4N., RAW.,B.M.
U ADA COUNTY, IDAHD
os-1�—s1
Page 20
Page 124
Item#3.
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 and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption.
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 approved
concept plans included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein.
b. With the first phase of development,the existing home shall be removed and the existing
driveway access to Ustick Road shall be closed.
c. Future structures proposed along the Ustick Road frontage shall adhere to the
Commercial district design standards in lieu of the Industrial district design standards.
d. The required multi-use pathway segment, detached sidewalks along Ustick and Naomi, 5-
foot micro-path, and landscape buffers shall be constructed with the first phase of
development.
e. The Applicant shall construct all fencing as proposed on the approved concept plan to
specifically include closed vision fencing along the south and west property boundaries.
£ With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall connect to City water and sewer
services, if available. Should sewer service not be available at the time of development,
the Applicant shall connect to sewer services when available or the water service may be
discontinued by the City.
g. Provide a utility easement for the benefit of the City through the site to parcel
SO434438850 to the east along the north half of the boundary for future sewer
infrastructure. Coordinate the exact location with Public Works staff.
h. With the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application,the landscape buffer to
Ustick Road shall be vegetated with additional landscaping to include: trees that touch at
maturity,and; incorporate landscape beds along the entire fence line for added shrubs and
vegetation to help mitigate any noxious uses within the site.
i. The Applicant shall adhere to the specific use standards for the approved Public Utility,
Major use, as outlined in UDC 11-4-3-31.
j. No building permit shall be submitted until phase 4 of the project consistent with the
submitted and revised phasing planOR until the Ustick Road widening and deceleration
lane at Naomi Lane and Ustick Road is constructed.
Page 21
Page 125
Item#3.
2. Prior to commencing any site development,the Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning
Compliance(CZC) approval for the first phase of site development. Any future buildings and
site development will also require CZC approval.
3. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in
UDC Table 11-2C-3 for the I-L zoning district and in UDC 11-4-3-31 for the Public Utility,
Major specific use standards.
4. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table
11-3C-613 for nonresidential uses within the I-L zoning district.
5. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval.
6. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-
3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28.
7. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the applicant shall submit a
public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along Fivemile Creek to the
Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement
shall be a minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side).
8. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be
submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial
compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 With the first phase of development,the Applicant shall connect to City water and sewer
services, if available. Should sewer service not be available at the time of development,the
Applicant shall connect to sewer services when available or the water service may be
discontinued by the City.
1.2 Provide a utility easement for the benefit of the City through the site to parcel SO434438850
to the east along the north half of the boundary for future sewer infrastructure. Coordinate the
exact location with Public Works staff.
Page 22
Page 126
Item#3.
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 be dedicated
via the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on
the construction 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. 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 irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains,exclusive of natural waterways,
intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being developed 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.
2.6 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to
Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water
Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there
are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or
provide record of their abandonment.
2.7 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.
2.8 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures.
2.9 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.
2.10 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Page 23
Page 127
Item#3.
2.11 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.12 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-31-1.
2.13 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.
2.14 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.
2.15 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.meridianciU.oMIgublic worb.aspx?id=272.
2.16 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. PARKS DEPARTMENT—PATHWAYS
https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=230782&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=230783&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a
full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant
an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of
Meridian with the I-L zoning district with the proposed Public Utility, Major use and site
design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met to
help mitigate any noxious uses nearby the existing residences to the south.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the requested development
complies with the regulations outlined in the requested I-L zoning district and is consistent
with the purpose statement of the requested zone.
Page 24
Page 128
Item#3.
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, especially if all conditions of approval are met.
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 annexation is in the best interest of the City.
Page 25
Page 129
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Third Reading of Ordinance No. 21-1933:An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Meridian,Approving the Second Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal
Project, Which Second Amendment Seeks to Deannex Certain Areas From the Existing Meridian
Revitalization Project Area; Which Second Amendment Amends a Plan That Includes Revenue Allocation
Financing Provisions; Authorizing the City Clerk to Transmit a Copy of This Ordinance and Other
Required Information to the County,Affected Taxing Entities, and State Officials; Providing Severability;
Approving the Summary of the Ordinance and Providing an Effective Date
Page 147
Item#4.
C� fIEN ,
IN4,
IDAHG-.
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda
From: Cameron Arial, Community Development Meeting Date: July 13, 2021
Presenter: Cameron Arial Estimated Time: 15 minutes
Topic: Third Reading of Ordinance No. 21-1933: An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of Meridian,Approving the Second Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization
Plan Urban Renewal Project,Which Second Amendment Seeks to Deannex Certain
Areas From the Existing Meridian Revitalization Project Area; Which Second
Amendment Amends a Plan That Includes Revenue Allocation Financing Provisions;
Authorizing the City Clerk to Transmit a Copy of This Ordinance and Other Required
Information to the County,Affected Taxing Entities, and State Officials; Providing
Severability; Approving the Summary of the Ordinance and Providing an Effective
Date
Background
The proposed Second Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan ("Second Amendment")
provides for the deannexation of two areas from the original downtown Meridian Revitalization
District ("original District") which will sunset in 2026.
Meridian Development Corporation ("MDC") has been engaged in urban renewal efforts in the
original District since its adoption in late 2002. New private investment has been hampered by the
2008-2009 recession and, more recently, by uncertainties surrounding COVID-related changes in
the commercial real estate market and rising development costs.
With development costs rising and commercial rents stable, it is difficult for property owners to
justify meaningful redevelopment of the small, infill sites that make up the majority of the original
District. Without intervention, many properties will likely remain underutilized in the foreseeable
future since the current market cannot support the rents required to justify private investment.
The assemblage of parcels can spread soft development costs over a larger area and, coupled with
MDC's ability to fund public infrastructure improvements to accommodate redevelopment, can
spur development interest and the likelihood of securing private equity and financing.
Ultimately, this deannexation will lead to the designated areas being included in a new urban
renewal district and an existing urban renewal district, providing continued redevelopment
opportunities that are otherwise improbable within the remaining lifespan of the original District.
The establishment of a new Northern Gateway district and an amended Union District will allow
for continued public-private partnerships in an area of the City with infrastructure deficiencies.
Page 148
Item#4.
Deannexation Summary
Geographic Area Parcels Size(appx.) Future Action
Northern Gateway 133 77.1 Acres Include as a portion of proposed new Northern Gateway District,
which will also include parcels not currently within a URD
Idaho Block 11 1.5 Acres Annex into Union District
The map below illustrates the Northern Gateway designated properties to be deannexed from the
original District. Ultimately,these properties will be included in a proposed new Northern
Gateway District, along with other parcels not currently in an urban renewal district.
m--C-harry Fairview
M
GRI
Elm � i
G
t - Badley
Mapk
_p
Cherry
Waahirgeon Mdidian Urban W —
Renewal-#1
r F-
�u
I
2
Page 149
Item#4.
The Idaho Block designated properties, shown below,will be deannexed from the original District
and are proposed to be annexed into the adjacent Union District.
r
Idaho +
Meridian
Urha n
Rene #1
c
C
Union
.■r
17istricl
i
.ti
Broadway — — Broadway—
The fiscal impact of the deannexation on MDC's annual revenue is highlighted in Exhibit 513 to the
Second Amendment. The deannexation of these areas will result in a reduction of annual
increment revenue derived from the original District. It has been determined that sufficient
capacity remains to fund operations and obligations and implement the terms of the original
Meridian Revitalization Urban Renewal Plan.
The deannexation will result in new annual revenue for all other taxing entities, as 2002 base year
valuations will be updated to reflect current assessed values. This new revenue stream to other
taxing entities will continue in perpetuity, a result of the updated values. When these properties
are included in a future or amended urban renewal district, new base year values will be
established.
The Second Amendment was adopted by MDC on May 12, 2021 and transmitted for City
consideration.As required,the Second Amendment has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Since the Second Amendment only removes properties from the original District and
does not include any proposed change of use, zoning, or any specific development, the Second
Amendment remains consistent with and was found to be in conformance with the City
Comprehensive Plan, as attested to in Resolution PZ 21-03, adopted June 3, 2021.
3
Page 150
Item#4.
This is the final of three required ordinance readings for this action.
The Eligibility Reports for the proposed new Northern Gateway District and Idaho Block
annexation to the Union District were officially accepted at the July 6, 2021 Council meeting.
Future Actions
Following final adoption of Ordinance 21-1933, staff and consultants will prepare urban renewal
plans for the two areas. City and MDC staff will conduct public outreach efforts to inform and
engage property owners; and the Planning and Zoning Commission must review the proposed
plans and validate their conformity with the City Comprehensive Plan.
The urban renewal plans will then be brought to the City Council for consideration and adoption.
Similar to this Second Amendment action, the final adoption of the Northern Gateway Urban
Renewal Plan and First Amendment to the Union District Urban Renewal Plan will follow three
ordinance readings and a public hearing. It is anticipated that these final actions will occur mid-
November through early December 2021.
4
Page 151
Item#4.
CITE' OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1933
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 7��{ BEi®.1�T, BORTO N, CAVEl°IER,
HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL �gOFp,MERIDIAN
CITY7��OF MERIDIAN,
APPROVING THE
. SECOND AMgENDMENggTg TgO� THE MgERIDIANy�d\.I.'.�VITALIZA�TION
gPLAN URBAN RENEWALPROJECT, WHICH
SECOND AMENDMENT SEEKS TO
DEy A 7N�NEX CERTAIN AREAS FROM THE EXISTING MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION
PROJECT AREA; WHICH SECOND AMENDMENT AMENDS A PLAN THAT
INCLUDES REVENUE ALLOCATION FINANCING PROVISIONS; AUTHORIZING
THE CITE' CLERK TO TRANSMIT�gA COPY O�Fr THIS ORDINANCE AND OTHER
REQUIRED INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY, yA�F�7FyECTED TAXING ENTITIES,
AND STATE OFFICIALS; PROVIDING SEVERADILITV; APPROVING THE
SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, also known as
Meridian Development Corporation("MDC"or"Agency") is an independent public body,
corporate and politic, an urban renewal agency created by and existing under the authority of and
pursuant to the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Title 50, Chapter 20, Idaho Code, as
amended and supplemented (the "Law") and the Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29,
Title 50, Idaho Code, as amended(the "Act");
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2002,the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of
Meridian, Idaho (the "City"), after notice duly published conducted a public hearing on the
Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project, which is also referred to as the Downtown
District(the"Downtown District Plan");
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the City Council on December 3, 2002,
adopted Ordinance No. 02-987 approving the Downtown District Plan, making certain findings
and establishing the Downtown District revenue allocation area(the"Downtown District Project
Area");
WHEREAS, the City Council, after notice duly published, conducted a public hearing on
the First Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project(the "First
Amendment to the Downtown District Plan");
WHEREAS, following said public hearing, the City Council on June 9, 2020, adopted
Ordinance No. 20-1881 approving the First Amendment to the Downtown District Plan
deannexing certain parcels and making certain findings (collectively,the Downtown District
Plan, and amendments thereto, are referred to as the "Existing Downtown District Plan," and the
Downtown District Project Area, and amendments thereto, are referred to as the "Existing
Downtown District Project Area");
DEANNEXATION ORDINANCE 21-1933 - 1 Page 152
Item#4.
WHEREAS, the Agency seeks to further amend the Existing Downtown District Plan to
deannex two (2) areas from the Existing Downtown District Project Area as described in the
Second Amendment defined below;
WHEREAS, the Agency has reviewed the financial impact of the deannexation on its
allocation of revenue and has concluded the remaining allocation of revenue is sufficient to pay
its operations and obligations and to continue to implement the terms of the Existing Downtown
District Plan;
WHEREAS, the Agency has prepared the Second Amendment to the Meridian
Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project(the "Second Amendment"), as set forth in Exhibit 1
attached hereto, identifying the area to be deannexed from the Existing Downtown District
Project Area;
WHEREAS,the Second Amendment amends the Existing Downtown District Plan,
which contains provisions of revenue allocation financing as allowed by the Act;
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2021, the Agency Board passed Resolution No. 21-023
proposing and recommending the approval of the Second Amendment;
WHEREAS,the Agency submitted the Second Amendment to the Mayor and City;
WHEREAS,the Mayor and City Clerk have taken the necessary action in good faith to
process the Second Amendment consistent with the requirements set forth in Idaho Code
Sections 50-2906 and 50-2008;
WHEREAS, as of May 18, 2021,the Second Amendment was submitted to the affected
taxing entities, available to the public, and under consideration by the City Council;
WHEREAS,notice of the public hearing of the Second Amendment was caused to be
published by the Meridian City Clerk in the Meridian Press on May 21, 2021, and June 4, 2021,
a copy of said notices are attached hereto as Exhibit 2;
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Law, at a meeting held on June 3, 2021, the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission considered the Second Amendment and found by P&Z
Resolution No PZ-21-03 that the Second Amendment is in all respects in conformity with the
City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as may be amended (the "Comprehensive Plan") and
forwarded its findings to the City Council, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3;
WHEREAS, as required by Idaho Code Section 50-2906,the Second Amendment was
made available to the general public and all taxing districts at least thirty(30) days prior to the
July 6, 2021, regular meeting of the City Council;
DEANNEXATION ORDINANCE 21-193 3 - 2 Page 153
Item#4.
WHEREAS, appropriate notice of the Second Amendment and the impact on the
revenue allocation provision contained therein has been given to the taxing districts and to the
public as required by Idaho Code Sections 50-2008 and 50-2906;
WHEREAS, the City at its regular meeting held on July 6, 2021, held a public hearing
and considered the Second Amendment as proposed, and made certain comprehensive findings;
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of the City to adopt the Second
Amendment;
WHEREAS,the Second Amendment amends a pre-July 1, 2016, urban renewal plan
containing a revenue allocation financing provision; and therefore,pursuant to Idaho Code
Section 50-2903(4),there is no reset of the base assessment roll to the current values for the
remaining Existing Downtown District Project Area;
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the equalized assessed valuation of the taxable
property in the Existing Downtown District Project Area is likely to increase, and continue to
increase, as a result of initiation and continuation of urban renewal projects in accordance with
the Existing Downtown District Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. OF
THE CITE'OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO:
SECTION l: The Second Amendment attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and made a part
hereof, is hereby approved. As directed by the City Council, the City Clerk may make certain
technical corrections or revisions in keeping with the information and testimony presented at the
July 6, 2021, hearing, and incorporate changes or modifications, if any.
SECTION 2: No direct or collateral action challenging the Second Amendment shall be
brought prior to the effective date of this Ordinance or after the elapse of thirty(30) days from
and after the effective date of this Ordinance adopting the Second Amendment.
SECTION 3: Upon the effective date of this Ordinance,the City Clerk is authorized and
directed to transmit to the County Auditor and Ada County Assessor, and to the appropriate
officials of Ada County Board of County Commissioners, City of Meridian, Ada County
Highway District, Joint School District No 2, Ada County Ambulance/EMS, Meridian Cemetery
District, College of Western Idaho,Meridian Library District, Mosquito Abatement District, the
Western Ada Recreation District, and the State Tax Commission a copy of this Ordinance, a
copy of the legal descriptions of the boundaries of the deannexed areas, and the maps indicating
the boundaries of the areas to be deannexed from the Existing Downtown District Project Area.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
passage, approval, and publication, and shall be retroactive to January 1, 2021,to the extent
permitted by the Law and the Act, with the remaining Existing Downtown District Project Area
maintaining its base assessment roll as of January 1, 2002.
DEANNEXATION ORDINANCE 21-1933 - 3 Page 154
Item#4.
SECTION 5: The provisions of this Ordinance are severable, and if any provision of
this Ordinance or the application of such provision to any person or circumstance is declared
invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of remaining portions of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 6: The Summary of this Ordinance, a copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 4, is hereby approved.
SECTION 7: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled.
SECTION 8: SAVINGS CLAUSE: This Ordinance does not affect an action or
proceeding commenced or right accrued before this Ordinance takes effect.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of July 2021.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of July 2021.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk
DEANNEXATION ORDINANCE 21-1933 - 4 Page 155
Item#4.
Exhibit I
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
Page 156
Item#4.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN
URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
MERIDIAN URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY
(also known as the Meridian Development Corporation)
CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO
Ordinance No. 02-987
Adopted December 3,2002
Effective December 2002, publication
First Amendment to the Plan
Ordinance No. 20-1881
Adopted June 9,2020
Effective June 19,2020, publication
Second Amendment to the Plan
Ordinance No.
Adopted ,2021
Effective , 2021, publication
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT- 1
Page 157
Item#4.
BACKGROUND
This Second Amendment ("Second Amendment") to the Meridian Revitalization Plan
Urban Renewal Project (the "Plan") amends the Plan for the following purposes: (1) to deannex
approximately 77 acres(including right-of-way)generally bounded by Meridian Road on the west
and E. Fairview Avenue on the north. The eastern boundary extends south along what would be
E. 4th Street if extended, over to E. 3rd Street. The southern boundary extends to E. Pine Avenue
between E. 3' Street and E. 2nd Street, and then travels up E. 2nd Street and over E. Washington
Avenue to connect back to Meridian Road. This deannexation is from the plan area/revenue
allocation area created by the Plan commonly referred to as the"Downtown District Project Area,"
adopted by Meridian City Council Ordinance No. 02-987, on December 3, 2002, as amended by
the First Amendment to the Plan in 2020, which deannexed approximately 16 acres from the
Downtown District Project Area, as adopted by Meridian City Council Ordinance No. 20-1881,
on June 9,2020(the"First Amendment");and(2)to deannex approximately 1.46 acres(including
right-of-way) from the Downtown District Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment,and
generally bounded by E. Idaho Avenue on the north, NE 2nd Street on the east, a portion of
Broadway Avenue on the south, and E. Main Street on the west. The scope of this Second
Amendment is limited to addressing the deannexation of certain parcels from the Downtown
District Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment. It is important to note this Second
Amendment to the Plan does not extend the Plan's duration.The Plan terminates on December 31,
2026;however,revenue allocation proceeds will be received in 2027 pursuant to Idaho Code§ 50-
2905(7).
As a result of this second deannexation, in 2021 through the remaining years of the Plan,
the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, also known as the Meridian
Development Corporation (the "MDC") will cease receiving an allocation of revenues from the
deannexed parcels. The increment value of the parcels deannexed from the Downtown District
Project Area pursuant to this Second Amendment shall be included in the net taxable value of the
taxing district when calculating the subsequent property tax levies pursuant to section 63-803,
Idaho Code.The increment value shall also be included in subsequent notification of taxable value
for each taxing district pursuant to section 63-1312, Idaho Code, and subsequent certification of
actual and adjusted market values for each school district pursuant to section 63-315, Idaho Code.
The Ada County Assessor's Office maintains the value information,including the increment value,
if any, included on the new construction roll for new construction associated with the deannexed
parcels.
House Bill 606, effective July 1, 2016, amended the Local Economic Development Act,
Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code,as amended(the"Act")firmly establishing"[flor plans adopted
or modified prior to July 1, 2016, and for subsequent modifications of those urban renewal plans,
the value of the base assessment roll of property within the revenue allocation area shall be
determined as if the modification had not occurred." Idaho Code § 50-2903(4). Though the
provisions of Idaho Code § 50-2903A do not apply to the Plan,a plan amendment or modification
to accommodate a de-annexation in the revenue allocation area boundary is a specifically identified
exception to a base reset. Idaho Code§ 50-2903A(1)(a)(iii). This highlights the legislative support
for these types of amendments.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT-2
Page 158
Item#4.
AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN
l. Definitions. Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan.
2. The following defined terms are amended throughout the Plan as amended by the
First Amendment to the Plan, as follows:
(a) Delete "Amended Project Area" and replace with "Second Amended
Project Area"except where specifically referenced in this Second Amendment.
(b) Delete references to "Attachment 5" and replace with "Attachment 5, as
supplemented by Attachments 5A and 513" except where specifically referenced in this Second
Amendment.
3. Amendment to List of Attachments. The List of Attachments on page vi of the
Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended by deleting the list of
attachments and replacing it as follows:
Attachment 1 Legal Description of the Project Area and Revenue
Allocation Area Boundaries
Attachment 1 A Legal Description of the Boundary of the Deannexed Area
Attachment 1 B Legal Description of the Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed
Areas
Attachment 2 Project Area-Revenue Allocation Area Boundary Map
Attachment 2A Boundary Map of the Deannexed Area
Attachment 2B Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas
Attachment 3 Properties Which May be Acquired by the Agency
Attachment 4 Map Depicting Expected Land Uses and Current Zoning
Within the Second Amended Project Area
Attachment 5 Economic Feasibility Study,Meridian Urban Renewal Area
Attachment 5A Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study: Financial
Analysis Related to the 2020 Deannexation
Attachment 513 Second Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study:
Financial Analysis Related to the 2021 Deannexation
4. Amendment to Section 100 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Plan. Section 100, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is amended by deleting the
list of attachments and replacing it as follows:
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT- 3
Page 159
Item#4.
Legal Description of the Project Area and Revenue Allocation Area Boundaries
(Attachment 1);
Legal Description of the Boundary of the Deannexed Area (Attachment
IA);
Legal Description of the Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed Areas
(Attachment 113);
Project Area-Revenue Allocation Area Boundary Map(Attachment 2);
Boundary Map of the Deannexed Area(Attachment 2A);
Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas (Attachment 213);
Properties Which May be Acquired by the Agency(Attachment 3);
Map Depicting Expected Land Uses and Current Zoning Within the Second
Amended Project Area(Attachment 4);
Economic Feasibility Study, Meridian Urban Renewal Area(Attachment 5);
Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study: Financial Analysis Related
to the 2020 Deannexation(Attachment 5A);
Second Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study: Financial Analysis
Related to the 2021 Deannexation (Attachment 513).
5 Amendment to Section 102.1 of the Plan,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan.
(a) Section 102.1 entitled "CONFORMANCE WITH STATE OF IDAHO URBAN
RENEWAL LAW OF 1965, AS AMENDED" is amended by adding new paragraphs to the end
of the language added by the First Amendment to the Plan as follows:
Subsequent to the First Amendment, in 2021, the Agency and City
reviewed two additional areas for deannexation from the original
Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment, as follows:
approximately 77 acres (including right-of-way) generally bounded
by Meridian Road on the west and E.Fairview Avenue on the north.
The eastern boundary extends south along what would be E. 41h
Street if extended,over to 3rd Street. The southern boundary extends
to E. Pine Avenue between E. 3rd Street and E. 2nd Street, and then
travels up E. 2nd Street and over E. Washington Avenue to connect
back to Meridian Road; and approximately 1.46 acres (including
right-of-way) generally bounded by E. Idaho Avenue on the north,
NE 2nd Street on the east, a portion of Broadway Avenue on the
south, and E.Main Street on the west.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT-4
Page 160
Item#4.
This Second Amendment to the Plan (the "Second Amendment")
deannexes certain parcels from the original Project Area, as
amended by the First Amendment,resulting in a"Second Amended
Project Area"as further described and shown in Attachments 1, 1A,
1B, 2, 2A, and 2B.
This Second Amendment was prepared and submitted to MDC for
its review and approval. MDC approved the Second Amendment
by the adoption of Resolution No. 21-023 on May 12, 2021 and
submitted the Second Amendment to the City Council with its
recommendation for adoption.
In accordance with the Law,this Second Amendment was submitted
to the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian.
After consideration of the Second Amendment, the Commission
filed Resolution PZ-21-03 dated June 3,2021,with the City Council
stating that the Second Amendment is in conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian,adopted on December
17, 2019, by Resolution No. 19-2179.
Pursuant to the Law,the City Council, having published due notice
thereof,held a public hearing on the Second Amendment. Notice of
the hearing was duly published in a newspaper having general
circulation in the City. The City Council adopted the Second
Amendment on , 2021, pursuant to Ordinance No.
6. Amendment to Section 200 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Plan.
(a) Section 200, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, entitled
"DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDED PROJECT AREA"is deleted and replaced as follows:
DESCRIPTION OF THE SECOND AMENDED PROJECT
AREA
The boundaries of the Project Area and of the Revenue Allocation
Area are described in Attachment 1, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference,and are shown on the Project Area
and Revenue Allocation Area Boundary Map, attached hereto as
Attachment 2 and incorporated herein by reference. The Project
Area includes several parcels of property which are located outside
the geographical boundaries of the City but within the City's impact
area. MDC has an existing agreement with Ada County related to
such parcels. The First Amendment and the Second Amendment
have no impact on that agreement.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT- 5
Page 161
Item#4.
Pursuant to the First Amendment, the boundaries of the deannexed
area are described in the Legal Description of the Boundary of the
Deannexed Area in Attachment I and are shown on the Boundary
Map of the Deannexed Area in Attachment 2A.
Pursuant to the Second Amendment, the boundaries of the
deannexed areas are described in the Legal Description of the
Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed Areas in Attachment 1B and are
shown on the Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas in
Attachment 2B.
The attachments referenced above are attached hereto and are
incorporated herein by reference.
7. Amendment to Section 302 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Plan.
(a) Section 302, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the first sentence of the second paragraph and replacing it as follows:
The Second Amended Project Area includes the area as described in
Section 200.
8. Amendment to Section 504 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the
Plan.
(a) Section 504, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the second sentence of the first paragraph and replacing it as follows: Revenue
allocation financing authority for the deannexed parcels pursuant to the First Amendment was
terminated effective January 1,2020,and revenue allocation financing authority for the deannexed
parcels pursuant to the Second Amendment will be terminated effective January 1, 2021.
(b) Section 504, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the last sentence of the fourth paragraph and replacing it as follows: No modifications
to the analysis set forth in Attachment 5 have been made as a result of the First Amendment or the
Second Amendment. The estimated financial impact to the MDC as a result of the deannexation
of certain underdeveloped parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to the First Amendment
is set forth in Attachment 5A. The estimated financial impact to the MDC as a result of the 2021
deannexation of certain parcels from the Amended Project Area pursuant to the Second
Amendment is set forth in Attachment 5B.
9. Amendment to Section 504.1 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to
the Plan.
(a) Section 504.1,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the last sentence at the end of the paragraph and replacing it as follows: No
modifications to the Study have been made as a result of the First Amendment or this Second
Amendment; however, Attachment 5A includes the estimated financial impact to the MDC
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT-6
Page 162
Item#4.
prepared by Kushlan I Associates and SMR Development,LLC as a result of the first deannexation
of certain underdeveloped parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to the First Amendment,
and Attachment 5B includes the estimated financial impact to the MDC prepared by Kushlan
Associates as a result of the second deannexation of certain parcels from the original Project Area,
as amended by the First Amendment, pursuant to the Second Amendment.
10. Amendment to Section 504.3 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to
the Plan.
(a) Section 504.3, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the sentence at the end of the paragraph and replacing it as follows: The deannexation
of parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to the First Amendment and the Second
Amendment does not substantively change this analysis.As a result of the deannexations,the base
assessment roll value will decrease.
11. Amendment to Section 504.4 of the Plan as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan.
(a) Section 504.4,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by deleting the sentence at the end of the second paragraph and replacing it as follows: The
deannexation of parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to the First Amendment reduced
the amount of revenue generated by revenue allocation as set forth in Attachment 5A. The
deannexation of parcels from the original Project Area pursuant to this Second Amendment is
estimated to reduce the amount of revenue generated by revenue allocation as set forth in
Attachment 5B.
(b) Section 504.4,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan,is further amended
by adding a new sentence at the end of the third paragraph as follows:Attachment 5B includes the
estimated financial impact to the MDC as a result of the second deannexation of certain parcels
from the original Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan. Based on the
findings set forth in Attachment 513, the conclusion is the second deannexation of certain parcels
from the original Project Area,as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan,does not materially
reduce revenue allocation and the Project continues to be feasible.
12. Amendment to Section 800 of the Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to
the Plan.
(a) Section 800, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended
by adding a new sentence at the end of the first paragraph as follows:The deannexation of parcels
from the original Project Area, as amended by the First Amendment, pursuant to this Second
Amendment has no impact on the duration of this Plan.
13. Amendment to Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan to add new
Attachment 113. The Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended to
add new Attachment 113 entitled "Legal Description of the Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed
Areas,"attached hereto.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT-7
Page 163
Item#4.
14. Amendment to Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan to add new
Attachment 2B. The Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended to
add new Attachment 2B entitled"Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas,"attached hereto.
15. Amendment to Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan to add new
Attachment 5B. The Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, is further amended to
add new Attachment 5B entitled"Second Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study:Financial
Analysis Related to the 2021 Deannexation,"attached hereto.
16. Downtown District Plan, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan Remains
in Effect. Except as expressly modified in this Second Amendment, the Plan and the Attachments
thereto, as amended by the First Amendment to the Plan, remain in full force and effect.
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN URBAN
RENEWAL PROJECT- 8
Page 164
Item#4.
Attachment 1 B
Legal Description of the Boundaries of the 2021 Deannexed Areas
Page 165
Item#4.
ATTACHMENT 1
DE-ANNEXATION BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
FOR
MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NORTHERN GATEWAY
A description for De-Annexation purposes located in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West, also being in the NW 1/4 of Section 7, and in the N 1/2 of the
SW 1/4 of Section 7,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a brass cap monument marking the northeasterly corner of said NW 1/4 of
Section 7,from which a brass cap monument marking the northwesterly corner of said
Section 7 bears S 88°35'17" W a distance of 2404.78 feet;
Thence S 88°35'17" W along the northerly boundary of said Section 7 a distance of 630.19 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing S 88�35'17" W a distance of 1774.59 feet to a point marking the
northwesterly corner of said Section 7;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary N 89'26'54" W along the northerly boundary of said
NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 a distance of 357.11 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary S 0°33'06" W a distance of 57.00 feet to a point on the
southerly right-of-way of W Cherry Lane;
Thence along said southerly right-of-way the following described courses:
Thence S 62'43'15" E a distance of 12.62 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of
NW 1st Street;
Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way S 86a48'50" E a distance of 60.07 feet to a
point on the easterly right-of-way of NW 1st Street;
Thence leaving said easterly right-of-way N 66°24'13" E a distance of 12.07 feet to a
point;
Thence S 89*26'54" E a distance of 182.01 feet to a point;
Page 1 of 6
Page 166
Item#4.
Thence S 45'34'48" E a distance of 41.81 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of
N Meridian Road;
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way and along said westerly right-of-way the following
described courses:
Thence S 3a25'19" E a distance of 81.40 feet to a point;
Thence S 0'23'29" W a distance of 119.26 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way S 89*36'31" E a distance of 57.50 feet to a point on
the westerly boundary of said NW 1/4 of Section 7;
Thence N 0°23'29" E along said westerly boundary a distance of 9.32 feet to a point on the
extension of the northerly boundary of PARCEL A as shown on Record of Survey No. 10448,
instrument No. 2016-028560,found in said office of the Recorder;
Thence N 89'36'58" E along said extension a distance of 46.00 feet to a point marking the
northwesterly corner of said PARCEL A;
Thence continuing N 89°36'58" E along the northerly boundary of said PARCEL A a distance of
194.02 feet to a point marking the northeasterly corner of said PARCEL A;
Thence S 0'23'29"W along the easterly boundaries of said PARCEL A and of PARCEL 8 of said
Record of Survey No. 10448 a distance of 233.00 feet to a point marking the southeasterly
corner of said PARCEL 8;
Thence S 89'36'58"W along the southerly boundary of said PARCEL 8 a distance of 50.01 feet
to a point;
Thence leaving said southerly boundary S 0'23'29" W a distance of 106.39 feet to a point;
Thence S 89'36'05" W a distance of 150.01 feet to a point on the easterly right-of-way of
N Meridian Road;
Thence along said right-of-way the following described courses:
Thence S 0'23'29" W a distance of 1015.39 feet to a point;
Thence S 23°44'59" E a distance of 9.44 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of
E Washington Street;
Page 2 of 6
Page 167
Item#4.
Thence leaving said easterly right-of-way N 89'36'04" E along said northerly right-of-way a
distance of 440.45 feet to a point on the westerly right-of-way of N Main Street;
Thence leaving said northerly right-of-way N 0°33'24" E along said westerly right-of-way a
distance of 256.24 feet to a point on the extension of the northerly boundary of that PARCEL as
shown on Record of Survey No. 1171, Instrument No. 8761859,found in said office of the
Recorder;
Thence leaving said westerly right-of-way N 89'58'13" E along said extension a distance of
80.00 feet to a point marking the northwesterly corner of said PARCEL;
Thence continuing N 89'58'13" E along the northerly boundary of said PARCEL a distance of
249.98 feet to a point marking the northeasterly corner of said PARCEL, said point being the
northwesterly corner of SCHOOL PLAZA SUBDIVISION NO. 1 as found in Book 64 of plats at
Pages 6501—6502 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence along the easterly boundary of said PARCEL and the westerly boundary of said SCHOOL
PLAZA SUBDIVISION NO. 1 the following described courses:
Thence S 0°33'24" W a distance of 290.72 feet to a point;
Thence N 89`26'36" W a distance of 37,00 feet to a point;
Thence S 0°33'24" W a distance of 280.00 feet to a point marking the southeasterly
corner of said PARCEL and marking the southwesterly corner of said SCHOOL PLAZA
SUBDIVISION NO. 1;
Thence leaving said boundaries S 0*33'24" W along an extension of said boundaries a distance
of 60.01 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of Block 5 of F A NOURSES SECOND
ADDITION as found in Book 2 of plats at Page 64 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence leaving said extension N 89'35'47" E along said northerly boundary a distance of 87.19
feet to a point marking the northeasterly corner of said Block 5;
Thence S 0°31'57" W along the easterly boundary of said Block 5 a distance of 255.99 feet to a
point marking the southeasterly corner of said Block 5;
Thence continuing S 0°31'57" W a distance of 80.01 feet to a point marking the northeasterly
corner of Block 2 of said FA NOURSES SECOND ADDITION;
Page 3 of 5
Page 168
Item#4.
Thence continuing S 0°31'57"W along the easterly boundary of said Block 2 a distance of
256.02 feet to a point marking the southeasterly corner of said Block 2;
Thence S 0'32'08" W a distance of 80,01 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way of E Pine
Avenue as shown on Record of Survey No. 11653, Instrument No. 2018-119154,found in said
office of the Recorder;
Thence along said southerly right-of-way the following described courses:
Thence N 89'35'22" E a distance of 80,01 feet to a point marking the northwesterly
corner of that right-of-way vacated to adjoining owners, as described in Instrument No.
98218, of Block 7 of the amended plat of the TOWNSITE OF MERIDIAN as found in Book
1 of plats at Page 30 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence continuing N 89'35'22" E a distance of 308.78 feet to a point marking the
northeasterly corner of said vacated right-of-way of Block 1 of the amended plat of
ROWAN ADDITION as found in Book 2 of plats at Page 52 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence continuing N 89'35'22" E a distance of 80.04 feet to a point marking the
northwesterly corner of said vacated right-of-way of Bock 6 of said amended plat of
ROWAN ADDITION;
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way N 0'58'55" E a distance of 80.02 feet to a point
marking the southwesterly corner of Block 3 of COTTAGE HOMEADDITION as found in Book 1
of plats at Page 42 in said office of the Recorder;
Thence N 0'37'13" E along the westerly boundary of said Block 3 a distance of 256.03 feet to a
point marking the northwesterly corner of said Block 3;
Thence continuing N 0'37'13" E a distance of 80.01 feet to a point marking the southwesterly
corner of Block 6 of said COTTAGE HOME ADDITION;
Thence continuing N 0'37'13" E along the westerly boundary of said Block 6 a distance of
255.93 feet to a point marking the northwesterly corner of said Block 6;
Thence N 89'35'47" E along the northerly boundary of said Block 6 a distance of 299.64 feet to
a point marking the northeasterly corner of said Block 6;
Thence continuing N 89'35'47" E a distance of 99,67 feet to a point the northwesterly corner of
Lot 1 of Block 1 of EASTSIDE PARK SUBDIVISION as found in Book 20 of plats at Pages 1312—
1313 in said office of the Recorder;
Page 4 of 6
Page 169
Item#4.
Thence continuing N 89'35'47" E along the northerly boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 12,32
feet to a point on an extension of the easterly boundary of Lot 1 of Block 3 of said EASTSIDE
PARK SUBDIVISION;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary N 0°34'47" E a distance of 60.01 feet to the
southeasterly corner of said Lot 1 of Block 3;
Thence S 89*35'47"W along the southerly boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 71.98 feet to the
southwesterly corner of said Lot 1;
Thence N 0*35'03" E along the westerly boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 120.38 feet to the
northwesterly corner of said Lot 1;
Thence N 89°35'47" E along the northerly boundary of said Lot 1 a distance of 11.00 feet to a
point;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary N 0935'00" E a distance of 120.38 feet to a point on the
northerly boundary of said Block 3;
Thence N 89'35'47" E along said northerly boundary a distance of 10.60 feet to a point on the
extension of the easterly right-of-way of NE 4th Street;
Thence leaving said northerly boundary N 0'34'47" E along said extension a distance of 30.00
feet to a point on the centerline of E Washington Avenue;
Thence leaving said extension S 89*35'47" W along said centerline a distance of 30.00 feet to a
point marking the intersection of said E Washington Avenue and NE 4th Street;
Thence leaving said centerline of E Washington Avenue N 0a34'47" E along the centerline of
said NE 4th Street a distance of 731.98 feet to a point marking the intersection of said NE 4th
Street and E Badley Avenue;
Thence leaving said centerline of NE 4th Street and continuing N 0'34'47" E along an extension
of said centerline of NE 4th Street a distance of 30.00 feet to a point on the southerly boundary
of that PARCEL as shown on Record of Survey No. 10184, Instrument No. 2015-067809,found in
said office of the Recorder;
Thence leaving said extension S 89'32'57" E along said southerly boundary a distance of 102.03
feet to a point marking the southeasterly corner of said PARCEL;
Page 5 of 6
Page 170
Item#4.
Thence N 0'35'00" E along the easterly boundary of said PARCEL a distance of 912.62 feet to a
point on the southerly right-of-way of E Fairview Avenue;
Thence leaving said easterly boundary and continuing N 0'35'00" E along an extension of said
easterly boundary a distance of 47.50 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains approximately 77.090 acres.
NOTE: This description was prepared using record information including Record of Surveys,
Subdivision Plats and Deeds acquired from the Ada County Recorder's office. No field survey has
been performed.
Prepared by: Kyle A. Koomler, PLS LAB
Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated ��, Ns d`�G
June 8, 2021 < G
17 0
41"t 0 F
Page 6 of 6
Page 171
Item#4.
ATTACHMENT 1
URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
FOR
MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
IDAHO BLOCK
A description for Urban Renewal District purposes located in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of
Section 7,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, and being a part of Block 4 of the
amended plat of the TOWNSITE OF MERIDIAN as found in Book 1 of plats at Page 30 in the
office of the Recorder,Ada County, Idaho,more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a 5/9 inch diameter iron pin marking the intersection of N Main Street and
E Idaho Avenue, from which a brass cap monument marking the intersection of NE 2nd Street
and E Idaho Avenue bears S 88a43'59" E a distance of 380.05 feet;
Thence S 88a43'59" E along the centerline of said E Idaho Avenue a distance of 40,00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing S 88°43'59" E a distance of 300.04 feet to a point on an extension of the
easterly boundary of said Block 4;
Thence leaving said centerline S 0°31'47"W a distance of 40.00 feet to a point marking the
northeasterly corner of said Block 4;
Thence continuing S 0"31'47"W along said easterly boundary a distance of 256,13 feet to a
point marking the southeasterly corner of said Block 4;
Thence N 88°44'00" W along the southerly boundary of said Block 4 a distance of 90.05 feet to
a point marking the southwesterly corner of Lot 8 of said Block 4;
Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 0°32'12" E along the westerly boundary of said Lot 8
a distance of 120.07 feet to a point marking the northwesterly corner of said Lot 8;
Thence N 88'43`59" W along the northerly boundary of Lots 1-7 of said Block 4 a distance of
210.08 feet to a point on the westerly boundary of said Block 4, said point being the
northwesterly corner of Lot 1 of said Block 4;
Thence N 0°33'09" E along said westerly boundary a distance of 136.07 feet to a point marking
the northwesterly corner of said Block 4;
Page I of 2
Page 172
Item#4.
Thence continuing N 0*33'09" E on an extension of said westerly boundary a distance of 40.00
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains approximately 1,461 acres.
NOTE: This description was prepared using record information including Record of Surveys,
Subdivision Plats and Deeds acquired from the Ada County Recorder's office, No field survey has
been performed.
Prepared by: Kyle A. Koorriler, PLS
Civil Survey Consultants, Incorporated
May 26, 2021 6 �
1878 0
CL
1!tOF%0
A. KO
Page 2of2
Page 173
Item#4.
Attachment 2B
Boundary Maps of the 2021 Deannexed Areas
Page 174
Item#4.
ATTACHMENT 2B -NORTHERN GATEWAY
SKETCH/ TO ACCOMPANY OE-ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR
MERIDIAN DEl IEL OPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED IN THE NE 114
OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE
1 WEST, ALSO BEING IN THE NW 114 OF SECTION 7, AND IN
THE N 112 OF THE SW 714 OF SECTION 7 TOWNSHIP 3
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
LEGEND
URD BOUNDARY
f7`
DE—ANNEXATION AREA
BASIS OF BEARING
6 S 88'35'17" w 2404.78' 1�4
S 89 26 54" E 2655.27' 12 7 E A E UE
W CHERRY LANE
SE'E SHEET 2 OF 3
N
SF S E OF J tr
O N N
� � f
o :
S SHEET J OF J II
114 ( C 114
N 89'35 22 E
�Q P L E PINE AVENUE
EN FD y
,c
18780
of
!F A . KO d �
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC.
2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD SCALE: 1"'=7000'
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208)888-4312
SHEET 1 OF 3
Page 175
Item#4. ACHMENT 2B ®NORTHERN GATE I
t 1/4
N 2ND TREET
<o N
357.1
L-1 N
L, 2
MY 1 S S R ET v- S
_ L-4
I L-6
� � Z
SCALE• 1"=300' L-7 cn
N MERIDIAN ROAD L-8
N 0'23 29" E 2652.11' L-9 2 1
23623.3 28 .46'
2 2 " W 1015. 9" L-10 6
LEGEND ; 46.00'
L—l3 I
URD BOUNDARY —f 233.00'
DE ANNEXATION AREA
A/ THE
NS G�
18780 7141
of
NE 2ND 1/2 SLl III
TRE
" CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS,INC. k+ �
2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD J ,
MERIDIAN,IDAHO 83642
} (208)888-4312 — p
Q �
LINE DATA
LINE BEARING DISTANCE
L—1 S 0 33'06' W 57.00' N4* 4 H S ET 8
4-2 S 62'43'15" E 12.6Z O•YT¢7• N
L—3 S 86'48 50" E 60.07' f� 1 98 4 .50'
L-4 N 6624'13" E 12.07' 1912.2"
L-5 S 89'2654" E 782.01, N 0J500"E 960.12"
L—6 S 45'34'48" E .. 41.81, POINT OF
L-7 S 3'2.5'19"E 87.40' BEGINNING
L-8 S 02329" W 119.26'
L-9 S 89 3637"E 57.50' ( p
L-10 N 0'2329" E 9.32'
L—11 N 8936 58" E 240.02'
L—12 S 89'36 58" W 50.01"
'36 05" W 150.01'
L 13 S O'2329" W 106.39,
L—74 S 89O'34 47"' I
L-28 N E 30.00'
L—29 S 89'32 57" E 702.0.3' SHEI T 2 OF 3 1/4 -
Page 176
L/t=#4ACHMENT 2'. -NORTHERNGATEWAY (COTS
N MERIDIAN ROAD
SCALE: 1'=3GJ' 114 N 0'2329" E 2652.11'
LEGEND s o;w3w"w'
W J 5. /
URD BOUNDARY
rLDE-ANNEXATION AREA
N MAIN STREET ,
N� LA 80.00' ,�
S' obi h of
N S a I I 340,01'
n L-18 S 0*3}324'W290.7
I T 87 S 3 '24" W
18780 2 o a01' 255.99'
80.01' /N ND STR L-1
Of \"P 7
�I o NE 2ND I STRE
i
Z 80.04 o' 3 591. 8
q 256 3'—d001' 255 93'
Lti L-19
W
I
,7Z31.9,8'
344 "E
^N NE 4TH STREET a � C-22 C-24
1232' 47H STREET
L 21 L-2
r L-20
LEI— o �
4
NE 5TH STREET al E 5TH STREET
LINE DATA
LINE BEARING DISTANCE I Q I
4-15 S 23'44 59" E 9.44'
L-16 N 89'26 36" W 37.00'
L-17 N 893547" E 87.19,
L-18 S O'32 08' W 8a 01' LQ
L-19 N 0'5855" E 0.02'
C 1/4 N 0'34 47" E 26.94.28'
L-20 N 0'34 47" W 60.01' ~�
L-21 S 89'3547" W 71.98' I
L-22 N O'3503" E 120,38' g
L-23 N 89-3547" E 11.00, CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS,INC.
L-24 N 0'35 00" E 120.38' 2883 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD
L-25 N 89 3547" E 10.60,
y MERIDIAN,IDAHO 83642
L-26 N O'34'47" E 30.00' h (20$j888 4312
SHEET 3 0c-27 S 89'35'4/" 'rY 30.00'
3
Page 177
ATTACHMENT 2B ® DAHO BLOCK
SKETCH TO ACCOMPAN)"' URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT DESCRIPTION
FOR MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCATED IN THE
NW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP J NORTH,
RANGE I EAST, 3015E MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
POINT OF E IDA80 AVENUE
BEGINNINGBA51S OF REARING
S 88'4359" E 380.05,
40.00' Job.0
'\ \ \\\ �� 40.00'
LQ
4
oz�\\
k
A L �k
60,02' Jo.0 7'
LQ
40'
40.O.,Z\20.Q
N 88, 00" w 90.05'
5 88'4400" E jgo.18,
E 8ROADWA Y AVENUE
LEGEND
URD 80UNDARr AA(
SO
N S
URD AREA
18780
cloCIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC.
f
/l, 2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 0
(208)888-4312 A. K0fJ
Item#4.
Attachment 5B
Second Supplement to the Economic Feasibility Study:
Financial Analysis Related to the 2021 Deannexation
4851-4344-7734,v.3
Page 179
Item#4.
Attachment 5B
Memo to: Meridian Development Corporation Board of Commissioners
Ashley Squyres, MDC Administrator
Meghan Conrad, Counsel
From: Phil Kushlan, Principal, Kushlan I Associates
Subject: Fiscal Impact of de-annexation
Date: April 28, 20211
We have been retained to analyze the fiscal impact of removing two distinct geographic areas
from the existing Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project Area, also referred to as
the Downtown District. The first area is generally bounded by Meridian Road on the west and
E. Fairview Avenue on the north. The eastern boundary extends south along what would be E.
4th Street if extended, over to 3rd Street. The southern boundary extends to E. Pine Avenue
between E. 3rd Street and E. 2nd Street, and then travels up E. 2nd Street and over E. Washington
Avenue to connect back to Meridian Road. This area is generally referred to as the "Northern
Gateway Area." The purpose of the de-annexation of the Northern Gateway Area would be to
allow the inclusion of these properties into a proposed Northern Gateway Urban Renewal
District.
The second area is generally bounded by E. Idaho Avenue on the north, NE 2nd Street on the
east, a portion of Broadway Avenue on the south, and E. Main Street on the west. This area is
generally referred to as the "Idaho Block." The purpose of the de-annexation of the Idaho Block
would be to allow the inclusion of this block into a proposed amendment to the existing Union
District Project Area.
Removing taxable properties from a revenue allocation area, as suggested here, would release
the incremental value of those tax parcels back to the general property tax rolls thus
eliminating the revenue currently generated by the existing district from those properties. In
making a decision on the de-annexation question one must understand the fiscal impact upon
the existing Downtown District in the context of that District's ongoing financial obligations.
Our study has done that.
In our analysis of the Northern Gateway Area, we reviewed each of the 133 tax parcels that are
currently within the boundaries of the existing Downtown District that are to be deannexed. In
1 Revised June 14,2021. These updates reflect technical changes to add a sliver parcel to the Idaho Block analysis
but do not alter the finding that the Downtown District remains economically feasible following the proposed
deannexation.
1
Page 180
Item#4.
each case we segregated the base value from the incremental value and calculated the revenue
generated by each factor. From that analysis, we demonstrated that the 133 parcels generated
a total of$379,648 in property taxes in 2020, the latest year for which we have certified values
and tax yields. Of that amount $162,121 was generated from the Base Assessed Value and
allocated to the various taxing entities levying property taxes within the Downtown District.
The Incremental Values on those properties generated $217,526 in 2020, which was allocated
to the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho, also known as the Meridian
Development Corporation (MDC). This latter number is the estimated amount of foregone
revenue that the Downtown District will experience annually though the de-annexation of
these tax parcels, from calendar year 2022,through calendar year 2027, the termination year of
the Downtown District.
In our analysis of the Idaho Block we reviewed eleven (11) tax parcels in a similar manner as the
process described above. Those parcels produced a total of$26,552 in property tax payments
in 2020. Of that amount$13,449 was generated from the Base Assessed Value and thus
allocated to the taxing entities. The remainder($13,103) was allocated to MDC and represents
the annual foregone amount upon deannexation of these parcels from the Downtown District.
The MDC Annual Financial Statements indicated that the incremental revenue generated by the
Downtown District in 2020 was$1,610,499. A reduction of$217,526 from the Northern
Gateway Area would be a 13.5% reduction in annual revenue. A reduction of$13,103 from the
Idaho Block would be a 0.81% reduction in annual revenue. In addition, we reviewed the
Financial Statements for FY 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. See attached spreadsheet
for details. In each of those fiscal years the fiscal results of MDC activities reflected significant
Fund Balances. The audited Fund Balance for FY 2020 was$3,750,449. If the $217,526 and
$13,103 reductions had been in place in 2020, the Agency would have experienced a 14.32%
reduction ($230,629) in annual revenue for the Downtown District. The Debt Service
commitments for the District are relatively small when compared to its overall fiscal strength.
The 2020 Debt Service Principal amount was $115,520 and the Interest amount was $8,097.
The Agency's 2021 Budget reflected a conservative approach to revenue, appropriating only
$1,600,000 in current property tax revenue. Undefined "Special Project" funding was set at
$1,179,598 in the 2021 Budget and $1,700,000 was assigned to the Nine-Mile Floodplain
project. The Staff and Commission should use their discretion is weighing the importance of
the current program funding levels versus the importance of including these parcels in a new
Revenue Allocation Area. It appears as though there is sufficient capacity in the fiscal program
of the Downtown District to accommodate this loss of revenue should the MDC and City
Council choose to do so.
2
Page 181
Item#4.
I� al o of �o Ln r� 00 0 1, I, al al . o
lD 0) Ln 't 1-4 l0 V7 N N Ol l0 V N Ln N
C Ln V CY 01 Ln ri lD lD Vl O ' O �T lD ri 00
N r-I O (n m Ln N 1p N L!1 00 Ln O O �6 Ol
p O ri Ol O O M 00 r-I r-I Ln Ln m
N l0 LD r-I 00 d' M .-i .-i lD ^ N Ln
>. N r-I ri ;T M M
LL
V} V} V? t/} th th Vl• V} i/? V? V} Vi. V? V} V}
ri �F Ln m o al fl, m rn o Ln m r,
D lD m O I" 00 lD ri o 00 M lD
Ln M N lD N O O Ill Ln ci N lD Ln
,I Vl al N r-I L, 00 00 00 ri N n Ln .--i
C m 0) Ql Ol N M 00 r-1 r-I LD N O
00 ri r-I Ln r, lD
LL
V} V? i/} V} t/? V} t/1• t/T V} VT V} V? VT
ri Ol LD V) lD L/l LD Ln Ln ,T Ln ri i
Ol r-I N C} m Ln 00 ri
00 m O m m Il n Ln N lD C, ri to o\'
ry m N O N Ln r-: I� ri L, Ln O' Ln O C
N V m W L It m in r^-I O .-i 0100 MO p .p
ri r-I ri N N X
X C
O O .0
V? to tl} V? Vt 4^ V) t? IA V? Ln V} V4 u rp
ri lD lD N M 00 00 -1 i, 00 N .-i
Ln 00 Ln rt O O N Q CD O w l Ol Il, l l — K
Ln � oo to ri of -� lD Ln n 00 m a) O
00 Ln l0 N -4 (» O Ol M O L,� M
N I, 'It N Ln lD 00 ri O N 00 lD � U
Ol O ri O N ri ri Ln d' N 10 (6
> CL X
L
� � C
Ol l0 ci I� lD I" 00 00 Ln n O Ln ri O
Ln c} N lD N Ct Vl m V 00 O n Ln +'
,41 Ln O Vl O tt I, rn ri 110 -1 V Ln j O
01 � ri Lf 00 L rr O lD' a Ln ri LD 00 N N
l0 00 00 Ln � 11 N 00 N C w
In
Ol ri al O m 00 LT ci al Vl 00 O Ol
0) Il N O Ol a' r-I Ln to lD 00 V Ln
O Ln lD N N I, r-I (n N Ln r-I 00 lzr
00 n 00 LD 00 L-� d' L(1 a ri 1p Cl
I� 00 00 Ln d' ci N m N V) ri
Ol lD
c-I
lD V 00 N 00 L, W m m Ol r-I Ol Ol
Ol Vl 1, m N N Ol Ol ri r-I 00 1V Ol
Vl r O 00 cY I, Ln I'l. (V O at M O
O m ri V V) m Ol Ol Ol lD 00 L, 00
C) lOD ri O V V 0000 ri Ol M r-I 1.0 n
r-I
N
E
0
U
C
G
O
u
u
O �
E N
N +
OU Y
(U C N Q cc
ucu
> + i W G
L E O 7
0 _0N r6 z oN = v c u
ai
m U K
v
v n v v v v o :3 m
O ..O Q O_ Ln '++ >. A' m
W 16 76 O f6 U (V �+ C 'D
_C 3 > M mO '0 i _O_ ++ O SZ 7
C Q Q Q m A W O U i O X W
� O U = Y W 00
cu
m D O F F O a a p O F Ly
Page 182
Item#4.
Exhibit 2
NOTICES PUBLISHED IN THE
Meridian Press on May 21, 2021, and June 4, 2021
Page 183
Item#4.
LEGAL NOTICE
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING BYTHE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO
TO CONSIDER THE SECOND AMENDMENTTO THE
MERMAN REVITALIZATION PLAN,URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT
OFTHE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,ALSO KNOWN AS
MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN mat on Tuesday,July 6,2D21,06:00 pm.In City Council Cham-
o(erWlan,IdahMeridian o I'C6y'ME hold,during its regWer m6eHM a pubic Idaho,the Gheyaring to of
for
adalabn Me Propped SBmad Amentlment b the Mendian liwitelizatkm Plan Urban Renewal
Pro;eG('SecomdMwndment")concerning the Meridian Revheltzafion Plan Urban Renewal Pro}
act Azee,u amended by Me First Amendment b the Mardian He0duh, con Plan Urban Renewal
Pon Idaho.a eo k nnrn n r gsDeelopnant(grporatbn(%panty The general stop Project,Area')of the Urban Rut—I Agarocy (a 9ndoatr
jectiw of the Second Amenmant is Me deamnexation of two distinct geographic areas;from the
boundedea of the Exi g Downkmm gstri M Project Ama.Tha proposed reductbn in Me bouM-
bo tt urban rasne�weOl and m Cuss—
ellocetion teas.Theocty Second Amendmentbourdary udles
bed
for ad ten cenwirs a prevbuaursuant in
oMrg cans
the La l Economic Devebpment M Chapter 2S,Title 500.allocation
Code,that will pcoalxn to
Mow oQdsi end ewrye-sexesed veluetioipas slew Im the basoeeauselRas—aemf the
am cull as of Jarwanryl 1 2002,oto be
Yocatetl b the Apenq for urban renewal purposes.The Agency has adopted and recommended
apgwal of the Seoontl AmandmeM.
The Second Amendment to the Plan shall de-arcrex the following areas Irom the Existing Do—
loom District project Area:
The fire!area(marked q habh'ir I and f)enewly reMretl b as tprM A .—AmsN
I.located in Me rerMMN Arno of Me Exslaa Dow.Disbbt
bounded by Meridian Roadonth wealand E.FairA wAwnueonMenorth.Theeasbmbound-
ry exlads south along what would be E.4lh Street if extended,ovo b 3rd SImeLTfw eaulhern
boundary ezMda b E.Pima Awoue between E.SO Street and E.2nd Skean,and than bawl.
up E.2nd Street and own E.Waaagtan Avenue b protect Wok so Mardian Road,and as mom
ba8—ro Mali,delscrirbed in Me Second Amendment to the Plan antl depicted in Me shaded parcel.
1
1
e �
c
E YI i 4 i
Mipk— i c
1 � i
OmdN6 0
I i
I• uhllgton ............ s —W
Re Will
r i 1 l i
•1
� 1 1
1
I j 1
I I \
71w aapnd area(mede0 q hadhlnp)and powwly relemed b As Ihe'Iditho Blx:k;is located
twat Ind dowrgowrl Wre of the CHy and s'r:.6y banded by E.Idaho Awnua on the-ft
E.2nd BMat on Me sun,a portion M eroetlway Avenue on the south,and E.Main Shset un the
west and u mow par6plariy described in the Secontl Amendnent to he Plan and depicted M
Uw slledetl parosb in the MaP,boaw.
1
I
I
uw N
NONMN 11 I
; 9
i
= i
wA 1
t,
s
--omdol,
Copies d Me proposed Secod Amendment are on fite kx pudic Inapectian and copying al
Ind Duce of Ma Cily Clerk,Meridian City Hall,33 E.Broadwaayy Averaw,Merk2an,Itlaho 83842,
between Me hours d 8:00 a.m.and 5%p.m.,Mondry mrouph Fnday,exd=d Ialh.83The
proposed Severed Amendmem pre also be aaoanatl aline at hapJhit.y/MRP2ndArrientlmam.
For additional axiaterae in obbininp a coq of the Secod Amendment M the event d bucireas
olfae inbmup5ona,contec[!M nap of the City Clark an 208-868-4433.
At the hearirrp deb,time,and Piece rated above(Juy 6,2021,a16:00 p.m.),all persona mb,
as in the abate nwaere mry appear and be heard.Because social ditsncing o dwa may be
in e1bcl at the time of Me heannp,—"teaI—s enpureged.N9illan testimony muss W
subrnitsd at least fie worbnp days prior to Me hean;.Oral boimgry dmay be IimaW b three
maubs Per parson.Inbnnaaon p accessing the mselbp ramolsy will be posted on the 1.1
lished agendas,ro star Nan d8 Murs pMr b!hie meetlnp at htlps://maMsralyoryapentlas.
AtltlNonal bbrnwibn repaMirq provldinp testmoq in complia ce with arA'soGial dislanolp o-
tlerain66ecnmrybeobtainedbypiling20 SM-4433orbyemailatdlycisdOmwOaridy,og.
Mandan City Hall b accaaalde b pslsons whh dsabilitsE.A inbrmafiaa pretemed in the
hearing hall Lao be rvaiabb upon advance rsgNM In a term uaaGe by person I"hearing
NeuM impeirmante.Indviduals vend other dsabilDlea may m ale aassbnce by contaehnp Me
City 24 hours Prior b the hearing.
DATED:May 21,2MI.
In"*'
n Johnson,City Cbrk
they 21,June 4,2g21 1m350
Page 184
Item#4.
Exhibit 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, VALIDATING CONFORMITY OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN WITH THE CITY
OF MERIDIAN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Page 185
Item#4.
RESOLUTION PZ-21-01
CITY OF MERIDIAN
BY THE PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITE' OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,VALIDATING CONFORMITY OF THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION PLAN WITH THE
CITY OF MERIDIAN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Meridian(the "City"), Idaho, also
known as Meridian Development Corporation,the duly constituted and authorized urban renewal
agency of the City of Meridian, Idaho (hereinafter"MDC")has submitted the proposed Second
Amendment to the Meridian Revitalization Plan(the"Second Amendment")to the City;
WHEREAS,the proposed Second Amendment seeks to de-annex two(2) areas as
depicted in the Second Amendment and set forth in certain Exhibits 1 and 2 attached hereto. The
first area is generally referred to as the "Northern Gateway Area."The purpose of the de-
annexation of the Northern Gateway Area would be to allow the inclusion of these properties
into a proposed Northern Gateway Urban Renewal District. The second area is generally
referred to as the"Idaho Block." The purpose of the de-annexation of the Idaho Block would be
to allow the inclusion of this block into a proposed amendment to the existing Union District
Project Area.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and Meridian City Council referred the Second Amendment to
the City Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendations concerning the
conformity of said Second Amendment with the City's Comprehensive Plan, as amended (the
"Comprehensive Plan"); and
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2021,the City Planning and Zoning Commission met to consider
whether the Second Amendment conforms with the Comprehensive Plan as required by Idaho
Code § 50-2008(b); and
WHEREAS,the City Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed said Second
Amendment in view of the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS,the City Planning and Zoning Commission has determined that the Second
Amendment is in all respects in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 186
Item#4.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO:
.Section 1. That the Second Amendment, submitted by MDC and referred to this
Commission by the Mayor and City Council for review, is in all respects in conformity with the
City's Comprehensive Plan.
.Section 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Mayor
and Meridian City Council with a signed copy of this Resolution relating to said Second
Amendment.
.Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
adoption and approval.
ADOPTED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this
3rd day of June 2021.
APPROVED: ATT T•
li of
IDIAN�--
Chair-,IPIanning and Zoning Commission CI y Clerk
Rhonda McCarvel 6-3-2021 Chris Johns n 6-3-20211k V
Page 187
Item#4.
EXHIBIT 1
Northern Gateway Area
--Cher• Farvie
M
7
C
ry
GrWfer
Elm
c
Maple < Badley
d4
—
N fl
Camellia m —
C
r �
Washington �� 01"Wian Urba#1n Washington—
onFTT
� Carlton1
�LLILLJ_J — u
IM
—P(ne
Page 188
Item#4.
EXHIBIT 2
Idaho Block
J1 J
— - -
Idaho
•�� �=Idaho• __
— Meridian —
\
Urban j
- Renetiral#1 j � l
Union
'•�•� `. District- —
— —Broadway— —Broadway — —
Page 189
Item#4.
Exhibit 4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 21-1933
Page 190
Item#4.
NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A)
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1933
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,
APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION
PLAN URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT,WHICH SECOND AMENDMENT SEEKS TO
DEANNEX CERTAIN AREAS FROM THE EXISTING MERIDIAN REVITALIZATION
PROJECT AREA; WHICH SECOND AMENDMENT AMENDS A PLAN THAT
INCLUDES REVENUE ALLOCATION FINANCING PROVISIONS; AUTHORIZING
THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND OTHER
REQUIRED INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY,AFFECTED TAXING ENTITIES,
AND STATE OFFICIALS; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY; APPROVING THE
SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
SUMMARY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
The Second Amendment (the "Second Amendment")to the Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban
Renewal Project(the "Plan" or the "Downtown District Plan") was prepared by the Agency
pursuant to the Idaho Urban Renewal Law of 1965, Chapter 20, Title 50, Idaho Code, as
amended (the "Law"), the Local Economic Development Act, Chapter 29, Title 50, Idaho Code,
as amended (the "Act"), and all applicable laws and ordinances and was approved by the
Agency. The Second Amendment seeks to deannex two (2) areas from the Downtown District
Plan Project Area(the "Existing Project Area"). The Second Amendment being considered for
adoption contains a previously adopted revenue allocation financing provision pursuant to the
Act that will continue to cause property taxes resulting from any increases in equalized assessed
valuation in excess of the equalized assessed valuation on the parcels remaining in the Existing
Project Area as shown on the original base assessment roll as of January 1, 2002, that will
continue to be allocated to the Agency for urban renewal purposes.
The general scope and objective of the Second Amendment is the deannexation of two (2) areas
from the boundaries of the Existing Project Area.
The Second Amendment shall deannex the following two (2) areas from the Existing Project
Area. The first area consists of approximately 1.46 acres (including right-of-way) and is
generally bounded by E. Idaho Avenue on the north, NE 2nd Street on the east, a portion of
Broadway Avenue on the south, and E. Main Street on the west, and as more particularly
described in Attachment I to the Second Amendment and generally depicted in the map below.
Page 191
Item #4.
EXHIBITS TO THE ORDINANCE
Exhibit 1 Second Amendment to The Meridian Revitalization Plan Urban Renewal Project
Exhibit 2 Notices Published in the Meridian Press on May 21 , 2021 , and June 4, 2021
Exhibit 3 A Resolution of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Meridian,
Idaho, Validating Conformity of the Second Amendment to the Meridian
Revitalization Plan with the City of Meridian ' s Comprehensive Plan
Exhibit 4 Ordinance Summary
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its passage, approval, and
publication, and shall be retroactive to January 1 , 2021 , to the extent permitted by the Law and
the Act, with the remaining Existing Project Area maintaining its base assessment roll as of
January 1 , 2002 .
Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to transmit to
the County Auditor and Ada County Assessor, and to the appropriate officials of Ada County
Board of County Commissioners, City of Meridian, Ada County Highway District, Joint School
District No 2, Ada County Ambulance/EMS , Meridian Cemetery District, College of Western
Idaho , Meridian Library District, Mosquito Abatement District, the Western Ada Recreation
District, and the State Tax Commission a copy of this Ordinance, copies of the legal descriptions
of the boundaries of the deannexed areas, and the maps indicating the boundaries of the parcels
to be deannexed from the Existing Project Area.
A full to f this or ' ance and the AS ment are available for inspection at City Hall,
City o er' di 3 ast Broad venue, MeriQ , Idaho .
2 ('itvut
Iaty of � o�Ho
yo nd Cit ouncil SEAL
00eChris Johnson, City Clerk °Fy aw
r�Rnfthe TREPSJ��
First Reading : 6/22/2021 ; Second Reading and Public Hearing: 7/06/2021 ; Third
Reading and Public Hearing : 7/ 13 /2021
STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY
OF ORDINANCE NO , 214933
The undersigned, William L.M . Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho,
hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached
Ordinance No . 21 - M of the City of Meridian, Idaho , and has found the same to be true and
complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50 -901A (3 ) .
DATED this day of July 2021 .
f f
William. L . M . Nary, Oty Attorney
4812-8939-2617, v. 4
Page 195
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT DESCRIPTION
FOR MERIDIAN DEVELOPIVENT CORPORATION LOCATED IN THE
NW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP J NORTH,
RANGE I EAST, SOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNT); IDAHO
POINT OF E IDAHO AVENUE
BEGINNING 64315 OF BEARING
s 88.43:59- c 380.05,
40.00'
o
E
4'
bet
Wi N 4
$8'43 Fag j.±,�210.08 L k
60.02 J0.01, 120,05'
44
40*
4
N 88*4400' W go.05
5 884400" E j8f2 18'
E SROADWA Y AVENUE
LEGEND
LIRD BOUNDARY L A tq
N S
URD AREA
187 0
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. 'y7lo.,V
2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD """ o F \
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 CSC
l K 0(3\V
(208M8-4312 SCALE: '"--60'
Item#4.
The second area consists of approximately 77 acres (including right-of-way) and is generally
bounded by Meridian Road on the west and E. Fairview Avenue on the north. The eastern
boundary extends south along what would be E. 4th Street if extended, over to 3rd Street. The
southern boundary extends to E. Pine Avenue between NE 3rd Street and NE 2nd Street, and
then travels up NE 2nd Street and over E. Washington Avenue to connect back to Meridian
Road, and as more particularly described in Attachment I to the Second Amendment and
generally depicted in the map below.
Page 193
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY DE-ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION FOR
MERIDIAN DEVELOPWWT CORPORATION LOCATED /A/ THE NE 714
OF THE NE 114 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP J A1ORT1-1 RANGE
I WEST, ALSO BEING' IN THE NW 114 OF SECTION 7, AND //V
THE IV 112 OF THE SW 114 OF SECTION 7 TOWNSHIP J
NORTH, RANGE I EAST, 801SE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
LEGEWD
6WO 801JUDARY
DE-ANIVEX477ON AREA
BASIS OF BEARING
114 1 6 5 88-35'17" W 2404-78' V4
S 9976
I I
2655.27' 7 ARV AT4-F
W CHERRY LANE
3c" $HE-ET 2 cr J
In
OF J
ryI
SHEET 3 OF i
114 114
AN LA N 8-9 E 23-94.97'
E RNE AVENUE
18780
OF
cj
CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS,INC.
2893 SOUTH MERIDIAN ROAD SCALE l'-1000'
MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642
(208)888-4312 SHEE-1 I OF 3